United States 
Department of 
Agriculture 
Forest Service 
Pacific 
Southwest 
Region 
R5-MB-013 
February 2003 
Six Rivers 
National Forest 
Roads Analysis 
Version 1.0 
˙SFS Shield˙irt road through an open field that leads into a gathering of trees. 
Six Rivers National Forest Roads Analysis 
Version 1.0 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Forest Service 
Pacific Southwest Region 
Six Rivers National Forest 
Located within Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties, California 
February 2003 
Cover Photo: Little Jones Creek Road, Smith River National Recreation Area 
For Additional Information Contact: 
Six Rivers National Forest 
1330 Bayshore Way 
Eureka, CA 95501 
707-442-1721 Text (TTY) 
707-442-1721 Voice 
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, 
political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 
communication of program information (“Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 
contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (Voice and TDD). 
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 
Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 
20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (Voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 
provider and employer. 
Table of Contents 
Six Rivers National Forest Roads Analysis .....................................................................I 
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. II 
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................IV 
Chapter I. Introduction................................................................................................... 1 
Forest wide Roads Analysis............................................................................................ 1 
The Roads Analysis Process ........................................................................................... 2 
Step 1. Setting up the Analysis ....................................................................................... 2 
Step 2. Describing the Situation...................................................................................... 2 
Step 3. Identifying the Issues .......................................................................................... 2 
Step 4. Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks ........................................................... 3 
Step 5. Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities ................................................. 3 
Step 6. Reporting ............................................................................................................ 3 
Chapter II. Step 1: Setting Up the Analysis .................................................................. 4 
Forest –scale Roads Analysis.......................................................................................... 4 
Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 6 
Chapter III. Step 2: Describing the Situation ............................................................... 8 
General Forest Information............................................................................................. 8 
Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ................................ 8 
Forest Road System ........................................................................................................ 8 
Road Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 10 
1. Operational Maintenance Level (OML) ............................................................... 11 
2. Maintenance Costs................................................................................................ 12 
Chapter IV. Step 3: Identifying Issues......................................................................... 14 
A. Watershed Processes and Aquatic Resources .......................................................... 14 
B. Botany and Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................... 24 
C. Cultural Uses and Heritage Resources ..................................................................... 25 
Tribal Trust Resources.............................................................................................. 26 
D. Social and Economics .............................................................................................. 26 
Social......................................................................................................................... 27 
Economics................................................................................................................. 28 
E. Fire Suppression and Fuels Management................................................................. 29 
F. Port-Orford Cedar..................................................................................................... 30 
G. Recreation ................................................................................................................ 31 
H. Research and Monitoring ......................................................................................... 33 
I. Special Uses, Mining Access, Range, Fuel wood, and Miscellaneous Products ...... 34 
J. Vegetation Management............................................................................................ 35 
K. Wildlife .................................................................................................................... 35 
Chapter V. Step 4 -Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks..................................... 38 Forest Scale Roads Analysis......................................................................................... 38 
Watershed Scale Road Analysis ................................................................................... 38 
Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 39 
1. Evaluation Criteria for Watershed Processes and Aquatic Resources ................ 39 
2. Evaluation Criteria for Botanical Areas and TES Plants..................................... 40 
3. Risk Assessment of Port-Orford-cedar Plant Associations .................................. 41 
4. Evaluation Criteria for Fish and Wildlife............................................................. 42 
5. Evaluation Criteria for Fire and Fuels Management........................................... 43 
6. Evaluation Criteria for Recreation Management ................................................. 45 
7. Evaluation Criteria for Roads Associated with Vegetation Management ............ 46 
8. Evaluation Criteria for Roads Associated with Special Use Permits, Range, and 
Mining Claims........................................................................................................... 47 
10. Evaluation Criteria for Roads with Tribal Trust Resources.............................. 49 
Chapter VI. Step 5: Recommendations, Opportunities, and Priorities .................... 51 
APPENDIX A: Routine Maintenance Activities........................................................ A-1 
APPENDIX B: Best Management Practices Specific to Road Maintenance........... B-1 
APPENDIX C: Maps of Operational Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 Roads by 
District....................................................................................................................... C-1 
APPENDIX D: Seventy-one Questions Relating to Roads Analysis ........................ D-1 
APPENDIX E: Criteria used to determine hazard ratings for the watershed 
condition assessment..................................................................................................... E-1 
APPENDIX F: Noxious Weed Locations Six Rivers National Forest.......................F-1 
APPENDIX G: General Road Assessment Evaluation Criteria...............................G-1 
APPENDIX H: Priorities for Recommendations and Maintenance Needs.............H-1 
APPENDIX I: List of Preparers................................................................................... I-1 
APPENDIX J: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations ............................................... J-1 
APPENDIX K: References Cited ................................................................................K-1 List of Tables 
Table 1 Miles of Road within Six Rivers National Forest by Type and Jurisdiction . 9 
Table 2 Federal Lands Highway Program Forest Highways........................................ 9 
Table 3 Miles of road by maintenance level for each Ranger District....................... 12 
Table 4 Annual maintenance costs per mile................................................................. 13 
Table 5 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment- Road Hazard Potential ....... 15 
Table 6 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment- Surface Erosion ................... 16 
Table 7 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment- Mass Wasting....................... 18 
Table 8 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment – Predicted Road-Stream 
Crossing Density.............................................................................................................. 19 
Table 9 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment – Estimated Degree of 
Hydrologic Connectivity................................................................................................. 21 
Table 10 Watershed-Level Roads Analysis Schedule.................................................. 39 
Low: road is not used as a fuelbreak. A fuelbreak may be planned in the long-term 
(5+ years). ........................................................................................................................ 45 
Table 11 SMITH RIVER NRA (& Gasquet Ranger District) roads assessment...... 53 
Table 12 LOWER TRINITY DISTRICT roads assessment....................................... 58 
Table 13 MAD RIVER DISTRICT roads assessment................................................. 62 
Table 14 ORLEANS DISTRICT roads assessment..................................................... 67 
Table 15 UKONOM DISTRICT roads assessment ..................................................... 73 
Table D 1 Seventy-one Questions Relating to Roads Analysis ................................. D-1 
Table E 1 Road Hazard Potential Ratings.................................................................. E-1 
Table E 2 Surface Erosion Ratings.............................................................................. E-2 
Table E 3 Mass Wasting Ratings................................................................................. E-2 
Table F 1 Noxious Weed Locations: Smith River NRA .............................................F-1 
Table F 2 Noxious Weed Locations: Orleans/Ukonom Ranger District...................F-1 
Table F 3 Noxious Weed Locations: Lower Trinity Ranger District........................F-2 
Table F 4 Noxious Weed Locations: Mad River Ranger District..............................F-2 
Table H 1 Recommended Project (in order of priority)............................................H-1 
Table H 2 Recommended Maintenance (in order of priority)..................................H-1 
Table H 3 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System........H-2 
Table H 4 Recommendations for Projects and Maintenance (in order of priority)H-2 
Table H 5 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System........H-2 Table H 6 Recommendations for Projects and Maintenance (in order of priority)H-3 
Table H 7 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System........H-4 
Table H 8 Recommended Project (in order of priority)............................................H-4 
Table H 9 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System........H-5 
Table H 10 Recommended Project (in order of priority)..........................................H-5 
Table H 11 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System......H-5 Chapter I. Introduction 
Forest wide Roads Analysis 
On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service issued the Administration of Forest 
Development Transportation System final rule, often referred to as the ‘Roads Rule’ (36 
CFR Part 212, et al.). This rule revises the Forest Service Manual concerning the 
management, use, and maintenance of the National Forest Transportation System. 
Interim directives were issued on July 27 and December 14, 2001 to clarify the Forest 
Service Manual. The final rule is intended to help ensure that: 
1. Additions to the National Forest System road network are essential for resource 
management and use, 
2. Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads minimize adverse 
environmental impacts and, 
3. Unneeded roads are decommissioned and restoration of ecological processes is 
initiated. 
The results to be achieved by managing the forest transportation system (FSM7702) are 
as follows: 
1. To provide sustainable access in a fiscally responsible manner to National Forest 
System lands for administration, protection, and utilization of these lands and 
resources consistent with Forest Plan guidance. 
2. To manage a forest transportation system within the environmental capabilities of 
the land. 
3. To manage forest transportation system facilities to provide user safety, 
convenience, and efficiency of operations in an environmentally responsible 
manner and to achieve road related ecosystem restoration within the limits of 
current and likely funding levels. 
4. To coordinate access to National Forest System lands with national, regional, 
statewide, local, and Tribal government transportation needs. 
The objectives of transportation analysis (FSM 7712.02) are as follows: 
1. To identify transportation management opportunities and priorities 
2. To assess transportation management needs, long-term funding, and expected 
ecosystem, social, and economic effects, including effects on the values of 
roadless and unroaded areas. 
3. To establish transportation management objectives and priorities 
In addition, the objectives of transportation analysis include (FSM 7710.2): 
1. To determine, within the context of current and likely funding levels, the 
minimum transportation facilities needed for public and agency access to achieve forest land and resource management goals and to safeguard ecosystem health 
within the context of current and likely funding levels. 
2. To incorporate transportation system needs into the forest land and resource 
management planning process. 
3. To direct the orderly improvement and management of the transportation system 
and to ensure the documentation of decisions affecting the system 
4. To interact with and involve the public, State, local, and Tribal governments, and 
other Federal agencies in transportation analysis 
The intent of performing transportation analysis is to provide decision-makers with 
critical information to develop road systems that are safe and responsive to public needs 
and desires, are affordable and efficiently managed, have minimal negative ecological 
effects on the land, and are in balance with available funding for needed management 
actions. 
The Roads Analysis Process 
Roads analysis is a six-step process, as described in the handbook Roads Analysis: 
Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System (USDA 
Forest Service 1999). The steps are designed to be sequential with an understanding that 
the process may require feedback and iteration among steps and over time as an analysis 
matures. 
1. Setting up the analysis 
2. Describing the situation 
3. Identifying the issues 
4. Assessing benefits, problems and risks 
5. Describing opportunities and setting priorities 
6. Reporting (Key Findings) 
Step 1. Setting up the Analysis 
The analysis must be designed to produce an overview of the road system. Line offices 
will establish appropriate interdisciplinary teams (IDT) and identify the proper analytical 
scales. The IDT will develop a process plan for conducting the analysis. The output 
from this step will include assignment of IDT members, a list of information needs, and a 
plan for the analysis. 
Step 2. Describing the Situation 
The IDT will describe the existing road system in relation to current forest plan direction. 
Products from this step will include a map of the existing road system, description of 
access needs, and information about physical, biological, social, cultural, economic, and 
political conditions associated with the road system. 
Step 3. Identifying the Issues 
The IDT, in conjunction with line officers and the public, will identify important roadrelated 
issues and the information needed to address these concerns. The IDT will also determine data needs associated with analyzing the road system in the context of the 
important issues, for both existing and future roads. The output from this step includes a 
summary of key road-related issues, a list of screening questions to evaluate them, a 
description of relevant available data, and what additional data will be needed to conduct 
the analysis. 
Step 4. Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks 
After identifying the important issues and associated analytical questions, the 
interdisciplinary team will systematically examine the major uses and effects of the road 
system including the environmental, social, and economic effects of the existing road 
system, and the values and sensitivities associated with unroaded areas. The output from 
this step is a synthesis of the benefits, problems, and risks of the current road system and 
the risks and benefits of building roads into unroaded areas. 
Step 5. Describing Opportunities and Setting Priorities 
The IDT and line officers will identify management opportunities, establish priorities, 
and formulate technical recommendations that respond to the issues and effects. The 
output from this step includes a map and descriptive ranking of management options and 
technical recommendations. 
Step 6. Reporting 
The IDT will produce a report and maps that portray management opportunities and 
supporting information important for making decisions about the future characteristics of 
the road system. This information sets the context for developing proposed actions to 
improve the road system and for future amendments and revisions of forest plans. Chapter II. Step 1: Setting Up the Analysis 
Forest –scale Roads Analysis 
A Forest-scale roads analysis (RAP) provides a context for Forest-scale transportation 
planning and road management in the broader framework of managing all forest 
resources as well as the context for informing road management decisions and activities 
at the watershed scale (FSM 7712.13 and FSM 7712.13c). The Forest-scale RAP focuses 
on major transportation routes, which consist of arterials and collector routes (FSM 
7712.14). These major routes generally consist of Forest Service Maintenance Level 3, 
4, and 5 roads that provide access to large land areas across the Forest and to significant 
recreational destinations such as campgrounds, picnic sites, and trailheads. Benefits, 
problems, and risks associated with these key routes have been identified, and 
recommendations made relative to the investments needed to properly manage these 
elements of the transportation system. Recommendations for these key routes are limited 
to changes in maintenance level or the identification of maintenance needs. Because these 
key routes serve important access needs, decommissioning was not considered as an 
option. 
Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 5 roads are constructed and maintained to a standard that 
accommodates the prudent driver of a passenger car. By contrast, Level 1 and 2 roads 
are for use by high-clearance vehicles only. Watershed scale roads analysis will focus 
on all roads within the watershed, including Level 1 and 2, and unclassified roads. 
The overall objective of Forest-scale transportation planning is to assess transportation 
management needs, long-term funding needs, and expected ecosystem, social, and 
economic effects, including effects on the values of roadless and unroaded areas (FSM 
7710.2). The objectives are: 
• To determine, within the context of current and likely funding levels, the 
minimum transportation facilities needed for public and agency access to achieve 
forest land and resource management goals and to safeguard ecosystem health 
within the context of current and likely funding levels. 
• To incorporate transportation system needs into forest land and resource 
management planning process 
• To direct the orderly improvement and management of the transportation system 
and ensure the documentation of decisions affecting the system 
• To interact with and involve the public, State, local, and Tribal governments and 
other Federal agencies in transportation analysis 
This will be accomplished by: 
• Identification of key routes for accessing National Forest lands 
• Identification of strategic road management issues & priorities • Identification of effects of transportation facility construction, reconstruction, 
maintenance, and decommissioning on ecological processes and ecosystem 
health, diversity, and productivity 
• Identification of key issues to be addressed at lower scales 
• Coordination with other government agencies and jurisdiction 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Road Analysis (FSM 7712.11) 
Road management decisions will not be a direct product of roads analysis. Rather, road 
management recommendations will be a product of roads analysis and will be used as a 
basis for proposed actions and disclosed in future appropriate NEPA documents (FSM 
1950 and FSH 1909.15). Road analysis will result in informed NEPA decisions related to 
road management. 
Future roads analyses conducted at the watershed and project scales will tier to this 
document and begin by addressing the pertinent general issues and concerns identified in 
the Forest scale analysis. Watershed and project roads analyses will use detailed 
information, and may include local knowledge and information specific to particular 
landscapes and road segments. In terms of outcomes, analysis at the watershed and 
project scales will at a minimum, include the following (FSM 7712.13c): 
• Identification of needed and unneeded roads 
• Identification of road associated environmental and public safety risks. 
• Identification of site-specific priorities and opportunities for road improvements 
and decommissioning 
• Identification of areas of special sensitivity, unique resource values, or both 
• Any other specific information that may be needed to support project-level 
decisions 
Regardless of the scale at which it is conducted, roads analysis will include methods for 
identifying opportunities for increasing benefits of the road system and reducing existing 
problems and risks. It will provide a framework for examining important issues and 
developing relevant information before managers enter into a formal environmental 
assessment (NEPA) process. 
The identification and decommissioning of unneeded roads is a management objective 
identified in the Six Rivers Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) and as a 
national priority. Roads are most often decommissioned for watershed restoration 
purposes, or because they are no longer needed to manage National Forest System lands. 
Since the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1995, there has been no net 
gain in road miles across the Forest. In fact the Forest has reduced the total road miles on 
the Forest by decommissioning 212 miles of road, the majority of which were 
Operational Maintenance Level (OML) 1 and 2 (see page 13 for definitions of OML). 
An additional 9 miles of road are scheduled for decommissioning in 2002. There are no 
plans for any new permanent road construction on the Forest. 
Finally, roads analysis is intended to be an ongoing and iterative process that is 
continually responsive to changing conditions, including available funding, research and 
monitoring results, changes in physical or environmental conditions, and new regulatory 
requirements. 
Public Involvement 
Public involvement is a key factor in the roads analysis process. The public involvement 
followed The Northern Province - Roads Analysis Process - Communication and Public 
Involvement Strategy dated December 2001. At the Forest-scale RAP, public 
involvement is designed to 1) increase awareness and knowledge about the process; 2) 
provide information on major transportation routes; 3) gather information on general 
public issues and concerns relating to road use and management; and 4) seek public help 
in developing guidelines for addressing road management issues and priorities to be used 
at the watershed and project scale RAPs. 
We sought comments on the RAP from the 12 federally recognized tribes associated with 
our Forest. On March 18, 2002, a letter explaining the roads analysis process was mailed 
to the tribal chairs. Enclosed was a list and maps(s) of the Level 3, 4, and 5 roads and 
Draft Road Assessment Criteria. We requested they review the information and provide 
input on opportunities to reduce the maintenance levels on any of these roads and provide 
and additional criteria we should use. No comments were received from any of the 
tribes. 
On March 27, 2002 a power point presentation on the Six Rivers and Mendocino 
National Forest roads analysis process was made to the California Coastal Provincial 
Advisory Committee (PAC). A list and maps(s) of the Level 3, 4 and 5 roads and Draft 
Road Assessment Criteria was provided. PAC members asked questions for clarification, 
provided input on the analysis, and expressed interest in receiving additional information 
as it became available. The results of the roads analysis were presented to the PAC on 
November 21, 2002. 
On April 19, 2002, a news release was sent to local media in Humboldt, Del Norte and 
Trinity counties. The news release explained the Forest-scale process and provided a 
Forest Service contact for anyone interested in becoming involved. Also, on April 19, 
2002, a letter was mailed to 200 publics, including recreationists, environmental 
communities, commodity/user groups, elected officials, federal and state agencies, 
community groups and private landowners who had expressed interest in past projects. 
The RAP was also sent to the Humboldt, Del Norte, and Trinity Boards of Supervisors 
and planning departments. The letter provided in explanation of the roads analysis 
process and requested they return the enclosed response form if they wanted to remain on 
the RAP mailing list. 
On May 22, 2002, an information packet was mailed to the 87 individuals and groups that 
expressed interest in the process, as well as all 12 federally recognized tribes. The packet 
contained the tables and maps of all OML 3,4 and 5 roads for each ranger district with the current conditions of the road, and any comments, opportunities or recommendations that 
had been developed. We also invited the public to attend any of the five public meetings 
to be held in Willow Creek, Crescent City, Mad River, Orleans and Eureka May 30 
through June 19, 2002. We again solicited comments on the information provided. 
On June 17, 2002, the RAP was presented to Congressman Mike Thompson's 
representative, Liz Murguia. No comments were received. 
On May 23, 2002, a news release announcing the meetings was also sent to the Forest 
media list. Thirty-four people attended these meetings. Display Advertisements 
providing information on these meetings were placed in the following newspapers: 
Times Standard, Eureka (May 30), Del Norte Triplicate (May 25, 2002), Crescent City, 
and Kourier, Willow Creek (May 29, 2002). Response to the comments raised during the 
meetings and written comments received are located in the project file. In summary, the 
primary concerns raised were: 
• Loosing access to public lands 
• Current and future funding levels in relations to losing access 
• Maintaining access for fire suppression 
• Loosing access for recreation, including off highway vehicles 
• Potential negative environmental impacts from the road system 
The Roads Analysis document was mailed to anyone that requested a copy, provided 
written comments or attended the public meetings, and was posted on the Six Rivers 
National Forest Internet site, http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers. Chapter III. Step 2: Describing the Situation 
General Forest Information 
The Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF) is located in northwestern California, extending 
from the Oregon border south nearly to Mendocino County. The Forest comprises 
958,470 acres within Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, and Siskiyou Counties. The six 
major rivers that pass through the Forest are the Smith, Klamath, Trinity, Mad, Eel and 
Van Duzen. Within the Forest boundary, these six river systems contain approximately 
5,674 miles of streams and 159,000 acres of riparian habitat. Over 61 species of wildlife 
depend on this riparian network. Associated with the stream channel and riparian area 
network are approximately 160,000 acres of inner gorges and steep slopes. The Forest is 
composed of extensive stands of coniferous forest in rugged, mountainous settings, with 
small amounts of oak woodland and grassland near the southern border. Elevations range 
from near sea level in the west to just under 7,000 feet along the eastern mountain crests. 
The SRNF also manages the Ukonom District, which is part of the Klamath National 
Forest. This District is 190,207 acres in size and has one major river system, the Salmon 
River, within its boundaries. The Ukonom District is adjacent to the Orleans District and 
is considered throughout this document as part of the Orleans District. 
Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 
The Six Rivers Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMRP) was approved in 
1995. The purpose of the LRMP is to guide the management of the Forest in a manner 
that integrates protection and use of Forest resources and addresses local, regional, and 
national issues while meeting applicable laws and regulations. It tiers to the Northwest 
Forest Plan, a comprehensive and innovative plan for ecologically sustainable resource 
management in the Pacific Northwest. The LRMP has three broad goals: maintaining 
biodiversity and ecosystem health; providing customer service; and actively involving the 
public in the management of the Forest. To meet these goals, the LRMP delineates 17 
management areas within six key land allocations. Each management area has unique 
goals, desired conditions, and management prescriptions. 
Forest Road System 
Access to the Forest for management of its resources and for its use and enjoyment by the 
public is dependent on state and county roads as well as National Forest system roads. 
Most activities on the Forest, including camping, hunting, fishing, motorized recreation, 
hiking, enjoying rivers and streams, suction dredge mining, and gathering fuel-wood and 
other forest products, are available because a Forest road provides access to them. 
Driving for pleasure and viewing scenery is a popular recreational activity on the Forest 
(LRMP). 
The SRNF has more than 3,000 miles of road within the Forest boundary (Table 1). 
These roads are identified as arterial, collector, or local roads. Arterial roads are primary 
travel routes, usually higher standard roads managed for use with a higher level of 
comfort (i.e. passenger car); they serve large land areas, often connecting to County or 
State roadways. Collector roads are managed at lesser degree of user comfort and move 
traffic from local roads or destinations to arterial roads. Local roads, which may be 
constructed for short- or long-term service, connect destination points with collector 
roads (i.e. trailhead or campground). 
Table 1 Miles of Road within Six Rivers National Forest by Type and Jurisdiction 
Type Forest 
Service/ 1/ 
NFSR 
Other 2/ County State Total 
Arterial 250 107 82 439 
Collector 670 189 859 
Local 2067 96 2163 
Total 
Miles 
2987 96 296 82 3461 
1/ NFSR: National Forest System Roads, 2/Other: Roads under special use authorization 
to parties other than public road agency such as private landowners. 
Major transportation routes through the Forest are State Highways 199, 299, 96, and 36. 
State Highways 96, 199 and 299 are designated National Scenic Byways. 
Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties and the Hoopa Valley Indian 
Reservation maintain approximately 325 miles of road that serve most of the residential 
areas within the Forest; about 20 percent of which are outside the Forest boundary. 
Forest Highways are specially designated roads that qualify for funding under the Federal 
Lands Highway Program. A transportation agency, such as the state or county, has 
jurisdiction over Forest Highways. The planning process for them is a joint effort 
between the Federal Highway Administration, the Forest Service and the state 
transportation agency (Caltrans) that represents the counties. There are more than 300 
miles of Forest Highway within Six Rivers National Forest as identified in Table 2. 
Table 2 Federal Lands Highway Program Forest Highways 
Responsible 
Agency 
Agency Road Number Forest Highway Name Length (miles) 
State of California 36 Van Duzen-Peanut 50.0 
Del Norte County S-427 South Fork Smith 
River 
16.0 
316 Patrick Creek 11.4 
411 French Hill 12.4 
405 Big Flat 15.3 Humboldt County 9R100 Ishi Pishi 8.5 
8Q100 Red Cap 7.2 
7M100 Brannan Mt 6.9 
8M130 Patterson 3.1 
7K100 Titlow Hill 6.3 
8L100 Friday Ridge 3.3 
Trinity County 447 South Fork 10.8 
402 Denny 5.4 
511 Van Duzen 15.5 
501 Lower Mad River 17.1 
504 Upper Mad River 12.3 
503 Zenia Lake 17.0 
520 Long Ridge 10.0 
524 Barry Creek 3.8 
Humboldt County F6B165/F8L090 Alderpoint 56.7 
Trinity County C8C100/519 Zenia-Ruth 
Hoaglin/Peak 
11.0 
Siskiyou County 2B01 Salmon River 17.8 
Existing roads under Forest Service jurisdiction consist of approximately 2,900 miles of 
classified forest system roads that are designated as components of the Forest 
transportation system. More than 1500 of those miles are maintained primarily for high 
clearance vehicles such as logging trucks, pickups, and off-highway (OHV) recreational 
vehicles. The Forest also contains over 200 miles of unclassified roads. 
Road Maintenance 
Forest roads are maintained to safely accommodate the intended use and in accordance 
with maintenance criteria documented in the road maintenance objectives (RMO; 
FSM7732.03). Road maintenance activities frequently involve correction of drainage 
problems. Drainage structures are generally constructed in locations to minimize impacts 
of road building on watersheds. Routine road maintenance projects help maintain the 
functionality of the designed drainage structures along roads. Routine maintenance 
activities are described in Appendix A. 
Current LRMP direction is to close roads not needed for administrative, recreation, 
resource protection, commercial and/or public access (LRMP) and to manage needed 
roads at the lowest maintenance level consistent with resource management needs. 
In addition to LRMP standards and guidelines, the Region 5 Forest Service Soil and 
Water Conservation Handbook established Best Management Practices (BMPs) to guide 
all road maintenance operations. The BMP Handbook contains explicit guidance in section 12.22 to protect water quality. The objectives for the BMPs specific to road 
maintenance are attached as Appendix B. 
The USFS has the responsibility to provide for the safety of the Forest visitor and to 
operate and maintain roads in accordance with regulations implementing the Highway 
Safety Act (23 U.S.C. sections 401-410). Regulations governing highway safety 
standards applicable to the Forest Service are found at Forest Service Manual (FSM) 
1535.11. Routine maintenance projects allow the Forest to meet its responsibilities. 
1. Operational Maintenance Level (OML) 
The Transportation System Maintenance Handbook (FSH 7709.58) describes the various 
maintenance levels for managing USFS road systems. Roads assigned operational 
maintenance levels 3, 4, or 5 are to be maintained in accordance with the requirements of 
the Highway Safety Act as indicated by FSM 1535.11 since these roads are accessible by 
passenger cars. In the past, timber sale contracts required timber operators to perform 
road maintenance on roads in the sale area. Due to the reduction in timber-related and 
other resource extraction activities, road maintenance activities associated with these 
contracts are no longer being performed. Road maintenance is currently being done 
using appropriated funds. The majority of maintenance activities occur on the higher 
maintenance level roads (OML 3-5), for user driving safety. Table 3 displays the miles of 
road by maintenance level for each District. Appendix C contains maps of OML 3, 4 and 
5 roads by each District. 
National Forest System Roads are those forest roads under the jurisdiction of the USFS 
that are constructed to specific standards depending on the needs identified for the road. 
Roads will be maintained and available for use at maintenance levels commensurate with 
the identified management needs. 
Maintenance Level 1 
This level is assigned to roads that are closed to vehicular traffic for a period of greater 
than one year but still exist on the forest transportation system for potential future use. 
Custodial maintenance is done to provide the basic care needed to protect the road 
investment and minimize damage to adjacent land and resources. 
Maintenance Level 2 
This level is assigned to roads that will be open for use by high clearance vehicles. 
Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic volumes are usually minor. Provides 
the basic custodial care described above and keeps roadway clear for safe passage. 
Maintenance Level 3 
This level is assigned to roads that will be open and maintained for safe travel by a 
prudent driver in a passenger car. User comfort and convenience is not considered a 
priority. Roads at this maintenance level are normally characterized as low speed, single 
lane with turnouts. The SRNF considers the functional classification of these roads is 
normally a collector (has lower level roads branching off from it). 
Maintenance Level 4 
This level is assigned to roads that will provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 
convenience at moderate travel speeds. Some roads may be single lane and some may be 
paved/and or dust abated. The SRNF considers the functional classification of these 
roads is normally collector or minor arterial (has one or more collectors branching off 
from it). 
Maintenance Level 5 
This level is assigned to roads that will provide a high degree of user comfort and 
convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be 
aggregate-surfaced and dust-abated. 
Table 3 Miles of road by maintenance level for each Ranger District 
OML NRA OR LT MR UK Totals 
1 87.42 136.29 102.34 38.37 165.65 530.07 
2 267.78 255.40 258.74 603.58 151.80 1537.30 
3 170.71 121.71 142.24 146.87 88.55 670.08 
4 19.00 60.24 46.81 51.19 24.47 201.71 
5 18.55 29.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.75 
Total 563.46 602.84 550.13 840.01 430.47 2986.91 
NRA= National Recreation Area; OR = Orleans; LT = Lower Trinity; MR = Mad River; UK = Ukonom 
2. Maintenance Costs 
In the past when timber hauling was the primary road use, road maintenance was 
accomplished primarily with timber sale contracts where the private contractor provided 
maintenance during harvest operations. However, road maintenance budgets have been 
steadily declining in proportion to total system needs as a result of inflation and the 
decline in timber harvest. As a result, the road system is deteriorating. Eventually, 
substantial investments will be necessary to return Forest system roads to a condition 
where they can function as originally intended. Currently, the Forest administers direct 
road maintenance contracts to maintain roads at the minimum levels necessary for 
resource protection and vehicular safety. 
Deferred maintenance is work that can be postponed without loss of road serviceability 
until the work can be economically or efficiently performed. Deferred maintenance is 
most often associated with surface replacement and drainage maintenance, followed by 
brushing and signing needs. 
Based upon the annual “Forest Cost Per Mile Deferred Maintenance Summary” report 
dated October 1, 2002, the deferred maintenance needs for the Mad River, Lower Trinity, 
and Orleans Ranger Districts, and the Smith River National Recreation Area is 
approximately $37.5 million to complete the backlog of deferred maintenance for all 
maintenance levels to bring the road system back to a standard that meets the established 
maintenance levels. The majority of this work is associated with surface replacement, signing, removing encroaching vegetation, replacing culverts that are not designed to 
pass a 100-year storm event, or surfacing roads for resource protection. 
Estimated Annual Costs 
The current annual road budget (FY 2002) for the Six Rivers National Forest is 
approximately $833,688. This covers salary, equipment, contracts, supplies, overhead 
and administrative costs. Approximately 75% of the budget ($625,266) is used to 
maintain OML 3, 4, and 5 roads. To complete the deferred maintenance on the OML 3, 
4, and 5-road system would cost in excess of $24,000,000 as of the date of this report. 
Over the past 20 years, the road maintenance budget for the Forest Service has declined. 
This decline in funding creates a situation in which it is not feasible to fully maintain the 
existing road system at current maintenance levels. There are significant differences 
between the costs associated with each maintenance level. Table 4 below is a summary 
of the deferred and annual maintenance costs per mile of Forest road based upon the 
“Forest Cost Per Mile Deferred Maintenance Summary”. 
Table 4 Annual maintenance costs per mile 
OML Defferred maintenance per road 
mile 
Annual maintenance per road 
mile 
1 $3,050 $200 
2 $9,100 $1,800 
3 $ 28,900 $7,200 
4 $ 44,100 $16,800 
5 $ 10,100 $300 
The current road system is maintained based upon available funding. Funding is directed 
to roads based upon the priority identified on the Forest or by national directives, and 
focuses on public safety and resource concerns. 
Opportunities to reduce maintenance costs may be achieved through the elimination of 
unneeded roads, reduction of objective and operational maintenance levels to appropriate 
minimums, and the pursuit of opportunities to reduce the maintenance requirements 
associated with different road design templates. Chapter IV. Step 3: Identifying Issues 
The purpose of Step 3 is to identify the key questions and issues affecting road-related 
management on the Forest. The issues presented have been raised either during this 
analysis or as part of past project analyses relating to the Forest transportation system. 
Issues have been identified by members of the public, local tribal and County 
governments, State and Federal agencies, and by Forest Service line officers and 
specialists. These issues will be addressed at all levels of roads analysis. 
The document Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest 
Transportation System (USDA Forest Service 1999) developed 71 questions that might 
be used for roads analysis for both the existing or potential road system. Not all the 
questions are relevant at all levels of roads analysis and many are only appropriate at a 
regional, forest, or watershed level. The questions were designed to assist analysis teams 
in developing criteria and approaches appropriate to the analysis area. The guideline 
handbook also provides direction and suggestions about the best scale at which each 
question could be answered. The full list of questions and the scale at which they should 
be answered is located in Appendix D. The IDT used the guidance provided on which 
questions to address at this Forest-scale RAP, but also answered other questions if the 
information was available. 
A. Watershed Processes and Aquatic Resources 
Road networks in many areas of the Pacific Northwest are the most significant source of 
management-accelerated delivery of sediment to anadromous fish habitats, often 
exceeding all other sources attributed to forest activities combined (FEMAT 1993). In 
addition to acceleration of sedimentation, there are numerous direct and indirect impacts 
to aquatic systems associated with road construction and management (Meehan 1991). 
While some of these impacts may be positive, such as accessibility to fishing areas or the 
protection of watersheds from catastrophic wildfire, roads have unavoidable effects on 
streams, wetlands and riparian areas no matter how well they are located, designed and 
maintained. Forest standards and guidelines pertaining to roads management provide a 
set of protection and restoration measures designed to minimize effects of roads within 
Riparian Reserves consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (LRMP). 
Availability of information allows for the assessment of aquatic issues using spatial data 
at two scales: (1) individual roads for proposed Level 3-5 roads, and (2) road systems by 
watershed. Details concerning criteria used for aquatic ratings and the results for 
individual roads are located in Chapter VI. Road impacts at the watershed scale are 
evaluated by addressing the 14 aquatic questions as described in the Roads Analysis 
handbook. Impacts on watershed condition consider all roads within each watershed, 
regardless of OML level. Data used to answer aquatic questions was compiled from 
Rating Watershed Condition: Reconnaissance Level Assessment for the National Forests 
of the Pacific Southwest Region (USDA Forest Service, Draft 2.4, April 2000). This report was part of a regional effort to evaluate watershed condition and much of the data 
generated in the report was applicable for our Roads Analysis. Watersheds were 
delineated at the 5th field scale for National Forest Lands, which includes all of the Six 
Rivers National Forest and watersheds on the Ukonom District that were not included in 
the Klamath Roads Analysis. Criteria used to determine hazard ratings for the watershed 
scale analysis are located in Appendix E. The key questions addressed in this assessment 
of aquatic issues are applicable at forest, watershed, and project scales; and can be readily 
used with data of varying resolution. 
Key Question 
How and where does the road system modify the surface and subsurface hydrology of the 
area? 
The hydrology of the Forest is rain dominated, with snow accumulating above 4,000 feet 
elevation during the winter months. Mean annual precipitation varies from 60-90 inches 
and typically occurs between October and June. Occasional short duration, high intensity 
thunderstorms occur during the summer months. 
Roads can expand the channel network, convert subsurface flow to surface flow, and 
reduce infiltration on the road surface. The channel network is expanded by road ditches 
and road-related erosional features, which intercept and concentrate runoff from their 
natural flowpath. These factors may affect the overall hydrology in a watershed, 
particularly the quantity and timing of flow. 
Reduced infiltration contributes to additional surface flow since water does not infiltrate 
for storage in the soil profile, but rather runs off as overland or surface flow. Storage and 
movement of water through the soil profile as subsurface flow regulates and sustains 
baseflows. When roads disrupt these processes, more water becomes available during 
peak flows, and less water is available to sustain baseflows. 
Road Hazard Potential indicator is used to best represent the potential for altered 
hydrologic regime (changes in runoff response) and stream diversions associated with 
roads. The overall condition class is determined by examining the slope position, slope 
gradient, proximity to stream channels, number of stream crossings, and density of the 
road system for each watershed (Table 5). 
Table 5 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment- Road Hazard Potential 
Analysis Watershed Name Road Hazard Potential 
Blue Creek Low Hazard 
Bluff Creek Low Hazard 
Grouse-Madden Low Hazard 
Lower-Middle Klamath Moderate Hazard 
Lower North Fork Smith Low Hazard 
Middle Fork Smith Moderate Hazard 
Middle Mad River Moderate Hazard Myrtle-Hardscrabble Moderate Hazard 
Red Cap Creek Low Hazard 
South Fork Smith Low Hazard 
Trinity-New to SF Trinity High Hazard 
Trinity-SF to Tish Tang Moderate Hazard 
Upper Little Van Duzen Low Hazard 
Upper Mad River Moderate Hazard 
Upper North Fork Eel Low Hazard 
Upper Van Duzen River High Hazard 
Wooley Creek Low Hazard 
Ishi-Pishi High Hazard 
The following is a list of opportunities to consider if roads are likely to modify surface 
and subsurface hydrology: 
• Design roads to minimize interception, concentration, and diversion potential. 
• Use outsloping and sufficient numbers of drainage structures to disconnect road 
ditches from stream channels. 
• Construct critical dips where diversion potential exists at stream crossings. 
Key Question 
How and where does the road system generate surface erosion? 
Surface erosion is highly dependant on soils, road surfacing, road grade, age of the road, 
traffic volumes, and the effectiveness and spacing of drainage structures. Studies have 
indicated that sediment delivery to stream systems is highest in the initial years after road 
construction, although unlined ditches and road surfaces with little armor can remain 
chronic sources of sediment. 
Surface erosion condition is determined by examining the density of roads on erodible 
soils (Table 6). This indicator addresses the potential for altered sediment regime 
associated with surface erosion accelerated by road construction and road maintenance. 
Table 6 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment- Surface Erosion 
Analysis Watershed Name Road Hazard Potential 
Blue Creek Low Hazard 
Bluff Creek Low Hazard 
Grouse-Madden Moderate Hazard 
Lower-Middle Klamath High Hazard 
Lower North Fork Smith Low Hazard 
Middle Fork Smith Moderate Hazard 
Middle Mad River Moderate Hazard 
Myrtle-Hardscrabble Moderate Hazard 
Red Cap Creek High Hazard South Fork Smith Low Hazard 
Trinity-New to SF Trinity High Hazard 
Trinity-SF to Tish Tang Moderate Hazard 
Upper Little Van Duzen Low Hazard 
Upper Mad River Moderate Hazard 
Upper North Fork Eel Low Hazard 
Upper Van Duzen River Moderate Hazard 
Wooley Creek Moderate Hazard 
Ishi-Pishi High Hazard 
The primary opportunities to reduce surface erosion where needed: 
• Increasing the number and effectiveness of drainage structures. 
• Improving the road surface by either rocking, or adding a binding material to 
those roads that have native surfaces. 
Drainage structure, function, and spacing are key to minimizing the amount of surface 
flow, which directly affects surface erosion. Subsequent project level Roads Analysis 
may consider new cross drain spacing guidelines using the Water Erosion Prediction 
Program (WEPP) to model surface erosion from roads have been derived (Morfin et al., 
1996). The WEPP model provides for input ranges of local climatic conditions, surfacing 
material characteristics, maintenance frequency, distance between cross drains, and road 
grade typical for. National Forests. (USDA Forest Service, Water/Road Interaction 
Series, 1998). 
Key Question 
How and where does the road system affect mass wasting? 
The sensitivity of an area to mass wasting depends on the interaction of the soils and 
underlying bedrock, slope steepness, and the subsurface hydrology. Much of the Forest 
is characterized as steep, mountainous terrain. Storm events and land management have 
had an effect on landslide rates throughout Northern California (HorseLinto/Mill/Tish 
Tang Watershed Analysis, 2000). 
Road-related mass wasting can be attributed to 1) improper placement and construction 
of road fills and stream crossings, 2) inadequate culvert sizes to accommodate the peak 
flows, sediment loads, and woody debris, 3) roads located on soils susceptible to mass 
wasting, and 4) water diversion onto unstable hillslopes. 
This indicator addresses the potential for altered sediment regime associated with mass 
wasting accelerated by disturbances such as roads and timber harvest. Road-related mass 
wasting potential is determined by examining the density of roads located on unstable 
geologic rock units (Table 7). 
Table 7 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment- Mass Wasting 
Analysis Watershed Name Mass Wasting Potential 
Blue Creek Moderate Hazard 
Bluff Creek High Hazard 
Grouse-Madden Moderate Hazard 
Lower-Middle Klamath High Hazard 
Lower North Fork Smith Low Hazard 
Middle Fork Smith High Hazard 
Middle Mad River High Hazard 
Myrtle-Hardscrabble Moderate Hazard 
Red Cap Creek High Hazard 
South Fork Smith Moderate Hazard 
Trinity-New to SF Trinity High Hazard 
Trinity-SF to Tish Tang High Hazard 
Upper Little Van Duzen Moderate Hazard 
Upper Mad River High Hazard 
Upper North Fork Eel High Hazard 
Upper Van Duzen River High Hazard 
Wooley Creek Low Hazard 
Ishi-Pishi High Hazard 
The following is a list of opportunities to decrease the potential for road-related mass 
wasting: 
• Design new roads to minimize large cut and fill areas across unstable ground. 
• Increase capacity of road-stream crossings to better pass watershed products. 
• Construct critical dips where diversion potential exists at stream crossings. 
• Decommission unneeded roads that are located across unstable terrain. 
Key Question 
How and where do road-stream crossings influence local stream channels and water 
quality? 
Culvert density reflects the extent to which roads have modified the channel network and 
the potential risk associated with culvert failures. The relatively low density of roadstream 
crossings across the Forest is attributable to the high proportion of roads on or 
near ridgelines where stream density is much lower. The consequences of culvert failures 
can be minor or substantial. Minor failures introduce culvert fill material that exceeds the 
transport capacity of the channel, causing the channel to aggrade and widen. It can take 
several years for the channel to adjust and move the sediment downstream, but generally 
the effects are localized. Some culvert failures generate debris flows that entrain 
additional sediment as they move downstream. The impacts from debris flows can be far 
removed from the original culvert failure and take many years for the channel to adjust 
and riparian vegetation to reestablish. Stream crossings on steep terrain, with a lot of organic material upstream, have the greatest potential for debris flows. Adequate road 
maintenance is critical in these areas. 
Culvert diversions also pose significant risks in terms of off-site sedimentation. 
Diversions occur when a culvert plugs and the stream flow follows the roadbed instead of 
crossing the road and returning to the original channel. When the stream flow eventually 
crosses the road, it can scour a new channel on the hillslope. Upgrading culvert size or 
constructing critical dips on the roadbed are necessary to minimize the diversion potential 
risks on needed roads. 
Predicted road-stream crossings provide an estimate of the number of actual crossings. 
Predicted road-stream crossings are the points where roads and streams intersect based on 
GIS coverage (Table 8). Estimates may be actually higher or lower than predicted 
depending on accuracy of the stream or road coverage. The relatively low crossing 
density throughout the Forest is attributed to the majority of roads located in the upper 
third of the watershed where stream density is lower. Subsequent project level roads 
analysis should use field verified data to examine the actual road-stream crossing density 
of a 6th or 7th level watershed to more accurately identify areas of concern. The Forest has 
collected extensive culvert inventories in the following Watersheds: Camp, Slate and 
Ullathorn Creeks, Bluff Creek, Lower-Middle Klamath River, South and Middle Fork 
Smith River, North Fork Eel River, Grouse Creek, and Horse Linto Creek. 
Table 8 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment – Predicted Road-Stream Crossing Density 
Analysis Watershed Name Predicted Crossing Density (#/sq mi) 
Blue Creek 0.54 
Bluff Creek 0.58 
Grouse-Madden 0.66 
Lower-Middle Klamath 0.58 
Lower North Fork Smith 0.39 
Middle Fork Smith 1.17 
Middle Mad River 1.06 
Myrtle-Hardscrabble 1.04 
Red Cap Creek 0.35 
South Fork Smith 0.56 
Trinity-New to SF Trinity 1.66 
Trinity-SF to Tish Tang 1.0 
Upper Little Van Duzen 1.32 
Upper Mad River 1.40 
Upper North Fork Eel 0.71 
Upper Van Duzen River 1.59 
Wooley Creek 0.08 
Ishi-Pishi 1.79 
Opportunities to improve areas of concern identified through project level roads analysis 
include: • Designing crossings to meet the 100-year flow requirement. 
• Decommission unneeded or abandoned roads. 
• Construct critical dips on needed roads. 
• Realign crossings that are not consistent with the channel pattern. 
• Retrofit existing culverts to better pass watershed products. 
• Add cross-drains near road-stream crossings to reduce connected ditch lengths. 
Key Question 
How and where does the road system create potential for pollutants, such as chemical 
spills, oils, de-icing salts, or herbicides, to enter surface waters? 
Anywhere roads run adjacent to streams or floodplains, there is some potential for spilled 
pollutants to access streams. Generally, the greatest potential for pollutants to enter 
surface waters within the Forest is vehicle accidents that occur on State Highways 199, 
299, 96, and 36. A wide variety of potentially hazardous materials are transported on 
these highways daily. 
The Six Rivers has a policy of no herbicide use on the Forest. Some private land 
holdings within the Forest use herbicides for vegetation control which does create the 
potential for the introduction of pollutants on a very small scale across the Forest. 
Key Question 
How and where is the road system “hydrologically connected” to the stream system? 
How do the connections affect water quality and quantity? 
All road-stream crossings provide a point of hydrologic connectivity, but the lengths of 
connectivity differ at each site. Cross-drains, waterbars, drainage dips, and other road 
drainage structures may be connected if the outlet of such features creates a gully that 
connects with the stream channel network. Connectivity also occurs when ditches or the 
road surface deliver directly to the stream at road-stream crossings. Roads cuts with 
long, continuous ditch lengths can intercept ground water, route it as surface water and 
may locally increase peak flows during storm events. Drainage ditches that are 
connected to road-stream crossings provide a conduit for road-related sediment to enter 
stream channels. 
The Forest does not have extensive information about the proportion of roads that are 
hydrologically connected. As a first approximation, road-stream proximity (roads within 
105 meters of stream) and the predicted road-stream density are displayed to indicate the 
extent of hydrologic connectivity within a watershed. Table 9 displays the density of 
roads near streams and the predicted road-stream crossings by watershed. Because of the 
variability in conditions and the variety of mechanisms that connect roads and streams, 
the information in Table 9 may not be accurate and is only intended to make comparisons 
between watersheds across the Forest. Subsequent project scale Roads Analysis should 
use information based on field observations to more accurately identify areas where the 
degree of hydrologic connectivity may be of concern. 
Table 9 Six Rivers Watershed Condition Assessment – Estimated Degree of Hydrologic Connectivity 
Analysis Watershed Name Road-Stream Proximity 
(mi/sq mi) 
Predicted Crossing Density 
(#/sq mi) 
Blue Creek 0.21 0.54 
Bluff Creek 0.22 0.58 
Grouse-Madden 0.30 0.66 
Lower-Middle Klamath 0.34 0.58 
Lower North Fork Smith 0.27 0.39 
Middle Fork Smith 0.63 1.17 
Middle Mad River 0.49 1.06 
Myrtle-Hardscrabble 0.60 1.04 
Red Cap Creek 0.25 0.35 
South Fork Smith 0.32 0.56 
Trinity-New to SF Trinity 0.77 1.66 
Trinity-SF to Tish Tang 0.48 1.0 
Upper Little Van Duzen 0.42 1.32 
Upper Mad River 0.70 1.40 
Upper North Fork Eel 0.36 0.71 
Upper Van Duzen River 0.73 1.59 
Wooley Creek 0.03 0.08 
Ishi-Pishi 0.67 1.79 
Opportunities to improve areas of concern identified through project level roads analysis 
include: 
• Add cross-drains near road-stream crossings to reduce connected ditch lengths. 
• Decommission unneeded or abandoned roads. 
• Place energy dissipaters at cross drain outlets to reduce erosion potential. 
Key Questions 
What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the area? What changes in uses and 
demands are expected over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road-derived 
pollutants? 
The Forest generates high amounts of water, mostly in the form of rainfall. The water is 
used for municipal and domestic supply, fisheries, agriculture, industry, recreation, 
hydropower, and maintaining riparian systems. Demands for high quality water are 
increasing. With increases in population, public and private lands recreation, agriculture, 
and industry, controversy over appropriate uses of water will also grow. 
Some downstream beneficial uses can be affected by road-derived pollution. These are 
detrimentally affected if sediment from forest roads surpasses the tolerance of the fish 
and aquatic invertebrate populations or if roads cause channel instability, which degrades 
aquatic habitat. 
The Pacific Southwest Region has worked on identification of management practices to 
protect water quality, and the development of a management program to implement 
identified practices. A cooperative effort between the Region and the California State 
Water Resources Control Board developed pollution control practices that meet the 
objectives of the Federal Clean Water Act. 
As a result of this effort, approximately 100 nonpoint source pollution control practices 
were identified, many of which were specific to road construction and maintenance 
practices. This program, developed from 1975 to 1980, was certified by the State of 
California and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and adopted as the 
Pacific Southwest Region Best Management Practices (BMPs). A subsequent 
management program was developed for BMP implementation. 
Key Question 
How and where does the road system affect wetlands? 
Roads can affect wetlands directly by encroachment, and indirectly by altering 
hydrologic surface and subsurface flow paths. Encroachment results in a loss of wetland 
area directly proportional to the area disturbed by the road. Alteration of the hydrologic 
flow paths can affect wetland function with the effects extending beyond the area directly 
affected by the road. The LRMP provides measures to protect wetlands. Subsequent 
project-level analysis would identify specific areas where the road system may adversely 
affect wetland. 
Where there are concerns, opportunities to reduce the effects of the road system on 
wetlands include the following: 
• Relocate roads out of wetland areas. 
• Where relocation is not an option, use measures to restore the hydrology of the 
wetland. 
• Set road-stream crossing bottoms at natural levels of wet meadow surfaces. 
Key Question 
How does the road system alter physical channel dynamics, including isolation of 
floodplains, constraints on channel migration, and the movement of large wood, fine 
organic matter, and sediment? 
Roads can directly affect physical channel dynamics when they encroach on floodplains 
or restrict channel migration. Floodplains help dissipate excess energy during high flows 
and recharge soil moisture and groundwater. Floodplain function is compromised when 
roads encroach on or isolate floodplains. This can increase peak flows. When peak 
flows increase, more water is available for in-channel erosion, which affects channel 
stability. Restricting channel migration can cause channel straightening which increases 
the stream energy available for channel erosion. This can also result in channel 
instability. Altering channel pattern affects a stream’s ability to transport materials, 
including wood and sediment. 
Resource specialists assessed floodplain connectivity across the Forest. Nearly all 
response reaches demonstrated properly functioning floodplain connectivity; however, 
the Upper Mad River Watershed was determined to be functionally at-risk, downstream 
of Matthews Dam. 
Key Questions 
How and where does the road system restrict the migration and movement of aquatic 
organisms? What aquatic species are affected and to what degree? 
Migration and movement of aquatic organisms are primarily restricted at road-stream 
crossings with culverts. Generally the restriction is on upstream migration, although 
downstream migration can also be affected. Road-stream crossing features that can 
restrict fish migration include; inadequate jump pool depths and high flow velocities in 
culverts. In some locations, migration barriers may be desirable to protect native species. 
While culverts can affect the migration of amphibian species, the greatest concern is the 
effect on anadromous fish species. 
The primary native species of concern are salmon and steelhead. There are no known 
anadromous fish migrations barriers associated with any Forest Road (Six Rivers 
National Forest Fish Passage Survey, 2001). A few road-stream crossings have been 
identified as potential barriers to resident fish in the Middle Fork Smith River, Trinity 
River- South Fork to Tish Tang, Blue Creek, and Trinity River- New River to South 
Fork. To what extent resident fish are affected by these possible barriers is unknown, 
and further analysis of these areas is a priority. In general, the location of the potential 
barrier is in the upper portions of the watershed and the extent to which resident fish are 
affected appears to be minimal. 
Opportunities to correct migration barriers at road-stream crossings include: 
• Replace the culvert with an alternative crossing such as bridge, hardened lowwater 
ford, or bottomless arch culvert. 
• Modify existing crossing to eliminate barrier where possible. 
Key Questions 
How does the road system affect shading, litterfall, and riparian plant communities? 
The road system directly affects riparian communities where it impinges on riparian 
areas. Roads can indirectly affect riparian communities by intercepting surface and 
subsurface flows and routing these flows so that riparian areas dry up and the riparian 
vegetation is replaced with upland vegetation. Riparian plant communities play a vital 
role in providing shade. Removal or degradation of these communities can affect stream 
stability and water temperatures, which in turn, affects aquatic habitat. The LRMP 
provides extensive measures to protect riparian areas. 
Opportunities to address concern areas found in watershed or project level analyses 
include: 
• Relocate roads out of riparian areas. • Restore the hydrology in riparian areas that have been dewatered by the road 
system. 
Key Question 
How and where does the road system contribute to fishing, poaching, or direct habitat 
loss for at-risk aquatic species? 
High traffic roads adjacent to streams with fish are the most likely to contribute to fishing 
and poaching. This is considered an important issue on the Six Rivers National Forest 
and may affect aquatic populations and at-risk aquatic species. 
The road system contributes to direct habitat loss where mass movements associated with 
roads directly impact stream channels, where sediment is delivered directly to the stream 
channel at road-stream crossings, and where the road system is restricting channel 
migration and isolating floodplains. Opportunities to address problem areas would be 
similar to those previously identified. 
Key Question 
How and where does the road system facilitate the introduction of non-native aquatic 
species? 
The introduction of non-native species occurs primarily through stocking of non-native 
fish. The California Department of Fish and Game coordinates stocking locations with 
the Forest Service to ensure that non-native aquatic species are not being introduced into 
waters containing native fish species or considered to be high quality habitat for native 
species reintroduction. Known stocking locations include Ruth Reservoir on the Mad 
River Ranger District; Fish Lake on the Orleans Ranger District; Island Lake, Dry Lake, 
Muslatt Lake, and Sanger Lake on the Smith River NRA (Department of Fish and Game, 
Trout Stocking Allotment, 2002). 
Key Question 
To what extent does the road system overlap with areas of exceptionally high aquatic 
diversity or productivity or areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species of 
interest? 
All seven river systems within the Forest contain high aquatic diversity and productivity. 
The road system overlaps many areas of exceptionally high aquatic diversity, including 
Critical and Essential habitat (as designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service) for 
Coho and Chinook salmon. The LRMP (which includes the Aquatic Conservation 
Strategy) provides standards and guidelines to protect aquatic resources. 
B. Botany and Noxious Weeds 
Key Questions: Do areas planned for road construction, closure, or decommissioning have unique 
physical or biological characteristics, such as unique natural features and threatened or 
endangered species? 
To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction 
and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? What are 
the potential effects of such introductions to plant and animal species and ecosystem 
function in the area? 
Roads often intersect unique plant habitats. These include but are not limited to rocky 
outcrops, dry meadows, springs, seeps, and transient wetlands that are often isolated and 
favor the development of unique plant associations. As roads were built through these 
habitats, fill was often placed on top of existing habitat, effectively eliminating the 
habitat. Roads are also primary vectors for the introduction and spread of exotic plants, 
including noxious weeds. Road construction and maintenance allow for the 
establishment and dispersal of noxious weeds and plant-related diseases. People, animals, 
and machinery move noxious weeds and diseases from place to place. Roads provide 
constantly disturbed habitats with a lack of competing vegetation allowing for the 
establishment of exotic species. Roads provide an avenue for a host of exotic species 
located on the Forest to invade unique habitats and compete with native plants. Vehicles, 
livestock, and material (livestock food, road surfacing material, and firewood) 
transported to the forest from other locations can introduce new exotic species. 
The Six Rivers National Forest Noxious Weed Risk Assessment has already been 
completed (FY 2001). Known locations of noxious weed on the Forest can be found in 
Appendix F. 
C. Cultural Uses and Heritage Resources 
Key Questions: 
Do areas planned for road construction, closure, or decommissioning have unique 
cultural, traditional, symbolic, sacred, spiritual, or religious significance? 
What, if any, groups of people (ethnic groups, subcultures, and so on) hold cultural, 
symbolic, spiritual, sacred, traditional, or religious values for areas planned for road 
entry or road closure? 
How does the road system affect access to paleontological, archaeological, and 
historical sites? 
How does the road system affect cultural and traditional uses (such as plant gathering, 
and access to traditional and cultural sites) and American Indian treaty rights? 
Heritage resources on the Forest are varied and complex, ranging from 6,000- to 8,000- 
year-old prehistoric sites to historic mining ditches and cabins and administrative 
structures built by the Civilian Conservation Corps. Contemporary local Native Americans continue to use Forest sites for ceremonial and religious purposes and to 
obtain a variety of natural resources for daily use. 
Most Native Americans living in or near the Forest are descendants of the indigenous 
tribes that historically inhabited the area. Many local Native Americans continue to 
gather materials that were traditionally used by their ancestors. The gathering of these 
materials often has a spiritual significance as well as a practical one. Although many 
plants used by local Native Americans for basketry and food can be found in many areas 
of northern California, gatherers will often travel great distances to return to areas where 
they or their people have traditionally gathered. The availability and quality of materials 
traditionally used and access to traditional use areas is of great concern to Native 
Americans. 
Roads can be both beneficial and detrimental to Native American traditional cultural 
uses. Use of roads, especially by elders, has become an accepted facet of traditional use 
and removal of an access road can cause concern among local tribal members. However, 
maintenance of access into these areas can also encourage use by other forest users, who 
may wish to utilize areas of cultural importance for recreational purposes. This can lead 
to conflict and requests for road closures or restrictions. Physical intrusion into 
contemporary use sites can result in disturbance through noise, disturbance or desecration 
of sacred objects, and the loss of solitude for prayer or ceremonies. 
Tribal Trust Resources 
The Forest Service has a trust responsibility to consult with Federally Recognized Tribes 
on management activities that may affect Federally Reserved Trust resources, rights, and 
tribal interests. The Forest Service has to be concerned where there are Federally 
Reserved Trust rights/resources, adjacent tribal lands or trust lands, tribal water rights, 
and other interests or concerns tribal governments may have. 
The Forest has governmental relationships with Smith River Rancheria, Elk Valley 
Rancheria, Yurok Tribe, Resighini Rancheria, Big Lagoon Rancheria, Blue Lake 
Rancheria, Table Bluff Wiyot Reservation, Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, 
Round Valley Indian Tribes, Hoopa Tribe, and Karuk Tribe. The Forest initiated formal 
governmental consultation for the RAP with these Tribal governments to identify any 
potential affects to Federally Reserved Trust resources, rights, or tribal interests. No 
comments were received from any of the tribes. 
The twelve local tribes have a variety of concerns about Forest management as related to 
their cultural activities. Maintaining access to traditional gathering or spiritual areas is of 
critical importance to local tribes (LRMP). 
D. Social and Economics 
Key Questions: 
Social How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, 
natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive 
recreation? 
How does road management affect people’s sense of place? 
What is the perceived social and economic dependency of a community on an unroaded 
area versus the value of that unroaded area for its intrinsic existence and symbolic 
values? 
How does road management affect wilderness attributes, including natural integrity, 
natural appearance, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive 
recreation? 
What are people’s perceived needs and values for roads? 
How does road management affect people’s dependence on, need for, and desire for 
roads? 
How is community social and economic health affected by road management (for 
example, lifestyles, businesses, tourism industry, infrastructure maintenance)? 
Economic 
How does the road system affect the agency’s direct costs and revenues? What, if any, 
changes in the road system will increase net revenue to the agency by reducing cost, 
increasing revenue, or both? 
How does the road system affect the priced and non-priced consequences included in 
economic efficiency analysis used to assess net benefits to society? 
How does the road system affect the distribution of benefits and costs among affected 
people? 
What is the perceived social and economic dependency of a community on an unroaded 
area versus the value of that unroaded area for its intrinsic existence and symbolic 
values? 
Social 
The three main issues that define the social climate are the protection of the environment, 
economic stability, and protection of cultural activities and values. The Forests primary 
zone of influence includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity and Siskiyou counties. Diverse 
lifestyles and values exist in these zones of influence, yet they have one thing in 
common: Their lifestyles are intrinsically linked to the land and natural resources. 
Local sense of place may be associated with areas such as spiritual or cultural sites, 
scenic vistas, hunting camps, and historic sites or traditional rural activities such as wood 
cutting and hunting. The community can also define local sense of place geographically. 
As with other social and economic issues and values, some “sense of place” issues are 
associated with access needs, while other are dependent on restricted road access. 
Increased access can result in social impacts. 
Local sense of place includes social effects related to reduced job opportunities as a result 
of variations in traditional activities such as timber harvesting or grazing. For some 
people, these have been a way of life that has been passed down from generation to 
generation. These individuals have a strong sense of personal identity that revolves 
around these activities. For these individuals, the loss of these jobs not only means a loss 
of a source of income, but the loss of both a way of life and a sense of individual and 
cultural identity. 
Economic and social value is also related to uniqueness and scarcity. Some dispersed 
recreational activities, backcountry, and wilderness activities are dependent upon 
restricted road access. Demand for developed use near population centers has put 
pressure on available dispersed areas for higher intensity use. This situation is resulting 
in increasing demand and associated value for the remaining primitive and semi-primitive 
recreational experiences associated with these areas. 
Attitudes, beliefs, and values with respect to forest and road management reflect the full 
spectrum of diversity for both local and non-local groups. Some economic and social 
values are enhanced by increased access, while limiting access enhances others. There 
will be those who feel the benefit or the loss from every road management decision. 
Economic and social effects will be greater on local groups whose livelihoods and 
cultures are tied more closely to forest activities, thus resulting in more immediate and 
direct impacts to their daily lives. 
Economics 
The Forest directly influences the economy of Humboldt, Del Norte, and Trinity 
counties, and to a lesser degree, portions of Siskiyou and Josephine counties. The zone 
immediately surrounding Six Rivers National Forest is predominantly rural and highly 
dependent upon the Forest's natural resources for its social and economic well-being. 
These resources link the people and communities of this area to the Forest through 
employment, incomes, and environmental conditions that affect the lifestyles, population, 
and quality of life of the north coast region. Because of this, issues relating to 
transportation management and roads are frequently the focus of social concern. 
Population density in these counties is less than 20 percent of the State average. Sixtytwo 
percent of the population lives in rural areas or in small communities of 3,000 or 
less; 38 percent lives in the major population centers along the coast near Humboldt Bay 
and Crescent City. Population growth in the region is about half that of the State, with much of this growth from retirees, urban flight, and expanding government and 
educational services. 
Per capita income within the primary zone of influence is about 30 percent below the 
State average, due in part to lifestyles that include more self-sufficiency and employment 
in seasonal industries. Unemployment in the zone averaged 73 percent above the State 
level. 
Various Forest outputs contribute to the health of the local economy: timber, recreation, 
fisheries and wildlife, range, and miscellaneous Forest products. The economic value of 
Forest outputs such as timber, commercial fisheries, and range can be quantified using 
market values or Forest usage fees. Other uses, such as sport fisheries, hunting, and many 
other recreation uses cannot be so easily measured. 
Commodity outputs and associated Forest investments in maintaining and improving 
those outputs generate public and private sector employment. Employment incomes 
circulate through the local economy, generating indirect/induced employment and income 
in other sectors. 
Forest investment in recreation, fisheries, and wildlife present opportunities to increase 
contributions to the local economy from these non-commodity outputs such as increased 
recreation, commercial and sport fishing, hunting and non-consumptive wildlife uses. 
The road system is a key component of the social and economic functioning of 
communities around SRNF. The major effects of roads on local economies would be 
expected to result from the economic activity that roads support by providing access to 
the National Forest and to communities in or near it. Roads affect spatial patterns of 
forest use. The majority of recreational and tourism users are particularly attracted to or 
driven away from certain areas by the availability and ease of access. Road availability 
and quality also affect the quality of users’ experiences, and thereby affect the benefit 
they receive. Social and economic issues and values can be driven by access needs, but 
they can also be dependent upon restricted road access. As with other issues, what some 
value as a need, others perceive as an impact. 
E. Fire Suppression and Fuels Management 
Key Questions: 
How does the road system affect fuels management? 
How does the road system affect the capacity of the Forest Service and cooperators to 
suppress wildfires? 
How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and to public safety? 
Aggressive fire suppression activity across the Forest over the last 80 years has resulted 
in unnatural fuel profiles that are more continuous, both horizontally and vertically. 
Given a fire start, resulting wildfires could become larger and more destructive than in 
the past. Substantial mortality is occurring in certain vegetation types, creating large 
expanses of snag patches and dead fuels. 
Comparing the periods pre-and post-1950, actual fire starts have increased dramatically 
both for lightning and human causes since 1950. This can be explained by several 
factors, including increased detection efforts, increased road access, and more efficient 
reporting. Recent trends in human causes still tend to cluster along major highways and 
near communities and developed campgrounds. Human causes have accounted for the 
largest total acreage and number of wildfires for the recorded fire history of the Six 
Rivers National Forest (1910- present). However, lightening occurs frequently 
throughout the forest, often with multiple ignitions from the same storm. Multiple 
lightning starts played a significant part in the 1987 wildfires and the recent Megram 
Fire, which was the largest recorded wildfire on the forest. 
Roads provide access not only for accomplishing the protection side of the fire 
management, allowing rapid response and safe deployment of firefighting resources, but 
also for fuels treatment to prevent catastrophic fire. Roads can be an impediment to fire 
spread at low fire intensity levels by acting as fuel breaks, which can aid in fuel 
treatments and suppression efforts. Roads provide a means for efficiently and safely 
transporting firefighters, materials and equipment. 
Communities and other private landowners depend on the Forest for wildland and 
structure fire suppression services. The road network in support of these private parcels 
will be a key component of protecting private lands and structures. Roads serve as 
escape routes for area residents in the case of fire emergency. 
The Six Rivers National Forest Fire Management Plan (FMP) was completed in FY 2001, 
and identified key areas of concern across the forest. The road system will permit the 
efficient reintroduction of fire by having fuels breaks already in place. These breaks will 
provide a safer means for managing prescribed fire by reducing risk of an escape. They 
also represent safety zones for firefighters engaged in suppression and hazardous fuels 
reduction work. 
F. Port-Orford Cedar 
Key Question 
To what degree do the presence, type, and location of roads increase the introduction 
and spread of exotic plant and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? 
The spread of Port Orford cedar (POC) root disease (Phytophthora lateralis) is mostly 
facilitated by the use of roads during wet weather. POC root disease is a water-borne 
fungus that is spread primarily by vehicles that transport mud and the spores from 
infested sites to new locations. This disease can kill entire stands of POC. Vehicular access for both the public and Forest Service personnel is a concern within the 
Port-Orford-cedar range due to the potential spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease into 
uninfected drainages. Although non-vehicular sources (pedestrians, animals) can spread 
the disease, vehicles travel greater distances and potentially run a greater risk of 
contacting infected waters as compared to non-vehicular sources. Infection of more 
tributaries by the root disease would result in a loss of diversity in those botanical areas 
that support Port-Orford-cedar. Port-Orford-cedar is present on the Smith River 
National Recreation Area and the Orleans and Lower Trinity Ranger Districts. 
Since the spread of the disease is primarily connected to the activities of humans during 
wet periods, the forest has been assessing, and will continue to assess the need for 
seasonal or permanent road or trail closures in areas where such closures would help to 
reduce or prevent the spread of the disease. 
The threat from Port-Orford-cedar root disease, its limited distribution, wide environment 
gradients, high genetic diversity, high social values, importance to wildlife, high species 
and community diversity point towards the need for a conservation strategy designed to 
maintain the ecological and economic viability of POC (USDA, USDI 2001; Jimerson 
and Jones 2002). 
G. Recreation 
Key Questions: 
Unroaded Recreation 
Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for unroaded 
recreation opportunities? 
Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or 
changing the maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, 
quality, or type of unroaded recreation opportunities? 
What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by developing, using, 
and maintaining roads, on the quantity, quality, and type of unroaded recreation 
opportunities? 
Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas affected by constructing, 
maintaining, and decommissioning roads? 
What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and 
are alternative opportunities and locations available? 
Roaded Recreation 
Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply or excess demand for roaded 
recreation opportunities? 
Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, decommissioning of existing roads, or 
changing maintenance of existing roads causing substantial changes in the quantity, 
quality, or type of roaded recreation opportunities? 
What are the adverse effects of noise and other disturbances caused by constructing, 
using, and maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, or type of roaded recreation 
opportunities? 
Who participates in roaded recreation in the areas affected by road constructing, 
changes in road maintenance, or road decommissioning? 
What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how strong are their feelings, and 
are alternative opportunities and locations available? 
Almost all of the varied types of public recreational uses of National Forests depend in 
one way or another on roads for access. Whether, when, and where various recreational 
uses occur depend on the availability of access to, and the extent and location of, the road 
system. Maintaining a viable road system is the key to our ability to providing diverse 
recreation opportunities. However, the existence and/or condition of roads may contribute 
to overuse and, ultimately, a diminishment of visitors’ recreation experiences. 
The Forest has a variety of recreation opportunities ranging from large, remote 
undeveloped areas (wilderness) to small, easily accessed and highly developed sites 
(campgrounds). The existing road system provides relatively easy access to all recreation 
areas, developed and dispersed, commensurate with the operational and development 
level of the recreational opportunities we provide. 
The Forest has over 366 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Most of these areas have road 
access within the river corridor. The public generally considers these roads essential for 
recreation. The Forest also has approximately 121,000 acres of congressionally 
designated Wilderness (approximately 13% of forest), providing settings for quality 
unroaded recreation. Road access to wilderness trailheads provides management 
opportunities for dispersing use into the wilderness. 
Both developed recreation and some dispersed recreational activities are dependent upon 
road access for use. Demand is expected to increase in proportion to population growth 
both within the sphere of influence and nationally for dispersed low use areas due to the 
increasing difficulty of finding this type of recreational experience close to urban areas. 
Altering road systems can disrupt long-established access and use patterns and, at least in 
the short term, result in not meeting visitors’ expectations. Less road mileage, 
maintenance, or both can lead to uneven shifts in recreational opportunities across 
different user, socioeconomic, and ethnic groups who depend differently on roads for 
access. 
Road access or lack of access will affect recreational opportunities and users depending 
on the individual’s preferences, experience and expectations. Those recreationists 
involved in activities that require road access, (ie. access to their favorite hunting/fishing 
area) or who are dependent on motorized transport, will require a maintained road 
system. Impacts from road management decisions will be different for individuals who 
prefer to walk or ride all terrain vehicles (ATVs), bicycles, or horses into these areas. 
The network of Forest roads provides many opportunities for users to access developed 
recreation facilities as well as remote locations of the Forest. These remote sites are 
referred to as dispersed recreation sites and are located throughout the Forest. Driving 
for pleasure and viewing scenery account for the greatest amount of recreation use on the 
Forest (LRMP). 
Overall, motorized recreation is on the increase and coordinated efforts at various local, 
state, and federal levels are using forest roads to increase rural tourism attractions and 
revenues. Rural communities support the designation of specialized routes (such as OHV 
routes, or scenic byways) and motorized events and promote them as tourism attractions 
and potential sources of revenue. 
The Six Rivers National Forest currently provides a road system that accesses both 
roaded and unroaded recreation opportunities. Based on the Land Resource Management 
Plan and projections, the current system should satisfy future needs for primary access. 
H. Research and Monitoring 
Key Questions: 
How does the road system affect access needed for research, inventory, and monitoring? 
Research, inventory, and monitoring projects are important components of responsible 
land management. Research activities can provide answers to important questions 
relevant to management for ecosystem health. Inventories provide information needed to 
measure current conditions, detect trends, and identify problems. Monitoring is essential 
for evaluating whether management objectives are being met. 
Some of the common types of Research and Monitoring activities conducted include 
existing vegetation inventories; Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species 
occurrence; Survey and Manage Species occurrence; historic properties surveys; and 
plantation exams. Monitoring activities are also a regular component of the Forest 
program of work. Significant activities include LRMP implementation monitoring and 
Best Management Practice (BMP) monitoring for many types of activities. In addition, 
the close proximity of the Pacific Southwest Research Station (Redwood Sciences 
Laboratory) and Humboldt State University to the Forest provides extensive opportunities 
for research to occur. 
Field costs are often a significant proportion of the total costs for such efforts, while road 
access or proximity to roads is an important component of field costs. A reduction in road 
density or elimination of road access to specific geographic locations can limit research, 
inventory, and monitoring activities. 
I. Special Uses, Mining Access, Range, Fuel wood, and Miscellaneous 
Products 
Key Questions: 
How does the road system affect access to locatable, leasable, and salable minerals? 
How does the road system affect access to range allotments? 
How does the road system connect to public roads and provide primary access to 
communities? 
How does the road system connect large blocks of land in other ownership to public 
roads (ad hoc communities, subdivisions, inholdings, and so on)? 
How does the road system address the safety of road users? 
How does the road system affect managing roads with shared ownership or with limited 
jurisdiction (RS 2477, cost-share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA 
easements, DOT easements)? 
Tax receipts from forest-related activities such as yield taxes, sales tax, transient 
occupancy taxes, and property taxes generate revenue. Roads provide access to permitted 
uses (recreation, minerals, range, outfitters and guides, transmission lines, etc.) on public 
lands. All of these activities provide revenue directly and indirectly to the counties. In 
addition, roads provide access to private lands for income generating activities such as 
recreation, timber, and livestock production. Without economical access, existing and 
future development and revenue may be constrained on these private lands. Other 
common uses of roads include hunting, Off Highway Vehicles, snowmobiles, driving 
related and other dispersed recreation. Social and economic needs include administrative 
use such as inventory and monitoring, and law enforcement. Community needs include 
health and safety, and connectivity between communities or neighborhoods. 
The Forest road system also provides access for fuel wood and miscellaneous plants and 
materials collection, and a wide variety of special uses. The local communities benefit 
from the products found on the National Forest, both socially and economically. 
Some traffic on forest service roads is authorized by rights contained in easements, 
specific agreements, permits, or contracts (FSM 7731.13). The following are types of 
authorizations: 
1. Roads Authorized By Special Use Permit 2. Roads Covered by Road Right-of-Way Construction and Use Agreements 
3. National Forest Timber Sale Traffic 
4. Roads Under License Agreement or Memorandum-of-Understanding 
In addition, the Forest Service must provide access for owners of private property. The 
Forest Service cannot deny reasonable access over existing forest development roads to 
any person desiring to reach their private land holdings within the boundaries of National 
Forest System lands. Roads may be closed to general use; however, resident property 
owners should have access over the closed roads. 
J. Vegetation Management 
Key Questions: 
To what degree does the presence, type, and location of roads contribute to the control of 
insects, diseases, and parasites? 
How does the road system affect managing the suitable timber base and other lands? 
How does the road system affect access to timber stands needing silvicultural treatment? 
Vegetation management includes timber harvest; plantation management; forest health 
issues (such as insect infestation removal or POC protection); and thinning or brush 
reduction to meet other resource objectives (such as fuels reduction or habitat 
improvement). 
The Forest roads system provides access to areas of Forest Matrix lands (lands allocated 
for timber production) and to large areas of plantations needing treatment. Continued 
access to the Matrix is a priority if the goals for timber harvest described in the LRMP 
are to be met. Plantations require continued management for survival and growth, which 
is essential to protecting the substantial investment they represent. 
Silvicultural treatments may include site preparation, initial planting, re-planting if 
necessary, pre-commercial thinning, and commercial thinning. Improvement treatments 
may involve hand or mechanical release methods. While road access is not absolutely 
required for the accomplishment of these treatments, it is a significant determinant of cost 
and feasibility. Recent management practices using extensive thinning require more 
frequent treatments and thus more frequent access. In addition, overstocked, small 
diameter stands can generally only be economically treated if they are adjacent to roads. 
Finally, fuel reduction treatment methods may be limited without direct road access and a 
cleared road prism for use as a control feature. Mechanical fuel reduction methods are 
typically only feasible where stands are immediately adjacent to roads. Elimination of 
road access may directly limit uneven-aged management treatment methods. 
K. Wildlife 
Key Questions: 
What are the direct effects of the road system on terrestrial species habitat? 
What are the adverse effects of noise caused by developing, using, and maintaining 
roads? 
Roads have impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat that are disproportionate to the area 
of land they occupy. The Forest road system and human use of those roads has altered 
terrestrial species habitat and populations. Negative effects can include habitat loss and 
fragmentation; avoidance or road kill; poaching, and over harvest. Roads can also 
undermine ecological processes through fragmentation of wildlife populations, 
restrictions of wildlife movements, and the disruption of gene flow and metapopulation 
dynamics (Jackson 2000). 
Roads and past timber harvest are major causes of forest habitat fragmentation on the 
Forest. Habitat quality can be reduced by breaking up blocks of continuous habitat and 
increasing the amount of edge habitat, which is detrimental to species that require interior 
habitat conditions (Marcot et al. 1994, Forman 1997, Hann et al. 1997). 
Natural populations of animal species are affected by the presence of roads by avoidance 
by some species and attractiveness to them by others. Roads and their adjacent 
environment qualify as a distinct habitat and can result in a change at the species, 
population, and landscape scales. Some species are associated with edges, including 
those that use roads as corridors to find food. Roads facilitate invasion by exotic species 
or of native species attracted to new habitat areas (i.e. nest parasites) that can disrupt the 
structure and function of the ecosystem (Jackson 2000; USDA 2000). 
Roads can also act as a barrier to terrestrial species movement. When populations of less 
mobile species (such as amphibians) become subdivided, there is increased risk of local 
extinction of subpopulations, reduced potential for recolonization after a local extinction, 
and a progressive loss of local biodiversity (Forman and Hersperger 1996). 
Road access can also facilitate harassment, in terms of noise disturbance during the 
breeding season. Harassment can lead to reductions in productivity or displacements in 
population distribution or habitat use. Many species also are vulnerable to increased 
mortality from highway accidents with motorized vehicles (Vestjens 1973). 
In summary, most native terrestrial species located on the Forest are adversely affected 
by road-associated factors that can degrade habitats or increase mortality. In landscapes 
with moderate to high road density, habitats are likely underused by many species that 
are negatively affected by road-associated factors. 
On the other hand, the Forest road network can facilitate habitat protection and 
improvement projects. Habitat improvement projects that involve the use of equipment 
and/or personnel can be accomplished more safely, in less time, and with less expense provided there is adequate road access. Roads can help protect forest habitats by 
providing access for initial attack on wildfires, acting as firelines, and providing safe 
deployment areas for fire fighting personnel. Population studies and long term research 
and monitoring projects are also facilitated by access to habitat areas. 
The Forest has decommissioned 212 miles of roads since 1995 (with an additional 9 
miles scheduled for 2002), the majority of which are OML 1 and 2. This has helped 
reduce habitat fragmentation and disturbance to wildlife across the Forest. Additional 
roads analysis at the watershed scale may identify further opportunities to improve 
wildlife habitat conditions through decommissioning. Chapter V. Step 4 -Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks 
Forest Scale Roads Analysis 
Interdisciplinary teams on each Ranger District evaluated each OML 3, 4, and 5 road for 
administrative need and potential resource risk, using existing GIS layers and resourcespecific 
databases. Each resource evaluated the roads based on first the general criteria 
(Appendix G) and then using the more specific criteria (below). The combined rating 
results are summarized in Table 5 for each District. Administrative need was determined 
based on the access required for recreation; cultural use; fuels treatment and fire 
suppression response; timber production and other vegetation management; biological 
research, inventory and monitoring; private property access; mining; range allotments; 
habitat improvement projects; and special use permits. Resource risk was evaluated 
based on the potential for impacts to aquatic resources; wildlife and botany species and 
habitats; cultural resources; and the risk of introducing or spreading Port Orford cedar 
root disease. The risk ratings were assigned to roads in their entirety, even though the 
rating may be based on a single known nest site or plant location. All resource ratings had 
equal value; in other words, no one resource carried more weight. In many cases a road 
has both a high administrative need and a high resource risk. Recommendations were 
developed based on the results of these analyses. It is important to note that Forest-scale 
RAP does not compel a Forest Plan amendment or revision (FSM 7712.12a). 
Watershed Scale Road Analysis 
Roads analysis below the Forest-scale is not automatically required, but may be 
undertaken at the discretion of the Responsible Official. (FSM7712.13c). The next step 
in the Roads Analysis Process would be to evaluate unclassified and maintenance level 1 
and 2 roads at the watershed scale. Lower-scale analysis will be conducted using the 
criteria listed below, as well as those listed in Chapter IV, Step 3 under the Watershed 
Processes and Aquatic Resources section. The objective for watershed scale roads 
analysis is to provide specific information for future management decisions that attempt 
to balance the needs for access with the environmental risks associated with roads. 
Watershed scale road analysis it will be done as funding allows. 
Table 10 lists watershed priorities for completing subsequent roads analyses as 
established by the Forest Supervisor, although scheduling is dependent on budget and 
other Forest priorities. Watershed scale roads analysis will identify problems and risks for 
all roads, areas of special sensitivity or resource values, and suggest priority locations for 
road decommissioning and upgrading. These assessments and subsequent project NEPA 
and project implementation will be accomplished as funding levels allow. 
Table 10 Watershed-Level Roads Analysis Schedule 
Watershed District 
South Fork Smith River 
Smith River 
NRA 
Lower Middle Klamath Orleans 
North and Middle Forks Smith River 
Smith River 
NRA 
Dillon and Rock Creeks Orleans 
North Fork Eel, Upper Mad River, Middle Mad, Upper Van 
Duzen Mad River 
Blue Creek Orleans 
Evaluation Criteria 
1. Evaluation Criteria for Watershed Processes and Aquatic Resources 
Analysis of the major transportation system as part of the Forest-scale roads analysis 
relies on existing information and the use of the following road hazard indicators: 
1. Roads located on steep hillslopes, 
2. Roads located on weak or sensitive bedrock geology, 
3. Roads on low or middle slope position. 
The purpose for this assessment was to identify roads that may have a higher risk of 
failure and where upgrading practices would be appropriate to protect downstream 
aquatic resources. 
Hillslope Class 
The frequency of road failures can be partially attributed to the slope of the hillside of 
which the road crosses. Analysis of past road failures have indicated that the ratio of 
failures per mile was about 8 times greater for roads located on hillslopes greater than 50 
percent. Hillslope class is separated into categories of 0-20 percent, 20-50 percent and 
greater than 50 percent. 
Bedrock Geology 
Bedrock geology is the parent material on which soils and vegetation develop. Roads 
constructed on different bedrock types will often have differences in susceptibility to 
mass wasting. Bedrock units considered to have a high susceptibility to mass wasting on 
the forest are: Galice metasediments, Franciscan schist, Franciscan mélange, and 
Rattlesnake Creek Terrane. Areas with a high percentage of roads on geologically 
sensitive lands are more vulnerable to accelerated landsliding and catastrophic loss of the 
road facility. 
Hillslope Position 
This indicator can be useful in evaluating road hazard in mountainous terrain. 
Investigations on the Six Rivers have indicated that road failures are about 30 times 
higher in the lower hillslope position as compared to the upper hillslope position. 
Generally, the uppermost position is the driest and most stable location on the hillslope. 
For this analysis, hillslope position was divided into three categories by assigning 25 
percent of the acreage to the upper position, 50 percent to the middle position, and the 
remaining 25 percent to the lower position. 
Aquatic risk rating criteria: 
1. Is the road located on slopes greater 50 percent? 
2. Is the road located on weak or sensitive bedrock geology? 
3. Is the road located in the lower or middle hillslope position? 
A road-by-road assessment was conducted using GIS-based queries to determine the total 
road mileage of overlap for each road hazard indicator. Resource specialists that have 
extensive knowledge of road conditions and problem areas on the Forest evaluated 
results. Final ratings of high, moderate, and low were not only determined from the 
initial queries, but also incorporated past road-related failures, road maintenance problem 
areas and overall condition of the road’s drainage structures. Results of the initial queries 
validated much of the initial assumptions made about road conditions; that is, the roads 
with chronic problems rated higher than other roads. Final ratings are included in the 
Roads Assessment Tables (Chapter IV). The Road Assessment tables also contain 
specific road information with respect to unstable road sections and upgrading or storm 
proofing opportunities. 
2. Evaluation Criteria for Botanical Areas and TES Plants 
The purpose for the criteria is to identify roads that provide access for management of 
botanical resources or that may impact unique resources in Botanical areas and in 
threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species habitat. 
Step 1 Evaluate the road in terms of the criteria listed below to determine the level of 
need for the road, as well as the need for corrective measures to help reduce risks. 
1. Does the road provide access to or within a Botanical Area or TES suitable habitat 
areas? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is it the main or only road that accesses the Botanical Area or TES suitable 
habitat areas? 
b. What is the level/intensity of use? 
c. Does the road access unique features or points of interest within the Botanical 
Area? 
2. Is the road currently impacting resources or posing a threat to the unique 
resources/features within the Botanical Area or TES suitable habitat areas? 
If yes, then: a. What is the level of risk of introducing or exporting POC root disease? 
b. Is the road altering drainage patterns in a way that negatively affects plant 
communities or other unique features? 
c. Does the road lead to an environmentally sensitive area in which we may want 
to discourage use (e.g. population of a unique plant community that is limited 
in its extent)? 
d. Is there evidence of cross-country travel off the road? 
3. Risk Assessment of Port-Orford-cedar Plant Associations 
The risks to POC were analyzed at the Forest level. The landscape level risk assessment 
utilized the POC plant association mapping (extent of each plant association, disease 
extent), the risk of POC root disease introduction drawn around mapped POC polygons 
and the assessment of potential impacts to other resources such as fish, wildlife, and 
cultural resources. These factors are combined to give an overall landscape level risk 
assessment of the potential to affect POC plant association biodiversity, genetic diversity 
or economic diversity. For example, a POC plant association found in riparian positions 
with close proximity to roads and limited protection measures that had a significant 
degree of infestation would have a high-risk rating. The risk rating for each road was 
assigned based on the proximity of the road or trail to POC plant associations. 
The assessment of the risk of introduction of the POC root disease was based on the 
presence of upstream infection, proximity to streams and roads, seasonal or permanent 
road closures, and location in protected areas such as wilderness. The POC mapping 
work was updated to include risk (high moderate, and low) polygons rating the potential 
for introduction of POC root disease. Risk polygons were drawn around each subwatershed 
and labeled according to the categories listed below (Rose and others 1999). 
Low Risk: 
Uninfested POC stands, which are in congressionally or LRMP designated areas such as 
wilderness, roadless areas, or Research Natural Areas, with no roads within 500 ft of any 
part of the stand. 
Uninfested POC stands, in any land designation, with no roads within 500 ft of any part 
of the stand. 
Moderate Risk: 
Uninfested POC stands protected by a permanent barrier. 
Uninfested POC stands protected by a seasonal gate or barrier. 
High Risk: 
Uninfested POC stands in watersheds with no identified protection. 
Infested POC stands 
4. Evaluation Criteria for Fish and Wildlife 
The purpose for the criteria is to identify roads that provide access for management of 
fish and wildlife resources or that may impact unique resources in special habitat areas or 
threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) fish and wildlife species. 
Step 1 Determine the primary need for the road: 
1. Habitat Improvement Projects 
a. Does the road access an existing habitat improvement project that needs 
monitoring on a regular basis? 
b. Does the road access a planned habitat improvement project, scheduled within 
the next 10 years? 
2. Monitoring/survey efforts 
a. Does the road provide access to an existing territory/survey site that requires 
frequent monitoring (such as peregrine falcon nest sites, spawning areas, 
etc.)? 
b. Does the road provide access to large habitat areas (such as LSRs) that may 
need future monitoring? 
Step 2 Establishing the primary need for the road will help to determine the importance in 
relation to Fish and Wildlife Management programs. 
1. Is there more than one road that leads to this area? 
2. What is the quality/importance of this site in relation to others on the District? 
3. Are there other viewpoints or ways to access the site (trail)? 
Step 3 Give the road an overall "need" rating based upon the answers to the above 
questions. 
High: the road is the only feasible access to a high quality existing territory/survey 
site/index streams reaches/large LSR, planned (and funded) habitat improvement project, 
or an existing habitat improvement project requiring monitoring; 
Medium: the road accesses one of many similar survey sites on the District, accesses an 
existing habitat improvement project that does not require monitoring, or accesses a 
planned (but unfunded) habitat improvement project site. 
Low: the road is one of several access routes/viewpoints into any area described above. 
Step 4 Determine potential resource risk associated with road access: 
Determine potential effects to Special Habitat Areas and/or Riparian Reserves. 
1. Does the road go through Management Area 8 (Special Habitat) or Mgt Area 9 
(Riparian Reserves)? 
• Late-Successional Reserves 
• Bald Eagle Nest Site Protection Zone and Winter Roost Areas • Peregrine Falcon Nest Site Protection Zone 
• Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites 
• Known Spotted Owl Activity Centers 
• Protection buffer Species Areas 
• Road allows vehicle access near salmonid spawning areas and potential for 
poaching 
• Road allows/facilitates streambank camping and potential disturbance to 
vegetation and sensitive riparian/aquatic species 
Determine potential effects to Managed Habitat Areas. 
1. Does the road go through Management Area 14 (South Fork Marten Area). 
2. Does the road go through a Survey and Manage site? 
3. Does the road go through a northern goshawk primary nest zone? 
4. Does the road go through key black-tailed deer areas (critical wintering areas)? 
5. Does the road go near (less than 0.25 mile) a cave/known roost site of Townsend's 
big-eared bats or other bat species? 
6. Does the road go near a known fisher, marten, wolverine or other species of 
interest/concern nest/den? 
7. Does the road increase the potential for poaching from a sensitive habitat area? 
Step 4 Give the road an overall "risk" rating based upon the answers to the above 
questions. 
High: Road directly accesses occupied special/managed habitat areas and has the 
potential to introduce disturbance during critical nesting/spawning periods 
Medium: Road indirectly accesses occupied special/managed habitat areas and the 
potential to introduce disturbance is less. 
Low: Road is not in any territories, habitat areas, Riparian Reserves, or the area is not 
currently occupied, or the site currently has a high background level of disturbance from 
other factors (e.g. existing campground, state highway, etc). 
5. Evaluation Criteria for Fire and Fuels Management 
The purpose for the criteria is to identify roads that provide necessary access for fire 
suppression activities and fuel treatment areas. 
Step 1 Determine the primary purpose of the road: 
1. Is the road a primary access point for suppression efforts? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is there more than one road that leads to this area? 
b. Is this road important for suppression capabilities (i.e. numerous historical 
lightning starts, access to areas with critical fire control problems, etc.)? 
Rating: High: only 1 access or fastest response time to a certain area 
Moderate: 2-3 roads access an area 
Low: 4 + roads access an area 
2. Does the road accesses existing or proposed developments for suppression 
efforts? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is there more than one development that the road leads to? 
b. Are any developments planned along this road in the short-term (0-5 years)? 
c. Are there any developments that have not been used or the access roads are 
overgrown? 
If so, evaluate whether they are actually still needed. 
Rating: 
High: primary developments are located or planned to be located along this road. No 
other developments are available along this road. 
Moderate: several developments located at various intervals along the road. Not all 
developments are needed. 
Low: developments located along the road but are rarely used or the roads to them are 
becoming overgrown or impassable. 
3. Does the road provides access to or serves as a control line for residential areas? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is the road the primary ingress/egress for these residential areas? 
b. Does the road serve as a control line in protecting these residential areas? 
Rating: 
High: primary ingress/egress and/or road serves as control line. 
Moderate: one of several roads which leads to a residential area or can potentially be used 
as a control line. 
Low: does not provide access or could not be used as a control line for a residential area. 
4. Does the road provide access to areas requiring fuel treatments? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is the road the primary access for areas requiring treatments for which BD/KV 
collections were made? 
b. Is the road the primary access for areas where natural fuels treatments are 
planned or proposed? 
c. Are there additional opportunities in the long-term (5 + years)? 
Rating: 
High: primary access to fuel treatment areas within the short-term (0-5 years). 
Moderate: one of several roads which provides access to fuel treatment area. 
Low: road does not provide access to fuel treatment areas in the short-term. 
Road may be needed for access in the long-term (5+ years). 
5. Does the road serve or will it serve as an established fuelbreak? 
If yes, then: a. Does the road serve as an established fuelbreak where fuel treatments have 
been completed within the past 5 years? 
b. Are fuel treatments proposed along this road within the short-term (0-5 years) 
which will act as fuelbreaks? 
Rating: 
High: fuel treatments have been accomplished or are planned along either side of the road 
in the short-term (0-5 years). 
Moderate: one of several roads within the area with established or planned fuelbreaks 
however additional fuels work is needed to maintain the effectiveness of the fuel break. 
Low: road is not used as a fuelbreak. A fuelbreak may be planned in the long-term (5+ years). 
Step 2 Give the road a high, medium, or low rating for one or more of the purposes and 
an overall rating based upon the answers to the previous questions and your knowledge of 
the District's current and future fire suppression and fuels treatment programs. 
6. Evaluation Criteria for Recreation Management 
The purpose for the criteria is to identify roads that access a recreation facility or are a 
component of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). 
Step 1 Determine the primary purpose of the road: 
1. Does the road provide access to a recreation facility or opportunity? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is there more than one site/opportunity that the road leads to? 
b. What is the quality of the site/facilities? 
c. What is the level and intensity of use? 
d. Are there similar opportunities elsewhere that would provide the same/similar 
experience? 
Rating: 
High: This is the only access to a facility or the opportunity occurs only here. 
Medium: There is more than one access and the opportunity occurs only here. 
Low: There are many accesses or many similar opportunities occur elsewhere. 
2. Is traveling the road the recreation experience? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is it a specially designated road (i.e. Scenic Byway, Backcountry Discovery 
Trail)? 
b. Is it a noted scenic route? 
c. Is it an off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel way or does it lead to OHV 
‘greensticker’ routes? 
d. Is it a loop road or part of a loop? 
e. Are there some primary activities that occur while people drive the road (i.e. 
birding, pleasure driving, road hunting, wildflower viewing)? 
f. Is the road used as a mountain bike route? 
g. What is the intensity of use of the road? h. Is this an important road to the district/forest recreation spectrum? 
i. Does this road offer some unique recreation experience that is not available 
anywhere else on the district or forest? 
Rating: 
High: The road provides a unique opportunity not available elsewhere on the forest. 
Medium: A similar opportunity occurs on the district. 
Low: Many opportunities occur on your district. 
7. Evaluation Criteria for Roads Associated with Vegetation Management 
The purpose for the criteria is to identify roads that are needed for implementation of 
vegetation management practices on the Six Rivers National Forest. 
Step 1 Determine the primary purpose of the road: 
1. Does the road access treatable stands within sub-series, and seral stages in matrix 
lands? 
If yes, then: 
a. Does the road access multiple opportunities (stands)? 
b. Are there additional opportunities in the next 10-20 years? 
c. Are there special forest product areas accessed by this road? 
2. Are the plantations requiring reforestation or other silvicultural treatments 
(including PCT) within 10 years? 
If yes, then: 
a. Does the road access multiple plantations? 
b. How long until treatments will be completed (how long is the road needed)? 
3. Does the road access treatable sub-series and seral stages within a Late- 
Successional Reserves (LSR)? 
If yes, then: 
a. Does the road access multiple opportunities (stands)? 
b. Are there additional opportunities in the next 10-20 years? 
4. Are there plantations within LSR requiring silvicultural treatments and have 
available funding? 
If yes, then: 
a. Does the road access multiple plantations? 
b. Does the plantation have available KV funding? 
c. How long until treatments will be completed (how long is the road needed)? 
d. Is it near treatable sub-series and seral stage stands that may generate KV 
funding? 
Step 2 Assign the risk to Port-Orford-cedar using the Forest POC Risk Assessment 
document. 
Step 3 Give the road a high, medium, or low rating for one or more purposes and an 
overall rating based on the answers to the previous questions and your knowledge of the 
district’s current and future need for vegetation management. 
8. Evaluation Criteria for Roads Associated with Special Use Permits, Range, and 
Mining Claims 
The purpose for the criteria is to identify roads for private individual and administrative 
access for special uses, range, and mining claim activities and the risk associated with 
access to these areas. 
Step 1 Determine the primary purpose of the road: 
1. Is the road use is authorized under a special use permit or easement? 
If yes, then: 
a. Is the road needed for current authorized use under a permit or easement? 
b. Is the use planned to be authorized as a new permit or a reissuance of an 
expired permit? 
c. Is the road expected to be needed after current permit expires? 
d. Will the permit be reissued considering current resource concerns or changes 
in future management of the area? 
2. Is the road is used for access to an authorized (or an activity in the process of 
being authorized) special use activity or legally filed mining claim with current 
assessment? 
If yes, then: 
a. Will permit be reissued following stated termination date? 
b. Is the use appropriate based upon current management guidelines in the area? 
c. Are alternatives access routes available on private lands that are more 
appropriate? 
3. Is the road is used for access without authorization? 
If yes, then: 
a. Would current use meet criteria for authorization of a special use permit (FS 
road is sole access to property)? 
b. Does current use damage resources? 
c. Does road meet other resource needs besides that of current user(s) 
4. Is the road is used for access to private land or activities on National Forest land 
for which there is NO special use authorization or legally filed mining claim with 
current assessment? 
Step 2. Give the road a high, medium, or low rating for one or more purposes and an 
overall rating based on the answers to the previous questions. 
9. Evaluation Criteria for Roads with Heritage and Cultural Resources 
When rating a road for its Heritage and Cultural Resources priority in the roads analysis 
planning effort, the following steps need to be considered in developing the assessment. 
Step 1 Determine the primary purpose for the road and answer each of the sub-questions: 1. The road provides access for interpretation of heritage resource values. 
a. Does the road provide access to interpretive sites? 
b. Does the road provide access to a potential interpretive site? 
2. The road provides access to traditional cultural properties. 
a. Does the road provide access to a known traditional cultural property? 
b. Is there an existing MOU or LMP direction for the traditional cultural 
property? 
3. The road provides access to areas for traditional gathering and subsistence 
activities. 
a. Does the road provide access to known areas of traditional gathering and 
subsistence activities? 
b. Does the road provide access to potential areas for traditional gathering and 
subsistence activities? 
4. The road provides access for monitoring effects to archaeological or 
contemporary uses or resources. 
a. Does the road provide access to monitor effects of management activities and 
potential looting on archaeological sites? 
b. Does the road provide access to monitor if the needs by users are being met in 
traditional gathering, subsistence and spiritual activities? 
Step 2 Assign the risk to Heritage Resources values associated with access transportation 
planning. 
1. The potential risks to archaeological sites by transportation systems: 
a. Does the road and associated maintenance activities physically impact the 
archaeological site? 
b. Will road maintenance impact the archaeological site? 
c. Will access increase the opportunity for site looting? 
2. The potential risks to traditional cultural properties/spiritual localities by 
transportation systems: 
a. Does the road impact the visual, audible, and solitude environmental setting 
for traditional cultural properties (spiritual localities)? 
3. The potential risks to traditional gathering and subsistence activities from 
transportation systems: 
a. Does access increase competition among users for resources? 
b. Will there be any direct impacts from the road and road use on resources 
associated with gathering and subsistence activities? 
Step 3 Give the road a yes, no, or unknown rating for one or more purposes based on the 
answers to the previous questions and your knowledge of the district’s current and future 
need for Heritage Resources management. 
Step 4 Enter basic information onto the spreadsheet and fill out your ratings. In the 
comments section, be sure to identify any specific information about the road that others 
may need to know or that may be helpful in future NEPA analysis. 
10. Evaluation Criteria for Roads with Tribal Trust Resources 
Tribal Trust Resource: Natural resources, either on or off Indian lands, retained by or 
reserved by or for Indian tribes through treaties, statutes, judicial decisions and executive 
orders that are protected by a fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States. 
Tribal Trust Right: Those rights legally accruing to a tribe by virtue of inherent 
sovereign authority, un-extinguished aboriginal title, treaty, statue, judicial decisions, 
executive orders or agreement, and which give rise to legally enforceable remedies. 
Tribal Sovereign Authority: Indian tribes are governmental sovereigns with inherent 
powers to make and enforce laws, administer justice, and manage their natural resources. 
When rating a road for its Tribal Trust Resource priority in the RAP planning effort for 
the Forest, the following steps need to be considered in developing your assessment: 
Step 1 Determine the primary purpose of the road: 
1. The road provides access to a Tribal trust property or resource. 
2. Road provides access for monitoring effects to Tribal trust properties and 
resources. 
Step 2 Answer the questions concerning the primary purpose of the road to help you 
determine its importance to Tribal trust properties. This needs to be done in consultation 
with the Federally Recognized Tribe that has the federally reserved trust resources and 
trust rights. Some roads may provide multiple purposes. You will need to consider the 
questions for each purpose in that case. 
1. The road provides access to a Tribal trust property or resource. 
a. Does the road provide access to a Tribal trust property or resource on a 
Reservation or other lands held in trust? 
b. Do we have mutual agreements for managing the road with a Tribe? 
c. Is the road adjacent to or pass through Reservation lands or other lands held 
in trust? 
2. Road provides access for monitoring effects to Tribal trust properties and 
resources. 
3. Does the road provide access to monitor effects of management activities to 
Tribal trust properties and resources on and off Reservation lands or other lands 
held in trust? 
Step 3 Assign the risk to Tribal trust property values associated with access transportation 
planning. 
1. The risks to Tribal trust properties and resources by transportation systems: 
a. Does road impact a Tribal trust property or resource? 
b. Does road have the potential to impact a Tribal trust property or resource? 
Step 4 Give the road a yes, no, or unknown rating for one or more purposes based on the 
answers to the previous questions and your knowledge of the current and future need for 
Tribal trust property management. This will need to be done in consultation with the 
Tribe holding the Federally Reserved Trust Resource. 
Step 5 Enter basic information onto the spreadsheet and fill out with your ratings. In 
Comments section, be sure to identify any specific information about the road that others 
may need to know or that may be helpful in future NEPA analysis. Chapter VI. Step 5: Recommendations, Opportunities, and Priorities 
This analysis provides recommendations to reduce risk for aquatic resources including improvement of drainage 
structures or increased maintenance activities. Protection measures for Port Orford cedar are already in place. 
Impacts to fish, wildlife and botany species and habitat will be evaluated at the watershed or site-specific 
project level, and may include project modifications and/ or limited operating periods. 
Watershed restoration will be an integral part of a program to aid recovery of fish habitat, riparian habitat, and 
water quality. The most important components of a watershed restoration program are control of road-related 
runoff and prevention/reduction of sediment production, restoration of the condition of riparian vegetation, and 
restoration of in-stream habitat complexity. 
Road treatments can range from full decommissioning (closing and stabilizing a road to eliminate potential for 
storm damage and the need for maintenance), to road upgrading, which leaves the road open, to reconstructions 
when use levels require public safety related improvements. Upgrading or stormproofing is the improvement of 
a road drainage system to withstand large storm events without appreciable on-site or off-site damage, as well 
as reduce annual maintenance needs. The most common methods for upgrading include increasing culvert size 
to accommodate larger flows, modification of inlet geometry to pass organic debris more efficiently, and 
correcting stream-crossing diversion potential. 
The decision to apply a given treatment depends on the value and sensitivity of downstream uses; transportation 
needs, social expectations, assessment of probable outcomes for success at correcting problems, costs, and other 
factors. Forest Service Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads are major routes that provide access to large land 
areas across the Forest and to significant recreational destinations such as campgrounds, picnic sites, and 
trailheads. Benefits, problems, and risks associated with these key routes have been identified, and 
recommendations made relative to the investments needed to properly manage these elements of the 
transportation system. Recommendations for these key routes are limited to changes in maintenance level or the 
identification of maintenance needs. Because these key routes serve important access needs, decommissioning 
was not considered as an option. 
Downgrading OML for low-use roads will reduce maintenance costs. Reduction in maintenance activities will 
predominantly affect the smoothness of the driving surface (i.e. the surface type on an OML3 might be native 
while OML 4 or 5 is generally rock or asphalt) but all drainage structures will still be maintained as needed to 
minimize resource damage. If the OML is currently a 3, 4, or 5 and is recommended to be downgraded to an 
OML 2, then the road will be maintained for high clearance vehicle use instead of passenger car use. 
Upgrading OML or adding existing unclassified roads to the system is appropriate in areas that are currently 
receiving high use, such as river access roads. Adding/upgrading these roads allows the Forest to manage and 
control the current use to reduce resource risk. Adding them to the system will not change this current use, but 
will ensure they receive adequate maintenance. 
The following tables provide information on each OML 3, 4, and 5 road on the Forest. The tables include 
information on the administrative need, the potential resource risk, maintenance needs and recommendations to 
reduce impacts on aquatic resources. Priorities for each District can be found in Appendix H. 
The Forest Service will coordinate any maintenance or resource issues with State and County agencies for those 
roads within the Forest boundary but other agency jurisdiction, as well as Right-of-Way partners and special use 
permit holders. These road management recommendations will be used as a basis for proposed actions and disclosed in future 
appropriate NEPA documents, and will be completed as funding allows. All recommendations are in 
compliance with the Six Rivers LRMP and will not require a plan amendment or revision. Table 11 SMITH RIVER NRA (& Gasquet Ranger District) roads assessment 
Road # Length Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Administrative 
Need 
Resource 
Risk 
Aquatic 
Risk 
Comments, Maintenance Needs & Recommendations 
13N35 6.48 3 3 High 
(fire, timber) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Matrix; seasonal closure for POC protection; 
Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 
13N36 0.3 3 3 High 
(fire, cultural) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Red Mountain Lookout: cultural use: seasonal 
closure for POC protection; Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 
14N01 6.47 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(POC, 
botany, 
wildlife) 
Low 
Comments: Cultural use; access to Matrix; access to long-term 
wildlife monitoring area; Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 
14N82 4 3 2 Low High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Need to maintain fire access; last mi blocked 
brush; gated; Maintenance: Needs routine mtce; 
Recommendation: Change to OML2 
15N34 2 3 3 
High 
(fire, 
recreation, 
wildlife) 
High 
(POC, 
wildlife) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Access to Gunbarrel Trail (Wilderness); LSR; 
Maintenance: Needs brushing and debris removal 
15N36 1.1 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Muslatt Lake access, dispersed recreation; LSR; 
eroding lake edge from vehicle traffic; Access to water source 
for fire fighting needs improvement; Maintenance: Slump in 
road near lake; needs resurfacing; Recommendations: Assess 
road for improved interface with lake and access to water 
source for fire 
15N39 2.1 3 3 
High 
(fire, 
recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low 
Comments: South Kelsey trailhead; access to wilderness; 
cultural use; Maintenance: Potholes and ruts need to be fixed 
15N59 0.44 3 3 High 
(recreation) Low Low Comments: Access to Big Flat campground; road in poor 
condition; Maintenance: Needs resurfacing 16N02 22.9 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC, 
botany) 
Moderate 
wildlife 
Low 
Comments: Cultural use; LSR; main access to wilderness 
trailheads; gated (2) for POC protection (seasonal closure); 
Maintenance: Ruts and gullies in some areas; Doe Flat road 
needs additional road surfacing Recommendation: Unsafe 
intersection with 16N02A needs realignment (scheduled for 
repair in 2002) 
16N03 21.3 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC, 
wildlife) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Cultural use; Matrix/LSR; gated for POC 
protection (seasonal closure); Maintenance: Needs reshaping; 
Recommendation: Addition of culverts/ crossdrains approx 1/2 
mi from junction with 16N02, need to redesign for outsloping 
and install rock surface. 
16N18 9 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife, 
botany) 
Low 
Comment: Risk to POC entire length; LSR; gated for POC 
protection (seasonal closure); Maintenance: Lower section 
needs brushing; culverts needs to be cleaned 
16N19 8.23 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC, 
wildlife) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Matrix; Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 
16N21 3.6 3 3 High 
(fire, wildlife) 
High 
(wildlife, 
POC) 
Low 
Comments: LSR; Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 
17N04 7.82 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) Low Low 
Comment: Access private land; Matrix: Maintenance: Last 2 
mi before French Hill Rd are very rough and rocky, needs 
resurfacing 
17N07 13.7 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC, 
wild) Mod 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Cultural area; Matrix/LSR; access to private land; 
Maintenance: Very rough and rocky, needs resurfacing 17N08 6.9 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
High 
Comments: Access to private land; long-term fisheries 
monitoring area; Matrix; river access; Maintenance: Needs 
berms pulled back, reblading. Recommendation: Upgrade 
culverts, stormproofing. 
17N18 7.66 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC, 
wildlife, 
fish) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Moderate 
Comments: Wildlife/fisheries monitoring site; Maintenance: 
Needs routine mtce. Recommendation: Upgrade culverts, 
stormproofing 
17N21 3.5 3 3 
High 
(fire, wildlife, 
cultural) 
High 
(wildlife, 
POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comment: Cultural area; OHV damage to meadow areas; 
accesses Matrix/LSR; access to private land; Maintenance: 
Meadows need to be blocked off; road resurfaced 
Recommendation: Improve water hole access for fire 
17N22 4.53 3 3 High 
(fire, wildlife) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Low 
Comments: Cultural use; Matrix; access to private land; 
Maintenance: Culverts need work (cleaning or replacing) 
17N27 4 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) Low Comments: Matrix; Cal Trans disposal site; Maintenance: 
Needs blading 
17N49 7.58 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(botany) 
Moderate 
(POC) 
Low 
Comments: Cultural area; Maintenance: Damage being done at 
steep areas and soft spots (scheduled for repair in 2002) 
18N01 0.1 3 2 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC, 
fish) 
Low 
Comments: High recreation use area (dispersed camping); 
damage along edge of road to creek bed; Maintenance: Needs 
routine mtce; Recommendation: Change to OML2; Asses 
blocking off upper portion to vehicles for safety reasons and to 
prevent further riparian damage as required 
18N02 2.8 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) Low Low Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 18N07 13.8 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Moderate 
Comments: Risk to POC (MP 9 to end); Matrix; main access 
to wilderness trailhead; access to long-term fisheries 
monitoring area; dispersed recreation; gated for POC 
protection (seasonal closure) Maintenance: Routine 
maintenance needed. Recommendation: Upgrade culverts, 
stormproofing. 
18N08 9.7 3 3 High 
(fire, timber) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Moderate 
Comments: Matrix; dispersed recreation; river access; 
Maintenance: Lots of potholes, routine mtce needed. 
Recommendation: Upgrade culverts, stormproofing. 
Total OML3 
miles 170 
14N01 6.73 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(POC, 
botany, 
wildlife) 
Low 
Comments: Paved; Matrix: access to long-term wildlife 
monitoring area; gated for POC protection (seasonal closure); 
Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 
17N05 9.89 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Low 
Comment: Hydrologic risk at bluffs area, rest low; access to 
Matrix/LSR/wilderness; access to long-term wildlife 
monitoring area; gated for POC protection (seasonal closure); 
Maintenance: Culvert needs maintenance or replacement 1/2 
mi from HWY199; Recommendation: Section near bluffs 
needs the road rebuilt (scheduled for repair in 2002) 
17N53 0.31 4 4 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low Comment: Grassy Flat campground; river access; 
Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 
17N62 0.55 4 4 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low 
Comment: Panther Flat campground; river access; uninfected 
POC between campground and HWY 199; Maintenance: 
Needs resealing 
17N62A 0.3 4 4 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low Comment: Panther Flat campground; Maintenance: Needs 
routine mtce 
17N62B 0.25 4 4 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low Comment: Panther Flat campground; Maintenance: needs 
Routine mtce 
17N64 0.09 4 4 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low Comment: Patrick Creek campground; river access; 
Maintenance: Needs routine mtce 17N64B 0.08 4 4 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low Comment: Patrick Creek campground; Maintenance: Needs 
routine mtce 
17N70 0.8 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) Low Comment: Gasquet Ranger Station; Maintenance: Needs 
routine mtce 
Total OML4 
miles 30.6 
17N64A 0.25 5 5 High 
(recreation) Low Low Comment: Patrick Creek campground; Maintenance: Needs 
routine mtce 
15N01 18.3 5 5 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comment: POC-gated; access to long-term wildlife 
monitoring; gated for POC protection (seasonal closure); 
Maintenance: Culverts need cleaning/upgrade; cracked and 
warped road surface; continual rock fall in road 
Total OML5 
miles 18.55 
Proposed Maintenance Level Changes for Unclassified Roads 
Unclassified 0.1 N/A 3 High 
(recreation) Low Low 
Comments: River access; paved; Madrona Camp; high 
recreation use; dispersed camping; Recommendation: Add to 
FS system at OML 3; rehab streambank 
Unclassified 0.2 N/A 3 High 
(recreation) Low Low Comments: River access; Howard Griffin Bridge; paved; high 
recreation use; Recommendation: Add to FS system at OML 3 
Unclassified 0.1 N/A 3 High 
(recreation) Low Low 
Comments: River access; old bridge site at 18-mile Creek; 
high recreation use; paved; Recommendation: Add to FS 
system at OML 3 
Unclassified 0.2 N/A 3 High 
(recreation) Low Low 
Comments: River access; Grassy Flat old bridge road; high 
recreation use; paved; Recommendation: Add to FS system at 
OML 3 Table 12 LOWER TRINITY DISTRICT roads assessment 
Road # Length Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Administrative 
Need 
Resource 
Risk 
Aquatic 
Risk 
Comments, Maintenance Needs & Recommendations 
4N13 2.9 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) High 
Comment: Numerous scattered unstable sections. 
4N31 1.15 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Chronically unstable area around 6N06 
intersection. Recommendation: Rt 6 should be managed at 
OML3 or higher. 
4N31 0.2 3 4 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Chronically unstable area around 6N06 
intersection. Recommendation: Road segment beyond 4N36 
intersection should be upgraded to OML 4. 
4N36 0.84 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce. 
4N36 5.76 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Rough running surface through areas of 
tough, fractured bedrock, probably due to poorly graded native 
surface course on steep grades. Recommendation: Improve or 
replace surface. 
5N01 5.59 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Contains a few unstable sections in the upper 
few miles (both road prism & cutslope problems). Fish 
passage barrier at MP 0.1 (mileage from Route 6). 
Recommendation: Replace culvert to improve fish passage and 
reconstruct road prism sections (subgrade) dispersed along 
entire length. 
5N03 2.83 3 3 High High 
(wildlife) Low Maintenance: LSR. Routine road mtce. 
6N06 18.5 3 
Change to 
OML 2 
from mp 
14.6 to 
end of 
road 
High Moderate 
(wildlife) Moderate 
Comment: LSR. Extensive unstable sections from Madden Ck 
to 5N01 intersection; south of intersection with 4N36. 
Recommendation: Low use past mp 14.6; downgrade to OML 
2 from mp 14.6 
6N10 3.9 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comments: LSR. Contains at least one unstable section. 6N12 10.61 3 3 High High 
(wildlife) Moderate Comment: Stable road 
6N14 0.6 3 3 High Low Low Maintenance: Routine road mtce. 
6N19 1.96 3 3 High High 
(wildlife) Low Comment: Stable upper slope / ridgetop road 
6N20 4.7 3 
Change to 
OML 2 
from Oak 
Knob to 
end of 
road 
High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Contains a few unstable sections, dead-ends 
in LSR. Recommendation: Low use beyond Oak Knob; 
change to OML 2 from intersection with 5N31 (3.17 miles) 
6N21 0.5 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comment: LSR. East Fork Campground access 
6N53 0.5 3 3 High Low Low Maintenance: Routine road mtce. 
6N56 0.5 3 3 High Low Low Comment: River access 
6N70 0.63 3 3 High Low Low Comment: River access 
7N02 6.68 3 3 High Low Moderate Comment: Contains a few unstable sections between MP3 and 
MP5 
7N04 10.53 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Moderate 
Comments: LSR. Cultural use. Fish passage barriers at MP 
3.59 (Cedar Creek crossing) and 7.50 (Groves Prairie crossing) 
Recommendation: Need to upgrade culverts to improve fish 
passage. Improve condition of road surface material on lower 
section of road 
7N10 3.28 3 2 Low Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comment: LSR; Recommendation: Low use, change to OML 
2 
7N26 10.09 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comment: LSR. Relatively stable road, but some moderately 
unstable rock slopes above road 
7N30 4.14 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comment: LSR. Accesses Horse Linto Interpretive trail 
7N31 9.85 3 2 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comment: LSR. Low public use, entirely within LSR. 
Recommendation: Change to OML 2. 7N51 1 
Comment: This road accesses Tish Tang Campground, Hoopa 
Valley Indian Reservation; no longer a Forest Service road and 
should be removed from the system 
7N57 0.1 3 3 High Low Low Maintenance: Routine road mtce. 
7N73 0.69 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comment: LSR; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
8N01 2.3 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low Comment: LSR; paved road; Access to range allotment 
8N03 11.11 3 2 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: Cultural use area. Road accesses Horse Linto 
Campground but is barricaded before Tish Tang trailhead. 
Portion coming back out of Hoopa to Tish Tang trailhead has 
low public use. Access to range allotment Section from MP 
4.73 to 11.11 is not a Forest Service road; Recommendation: 
Change to OML 2 
10N02 17.7 3 
Change to 
OML 2 
from Bear 
Hole 
Trailhead 
to end of 
road 
High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Cultural use; Beyond the spur to Bear Hole 
trailhead is a low use road that ends at the Wilderness 
boundary. Fish passage barriers at MP 2.9 and 1.79 (mileage 
from 8N01). Recommendation: Upgrade culverts for fish 
passage. Low use beyond the intersection with the road to Bear 
Hole trailhead, change to OML 2 (1.89 miles). 
Total OML3 
miles 139.14 
6N01 22.52 4 4 High High-POC 
Mod -wild Low Maintenance: LSR. Routine road mtce. 
6N05 0.5 4 4 High Low Low Comment: Campground road 
6N08 11.97 4 4 High 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Low 
Comments: LSR. Contains a few unstable sections in the 
lower couple of miles. Access to range allotment 
7N02 9.84 4 4 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Moderate Comment: Contains a few unstable sections between MP3 and 
MP5 (scheduled for repairs in FY 2002) 7N54 0.18 4 4 High Low Low Maintenance: Routine road mtce. 
Total OML4 
miles 45 
Proposed Maintenance Level Changes for OML 2 and Unclassified Roads 
9N04 1.3 2 3 High Low Low 
Recommendation: The portion between the Hoopa Valley 
Indian Reservation and 10N02 receives a lot of use and should 
be upgraded from OML2 to OML3. 
10N02spur 0.33 Non 
system 2 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Recommendation: Due to the level of 
current use, the unnamed 10N02 spur that accesses Bear Hole 
trailhead should be added to the system as OML2. High 
(wildlife) 
Comment: Two existing wildlife gates located at MP 
6.4 & MP 8.9. Locked from Jan 1 to Aug 31; Access 
to range allotment Recommendation: Change to 
OML 2 at MP 6.4 
01N08 5.55 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: Alternative access for public residence. 
Some scattered, minor instability. Road constructed 
in 1968, possible culvert upgrade needed. LSR 
01N15 2.93 3 
Change to 
OML 2 from 
mp 1.26 to 
end of road 
Moderate Moderate 
(wildlife) Moderate 
Comment: Bridge at the Mad River was pulled out in 
the 80's making this a dead end road. Year-round 
private residence on 1N15A (junction MP 1.26). 
Minor instability in first mile. LSR; 
Recommendation: Change to an OML 2 at MP 1.26, 
upgrade culverts, and stormproof. 
01N30 4.92 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. The Road from MP 0.0 to MP 1.2 
becomes very icy during the winter. Road used by 
year-round residences. Access to range allotment 
Road from MP 1.2 to end was repaired FY 2001. 
Road was built in 1968, minor instability. 
Maintenance: Repair cattle guard. Lower 1.2 mile 
will need crack sealing in the next five years; 
Recommendation: Assess remaining culverts for 
replacement or repair. 
01S06 8.96 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) High Moderate 
Comment: About 1.3 miles of 1S06 were rocked in 
FY 1999-2001; Culvert replacement at spillway and 
additional culvert on road will also need upgrading 
soon. Road has heavy traffic during most of the year. 
3 or 4 year-round residences on road. Moderate 
slumping and several areas of instability, moderate 
risk of sediment delivery. Recommendation: Culvert 
replacement needed at MP 1.0 (from spillway); 
upgrade culverts, stormproof. 
Table 13 MAD RIVER DISTRICT roads assessment 
Road # Length 
Proposed 
OML 
Administrative 
Need 
Resource 
Risk 
Comments, Maintenance Needs & Recommendations 
01N03 
Current 
OML Aquatic Risk 
8.9 3 
Change to 
OML 2 from 
mp 6.4 to end 
of road 
High 
(all disciplines)
Road # Length 
Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Administrative 
Need 
Resource 
Risk Aquatic Risk 
Comments, Maintenance Needs & Recommendations 
01S07 11.22 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(Botany) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Low 
Comment: LSR. Major arterial used to access 2S08 
and the Watts Lake area. Access to range allotment 
Minor roadbed slumping. Road adjacent to Lassics 
Botanical area. Minor slumping north of Lassics. 
Maintenance: Needs sign repair. 
01S11 10 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(Botany) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Low 
Comment: LSR. Secondary access to 2S08 and 
Watts Lake. Access to range allotment Road 
constructed in 1959, minor instability. Maintenance: 
Spot rocking needed; Recommendation: Assess 
culverts for future repair or replacement 
02N05 1.27 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) Moderate Comment: Road ties 6N01 to 2N12. Access to range 
allotment 
02N12 4.6 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Minor to 
moderate roadbed failures in the past. Repaired in 
FY 2000. 
02N14 5.43 3 
Change to 
OML 2 from 
mp 3.0 to end 
of road 
High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) High 
Comment: Access to range allotment Road has 
recurring road failures and severe stability problems 
at MP 1.2, 2.1 & 4.3. All areas were repaired in FY 
2000. From East Creek bridge at MP 3.0 to terminus 
(approx. 2.43 mi.) road was not constructed to OML 
3 standards. Roadbed is native surface with drivable 
dips and waterbars on road grades over 12%. 
Recommendation: Change OML to level 2 beyond 
bridge, stormproof. 
02S04 1.67 3 2 Low High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Forest road 2S17 is the main 
arterial. 2S04 dead-ends into 2S17P. 
Recommendation: Reduce road to an OML 2. 
02S05 16.21 3 3 High High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: Wildlife gate located at MP14.5 from 
27N34. This gate has not been locked in the last 
couple of years. Accesses year-round private 
property use. 02S08 9.2 3 
Change to 
OML 2 from 
MP 6.49 to 
end of road 
High 
(all disciplines) Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Road is chip 
sealed to MP 8.4 with one recurring problem at MP 
6.49 (above Dobbyn slide), also some minor 
slumping NW of 1S07 intersection. Road from MP 
6.49 to end at MP 11.0 was built and is maintained at 
an OML 2. This portion has some slumping and is 
brushed in from 2S08B to terminus. Maintenance: 
needs brushing; Recommendation: Change road to an 
OML 2 from intersection with 1S07 to terminus. 
02S12 3.6 3 3 High Low Moderate 
Maintenance: Needs surface replacement (crushed 
aggregate). Recommendations: Upgrade culverts, 
stormproof. 
02S17 8.8 3 3 High High 
(wildlife) Low 
Access to range allotment Maintenance: Road is 
scheduled to be brushed in 2002. 
02S78 0.5 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Access road to Watts lake 
dispersed camping area. 
03S12 3.7 3 3 High Low Moderate 
Comment: Substantial roadbed failure in 1998 with 
major sediment delivery; repaired in 2001; future 
potential erosion uncertain. Recommendation: 
upgrade culverts, stormproof. 
03S13 2 3 3 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Road in good 
shape, Steep road grades. 
03S15 5.6 3 3 High Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: LSR. Anticipated future increase in 
winter use due to larger private land holdings being 
subdivided. Access to range allotment Roadbed is 
in good shape but has lost most of its cushion rock 
surface. Maintenance: Need 6-inch lift of 3-inch 
minus-sized gravel. 04S15 2.57 3 3 Moderate Low Moderate 
Comment: First 2 miles of road from County Road 
503 to intersection of 3S22 has moderate winter use 
due to private residences off 3S22. 4S15 was graded 
and spot rocked in 2001. Recommendation: Upgrade 
culverts, stormproof. 
27N12 6.58 3 
Change to 
OML 2 from 
junction with 
2N13 to end 
of road 
High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment 27N12 goes 
east toward Low Mountain and dead ends. Road 
27N13 becomes the tie through road. 
Recommendation: Change OML at junction with 
2N13 (about 2.6 mi.) to a level 2. 
27N13 5.4 3 3 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Scattered, 
minor instability. 
27N33 3.63 3 3 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Year-round 
private use on first mile from 27N13 junction. 
27N34 5.3 3 3 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Year-round 
use for the Travis Ranch. 
Total 
OML3 
miles 
138.5 
01N70 0.6 4 4 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Road is 
showing signs of wear. This is due partly from 
increase fire traffic and larger/heavier vehicle use. 
Road was paved in 1976. Mad River RD compound. 
Maintenance: Need major repair of asphalt and 
roadbed base; Recommendation: This is an 
administrative site that needs asphalt pavement and 
road base repair 
01S50 0.52 4 4 High Low Low 
Comment: Access road for Mad River Campground. 
01S51 0.25 4 4 High High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: Access road for Fir Cove Campground. 01S52 0.43 4 4 High High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: Access road for Bailey Canyon 
Campground. 
02S74 0.1 4 4 High Low Low 
Comment: Access road for Ruth Guard Station. 
03S70 0.1 4 4 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Access road 
for Zenia Guard Station residences. 
06N01 25.79 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) Low Moderate 
Comment: High use, main arterial road linking State 
Highway 36 to State HWY 299. Access to range 
allotment Maintenance: Needs signing, fog stripe 
where appropriate, and some asphalt seal from 4N12 
to Hwy 36. Recommendation: Upgrade culverts, 
stormproof. 
27N02 16.8 4 4 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Several areas 
of minor slumping, low risk of sediment delivery 
from slope failure. Main access road to the Yolla 
Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness from the Six Rivers 
N.F. Maintenance: Surface repair needed on road. 
29N30 6.6 4 4 High Low Low 
Comment: Access to range allotment Wildwood - 
Mad River road was paved in 1974. Road is narrow 
with abrupt pavement transitions. Rock ravel is a 
problem over most of road length after a rain or 
freezing weather. Maintenance: Needs sign 
replacement; Recommendation: Assess pavement 
and subgrade for development of corrective surface 
maintenance needs. 
Total 
OML4 
miles 51.2 
No OML5 
roads on 
Mad River 
Table 14 ORLEANS DISTRICT roads assessment 
Road # Length Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Administrative 
Need 
Resource 
Risk 
Aquatic 
Risk 
Comments, Maintenance Needs & 
Recommendations 
9N02 1.1 3 3 
High 
(fire) Moderate 
(timber) 
Low Low 
Comments: Access to Hoopa Valley Indian 
Reservation; Matrix Maintenance: Routine road 
mtce 
10N01 14 3 3 
High 
(recreation, fire, 
timber) 
Moderate 
(lands) 
Moderate 
(botany) Low 
Comments: Private residences, Matrix 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce; needs culvert 
upgrades and rolling dips 
10N02 9.95 3 3 
High 
(fire, timber, 
lands) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) High 
Comments: Access to Hoopa Valley Indian 
Reservation, private property, Matrix; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
10N03 7.5 3 3 
High 
(fire, timber) 
Moderate 
(recreation) 
Moderate 
(botany) Moderate 
Comments: Matrix; historic OHV route; 
Maintenance: Needs some culvert upgrades 
10N05 10.3 3 2 High 
(fire, timber) 
High 
(POC) Low 
Comments: Wet site location, unstable sites, 
Matrix; Maintenance: Routine road mtce, needs 
some culvert upgrades; Recommendation: 
Downgrade to OML 2 
10N06 3.6 3 3 Moderate 
(fire, recreation) 
High 
(wildlife, 
POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Seasonal closure POC gate at MP 
0.1, LSR; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
10N10 4.74 3 3 
High 
(fire, timber, 
cultural) 
Moderate 
(recreation) 
High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: One large cutbank and fill slope 
failure; gated (wildlife); Matrix; cultural use, 
road ties to Klamath NF, water tank fill at one 
stream crossing; Maintenance: Culvert and ditch 
clean out, rocking, grading and brushing, needs 
some culvert upgrades, 10N13 7.53 3 
Change to 
level 2 from 
10N13A to 
end of road 
High 
(fire, timber, 
cultural) 
Moderate 
(recreation) 
High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Approx 0.2 miles at end of road 
brushy and undriveable, large amount of water 
pooled (possible diversion potential); Matrix; 
cultural use; Maintenance: Routine mtce 
including ditch cleanup; needs culvert upgrades; 
Recommendation: Downgrade from OML 3 to 2 
from 10N13A to terminus of 10N13 (1.6 miles) 
10N47 4.6 3 3 
High 
(fire/timber) 
Moderate 
(lands, 
recreation) 
High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Access to private parcels; Matrix; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
10N72 0.19 3 3 
High 
(fire, lands, 
recreation, 
cultural) 
High 
(POC) Low 
Comments: Two gates off 13N01 and another off 
of Hwy 96 (PG&E, Davey Tree), cultural use 
area, tanker fill; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
10N74 0.2 3 3 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Scenic Overlook, Special Interest 
Area, day use area; Maintenance: Routine road 
mtce 
10N75 1.07 3 2 
High 
(recreation) 
Moderate 
(fire) 
High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comment: High recreation use, access into closed 
campground; cultural use, Maintenance: Routine 
road mtce; Recommendation: Downgrade to 
OML 2 and consider decommissioning road loop 
within campground (0.5 mile from existing gate) 
after site-specific analysis 
10N76 0.4 3 3 
High 
(recreation) 
moderate 
(fire) 
High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Dispersed recreation sites; river 
access; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
11N45 5.63 3 3 
High 
(fire, timber) 
Moderate 
(l d ) 
High 
(POC) Low 
Comments: Access to private; Matrix; 
Maintenance: Needs routine mtce (lands) 
11N56 0.56 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: LSR; cultural use; river access; 
tanker fill site: Recommendation: Needs rock or 
paving 
11N61 0.3 3 3 
High 
(fire, recreation, 
cultural) 
Low Low 
Comments: High recreation use, Recreation gate; 
cultural use area; river access; Recommendation: 
Needs rock or paving 
12N01 1.75 3 3 
High 
(fire, cultural) 
Moderate 
(recreation, 
lands) 
Low Moderate 
Comments: Access to private, MOU with Karuk 
for fish rearing facility, gate blocks access to 
facility at MP 1.6; Maintenance: Needs routine 
road mtce; needs ditch cleanup and some culvert 
upgrades 
12N10 7.38 3 3 
High 
(fire) Moderate 
(recreation) 
High 
(wild, POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: LSR; Maintenance: Needs grading 
and rocking 
12N12 23.4 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(wildlife, 
POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: LSR/Matrix; Maintenance: Needs 
routine road mtce 
12N13 7.23 3 3 High 
(fire, recreation) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Moderate 
Comments: LSR; some culverts undersized and 
partially plugged, diversion potential; 
Maintenance: Needs culvert upgrades, ditch clean 
out, and other routine mtce 
12N20 5.9 3 3 
High 
(fire) Moderate 
(recreation) 
High (POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife, 
botany) 
Moderate 
Comments: LSR; Maintenance: Needs routine 
road mtce 13N10 2.95 3 2 Moderate 
(all disciplines) Low Moderate 
Maintenance: Needs signing, grading, brush 
removal and some culvert cleaning and 
replacement 
13N18 2.06 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Road paved, high public use; cultural 
use; Matrix; Maintenance: Needs culvert 
upgrades and other routine mtce 
13N60 0.5 3 3 Low 
(all disciplines) Low Low 
Comments: Paved, access old rock quarry; LSR; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
14N03 2.18 3 3 
High 
(recreation, 
cultural) 
Moderate 
(fire) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(wildlife, 
botany) 
Low 
Comments: Elk Valley Road, POC gate at MP 
0.1 (seasonal closure), high risk of introducing 
POC root disease into Blue Creek, Dillon Creek; 
access to wilderness; LSR; cultural use, consult 
with Karuk, Yurok, and Tolowa Tribes; fish 
passage barrier at MP 1.79. Maintenance: Needs 
culvert upgrades, diversion dips and other routine 
mtce; Recommendation: Keep and maintain, 
pending further analysis, which will consider the 
options for reducing the risk of spreading POC, 
root disease. 
Total OML3 
miles 122.1 
10N12 3.46 4 4 
High 
(recreation) 
Moderate 
(fire) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Low 
Comments: Fish Lake Rd, paved to campground; 
2 POC gates at MP 0.1 and 3.0 (seasonal 
closure); LSR; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
10N51 0.86 4 2 Moderate 
(fire, recreation) 
High 
(POC) Low 
Comments: Fish Lake loop; 2 POC gates at start 
and end 0.8 miles (seasonal closure), LSR; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce; 
Recommendation: Downgrade to OML 2 
10N70 0.17 4 4 High 
(recreation) Low Low 
Comments: High recreation use area; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce; 
Recommendation: Needs paving 11N05 12.4 4 4 
High 
(fire, cultural, 
lands) Moderate 
(recreation) 
High 
(POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Moderate 
Comments: Diversion potential sites along road, 
culverts undersized, slide stabilizations, 
pavement failures; accesses private residences, 
LSR; cultural use, Maintenance: Need to invest in 
more routine mtce; Recommendation: Needs 
culvert upgrades 
11N11 3.15 4 4 
High 
(fire, timber, 
cultural) 
Moderate 
(lands) 
Low Low 
Comments: Lower 1.5 miles is owned by 
Humboldt County; cultural use area; Matrix; 
Maintenance: Routine mtce in upper segment; 
Recommendation: Continue to work with 
County on lower segment; update records to 
reflect agreement with County 
11N62 0.3 4 4 
High 
(fire, 
Recreation) 
Low Low 
Comments: High recreation use, 2 recreation 
gates; Maintenance: Routine mtce 
11N70 0.5 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) Low Low 
Comments: Orleans RD compound, paved; 
access road for District facilities; Maintenance: 
Routine road mtce 
13N01 39.4 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) 
High 
(wildlife/ 
POC) 
Moderate 
(botany) 
Moderate 
Comments: POC gates at MP 5.5 and 12.1 
(seasonal closure), access to private residences, 
pavement and aggregate base; cultural use; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce; culvert upgrade 
and cleanout, pull ditch line 
Total OML4 
miles 60.2 
15N01 29.2 5 5 High 
(all disciplines) Low Low 
Comments: GO Road, paved, private land; access 
to wilderness; LSR/Matrix; Maintenance: Needs 
culvert upgrades and other routine mtce 
Total OML5 
miles 29.2 
Proposed Maintenance Level Changes for Level 2 and Unclassified Roads 10N20 0.2 2 3 
High 
(fire, cultural, 
recreation) 
moderate 
(lands) 
Low High 
Comments: Cultural use; tanker fill site; 
Recommendation: Upgrade OML 3, needs paving 
10N28 0.1 2 3 
High 
(fire, cultural, 
recreation) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) High 
Comments: High recreation and admin use; 
cultural use; tanker fill site; river access; LSR; 
Recommendation: Upgrade to OML 3; needs 
seasonal mtce and riprap to armor right bank for 
treatment facility 
11N54 0.2 2 3 
High 
(fire, cultural) 
Moderate 
(recreation) 
Low Moderate 
Comments: Cultural use; tanker fill site; Klamath 
River access; Maintenance: Routine road mtce; 
Recommendation: Upgrade to OML 3 
11N72 0.3 2 3 
High 
(recreation, 
cultural) 
moderate 
(fire) 
Low Moderate 
Comments: High recreation use, dispersed 
recreation, Cal Trans disposal site; cultural use 
area, river access; Maintenance: Needs rocking; 
Recommendation: Upgrade to OML 3 
11N76 0.2 2 3 
High 
(recreation, 
cultural) 
moderate 
(fire, lands) 
Low Low 
Comments: High recreation use, day-use area; 
cultural use, river access; Recommendation: 
Upgrade to OML 3 Table 15 UKONOM DISTRICT roads assessment 
Road # Length Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Administrative 
Need 
Resource 
Risk 
Aquatic 
Risk 
Comments, Maintenance Needs & Recommendations 
11N17 0.3 3 4 
High 
(recreation) 
Moderate 
(fire) 
Low Low 
Comments: Oak Bottom campground, paved, 
Campground gate; Maintenance: routine road mtce; 
Recommendation: Upgrade to OML 4 
11N18 0.18 3 3 
High 
(fire) Moderate 
(lands) 
Low Low 
Comments: USFS compound at Oak Bottom, paved, 
access to tree cooler; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
12N01 0.5 3 3 High 
(recreation) Low Low 
Comments: access across Salmon River bridge to 
existing gate, trailhead and river access; Maintenance: 
routine road mtce 
12N01 1.4 3 
Remove 
from 
system 
Low 
(all disciplines) Low High 
Comments: Steinacher Road, this portion of the road is 
being decommissioned under a completed NEPA 
decision in cooperation with the Karuk Tribe and is 
expected to be completed in 2002-03: 
Recommendation: Remove from Roads Database upon 
completion 
12N01 2.9 3 
Remove 
from 
system 
Low 
(all disciplines) Low High 
Comments: Steinacher Road, road was 
decommissioned in cooperation with the Karuk Tribe 
during 1998-2001; Recommendation: Remove from 
Road Database 
12N22 0.8 3 3 
High 
(fire, cultural) 
Moderate 
(recreation) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Access to water source and dispersed 
recreation site; LSR; cultural area, Maintenance: 
Routine road mtce 
12N34 0.4 3 3 High 
(recreation) Low High 
Comments: River access, Maintenance: Potential 
unstable road fills, needs routine road mtce 12N52 6 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) Low High 
Comments: Main arterial; 1997 storm damage area; 
steep headwall area of Rogers Creek where hillside 
and road is crumbling away into Rogers Creek. Road 
width in this area getting too narrow for other than 
passenger cars and pickup trucks to get by; repair 
would be very costly and/or destabilizing, with 
potential future instability problems; 
Recommendation: Some road segments need work, 
high aquatic resource risk but treatable, outslope and 
improve drainage. Stormproof and/or upgrade 
13N08 4.4 3 2 
High 
(fire, timber, 
recreation) 
Low Low 
Comments: Not well maintained, 2 FS gates; Matrix; 
Ukonom Mt Lookout; Maintenance: Stormproof 
and/or upgrade culverts; Recommendation: 
Downgrade to OML 2, remove wildlife gate at MP 0.1 
13N11 12.5 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) Low High 
Comments: Old and active landslides. Upper segment 
in decomposed granitics. Most of road OKS but many 
long inboard ditched (collection potentials) and stream 
diversion potentials. Two high risk/consequence 
stream crossings (large fills with small pipes); private 
prop access, fire access, Recommendation: Stormproof 
and/or upgrade culverts 
13N12 4.55 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) Low Low 
Comments: Old landslide - active in spots. Dissected 
ephemeral channels; private property access; history of 
elk use; future pond development site; 
Recommendation: Stormproof and upgrade culverts 
13N12 0.9 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) Low 
Comments: Old landslide - active in spots; 
Recommendation: Stormproof and upgrade culverts 
13N13 14.7 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) Low High 
Comments: A great deal of slide material annually; 
Matrix; Maintenance: Needs upgrades and routine road 
mtce 13N18 1.7 3 3 
High 
(fire, timber, 
recreation, 
cultural) 
Moderate (lands) 
Low High 
Comments: Road paved, high public use; cultural use; 
Matrix; Maintenance: Needs upgrades routine road 
mtce 
13N18 10.4 3 3 
High 
(fire, timber, 
cultural) 
Moderate 
(lands, 
recreation) 
Low High 
Comments: High public use; cultural use; Matrix; 
Maintenance: Needs upgrades and routine road mtce 
13N30 0.2 3 3 High 
(recreation) 
High 
(wildlife) Low Comments: River access; Maintenance: Routine road 
mtce 
13N35 6.4 3 3 
High (fire, 
timber, cultural) 
Moderate 
(wildlife) 
Moderate 
(botany) Low 
Comments: Matrix; cultural use; Maintenance: Routine 
road mtce 
14N21 0.8 3 2 High 
(timber) 
High 
(wildlife) High 
Comments: Brushy, road blown out at end; Matrix; 
Recommendation: Downgrade to OML 2 and consider 
decommissioning after site specific analysis 
14N21 6 3 3 
High 
(fire, timber, 
cultural) 
High 
(wildlife, 
POC) 
Moderate 
Comments: 4 FS gates (2-wildlife, 2-POC); Matrix; 
cultural use; Maintenance: Routine road mtce; 
Recommendation: Remove 2 wildlife gates 
15N17 13.1 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(botany) High 
Comments: Major recreational access route; 1997 
storm damage site; slumps, decomposed granitics, 
bank and fill slough; road is generally stable however 
many diversion potentials and stream crossings/crossdrains 
with excessively long contributing inboard 
ditches; one very large fill with inadequate, plugged 
culvert needs immediate attention. 1 FS gate (wildlife) 
Recommendation: Clean plugged culverts 
immediately; maintain with improvements for drivability, outslope sections, stormproof and/or 
upgrade culverts; remove wildlife gate 
15N17 0.5 3 3 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(botany) High 
Comments: Many diversion potentials and very long 
inboard ditches; decomposed granitics; bank and fill 
sloughs; Recommendation: Maintain with 
improvements for drivability, stormproof and/or 
upgrade culverts 
Total 
OML3 
miles 
89 
11N19 0.52 4 4 High 
(fire) Low Low 
Comments: USFS compound at Oak Bottom (housing 
and facilities), paved; Maintenance: Routine road 
mtce. 
12N11 0.15 4 4 
High 
(fire, cultural, 
lands) 
Low Low 
Comments: Ukonom admin site and housing, Somes 
Bar Work center, paved, FS gate, unstable land, under 
MOU with Karuk Tribe; cultural area; Maintenance: 
Routine road mtce 
13N11 3.9 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(botany) High 
Comments: 1997 storm damage site (Kennedy Creek 
diversion), fill failures. Old and active landslides (Ti 
Bar slide), 2 FS gates at beginning and ending of road 
3.9 miles; private prop access; fire access; 
Recommendation: Remove both wildlife gates, 
upgrade/stormproof culverts as needed 
13N13 0.45 4 4 
High 
(fire, cultural, 
timber) 
Low Low 
Comments: Paved for safety purposes; cultural use; 
Matrix; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 13N29 0.15 4 4 
High 
(cultural, 
recreation) 
Low Low 
Comments: Ti Bar Flat River Access, cultural use; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
14N01 10.2 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) Low High 
Comments: Major recreational access route; shear 
zone; storm damaged in 1972 and 1997; road generally 
good shape between crossings although pavement 
slumping in areas; three active landslides on road - one 
threatens entire road prism; many diversion potentials; 
several very long inboard ditches; three large fills with 
undersize culverts; two rusted undersized culverts; 
ponding behind three culverts. Recommendation: 
Maintain with improvements for drivability, outslope 
sections; stormproof and/or upgrade culverts 
14N51 0.3 4 4 High 
(recreation) Low Low 
Comments: Paved; recreation gate; recreation camp 
site and facilities Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
14N69 1.9 4 4 
High 
(fire, timber, 
cultural) 
Low Low 
Comments: Paved, 2 FS gates for safety; Matrix; 
cultural use; Maintenance: Routine road mtce 
15N17 6.9 4 4 High 
(all disciplines) 
Moderate 
(botany) Low 
Comments: Major recreational access route; 1997 
storm damage site (fill slumping, road subsides); 
winter bank slough; paved. Recommendation: 
Stormproof and/or upgrade culverts 
Total 
OML4 
miles 
24 
No OML 5 
roads on 
Ukonom 
Proposed Maintenance Level Changes for Level 2 and Unclassified Roads 
Unclassif 
ied 0.3 NA 3 High (fire, 
recreation) Low Low 
Comments: Day use area; tanker fill site; river access; 
Recommendation: Entire road needs improvements, 
add to FS Roads Database, assign road number and 
OML 3 Unclassi 
fied 0.1 NA 3 
High (fire, 
cultural, 
recreation) 
Low Low 
Comments: River access, day use area; tanker fill site, 
river access; Maintenance: Routine road mtce; 
Recommendation: Add to FS Roads Database, loop 
road, assign road number and OML 3 
Unclassif 
ied 0.3 NA 3 High (fire, 
recreation) Low Low 
Comments: Day use area; tanker fill site; river access; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce; Recommendation: 
Entire road needs improvements, add to FS Roads 
Database, assign road number and OML 3 
Unclassif 
ied 0.3 NA 3 
High (fire, 
cultural, 
recreational) 
Low Low 
Comments: River access; tanker fill site; river access; 
Maintenance: Routine road mtce; Recommendation: 
Entire road needs improvements, add to FS Roads 
Database, developed road to river, assign road number 
and OML 3 
12N44 0.8 1 3 High (fire, 
recreation) Low Moderate 
Comments: River access; Maintenance: Routine road 
mtce; Recommendation: Upgrade to OML 3 APPENDIX A: Routine Maintenance Activities 
Specific Activities 
The proposed Forest-wide Routine Road Maintenance Program comprises of the 
following activities. Many activities incorporate mitigation guidelines and BMPS as 
standard practice. Each activity description references pertinent BMPs that are described 
above. The numbers in parentheses (e.g. 811) at the end of each activity description refer 
to the R5 Forest Service Specifications for Maintenance of Roads (USDA, 1992), which 
guides the development and administration of FS road maintenance contracts. All of the 
items listed below do not necessarily occur each year, but are implemented under the 
established routine road maintenance contract as conditions warrant at locations 
throughout the Forest. 
1. Blading - This work consists of surface blading native or aggregate roadbeds to a 
condition to facilitate traffic and provide proper drainage. Blading includes 
shaping the crown or slope of the traveled way, berms, and drainage dips. Excess 
roadbed width shall be shaped only as needed to provide drainage away from the 
traveled way. The work would be generally be accomplished by a motor grader. 
BMPs 2-4, 2-7, 2-11, 2-19, 2-22, and 2-23 will be implemented with this action. 
(811) 
2. Dust abatement - This work consists of applying dust palliatives to native and 
aggregate-surfaced roads. It includes standard material specifications for 
applying non-petroleum products; however, petroleum products can be added. 
Care will be taken to limit petroleum-based products to the travel way, especially 
at channel crossings. The authorized work is not intended to provide a 
bituminous running surface. Bitumen is the asphaltic residue in the distillation of 
coal tar, wood tar, petroleum, etc. This work would generally be accomplished 
with a water truck. To prevent impacts to riparian resources, water will be drawn 
from designated drafting sites with a screened intake. BMP 2-21 will be applied 
with this activity. 
3. Spot surfacing - This work consists of placing surface aggregate as designated. It 
includes preparing the area, and furnishing, hauling, and placing all necessary 
materials to blend with the adjacent road cross-section. This work would 
generally be accomplished with a dump truck, motor grader, and a small roller. 
BMPs 2-22 and 2-23 will be applied during spot surfacing. (813) 
4. Asphalt pavement patching - This work consists of patching potholes, skin 
patching of asphalt surfaces, and patching asphalt berms. Generally, this work 
will be accomplished using a grader, dump truck, small paver, and small roller. A 
backhoe will be used if the damaged area requires digging out. BMPs 2-22 and 2- 
23 will be implemented with this activity. (814) 
5. Paved surface cleaning - This work consists of removing loose material from a 
paved traveled way, including bridge decks and paved shoulders. Use of 
hydraulic flushing will not be permitted within a horizontal distance of 200 feet of 
a live stream, unless approved by the government. Other cleaning should be 
accomplished using power broom or blowers, truck with rock blade, and grader. 
BMPs 2-11, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, and 2-23 will be implemented during this activity. 
(815) 
6. Surface treatment - This work consists of treating the surface of asphalt concrete 
or chip seal-surfaced roads with a seal coat, a chip seal, or an asphalt concrete 
overlay. The purpose of this work is to rejuvenate the road surface, seal hairline 
cracks, or to replace a worn surface that has become unsafe. Equipment that may 
be used include power brooms, dump trucks, paving machines, chip spreaders, 
and oil distributor trucks. Surface treatment work is performed at the rate of 4 to 
8 MPH. BMPs 2-11, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, and 2-23 will be implemented during this 
activity. 
7. Maintenance of unpaved shoulders - This work consists of reshaping unpaved 
shoulders adjacent to a paved traveled way to their original configuration. This 
work would generally be accomplished with a motor grader with attachments. 
There will be no sidecasting anywhere that there is likelihood that the sidecast 
material will reach a channel. BMPs 2-7, 2-11, and 2-19 will be applied as part of 
this activity. (816) 
8. Asphalt crack cleaning and repairing - This work consists of cleaning and filling 
cracks in existing asphaltic concrete (AC) surfaces that are 1/4 inch or wider. 
Cleaning is usually accomplished with compressed air, and the AC is applied 
using a propane-heated double-boiler unit with a wand attachment. BMPs 2-22 
and 2-23 will be implemented with this action. (818) 
9. Ditch maintenance - This work consists of removing rock, wood, soil, and other 
materials and re-shaping all types of drainage ditches to provide a waterway 
which is unobstructed. During the operation, care shall be taken to retain existing 
low growing vegetative cover in the ditches. This work would generally be 
accomplished with a motor grader and/or backhoe. BMPs 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-19, 
and 2-22 apply to this action. (831) 
10. Remove and end haul materials - This work consists of loading, hauling, and 
placing slide debris or excess materials (such as rock, soil, and vegetation) to 
designated disposal sites. This work would normally be accomplished with a 
wheel loader and dump truck when excess materials are hauled to a disposal site. 
If materials are used to fill slumps in the road compaction will be required. 
Generally a wheel loader, dump truck, compacter, motor grader, and backhoe 
would be used. BMPs 2-3, 2-7, 2-11, 2-19, and 2-22 will be applied with this 
activity. (832) 
11. Culvert replacement - This work includes removal of existing culverts, bed 
preparation, installation and backfill of new culverts of the size and length 
specified as part of routine road maintenance. Excavation shall be at least as wide 
as three pipe diameters. The culvert shall be installed to maintain auniform flow 
line from inlet to outlet channel. Culverts up to 48-inch diameter may be 
replaced. Culverts with cover exceeding 4 feet or at locations requiring 
dewatering shall not replaced under the maintenance contract and will require a 
separate BA/BE. Work would generally be accomplished with a backhoe, tractor, 
and compactor. BMPs 2-2, 2-3, 2-10, 2-14, 2-17 and 2-22 will apply to this 
activity. (833) 
12. Drainage structure maintenance - This work consists of cleaning and 
reconditioning culverts and other drainage structures such as catch basins, inlet 
and outlet channels, and ditch line transition areas. This is usually accomplished 
by hand, or in extreme cases, with a backhoe. Work does not include cleaning 
totally plugged culverts or replacing all or part of the drainage structure (See #11. 
Culvert Replacement). Hydraulic flushing of drainage structures is not a standard 
practice of this activity, and will only be designated by FS when all potential 
impacts are addressed and minimized. BMPs 2-7, 2-11, 2-19, and 2-22 are a part 
of this activity and will be implemented. (834) 
13. Roadway drainage maintenance - This work consists of providing drainage on 
roads that have been physically closed to traffic. At completion of drainage, work 
the road will not necessarily be passable to vehicles. BMPs 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2- 
11, 2-19, and 2-22 will be applied with this activity. (835) 
14. Drainage dip maintenance - This work consists of maintenance of existing 
drainage dips, including rolling dips on native, aggregate, and paved roads, and 
maintenance of special outlet structures to provide for a smooth flow of water 
from the traveled way. Generally, this work would be accomplished with a motor 
grader with attachments. BMPs 2-2, 2-4, 2-7, 2-11, 2-19, and 2-22 will be 
implemented with drainage dip maintenance. (837) 
15. Vegetation establishment - This work consists of applying seed, fertilizer, and 
mulch, and planting roadways and disposal areas that have been disturbed by 
maintenance activities. This work would usually be accomplished by hand. 
BMPs 2-2, 2-4, and 2-22 will be implemented. 
16. Cutting roadway vegetation (brushing)- This work consists of cutting all 
vegetation, including trees, less than 6" in diameter at six inches above the ground 
in order to improve sight distance and provide overhead clearance. This work 
would be performed by hand using chainsaws or with a mechanical brush cutter. 
The objective is to manage roadside vegetation over time to maintain slope 
stability through vegetation cover while providing for sight distance and drainage 
needs. All of the work would occur within the road prism. BMPs 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2- 
11, 2-19 and 2-22 will be applied with this action. 
17. Logging out - This work consists of ordered removal of fallen trees and snags that 
encroach into the roadway and within 4 feet of the roadbed (right-of-way for berm 
and road maintenance practices). This work is intended to open roads closed by 
minor windstorm debris or other natural occurrences, and pertains to 
unmerchantable material. Some chainsaw and mechanical work may be 
necessary. Logging out that occurs on Level 2 roads to gain access will meet the 
short duration criteria specified above at the beginning of the project list. BMPs 
2-3, 2-19, and 2-22 will be applied with logging out actions. 
18. Hazard removal and cleanup - This work consists of removing and disposing of 
marked hazards such as trees, rocks, stumps and fallen trees that will create traffic 
safety problems. Woody debris and slash in excess of 1 foot in length or 3 inches 
in diameter shall not remain in ditches. All work will be within the road prism. 
Removal of standing roadside hazard trees is addressed in the Forest-wide Hazard 
Tree Removal Biological Assessment/Evaluation (March 5, 1997), and such 
projects may be tiered to that document. BMPs 2-3, 2-7,2-11, 2-19, and 2-22 will 
be implemented with this activity. (854) 
19. Maintenance of cattle guards - This work consists of cleaning and restoring cattle 
guards and appurtenances. Work would normally be accomplished by hand, 
although a backhoe may be used to raise the deck grid. BMPs 2-2, 2-3, and 2-22 
will be implemented. (861) 
20. Sign maintenance - This work consists of cleaning, replacing, and reconditioning 
signs, posts, and markers. Forest Service personnel would normally accomplish 
this work by hand. BMPs 2-3 and 2-22 will apply here. 
APPENDIX B: Best Management Practices Specific to Road 
Maintenance 
2-4 Stabilization of Road Slopes and Spoil Disposal Areas 
Objective: To prevent unacceptable erosion from exposed cut slopes, fill slopes, and spoil 
disposal areas. 
2-5 Road Slope Stabilization 
Objective: To reduce sedimentation by minimizing erosion from road slopes, and 
minimizing the chance for slope failure along roads. 
2-6 Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage from Cut and Fill Slopes 
Objective: To minimize the possibilities of cut or fill slope failure and subsequent 
production of sediment. 
2-7 Control of Road Drainage 
Objective: To minimize the erosive effects of water concentrated by road drainage 
features. To disperse runoff from disturbances within the road clearing limits; to lessen 
the sediment load from roaded areas; and to minimize erosion of the road prism by runoff 
from road surfaces and from uphill areas. 
2-11 Control of Sidecast Material 
Objective: To minimize sediment production originating from sidecast material during 
construction or maintenance. 
2-12 Servicing and Refueling of Equipment 
Objective: To prevent pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, bitumens, sewage, wash water, 
and other harmful materials from being discharged into, or near rivers, streams and 
impoundments, or into natural or man-made channels. 
2-17 Bridge and Culvert Installation 
Objective: To minimize sedimentation and turbidity resulting from excavation for inchannel 
structures. 
2-18 Regulation of Streamside Gravel Borrow Areas 
Objective: To limit channel disturbances and sediment production associated with gravel 
source development. 
2-19 Disposal of Right-of-Way and Roadside Debris 
Objective: To ensure that debris generated during road construction and maintenance is 
kept out of streams and to prevent slash and other debris from subsequently obstructing 
channels. To ensure debris dams are not formed which obstruct fish passage, or could 
result in downstream damage from high water flow surges after dam failure. 
2-22 Maintenance of Roads 
Objective: To maintain roads in a manner that provides for water quality protection by 
minimizing rutting, failures, sidecasting, and blockage of drainage facilities (all of which 
can cause sedimentation and erosion). 
2-23 Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials 
Objective: To minimize the erosion of road surface materials and consequently reduce the 
likelihood of sediment production from those areas. APPENDIX C: Maps of Operational Maintenance Level 3, 4, 
and 5 Roads by District ˙Map]: Six Rivers National Forest, Smith River National Recreation Area - February 2003
˙Map]: Six Rivers National Forest, Orleans and Ukonom Ranger Districts  - February 2003 
˙Map]: Six Rivers National Forest, Lower Trinity Ranger District  - February 2003
˙Map]: Six Rivers National Forest, Mad River Ranger District  - February 2003
APPENDIX D: Seventy-one Questions Relating to Roads 
Analysis 
The document Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest 
Transportation System (USDA Forest Service 1999) developed 71 questions that might 
be used for roads analysis for both the existing or potential road system. Not all the 
questions are relevant at all levels of roads analysis and many are only appropriate at a 
regional, forest, or watershed level. The questions were designed to assist analysis teams 
in developing criteria and approaches appropriate to the analysis area. The guideline 
document also provides direction and suggestions about the best scale at which each 
question could be answered. Below is the full list of questions and the scale at which 
they should be answered. 
Table D 1 Seventy-one Questions Relating to Roads Analysis 
NO. QUESTION AND ISSUE AREA 
LEVEL FOR 
QUESTION 
CONSIDERATION 
Ecosystem Functions and Processes (EF) 
EF(1) What ecological attributes, particularly those unique to 
the region, would be affected by roading of currently 
unroaded areas? 
Watershed 
EF(2) To what degree do the presence, type, and location of 
roads increase the introduction and spread of exotic plant 
and animal species, insects, diseases, and parasites? 
What are the potential effects of such introductions to 
plant and animal species and ecosystem function in the 
area? 
Watershed 
EF(3) To what degree does the presence, type, and location of 
roads contribute to the control of insects, diseases, and 
parasites? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
EF(4) How does the road system affect ecological disturbance 
regimes in the area? 
Watershed 
EF(5) What are the adverse effects of noise caused by 
developing, using, and maintaining roads? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
Aquatic, Riparian Zone, and Water Quality (AQ) 
AQ(1) How and where does the road system modify the surface 
and subsurface hydrology of the area? 
Watershed 
AQ(2) How and where does the road system generate surface 
erosion? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
AQ(3) How and where does the road system affect mass 
wasting? 
Watershed 
AQ(4) How and where do road-stream crossings influence local 
stream channels and water quality? 
Watershed AQ(5) How and where does the road system create potential for 
pollutants, such as chemical spills, oils, de-icing salts, or 
herbicides, to enter surface waters? 
Forest after 
Watershed level data 
is collected 
AQ(6) How and where is the road system “hydrologically 
connected” to the stream system? How do the 
connections affect water quality and quantity (such as, 
the delivery of sediments and chemicals, thermal 
increases, elevated peak flows)? 
Watershed 
AQ(7) What downstream beneficial uses of water exist in the 
area? What changes in uses and demand are expected 
over time? How are they affected or put at risk by road 
derived pollutants? 
Watershed 
AQ(8) How and where does the road system affect wetlands? Watershed 
AQ(9) How does the road system alter physical channel 
dynamics, including isolation of floodplains; constraints 
on channel migration; and the movement of large wood, 
fine organic matter, and sediment? 
Watershed 
AQ(10) How and where does the road system restrict the 
migration and movement of aquatic organisms? What 
aquatic species are affected and to what extent? 
Watershed and 
Project 
AQ(11) How does the road system affect shading, litter fall, and 
riparian plant communities? 
Watershed 
AQ(12) How and where does the road system contribute to 
fishing, poaching, or direct habitat loss for at-risk aquatic 
species? 
Watershed 
AQ(13) How and where does the road system facilitate the 
introduction of non-native aquatic species? 
Watershed 
AQ(14) To what extent does the road system overlap with areas 
of exceptionally high aquatic diversity or productivity, or 
areas containing rare or unique aquatic species or species 
of interest? 
Watershed 
Terrestrial Wildlife (TW) 
TW(1) What are the direct effects of the road system on 
terrestrial species habitat? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
TW(2) How does the road system facilitate human activities that 
affect habitat? 
Watershed 
TW(3) How does the road system affect legal and illegal human 
activities (including trapping, hunting, poaching, 
harassment, road kill, or illegal kill levels)? What are the 
effects on wildlife species? 
Watershed 
TW(4) How does the road system directly affect unique 
communities or special features in the area? 
Watershed 
Economics (EC) EC(1) How does the road system affect the agency’s direct 
costs and revenues? What, if any, changes in the road 
system will increase net revenue to the agency by 
reducing cost, increasing revenue, or both? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
EC(2) How does the road system affect the priced and nonpriced 
consequences included in economic efficiency 
analysis used to assess net benefits to society? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
EC(3) How does the road system affect the distribution of 
benefits and costs among affected people? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
Commodity Production 
Timber Management (TM) 
TM(1) How does road spacing and location affect logging 
system feasibility? 
Watershed 
TM(2) How does the road system affect managing the suitable 
timber base and other lands? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
TM(3) How does the road system affect access to timber stands 
needing silvicultural treatment? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
Minerals Management (MM) 
MM(1) How does the road system affect access to locatable, 
leasable, and salable minerals? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
Range Management (RM) 
RM(1) How does the road system affect access to range 
allotments? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
Water Production (WP) 
WP(1) How does the road system affect access, constructing, 
maintaining, monitoring, and operating water diversions, 
impoundments, and distribution canals or pipes? 
Watershed 
WP(2) How does road development and use affect water quality 
in municipal watersheds? 
Watershed 
WP(3) How does the road system affect access to hydroelectric 
power generation? 
Watershed 
Special Forest Products (SP) 
SP(1) How does the road system affect access for collecting 
special forest products? 
Watershed 
Special-Use Permits (SU) 
SU(1) How does the road system affect managing special-use 
permit sites (concessionaires, communications sites, 
utility corridors, and so on)? 
Watershed General Public Transportation (GT) 
GT(1) How does the road system connect to public roads and 
provide primary access to communities? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
GT(2) How does the road system connect large blocks of land 
in other ownership to public roads (ad hoc communities, 
subdivisions, inholdings, and so on)? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
GT(3) How does the road system affect managing roads with 
shared ownership or with limited jurisdiction (RS 2477, 
cost-share, prescriptive rights, FLPMA easements, FRTA 
easements, DOT easements)? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
GT(4) How does the road system address the safety of road 
users? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
Administrative Use (AU) 
AU(1) How does the road system affect access needed for 
research, inventory, and monitoring? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
AU(2) How does the road system affect investigative or 
enforcement activities? 
Watershed 
Protection (PT) 
PT(1) How does the road system affect fuels management? Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
PT(2) How does the road system affect the capacity of the 
Forest Service and cooperators to suppress wildfires? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
PT(3) How does the road system affect risk to firefighters and 
to public safety? 
Forest for OML3-5 
Watershed for 1,2 
and Unclassifieds 
PT(4) How does the road system contribute to airborne dust 
emissions resulting in reduced visibility and human 
health concerns? 
Watershed 
Recreation 
Unroaded Recreation (UR) 
UR(1) Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply 
or excess demand for unroaded recreation opportunities? 
Forest UR(2) Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, 
decommissioning of existing roads, or changing the 
maintenance of existing roads causing substantial 
changes in the quantity, quality, or type of unroaded 
recreation opportunities? 
Forest 
UR(3) What are the adverse effects of noise and other 
disturbances caused by developing, using, and 
maintaining roads, on the quantity, quality, and type of 
unroaded recreation opportunities? 
Forest 
UR(4) Who participates in unroaded recreation in the areas 
affected by constructing, maintaining, and 
decommissioning roads? 
Forest 
UR(5) What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how 
strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities 
and locations available? 
Forest 
Road-Related Recreation (RR) 
RR(1) Is there now or will there be in the future excess supply 
or excess demand for roaded recreation opportunities? 
Forest for general 
access and 
Watershed for site 
specific access 
RR(2) Is developing new roads into unroaded areas, 
decommissioning of existing roads, or changing 
maintenance of existing roads causing substantial 
changes in the quantity, quality, or type of roaded 
recreation opportunities? 
Forest for general 
access and 
Watershed for site 
specific access 
RR(3) What are the adverse effects of noise and other 
disturbances caused by constructing, using, and 
maintaining roads on the quantity, quality, or type of 
roaded recreation opportunities? 
Forest for general 
access and 
Watershed for site 
specific access 
RR(4) Who participates in roaded recreation in the areas 
affected by road constructing, changes in road 
maintenance, or road decommissioning? 
Forest for general 
access and 
Watershed for site 
specific access 
RR(5) What are these participants’ attachments to the area, how 
strong are their feelings, and are alternative opportunities 
and locations available? 
Forest for general 
access and 
Watershed for site 
specific access 
Passive-Use Value (PV) 
PV(1) Do areas planned for road construction, closure, or 
decommissioning have unique physical or biological 
characteristics, such as unique natural features and 
threatened or endangered species? 
Regional and 
Forest PV(2) Do areas planned for road construction, closure, or 
decommissioning have unique cultural, traditional, 
symbolic, sacred, spiritual, or religious significance? 
Regional and 
Forest 
PV(3) What, if any, groups of people (ethnic groups, 
subcultures, and so on) hold cultural, symbolic, spiritual, 
sacred, traditional, or religious values for areas planned 
for road entry or road closure? 
Regional and 
Forest 
PV(4) Will constructing, closing, or decommissioning roads 
substantially affect passive-use value? 
Regional and 
Forest 
Social Issues (SI) 
SI(1) What are people’s perceived needs and values for roads? 
How does road management affect people’s dependence 
on, need for, and desire for roads? 
Forest 
SI(2) What are people’s perceived needs and values for 
access? How does road management affect people’s 
dependence on, need for, and desire for access? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
SI(3) How does the road system affect access to 
paleontological, archaeological, and historical sites? 
Forest 
SI(4) How does the road system affect cultural and traditional 
uses (such as plant gathering, and access to traditional 
and cultural sites) and American Indian treaty rights? 
Forest and 
Watershed 
SI(5) How are roads that constitute historic sites affected by 
road management? 
Watershed 
SI(6) How is community social and economic health affected 
by road management (for example, lifestyles, businesses, 
tourism industry, infrastructure maintenance)? 
Forest and 
Community 
SI(7) What is the perceived social and economic dependency 
of a community on an unroaded area versus the value of 
that unroaded area for its intrinsic existence and 
symbolic values? 
Forest 
SI(8) How does road management affect wilderness attributes, 
including natural integrity, natural appearance, 
opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive 
recreation? 
Forest 
SI(9) What are traditional uses of animal and plant species in 
the area of analysis? 
Watershed 
SI(10) How does road management affect people’s sense of 
place? 
Forest 
Civil Rights and Environmental Justice (CR) 
CR(1) How does the road system, or its management, affect 
certain groups of people (minority, ethnic, cultural, 
racial, disabled, and low-income groups)? 
Forest APPENDIX E: Criteria used to determine hazard ratings for 
the watershed condition assessment 
Table E 1 Road Hazard Potential Ratings 
Rating Definition 
High 
Hazard 
The density and distribution of roads within the watershed indicate there is a 
high probability that the hydrologic regime (ie., timing, magnitude, duration, 
and spatial distribution of runoff flows) is substantially altered. Roads 
within the watershed exhibit at least 3 of the following characteristics: (a) 
densities >0.25 miles/square mile on slope classes >45%, (b) densities >0.5 
miles/square mile in middle and lower slope positions, (c) densities > 0.25 
mile/square mile within 100 meters of stream channel (hydrologically 
connected), (d) > 1 stream crossing/mile of road. 
Moderate 
Hazard 
The density and distribution of roads within the watershed indicate there is a 
moderate probability that the hydrologic regime is substantially altered. 
Roads within the watershed exhibit 1 - 2 of the following characteristics: (a) 
densities >0.25 miles/square mile on slope classes >45%, (b) densities >0.5 
miles/square mile in middle and lower slope positions, (c) densities > 0.25 
mile/square mile within 100 meters of stream channel (hydrologically 
connected), (d) > 1 stream crossing/mile of road. 
Low Hazard 
The density and distribution of roads within the watershed indicate the 
hydrologic regime is substantially intact and unaltered. Roads within the 
watershed exhibit the following characteristics: (a) densities <0.25 
miles/square mile on slope classes >45%, (b) densities <0.5 miles/square 
mile in middle and lower slope positions, (c) densities < 0.25 mile/square 
mile within 100 meters of stream channel (hydrologically connected), (d) 
(watershed average) < 1 stream crossing/mile of road. 
Definitions: 
Hydrologically Connected: Any road segment that, during a 'design' runoff event, has a 
continuous surface flowpath between any part of the road prism and a natural stream 
channel (any declivity in the land that exhibits a defined channel and evidence of scour 
and deposition) is a hydrologically connected road segment. This process uses proximity 
of roads to streams as a surrogate for identifying hydrologically connected roads to 
streams. 
Hydrologic Regime: The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak , 
high, and low flow runoff within a watershed. 
Table E 2 Surface Erosion Ratings 
Rating Definition 
High 
Hazard 
Significant alteration of the natural sediment regime associated with surface 
erosion is likely or evident. Conditions are characterized by the presence of 
higher road densities and associated disturbance to soil and vegetation on 
soils highly sensitive to accelerated erosion (high - very high Erosion Hazard 
Ratings). 
Moderate 
Hazard 
Moderate alteration of the natural sediment regime associated with surface 
erosion is likely or evident. Overall disturbance is variable, with low to 
moderate road densities and associated disturbance to soil and vegetation on 
soils highly sensitive to accelerated erosion (high - very high Erosion Hazard 
Ratings). 
Low Hazard 
Minor or no alteration of the natural sediment regime associated with surface 
erosion is likely or evident. Overall disturbance is low and are characterized 
by the presence of low road densities and associated disturbance to soil and 
vegetation on soils highly sensitive to accelerated erosion (high - very high 
Erosion Hazard Ratings). 
Definition: 
Sediment Regime: The timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, 
and transport within a watershed. 
Table E 3 Mass Wasting Ratings 
Rating Definition 
High 
Hazard 
Watersheds characterized by the presence of a large number of roads on 
unstable geologic types. This results in a situation where it is very likely that 
the timing, geographic distribution, and magnitude (total volume) of natural 
land sliding has been significantly altered. 
Moderate 
Hazard 
Watersheds characterized by the presence of a moderate number of roads on 
unstable geologic types. This results in a situation where there is a moderate 
risk that the timing, geographic distribution, and magnitude (total volume) of 
natural land sliding has been significantly altered. 
Low 
Hazard 
Watersheds characterized by the presence of very few, if any, roads on 
unstable geologic types. This results in a situation where the natural 
sediment regime is likely to be intact, and it is very unlikely that roads have, 
or will, significantly modify the timing, geographic distribution, and 
magnitude (total volume) of natural land sliding in the watershed. 
APPENDIX F: Noxious Weed Locations Six Rivers National 
Forest 
Roads serve as a vector for weeds and the risk of introduction and spread is high 
regardless of whether the road segment is currently infected. Known infestations are 
shown below: 
Table F 1 Noxious Weed Locations: Smith River NRA 
Road # Known Noxious Weed Occurrences 
15N39 french broom 
17N04 scotch broom 
17N08 scotch broom, french broom 
17N49 scotch broom, french broom 
18N01 scotch broom, french broom 
18N02 scotch broom, french broom 
18N07 scotch broom 
17N05 scotch broom, french broom, star thistle 
17N53 scotch broom, french broom 
17N62 french broom 
17N62A french broom 
17N62B french broom 
17N70 scotch broom, french broom 
15N39 french broom 
17N04 scotch broom 
17N08 scotch broom, french broom 
17N49 scotch broom, french broom 
18N01 scotch broom, french broom 
18N02 scotch broom, french broom 
18N07 scotch broom, meadow knapweed 
17N05 scotch broom, french broom, star thistle 
17N53 scotch broom, french broom 
17N62 french broom 
17N62A french broom 
17N62B french broom 
Table F 2 Noxious Weed Locations: Orleans/Ukonom Ranger District 
Road # Known Noxious Weed Occurrences 
10N12 scotch broom; approx. 2 mi. serpentine 
10N28 star thistle, dyer's woad, scotch broom 
10N70 star thistle and dyer's woad at beginning 
10N72 star thistle and dyer's woad at beginning 
10N74 star thistle and dyer's woad at beginning 
10N75 star thistle and dyer's woad at beginning 11N11 star thistle at beginning 
11N56 star thistle, dyer's woad, scotch broom at beginning 
11N62 star thistle, dyer's woad, scotch broom at beginning 
11N72 star thistle, dyer's woad, spotted knapweed at beginning 
11N76 star thistle and dyer's woad 
12N12 star thistle, scotch broom 
12N20 weed - star thistle at beginning; approx. 1/2 mi. serpentine 
Table F 3 Noxious Weed Locations: Lower Trinity Ranger District 
Road # Known Noxious Weed Occurrences 
04N13 star thistle at intersection 
04N36 star thistle at intersection 
04N36 star thistle at intersection 
05N01 star thistle at intersection 
06N06 star thistle approx. 0.2 mi. 
06N10 black locust 
06N12 star thistle approx. 1.5 mi. 
06N14 star thistle at intersection 
06N19 star thistle approx. 1.5 mi. 
06N20 star thistle at intersection 
06N53 star thistle at intersection 
06N70 star thistle 
07N02 scotch broom 1 mi., star thistle 0.25 mi. 
07N04 scotch broom 0.25 mi., star thistle 0.25 mi., black locust 0.25 mi. 
07N26 star thistle at intersection. 
07N30 star thistle approx. 0.2 mi. 
08N01 scotch broom 0.1 mi. 
08N03 star thistle at intersection 
06N01 star thistle 
06N08 scotch broom 0.5 mi., star thistle 3.0 mi. 
07N02 scotch broom 0.5 mi., star thistle 0.1 mi. 
5N22 star thistle 
Table F 4 Noxious Weed Locations: Mad River Ranger District 
Road # Known Noxious Weed Occurrences 
01N03 medusa head 
01N08 medusa head 
01N15 star thistle at beginning 
01N30 star thistle at beginning 
01S06 star thistle at beginning and medusa head 
02N05 star thistle at beginning and medusa head 
02N12 star thistle at beginning, spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed 02S05 star thistle and medusa head 
02S08 star thistle 
02S12 star thistle and scotch broom at beginning 
03S12 star thistle at beginning 
03S13 star thistle 
04S15 star thistle 
27N12 medusa head 
27N33 medusa head 
01N70 star thistle at beginning 
01S50 star thistle at beginning 
01S51 star thistle at beginning 
01S52 star thistle at beginning 
06N01 star thistle 
27N02 medusa head 
29N30 star thistle at beginning APPENDIX G: General Road Assessment Evaluation Criteria 
Interdisciplinary teams on each Ranger District evaluated each OML 3, 4, and 5 road for 
administrative need and potential resource risk, using existing GIS layers and resourcespecific 
databases. Each resource evaluated the roads based on first these general criteria 
below and then using the more specific criteria found in Chapter V. 
Purpose: 
These evaluation criteria can be used to assess administrative and public access and travel 
needs for future management of the forest transportation systems, as well as assess 
resource protection concerns. They are to be used in part or in their entirety as a starting 
point to involving external and internal audiences in the Roads Analysis Process and 
incorporating their issues and concerns into that process. FSM 7712.13b (1) provides 
specifics on what should be considered at this scale. 
Administrative Need 
• Is this road critical or important for fire management? 
• Is this road needed for timber management activities? (Sale planning, logging, 
administration) 
• Does this road provide access for range permittee needs? 
• Is this road needed to provide access for Special Uses? 
• Is this road needed for other administrative purposes (monitoring site, habitat 
improvement area etc)? 
• Does the road or other factors pose a safety problem to users? (List safety 
problems) 
• Will the regulation of changes in the accessibility of this road pose enforcement 
problems? 
Public Access Need 
• Does or would this road serve developed recreation? 
• Does or would this road serve dispersed recreation? 
• Does this road provide access for woodcutting opportunities? 
• Are there any social issues potentially affected such as socioeconomic impacts 
and accessibility for handicapped persons. 
• Does this road provide access for tribal and other users? (List other users and 
reason for use, i.e. gathering materials for basket weaving) 
Administrative and Public Access Need 
• Does this road connect with other County or State roads? 
• Is this a "cost share" road? 
• Does the road provide access to private land? 
Resource Protection Concerns • Are there any natural resources that need to be protected? (POC, wildlife, 
fisheries, water quality – landslide risks, surface erosion) 
• Are there any chronic maintenance problems that may need more extensive 
repair? 
APPENDIX H: Priorities for Recommendations and 
Maintenance Needs 
Priorities were developed by District Interdisciplinary teams based on the information 
gathered during this analysis process on road condition and administrative need. 
These road management recommendations will be used as a basis for proposed actions 
and disclosed in future appropriate NEPA documents, and will be completed as funding 
allows. 
Smith River National Recreation Area (and Gasquet District) 
Table H 1 Recommended Project (in order of priority) 
No. Road No. Description of work and comments / RECOMMENDATIONS 
1 16N02 Reconstruct intersection with Ship Mountain lookout road (16N02A). 
2 18N01 Shelly Creek Campground road. The upper end along the creek is 
sloughing off and needs repair. Need to close upper end to vehicle 
traffic. 
3 17N21 Need to block access to the meadows to prevent damage by off-road 
vehicles. Resurface road for water hole access for fire. 
4 15N36 Improve access to Muslatt Lake as water source for fire. 
5 18N08 Resurface the road for water access for fire. 
6 16N02 Add finer gravel along Doe Flat road to reduce the number of flat tires. 
7 None Add Madrona Camp Road to System as OML 3 
8 None Add Howard Griffin Bridge Road to System as OML 3 
9 None Add Grassy Flat Old Bridge Road to System as OML 3 
10 None Add 18-Mile Creek Road to System as OML 3 
11 14N82 Yurok Experimental Forest; gated and has low administrative need. 
Change maintenance level from L3 to L2 
12 18N02 County road #316, drop number from FS system (needs resurfacing). 
Table H 2 Recommended Maintenance (in order of priority) 
No. Road No. Description of work and comments / RECOMMENDATIONS 
1 16N02 Ship Mountain Road; Chip seal needs repatching; fix ruts and ditches 
2 15N36 Access to Muslatt Lake; fix steep grade and repair slump. Needs 
blading or resurfacing 
3 15N39 Access to South Kelsey trail. Needs resurfacing or blading (rutted 
with a lot of potholes) 
4 15N34 Access to Gunbarrel trail. Needs brushing and slide removal 
5 16N03 Fox Ridge road; drainage problems, needs road reshaping and 
additional culvert/cross drains in the area approximately ˝ miles from 
intersection with 16N02 
6 17N22 Blading, crossings need cleaning 
7 17N08 Little Jones Creek road; drainage problems, needs berms and inboard ditches removed; blading 
8 17N49 Gasquet Mountain road; too steep in some areas, soft spots in others 
causing road damage 
9 15N59 Big Flat campground- fix potholes 
10 17N04 Tie road; resurface 
11 17N07 Coon Mountain road; resurface 
12 15N01 Go Road; clean/replace culverts, repair cracked surface, clear rocks 
13 17N27 Blading 
14 18N07 Knopki Creek road; routine maintenance 
15 14N01 Red Mountain road; brushing 
16 17N21 Resurface 
Table H 3 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System 
Road 
Number 
Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Description of road portion to be changed 
14N82 3 2 Entire Road 
18N01 3 2 Entire Road 
Assign N/A 3 Paved river access at Madrona Camp 
Assign N/A 3 Paved river access at Howard Griffin Bridge 
Assign N/A 3 Paved river access at 18 Mile Creek Bridge 
Assign N/A 3 Paved river access at Old Grassy Flat Road 
Bridge 
Lower Trinity Ranger District 
Table H 4 Recommendations for Projects and Maintenance (in order of priority) 
No. Road No. Description of work and comments / RECOMMENDATIONS 
1 7N02 Repair road surface between the county road and the 8N03 turn off to 
Horse Linto Campground 
2 7N02 Repair road surface from where it ascends towards Ziegler Point from 
the south 
3 8N03 Blade the road (or surface if funding allows) from beginning to the 
Horse Linto Campground 
4 7N02 Evaluate intersection for possible reconstruction at the junction of 
8N03 and 7N02 
5 7N04 Evaluate intersection for possible reconstruction at the junction of 
7N04 and 6N10 
Table H 5 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System 
Road 
Number 
Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Description of road portion to be changed 
6N01 2 3 Portion that runs along the northeast side of 
Pilot Creek watershed Rt. 6 2 3 Change all locations that are currently shown 
as OML2 including the “Million Dollar 
Bridge” 
6N06 3 2 From MP 14.6 to end 
6N20 3 2 From Oak Knob to end 
6N21 2 3 First portion serving East Fork Campground 
8N03 3 2 Portion coming out of Hoopa to Tish Tang 
Trailhead 
4N31 3 4 From intersection with 4N36 to end 
7N10 3 2 
7N51 Remove Remove road from database – Hoopa Valley 
Reservation Road 
10N02spur N/A 2 Spur that accesses Bear Hole Trailhead 
7N31 3 2 Entire Road 
9N04 2 3 Portion between Hoopa boundary and 10N02 
10N02 3 2 From Bear Hole Trailhead to end of road 
Mad River Ranger District 
Table H 6 Recommendations for Projects and Maintenance (in order of priority) 
No. Road No. Description of work and comments / RECOMMENDATIONS 
1 6N01 Repair and replace road signs 
2 29N30 Repair and replace road signs 
3 27N02 Repair and replace road signs 
4 1S07 Repair and replace road signs 
5 1S06 Replace 54" x 94’ failing culvert at MP 1.0 
6 1S11 Spot rock and blade 
7 1S06 Inventory and replace worn out culverts (approx 30 culverts with large 
fills) 
8 1N30 Repair or remove cattle guard; repair cracks in pavement; possible 
culvert replacement 
9 1N08 Inventory and replace worn out culverts (approx 30 culverts with large 
fills) 
10 2S08 Repair road slump at MP 6.49 
11 2S12 Needs resurfacing, rock source at MP 1.7 needs to be crushed 
12 27N02 Repair/replace pavement as needed 
13 3S15 Needs resurfacing; rock source at MP 2.4 
14 1N70 Repair or repave after waterline upgrade is complete 
15 6N01 Asphalt seal from 4N12 to HWY 36 
16 29N30 Remove 150 cubic yards of rock ravel 
17 27N02 Remove 5000+ yards of rock ravel; area past Blue Jay Mine is a good 
rock source 
18 6N01 Fog stripe on fill side of road 19 2N14 Rock section of road from MP 3.0 to terminus at MP 5.43 
Table H 7 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System 
Road 
Number 
Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Description of road portion to be changed 
1N15 3 2 From MP 1.26 to end 
1N03 3 2 From MP 6.4 to end 
2N14 3 2 From MP 3.0 to end 
27N12 3 2 From junction with 2N13 (~MP 2.6) to end 
2S04 3 2 Entire Road 
2S08 3 2 From MP 6.49 (junction with 1S07) to terminus 
Orleans Ranger District 
Table H 8 Recommended Project (in order of priority) 
No. Road No. Description of work and comments / RECOMMENDATIONS 
1 15N01 Culvert upgrades and other routine maintenance 
2 14N03 Culverts are completely rotted out, culvert upgrades, diversion dips, 
outslope and take out inboard ditches, and other routine maintenance 
3 11N05 Existing asphalt is alligator cracks and needs to be repaved. 12 – 14’ 
wide 
4 12N13 Culvert upgrades, ditch clean out, and other routine maintenance 
5 12N01 ditch cleanup and some culvert upgrades 
6 10N01 Culvert upgrades and rolling dips, patching/paving on bottom 10 miles 
7 13N01 Has existing NEPA, Upgrade 12 culverts, cleanout existing culverts, 
pull ditch line 
8 10N10 Culvert and ditch clean out, rocking, grading and brushing, needs 
some culvert upgrades 
9 10N02 Culvert upgrades, ditch clean out, and rolling dips 
10 10N03 Culvert upgrades 
11 13N18 Rock surface gone and culverts are failing, need culvert upgrades, 
rebuild ditchlines, and other routine maintenance 
12 10N05 Ditch cleanout and some culvert upgrades. Need further discussion in 
future with fire and timber for possible decommissioning. 
13 12N10 Grading and rocking 
14 11N56 Re-rock or pave (not paved now) 
15 10N20 Paving 
16 10N70 Paving 
17 10N28 Seasonal maintenance and riprap to armor right bank for treatment 
facility 
13 13N13 Stormproof and upgrade 
14 13N08 Remove wildlife gate @ mp 0.1 
15 Remove 2 wildlife gates 14N21 
No. Road No. Description of work and comments / RECOMMENDATIONS 
1 15N17 Clean plugged culverts immediately; maintain with improvements for 
drivability, outslope sections, stormproof and/or upgrade; remove 
wildlife gate, existing culverts are aluminum 
2 15N17 Stormproof and/or upgrade (paved) 
3 13N11 Stormproof and/or upgrade 
4 13N11 Remove both wildlife gates, upgrade/stormproof as needed 
5 12N52 Outslope and improve drainage, stormproof and/or upgrade 
6 14N01 Maintain with improvements for drivability, outslope sections; 
stormproof and/or upgrade 
7 13N12 Stormproof and upgrade 
8 13N18 Resurfacing, stormproof and upgrade culverts 
9 Non-Sys. Oak Bottom – upgrade road to meet OML 3 
10 Non-Sys. George Gary – upgrade road to meet OML 3 
11 Non-Sys. Brannon’s Bar – upgrade road to meet OML 3 
12 Non-Sys. Nordheimer – upgrade road to meet OML 3, needs rocking and 
reshaping (possibly partner with Siskiyou County) 
Table H 11 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System 
Current Proposed 
OML 
Description of road portion to be changed 
14N21 3 2 Consider decommissioning after site-specific 
analysis 
13N08 3 2 
Table H 9 Recommended Changes to OML or Roads to be added to System 
Road 
Number 
Current 
OML 
Proposed 
OML 
Description of road portion to be changed 
10N20 2 3 
10N28 2 3 
11N76 2 3 
11N72 2 3 
11N54 2 3 
10N51 4 2 
10N13 3 2 From 10N13A to terminus of 10N13 
10N75 3 2 Consider decommissioning road loop within 
campground (0.5 mile from existing gate) after 
site-specific analysis 
Ukonom Ranger District 
Table H 10 Recommended Project (in order of priority) 12N44 1 3 
11N17 3 4 Oak Bottom Camp Ground - currently paved 
12N01 Remove 
Portion 
Keep first 0.25 miles including the bridge over 
the Salmon River and remove all portions of 
decommissioned road from Road Database 
Non-Sys. Oak 
Bottom 
3 River Access 
Non-Sys. George 
Gary 
3 River Access 
Non-Sys. Brannon’s 
Bar 
3 River Access 
Non-Sys. Nordheimer 3 River Access APPENDIX I: List of Preparers 
Core Team: 
Brenda Devlin-Craig, Team Leader/Wildlife Biologist, Smith River NRA, Six Rivers NF 
Corrine Black, Hydrologist, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Jennie Heberly, Engineer, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Bud Zangger, Forest Engineer, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Julie Ranieri, Public Affairs Officer, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Support Team: 
Ken Wilson, Forest Archaeologist, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Leroy Cyr, Fisheries Biologist, Orleans/Ukonom Ranger District, Six Rivers NF 
Kathy Heffner, Tribal Relations, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Kathy McCovey, Cultural Resources, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
John McRae, Botanist, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Gary Meyer, Road Manager, Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers NF 
Lee Morgan, Fisheries Biologist, Lower Trinity Ranger District, Six Rivers NF 
Mark Smith, Forest Geologist, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Doug Tilden, Road Manager, Orleans/Ukonom Ranger District, Six Rivers NF 
Quentin Youngblood, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Mike McCain, Fisheries Biologist, Smith River NRA, Six Rivers NF 
Ken Wright, Analysist, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Dave Rutherford, Engineer, Supervisors Office, Six Rivers NF 
Mary Kay Vandiver, Smith River NRA, Six Rivers NF APPENDIX J: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 
ACS – Aquatic Conservation Strategy 
Aggregate - crushed rock material, used for road surfacing 
Berm- Native or aggregate material built up adjacent to the traveled roadway. Reasons 
for installation vary and can include surface water control, hazard mitigation (in lieu of 
guardrail) or temporary stockpiling of slide debris. 
Blading- road surfacing activity to improve drivability 
BD – Brush Disposal funds; collections made from timber sales and earmarked for fuel 
treatments in the sale area 
BMP – Best Management Practices 
Brushing- removing brush along side of roadway to improve visibility 
Chip seal- thin layer of hard surface material that includes an emulsified material that 
adheres the material’s particles to each other and the road surface it is place on. 
Crossdrains- drainage structure (culvert) located outside of a stream channel 
Cultural use- access to areas with significant prehistorical, historical, or contemporary 
Native American use 
Cutbank- bank on uphill side of road that is a result of cutting into the hillside to create a 
road surface 
Decommissioning – permanently closing a road to vehicular use and left in a 
hydrologically maintenance free condition. Decommissioning will include activities such 
as waterbarring, outsloping, decompaction of road surface, removal of drainage 
structures, and road barricades as needed. 
Dispersed recreation- camping in areas with little or no facilities 
Diversion dips- (also drivable dips) constructed ditches or low spots across the road that 
allow water to flow across the road during high flow events or in the event that the 
culvert was plugged to allow the water to be diverted back into the channel. 
Diversion potential- the potential for water to be diverted away from drainage structures, 
causing erosion of road surface 
Fill- material brought to the site or moved within the site to build up a road surface. 
FS (or USFS) – United States Forest Service 
FSM – Forest Service Manual 
FSH – Forest Service Handbook 
Grading- road surfacing activity to improve drivability 
Headwall area- usually at the top of swales and small channels where the natural 
upslope progression of a channel ends at a steep vertical face 
HWY - highway 
Inboard ditches- drainage ditches located on the uphill side of the road 
KV – Knudsen-Vandenburg Act funds; collections made from timber sales and 
earmarked for sale area improvement 
LRMP – Land and Resource Management Plan 
LSR- Late Successional Reserve; land allocation designated for protections of species 
dependent on older-aged forests 
Mass Wasting – large land area erosion and failures 
Matrix- land allocation designated for timber production 
Moderate Speed – 25 miles per hour 
MOU - Memorandum of Understanding, a formal agreement between entities 
MP- milepost 
Mtce - maintenance 
NEPA- National Environmental Policy Act; a decision making process required before 
projects can be implemented 
NFS – National Forest System 
OHV- off highway vehicles, designed to travel over rough terrain 
OML- Operational Maintenance Level; the type of maintenance required for specific 
road conditions. Levels are from 1-5, with 5 being the highest amount of maintenance 
required. 
Outslope – roads that are sloped towards the downhill side of the roadway to better 
match the natural drainage patterns and minimize the potential for diversion. 
POC - Port Orford cedar 
PCT – Precommercial thinning; thinning in plantations to increase growth 
Riprap – large rock (generally 8” diameter or larger) used to stabilize slopes or slow 
down the movement of water 
Road prism – cross section of roadway including cut or fill slopes, subgrade, subbase, 
surfacing, ditches, and other drainage structures 
Rocking – replacing of or adding to the road wearing surface 
ROS – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 
Slough - vertical surface layer is loose and eroding 
Slumping - road section failures 
Stormproof - improve drainage patterns to reduce erosion during storm events 
Tanker fill/ Water source - access to pond or stream of sufficient depth to fill water 
tankers for fire fighting purposes 
Unclassified road- A road that is not constructed, maintained, or intended for long-term 
highway vehicle use, such as roads built for temporary access and other remnants of 
short-term use roads associated with fire suppression; timber harvest; and oil, gas, or 
mineral activities; as well as travel-ways resulting from off-road vehicle use. 
Upgrade culvert - increase the size of a culvert to handle larger flows (storm events) 
USFS (or FS) - United States Forest Service APPENDIX K: References Cited 
California Department of Fish and Game, 2002. Trout Stocking Allotments. Report is 
on File at the Supervisor’s Office, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA. 
Copstead et al., 1998. Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to surface cross drains. 
Report 9877-1806, SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, Technology and Development Program. 
Forman, R.T.T.; Hersperger, AM. 1996. Road ecology and road density in different 
landscapes, with international planning and migration solutions. Pages 1-23 in: Evink, G; 
Garrett, P.; Berry, J. (eds.). Proceedings, Transportation and wildlife: reducing mortality 
and improving wildlife passages across transportation corridors. Florida Department of 
Transportation/Federal Highway Administration-related wildlife mortality seminar, April 
3-May 2, 1996, Orlando, Florida. 
Forman, R. T. T. 1997. Ecological effects of roads: toward three summary indices and an 
overview for North America. Proceedings of the international conference, "Habitat 
fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering”: September 17-21, 
1995, Maastrict/The Hague, The Netherlands. Delft, The Netherlands: Ministry of 
Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Directorate-General for Public Works 
and Water Management, Road and Hydraulic Engineering Division. 
Hann, W.J.; Jones, J.L.; Karl, M.G. [and others]. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. 
Vol. II, Chapter 3. Pages 338-1055 in Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J.; (tech. eds.). An 
assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the 
Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR; USDA 
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 
Jackson, S.D. 2000. Overview of Transportation Impacts on wildlife movement and 
populations. Pp 7-20 In Messmer, T.A. and B.West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: 
Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. 
Jimerson, T.M. and J.K. Jones. 2002. A Landscape Level Roads Risk Assessment of 
Port-Orford-cedar Plant Associations on the Six Rivers National Forest. USDA Forest 
Service. 11p. 
Marcot, B.G.; Wisdom, M.J.; Li, H.W; Castillo, C.G. 1994. Managing for featured, 
threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem 
sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-329. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, 
Pacific Northwest Research Station. 89p. 
. 
Meehan, W.R., editor. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on 
Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Morfin et al., 1996. Predicting Effects of Climate, Soil, and Topography on Road Erosion 
with the WEPP Model. Presented at 1996 ASAE Annual International Meeting. St. 
Joseph, Missouri. 
Rose, D. L.C. Chapman, M. Martischang and D. Kroeger 1999. Relative risk at the 
landscape level. Presented at the symposium “The Ecology and Management of Port- 
Orford-cedar”. July 7-10, 1999. Gold Beach, OR. 
USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife 
Service, USDI National Park Service, USDC NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: 
An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment, Report of the Forest Ecosystem 
Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). Portland, OR. 
USDA Forest Service 1995. Six Rivers National Forest Land And Resource Management 
Plan. 200p. 
USDA Forest Service 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the 
National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.: USDA 
Forest Service. 222p. 
USDA Forest Service 2000. Forest Service Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. 
117 p. (available at www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/science/pdf) 
USDA Forest Service, Draft 2.4, 2000. Rating Watershed Condition: 
Reconnaissance Level Assessment for the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest 
Region. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Horse Linto, Mill and Tish Tang Creek Watershed 
Analysis. Version 1.0. USDA, Six Rivers National Forest Eureka, CA. 
USDA Forest Service 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in 
California; Best Management Practices. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 
Region. 186 p. 
USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. Draft 2001. A Range-wide 
Assessment of Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). 236p. 
USDA Forest Service. 2002. Road-Stream Crossing Survey at Perennial Streams to 
assess Fish Passage on National Forest Lands. Six Rivers National Forest. Data is on file 
at thSupervisor’s Office, Eureka, CA. 
Vestjens, W.J.M. 1974. Wildlife mortality on a road in New South Wales. Emu73:107- 
112