Forum Roads Proposal

Proposal for Roads and Access
Introduction:
The following proposal is the product of conversations with Forum members,

Partnership members, and county representatives. I am submitting it individually, but it
reflects the following diverse values and perspectives:
- Meet BMP requirements for the protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystem
connectivity.
- Provide adequate access to meet management objectives.
- Plan components for infrastructure are within the forest’s fiscal capacity but allow for
the possibility of increased capacity from non-federal sources
- Restore and maintain access for traditional and culturally important uses and local
community access.
- Allow flexibility in project-level decisionmaking to open, close, construct, and
decommission roads.
- Project-level decisions about roads should consider the needs and risks of individual
roads in the context of the road system as a whole.
Background:
Access is a significant issue for plan revision. The plan is required to include desired
conditions for the road system with a “basic framework for an appropriately sized and
sustainable transportation system that can meet [resource management] needs.” The
plan must also “ensure implementation of [BMPs].” The NPNF lacks the resources
currently to maintain system roads to standard. Closed roads that are not used between
entries are the most neglected, but roads of all maintenance levels are causing acute
and chronic sedimentation of waters, often in violation of state and federal law.
It will be impossible to fix these problems overnight, and there is no one right solution.
The plan’s framework should therefore make progress toward the overall goal of
protecting water quality and ecosystem connectivity, but it should also be adaptable.
Other plans have used different strategies to deal with transportation. The Directives
suggest desired conditions for limiting road density in MAs and GAs, objectives for
decommissioning roads, or standards to limit road construction. However, none of these
strategies is quite right for our forests, because they target roads themselves instead of
mitigating road impacts. Under an ecological restoration framework, the plan should
protect water quality and habitat connectivity while investing in roads where appropriate
to meet restoration needs.
Proposal:
1. Include a desired condition that the road system is fully maintained to protect water
quality.
a. Include an objective to reduce the maintenance backlog for the road system. The
desired condition to protect water quality is not currently being met, nor can it be
met overnight. As a result we need to set an objective for reasonable progress
toward that desired condition. We know that implementation and regular
maintenance of BMPs is a reliable way to protect aquatic ecosystems, and failure
to meet BMP obligations is therefore a good proxy for risk to waters. An objective
to reduce maintenance backlogs would allow for maximum flexibility for using
additional resources (from receipts or non-federal sources) to maintain roads. It
would also ensure that line officers have the discretion to disinvest, relocate,
sunset, or build roads at the project level, while still improving the sustainability of
the road system as a whole.
2. Include a desired condition that the road system maintains or restores connectivity for
relevant species (the ones that live in the neighborhood).
a. Include an objective to replace culverts that are connectivity barriers for relevant
species--fixing all barriers when reconstructing roads and making progress to fix
barriers on other roads.
b. Include a guideline that new roads should not create barriers for relevant aquatic
or terrestrial species unless there is no other feasible way to meet the resource
management need.
c. Include a management approach explaining that in appropriate ecozones and
MAs, daylighting roads or linear wildlife openings could increase connectivity and
permeability for species adapted to disturbance.
1. Support the objective to revise the forestwide transportation analysis report (TAR)
during plan implementation.
a. The current TAR is based on the current plan. The TAR should identify a road
system that both protects aquatic ecosystems and supports the revised plan’s
resource objectives.
b. Add an objective to survey roads during project implementation. In order to revise
the TAR, we need better information first. TAR is required to compare roads by
their relative needs and risks in order to set maintenance levels. Some roads are
in relatively good shape despite a lack of maintenance, and some roads are in
bad shape even with frequent maintenance. This depends on many factors,
including soils, rainfall levels, and grades. During each project, we should gather
information about individual road segment risk, ranking them as high, medium, or
low risk, and setting maintenance schedules accordingly. This information would
inform the TAR, but it would also help to guide project level decisions until the
TAR is finished. For example, it might cost less to relocate a risky road than
maintaining it more frequently. Finally, this information could allow us to “write off”
maintenance backlogs on roads that are in good shape.
4. Create a framework for monitoring and adaptive management.
a. On the standard 3-year schedule, monitor progress toward reducing the
maintenance backlog. If progress is not being made, use the revised TAR to help
guide project decisions to stay on track.

Forum Roads Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forum Roads Proposal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forum Roads Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposal for Roads and Access

The following proposal is the product of conversations with Forum members,

You might also like