appendix e: project-level travel...

Preliminary Environmental Assessment North Fork Calawah Vegetation Management

E-1

Appendix E: Project-level Travel Analysis

Introduction

This Travel Analysis Process (TAP) considers National Forest System (NFS)

roads and other roads deemed directly associated with the North Fork Calawah

Vegetation Management Project (NFCP), and provides information and

recommendations to the NFCP deciding official, the Pacific District Ranger. All

road lengths are approximate. Pursuant to Forest Service Handbook (FSH)

7709.55, Chapter 20, the TAP is a six-step process.

Step 1: Setting up the Analysis

Step 2: Describing the Situation

Step 3: Identifying Issues

Step 4: Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks

Step 5: Describing Opportunities and Priorities

Step 6: Key Findings of the Analysis

Step 1: Setting Up the Analysis

The TAP Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) was established by the Pacific District Ranger,

Dean Millett:

Kim Crider (NEPA Team Lead, TAP lead)

Betsy Krier (Fish Biologist/Aquatics)

Justin Urresti (Soils/Aquatic Resources Specialist)

Kevin Gu (Engineer)

Jennie Cornell (Transportation Planner)

Mark Senger (Silviculturist)

Kurt Aluzas (Wildlife Biologist)

David Hammer (Recreation Specialist)

Molly Erickson (Recreation Specialist)

Kristen Hauge (Heritage Specialist)

Joel Nowak (Lands, Right-of-Way Specialist)

Data Needs

Data considered for the analysis includes:

• Forest Plan Direction for roads and motorized trails in the Project Area

• Inventory of National Forest System (NFS) roads and motorized use NFS trails

within the NFCP Area

• Olympic National Forest Access and Travel Management (2004) information

• Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the Olympic National Forest (Travel

Management, Subpart B)

• Olympic National Forest Forest-wide Travel Analysis (2015) which fulfilled the

requirements of Subpart A of the 2005 Travel Management Rule as defined in 36


E-2

CFR 212(b)

• Calawah Road Decommissioning Project Environmental Assessment and Decision

Notice (2014)

• Existing information regarding private lands, permits, and easements in the project

area.

Scope of Travel Analysis

The scope of this TAP was bound by the roads identified for use in the project action alternatives

(B, C, D, and E) identified in the EA. The Map (Figures E-1 and E-2) displays all of the roads reviewed as part of this travel analysis. Table E-1, E-2, and E-3 display the road segments

reviewed in this analysis. The analysis and review included two categories of NFS roads:

1. Haul routes identified for use in implementing the thinning operations (applies to

Alternatives B, C, D, and E; Alternative E does not propose any temporary roads for use).

Haul routes can include: NFS roads identified as timber haul routes and temporary roads

(non-system unclassified roads) needed for access and haul. Proposed NFS haul routes

and temporary roads occur both within and outside of NFS land boundaries. All roads

were reviewed to determine construction or maintenance needs and needs for acquiring

access on non-FS lands.

2. NFS roads to review for opportunities via decommissioning or closure to move toward

the minimum road system direction (36 CFR 212.5) (applies to Alternatives C, D, and E).

In an effort to maximize efficiency in this process the Responsible Official limited the

scope of roads for consideration to NFS roads within the project area adjacent to or

within close vicinity to treatment units that were identified as “Likely Not Needed” in the

2015 ONF Travel Analysis. Some of these road segments overlap with haul routes, and

are noted as such in Table E-1.

Step 2: Describing the Situation

A total of about 100 miles of NFS haul routes, temporary roads, and additional “Likely Not

Needed” roads were reviewed for this analysis.

National Forest System Roads range from ML 1 to ML 3 and are defined as follows.

Maintenance Level 1 (ML1) - These roads are closed to motor vehicle travel. Basic custodial

maintenance is performed to prevent damage to adjacent resources and to perpetuate the road for

future resource management needs.

Maintenance Level 2 (ML2) - Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles.

Passenger car traffic, user comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Log haul may

occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are to discourage or prohibit

passenger cars, and to accept or discourage high clearance vehicles.

Maintenance Level 3 (ML3) - Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent

driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities.

Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed with single lanes and turnouts.


E-3

Temporary Roads – Temporary roads are not on the NFS and are roads that would require

reconstruction of an existing grade, new construction on previously undisturbed ground, or (in

some cases where noted) specified reconstruction or construction as a new NFS road.

Step 3: Identifying the Issues

The 2015 ONF Travel Analysis Report was used as a starting point for this analysis. Key issues

summarizing access needs, resource risks, and funding were incorporated into the Travel

Analysis Report and included:

Access Need for Legal and Administrative Uses

Access Need for Recreation

Access Need for Silviculture

Public Interest

Risk to Aquatic Resources

Risk to Terrestrial Resources

Road Maintenance Cost

Road Construction and Reconstruction Costs

Temporary roads were not included in the 2015 ONF Travel Analysis Report. Field review

identifying risks, access needs, and funding were reviewed by the IDT for these roads as part of

the NFCP planning process.

Step 4: Assessing Benefits, Problems, and Risks

This project-level interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered and re-evaluated these issues for the

identified road NFS road segments as defined in the 2015 Forest Travel Analysis. A

comprehensive field review of each road segment was not carried out; field review was targeted

(not comprehensive of the entire list) to only those road segments where validation of existing

information or new information was deemed necessary to inform the proposed changes or

actions necessary.

1. Proposed haul routes on NFS roads were reviewed for jurisdiction/access needs and for costs associated with the maintenance and repair for use in thinning operations (See

NFCP Transportation Report, and Chapter 3 of the NFCP EA). The majority of these

roads fall within the “Likely Needed” roads category in the 2015 ONF Travel Analysis

Report and were not reviewed for decommissioning or closure opportunities. Haul routes

on NFS roads adjacent to the project treatment units that were listed as “Likely Not

Needed” in the 2015 ONF Travel Analysis Report are described below.

Haul routes and temporary roads outside of NFS jurisdiction were reviewed by the IDT

(in terms of access needs, risks, and costs displayed in the 2015 ONF Travel Analysis

Report) to determine which access instruments (temporary road use permit, permanent

easement, or similar instrument) would be in the best interest of the Forest for carrying

out the planned and future restoration thinning treatments.


E-4

2. Roads listed as “Likely Not Needed” within the immediate vicinity of treatment units were reviewed by the IDT (Table E-3, Figure E-1). Table TAP-3 includes the results of

resource evaluations (Legal Access, Recreation, Silviculture, Public Interest, and

Aquatics) found in the ONF Travel Analysis Report (2015) listed under Step 3 above.

These roads were reviewed for Alternatives C, D, and E only.

Step 5: Describing Opportunities and Priorities

1. Haul Routes and access routes for thinning operations

All haul routes occurring on NFS lands were reviewed. Costs associated with all roads

proposed for use in the project are further described in the NFCP EA Chapter 3,

Transportation Analysis Section.

Haul Routes - Temporary roads within FS jurisdiction

A total of 17 miles of temporary roads (existing road alignments and new construction on

undisturbed ground) were reviewed by the resource specialists. These temporary roads

occurring on NFS lands will be reconstructed or constructed and then rehabilitated after

the timber sale as described in the NFCP EA, Chapter 2. A complete review of temporary

roads identified two unclassified road segments (totaling 0.3 mile) that will require

specified engineering plans for reconstruction due to aquatic resource risks on these

segments. The road segments will be added as ML2 NFS roads for the thinning operation

and then returned to a ML1 (closed) status following implementation.

The proposed 2929035 Road (0.2 mile) will connect the 2929030 road to an existing ridgetop system road (was the 2900715 Road).

The 2903005 Road (0.1) mile) is one of two proposed routes to access Unit B40 (option Route B) described in detail below.

Haul routes on roads occurring outside of FS jurisdiction

County Roads

Some main roads identified as timber haul routes occur outside of NFS jurisdiction.

There are about 4.4 miles of haul routes occurring under the jurisdiction of Clallam

County. For new construction and reconstruction of roads that connect directly to the

County Road, a Road Approach Permit will be required from the County for Units B74,

B185, B81 and A34.

Temporary Road B40-4

Legal Access: Temporary road B40-4 occurs on Washington Department of Natural

Resources land and would require access for use. The road is 0.34 miles long and would

require 0.26 miles reconstruction of an existing prism and 0.08 miles new construction.

Alternate access to the unit is also possible via an unclassified, temporary road (B40-4)

on NFS land (Route B). The FS Route B would require 0.1 miles of specified

reconstruction to meet system road standards, and installation of a temporary structure

across a fish bearing stream. The road would be added as an NFS ML1 road (2903005).


E-5

Aquatic Risk: There are no water quality concerns associated with the use of Route A.

Use of the Route B option would require installation of a temporary structure across a

fish bearing stream to minimize effects to water quality.

Costs: The cost for Route A is estimated at $84,931; the cost for Route B is estimated at

$92,793. Route B would require specified road construction would could impose a

greater cost to the government than acquiring access as in Option A. Costs for Route B

do not include the long-term costs of keeping the road on the NFS. The cost for Route A

does not include an estimate of fees that may be charged for legal access across the

WDNR, and would not require a structure over the fish bearing stream.

Silviculture Access Needs: No future entries following the NFCP thinning are being

considered in this unit due to current age and stocking.

Other issues: The road was reviewed by wildlife and recreation specialists and no issues

or future needs for this road segment were identified that would warrant permanent

access rights on this road.

Preference: The preference is to pursue temporary access on Route A in order to

minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources and the associated specified construction

costs associated with Route B. Temporary rather than permanent access is preferred as

future forest restoration opportunities are not planned for these stands in the distant

future.

Temporary Road RAY1

Legal Access: Temporary road RAY1 (1.1 miles, existing) on private lands, current

owners are Rayonier and Green Crow, would access approximately 194 acres of treatable

stands (units 58, 60, 61, and 163). This road is currently the only route to access this

isolated area of NFS land. The NFS road system has a prior history of use through road

use permits to private land that borders on the north.

Aquatic Risk: No immediate issues with water quality or mass wasting or erosion occur

on this road. Acquiring permanent access would allow for beneficial effects associated

with future restoration projects such as thinning.

Costs: The cost to attain access over the existing road is unknown at this time, however

the road is currently in driveable condition and may require minimal maintenance to use

for log haul. Additional costs above the costs of the road itself to propose the area for

helicopter logging versus conventional cable logging are estimated at $435,000. There

would still be access needs for layout personnel, timber fallers, and choker setters.

Planning this as helicopter harvest instead will not be feasible as additional costs would

reduce the chances of a viable bid on the units under current market conditions.

Silviculture Access Needs: May be potential for future entries and access to stands to the

west following the NFCP thinning.


E-6

Other issues: Wildlife and recreation specialists also reviewed the road. This road

Preference: The preference is to obtain a permanent easement that would allow access for

future road maintenance, monitoring and resource management treatments in this area.

Obtaining this access will allow for direct, long-term ecological restoration benefits now

and in the future. If this easement is not obtained temporary access would be considered

instead. However, future restoration thinning operations in adjacent stands as they

mature, would be foregone. The use of helicopter for thinning operations is not feasible at

this time due to the high costs of using that system relative to cable logging. In addition,

there is a greater risk of this area not being implemented if offered as helicopter which

would be a higher risk of not achieving the restoration benefits in this area. This option

would only be considered in the future if permanent or temporary access was not granted

and market conditions had changed.

2. Roads listed as “Likely Not Needed” for opportunities via decommissioning or closure to move toward the minimum road system direction (36 CFR 212.5).

Roads identified for decommissioning or closure are listed in Table E-3. Table E-3

includes the results of resource evaluations found in the 2015 ONF Travel Analysis

Report and listed as issues under Step 3 above. These evaluations were reviewed by the

IDT. The Objective Maintenance Level recommendations from the 2004 Access and

Travel Management Analysis. Where noted in Table E-3, some ratings were field-

validated if deemed necessary. Otherwise, the 2015 ONF Travel Analysis Report

risk/evaluation ratings were used in conjunction with existing FS mapping information to

inform the ultimate proposed action for each road segment on the list.

There were many reasons for choosing whether to decommission or close the roads listed

as “Likely Not Needed”. NFS roads proposed for a change to ML 1 closure/storage

generally included those needed for future stand treatment and that had a lower level of

aquatic risk. ML 1 roads are closed to vehicle use except for occasional administrative

use and may be gated or blocked. Treatments of the road prism to prepare it for storage

may include installation of surface drainage features like cross drains and removal of

select stream crossing structures if they are near failure. Generally these roads would

need a low level of reconstruction for future stand treatments.

NFS roads proposed for decommissioning in this project generally had low levels of

future silvicultural or wildlife treatment need and higher levels of aquatic risk. The

objectives are to improve hydrologic connectivity, reduce potential for management-

related mass wasting and surface erosion that could deliver sediments to stream networks

and fish-bearing habitat, and to restore soil productivity. Treatment intensity may vary

based on site specific conditions, but would generally include removal of all stream

crossing culverts and fills, construction of waterbars and other surface drainage features,

removal of unstable sidecast fill, recontouring or outsloping, and prism scarification to

reduce compaction. These roads would be removed from the system.


E-7

Table E-4. Road segments with a proposed change to Operational Maintenance Level.

Route Number

Status Distance* (Miles)

2900530 Level 1 to D 0.7

2900540 Level 1 to D 2.0

2900545 Level 1 to D 0.3

2900653 Level 1 to D 0.2

2900725 Level 1 to D 0.3

2900730 Level 1 to D 1.3

2900818 Level 1 to D 0.2

2900820 Level 1 to D 0.4

2902270 Level 1 to D 1.5

2902272 Level 1 to D 0.4

2922240 Level 1 to D 1.1

2923047 Level 1 to D 1.4

2923055 Level 1 to D 1.5

2929045 Level 1 to D 0.9

2929052 Level 1 to D 0.3

2929055 Level 1 to D 0.1

2900700 Level 2 to 1 2.2

2902375 Level 2 to 1 0.8

Total Closure (ML2 to ML1 status) 3.0

Total ML 1 Roads to Decommission 12.5

Step 6: Key Findings of the Analysis The Table E-5 summarizes the key findings of this travel analysis.

Table E-5. Summary of road miles within each road category.

Road Category Miles

Haul Routes (Total of 53 miles reviewed)

NFS Haul Roads on FS lands 0.0

NFS Haul Roads on private/state/county lands 4.4

Non-NFS Haul Roads requiring access on private lands (Rayonier, Green Crow)

1.1

Temporary Roads (Total of 17 miles reviewed)

Temp Roads Access and Reconstruction on WA DNR Option A

0.3

Temp Roads Access and New Construction on WA DNR Option A

0.1

Temporary Road requiring Specified Reconstruction option B (if WA DNR not accessible); new route 2903005 to be added as system road

0.3

NFS “Likely Not Needed Roads” (Total of 28 miles reviewed)


E-8

Decommission (18.6 miles had objective D) 12.5

Close (ML2 to ML1 status) (6.8 miles had objective ML1)

3.0

E-9

Table E-1. Roads proposed as haul routes.

NFS Route Number

Beginning Milepost

Ending Milepost

NFCP Use/Review

Operational Maintenance

Level

Legal and

Administrative

Access Needs

Recrea-tion

Access Needs

Silviculture Access Needs

Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terres-trial Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

Notes

2900000 27.0 38.6 Haul 3 High High High High Moderate Moderate

High

2900650 0.0 0.7 Haul/Decom/Closure

1 Low Low Moderate Low Low High Unrated See Table

TAP-3.


2 Low Low Low Low High High Moderate See Table

TAP-3.


1 Low Low Low Low High Low Unrated See Table

TAP-3.


1 Low Low Low Low Low High Unrated See Table

TAP-3.

2900800 2.3 2.8 Haul 1 Low Low Moderate Low High Moderate

Unrated

2900800 2.8 4.3 Haul 1 Low Low Moderate Low High High Unrated


1 Low Low High Low High Moderate

Unrated See Table

TAP-3.

2900815 0.0 2.7 Haul 1 Low Low High Low High High Unrated

2900818 0.0 0.2 Haul 1 Low Low High Low Moderate Moderate

Unrated

2900950 0.0 0.5 Haul 1 High Moderate High Low Low Low Unrated

2902000 6.0 10.6 Haul 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2902000 5.8 7.6 Haul

Low Moderate High Low Moderate High Low

2902000 7.6 10.6 Haul

High Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate

Low

2902000 0.0 4.7 Haul 1 Moderate

Low Low Low High High Unrated

2902000 4.9 5.8 Haul 2 Low Moderate High Low High High Moderate


2 Low Low Low Low Moderate High Moderate See Table

TAP-3.


E-10


NFS Route Number

Beginning Milepost

Ending Milepost

NFCP Use/Review


Level

Legal and

Administrative

Access Needs

Recrea-tion

Access Needs


Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terres-trial Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

Notes


1 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate

Unrated See Table

TAP-3.

2902360 0.0 1.4 Haul 2 Low Low High Low Moderate Moderate

Moderate


2 Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate See Table

TAP-3.

2903000 0.0 6.8 Haul 2 High Moderate Low Low High Moderate

Moderate




Unrated See Table

TAP-3.

2922000 0.0 6.1 Haul 2 Moderate

Moderate Low Moderate

High Moderate

High

2923000 11.2 13.8 Haul 2 High High Low Low High Low High

2923060 0.0 2.3 Haul 2 High Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

High

2923063 0.0 0.4 Haul 1 High Low Low Low Low Moderate

Unrated

2923065 0.0 0.7 Haul 1 Moderate

Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

Unrated

2923070 0.0 5.2 Haul 2 High Low High Low Moderate Moderate

Moderate

2923074 0.0 0.4 Haul 1 Low Low High Low Low Moderate

Unrated

2923090 0.0 0.6 Haul 2 High Low High Low Low Low Moderate

2923090 0.6 1.3 Haul 1 Low Low High Low Low Low Unrated

2923095 0.0 0.2 Haul 2 High Low High Low Low Low Moderate

2923100 0.0 1.5 Haul 1 Moderate

Low High Low Low Low Unrated

2929000 0.0 3.1 Haul 2 Low High Low Moderate

High Moderate

Low


E-11


NFS Route Number

Beginning Milepost

Ending Milepost

NFCP Use/Review


Level

Legal and

Administrative

Access Needs

Recrea-tion

Access Needs


Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terres-trial Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

Notes

2929000 3.1 7.5 Haul 1 High Low Low Moderate

High Moderate

Unrated


1 Low Low Low Low High Low Unrated See Table

TAP-3.



1 Low Low Low Low High High Unrated See Table

TAP-3.



Unrated See Table

TAP-3.

2929035 0.2 0.8 Haul NEW 1

Proposed new road

segment to join

2900715

E-12

Table E-2. Temporary roads proposed for use (applies to Alternatives B, C, and D).

Rd. Name

Type Miles Alternative B

Alternative C

AlternativeD

Access Necessary

RAY1 Existing Prism 1.12 IN IN IN Occurs on Private Land - Permanent easement preferred to maintain access to NFS land. Road will be closed after thinning project implementation.

237-1 Existing Prism 0.28 IN IN IN

44-1 Existing Prism 0.46 IN IN OUT




A60-2 Existing Prism 0.25 IN IN IN













B14-1 Existing Prism 0.22 IN IN IN







A107-2 Existing Prism 0.07 IN IN OUT










A51-1 Existing Prism 0.03 IN IN OUT





E-13

Table E-2. Temporary roads proposed for use (applies to Alternatives B, C, and D).

Rd. Name

Type Miles Alternative B

Alternative C

AlternativeD

Access Necessary






















DNR1 Existing Prism 0.29 IN IN IN

B40-4 Existing Prism 0.34 IN IN IN Occurs on WA DNR Land, listed as Route A (over WA DNR land) in Travel Analysis. This is the preferred route.

B62-1 Existing Prism 0.31 IN IN OUT

113-2 New Construction 0.2385 IN IN IN




A63-2 New Construction 0.1001 IN IN IN


B99-1 New Construction 0.1352 IN IN IN




A17-1 New Construction 0.0367 IN IN IN





E-14

Table E-3. Likely Not Needed roads reviewed for closure or decommissioning (applies to Alternatives C, D, and E).

NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML

Legal and Administrative Access Needs

Recreation Access Needs


Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2900530 0 0.7 0.7 1 D D Low Low High Low High High Unrated Costly to reopen for haul.

2900540 0 2.0 2.0 2 D D Low Moderate Low Low High High Moderate Little future silviculture opportunity. Decommission.

2900545 0 0.3 0.3 1 D D Low Low Low Low Low High Unrated Little future silviculture opportunity. Decommission.

2900650 0 1.77 1.8 1 D 1 Low Low Moderate Low Low High Unrated Field Validated Aquatic Risk May 2016 as High due to (prime valley location with several crossings, validated risk is High). Younger stands towards far end present future forest restoration opportunity. Consider decommissioning next planning area planning effort.

2900653 0 0.2 0.2 1 D D Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Unrated Field reviewed, needs failing pipes removed. Not needed for future silv access.


E-15


NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML




Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2900700 0 2.2 2.2 2 2 1 Low Low Low Low High High Moderate Changed segment length for project to junction of the 725, will need a trail block at junction. USGS needs occasional access up the 715-Ranger Decision to make Level 1 (driveable for admin use), gated access with dual lock.

2900700 2.2 3.2 1.0 2 2 1 Low Low Low Low High High Moderate Changed segment length for project from junction of the 725, to the junction with the 735. (Corp road layer will have different segment locations)

2900700 3.2 3.8 0.6 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low Moderate High Unrated Young stands at end, AMA. Not presently driveable. Keep as ML1. Part of Calawah OHV project - proposed Trail.

2900700 3.2 3.8 0.6 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low Moderate High Unrated Young stands at end, AMA. Not presently driveable. Keep as ML1. Will need blockage to prevent LSR/OHV overlap. Segments part of OHV - proposed Trail.


E-16


NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML




Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2900715 0 0.2 0.2 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low High Low Unrated Considered change to ML1 to maintain timber access on this side versus bonidu crossing side. USGS needs occasional access, ML1 will meet needs.

2900725 0 0.3 0.3 1 D D Low Low Low Low Low High Unrated Good candidate for storage, low future silviculture restoration potential.

2900730 0 1.3 1.3 1 D D Low Low Low Low High High Unrated Used as trail now. Decommissioning would benefit Aquatic and Wildlife - OHV use toward end of segment.

2900735 0.2 0.5 0.3 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low High High Unrated Consider keeping ML1 to maintain timber access. Young stands. This segment overlaps with proposed OHV.

2900735 0 0.2 0.2 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low High High Unrated Consider keeping ML1 to maintain timber access. Young stands.

2900800 0 2.3 2.3 1 1 1C Low Low High Low High Moderate Unrated Included in Calawah decom DN (out to 4.4) to put into 1C with high treatment intensity. Vital for future silvicluture restoration opportunitiy access, bridge in place over NFC.


E-17


NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML




Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2900818 0 0.2 0.2 1 D D Low Low High Low Moderate Moderate Unrated Will be rebuilt for NFC unit. Treatment could follow implementation.

2900820 0 0.4 0.4 1 D D Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Unrated Decommission. Likely low level of treatment needed.

2902270 0 1.5 1.5 2 1 D Low Low Low Low Moderate High Moderate Field validated May 2016. Active instability and failures at two stream crossings, would be costly to rebuild or maintain.

2902272 0 0.4 0.4 1 D D Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Unrated Fate linked to the 270.

2902375 0 0.8 0.8 2 1 1 Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Make it an ML1 but with physical block.

2903025 0 0.5 0.5 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low Low High Unrated Less urgent, no need to treat now, wait for future stand treatment.

2903035 0 0.57 0.6 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low Low High Unrated Aquatic risk (failing pipes) to be addressed through restoration treatment in this project. Defer full decommissioning after future restoration thinning treatment.


E-18


NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML




Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2903040 0 1.06 1.1 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low High High Unrated Continues as unclassified beyond the end of system. Field notes 5/12: ridge postion, no streams, relatively stable. Keep as ML1 if potential for thinning in outyears. Enhance blockage to make it a true ML1. (Rayonier owned lands beyond, but likely have alternative access.)

2903045 0 0.34 0.3 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low Low High Unrated Fate follows the 040

2903050 0 0.69 0.7 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Unrated Less urgent, problem area in through cut- may be addressed when rebuilt for haul. Consider ML1 instead of D until next entry is completed.


E-19


NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML




Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2922240 0 1.1 1.1 1 D D Low Low Low Low High High Unrated On project boundary. Low intensity, low risk. Section of road from 0-.6 was identified as needed for some reason (not legal) but this proj considering whole length.

2923047 0 1.4 1.4 1 D D Low Low Low Low High Moderate Unrated On boundary of watershed/project area. Little silv need, would be good to block for wildlife benefit. Evidence of OHV use. Opportunity to include.

2923055 0.69 2.2 1.5 1 D D Low Low Low Low High Low Unrated There appears to be a section that is neither needed or unneeded- because it begins on private land. Aquatic need likely but may have already failed. Include in project at least to take it off system.


E-20


NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML




Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2929030 0 1.78 1.8 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low High Low Unrated IDT and Ranger Decision to leave as Level 1 to maintain future access. Fish crossing pipe is a barrier- deep fill. Other failed crossings will need to be rebuilt.

2929035 0.4 1 0.6 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low High Low Unrated Segment was disconnected 2900715 piece. Length added to system (0.18 miles new system road) in order to implement the project - road number changed to 2929035. Listed as Specified Reconstruction under Haul Routes in Transportation Analysis.

2929045 0 1.3 1.3 1 1 1 Low Low Low Low High High Unrated Maintain access for future restoration thinning opportunity. This segment will overlap with Calawah OHV trail.

2929045 1.3 2.1 0.9 1 1 D Low Low Low Low High High Unrated Decommission/block end to limit unauthorized access.

2929050 0 0.4 0.4 1 D 1 Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Unrated Keep as ML1.

2929052 0 0.3 0.3 1 D D Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Unrated Decommission to discourage unauthorized use both on FS and private land.


E-21


NFS Route

Number

Beginn-ing

Milepost

Ending Milepost

Total Miles

Current Operational

ML

Objective ML

Proposed ML




Public Interest

Aquatic Risk

Terrestri-al Risk

Road Mainten-

ance Cost

IDT Comments

2929055 0 0.1 0.1 1 D D Low Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Unrated Good to Decom- discourage unauthorized use. Follows fate of the 045.

CAMPCREEK OLYMPICDISCOVERYKLAHOWYA

KLOSHENANITCHLOOKOUTSNIDERRIDGE

KLAHANIE

Sitkum River

Shanty CreekFahnestock Creek

Upper C

ool Cre

ek

Short Creek

Sitkum River

North F

ork Sitk

um Rive

r

Albion Creek

Canyon Creek

Snider Creek

Wye Creek

Slide C

reekVast Creek

Bonidu Creek

Bockman CreekKugel Creek

Trail Cr

eek

Brande

berry Cr

eek

Lake Cr

eek

West Fork Albion Creek

Pete CreekMaxfield Creek

Camp C

reek

Rainbow

Creek

Elk Creek

Hyas Creek

Pistol Creek

North F

ork Cal

awah Ri

ver

Devils Creek

South Fork Calawah River

Hanna C

reekShuwah

Creek

Sol Duc River

Bear Creek

BONIDU PIT

BOCKMANCOOL PIT

GRINDSTONEPIT

HungerMtn

BiglerMtnB58

B64

B96

B94B42

B54B118

B60

B46

B217A244

A243 A241A96

A240 A245

A246

A63

B99B94

B108

B108B99

B60

B42

B63 B57 B127B40B57

B57

B62

B100

A75

78

A17

A17

A17A17

B64B64 B64

4427061

B1415726866

A60265

159154

114

163 107

168 56104 60230

51174 259

140852725

116 90B52

2930 88

32 26 31106

5550

B314A51

1852

53A104

237238

67

111B60

117

5A1077

54

79

5 57

54

116116

55

100

268

270

174 259

101

159

109109

4

A100

B40

B40B40

B185B74

B74

101

B108-1

A34-1

67-1

140-2

61-2

117-2

A107-2

109-2

B108-2

172-1

157-1

7-1

B40-4

B74-1

270-1

5-1

A63-2

58-1

B81-2

B46-2

B99-2 B99-1

B40-3

B63-1

111-1

265-2A239-1

78-3

61-1

B14-1

113-1

A241-1113-2

A60-2

90-1

117-1

B100-1

237-1A60-1

DNR1

B40-3

B46-2

B62-1

B40-2

159-1

A246-1

78-1

44-1

B63-2

B60-1

109-1

140-1

168-1

B46-1

163-1

RAY1

300

011

045

250

070

600021

050

042

046 048

995

040

050

025

033

055

493

653

015

818

046010

830

035

800

095

035

650

715

992

960

900

278

030

050

500

725

052

045

063

545

074

030

355

072

272

073

055

820 011

113

950

095

025

035

035

735

025

090

530

078

055

080

050

520

990

101

065

015

020

375

300

100

060

040

240

810

650

350 045

730

077

047

360

595

270

800

100

004

825

030

700

540015

071

060

815070

065

036

070

Rt B 2929035

Rt A

29

29

29

30

29

2929

2902

2919

3040

3071

2924297

8

2929

2912

2903

2922

2923

Ray 1

T.29 N

.T.3

0 N.

T.28 N

.T.2

9 N.

T.30 N

.

R. 11 W.R. 12 W.R. 13 W.0 2 41 Miles

N o r t h F o r k C a l a w a h V e g e t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n tN o r t h F o r k C a l a w a h V e g e t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n tT r a v e l A n a l y s i s ( A l t C )T r a v e l A n a l y s i s ( A l t C )

Helicopter LandingsMountainCampgroundTrailheadProject Boundary

Proposed Road ActionsClose (ML 2 to ML 1)DecommisionExisiting RoadsHaul Routes

Temp RoadsNew ConstructionExisting Unclassified Reconstruction

Travel AnalysisDNR - Access DesiredPrivate - Access DesiredFS - Proposed System RoadCounty Road

Potential Thinning UnitsCableDownhill CableGroundHelicopterSKIP

StreamsPerennial Stream/CreekIntermittent Stream/CreekFish Bearing Streams

02/13/2017

This product is reproduced from information prepared bythe USDA, Forest Service or from other suppliers. The ForestService cannot assure the reliability or suitability of thisinformation for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracymay vary due to compilation from various sources, including modelingand interpretation, and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards.This information may be updated, corrected or otherwise modifiedwithout notification. For more information contact: Olympic National Forest Supervisors Office at 360-956-2300.The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Figure E-1. Project area roads discussed in the Travel Analysis –Alternative C shown includes all routes discussed in the Travel Analysis. Note: not all routes apply to all Alternatives (as noted in Tables E-1 to E-3).

E-22

CAMPCREEK OLYMPICDISCOVERYKLAHOWYA

KLOSHENANITCHLOOKOUTSNIDERRIDGE

KLAHANIE

Sitkum River

Shanty CreekFahnestock Creek

Upper C

ool Cre

ek

Short Creek

Sitkum River

North F

ork Sitk

um Rive

r

Albion Creek

Canyon Creek

Snider Creek

Wye Creek

Slide C

reekVast Creek

Bonidu Creek

Bockman CreekKugel Creek

Trail Cr

eek

Brande

berry Cr

eek

Lake Cr

eek

West Fork Albion Creek

Pete CreekMaxfield Creek

Camp C

reek

Rainbow

Creek

Elk Creek

Hyas Creek

Pistol Creek

North F

ork Cal

awah Ri

ver

Devils Creek

South Fork Calawah River

Hanna

Creek

Shuwah

Creek

Sol Duc River

Bear Creek

BONIDU PIT

BOCKMANCOOL PIT

GRINDSTONEPIT

HungerMtn

BiglerMtnB58

B64

B96

B94B42

B54B118

B60

B46

B217A244

A243 A241 A96

A240

A246

A63

B99B94

B108

B108B60

B99

B60

B42

B63 B57 B127B40B57

B57

B100

A75

78

A17

A17

B64B64

4458 61

B1426866

A60265159

154114

163107

168 56104 60

23051

174 2591402725

11690

B52

29 8430 88

32 26 31 172106

5550

B3

A5118

52

53A104

237238

67

111B60

5A107

79

5 57

A60

116116

55

100

270

174 259

101

159

109109

109

4

A100B40

B40B40

B185B74

B74

101

A17-1

B108-1

A34-1

67-1

140-2

61-2

117-2

A107-2

B108-2

54-1

157-1154-2

7-1

B40-4

B74-1

270-1

5-1

A63-2

58-1

B81-2

268-1

B46-2

B99-2 B99-1

B63-1

111-1

A239-1

78-3

61-1

B14-1

113-1

A241-1113-2

90-1

117-1

B100-1

237-1A60-1B40-3

B46-2

B62-1

B40-2

159-1

A245-1A246-1

78-1

44-1

B63-2

B60-1 109-1

140-1

168-1

B46-1

163-1

RAY1

2929

2902

2919

3040

3071

2924297

8

2929

2912

2903

2922

2923045

250

070

600021

050

042

046 048

995

040

050

025

033

055

493

653

015

818

046010

830

035

800

095

035

650

715

992

960

900

278

030

050

500

725

052

045

063

545

074

030

355

072

272

073

055

820 011

113

950

095

025

035

035

735

025

090

530

078

055

080

050

520

990

101

065

015

020

375

300

100

060

040

240

810

650

350 045

730

077

047

360

595

270

800

100

004

825

030

700

540015

071

060

815070

065

036

070

300

011

29

29

29

30

29

2929035Rt B

Rt A

Ray 1

T.29 N

.T.3

0 N.

T.28 N

.T.2

9 N.

T.30 N

.

R. 11 W.R. 12 W.R. 13 W.0 2 41 Miles

BONIDUPITB46 A244

A243A63

A241

A96A239 A242

A240A245

A246

A63

4427061 157

26866

A60 265

159

154

114

163107

113

168 56 104 60

101

230

51

174 259

116

90

172 106

237

238

67

116116

113

100

268

270

174259

101

159

67-1 154-1

A63-1 A244-1

157-1

154-2

270-1

A63-2

61-1

268-1

107-1

90-1

265-2

A239-1

A245-2

113-1

A240-1 A241-1

113-2

B46-2

237-1

159-1

A245-1

A246-1

44-1

163-1

168-1RAY1

2929

2929

2922

035

715

960

015

725

050

020

950

730

045

035

030

700

800

70029

2929035

Ray 1

B64

B96

B40

B64

B64B64

B40

B40

B40 B40

B40

B40-4

B40-5

B40-3

B40-4

DNR1

B40-3

B40-1

B40-2

2902

2903

350

030

355

025

Rt B

Rt A

N o r t h F o r k C a l a w a h V e g e t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n tN o r t h F o r k C a l a w a h V e g e t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n tA l t C - P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v eA l t C - P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e

Helicopter Landings

Mountain

Campground

TrailheadProject Boundary

Proposed Road ActionsClose (ML 2 to ML 1)DecommisionExisiting RoadsHaul Routes

Temp RoadsNew ConstructionExisting Unclassified Reconstruction

Travel AnalysisDNR - Access DesiredPrivate - Access DesiredFS - Proposed System RoadCounty Road

Potential Thinning UnitsCableDownhill CableGroundHelicopterSKIP

StreamsPerennial Stream/CreekIntermittent Stream/CreekFish Bearing Streams

02/09/2017

Figure E-2. Project area roads outside of FS jurisdiction requiring access–Alternative B, C, and D. (Unit boundaries shown are for Alternatives B and C, Alternative D units are shown in the EA Figure A-8).

E-23

appendix e: project-level travel...

Documents