Smith River National Recreation 

Area Restoration and Motorized 

Travel Management Project

Record of Decision

Forest

Service

Six Rivers

National Forest

Gasquet

Ranger District

R5-MB-290a

August 2017
Cover photo: Unauthorized route (UAR) looking north along Gasquet Mountain Road (Forest 

Service Road 17N49).

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating 

in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political 

beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or 

funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary 

by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through 

the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA 

office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form 

or letter to USDA by:(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; 

or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Smith River National Recreation Area 

Restoration and Motorized Travel 

Management Project

Record of Decision

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official:

Michael A. Green, Acting Forest Supervisor

Six Rivers National Forest

1330 Bayshore Way

Eureka, CA 95501

For More Information Contact:

David Palmer, Gasquet District Ranger, Smith River National Recreation Area, (707) 457-3860

Carolyn Cook, Natural Resources Staff Officer, Forest Supervisor’s Office, (707) 441-3551
This page intentionally left blank.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – i

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1

Background.....................................................................................................................................1

Smith River National Recreation Area Act..................................................................................2

Final Travel Management Rule ....................................................................................................3

Subpart A......................................................................................................................................3

Subpart B......................................................................................................................................6

Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................................6

Responsible Official Required Considerations.............................................................................7

Other Considerations....................................................................................................................8

Decision............................................................................................................................................8

Fostering Citizen Stewardship in National Forest Management ................................................15

Response to DEIS Comments.....................................................................................................17

Response to FEIS Comments.....................................................................................................19

Permits, licenses and authorizations needed to implement the decision ....................................20

Mitigation and Monitoring .........................................................................................................20

Reasons for the Decision ..............................................................................................................21

Striking a Balance among Multiple Uses...................................................................................22

Motorized-Dependent Recreational Experiences.......................................................................23

Conflicts among uses..................................................................................................................24

Administrative Uses ...................................................................................................................30

Conservation of Our Forest Resources.......................................................................................31

Del Norte County: Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values........................................................36

Local Native American cultural values and contemporary uses ................................................36

Affordability and availability of resources for maintenance and administration ..........................37

Public safety ...............................................................................................................................37

Access to public and private lands .............................................................................................38

Public Involvement.......................................................................................................................38

Scoping.......................................................................................................................................38

Comment on the DEIS................................................................................................................39

Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection Process).......................................................39

Alternatives Considered in Detail, but Not Selected .................................................................40

Alternative 1 (No Action)...........................................................................................................41

Alternative 4 ...............................................................................................................................41

Alternative 5 ...............................................................................................................................42

Environmentally Preferable Alternative.....................................................................................43
Record of Decision

ii – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations.................................................................44

2005 Travel Management Regulations.......................................................................................44

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)................................................................................48

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)..............................................................................49

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ..............................................................................49

Endangered Species Act (§7(c)) for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species...............49

Clean Water Act .........................................................................................................................51

Clean Air Act..............................................................................................................................52

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act........................................................................................................52

Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999) ................................53

Forest Service Sensitive Species................................................................................................53

Special Area Designations..........................................................................................................53

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice .........................................................................54

Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection process)......................................................55

Implementation Date....................................................................................................................55

Appendix A. Forest Plan Amendment..........................................................................................1

Evaluation of Significance ...........................................................................................................2

Appendix B. Errata ........................................................................................................................1

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions...........................................................................1

Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions................................................................................1

Instructions to the Responsible Official .......................................................................................1

List of Tables

Table 1. Selected Alternative 6 – Comparison of Current and Revised NFTS. ............................ 10

Table 2. Collaborative group recommendations authorized under Alternative 6.......................... 16

Table 3. Alternative 6: Consideration of Travel Management Rule criteria 

and management response..................................................................................................... 44

Table A-1. Definitions of semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive 

motorized ROS classes........................................................................................................ A-2

Table C-1. Selected Alternative 6 – road, motorized trail, and UAR activities 

and mitigations. ................................................................................................................... C-1

List of Figures

Figure 1. South Fork of the Smith River. ........................................................................................ 2

Figure 2. Unauthorized route (UAR) considered safe for low- and high-clearance vehicles.......... 4
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – iii

Figure 3. Photos (clockwise from upper left): ML 3 road designed for highway-legal 

passenger cars, ML 2 road designed for high-clearance wheeled vehicles, UAR 

used as a motorized trail, and ML 1 road in storage. ................................................................ 5

Figure 4. Unauthorized route (UAR) that has altered drainage patterns. ........................................ 5

Figure 5. Unauthorized route (UAR) where OHV use has caused trenching, 

channeling storm run-off......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 6. Field review of routes raised as issues during objection period..................................... 19

Figure 7. Siskiyou Wilderness east of the project area.................................................................. 25

Figure 8. Pine Flat (305.109), a UAR designated as a motorized trail.......................................... 26

Figure 9. Unauthorized routes (UARs) closed and restored, and designated motorized 

trails in proximity to Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs.).................................................... 27

Figure 10. Maps of UARs being converted to motorized trails 305.109, 314.1, 305.118 and 

17N49.104 (clockwise from upper left) and locations of Forest Service-listed sensitive 

plants (approximate point locations pending completion of 3 years of baseline surveys). ... 28

Figure 11. Unauthorized route (UAR) that remains in good condition even without 

maintenance........................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 12. Coastal cutthroat trout swimming the North Fork Smith River................................... 31

Figure 13. Distribution of Phytophthora lateralis, the pathogen that causes 

Port-Orford-cedar root disease. ............................................................................................. 33

Figure 14. McDonalds rockcress—an herbaceous perennial forb................................................. 34

Figure A-1. Change in ROS allows new designation and use of motorized trails 

and roads to the NFTS......................................................................................................... A-1
Record of Decision

iv – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

This page intentionally left blank.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 1

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision to implement the Smith River National 

Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project on the Smith River National 

Recreation Area/Gasquet Ranger District (Smith River NRA or district) of the Six Rivers National Forest 

(SRNF or forest). The project’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) discloses the environmental 

effects associated with the SRNF’s Preferred Alternative 6 to implement provisions of the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart A and revision per Subpart B), a No Action alternative, and 

two additional action alternatives developed in response to comments raised by the public.

Background

In 1974, Congress declared the installation of a proper transportation system 

servicing the National Forest System (NFS) shall be carried forward in time to 

meet anticipated access needs on an economical and environmentally sound 

basis; and the method chosen to finance the construction and maintenance of 

the transportation system should enhance local, regional and national benefits 

(16 USC 1608: Titles 532-538). At the forefront is the agency’s desire to strike 

a balance between managing all types of quality recreation and respecting the 

entrusted public values for multiple uses and tribal homeland customs by 

protecting our cherished natural resources.

Almost all NFS roads and trails serve non-motorized users, including hikers, bicyclists, equestrians, 

and tribal cultural practitioners, alone or in combination with motorized users, as NFS roads often allow 

for motorized use as well. Nationally, the Forest Service manages approximately 300,000 miles of NFS 

roads open to motor-vehicle use, and about 133,000 miles of NFS motorized trails.

In addition to this managed system of roads and trails, many national forests contain unauthorized 

routes (UARs)1

. These UARs do not have the same status as NFS roads and trails included in the National 

Forest Transportation System (NFTS)2

. To date, there is no comprehensive national inventory of UARs—

the continued proliferation of which has made a definitive inventory difficult—but it’s estimated to be 

tens of thousands of miles.

In 2002, visitation to national forests and grasslands reached 214 million. Another 215 million people 

drove through and/or stopped at overlooks and scenic pullouts to enjoy the vistas, but did not use Forest 

 1 Unauthorized route (UAR): A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail (including temporary roads or trails) and therefore not 

part of the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) and not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212). UARs 

are not managed or maintained by the Forest Service.

2 National Forest Transportation System (NFTS): Congress declared construction and maintenance of an adequate NFTS (system 

of roads and trails within national forests), considering the access needs of nearby other lands, is essential if increasing demands 

for timber, recreation, and other uses of such lands are to be met; and such a system is essential to enable the Secretary of 

Agriculture to provide for intensive use, protection, development and management of these lands under principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield of products and services (16 USC 1608 Title 532).

OHV use on national forest

land is all about providing 

access that can be used and 

enjoyed into the future. And, 

if we want to sustain that 

use, then we’ve got to work 

together. – SRNF Forest 

Supervisor Merv George Jr.
Record of Decision

2 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Service facilities. From 1982 to 2000, the number of people driving motor vehicles off highways in the 

United States increased over 109 percent (Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America: A Report to the 

Nation, The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, p. 37 (H. Cordell 2004)). In 2004, offhighway vehicle (OHV)3 users accounted for about 11 million annual visits to national forests and 

grasslands. With the United States (US) population expected to more than double from 275 to 571 million 

by the next century, the number of visitors to NFS lands is likely to increase (FEIS pp. 6, 318-320).

In response to countrywide interests and concern for increased future use, the US Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) established new national policy (www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/) in 2005, to 

govern the growing use of wheeled motor vehicles on NFS lands by revising travel management 

regulations (Final Travel Management Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 216, Nov. 9, 2005, pp. 68264-

68291). Unforeseen environmental impacts, changes in public demand, route construction, and monitoring 

conducted under §212.57 of the Travel Management Rule may lead responsible officials to consider 

revising designations periodically per §212.544 and publishing a revised motor vehicle use map (MVUM).

Smith River National Recreation Area Act

In 1990, Congress mandated that motorized travel be 

restricted to roads and trails designated on the NFTS to 

preserve the exceptional opportunities for a wide range of 

multiple uses, while protecting the renowned anadromous 

fisheries, exceptional water quality, abundant wildlife and 

scenic beauty, as illustrated in Figure 1, pursuant to the 

Smith River National Recreation Area Act (Smith River 

NRA Act; FEIS pp. 6, 26-27).

In 2009, the SRNF produced an MVUM, based on 

the NFTS roads and motorized trails in the forest’s 

transportation atlas at that time, as mandated by Subpart 

B of the Travel Management Rule. The MVUM displays 

the designated NFTS currently open for motorized travel 

and season of use.

 3 Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed with low gearing, flexible suspension and high-ground clearance, 

generally characterized by having large tires with deep, open treads and low pressure, providing for better traction when driving 

on unpaved, rough forest roads. OHVs can be highway-legal and non-highway legal high-clearance, wheeled vehicles, such as 4-

wheel-drive (4WD) and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorcycles.

4 Designations of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands pursuant to §212.51 may be revised as needed to meet changing 

conditions. Revisions of designations shall be made in accordance with the requirements for public involvement in §212.52, the 

requirements for coordination with governmental entities in §212.53, and the criteria in §212.55, and shall be reflected on a 

motor vehicle use map (MVUM) pursuant to §212.56.

Figure 1. South Fork of the Smith River.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 3

Final Travel Management Rule

The 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) provides direction for managing OHV use on NFS 

lands on a national scale, aimed at better addressing the inherent potential for increased conflicts between 

unmanaged motorized and non-motorized uses, risk to public safety, and undesirable resource effects 

from growing popularity and improved OHV technologies. In light of national public interests and 

recognition that indirect revenues are important to local lifestyles and economic stability, the USDA 

decided that evaluating the use of roads, trails and areas on national forests are best made at the local 

level, with full involvement of federal, tribal, state, and local governments, motorized and non-motorized 

users, and other interested parties.

Nothing in the Travel Management Rule or final directive requires addressing either dispersed 

camping or big game retrieval in a designation, or reconsideration of any decision prohibiting motorvehicle use, while engaging in these activities. While there is no requirement to regulate non-motorized 

recreation uses as part of travel planning, one of the travel planning objectives in the final directives is to 

“provide for and manage a range of motorized and non-motorized recreational experiences, while 

minimizing conflicts among uses’’ (FSM 7710.2).

Emergency operations, in response to threats to health and safety, are authorized across the SRNF and 

are not subject to the travel restrictions per 36 CFR 212 Subpart B, 212.51a(5). Also not subject to the 

final directives is the use of wheelchairs and mobility devices by mobility-impaired persons, which are 

allowed on all NFS lands that are open to foot travel (Americans with Disabilities Act 504, FSM 2353.05, 

Title V §507(c)).

The final directives describe a travel analysis process that fulfills two purposes (Subparts A and B):

• Identification of the minimum road system that incorporates a science-based roads analysis under 

36 CFR 212.5(b), and

• Designation of National Forest System roads5, trails6, and areas open for use by vehicle type and 

season under 36 CFR 212.51.

Subpart A

Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule directs the agency to identify the minimum road system needed 

for safe and efficient travel, and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. Subpart A (Part 

261 – Prohibitions, 36 CFR 261.13) prohibits the use of motor vehicles off designated roads, trails and 

areas, as well as the use of motor vehicles on roads and trails that are not designated for such travel.

 5 National Forest System road: A forest road other than a road, which has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way 

held by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1).

6 National Forest System trail: A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way 

held by a state, county, or local public road authority (36 CFR 212.1).
Record of Decision

4 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Unlike other national forests, cross-country OHV travel off designated 

roads and trails has been prohibited since 1990. Nevertheless, a low level of 

unintended OHV use continues on legacy roads built to transport logs and 

minerals, as illustrated in Figure 2 (FEIS pp. 209, 387-388).

The SRNF’s Subpart A travel analysis considered the conversion of 

UARs to motorized trails considering minimization criteria (36 CFR 

212.55 (a)-(e)), and the reclassification of NFTS road maintenance levels7

to better manage motorized travel and restore environments altered during 

original road construction many years ago.

The maintenance-level classification correlates to how the agency 

administers the intended use—type of vehicle and season(s), closed or 

open for travel—and maintenance frequency and methods, based upon 

road design, surface conditions, intended vehicle speed, season and amount of motor-vehicle use. 

Recommendations for eliminating roads; restoring drainage patterns on select UARs; and allowing, 

restricting, or prohibiting motorized travel on the NFTS are provided in the following combined travel 

analysis reports:

• The Smith River NRA Roads Analysis and Off-Highway Vehicle Strategy (Smith River NRA 

RAP/OHV Strategy, USDA 2005) presents the analysis and management recommendations for 

UARs, and Maintenance Level (ML) 18 and ML 29 roads on the NFTS. The scope of my decision 

considers making limited changes to UARs, and ML 1 and 2 roads.

• The SRNF Roads Analysis Process (RAP, USDA 2003) presents the analysis and management 

recommendations for MLs 310, 4, and 5 roads on the NFTS. The scope of my decision does not 

consider mixed-use on ML 3 roads or any changes to ML 4 (two-lane highway) or ML 5 (fourlane highway) roads.

 7 Maintenance Level (ML): The Forest Service maintains NFS roads and NFS trails to meet user needs, protect natural resources 

and ensure public safety. There are five maintenance level classifications (FSH 7709.56), responsive to road or trail management 

objectives, design standards, quantity and types of traffic, and availability of funds. In 2015, the forest supervisor authorized the 

Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project to implement road maintenance across the forest (ML 1 to 5), confined to previously 

maintained surfaces, ditches, culverts and cut-and-fill slopes within the road prism, not intended to substantially improve 

conditions above those originally constructed (i.e. did not change maintenance levels).

8 ML 1 road: Closed. Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular 

traffic and placed in storage (a hydrologically maintenance free condition). This entails removing culverts and implementing 

road drainage improvements (similar to stormproofing treatments).The closure period must exceed 1 year. No maintenance other 

than condition surveys may be required, so as long as no potential exists for resource damage. If surveys indicate there is 

resource damage occurring, generally activities are rectifying damage of legacy drainage structures to restore natural stormrunoff patterns. These roads may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance 

level during the time they are open for traffic.

9 ML 2 road: Open for use by high-clearance vehicles (FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3). Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic 

is normally minor, usually consisting of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. These roads 

accommodate low traffic volume and low traffic speeds, typically connecting collectors and other local roads.

10 ML 3 road: Open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in a standards passenger car (FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3). User 

comfort and convenience are low priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, and 

spot surfacing. Some roads maybe fully surfaced with native or processed material. Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 5 roads are subject 

to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Figure 2. Unauthorized route 

(UAR) considered safe for lowand high-clearance vehicles.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 5

The recommendations considered timing of use, all types of vehicles, and maintenance-level road 

classifications (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(d), as illustrated in Figure 3.

Because the Smith River is a designated key watershed11, 

the Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy also includes 

recommendations for road decommissioning and restoring 

drainage patterns on select segments of inventoried UARs

(36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)), where there is a high degree of 

resource damage and mitigating effects is not feasible, as 

represented in Figure 4.

Where mitigation measures were determined feasible to

rehabilitate UAR conditions as illustrated in Figure 5, the 

Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy recommends designating 

them as motorized trails on the NFTS. As an authorized trail 

 11 Key watershed: The Smith River is designated a key watershed to protect fisheries and other aquatic biota, water quality, and 

riparian vegetation under the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan). The 

Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for managing roads and vehicle access to preserve water quality throughout a 

system of large refugia crucial to at-risk fish stocks (pp. IV-106 to IV-111).

Figure 3. Photos (clockwise from upper left): ML 3 road designed for highway-legal passenger cars, ML 2 

road designed for high-clearance wheeled vehicles, UAR used as a motorized trail, and ML 1 road in storage.

Figure 4. Unauthorized route (UAR) that 

has altered drainage patterns.
Record of Decision

6 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

on the NFTS, management activities will rectify trenching from tires and misaligned drainage via outsloping, surfacing (placement of gravel) and placement of waterbars. This will not only provide OHV riding 

opportunities for legitimate use by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), motorcycles and high-clearance wheeled 

vehicles (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b) and maintenance per FSM 7714, designation will also ensure environmental 

benefits to natural resources for the long-term.

Subpart B

Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule requires designating roads, trails, and areas open to motorvehicle use on national forests (36 CFR 212.51). The Forest Service only manages roads and trails 

designated as part of the NFTS for motorized use. Prior to making any changes to the NFTS and revising 

the MVUM, the participatory provisions of the Travel 

Management Rule must be fulfilled and a federal decision 

made in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), considering minimization criteria per 36 CFR 

212.55 (a)-(e) and 40 CFR 1508.20. Once a road or motorized

trail is open for motor-vehicle use on the MVUM, it does not 

authorize a specific type of use as dominant or exclusive of 

other uses.

Motor-vehicle use on state, county, or municipal roads and 

trails authorized by a legally documented right-of-way is 

subject to the control of that state, county, or municipal road 

authority. These roads and trails are not subject to designations 

made under the Travel Management Rule, or to the prohibition on motor-vehicle use off designated routes 

and outside designated areas.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management 

Project is to preserve and restore the Smith River NRA’s outstanding natural resources for many years to 

come, while improving the NFTS to promote safe and efficient motorized travel for administration, 

utilization and protection of NFS lands, and to serve communities.

The underlying need for making limited changes to the NFTS within the Smith River NRA is

minimize conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreational experiences, improve public safety,

and rectify and/or restore environments damaged by unmanaged motorized travel per Subpart A (36 CFR 

212 – Administration of the NFTS) and Subpart B (36 CFR 212.54 – Revision of Designation of Roads 

and Trails), (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e)); Criteria for Designation of Roads and Trails) (FEIS pp. 13-20):

• Motorized Recreation. There is a need for providing adequate public access, including vehicular 

roads and motorized trails to serve recreational activities such as camping, hunting, fishing 

hiking, exploration and riding experiences in a variety of environments and modes of travel, 

Figure 5. Unauthorized route (UAR) where 

OHV use has caused trenching, 

channeling storm run-off.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 7

consistent with the Forest Service’s recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03 (2) and 36 

CFR 212.55 (a)).

• Administrative Access. There is a need for establishing a well-designed, minimum NFTS that is 

safe and efficient for administrative motorized-vehicle travel and access for multiple-use 

management (36 CFR 212.55 (a)).

• Restoration. There is a need for rectifying natural drainage patterns and sedimentation from 

unneeded UARs and NFTS roads currently affecting riparian and streamside areas (36 CFR 

212.55 (b)(1)).

• Affordability. There is a need for improving cost efficiencies associated with NFTS maintenance 

(36 CFR 212.55 (a)).

Responsible Official Required Considerations

The Responsible Official shall consider the following when designating roads, trails, and areas on the 

provisions of opportunities, access needs, and user conflicts among uses of NFS lands:

• Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and social values. There is a need for considering environmental 

justice, which speaks to concerns that costs of federal decisions could fall disproportionately on 

people of a particular ethnic or cultural heritage group, or on people with low incomes (36 CFR 

212.55 (a)).

• Public safety. There is a need for providing safe motorized travel by educating OHV users of 

forest hazards and improving the NFTS infrastructure (36 CFR 212.55 (a)).

• Minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources. There is a need for lessening undesirable 

effects from unmanaged motorized use to restore and protect important natural and cultural 

resources (36 CFR 212.55 (a)).

• Access to public and private lands. There is a need for providing motorized access to isolated 

parcels of private land inholdings to NFS lands, while preventing trespass (36 CFR 212.55 (a)).

• Availability of financial resources for maintenance and administration of roads, trails and 

areas. The Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project (2016) complements the Smith River National 

Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project by preserving 

investments in NFTS infrastructure to mandated design standards, designed to sustain safe public 

and administrative access to NFS lands (Highway Safety Act), while preventing resource damage 

(LRMP p. IV-49; Clean Water Act; and Endangered Species Act; 36 CFR 212.55 (a); 36 CFR 

212.55 (b)(1)(2)). The Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project, authorized in January 2016, applies 

to all NFTS maintenance levels (ML 1 through 5) managed by the SRNF, including the Smith 

River NRA.

• Minimizing damage to soil, aquatic and watershed resources. There is a need for closure, 

rectifying, or improving drainage infrastructure along select road segments and UARs converted 
Record of Decision

8 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

to motorized trails on the NFTS to reduce moderate and high rates of soil erosion and 

sedimentation degrading water quality (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)).

• Minimizing damage to vegetation and other forest resources. There is a need for lessening

undesirable effects from unmanaged motorized use to Port-Orford-cedar (POC) forests and

botanical ecosystems (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)).

Other Considerations

When making any limited changes to NFTS roads, the SRNF will also consider:

• Minimizing harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat (36 CFR 212.55

(b)(2)).

• Minimizing conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS 

lands or neighboring federal lands (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(3)).

• Minimizing conflicts among different classes of motor-vehicle uses on NFS lands or neighboring 

federal lands (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(4)).

• Compatibility of motor-vehicle-use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account sound, emissions, and other factors (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(5).

• Speed, volume, composition and distribution of traffic on roads (36 CFR 212.55 (c)(1)).

• Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and surfacing (36 CFR 212.55 (c)(2)).

• Maintaining valid existing rights of use and access (rights-of-way) (36 CFR 212.55 (d)(1)(2)).

Decision

Based on the analysis and consultation disclosed in the Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration 

and Motorized Travel Management Project FEIS and the Project Record, with consideration for public 

comment, I have decided to implement Alternative 6 (Selected Alternative), as described in the Chapter 2

of the FEIS (pp. 59-60). I believe Alternative 6 best responds to the Purpose and Need—affording a variety

of individual choices for recreational experiences, while being respectful to those who expressly asked me 

to consider access to longstanding dispersed campsites and safeguarding important historic, considering 

cultural, environmental and socio-economic community values per criteria 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e).

The Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project 

signifies my commitment to continuing efforts to manage the NFTS within the Smith River NRA. My 

decision will advance the beneficial outcomes of previous road management decisions by further 

investing in NFTS infrastructure to serve local community access needs. Equally as important to me, 

Alternative 6 will protect the renowned, rare and outstanding natural resources of the Smith River NRA 

by restoring natural drainage patterns and minimizing undesirable and unintended environmental effects 

of OHV use within this key watershed (FEIS pp. 49-53, FEIS Appendices A and D). My desire and 
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 9

intention is to preserve aspects of our natural heritage for years to come, while balancing the needs of 

motorized recreation enthusiasts and their contribution to local economies in Del Norte County.

In the interest of moving the travel management process forward, I have decided to avoid some 

impacts altogether, per 40 CFR 1508.20. My decision will not make any changes to the current NFTS 

within traditional cultural properties (TCPs; FEIS pp. 2, 20, 48, 61). Many historic properties, including 

sacred sites and cultural values in the Helkau and Mus-yeh-sait-neh spiritual districts are TCPs nominated 

or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). They are fragile, and once damaged or 

destroyed, cannot be repaired or replaced. I fully appreciate travel management can significantly affect 

cultural values, and that any changes to the NFTS would warrant comprehensive consultation and 

intensive field surveys.

Likewise, I have chosen to defer making any changes to the NFTS that increase motorized access on 

either side of the river corridor within reaches of the Smith River classified as wild (36 CFR 212.55 

(a)(b)(3)). This honors local public interests to preserve the Smith River NRA’s outstanding remarkable 

values (ORVs), per PL 101-612 and 104 Stat. 3209.

My decision makes no changes to the 11.8 miles of ML 4 roads and 18.5 miles of ML 5 roads on the 

existing NFTS. I am not authorizing any new road or motorized trail construction to the already wellestablished physical footprint of the road and trail network for no net gain in road miles in the Smith River 

Key Watershed, in compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and LRMP, thereby avoiding 

additional ground-disturbing impacts to natural and cultural resources.

Outside of the areas deferred from consideration, my decision will implement road and trail

maintenance and corrective activities (e.g., stormproofing and road decommissioning) during the life of the 

decision per Subpart A and make limited changes to the 2009 MVUM, concerning where and when 

motorized uses are allowable, in compliance with Subpart B and 36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b) (FEIS pp. 4, 59-60).

Although my decision will make limited changes to the NFTS within the North Fork Smith 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), by designating 3.13 miles of UARs as motorized trails, I am 

compensating for the environmental impacts by barricading 17.7 miles of UARs within IRAs to prevent 

future unmanaged public motorized travel.

My decision includes activities within the L.E. Horton Research Natural Area (RNA). However, the 

magnitude of the action is limited to blocking public motorized access to UARs to rectify resource 

impacts (FEIS pp. 10-11). My decision will meet all objectives and direction for the RNA.

All roads and trails require maintenance. In 2016, I authorized the Six Rivers Road Maintenance 

Project to implement road maintenance across the SRNF (applicable to existing MLs 1 to 5). My decision 

did not make any changes to current maintenance-level classifications. All maintenance activities are 

constrained to previously maintained surfaces, ditches, culverts, and cut-and-fill slopes within the road 

prism; and are not intended to improve conditions above those originally constructed. The Smith River 

National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project does not revise my 

2016 decision, rather it extends and supplements my earlier decision to allow for maintenance and 

stormproofing until 2027 (FEIS Appendix D).
Record of Decision

10 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Table 1. Selected Alternative 6 – Comparison of Current and Revised NFTS.

Actions Existing 

Status

Alternative 6

Changed Status Current NFTS Revised NFTS

Open to motorized use: 

All highway & nonhighway legal, highclearance (4WD) 

vehicles, motorcycles &

all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs).

Designate on 

NFTS UAR12

Motorized Trail (>50" wide) 46 miles

483 Road Miles:

ML 1 – 88 miles

ML 2 – 254 miles

ML 3 – 111 miles

ML 4 – 11.8

ML 5 – 18.5

Motorized Trails:

12.2 miles

UARS: 156 miles

651 Total Miles: 

495 miles NFTS 

156 miles UARs

448 Road Miles:

ML 1 – 77 miles

ML 2 – 244 miles

ML 3 – 97 miles

ML 4 – 11.8

ML 5 – 18.5

Motorized Trails:

59 miles

UARs: 0 miles

507 Total Miles

ML 2 (open) 4.6 miles

ML 3 (open) 0.4 miles

Upgrade/

Convert

ML 1 

(closed)

ML 2 (open) 4.2 miles

Motorized Trail 0.56 miles

Downgrade/

Convert

ML 3

(open) ML 2 (open/mixed-use) 15 miles

Close to motorized

use: all vehicle types 

prohibited.

Designate on 

NFTS UAR ML 1 (closed) 12 miles

Downgrade ML 2 (open) ML 1 (closed) 21 miles

Decommission

ML 1 

(closed)

Non-system (closed) & 

remove from NFTS. 39 miles

ML 2 (open) Non-system (closed) & 

remove from NFTS. 14 miles

Restoration of 

Drainage 

Patterns

UAR

Barricade and restore, 

hydrologically stable, 

not designated for 

motorized use.

93 miles

Improve & maintain 

NFTS infrastructure.

Seasonal

Gate Closures

NFTS roads 

& motorized 

trails13 open 

year-round

NFTS roads & motorized 

trails closed to restrict timing 

of open status.

18 gates

Stormproofing ML 1, ML 2, & motorized trails 106 miles

Griffin Creek 

Bridge Repair

Structurally 

impaired Structurally sound 1 bridge

Parking Sites 

at trailheads UAR Sign, gravel & maintain 4 sites

Change Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS)14

Semiprimitive nonmotorized

Semi-primitive motorized 2 acres

Changes that result in NFTS roads and UARs designated as trails open to motorized uses:

Designate UARs as part of the NFTS:

• Designate 47 miles of UARs as motorized trails.

• Designate 5 miles of UARs as ML 2 and ML 3 road classifications.

Designations respond to the need for public and administrative motorized access, while considering 

minimization criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e).

 12 The Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy provides recommendations including barricading all abandoned and high resource 

risk rated roads and UARs, if mitigations are not sufficient to offset effects of continued OHV use. My decision authorizes the 

recommendations to place earthen barriers, boulders, or log debris barricades to block motorized access altogether to promote 

natural recovery (regrowth of vegetation), and realigning native rocks to protect rare plants from tire treads.

13 Motorized trails on the Smith River NRA are travel ways generally greater than 50-inches wide. Motorized use on these trails 

is limited to the dry season, unless there are no resource concerns.

14 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) forest plan amendment: My decision to amend the ROS will occur along a reach of 

the Smith River classified as a recreational river area per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act §2(b)(3). Those rivers or sections of 

rivers readily accessible by road that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 11

The designation of UARs as ML 3 roads represents inadvertent errors in the transportation atlas. The 

mitigation measures described in Appendix A of the FEIS will occur prior to publishing a revised MVUM.

Upgrade from ML 1 to ML 2 on the NFTS:

• 4.2 miles of ML 1 roads to ML 2 roads.

In some cases, road segments designated as ML 1 on the NFTS (closed to motorized uses) have a high 

recreational need. Upgrading these ML 1 roads to ML 2 provides for public access for street-legal and 

non-street-legal, high-clearance wheeled vehicles along with heightened resource protection considering 

relevant minimization criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)(c)-(d).

Downgrade ML 3 to ML 2 on the NFTS:

• 15.28 miles of ML 3 roads to ML 2 roads to allow for mixed-use along Forest Roads 17N49 and 

17N07.

Downgrading a ML 3 road, which only allows for highway-legal, state-licensed vehicle use, to a ML 2

classification, allows for use by both highway-legal and non-highway-legal, high-clearance wheeledvehicle users. Del Norte County, through the county coordination process, passed a resolution allowing 

mixed-use on county roads and suggested downgrading segments of two ML 3 roads to ML 2 to provide 

exceptional mixed-use loop opportunities. The road-surface type and road geometry are compatible with 

this type of use considering relevant minimization criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(d).

Convert ML 1 to motorized trail:

• 0.6 miles of roads to motorized trails.

This action converts roads not required for administrative access, but provide for diverse motorized 

recreation opportunities or access to dispersed recreation sites, to motorized trails, where resource risks

can be feasibly minimized per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e).

Designated OHV parking:

• Allows parking and staging at four sites along Forest Road 17N49 considering relevant 

minimization criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(b).

Changes that result in NFTS roads and UARs closed to motorized uses:

Designate UARs on the NFTS as ML 1:

• 11.8 miles of UARs designated as ML 1 roads.

The designation of UAR segments as ML 1 roads on the NFTS will involve adding these segments to the 

transportation atlas, allowing for future motorized uses in response to intermittent administrative needs

considering minimization criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e). During the time these ML 1 service roads are 

closed to vehicular traffic, they will be placed in storage (a hydrologically maintenance free condition).

Activities may include removing or repairing road drainage features, installing rolling dips or 

waterbars, and barricading them to prevent motorized access. No maintenance other than condition 
Record of Decision

12 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

surveys may be required, so as long as no potential exists for resource damage. If surveys indicate there is 

resource damage occurring, generally activities will entail rectifying inadequate drainage and erosion. 

These roads may be open to vehicular administrative motorized uses of any type, class, or construction 

standard, and maybe managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic.

Downgrade ML 2 to ML 1 on the NFTS:

• Downgrade 21 miles of ML 2 roads to ML 1 roads.

Downgrading ML 2 to ML 1 will close select road segments avoiding future unauthorized motorized 

travel and associated environmental impacts, while responding to affordability considerations by reducing 

the need for and costs of maintaining safe travel conditions of low-use roads, considering minimization

criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e). These ML 1 roads will be included in the NFTS transportation atlas 

and placed in storage, which may include removing or repairing road drainage features (including 

culverts), installing rolling dips or waterbars as necessary to establish maintenance-free conditions, and 

barricading them to prevent motorized access.

Remove from the NFTS:

• Decommission 53 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

Decommissioning of select road segments responds to minimizing impacts, restoring forest resources and 

reducing maintenance costs considering minimization criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e). For roads that 

are currently non-drivable and present a low-resource risk, removing the road from the NFTS may simply 

involve an amendment to the NFTS database. However, in other cases, when a road is still drivable or 

culverts are present, the following actions may be required:

• Barricade. This includes the placement of a barrier (e.g., earthen mounds or large rocks) at the 

entrance to a road or route. The objective is to prevent motorized use and promote passive 

restoration of the travel surface footprint.

• Remove culvert and associated fill. . This action acts to eliminate the need for road maintenance, 

re-establishing pre-road construction drainage patterns by removing culverts and restoring the 

stream crossing road fill at stable locations, away from channels. Recovery objectives are to 

actively restore stream banks and channel bottom configuration, establish free-flowing stream 

channels and promote revegetation of stream banks.

• Waterbar and rolling dips. These water dispersion treatments are designed to prevent overland 

flow from concentrating on the travel surface, reducing the potential for stream diversions (i.e.

prevent water from flowing down the road or trail), which reduces the potential for off-site 

sediment delivery to water resources.

• Treat weed sources. Weeds and weed propagules (seeds) will be hand-pulled and disposed of 

over multiple years to remove the seed bank to slow their spread, considering relevant 

minimization criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)-(2).
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 13

Parking sites:

• Add 4 parking sites at trailheads along Forest Road 17N49 considering relevant minimization 

criteria per 36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)-(2).

Restore drainage patterns:

• 93 miles on UARs.

Restored UARs are not part of the NFTS. The objective is to leave the physical footprint of the UAR in a 

hydrologically maintenance-free condition. Restoration of drainage patterns will respond to a variety of 

resource concerns, including reducing damage to forest resources. Depending on slope location, type of 

stream crossings, and surface flow and channel diversion potential of a route, restoring drainage patterns 

on UARs may entail as little as a constructing a barricade (passive restoration), or as much as the use of 

heavy equipment to remove legacy drainage infrastructure diverting or channeling run-off near streams 

(active restoration). The specific actions applied will respond to localized conditions and may include the 

following treatments:

• Remove culverts and install waterbars, cross drains and rolling dips. These water dispersion 

and/or containment treatments are designed to prevent overland flow from concentrating on the 

travel surface and potential for stream diversions (i.e. prevent water from flowing down the road or 

trail), which reduces the potential for off-site sediment delivery to water resources. Where legacy 

culverts are no longer allowing for water flow, posing a moderate to high potential for sediment 

production near streams, infrastructure will be removed. 

• Barricade. To prevent unauthorized motorized uses, all unneeded UARs will be barricaded,

unless the route intersects with a road identified for decommissioning whereby access is already 

blocked. The barricade (e.g., gate, earthen mound, log debris, or large rocks) will be placed at the 

entrance to a road or route and culverts removed as necessary, depending on slope location, type 

of stream crossings, and diversion potential (proximity to stream channels, severity of erosion, or 

degree of road-related slope modifications). The Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy identified 

select UARs with high risk for resource effects as a priority for drainage restoration to lessen 

undesirable environmental effects. Recovery objectives are to establish free-draining surfaces and 

promote revegetation of travelways.

Resource Risk Mitigations/Maintaining NFTS roads and motorized trails:

The Forest Service is authorized to manage OHV use per 36 CFR 212 and 261, and provide specific 

regulations for the agency based on the minimization criteria found in Executive Orders (EO) 11644 and 

11989. In compliance with these authorities and the Six Rivers Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP or Forest Plan) direction, I have determined that there is a need to improve management of 

motorized travel on the forest. Mitigation measures are actions designed to avoid, reduce, or eliminate 

route-related impacts on forest resources. Appendix C identifies road- and route- (motorized trail) specific
Record of Decision

14 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

mitigations necessary to minimize risks to public safety and unintended effects to botanical, wildlife and

aquatic species, and water quality. Mitigations apply to both NFTS roads and motorized trails.

• Eighteen (18) seasonal gate closures. Gates will be constructed to restrict season-of-use of 

NFTS roads where the spread of POC root disease may otherwise occur or to prevent damage to 

soil or aquatic resources. Enforcing season-of-use designations on motorized trails and roads 

through gate installations is one of the management actions identified to reduce the risk of 

spreading Phytophthora lateralis (PL) root disease to POC populations. Seasonal gate closure 

dates vary depending on resource objectives, location and existing ground conditions, but in 

general, the dates range from October to May. Seasonal gate closure success is dependent on the 

correct timing of the closure and the ability to restrict access beyond the gate. The gate location 

can increase the efficacy of restricting illegal vehicle access. The preferred locations for the 

placement of gates are in areas that severely restrict a vehicles ability to drive around them. This 

is usually on steeper slopes along narrow sections of the road that have steep road cuts, which 

make it difficult for vehicles to breach. Placement of large boulders around gates can facilitate the 

effectiveness of the gates.

• 106 miles of stormproofing15. Stormproofing on open roads and motorized trails includes 

adding waterbars/rolling dips and drainage improvement (e.g., culvert addition, repair, or 

upgrade). In addition, ML 1 roads in road storage will be managed in a hydrologically 

maintenance-free condition by removing or repairing drainage structures such as water 

bars/rolling dips and culverts, and gating as needed to prevent motorized use.

• Griffin Creek Bridge repair. The first phase of bridge repair targets removal and demolition: 

removing the bridge railing for re-use when the deck and curbs are re-established in the second 

phase; removing and demolishing the concrete deck, glulam girders and steel diaphragm 

members; and removing and demolishing the offset pier down to the top of the pier footing at 

ground elevation. The second phase excavates the base of the existing abutments to establish a 

new center footing to complement the two exterior footings for each abutment. Reinforced 

concrete columns will tie into the footings, and three steel girders on abutment seats will be 

installed with new diaphragms between the girders. Then the girders will be painted, the deck 

formwork constructed, the reinforced concrete deck poured and curb installed, and the bridge 

railing reinstalled.

 15 Stormproofing: Agency term referring to relatively low-cost treatments on NFTS roads and trails primarily open to the public, 

including activities such as replacing undersized culverts and cross drains, constructing diversion dips at road-stream crossings, water 

bars, out-sloping and broad-based drain dips depending on site-specific conditions. The objectives are to reduce the chronic effects of 

roads (e.g., fine sediment delivery) and reduce the likelihood and consequences of catastrophic failures (e.g., diversion onto roads), 

typically associated with large storm events. These long-standing agency practices are applicable across extensive portions of the 

NFTS network aimed at protecting aquatic resources and infrastructure. They are designed to make a road more resilient to withstand 

storm events in order to protect the investment in the infra structure as well as natural resources, typically implemented on relatively 

small segments of the network that pose a high or moderate risk to water quality and fisheries.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 15

• Additional Resource Mitigations

o Route Delineation through the placement of a physical barrier to travel, such as large 

boulders or other imported material, in close proximity to the motorized trail prism, is 

designed to keep vehicular traffic on the designated road or motorized trail.

o Maintain Roads and Trails as per the Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project and 

associated motorized trail maintenance analysis included in Appendix D of the FEIS.

o Road/Trail Surface Improvements will reinforce existing gravel on roads or add new 

gravel along sections of roads and motorized trails near POC to reduce vehicle contact 

with mud and reduce the spread of PL root disease to uninfected POC populations.

o Sensitive Plant Species. The Sensitive Plant Species Management Actions will include 

route delineation through use of boulders, logs, etc. to protect sensitive plant species.

o Naturally Occurring Asbestos. This mitigation is aimed at increasing public awareness 

about the potential exposure to naturally occurring asbestos while traveling on newly 

designated NFTS roads and, or motorized trails, and the risk associated with exposure. 

Informational materials will be available at the Gasquet Ranger District office or hazards 

identified through signage.

Fostering Citizen Stewardship in National Forest Management

I am especially pleased in the development of the Selected Alternative 6 as the culmination of public 

comments and the efforts of the Del Norte County collaborative group, a community-based effort

convened in 2010. The collaborative was a diverse independent group of tribal representatives, Del Norte 

County elected officials, representatives from two OHV clubs and three environmental groups, and other 

interested individuals. The US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution Program (Center for 

Collaborative Policy) facilitated open dialogue by bringing these interested parties together to come to 

agreement on recommended changes to the NFTS (FEIS pp. 30-33, 43-45).

Their efforts represent a spirit of cooperation and a willingness to work together to find solutions to 

travel management issues, which have been so divisive in the past. The group exemplified citizen 

stewardship of our national forests by working together to craft a proposal to designate select UARs

proposed by the Forest Service as motorized trails—a proposal considered most controversial by the 

public. My decision reflects their work (36 CFR 212. 55 (a)(b)(1)-(4)).

On September 27, 2011, Secretary Vilsack responded to Congressman Wally Herger regarding the 

Forest Service’s responsibility to coordinate with counties under several federal statutes, including the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and 

NEPA. In this letter, Secretary Vilsack states that NFMA coordination “allows the Forest Service to take 

into account and consider the state or county’s proposed management for lands under their jurisdiction, 

and vice-versa.”

Alternative 6 incorporates the following (Table 2) Del Norte county collaborative group 

recommendations, refined in response to scoping and public comments on the DEIS (FEIS pp. 43-45).
Record of Decision

16 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Table 2. Collaborative group recommendations authorized under Alternative 6.

UAR # FS Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2)

Route Details Identified by 

Collaborative

Collaborative Final 

Recommendations Alternative 6

17N17.1 Add to trail system 

as motorized trail.

Provides access to historic mine 

site and hunting. Designate for motorized access. 0.0-1.98

Motorized Trail

17N49.100

Add the short section of 

17N49.100 to the junction 

with 17N49.104 to allow access 

to the 104 route; barricade 

and restore.

Provides access to the 104 route; 

delineate using boulders and other 

native materials.

Group agreed to add the short 

section of 17N49.100 to the 

junction with 17N49.104 (to 

allow access to the 104 route); 

barricade and restore.

0.0-0.12

Motorized Trail

0.12-4.0

Restore

17N49.104

Add to trail system as motorized 

trail; route delineation in 

sensitive plant areas.

Part of a system of old mining 

routes on Gasquet Mountain; this 

UAR is partially within the IRA; the 

group agreed to allow access 

because of the loop opportunities 

in that area.

Designate for motorized 

access on 3.82 miles out of the 

total 4.68 miles.

0.0-3.82

Motorized Trail

3.82-4.68

Restore

17N49.105 Barricade and restore. Accesses Darlingtonia bog.

Remove from system to protect 

Darlingtonia bog; alternate 

access available; route should 

not be added.

0.0-1.43

Restore

17N49.106 Barricade and restore. Connects with 17N49.105,

which is not being added. The group agreed not to add. 0.0-0.32

Restore

305.109 –

“Pine Flat”

Add to trail system as motorized 

trail. Route delineation. .in 

sensitive plant areas.

Portion within IRA and includes 

sensitive plants; extra emphasis 

management needed to designate 

for motorized access.

The group agreed 

to add to a campsite with a turn 

around, with the remainder of 

the route barricaded/restored.

0.0-2.43 

Motorized Trail

2.43-3.27 

Restore

305.118

Add to trail system as motorized 

trail; end trail before POC area 

and deteriorated portion of the 

road; seasonal closure required;

need culvert at small spring.

POC/Darlingtonia bog issues; route 

provides search/rescue access.

Designate for motorized access, 

but shorten to prevent OHV 

access to bog and POC area; 

seasonal closure required; need 

culvert at spring site.

0.0-0.8

Motorized Trail

0.8-1.5

Restore

305.125

Add to trail system as motorized 

trail; route delineation in 

sensitive plant areas.

Historic mine route. Sensitive 

plant areas require protection.

Designate for motorized access, 

but protect sensitive habitat 

where necessary to prevent 

OHV access.

0.0-1.4

Motorized Trail

314.1 Add to trail system 

as motorized trail.

Portion within IRA; existing pond 

at end of route; POC concerns.

Designate for motorized access, 

but shorten route to prevent 

OHV access to spring area

near end of route.

0.0-1.2

Motorized Trail

1.2-1.7

Restore

405.10

Add to trail system as motorized 

trail; route delineation at sensitive 

plants site.

Old cabin at end of route, 

good hunting access; field 

review by environmental groups 

determined there were no 

sensitive plants present.

Designate for motorized access.

0.0-0.51

Motorized Trail

0.51-0.74

Restore

405.103

Add to trail system 

as motorized trail; correct 

drainage issues near creek.

Old mining site 

with interpretative potential.

Designate for motorized access, 

but correct drainage issues near 

creek; repair existing culvert.

0.0-3.5

Motorized Trail
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 17

Response to DEIS Comments

To honor the Del Norte County collaborative effort and public interests, I have decided to make the 

following changes to the design and mitigation measure requirements of Alternative 6 in the FEIS (FEIS

pp. 50-53, FEIS Appendices D and G):

Dispersed recreation

In response to comments and changed circumstances regarding Del Norte County road management, and 

since Del Norte County passed a resolution allowing mixed-use on county roads:

• Designate Forest Road 17N07 and 4.9 miles of 17N49 (downgrading from milepost 2.96 to 

junction of County Road 305 from ML 3 to ML 2) as mixed-use to provide a loop opportunity. 

The surface type (unpaved) and condition of the road (low level of investment) are consistent 

with the mixed-use designation typically allowed on an ML 2 road.

In response to user-preferred dispersed-recreation opportunities, I reconsidered two routes, initially 

described as potential sensitive plant habitat, where subsequent surveys did not find sensitive plant species 

or McDonalds rockcress (Arabis macdonaldiana), resulting in a low-risk rating (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)):

• Designate UAR 305.126 and the first 1,000 feet of UAR 315.100 as motorized trails. I am 

requiring a barricade at the end of approved portion of route UAR 315.100 to mitigate potential 

resource impacts.

Risk reduction to forest resources

In response to concerns about spreading POC root disease to areas where intact uninfected POC forests

remain (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)), I decided to:

• Add a year-round gate on UAR 15N01A.4 for designation as ML 1.

• Place gravel on the following UARs that will be designated to mitigate risk to POC: 15N36N.1; 

15N36N.1B; 16N23.2; 17N01.1A; 17N01.1B; 17N01.3; 18N02.3; 18N07.14; 18N09.108; 

199.113; 315.110; 315.111; 316.1; 316.2; 316.3; 316.4; 316.5; 316.6; 316.9; 427.107; 427.108.

• Add a barricade at the end of UAR 15N02.101 for designation as a motorized trail.

• Remove proposal to add seasonal gate on Forest Road 17N49.101, which was downgraded to low 

risk after a field review found no POC.

• Add seasonal gates to mitigate risk to POC on the following forest roads: 17N36, 14N01D, 

14N38, and 15N13.

• Add a barricade after the water source on Forest Road 14N08.

• Remove proposal to add gates on 16N03K, as field inventory identified existing gates, seasonally 

closed to the public.

In response to concerns about unique botanical resources (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)), I decided to:

• Add route delineation to Forest Road 18N15 to mitigate effects.
Record of Decision

18 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

• Decommission Forest Road 14N38 beyond the water source.

• Place a barricade at the intersection of UAR 17N23c.1 to restrict motorized access, since I am 

designating it to the NFTS as an ML 1 road.

Administrative access and public safety

It is my intention to be responsible to our communities by optimizing our effectiveness and coordination 

of fire suppression, special use permits and interagency projects (36 CFR 212.55 (a)). In response to 

concerns for maintaining future administrative access, my decision will:

• Repair Griffin Creek Bridge. The first phase of bridge repair targets removal and demolition: 

removing the bridge railing for re-use when the deck and curbs are re-established in the second 

phase; removing and demolishing the concrete deck, glulam girders and steel diaphragm 

members; and removing and demolishing the offset pier down to the top of the pier footing at 

ground elevation. The second phase excavates the base of the existing abutments to establish a 

new center footing to complement the two exterior footings for each abutment. Reinforced 

concrete columns will tie into the footings, and three steel girders on abutment seats will be 

installed with new diaphragms between the girders. Then the girders will be painted, the deck 

formwork constructed, the reinforced concrete deck poured and curb installed, and the bridge 

railing reinstalled.

• Designate UAR 14N15.1 as an ML 1 road on the NFTS and construct a year-round gate.

• Downgrade Forest Road 18N20 to ML 1 with a year-round gate.

• Construct a year-round gate on UAR 17N49.4A, rather than a barricade to allow for quick search 

and rescue access.

Neighboring lands and private property access

In response to concerns from a private landowner (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(4)), my decision will:

• Not designate or barricade UAR 411.102, which provides primary access to this private 

inholding. The landowner will pursue applying for a special use permit to allow for motorized 

travel to their property.

In response to concerns from Green Diamond Resource Company, a neighboring landowner (36 CFR 

212.55 (b)(4)), my decision will:

• Construct two year-round gates on UAR 15N13.100 instead of barricades, so the company retains 

access to their road that connects to this UAR. This ensures rapid direct-suppression tactics in the 

event of a wildfire.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 19

Response to FEIS Comments

On March 21, 2017, the Forest Service hosted a resolution meeting for objectors, during which some 

objectors brought forward concerns about converting three UARs to motorized trails on the NFTS—

305.118, 314.1 and 305.109. The Reviewing Official’s 

letter dated April 26, 2017, invited objectors to meet in 

the field with the Responsible Official to discuss the 

objection issues, including visiting those three UARs,

no later than May 31, 2017, to work on the resolution 

of these objections.

On May 12, 2017, the Responsible Official 

notified and invited objectors to participate in a field 

review on Monday, May 22, 2017, per the Reviewing 

Officer’s direction. Multiple organizations, including 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KSWC), 

Environmental Information Protection Center and

Smith River Alliance, participated. Since the decision 

to designate these three UARs as motorized trails was pending, the group decided to walk along segments 

305.109 and 305.118 for the review (Figure 6). Due to time constraints, the group did not review 314.1.

During the field trip, objectors requested that the Forest Service include information in the ROD

concerning an agreement with the stakeholders to help monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the 

mitigations. It was suggested that the newly formed Smith River Collaborative, which includes many of the 

objectors, host annual field trips to the routes of greatest public concern to determine if the mitigations are 

working and adequate.

On May 19, 2017, Ed Tollefson withdrew his Objection (#17-05-00-0002) to the December 2016 

draft ROD. His withdrawal is based on assurances made by the district ranger, Dave Palmer, for 

continued maintenance of Forest Road 17N07 (i.e. Lower Coon Mountain Road) to the previous road 

condition, despite being downgraded from ML 3 to ML 2 to accommodate OHV use.

On June 5, 2017, the Environmental Protection Information Center and Klamath Forest Alliance

(Objection #17-05-00-0006), and WildEarth Guardians (Objection #17-05-00-0009) submitted a joint, 

post-field trip letter to the acting forest supervisor, Michael Green, stating, “In response to the field trip, 

we are willing to drop one area of objection, route 305.109 (“Pine Flat”). We would like to firmly restate 

our objection to route 305.118 (“Still Creek”). For Pine Flat, we recognize the need expressed by the 

Tolowa Dee-ni′ Nation.”

In order to resolve their objection to designating route 305.118, objectors propose the Forest Service 

close this UAR with a locking gate and other improvements to discourage unauthorized use of the trail. 

Based on the field trip review, as well as the steep terrain and numerous large rocks, the objectors believe 

it would be feasible to gate and otherwise barricade the road to prevent future unauthorized use.

In subsequent conversations, Del Norte County reiterated their position that they are willing to accept 

Selected Alternative 6 without modification, since it incorporates the collaborative agreements.

Figure 6. Field review of routes raised as issues 

during objection period.
Record of Decision

20 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

On June 9, 2017, KSWC submitted a second letter to the Responsible Official indicating, “We remain 

concerned about the routes we visited. Both 305.109 and 305.118 represent the hydrological, rare plant, 

roadless values, and Port Orford cedar issues that will continue on the NRA under the plan.” Specifically, 

on the Still Creek route (305.118), the issue is the continued risk presented to healthy Port-Orford-cedar 

along Still Creek.

As stated, “... the best way to avoid contamination of this watershed is to close the road. KSWC also 

expressed their appreciation for the willingness of the Forest Service to consider ongoing monitoring of 

the issues that will likely continue with these trails. KSWC expressed the SRNF can ensure that the trails

in question are meeting the ecological and hydrological desired conditions by developing a monitoring 

plan and establishing a technical review team, and their interest in being a part of an annual monitoring 

team to review the effectiveness of the mitigations.”

Permits, licenses and authorizations needed to implement the decision

In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.25 (b), the EIS is to list all federal permits, licenses, or other 

entitlements that must be obtained in implementing the Selected Alternative 6 (FEIS p. 431). On October 

8, 2015, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) adopted Waiver R1-2015-

0021, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain 

Federal Land Management Activities on NFS Lands in the North Coast Region (Waiver). This Waiver 

exempts certain activities, while meeting all conditions of the Waiver, conducted on NFS lands from the 

waste discharge requirements of Article 4 (commencing with §13260) of Chapter 4, Division 7 of the 

California Water Code, except as provided within the Waiver. The Waiver expires on October 8, 2020, 

unless renewed by the Water Board. No additional federal, state, or county permits, licenses, or other 

entitlements are required to implement my decision.

Mitigation and Monitoring

I recognize there may be short-term effects to the human environment from the use of motorized vehicles,

including increased traffic, noise and emissions (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(3)(5)). Please know that I weighed the 

benefit/risk trade-offs of providing administrative and public motorized access to determine the right mix of 

motorized and non-motorized use opportunities. I believe the benefits are certainly worth the risks. My 

decision will implement mitigation measures and monitoring to protect natural and cultural resources (36 

CFR 800), in compliance with 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e); Region 5 Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18);

Forest Plan; SRNF Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Invasive Plant Species and Aquatic Organisms 

(USDA 2014); and national, regional, and state water-quality standards (FEIS pp. 49-53; Appendix D), along 

with minimizing noise and dust disturbances to quiet recreation (FEIS pp. 325-354; Appendix D).

Each resource implements unique timeframes and methodology, depending on the resource issues and 

management direction. For watershed resources, over the next 10-year period, at least 20 percent of the 

designated roads and trails will be monitored on an annual basis, targeting those considered high risk 

during the OHV/RAP process. In addition, BMP evaluations are conducted annually and will include the 

following categories as described in the National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA 2012): motorized 
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 21

trails, road storage and decommissioning, stream crossings, parking and staging areas, road operations and 

maintenance. Results from all of these monitoring efforts will be reported to the Water Board annually.

In addition to required annual BMPs and Water Board monitoring, my decision incorporates projectspecific monitoring to inform the agency on mitigations and corrective actions that minimize resource 

effects below the set threshold of concern, and verify the accuracy of analysis assumptions and findings 

(FEIS p. 53; Appendix B). For example, the percentages in the FEIS for sensitive plants (Appendix B)

reflect the culmination of various environmental factors used to develop a given species’ viability 

threshold of concern and when and what type of management response is needed (NatureServe 2009;

Tomaino 2008). Although the LRMP has a management response threshold of 20 percent population 

change, my decision includes response thresholds of 10 to 15 percent for specific species, depending on 

current populations. My decision allows for lowering these allowable thresholds in the event baseline 

survey data reveals that population sizes have drastically changed relative to historic surveys data 

collected for these species in 2006 and 2014.

Specifically, transportation condition surveys of roads and motorized trails provide a record of up-todate surface conditions. As a standard practice, the agency itemizes and ranks deficiencies needing 

correction and identifies opportunities to improve the NFTS. The frequency and intensity of condition 

surveys will vary with the road maintenance level and the resource risks involved (FSH 7709.59, 62.5).

I am also willing to extend monitoring as a non-ground disturbing action if impacts and population 

fluctuations to sensitive plants warrant further study; particularly if community and organizations 

demonstrate interest in participating in a collaborative implementation process, monitoring plan and 

interest in leveraging funding resources (refer to Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection 

Process) for further discussion.

Reasons for the Decision

In reaching my decision, I have considered the Purpose and Need for action, tribal and interagency 

consultation, Del Norte County coordination, public comments, resource reports, the alternatives and their 

potential effects and outcomes, as disclosed in the 2016 Smith River National Recreation Area 

Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project FEIS. I believe my decision to select Alternative 

6 represents a step toward a more effective design of the NFTS, providing for safer travel and sustainable 

motor-vehicle-dependent uses benefiting tribal practitioners, the public, and administrative and outdoor 

recreational experiences (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e)). My decision will make limited changes to the NFTS in 

alignment with travel analysis and collaborative recommendations, consultation, new information and 

changed circumstances (FEIS Chapter 3; Appendix C).

I believe changes to the NFTS will provide for better management of key resources at risk, while

improving access to dispersed sites identified by community members. My rationale for selecting 

Alternative 6 (the Selected Alternative), includes considerations presented below.
Record of Decision

22 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Striking a Balance among Multiple Uses

In reaching my decision, I drew upon local expertise and knowledge of the area, scientific data, expertise 

of forest staff and my review of the environmental analysis for significant issues brought forward by 

commenters. I heard from many individuals and groups with particular goals for the types of recreation 

and uses they consider appropriate on NFS lands, revealing a strong connection with public lands on the 

SRNF. I appreciate the connections of use and exploration of the outdoors that goes back many 

generations. Some family traditions are still in the making.

My desire is to make an informed decision that is relevant to our communities and upholds diverse 

lifestyles, fully realizing the social (quality of life), economic and environmental implications. Recreation 

can mean many things to each of us. I also appreciate each community’s unique set of characteristics, 

values, and beliefs that shape its relationship with the forest and its resources. The ability of these distinct 

civic entities to continue to thrive economically, physically, and spiritually through their connection with 

the SRNF cannot be understated.

My role as the Responsible Official is to make sure managing our public lands is considerate of 

multiple uses that are sustainable and that I do not diminish the current or future uses and virtues of the 

national forest for others. I genuinely value the diversity of opinions on how to manage the Smith River 

NRA road and motorized trail segments, as this gave me insight into user preferences and helped clarify 

the needs and interests for travel and access.

With these factors in mind, as the Responsible Official managing the forest, I did not make this 

decision lightly. In reaching my decision, I wrestled with the best approach, recognizing the broad range 

of interests and critical needs along with the potential for conflicts between motor vehicles and classes of 

motor-vehicle uses, and existing or proposed recreational uses of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands.

My intent is to honor the interests of all stakeholders. However, some points of debate between nonmotorized and motorized interests cannot be reconciled. Making this decision in context of the agency’s 

multiple-use mission in tandem with meeting the relevant local needs, all the while upholding regulations, 

statute, and policy, is the hardest thing I do.

The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.53) states that the Responsible Official shall coordinate 

with appropriate federal, state, county, and other local governmental entities and tribal governments when 

designating NFS roads and trails on NFS lands. Secretary Vilsack’s September 27, 2011 response to

Congressman Wally Herger also highlighted the Forest Service’s responsibility to coordinate with 

counties under several federal statutes, including NEPA. My decision incorporates recommendations

made by Del Norte County Board of Supervisor (BOS) representatives, in part, provided during the 

collaborative process in 2010 and during the comment period.

With an understanding of these factors, I decided to select Alternative 6, because I sincerely believe

the limited changes to the NFTS and timing of use will promote human behavior respectful of traditional 

dispersed and backcountry uses. Additionally, I believe decreasing unmanaged OHV-related 

environmental effects is a smart incremental step in the right direction to restore and preserve our 

outstanding natural resources. The successful implementation of this decision will, in large part, be based 
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 23

on local community members, visitors, and land managers working together to sign, map, restore, 

implement mitigation measures, and encourage compliance with regulations.

I am grateful that many individuals and groups with diverse viewpoints have already indicated their 

willingness to work together towards developing community-based solutions for future on-the-ground

work. By selecting Alternative 6, I am endorsing a community-based approach to solve difficult issues. I 

am confident implementing the Selected Alternative 6 can and will be successful with community support 

and a commitment that this collaboration will continue into and throughout the implementation phase, and 

well into the future.

Motorized-Dependent Recreational Experiences

The SRNF is comprised of outstanding landscapes, featuring a diversity of resource values and a rich 

history of human use and visitation. Motorized recreation plays an important and pivotal role in how 

people visit and use the forest. The NFTS provides motorized-vehicle access to backcountry settings used 

for dispersed recreation, and overnight undeveloped and developed camping sites. In comparison to other 

national forests in California serving urban communities with high-population densities and expansive 

networks, unmanaged OHV-use patterns within the Smith River NRA boundary tends to be more 

concentrated where historic commercial mining and logging roads are accessible. In fiscal year 2013, 

there were an estimated 185,000 national forest recreationists visiting the SRNF. About 73 percent of 

them were from Del Norte or Humboldt counties, and 89 percent were from northwest California or 

southwest Oregon. However, only 1.1 percent of the visitors reported their primary activity to be OHV 

use or motorized trail-riding activities (USDA 2008b; FEIS pp. 317-320).

After talking to many community members and meeting with user groups, I realized that recreation 

means many things to those who use our forests (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(3)). I am well aware some do not 

want any existing roads closed or decommissioned. Interested pro-recreation groups suggested that if the 

forest could not maintain the roads, then the local users would. Some I talked to were apprehensive about 

the lack of access to dispersed recreational sites and voiced their displeasure over closing more NFTS 

roads, concerned this will act to increase the likelihood of user conflicts. I find Alternative 6 addresses their 

interests well by providing a diversity of OHV riding and dispersed recreation opportunities for the future.

In light of strong use interests and benefits to Del Norte County, I am authorizing more motorized travel 

opportunities by downgrading Forest Road 17N07 and a portion of Forest Road 17N49 from ML 3 to ML 2. 

This will allow 15 miles of use by non-highway-legal OHV vehicles as well as highway-legal passenger cars. 

In response to public interests for OHV use and motorized access to dispersed recreation sites, my decision 

designates 47 miles of motorized trails, reclassifies five miles of ML 2 and 3 roads, and converts 4 miles now 

classified as ML 1 roads to ML 2 roads, open for residents and visitors to enjoy. This will provide designated 

motorized access to 56 inventoried dispersed recreation sites.

My decision to implement Selected Alternative 6 will designate 15N36N.1 (0.1 mi) and 15N36N.1B 

(0.2 mi) as roads classified as ML 2, and 15N36N.1C (0.03 mi) as a trail available for motorized uses (see 

Appendix A). I decided to convert these UAR segments to the NFTS to serve community interests for 

motorized access around Blackhawk Bar. These routes occur along a reach of the Smith River classified 
Record of Decision

24 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

as a recreational river, defined as those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road, that 

may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or 

diversion in the past (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act §2(b)(3)).

The land management direction for the Smith River NRA (Management Area 7; LRMP FEIS pp. 11-

15; LRMP Appendix A [Smith River NRA Management Plan]; Smith River NRA Act) and recreational 

river segments (Management Area 15; LRMP FEIS pp. II-21, III-148; LRMP FEIS Appendix D-2) allows 

for motorized uses. However, the ROS classification (LRMP FEIS Appendix E-1) in this area is currently 

semi-primitive non-motorized. Although this ROS change was in the draft ROD, I determined a mapping 

correction was in order; and, upon further consideration, I find my decision will require a project-specific 

plan amendment pursuant to 36 CFR 219.13 (a)), further discussed in Appendix A of this ROD. Based on 

my review of public comments, I still believe this is a wise decision. Many people living in surrounding 

communities have used this area for many years for camping, sightseeing, exploring, fishing, hiking and

hunting. To keep visitors to this area safe, I am designating four sites for parking and staging at trailheads 

along 17N49 away from the roadway and any traffic.

Conflicts among uses

I acknowledge some residents and environmental interest groups either do not support motorized 

recreation at all, or challenge expanding motorized use considering the known trade-offs to user’s who 

prefer quiet, recreational experiences or want preservation. What I do know is that everyone agrees that 

better management of motorized use is vital. Despite comments faulting me for being willing to place 

high value natural resources at risk to meet a perceived non-existent need for motorized access, from 

where I sit considering all the tradeoffs and diverse interests, it is not as simple as one might think. I made 

my decision with the greatest good in mind.

Opportunities for Solitude and Quiet

I believe directing motorized use to select designated NFTS roads and motorized trails will reduce user 

conflicts for those seeking solitude and quiet. Our forest provides a spectrum of recreation experiences 

and unique challenges for exploration and discovery, as well as vast spaces for quiet reflection and 

solitude where one can just get away from it all (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(3)). These landscapes represent 

some of the largest expanses of undeveloped public lands that remain in the nation.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 25

With the Siskiyou Wilderness immediately east of the Smith River NRA project area boundary, depicted 

in Figure 7, covering an expanse of 180,000 acres, opportunities for solitude in areas where natural 

processes occur within a primitive non-motorized and non-mechanized setting are notable. This area 

features outstanding scenery of the Siskiyou Crest range.

My decision will minimize the potential for disturbing 

quiet recreation users from noise and dust generated by 

vehicles by not designating UARs as motorized trails, and 

opening closed ML 1 roads to motorized uses by changing 

their status to ML 2 within a half mile of primitive or semiprimitive non-motorized ROS classifications (FEIS pp. 

328-353).

Inventoried Roadless Area

I want to honor individuals drawn to wild roadless areas and 

those who practice spiritual ceremonies that require

introspective isolation and silence (36 CFR 212.55 (e)). 

Remarkably, these primitive and semi-primitive recreation 

settings associated with the Siskiyou Wilderness, along with 

the 80,000 acres designated as IRAs within the project area

(FEIS pp. 219-224), are not only cherished as special places 

by those who live in Del Norte County, they also attract visitors who contribute to Del Norte County’s 

economy. I deeply value these special places and recognize they provide biological strongholds and refuges 

to conserve native biodiversity, fundamental to the quality of life and economy of Del Norte County.

I have weighed the potential effects of designating motorized trails within IRAs, especially in light of

public concerns related to noise disturbance, and outcomes to roadless features and unique character, in 

compliance with 36 CFR Part 294 Subpart B (FEIS pp. 66-72). I fully appreciate undeveloped areas are 

more likely than roaded areas to support greater ecosystem health, including the diversity of native and 

desired nonnative plant and animal communities, due to the absence of disturbances caused by roads and 

accompanying human activities (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)(3)). I took into account public concerns for 

protecting the environment, including comments to avoid designation of motorized trails within IRAs to 

eliminate risks to rare and endemic plant and tree species, such as POC (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1); FEIS pp.

215-252).

Ideally, as I understand it, a key contributor to the character of IRAs is that they provide areas where 

nonnative invasive species are rare, uncommon, or absent. My review of the project record indicates this is 

true. However, it also discloses that imprints of human disturbance are evident along the borders of select 

IRAs, where open public roads (classified as ML 2 and ML 3), abandoned mining roads and approximately 

10 miles of inventoried UARs along the borders exist, some with long-standing, unintended motorized use

(FEIS pp. 219-224). It is obvious that these roads open to motorized use positioned along the borders of

Figure 7. Siskiyou Wilderness east of the 

project area.
Record of Decision

26 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

IRAs likely represent inadvertent mapping errors, associated with less accurate technology applied when 

delineating them. In these areas, localized environmental effects are visible from certain vantage points.

Of all the points of contention between pro-recreation and Del Norte County interests and 

environmental advocates, designating motorized trails and allowing motorized use within IRAs rises to 

the top. In order to honor environmental interests, I 

have decided to limit the amount of UARs designated 

as motorized trails in IRAs, as illustrated in Figure 8.

Recognizing the level of controversy, I carefully 

considered IRAs and other relevant analyses; in 

particular, potential effects to botanical 

species/habitats, POC and risk of introducing weeds. 

Upon review of the project record, it became evident 

the appropriate location for motorized trails is 

paramount to minimize undesirable outcomes (36 CFR 

212.55 (b)(1)-(3)).

For this reason, my decision designates only 3.10

miles of motorized trails in the North Fork Smith and 

converts 0.03 miles of road to motorized trail in the Ship 

Mountain IRA. With the best interest of servicing local 

communities and tribal practices in mind, I decided to 

designate these short segments as motorized trails on the NFTS, as they weave in and out of these two IRA 

boundaries and provide riding opportunities that tie into nearby road networks. It is my understanding my 

decision is in alignment with the Del Norte County collaborative group’s agreements.

I considered what actions could compensate for the 3.13 miles of localized motorized trail resource 

effects, particularly to sensitive plants as one of the rare resources within the Smith River NRA. In order 

to minimize effects to natural resources, my decision will decommission or downgrade a total 7.16 miles 

of unneeded OML16 1 road segments on the NFTS, and barricade and restore drainage patterns on 17.4

total miles of unneeded multiple short UAR segments in IRAs, as illustrated in Figure 9 and Figure 10

(FEIS p. 240).

 16 Objective and Operational Maintenance Levels (OMLs): Roads may be currently maintained at one level and planned to be 

maintained at a different level at some future date. The operational maintenance level is the maintenance level currently assigned 

to a road considering today’s needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns; in other words, it defines the 

level the road is currently maintained. The objective maintenance level is the maintenance level assigned at a future date,

considering road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns.

Figure 8. Pine Flat (305.109), a UAR designated as 

a motorized trail.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 27

Figure 9. Unauthorized routes (UARs) closed and restored, and designated motorized trails in proximity to 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs.)
Record of Decision

28 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Figure 10. Maps of UARs being converted to motorized trails (clockwise from upper left: 305.109, 314.1, 

305.118 and 17N49.104) and locations of Forest Service-listed sensitive plants (approximate point locations 

pending completion of 3 years of baseline surveys).
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 29

My staff indicates it is likely that motorized use of UARs has altered the size and distribution of rare 

plant occurrences and their habitats, although the magnitude of human disturbances are unknown. It 

becomes apparent, based on my review of the analysis for botanical resources, that the dynamic interrelationships of the environment and human disturbances are complex, and in some cases, can be 

beneficial. The known sensitive plants growing within or nearby the physical footprint of UARs tend to 

occupy rocky outcrops or open settings with a relatively high percentage of bare ground. These plants 

have evolved with some level of natural disturbance (i.e. fire and soil erosion); and therefore, have 

adapted mechanisms such as development of underground stems called rhizomes that promote reestablishment after disturbances (FEIS pp. 141-144).

Evidently, these sensitive plant species have tolerated unmanaged motorized use as indicated by the 

relatively higher numbers of plants (7,834 individuals) growing within 30 feet of UARs, compared to the 

3,890 plants growing beyond the human disturbance distance 30 to 100 feet out from UARs. My staff

suggests that disturbed ground may promote seed germination, while reducing competition from other 

plants for limited resources (primarily water needed for photosynthesis). I recognize there is an 

opportunity to learn more about botanical species and population responses to human disturbance, so my 

decision authorizes further studies (FEIS p. 128).

I have read the public concerns motor vehicle tires moving through wet soils infected by the pathogen 

that kills POC is threatening species viability. Right now, my review of the project record indicates 245 

acres of POC forests within the IRAs are diseased, representing approximately 7 percent of the total POC 

population within the IRAs. When considering designating motorized trails and the risk of spreading PL, I 

took into account the distribution and presence of POC near the physical footprint of designated 

motorized trails, and the potential risks to POC stands downstream (FEIS p. 226).

My review of the analysis for POC indicates none of the designated motorized trails on the periphery 

of the North Fork Smith IRA would present a high risk to healthy POC forests. Two of the motorized 

trails I am designating access individual POC stands, roughly 1 to 2 acres each, in areas currently infected 

with PL. I am mitigating the further spread of PL by surfacing these routes with gravel near stream 

crossings, where wet soils are present with active disease, and closing these areas to use during the rainy 

season. Additionally, I considered the risks to larger, downstream patches of POC forests. Apparently, the 

disease is already present in these POC forests as well (FEIS pp. 230-231).

I fully understand that disturbance caused by OHV use can lead to the eventual replacement of native 

plant species with invasive non-native species (weeds). Many invasive species are adapted to persist in 

disturbed habitats such as roadsides and areas with frequent vehicle use. I did consider potential risks 

associated with motor-vehicle access, known vectors for spreading invasive plant seeds. However, 

negative impacts from non-native plant species to sensitive plant species has not been observed in 

association with the UARs I am designating as motorized trails, most likely due to the fact that serpentine 

soils may have an exclusionary effect on invasive plant establishment (FEIS pp. 124-161).

For these reasons, I am satisfied my decision to designate short segments of motorized trails within the 

North Smith River IRA will not put federally listed or Forest Service Sensitive plant species or POC at risk

(36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)).
Record of Decision

30 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

I am willing to invest resources in barricades to block unintended OHV travel on select unneeded 

UARs, even though monitoring condition surveys may reveal the public is breaching and damaging these 

barricades, making repeated repairs necessary. I am hopeful OHV users will travel and use national forest 

resources responsibly.

My decision will not designate motorized roads or trails within designated corridors of wild river 

segments of the Smith River National Wild and Scenic River system, classified as semi-primitive nonmotorized within the ROS. With this in mind, I am satisfied Alternative 6 will preserve natural and 

roadless area features and character (36 CFR 212.55 (e)).

Administrative Uses

Recent wildfire events illustrate the risks and costs of inaction to life, property, firefighter and public 

safety, natural and sacred cultural resources... risks I am not willing to live with. Above all else, the last 

thing I want to see happen is for our forests to burn up or place firefighters and communities in harm’s 

way due to lack of access or fuels reduction treatments (FEIS pp. 162-171). I believe if we do not actively 

manage our forests wisely for the future in light of fuels buildup and wildfire, I fear the very values 

underlying the Purpose and Need for travel management to preserve our environment could become 

unattainable, lost in the flames of some near future wildfire ignition (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)).

Collaboration indicates there is consensus locally that I consider how my decision affects diverse 

livelihoods and community wellbeing in Del Norte County. I am aware local communities expect the 

Forest Service actively manage our national forest to reduce fuels buildup and rely on our fire suppression 

crews to protect their homes and properties in the event of wildfire. With an estimated 65 percent of Del 

Norte County under the administration of the Forest Service, my decision weighed heavily on protecting 

and improving people’s lives.

My goal for travel management is to accelerate active fuels reduction and vegetative management, so 

our forest resources are resilient to wildfires. In fire-adapted ecosystems, fire regulates biotic productivity 

and stability in ways other mechanical or chemical means cannot. In the prolonged absence of fire, and 

aggravated by other disturbance factors, these fire-adapted forests and grasslands have undergone significant 

changes in species composition and structure. Intermediate canopy layers and higher ground fuel loadings 

have developed that allow ground fires to reach the crown more easily, making fires more difficult to 

control. I take very seriously the growing urban/wildland interface that requires adjustments in strategies to 

protect life and property that can only be serviced by a well-designed NFTS (36 CFR 212.55 (a)).
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 31

Conservation of Our Forest Resources

I am committed to conserving and restoring our natural resources. Although I considered the immediate 

and long-term effects to all resources affected, my review of the project record, and collaborative and 

public comments indicates elevated interests in preserving 

water quality, POC forests and endemic rare botanical 

plants (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)(2); FEIS Appendix G). For 

this reason, I am taking special precautions to eliminate, 

mitigate, rectify and restore ecosystems impacted by 

unmanaged OHV use itself and/or altered by the physical 

footprints on the ground.

It is important to remember, although my decision 

authorizes changes to the NFTS, none of the UARs I am 

designating as motorized trails or roads reclassified on the 

NFTS that provide for OHV use, entail ground disturbance 

from new road construction or reconstruction, as illustrated 

in Figure 11.

Watershed and Fisheries Resources

After very serious consideration of all the alternatives considered in detail, I have concluded that selecting

Alternative 6 offers an important advantage in lessening the impacts of unmanaged motorized use on 

water quality, aquatic and riparian habitats, and anadromous salmonids (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(1)), 

especially when compared to the No Action alternative (the 

existing NFTS) (FEIS pp. 48-59).

Today, the Smith is one of the few river basins in 

California that remains undammed. Designated as a Key 

Watershed in the Forest Plan, the Smith River preserves 

water quality throughout a system of large refugia crucial to 

at-risk fish stocks, as seen in Figure 12 (FEIS pp. 94-95,

99). Under Alternative 6, all of the roads and motorized 

trails I am designating to the NFTS will be stormproofed to 

improve infrastructure and minimize potential for adverse 

impacts to water quality from continued motorized use (36 

CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(1).

My decision authorizes installing larger stream crossing 

culverts, and constructing waterbars and rolling dips to 

reduce water diversion potential and effectively channel 

storm runoff during 100-year-flood events, in compliance with the LRMP (p. IV-49). All unneeded UARs 

and roads removed (decommissioned) from the NFTS will be put into a free draining, hydrologically benign 

condition, with physical barriers installed to restrict motor-vehicle use.

Figure 12. Coastal cutthroat trout swimming 

the North Fork Smith River.

Figure 11. Unauthorized route (UAR) that 

remains in good condition even without 

maintenance.
Record of Decision

32 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

My review of the analysis for soils and geology indicates the combination of decommissioning roads, 

and rectifying or improving drainage infrastructure along select road segments and designated motorized 

trails on the NFTS that are stormproofed will reduce moderate and high rates of soil erosion and 

sedimentation (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(1)). Benefits will likely be greatest where roads are located on highly 

erosive soils, geologically unstable and/or steep slopes, or near streams. In addition to active restoration of 

natural drainage patterns, passive restoration will occur when motorized-vehicle use no longer occurs, 

leading to revegetation of the physical travelway footprint (FEIS pp. 350, 351, 356-358, 378-383).

I find this restoration strategy will effectively contribute to the recovery of aquatic and riparian 

habitats in alignment with Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives and in compliance with the 

Clean Water Act. My decision will act to decrease the potential for continued threats to aquatic 

threatened, endangered and Forest Service sensitive and management indicator species (MIS) habitats by 

reshaping slopes and stabilizing eroding soils to lower sediment transport into waterways. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that the road and trail actions described in the FEIS were 

consistent with those identified in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon 

recovery plan aimed at reducing sediment into the Smith River. In fact, experts indicate decommissioning 

roads, restoring unneeded UARs, maintenance, and stormproofing activities will be beneficial to 

watershed resources in the long term and meet recovery goals for coho salmon (FEIS pp. 108-123).

My review of the analysis indicates that selecting Alternative 6 reduces the overall ML 1, ML 2 and 

UAR miles on the Smith River NRA by 28 percent, with a maximum road density of 1.25 miles per 

square mile, measured at the 5th-field watershed scale (FEIS pp. 421-431). Although I recognize the 

methodology used to calculate road density does not account for complex spatial relationships, I did 

consider this an indication that selecting Alternative 6 provides a balanced approach to conserve our 

natural resources, while providing a reasonable minimum NFTS (36 CFR 212.55 (a)).

Port-Orford-Cedar

Management activities on NFS lands are planned and implemented to maintain POC, considered an 

ecologically, economically, and culturally important tree species (FSM 2670.22). Based on consultation 

with my staff and the comments I received, I understand uninfected POC forests are at-risk of the exotic 

root pathogen, Phytophthora lateralis (PL), first documented in a nursery near Seattle, in 1923, and 

introduced to the NRA in the 1950s. My review of the best available science indicates PL is nearly always 

fatal to the trees it infects. Research shows a link between the spread of the pathogen, at least in part, and 

the transport of spore-infected soil by animals, humans, tires and other vectors.

My understanding is that although POC occurs in a wide range of environments, the highest risk of 

infection is associated with wetlands and riparian areas, with most of the infected areas occurring alongside 

streams. Most of the SRNF POC forests are concentrated in riparian reserves alongside streams, where 

POC is most vulnerable to PL. This is due in part because PL moves through water easily and virtually 

requires standing water to infect POC. On dry sites or in dry conditions, PL spores are dormant. PortOrford-cedar even a few feet away from water or seasonally saturated soils is at little risk regardless of the 

management strategy imposed.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 33

When making my decision on how to address threats linked to OHV use and POC forests, I considered 

Forest Service inventories on the SRNF. These inventories revealed that of the 13,535 acres of POC forests 

within the Smith River NRA analysis area, approximately 3,300 acres contain soils infected with PL, as 

shown in Figure 13 (FEIS pp. 271-272, 288-291). Although I initially considered a strategy to 

decommission roads to prevent motorized travel in an attempt to contain this POC disease, the extent of 

this pathogen across the landscape would shut down major portions of the NFTS network. I cannot support 

this in light of my responsibility to protect and serve our communities (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(1)-(2)).

However, I am serious about addressing 

motorized vehicles as vectors spreading this

disease to our native POC forests. I have 

decided to prioritize gravel surfacing on select 

roads and the following UARs to reduce the 

spread of this disease: 15N36N.1, 15N36N.1B,

16N23.2, 17N01.1A; 17N01.1B, 17N01.3,

18N02.3, 18N07.14, 18N09.108, 199.113,

315.110, 315.111, 316.1, 316.2, 316.3, 316.4,

316.5, 316.6, 316.9, 427.107 and 427.108. 

Known to be effective as a mitigation, 

graveling deters direct contact of contaminated 

soils with vehicle tires during travel.

Starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s, 

the Smith River NRA identified vehicleaccess points that increased the risk of spread 

into uninfected POC stands. The forest began 

implementing a variety of road-closure types. 

These consisted of permanent barriers, such as 

earthen berms and rock barricades, and gates, 

closed both seasonally and year-round. I am 

concerned about the efficacy of investing resources in road closures (gates and barricades), especially 

where it is flat, where alternate UARs can be created (FEIS pp. 271, 277-278, 280, 282, 290-293).

Although my decision continues this strategy of using gates to restrict OHV travel seasonally, I think 

the key to successful closures is better timing and placement of gates or other barriers, targeting high-use 

roads and trails located near or through streams, where the probability of exposure to contaminated soils 

is greatest. With this mind, it makes sense to place gates at the entrance of roads to block access when 

soils are wet to prevent OHV tires from carrying spores into areas with uninfected, healthy POC forests.

My decision will construct a year-round gate on UAR 15N01A.4 (changed to an ML 1 road). I am 

also requiring route delineation on Forest Road 18N15, and placing a barricade at the end of Forest Road

15N02.101 and designating it as a motorized trail allowing for improved surfacing. I have decided to drop 

the proposal for a seasonal gate on UAR 17N49.101, as a more recent field review found no POC 

Figure 13. Distribution of Phytophthora lateralis, the 

pathogen that causes Port-Orford-cedar root disease.
Record of Decision

34 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

growing there (FEIS p. 38). I believe Alternative 6 is a reasonable approach to provide for motorized 

travel, while seasonally limiting access and graveling select native surface roads to preserve POC forests.

Botanical Resources

My review of the botanical specialist report revealed the Smith River NRA, located in the Klamath-Siskiyou 

Ecoregion of northwest California and southwest Oregon, contains more than 1,859 distinctive plant species 

supporting 150 endemics rare plant species, many of which only occur on serpentine soils (Whittaker 1960, 

Kruckeberg 1984). Habitats with the highest number and diversity of rare plants in the Smith River NRA 

include seasonally dry serpentine settings and serpentine 

wetlands. Within these habitats, there is one federally 

endangered plant species, the McDonalds rockcress (Figure 

14), and at least 27 plants considered rare by the California 

Native Plant Society. Eight of these are on the Region 5 Forest 

Service Sensitive Plant list (FEIS pp. 123-124, 135-145).

In response to comments submitted by Del Norte County 

and interest groups to provide for dispersed recreation, I only 

considered designating UARs as motorized trails to the 

NFTS where botanical surveys indicated endangered plants 

were not present. My decision also avoids designating UARs 

as motorized trails within the North Fork Smith Botanical Area. All of the high-risk routes (as rated for 

the Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy) and turnouts infested with weeds will be hand pulled and weed 

propagules (seeds) e removed from the forest or burned to lower risk of spread before being added to the 

MVUM. Required weed treatment mitigations vary by species (FEIS pp. 261, 265; FEIS Appendix D).

From a review of the project record, I believe barricading all UARs within the botanical area will help

protect over 20,000 acres of endemic and rare plant habitat. I am also authorizing strategic placement of 

educational signs to encourage responsible behavior and make visitors aware of how their actions can 

alter fragile natural environments (36 CFR 212.55 (b)(1)).

The inventoried UARs I am designating have a history of unauthorized use. Botanical surveys for this 

project, restricted to 100 feet on either side of UARs, revealed that a majority of the sensitive plants are 

growing on or within 30 feet of the UAR physical footprint, providing some indication plants are tolerant

to the current level of vehicle-related disturbances (FEIS p. 128). I believe my decision to delineate OHV 

travel on designated routes, close roads, and restore drainage patterns on select UARs may benefit 

endemic, uncommon plants that can grow—some thriving—on ultramafic soils. I am satisfied that 

designating UAR 305.126 as a motorized trail, along with designating the first 1,000 feet of UAR 

315.100 with a barricade at the end, will restrict passage so the viability of our endemic botanical 

resources are not threatened.

However, I support learning more about these complex, ecological variables, which warrants further 

investigation. For this reason, I am authorizing monitoring of a sample of sensitive plant populations over a 

10-year period, or longer if inventories find wide-ranging fluctuations in plant responses. The focus of the 

Figure 14. McDonalds rockcress—an

herbaceous perennial forb.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 35

botanical monitoring will be to evaluate the relationship between survival and reproduction trends in light 

of motorized disturbances, incorporating design triggers for timely corrective actions to avoid drastic 

decline in compliance with the Forest Plan (p. IV-18; FEIS Appendix B pp. 90-95).

With that said, I have no reservations authorizing, at my discretion, temporary or emergency closures 

pursuant to 36 CFR 261 Subpart B, without advance public notice, if findings from monitoring surveys 

indicate there are considerable adverse effects occurring on any road or motorized trail, or from OHV use. If 

adverse effects cannot be mitigated or eliminated to prevent future recurrence, I will provide public notice of 

the closure pursuant to 36 CFR 261.51, including reasons for the closure and the estimated duration of the 

closure. Depending on the degree of resource effects, I may decide to initiate a separate environmental 

analysis and a new decision to close the road or motorized trail and remove it from the NFTS.

Wildlife Resources

My review of the analysis for wildlife indicates my selection of Alternative 6 will have minimal effects to 

the northern spotted owl (NSO) and marbled murrelet (MAMU). Across the project area, no more than 17 

acres of habitat will be modified, restricted to areas where culvert removal will occur. I am aware 

equipment and vehicle noise disturbance is likely to adversely affect federally listed NSO and MAMU 

during the breeding season. However, except for specific high priority roads that pose a high risk to 

aquatic resources scheduled for upgrades or decommissioning, noise-generating activities within 0.25 

miles of unsurveyed northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat will not occur between February 1 

and July 9, unless surveys determine the site to be unoccupied. In concurrence with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), my decision will minimize impacts to NSO from noise-generating activities 

on high-priority roads within 0.25 miles of occupied NSO activity centers (AC surrounding nest site), 

prohibiting activities between February 1 and July 31, unless surveys determine the birds are not nesting

(36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(2)). No limited operating period (LOP) will be applied on high priority roads 

outside of known NSO ACs (FEIS pp. 444-445, 457-459, 468-472).

My selection of Alternative 6 will not modify suitable nesting or roosting habitat. No large snags felled, 

unless they pose a hazard to public or staff safety. All felled hazard trees will remain on site. Based on 

consultation with the USFWS, except for high-priority roads that pose a high risk to aquatic resources roads, 

noise-generating activities within 0.25 miles of unsurveyed MAMU nesting habitat between March 24 and 

August 5 will not occur. In addition, work between August 5 and September 15 will not begin until 2 hours 

after sunrise and will be halted 2 hours before sunset, unless surveys indicate the site is unoccupied. To 

minimize impacts to MAMU from noise-generating activities on high-priority roads, no activities will occur 

between March 24 and September 15 within 0.25 miles of an occupied MAMU site, unless surveys

determine the birds are not nesting. No LOP will be applied on high-priority roads outside of known 

MAMU sites. No suitable nesting habitat will be degraded (FEIS pp. 445-446, 457-459, 468-472).

Considering these factors, I believe my decision to decommission 53 miles of NFTS roads and 

barricade 93 miles of unneeded UARs will promote the recovery of contiguous wildlife habitats, now 

fragmented by their physical footprints. My staff indicates this will mitigate motorized vehicle noise 

disturbance in these select areas. No modification to suitable nesting or roosting habitat will occur, and no 
Record of Decision

36 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

large snags felled, unless they pose a hazard to public or staff safety. All felled hazard trees will remain on 

site. Therefore, I find my decision to select Alternative 6 makes sense, as changes to the NFTS will 

contribute toward minimizing disturbances to NSO and MAMU, while rectifying prior habitat 

modifications aiding in long-term recovery (36 CFR 212.55 (a)(b)(2)).

Del Norte County: Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values

In making my decision, I also factored in a well-designed and maintained NFTS, as it is key to sustaining 

cultural integrity and local revenues. Del Norte County’s population represents diverse cultures, lifestyles 

and travel-management interests. During our road and travel analysis, parties with a stake in travel 

management expressed a variety of interests—some conflicting. Just as attitudes, beliefs, and values differ 

among stakeholders, so do their uses of the forest and their desired direction for travel management. I 

believe my decision well serves the interests of outdoor enthusiasts and travelers—riding OHVs, fishing, 

hunting, hiking, rafting, and wildlife viewing—contributing to the economic stability of Del Norte County.

Local Native American cultural values and contemporary uses

Prior to being designated as a national forest in 1906, Native Americans inhabited these public lands for 

thousands of years as skillful stewards of the land, with many accounts of their long history of sustainable 

gathering practices for subsistence, ceremonial, and cultural uses. There are seasonal villages or 

temporary camps along river corridors, and sensitive religious and cultural locations, including areas used 

for the collection of traditional botanical materials (FEIS pp. 200-214).

Today, Native Americans from a number of tribes including the Yurok Tribe, Elk Valley Rancheria and 

the Tolowa Dee-Ni′ Nation (formerly known as the Smith River Rancheria), the Karuk Tribe and Resighini 

Rancheria continue to use the NFTS to access the Smith River NRA. They perform ceremonies and vision 

quests, and gather traditional foods, medicinal plants and basket-weaving materials. They regularly use this 

backcountry for hunting and collecting firewood. I know this first-hand, as many of my friends and family of 

Native American heritage share their stories and interests with me. To them, motorized access is paramount, 

particularly so elders and people with disabilities can successfully accomplish their first amendment rights

(36 CFR 212.55 (a)).

In 1966, Congress declared that the federal government “administer federally owned, administered, or 

controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of 

present and future generations” (National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, 16 USC 470-1(3)). This need 

was made more explicit when the NHPA was amended in 1980 and §110 was added to expand and 

underscore federal agency responsibility for identifying and protecting historic properties and avoiding 

unnecessary damage to them. From my point of view, providing access for ceremonial customs and 

lifestyles, while strategically avoiding OHV use near artifacts, sacred sites and other areas to avert 

pillaging and vandalism, is a wise and responsible decision.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 37

Affordability and availability of resources for maintenance and administration

Costs are unique to each maintenance-level classification, considering the amount of public use and safety 

issues (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2350 and 7700) guided by trail and road management objectives 

(TMOs and RMOs), OMLs and state traffic regulations (California Vehicle Code (CVC); 36 CFR 

212.5a)17. Although my decision authorizes designation of 47 miles of motorized trails and somewhat 

costly design features, mitigation and restoration, I find these costs will be somewhat offset by removing 

around 53 miles from the NFTS and placing 21 miles of ML 1 roads (downgraded from ML 2) in storage

or in a maintenance-free condition.

My review of the project record also indicates substantial benefits from stormproofing aimed at

lowering the risk for costly repairs due to storm-related landslides or loss of infrastructure in the longterm. In addition, I believe seasonal gates designed to minimize the spread of diseases during the wet 

season and spread of invasive weeds will act to lower maintenance costs, as most damage from motorized 

use to road surfaces occurs when soils are saturated (36 CFR 212.55 (a); FEIS pp. 383-386, 388-389, 392-

394, 399-400).

Public safety

My decision provides for strategically placing informational and speed limit signs that educate the public

about the health risks associated with breathing asbestos, and encourages them to slow down to keep dust 

levels low, reducing the potential of inhaling contaminated air (FEIS pp. 176-181, 186-189, 195-199).

My decision to improve the NFTS infrastructure and upgrade the maintenance level on select road 

segments accounted for compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry, surfacing (native, gravel,

paved), speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads. I am satisfied that my decision to 

make improvements to the NFTS, including smoothing road surfaces, repairing road signs, removing 

hazards and vegetation blocking driver visibility to maintain drivable road conditions, will promote safe 

passage on all roads open for the public to drive (36 CFR 212.55 (a)). My review of the project record 

indicates little threat to public health from dispersed motorized-uses, considering the low levels of vehicle 

emissions relative to the isolated populated areas and distance from more concentrated neighborhoods 

along the Smith River and its forks (FEIS pp. 92-94).

I am also authorizing the repair of the Griffin Creek Bridge located on Forest Road 18N07 (Knopki 

Creek Road). This bridge has a major crack in one of its three main girder laminate beams. My review of 

the analysis for transportation indicates in its current condition, the bridge does not support the loadbearing requirements necessary to allow trucks with horse-trailers, fire engines, or water tenders to cross. 

Forest Road 18N07, which begins at US Highway 199, is the main access to the upper Knopki Creek 

watershed, where popular dispersed recreation opportunities exist, such as Sanger Lake, Sanger 

Meadows, and access to Young’s Valley Trailhead, a popular trail into the Siskiyou Wilderness. The road 

 17 California Vehicle Code (CVC): The CVC regulates the use of motor vehicles in California, including motor vehicles used on 

the national forests. The CVC sets safety standards for motor vehicles and vehicle operators. It defines the safety equipment

needed for highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles. It also defines the roads and motorized trails where non-highway legal 

motor vehicles maybe operated.
Record of Decision

38 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

also provides critical motorized access for fire suppression and administration. Other partners, such as the 

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), also use Forest Road 18N07 for highway 

construction waste staging projects and disposal. For this reason, I find that my decision to invest in 

bridge repair is prudent.

Access to public and private lands

In making my decision, I considered potential conflicts among different uses on NFS lands and

neighboring federal lands, while honoring valid existing rights (36 CFR 212.55 (d); FEIS pp. 47-48). I 

heard from a number of private landowners, who had specific requests (FEIS pp. 38; FEIS Appendix G). 

For this reason, my decision will restrict public access to private land inholding parcels. In the future, the 

SRNF will work with private landowners needing to obtain special use permits for use of specific roads.

Public Involvement

Scoping

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as “... an early and open process for 

determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a 

proposed action” (40 CFR 1501.7). The Forest Service initiated formal government-to-government 

consultation with the Tolowa Dee-Ni′ Nation, on February 27, 2012; and with the Yurok Tribe, Karuk 

Tribe, Elk Valley Rancheria, Resighini Rancheria, and Tolowa Nation, on February 28, 2012. The SRNF

published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the Smith River National Recreation Area 

Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project in the April 20, 2012 Federal Register (Vol. 77, 

No. 77, p. 23658). The notice indicated a 45-day scoping period, ending June 4, 2012. The forest mailed 

the scoping summary and Proposed Action maps to 176 interested individuals and organizations, along 

with a cover letter requesting the public identify their issues and concerns with the project. The forest held 

two public meetings to inform the public about the project, clarify any specific questions the public had, 

solicit comments, and assist the public in understanding the information displayed on the Proposed Action 

maps or contained in the Proposed Action summary. One meeting was at the Lighthouse Inn, in Crescent 

City, and the other meeting was at the Gasquet Mountain School, in Gasquet, California. The SRNF 

received approximately 627 comments on the Proposed Action during the scoping period.

In August 2013, the forest hosted a public meeting to share the results of public scoping. The meeting 

included a presentation on the significant issues and proposed alternatives, and provided an opportunity 

for resource specialists and the public to talk about topics of concern. Information gleaned from 

discussions with the public was used to refine the alternative descriptions and maps in the DEIS.

The forest met with a representative from the Del Norte County BOS in two-by-two meetings eight 

times, including one field trip, and also provided two presentations to the BOS since deciding to pursue 

the analysis of the project through an EIS. The forest provided the county a 30-day review period of the 

Proposed Action prior to public scoping, and shared the draft alternatives with county representatives 

prior to releasing them to the public. In response to concerns expressed by the BOS and the sheriff’s
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 39

department, the agency inventoried short UARs to dispersed recreation sites for consideration in the 

project alternatives, surveyed sites for parking near the proposed motorized trail network on 17N49, 

downgraded 15 miles of ML 3 roads to ML 2 to allow mixed-use, designated two additional UARs where 

surveys determined there were no botanical issues, and responded to clarifying the terminology used in 

the analysis (e.g., the term restoration was clarifiedas restoration of drainage patterns in the 

environmental analysis documents, and the phrase adding routes to the NFTS was changed to designating 

routes on the NFTS) (FEIS pp 30-33, FEIS Appendix G).

Comment on the DEIS

On April 11, 2014, the forest initiated the 60-day comment period on the DEIS with the publication of the 

Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (Vol. 79, No.70, p. 20197). An opportunity to comment on 

the DEIS was published in the Eureka Times-Standard, on April 12, 2014, as well as on the forest’s 

website. The agency received 854 comments during the comment period, including from the Del Norte 

County BOS, Smith River Alliance, Friends of Del Norte, Northwest Trail Riders, Blue Ribbon Coalition,

the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Del Norte Resource Advisory Committee, Deschutes County 4 

Wheelers, Four Runners of Klamath Falls, Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association, PacifiCorp,

ADH Environmental, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of the Interior’s

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, and 841 individuals.

A compilation of public comments received during the DEIS comment period and the response to 

these comments is located in Appendix G of the FEIS. Comments received during the scoping period are 

in the project record at the Forest Supervisor’s office, in Eureka, California, and are available for review 

upon request.

Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection Process)

The 30-day pre-decisional administrative review of the Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration 

and Motorized Travel Management Project FEIS and draft ROD were available to the public from 

December 20, 2016 to February 6, 2017, initiated by the legal Notice of Availability published in the 

Eureka Times-Standard. Between December 23, 2016 and February 3, 2017, seven written objections were 

submitted to Randy Moore, the Forest Service’s Region 5 Regional Forester and the Reviewing Official for 

this project.

Two landowner’s (Rowe and Tollefson) submitted written objection issues, on December 23 and 27,

2016, respectively, concerning Alternative 6 downgrades of 15 miles of Forest Road 17N07 from ML 3 to 

ML 2 on the NFTS, acting to compromise low-clearance-vehicle access and devalue their private 

property, and hampering future development plans. The remedy to resolve their objection issues is to 

implement road maintenance to accommodate previous use and road surface condition.

On January 25, 2017, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, the Environmental Protection 

Information Center, and the Klamath Forest Alliance submitted their consolidated written objection issues

concerning impacts that motorized-vehicle use would have on the irreplaceable botanical, hydrological, 

roadless wildland, aquatic and wildlife values of the Smith River NRA, and challenging affordability to 
Record of Decision

40 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

accomplish road maintenance, monitoring, cultural and natural resource protection. These organizations 

recommend the selection of Alternative 5, with a commitment to a monitoring and enforcement strategy 

that ensures the efficacy of closure and mitigation measures, as a remedy to resolve their objection issues.

On January 27, 2017, the Del Norte County BOS submitted written objection issues indicating 

Alternative 6 will diminish recreational opportunities and 50 miles of motorized access to historic, 

recreational sites that have been used for several generations, beginning in the early 1800s, and will 

negatively impact public safety by limiting access for search and rescue.

On February 2, 2017, Smith River Alliance (SRA) submitted written objection issues concerning the

affordability linked to the agency’s ability to accomplish road maintenance, monitoring and protection of 

cultural and natural resources. The SRA concurs with comments from Del Norte County and others about 

the recreation and historical significance of lands within the Smith River NRA, recognizing it is a worldclass destination and as such it deserves special attention with regard to the dedication of resources and 

staff to sustainably manage these lands. This organization recommends the selection of Alternative 5, with 

a commitment to a monitoring and enforcement strategy that ensures the efficacy of closure and 

mitigation measures, as a remedy to resolve their objection issues.

On February 3, 2017, WildEarth Guardians identified the following written objection issues: the 

analysis of the road network in the FEIS does not comply with minimization criteria under the Travel 

Management Rule and EOs 11644 and 11989; consideration of the minimization measures are not 

documented in the record; designation of high-risk routes to the NFTS; and affordability to accomplish 

road maintenance, monitoring, cultural and natural resource protection. This organization recommends 

the selection of Alternative 5, with a commit to a monitoring and enforcement strategy that assures the 

efficacy of closure and mitigation measures, as a remedy to resolve their objection issues.

On February 3, 2017, Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) submitted written objection issues concerning the 

Alternative 6 decision to limit opportunities for OHV use and the general insufficiency of the proposed 

motorized route network, particularly 50 miles of access to historic sites that would be prohibited. The 

BRC concurs and incorporates by reference objection issues submitted by the Del Norte County BOS.

The BRC request for remedy is to proceed with the final ROD authorizing Alternative 6, along with 

continued engagement with groups to designate more routes in the future to expand the NFTS.

On February 23, 2017, the deputy regional forester, acting as the reviewing officer for the Smith River 

National Recreation Area Restoration and Travel Management Project objection determined that the 

objection resolution period for the project needed to be extended for 30 days to provide time for a 

resolution meeting, pursuant to 36 CFR 218.26 (b). The objection resolution period for the project was 

extended to April 19, 2017.

Alternatives Considered in Detail, but Not Selected

In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered three other alternatives in detail in the FEIS, 

summarized below. A more detailed comparison of these alternatives is presented in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 41

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The No Action alternative represents the existing conditions and provides a baseline for comparison with 

the action alternatives. As mandated by Congress in 1990, motorized travel has been restricted to roads and 

trails designated on the NFTS to preserve the exceptional opportunities for a wide range of multiple uses, 

while protecting the renowned anadromous fisheries, exceptional water quality, abundant wildlife and 

scenic beauty (pursuant to the Smith River NRA Act). The SRNF published an MVUM in 2009, displaying 

the designated 495 total road miles on the NFTS currently open for motorized travel and season of use in 

compliance with the Smith River NRA Act.

I have decided to not select the No Action alternative, as the current MVUM does not take into 

account or reflect local-level interests of federal, tribal, state, and local governments, motorized and nonmotorized users, and other concerned parties (pursuant to the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212)).

Under the No Action alternative, activities to revise the NFTS to better accommodate motorized 

recreational uses, coupled with rectifying legacy resource damage from unintended OHV travel such as 

stormproofing and surfacing NFTS roads and motorized trails, would not occur. My concerns for 

continued travel across Griffin Creek Bridge, without repair, may eventually prompt me to authorize a 

temporary closure.

The current on-the-ground road/trail network features more than 156 miles of unbarricaded UARs, 

allowing for unintended year-round motorized access increasing sedimentation to stream habitat from 

elevated road densities, and allowing routes to encroach into sensitive riparian and streamside areas. It is 

Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, and avoid harassment and disruption to aquaticdependent species and habitat, while providing for motorized public use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03 (2)). 

I find the No Action alternative does not provide the greatest protection measures for riparian and aquatic 

habitats, since unneeded roads would not be decommissioned nor UARs barricaded, where aquaticdependent species and their habitat are most at risk. Similarly, undesirable current trends linked to 

unintended motorized travel affecting natural resources, such as botanical habitats, POC, and IRA features 

and values, would continue.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 responds to the significant issues concerning impacts on motorized recreation and dispersed 

recreation opportunities. Specifically, this alternative would increase opportunities for motorized 

recreation and access to dispersed sites by designating more motorized trails and ML 2 roads, more 

motorized trails accessing dispersed recreation sites, and the greatest number of parking sites along 

17N49, compared to Alternatives 5 and 6.

Alternative 4 would designate three UAR segments currently in the semi-primitive non-motorized 

ROS class near Blackhawk Bar. These routes include 15N36N.1 (0.1 mi) and 15N36N.1B (0.2 mi) 

proposed as ML 2 roads, and 15N36N.1C (0.03 mi) proposed as a motorized trail. Alternative 4 analyzed:

• Changes to NFTS – Open:

o Designate UARs on NFTS as open:
Record of Decision

42 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

 58 miles of UARs as motorized trails.

 12.6 miles of ML 2 and 3 roads.

o Downgrade to ML 2: 15 miles of ML 3 roads to ML 2 to allow mixed use.

o Upgrade to ML 2: 11 miles of ML 1 roads to ML 2 roads.

o Convert road to trail: 8 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

o Parking sites: 5 parking areas along 17N49.

• Changes to NFTS – Closed:

o Designate UARs on NFTS as closed: 4 miles of ML 1 roads.

o Downgrade to ML 1: 16 miles of ML 2 roads to ML 1 roads.

o Decommission 54 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

• Restore Drainage Patterns and Barricade: 71 miles on UARs not added to the NFTS.

• Resource Risk Mitigations/Maintain NFTS:

o Stormproofing: 112 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads and motorized trails.

o Seasonal gate closure: 17 additional seasonal gates on roads and motorized trails.

o Repair Griffin Creek Bridge to make structurally sound.

Of all action alternatives, Alternative 4 would designate the most motorized roads and trails to the 

NFTS. I did not select this alternative primarily because it does not incorporate all available minimization 

measures to protect rare and outstanding natural resource values. In comparison to the Selected 

Alternative 6, Alternative 4 would designate about 10 miles or 3 times more motorized trails in IRAs and 

would have the greatest likelihood for impacts to botanical resources. Twenty-two of the designated 

UARs would access uninfected POC stands directly or indirectly via stream crossings at least 33 times, 

and 7 designated UARs would access a mixture of infected and uninfected stands nine times. Under 

Alternative 4, about 56.7 miles (80.9 percent) have a high erosion, hazard-risk rating, indicating an 

increased risk to soil erosion and sedimentation.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 responds to significant issues concerning impacts to forest resources and IRAs by reducing

the number and miles of roads and motorized trails open for motorized travel, with specific attention 

given to protecting non-motorized recreation access and providing the greatest level of protection for 

POC and other botanical resources of any of the alternatives. Specifically, this alternative avoids 

designating motorized trails in IRAs, unneeded inventoried UARs as defined by the Smith River NRA 

RAP/OHV Strategy at the time it was completed, and unneeded roads having a high risk to resources. This 

alternative would reduce motorized access to stands of POC and areas with threatened and sensitive 

botanical species, barricading all inventoried UARs not proposed for designation on the NFTS.

Alternative 5 would designate 310 feet (0.1 mi) of UAR 15N36N.1 as an ML 2 road currently in the 

semi-primitive non-motorized ROS class. Alternative 5 analyzed:
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 43

• Changes to NFTS – Open:

o Designate UARs on NFTS as open

 7.4 miles of UARs as motorized trails.

 2.6 miles of ML 2 and 3 roads.

o Downgrade to ML 2: 15.28 miles of ML 3 roads to ML 2 to allow mixed use.

o Upgrade to ML 2: 4.2 miles of ML 1 roads to ML 2 roads.

o Convert road to trail: 0 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

o Parking sites: 1 parking area along 17N49.

• Changes to NFTS – Closed:

o Designate UARs on NFTS as closed: 6.8 miles of ML 1 roads.

o Downgrade to ML 1: 54.33 miles of ML 2 roads to ML 1 roads.

o Decommission 110 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

• Restore Drainage Patterns and Barricade: 133.2 miles on UARs not added to the NFTS.

• Resource Risk Mitigations/Maintain NFTS:

o Stormproofing: 58.6 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads and motorized trails.

o Seasonal gate closure: 4 additional seasonal gates on roads and motorized trails.

o Repair Griffin Creek Bridge to make structurally sound.

Of all the action alternatives, Alternative 5 designates the least miles of roads and trails to the NFTS.

It incorporates the highest level of resource protection compared to the other alternatives, barricading 

133.20 miles of UARs and decommissioning 100 miles of NFTS roads. This alternative would designate 

7.4 miles of motorized trails, compared to 47 miles and 66.3 miles of motorized trail designation 

proposals under Alternatives 6 and 4, respectively.

Although my desire is to honor environmental conservation interests, I have decided not to select 

Alternative 5. My review of the record indicates many of these UARs and roads are important to tribal 

practitioners, and service search and rescue, and fire suppression efforts wildfires. I heard from Del Norte 

County and collaborators that some of these segments provide long-standing access to important 

recreational destinations and favorite hunting grounds. I do not believe this alternative would provide 

sufficient diversity of motorized access to serve administrative, recreational outdoor opportunities, or 

traditional access supporting local lifestyles and tribal uses.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is often interpreted as the alternative that causes the least 

damage to the biological and physical environment, but other factors relevant to this determination are 

provided in §101 of NEPA. These include fulfilling the responsibilities of each generation as a trustee of 

the environment for succeeding generations; assuring safe, healthful, productive, aesthetically and 
Record of Decision

44 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

culturally pleasing surroundings for all Americans; and achieving a balance between population and 

resource use, which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. Based on 

my consideration of these factors and the effects disclosed in the FEIS, I consider Alternative 5 to be the 

environmentally preferable alternative because it designates the least miles of roads and motorized trails.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

My decision complies with the laws, policies and executive orders listed below and described in Chapter 

3 of the FEIS in compliance with NEPA.

2005 Travel Management Regulations

Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212 governing administration of the forest transportation system and

regulations at 36 CFR 295 governing use of motor vehicles of NFS roads are combined and clarified in 

the final rule as Part 212, Travel Management, covering the use of motor vehicles on NFS lands. These 

regulations implement EO 11644 (February 8, 1972), ‘‘Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,’’ 

as amended by EO 11989 (May 24, 1977). Travel management regulations implement these executive 

orders that direct federal agencies to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be

controlled and managed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those 

lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.

In compliance with the 2005 Travel Management regulations, I considered criteria (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-

(e)) first evaluated in 2005 for the Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy (FEIS p. 9). During the NEPA 

planning process disclosed in the FEIS, the minimization criteria are reflected in the Purpose and Need 

(FEIS pp. 13-20); framed the scope of the proposal (FEIS pp. 10-11) and development and range of 

alternatives (FEIS pp. 37-72); and were analyzed for disclosure of effects (FEIS pp. 73-475)—all of which 

ultimately informed my decision. Throughout the ROD and FEIS, I disclose how I considered the Travel 

Management Rule criteria in making my decision, further discussed below and in Table 3:

Table 3. Alternative 6: Consideration of Travel Management Rule criteria and management response.

Minimization Criteria Minimization Actions/ Mitigations

Minimize damage to soil. Restoration of drainage patterns (full closure); stormproofing (waterbars, culvert 

additions or upgrades, outsloping, etc.), gravelling in wet areas; routine road 

maintenance. All travel is restricted to designated routes, no off-road travel allowed (no 

new ground disturbance).

Minimize damage to watershed. Restoration of drainage patterns (full closure); overall road density reduction per 5thfield watershed; stormproofing (waterbars, culvert additions or upgrades, outsloping, 

etc.); gravelling in wet areas; route delineation; routine road maintenance.

Minimize damage to vegetation (POC). Restoration of drainage patterns (full closure); seasonal gates, gravelling in wet areas.

Minimize damage to other forest resources 

(botany).

Restoration of drainage patterns (full closure); route delineation to protect sensitive sites.

Minimize damage to cultural resources Barriers (and other standard protection measures) to prevent degradation of sites, 

vandalism or removal of artifacts.

Minimize harassment of wildlife and 

significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

Restoration of drainage patterns (full closure); route delineation to protect sensitive 

sites; overall road density reduction per 5th field watershed; limited operating 

restrictions applied during the breeding season for project implementation.
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 45

Minimization Criteria Minimization Actions/ Mitigations

Minimize conflicts between quiet recreation 

and motorized recreation when designating 

trails on National Forest System lands or 

neighboring federal lands.

Seasonal closures (season of use) relate to both the months that motorized recreation 

will not be allowed to use designated roads, or motorized trails and, conversely, the 

time of year that conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses will be 

minimized. The area of influence (dust, noise) on quiet recreation opportunities 

(including in general forest areas, wilderness, RNAs, etc.) from motorized use is onehalf mile from newly designated routes. No UARs were designated and no roads were 

upgraded from ML1, and no ML3 roads were downgraded to ML2. Seasonal closures, 

reduced road density and barrier minimizations, particularly in the more remote areas 

and river corridors of the Smith River NRA, is designed to lower user conflicts between 

motorized and quiet recreation.

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) was the only “neighboring federal 

lands” that could have been affected by the proposed action. The SRNF conferred 

with, but deferred management decisions for the two shared routes to the RRSNF.

Minimize conflicts among different classes 

of motor-vehicle uses.

Select roads were evaluated for the potential for mixed-use. All but two were 

considered inappropriate for use by different types of motor vehicles, and not carried 

forward in the analysis.

Ensure compatibility of motor vehicle use 

with existing conditions in populated areas.

None of the routes proposed for addition occur in populated areas.

Natural resources. I considered natural resources and find my decision to select Alternative 6 will 

not adversely affect them. The road- and route-specific UARs, and ML 1 and 2 roads to be designated 

under my decision, are limited to only those routes with low- or moderate-risk resource ratings (Smith 

River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy). My decision authorizes project design features and mitigations disclosed 

in Table 3 to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on resources (FEIS pp. 10-11, 37-53, 73-82; FEIS 

Appendix A; FEIS Appendix D pp. 105-151). My decision also authorizes baseline and implementation 

monitoring to ensure mitigations are effective (FEIS p. 53; FEIS Appendix B pp. 87-99).

Cultural resources. I considered cultural resources and find my decision will protect cultural 

resources from continuing adverse impacts from unmanaged motorized use by mitigating all known and 

potential effects to the eight cultural resource sites on routes being designated to the NFTS. Furthermore, 

my decision fully complies with Programmatic Agreements with the State of California, and provides the 

best compromise between protecting these sites, while still providing contemporary-use access for tribal 

members. Furthermore, consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office of California has 

determined that this undertaking will have no adverse effect on cultural resources (FEIS pp. 209, 212-214).

Public safety. Public safety is one of my top priorities when considering whether to allow non-streetlegal motor-vehicle use on ML 2 roads and trails, and downgrading 15.28 miles of ML 3 roads along 

Forest Roads 17N49 and 17N07 managed for street and non-street legal vehicles, to an ML 2 

classification to allow for mixed-use (FEIS pp. 395-397, 399). My decision only authorizes motorized 

uses determined to be generally safe for all vehicles types (FEIS pp.17-18, 37, 395-397, 399). In 

considering how best to keep travelers and visitors safe, I am repairing Griffin Creek Bridge and 

designating four sites for parking and staging at trailheads along 17N49 away from the roadway and any 

traffic. I considered health risks from breathing naturally occurring asbestos and am committed to 

minimizing these risks by educating the public by strategically placing informational and speed limit 

signs to encourage drivers to slow down to keep dust levels low, lessening the potential for inhaling 

contaminated air (FEIS pp. 176-181, 186-189, 195-199).
Record of Decision

46 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Provide for recreational opportunities. I carefully considered diversity of recreational opportunities 

and access to dispersed recreation when designating select UARs to the NFTS. Although the existing 

NFTS generally provides access to major developed recreation areas and for SRNF management 

activities, it does not contain some routes that are important for accessing long-standing dispersed 

recreational uses. In response to public interests for OHV use and motorized access to dispersed 

recreational sites, my decision designates 47 miles of motorized trails, reclassifies five miles of ML 2 and 

3 roads, and converts 4 miles of ML 1 roads to ML 2 roads, open for residents and visitors to enjoy. This 

will provide designated motorized access to 56 inventoried dispersed recreation sites (FEIS pp. 349-350).

Access to public and private lands. When identifying routes to add to the NFTS, I focused on 

meeting the needs of the public by considering access to the most desired routes and areas on the forest. 

My decision will not affect access to private lands, as this project does not designate roads or motorized 

trails through private lands where the Forest Service does not have right-of-way, nor will it change 

existing rights-of-way for adjacent private landowners (FEIS pp. 38; FEIS Appendix G).

Conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands. In making my decision, I considered 

potential conflicts among different uses on NFS lands and neighboring federal lands, while honoring valid 

existing rights (36 CFR 212.55 (d); FEIS pp. 47-48).

Availability of resources for maintenance and administration of roads and trails. Although my 

decision authorizes designation of 47 miles of motorized trails and somewhat costly design features, 

mitigation and restoration, I considered these costs to be partially offset by removing 53 miles from the 

NFTS and placing 21 miles of roads open to the public in storage (downgraded from ML 2 to ML 1) or in 

a maintenance-free condition. By selecting Alternative 6, overall annual road maintenance costs will be 

reduced by an estimated $15,113 (FEIS pp. 16, 47, 72, 393, 397, 399).

Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation and other forest resources. In reaching my decision, I 

considered the need to minimize impacts to both soil and water resources, including riparian and aquatic 

habitats, by only designating routes where adverse impacts could either be avoided or mitigated to 

acceptable levels (FEIS pp. 350-382, 412-430). My decision will minimize impacts to water quality by 

restoring drainage patterns or downgrading to OML 1 45.97 miles (82%) of the UARs with a high risk to 

water quality (“Updated RAP crosswalk to decision UAR” located in the project file). In addition, my 

decision will decommission 23.47 miles (45%) of the NFTS roads with a high risk to water quality.

(“Updated RAP crosswalk to decision NFTS” located in the project file). I incorporated all of the project 

design features and mitigation measures that I believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts 

on soils and water quality (FEIS pp. 10-11, 43, 49-53, 73-82; FEIS Appendix D pp. 105-108, 111-133, 139,

143-145; Table 3 above; Appendix C). The designations to the NFTS included in my decision will 

maintain and improve water quality and satisfy all federal and state water-quality requirements (FEIS p.

431).

My decision minimizes impacts to known sensitive plant populations and reduces the effects of 

noxious weed spread by only designating routes where adverse impacts can be avoided, or mitigated so 

do not exceed allowable thresholds. My decision minimizes impacts to sensitive plants by restoring 

drainage patterns or downgrading to OML 1 22.97 miles (42%) of the UARs with a high risk to sensitive 
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 47

plants (“Updated RAP crosswalk to decision UAR” located in the project file). In addition, my decision 

will decommission 35.1 miles (76%) of the NFTS roads with a high risk to botanical resources (“Updated 

RAP crosswalk to decision NFTS” located in the project file). I incorporated all of the project design 

features and mitigation measures that I believe are prudent to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on 

sensitive plants and noxious weeds (FEIS pp. 10-11, 40-46, 49, 50-51, 75-78; FEIS Appendix D pp. 105-

106, 110-111, 133-139, 142-143, 151; Table 3 above; Appendix C). With respect to botanical resources, 

the analysis determined that my decision is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of 

viability for any sensitive or watch list plant species (FEIS pp. 161-162).

I considered POC and find my decision will minimize impacts by only designating routes where 

adverse impacts could either be avoided or mitigated to acceptable levels (FEIS pp. 350-382, 412-430).

My decision minimizes impacts to POC by restoring drainage patterns or downgrading to OML 1 57.66 

miles (73%) of the UARs with a high risk to POC (“Updated RAP crosswalk to decision UAR” located in 

the project file). In addition, my decision will decommission 39.89 miles (40%) of the NFTS roads with a 

high risk to POC (“Updated RAP crosswalk to decision NFTS” located in the project file). I incorporated

all of the project design features and mitigation measures that I believe are necessary to avoid, minimize 

or rectify impacts on resources (FEIS pp. 10-11, 40, 42, 45-46, 49-51, 77-78; FEIS Appendix D pp. 105-

106, 109-110; Table 3 above; Appendix C).

I am limiting the amount of designated motorized trails within IRAs to no more than 3.13 miles to 

minimize impacts to IRAs (FEIS pp. 215-253). My decision will restore drainage patterns on the 

remaining 17.37 miles of the UARs within the IRAs (FEIS p. 230). In addition, my decision will close 

7.16 miles of NFTS roads (33%) currently open for vehicle use within IRAs (FEIS p. 230) by authorizing 

decommissioning and downgrading ML 2 to ML 1. I am authorizing all recommended project design 

features and mitigation measures necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on resources within 

IRAs (FEIS pp. 10-11, 40, 42, 45-46, 49-51, 77-78; FEIS Appendix D pp. 105-106,109-110; Table 3

above; Appendix C).

Minimizing harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat. My decision 

minimizes impacts to threatened, Forest Service Sensitive, MIS, neo-tropical migratory (NTM), and other 

wildlife species, by only designating routes where adverse impacts can be minimized to lower risks to 

resources (FEIS pp. 431-473). My decision minimizes impacts to wildlife by restoring drainage patterns 

or downgrading to OML 1 14.8 miles (99%) of the UARs with a high risk to wildlife (“Updated RAP 

crosswalk to decision UAR” located in the project file). In addition, my decision will decommission 

28.21 miles (70%) of the NFTS roads with a high risk to wildlife (“Updated RAP crosswalk to decision 

NFTS” located in the project file). Reducing road density across the district will reduce fragmentation of 

habitat as the decommissioned roads revegetate, increase patch size, reduce sedimentation in stream

channels, and reduce disturbance and direct mortality. An overall reduction of road densities across the 

Smith River NRA will benefit wildlife in the short-term through elimination of noise disturbance on 

closed roads/routes, and in the long-term through the reduction of fragmentation and habitat restoration. I 

included all of the project design features and mitigation measures that I believe are prudent to avoid, 
Record of Decision

48 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

minimize, or rectify impacts on resources (FEIS pp. 43, 45, 49, 52-53, 82-83; FEIS Appendix D pp. 106, 

108-109,146-148, 151; Table 3 above; Appendix C). My decision will benefit wildlife (FEIS p. 473).

Minimizing conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational uses of 

NFS lands. My decision minimizes the potential for conflicts between motor-vehicle use and nonmotorized recreational uses, in part by ensuring the compatibility of route designations will uphold 

management direction for recreation in the Smith River NRA contained in the Forest Plan (FEIS pp. 13, 

16, 42-43, 80, 305-338).

Minimizing conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or 

neighboring federal lands. I conferred with, but deferred management decisions for the two routes 

shared with the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. I considered the vehicle class and use of routes on 

adjacent lands to ensure compatible designations for the adjoining route segments on NFS lands. As 

described previously, mixed-use proposals maintain safety for the public and minimize conflicts between 

different vehicle classes on passenger car roads (FEIS pp. 305-338).

Compatibility of motor-vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account sound, emissions, etc. I considered sound and emissions when designating routes selected 

under Alternative 6. However, designated routes are not located near populated areas (FEIS pp. 305-338).

Speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads. I have determined that the 

terrain, sight distance, and condition of the road surface of the UARs that will be designated to the NFTS 

makes them suitable as low-standard roads or motorized trails rather than higher standard roads. The 

number of roads and trails designated in Selected Alternative 6, coupled with the existing road and trail 

system, will likely support low-traffic densities on most of the NFTS. Signs to warn drivers of the class of 

vehicles authorized and expected on particular roads will be posted, as part of the implementation of this 

decision (FEIS pp. 395-396).

Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing. I considered the analysis 

of the segments of ML 3 roads downgraded to ML 2, including compatibility of vehicle classes, road 

geometry and surfacing. Factors, such as vehicle type and size of vehicle, in conjunction with driving 

hazards, were taken into account when addressing the need to manage the road differently relative to the 

recreational need and location (FEIS p. 396).

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

I considered the Forest Plan amendment (Appendix A) in light of consistency with NFMA. My decision

is also compliant with Survey and Manage (S&M) species associated with late-successional forests 

(ROD; USDI and USDA 2001, 2003), which provide habitat components, microclimatic conditions and 

other life supporting attributes for the persistence of these species at a given site. The only wildlife S&M 

species that occur on the Smith River NRA is the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus). There are S&M

botanical species within the project area as well. However, as my decision will not construct new roads or 

trails and therefore will not remove habitat, I find habitat functionality will remain similar or benefit from 

barricading UARs and road decommissioning, reducing fragmentation and increase habitat distribution 

(FEIS p. 479).
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 49

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent

possible, agencies shall prepare draft EIS concurrently with and integrated with ... other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” Each resource section in the FEIS includes a list of pertinent laws, 

regulations, policies and executive orders that are relevant to that resource. The field survey results 

informing the environmental analyses and the resource findings linked to the following applicable laws 

are disclosed in Table 2-7 (FEIS pp. 72-76) and Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of a Preferred 

Alternative on historic, architectural, or archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the President’s Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation an opportunity to comment. Section 110 of the Act requires federal agencies to identify, 

evaluate, inventory, and protect NRHP resources on properties they control. Potential impacts to 

archaeological and historic resources were evaluated in compliance with §106 of the NHPA. The 

implementation of this project will avoid impacts to cultural resources in TCPs.

Therefore, this project complies with §106 of the NHPA of 1966 and its implementing regulations (36 

CFR 800) and the Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5), the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Nevada State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the 

National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region. The selection of Alternative 6 will have No Adverse 

Effect on properties listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP (FEIS pp. 200-214).

Endangered Species Act (§7(c)) for Threatened, Endangered, and 

Proposed Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires any action authorized by a 

federal agency to not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result 

in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult with the USFWS and the NMFS concerning 

endangered and threatened species under their jurisdiction. Biological assessments have been prepared for 

threatened, endangered, and proposed species known or suspected to occur within the project area.

Thorough analyses of federally listed species and consultation with the USFWS and NMFS have been 

completed, fulfilling §7 of the ESA consultation requirements (19 USC 1536 (c)). Therefore, this decision 

is consistent with the ESA (FEIS pp. 122-123, 161-162, 468-471).

Wildlife

The project is likely to adversely affect NSO and MAMU in the short term from noise disturbance during 

the breeding season. The project is not likely to adversely affect NSO Critical Habitat due to negligible 
Record of Decision

50 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

habitat removal (17 acres district-wide) at culvert sites, and is expected to improve habitat conditions in 

the long term through the reduction in road density. The project will have no effect on MAMU Critical 

Habitat. The USFWS concurred (informally) with these determinations in September 2016. On November 

23, 2016, the agency received formal concurrence from the USFWS (FEIS pp. 477-494).

Botany

There are no occurrences of the federally listed endangered McDonalds rockcress within 100 feet of 

inventoried UARs designated as motorized trails to the NFTS under Selected Alternative 6. Hence, there 

will be no effects (direct or indirect) from the project to this species. Under §7 of the ESA, consultation 

with the USFWS is not required for No Effect determinations. I find my decision compliances with the 

2006 USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management conservation agreement for 

Hastingsia bracteosa, H. atropurpurea, Gentiana setigera, Epilobium oreganum, and Viola primulifolia 

ssp. occidentalis and serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands and fens from southwestern Oregon and 

northwestern California (FEIS pp.160-169).

Fisheries

In 2007, the Forest Service consulted with NMFS on the proposed action analyzed for the Smith River 

Road Management and Route Designation Biological Assessment (RMRDBA 2007)). The SRNF 

received a Letter of Concurrence (LOC) from NMFS concurring with the determination of Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect for the proposed action described in the RMRDBA.

In 2015, the Forest Service completed program-level consultation on the Watershed and Fisheries 

Restoration Program (WFR Program). The WFR Program consultation addressed 16 watershed 

restoration activities (instream, riparian, road decommissioning, culvert upgrades, etc.) identified in the 

Forest Plan under the ACS that are also identified in the SONCC coho recovery plan (NMFS 2014). 

Activities analyzed in the 2015 Watershed and Fisheries Restoration Program Biological Assessment

(WFRBA) were found to have the potential range of determinations, including No Effect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect (negligible or strictly beneficial effects), and Likely to Adversely Affect (short-term 

negative with long-term beneficial) that could potentially result in take of ESA-listed salmonids. This 

project specific determination under the WFR Program consultation considered factors such as the 

proximity of the activity to occupied habitat, probability of an effect occurring, and the magnitude of 

operating within occupied habitat for potential effects on habitat components and individuals.

On April 24, 2015, NMFS received the Forest Service letter requesting initiation of formal 

consultation pursuant to §7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) for the WFR 

Program. The Biological Opinion (WFRBO) received from NMFS on December 14, 2015, supplanted all 

past watershed and fisheries restoration consultations including the letter of concurrence on the 2007 

RMRDBA. Since all actions included in the FEIS were analyzed as part of the WFPBA, re-initiation of 

consultation with NFMS was not necessary.

During the development of the WFRBA, NMFS and Forest Service biologists reviewed ongoing 

projects, including the activities proposed in Selected Alternative 6 aimed at maintaining and improving 
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 51

the NFTS. The SRNF fisheries biologist analyzed the road and trail activities in Selected Alternative 6 as 

disclosed in the FEIS, and determined the actions to Not Likely to Adversely Affect coho salmon. My 

review indicates thorough analyses of federally listed SONCC coho salmon occurred and that 

consultation with the NMFS under the WFRBA and WFRBO is complete in compliance with ESA (FEIS 

pp. 105-108, 124-129).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Within national forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat 

conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land 

management activities. The January 2000 USDA Forest Service Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, 

followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, in addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat 

Conservation Plans for birds and the January 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan all 

reference goals and objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning.

In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the 

USFWS to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed to strengthen migratory bird 

conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the Forest Service and the USFWS 

as well as other federal, state, tribal and local governments. Within the national forests, conservation of 

migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and 

ensuring that bird conservation is considered during land management planning.

No construction or reconstruction will occur under this project; therefore, no changes in the 

distribution or abundance of habitat available to NTM species will occur. My decision to select 

Alternative 6 will reduce road densities of ML 1 and 2 roads, and UARs across the Smith River NRA. I 

find this overall reduction of road densities across the Smith River NRA will benefit NTM species in the 

long-term through the reduction of fragmentation and habitat restoration (FEIS pp. 451, 479).

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)

In addition to §7 of the ESA, the 1996 Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA, 16 USC 1801 et seq.) requires the identification and protection of Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) for federally managed fishery species through MSA consultation with NMFS. Essential 

Fish Habitat includes those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity. For this FEIS, the species that the MSA covers include coho and Chinook salmon. 

Consultation procedures with NMFS on effects to EFH were fulfilled per the WFRBA and the Aquatic 

Biota Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation (McCain and Kenfield 2016). This project will not 

adversely affect EFH for Chinook or coho salmon. Rather, restoration via road decommissioning and 

reduction in overall road density and barricading unneeded UARs should benefit fisheries habitat.

Clean Water Act

Under the federal Clean Water Act, the EPA delegated its authority to regulate water quality on federal 

lands in California to the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board). The Forest Service and the 
Record of Decision

52 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Water Board developed a management agency agreement for management activities on NFS lands. The 

management agency agreement requires the Forest Service to implement the state-certified and EPAapproved water-quality management program and practices, referred to as BMPs, to protect water quality 

from sources of pollution. In compliance with Clean Water Act, the program and practices are consistent 

with the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and with the Water Board’s Basin Plan. There are 

no watersheds in the project area listed as water quality impaired under §303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

Selected Alternative 6 meets the conditions of the North Coast Water Quality Control Board’s Waiver of 

Waste Discharge Requirement, Order No. R1-2015-0021.

Selected Alternative 6 will not have a detrimental effect on water-quality objectives for suspended 

sediment, settleable material, turbidity, or temperature parameters in compliance with standards per the

Water Board’s Basin Plan. Additionally, no adverse effects to beneficial uses and no significant effects to 

water quality will occur from implementing the alternative. Riparian reserves will undergo long-term 

improvement of conditions to maintain water quality, serving domestic water users and other beneficial 

uses, such as fisheries and aquatic habitats. Implementation and annual evaluation of BMPs, along with 

implementation checklists at the project level, serve to ensure waiver compliance (FEIS pp. 413, 428-431;

FEIS Appendices D and E). A complete listing of BMPs that apply to this project is in FEIS Appendix D.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments provide for the protection and enhancement of the 

nation’s air resources. The implementation of Selected Alternative 6 will not exceed the federal and state 

ambient air-quality standards, as equipment and vehicle emissions will be short-term and dispersed. This 

project is consistent with the Clean Air Act (FEIS pp. 92-94).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The 1990 Smith River NRA Act established the Smith River NRA, which includes the three main forks of 

the Smith River, numerous tributaries, and a short segment of the main stem. These rivers and tributaries 

were listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory conducted by the National Park Service. These same rivers 

are part of the California Wild and Scenic River system. In July 1980, the Governor of California petitioned 

the Secretary of the Interior to include these rivers and tributaries in the National Wild and Scenic River 

system under §2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSR Act, 16 USC 127 1). A decision on January 

19, 1981, by the Secretary of the Interior added the rivers and tributaries to the national system.

With the creation of the Smith River NRA, the segment of the main stem Smith River, its forks and 

tributaries within the NRA external boundary were again re-designated under §3(a) of the WSR Act. The 

Smith River (main stem) and tributaries outside the NRA boundaries, and river segments within the 

excluded areas, remain designated under §2(a)(ii) of the WSR Act, pursuant to the Secretary of the 

Interior’s 1981 decision. Classification of some tributaries within the Smith River NRA were upgraded 

and some tributaries were added. The wild and scenic river boundaries, as required under the WSR Act, 

were established in the Forest Plan. The boundaries of the river segments within the excluded areas

remain at high watermark under the State of California designation. For each of the river and stream 
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 53

segments specified in the Smith River NRA Act, streamside protection zones or corridors are unique 

depending on location and localized features, ranging from 300 feet to a quarter mile in width (FEIS 

Appendix A; Smith River NRA Management Plan).

This project will not result in any change to the conditions and criteria that rendered each stream of 

the Smith River system eligible for federal WSR status. The project will not impede the free-flowing 

conditions or cause direct or adverse impacts on the outstandingly remarkable values of the Smith River 

WSR system. This project is compliant with the WSR Act (FEIS p. 308).

Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999)

Consistent with this Order, this project has incorporated feasible and prudent mitigation measures in the 

Selected Alternative to minimize risk of harm caused by invasive species. All of the high-risk travelways 

and turnouts infested with weeds will be treated before the respective route can be included on the 

MVUM. Required weed treatment mitigations vary by species (FEIS pp. 261, 265; FEIS Appendix D).

My decision requires equipment to be washed prior to entering the project area to reduce the risk of 

importing new weeds into the project area. Treating weed sites, in keeping with ground-disturbing 

activities, and using certified weed-free seed and straw or native mulch, where needed, will reduce the 

risk of introducing new weed populations. The overall level of risk for the project is moderate. Projectarea monitoring will ensure that any noxious weeds introduced into the area can be quickly controlled by 

hand-pulling methods (FEIS pp. 269-271).

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Biological evaluations were prepared for Forest Service sensitive species of fish, wildlife, plants, and 

fungi (Wildlife, Botany and Aquatic reports 2016) as per FSH 2670. Implementation of this action will 

not cause a trend towards federal listing of any potentially impacted sensitive species. Beneficial and 

long-term results include reducing road density and habitat fragmentation, reducing road-related 

disturbance and mortality, and reducing the extent of hydrologic connectivity and road-related 

sedimentation to aquatic species habitat (FEIS pp. 100, 106-107, 109-145, 153-162).

Special Area Designations

This decision enhances the values that make these special areas unique. The Selected Alternative 

complies with laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the following special areas:

• Key Watersheds. These watersheds represent a system of large refugia comprising watersheds 

that are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks and provide high quality water. The Smith River 

is a designated Key watershed managed to protect high quality habitats. Relevant facets of 

managing key watersheds include no net gain in road miles and no new road construction within

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). That is, for each mile of new road constructed, at least one 

mile of road should be decommissioned, and priority given to roads that pose the greatest risks to 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems. My decision does not include road construction. It will minimize 
Record of Decision

54 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

impacts to water quality by restoring drainage patterns and/or downgrading to OML 1 45.97 miles 

(82%) of the UARs along with decommissioning 23.47 miles (45%) of the NFTS roads with a 

high risk to water quality (“Updated RAP crosswalk to decision NFTS” located in the project file)

(FEIS pp. 102-104, 124-128).

• Research Natural Areas. There are three RNAs on the Smith River NRA—L.E. Horton, Upper 

Goose Creek, and Craigs Creek—established to enhance long-term ecosystem and plant research. 

My decision will not designate inventoried UARs within RNAs as roads or motorized trails to the 

NFTS. My decision will barricade three inventoried UARs within the L.E. Horton RNA to 

prevent resource impacts from unintended public motorized use (FEIS pp. 10, 26).

• Special Interest Areas. These areas are set aside to manage unique ecological values for public 

use, education, and enjoyment. The goal is to promote public use, education, interpretation, and 

enjoyment of the special interest values of the area when such activities do not harm the values 

for which the area was designated (LRMP p. IV-50). None of the UARs being designated as 

motorized trails coincides with Special Interest Areas (FEIS p. 28).

• Inventoried Roadless Areas. The analysis and results demonstrate that the alternatives analyzed 

in detail are consistent with the Roadless Rule of 2001. The project is consistent with the Roadless 

Rule prohibitions on timber harvest and road construction, as it does not propose to harvest timber 

or construct roads. The Selected Alternative 6 will designate and maintain 3.13 miles of motorized 

trails within IRAs, consistent with the Roadless Rule (66 FR 3251; FEIS pp. 215-252).

• Wilderness Areas. Selected Alternative 6 does not include designation of roads or motorized 

trails in or immediately adjacent to (within a quarter mile) wilderness boundaries in compliance 

36 CFR 212.55 (e); therefore, there will be no effects to primitive and wild features and values

(FEIS pp. 308, 312-314, 321-324, 330-331).

• Wild and Scenic Rivers. Selected Alternative 6 does not include designation of roads or motorized 

trails that increase motorized access within the wild and scenic rivers corridors that are classified as 

wild river segments or classified as scenic river segments with a designation of semi-primitive nonmotorized on the ROS. Maintaining and improving water quality within these watersheds can be 

accomplished through minimizing future risk of sedimentation from roads by stormproofing needed 

roads and decommissioning unneeded roads, thereby protecting the outstandingly remarkable 

values (FEIS pp. 308, 312-314, 321-324, 330-331).

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

This federal order requires an assessment of whether there would be disproportionate effects to minority 

or low-income populations. Although there are minorities and low-income populations living in the North 

Coast California area, this project will not be disproportionately affect them (FEIS pp. 339-349).
Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 55

Pre-decisional Administrative Review (Objection process)

As required by 36 CFR 218.32(b), the Reviewing Officer provided a written response to issues raised in 

the objection letters on June 28, 2017. The Reviewing Officer found that the Forest Supervisor’s rationale 

for this project is clear and the reasons for the project are logical and responsive to direction contained in 

the Six Rivers’ LRMP. The Reviewing Officer determined that the forest could proceed with issuance of 

a ROD, and issued instructions to the Forest Supervisor. The instructions and forest responses are located 

in Appendix D to the ROD.

Implementation Date

Implementation of this project is expected to take place from 2017 to 2032.

August 15, 2017

MICHAEL A. GREEN Date

Acting Forest Supervisor
Record of Decision

56 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A. Forest Plan Amendment

Six Rivers National Forest – A-1

Appendix A. Forest Plan Amendment

My decision authorizes an amendment to the management direction contained in the 1995 Six Rivers 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) (pp. 20-21, 43, 48, 59, 86-87, 

308, 336-338). The following disclosure describes the amendment and the evaluation of significance under 

the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).

Current LRMP direction is to “Maintain 

activities and developments at levels that meet 

prescribed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) classes as defined in the ROS Users 

Guide (USDA 1982).” The selection of 

Alternative 6 requires a forest plan amendment 

to change the ROS class from semi-primitive 

non-motorized to semi-primitive motorized 

(LRMP FEIS, Appendix E, p. E-1), in order to 

designate UARs 15N36N.1 (0.1 mi) and 

15N36N.1B (0.2 mi) as ML 2 roads, and 

15N36N.1C (0.03 mi) as a motorized trail, as 

depicted in Figure A-1.

This amendment to the ROS will allow for 

legitimate motorized travel on these designated 

road segments and motorized trails to the 

NFTS, providing needed semi-primitive 

motorized opportunities to multiple dispersed 

recreation sites near Blackhawk Bar.

The definitions of ROS classes from the 

1982 ROS User’s Guide and the SRNF LRMP 

are disclosed in Table A-1.

Figure A-1. Change in ROS allows new designation and 

use of motorized trails and roads to the NFTS.
Appendix A. Forest Plan Amendment

A-2 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Table A-1. Definitions of semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized ROS classes.

ROS Class LRMP FEIS Appendix E-1 1982 ROS User’s Guide

Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized

The area is 1/2 mile from all roads or trails with 

motorized use and generally exceeds 2,500 acres 

to 5,000 acres in size unless contiguous to 

wilderness.

The area can include primitive roads and trails if 

they are usually closed to motorized use. Access

roads are Level 1. The natural setting may have 

subtle modifications that would be noticed but 

would not draw the attention of an observer in the 

area. Structures are rare and isolated.

An area designated at least 0.5 miles, but not further than 3 

miles from all roads, railroads, or trails with motorized use; 

can include primitive roads and trails if usually closed to 

motorized use.

Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or naturalappearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Interaction 

between users is low, but there is often evidence of other 

users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. 

Motorized use is not permitted.

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized

The area is generally 2,500 acres to 5,000 acres 

in size, and 1/2 mile from Level 3 or better roads. 

There is strong evidence of roads and motorized 

use of roads and trails. Access roads are usually 

Level 1 or 2 roads.

The natural setting may have moderately 

dominant alterations, but would not draw the 

attention of motorized observers. Structures are 

rare and isolated.

An area designated within 1⁄2 mile of primitive roads or trails 

used by motor vehicles, but not closer than 1⁄2 mile from better 

than primitive roads.

Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or naturalappearing environment of moderate-to-large size. 

Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of 

other users. The area is managed in such a way that 

minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but 

are subtle. Motorized use is permitted.

The Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

FEIS evaluated the effects of the amendment for activities within the SRNF’s Smith River NRA, as it 

relates to the objectives, guidelines and other contents of the LRMP, as required by 36 CFR 219.10 (f)18.

Evaluation of Significance

The NFMA requires that forest plan amendments be evaluated for whether they would constitute a significant 

change in the long-term goods, outputs, and services projected for the national forest. The following criteria 

were used to determine the potential for a significant forest plan amendment (FSM 1926.51-52):

• Actions that do not significantly alter multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management. The amendment is consistent with the forest plan goal to “Offer a 

wide range of recreation opportunities by providing recreational settings, access, facilities, and 

information necessary to meet public demand” (LRMP FEIS p. IV-1). For management and 

conceptual convenience, possible mixes or combinations of activities, settings, and probable 

experience opportunities have been arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. This continuum is 

the ROS. Planning for recreation opportunities using the ROS is conducted as part of forest 

planning. The ROS provides a framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation, and 

identifies that portion of the spectrum a given national forest may be able to provide.

• Changes in ROS classification. The ROS is divided into six classes: primitive, semi-primitive 

non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural and urban. Each class is defined 

in terms of its combination of activity, setting, and experience opportunities (USDA Forest 

Service 1982).

 18 219.10 Multiple use: While meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 and 219.9, a plan developed or revised under this part must 

provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish, 

within Forest Service authority and the inherent capability of the plan area.
Appendix A. Forest Plan Amendment

Six Rivers National Forest – A-3

My decision to amend the ROS will occur along a reach of the Smith River classified as a 

recreational river area. These are rivers, or sections of rivers, readily accessible by road, that may 

have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment 

or diversion in the past (WSR Act §2(b)(3)). An ROS classification (LRMP p. IV-61) of semiprimitive motorized is consistent with land management direction for recreational river segments 

(LRMP pp. IV-62-63; LRMP Appendix A [Smith River NRA Management Plan]; Smith River 

NRA Act).

This amendment will not reduce or eliminate opportunities to engage in non-motorized 

recreation from current conditions (including the designated classification of Wild River 

approximately one mile southeast from the termini of 15N36N.1B). Allowing for legitimate 

motorized travel under Selected Alternative 6 will provide opportunities for semi-primitive 

motorized recreation outside wild and scenic river classifications.

• Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions. This 

amendment will not change management area or management prescription boundaries. The 

amendment will not trigger changes in the classification and management of recreation 

opportunities on the forest, or the purpose and intent of ROS, as a tool to assess the distribution of 

recreation opportunities.

Ultimately, this amendment serves to support the achievement of multiple-use goals by 

providing critical motorized access in semi-primitive settings.

While this amendment will result in minor changes in acres (no more than 2 acres) assigned 

to semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive non-motorized ROS classes, it will not result in a 

change in actual on-the-ground conditions. This is because, as defined during the preliminary 

ROS mapping conducted for the LRMP, the semi-primitive non-motorized ROS classes exclude 

existing motorized uses (LRMP FEIS Appendix E-1). Motorized use has been a part of visitor 

recreational experiences in this area since before the development of the LRMP.

• Minor changes in standards and guidelines. The amendment will not change the forestwide 

standard for dispersed recreation. Instead, it will change the mapped ROS classes only for the 

physical footprint of the specific road segments and motorized trail designations to the NFTS, 

authorized under the Selected Alternative 6. The change in ROS will more accurately reflect 

actual conditions and would recognize existing motorized use.

• Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to the achievement of 

the management prescription. The roads and motorized trails affected by the ROS classification 

amendment represents less than 1 percent of the NFTS as revised under the Selected Alternative 6, 

while providing important beneficial effects on recreation opportunities around Blackhawk Bar. An

ROS classification of semi-primitive motorized is consistent with LRMP direction for recreational 

river segments (pp. IV-62 to IV-63). The ROS class amendment will reduce the semi-primitive nonmotorized classification by 2 acres in Management Area 4, along the 0.25-mile-wide recreation 

river corridor either side of the South Fork of the Smith River (per the Smith River NRA 
Appendix A. Forest Plan Amendment

A-4 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Management Plan, incorporated in its entirety into the Forest Plan (Appendix A)). The amendment 

area does not overlap with the Blackhawk Creek WSR classifications.

• Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (36 CFR 219.10 (e)). This amendment 

will not alter the long-term relationships between the levels of goods and services projected by 

the LRMP, as it will only affect 2 acres. Application of this change will not eliminate 

opportunities for the public to engage in non-motorized recreation nor will it substantially reduce 

the actual area available for non-motorized recreation. To the contrary, more than 180,000 acres 

immediately east of the Smith River NRA project area boundary designated as the Siskiyou 

Wilderness and 80,000 acres designated to IRAs within the project area are ROS classified as 

primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized areas.

• Changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest plan or affect land and 

resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period. It 

will not change land allocations or management direction for other elements of the LRMP. It will 

not trigger an increase or decrease in motorized use in the project area because it applies to areas 

in which motorized use has been ongoing for decades. Although the size of the area being 

changed from semi-primitive non-motorized to semi-primitive motorized is well under the 2,500 

acres recommended in the ROS User’s Guide, the conditions will remain semi-primitive despite 

the motorized use.

• Conclusion. The proposed amendment is fully consistent with the LRMP goal to provide a broad 

range of developed and dispersed recreation in balance with identified existing and future demand 

(LRMP p. IV-122). Road segments and motorized-trail designations to the NFTS in the semiprimitive non-motorized ROS class, amended to semi-primitive motorized, will provide needed 

access to opportunities for semi-primitive motorized exploration and dispersed recreation. Given 

that extensive areas where all motorized and mechanized uses are prohibited are available, and 

the high public demand for vehicle access to remote, primitive settings where users can 

experience isolation, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance, the changes in ROS classes 

are in alignment with the Smith River NRA Management Plan recreational goals.

Based on consideration of the factors above and the analysis contained in the LRMP FEIS 

Appendix E-1, I have determined that adoption of this amendment is not significant in the context 

of NFMA. I hereby amend the 1995 LRMP with this non-significant amendment to change the 

ROS class, as displayed on Figure A-1. The existing use levels and long-term general popularity 

of Blackhawk Bar warrants a special-case consideration of a project-specific non-significant 

forest plan amendment to remedy the inconsistency of the ROS designation. The designated 

routes to the NFTS around Blackhawk Bar conform to the evaluation criteria for semi-primitive 

motorized ROS, as they are in primitive condition, but still show strong evidence of use as roads 

or trails; the area has minimal alterations and structures present; user density is generally low; and 

physical barriers in the area are and will remain subtle.
Appendix B. Errata

Six Rivers National Forest – B-1

Appendix B. Errata

The FEIS contains inadvertent grammatical and numerical errors as follows:

• Page 10, Scope of the Project, incorrectly states, “Designating motorized trails or OHV mixed use 

recreational riding opportunities on UARS or ML 1 roads on the NFTS that access legacy mine sites 

and ML 3 to 5 roads. These transportation networks require a high degree of analysis when 

considering mixed use due to elevated risks to public safety associated with higher speeds and 

limitations of OHV technology.” As ML 1 roads are closed to vehicular traffic, mixed use is not an 

appropriate consideration. Also, select well-developed, historic mine access routes were designated to 

the NFTS including but not limited to 314.1, 314.107, 305.109, 305.118, 305.121B, 305.125, 

305.126, 315.100, 315.103, 405.103 17N17.1, the UARs added to the system in the Rattlesnake 

Mountain (15N02) and Gasquet Mountain (17N49) areas, and 18N51.100, in response to longstanding public use interests.

• Page 10, Scope of the Project, on what was not considered under the scope of the project, nonmotorized and existing motorized trails were inadvertently left off the list.

• Page 38, Changes between Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement/All Action 

Alternatives/Mixed Use, inaccurately states, “Consideration of more mixed use was added to all the 

action alternatives in response to comments and changed circumstances regarding the management of 

Del Norte County roads.” Mixed use was not considered for ML 3, 4 and 5 roads that are maintained 

for travel by prudent drivers in a standard passenger car and are subject to the requirements of the 

Highway Safety Act and Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). All ML 2 roads are 

currently open for mixed use. The correct statement is “Consideration for downgrading segments of 

maintenance level classified roads 17N07 and 17N49 to ML 2 for more mixed use was added to all 

the action alternatives in response to comments and changed circumstances regarding the 

management of Del Norte County roads.”

• Page 44, Table 2-1. Collaborative group recommendations for further consideration of UARs, 

contains the following errors:

• 17N49.100 is only being designated for the first 0.12 miles to the junction with 17N49.104, and 

restored from 0.12 to 4.0 miles. 

• 17N49.104 will require route delineation in sensitive plant areas.

• 17N49.105 was “incorrectly identified” as being recommended for motorized access. All 

alternatives show this route as proposed for restoration. Also, 1.43 miles are restored.

• 17N49.106 stated that a portion occurred in an IRA, which is incorrect. The route connects 

17N49.104 to 17N49.105, which is not being designated to the NFTS.
Appendix B. Errata

B-2 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

• 305.109 states that the group agreed to add the route to its terminus, which is incorrect. The group 

agreed to add the route to a specific site with a turn around, and restore from 2.43 miles to 3.27 

miles. The route will also require route delineation in sensitive plant areas

• 305.118 – this route will not be barricaded at Still Creek, but 0.7 miles before Still Creek, to 

avoid the POC spring, Darlingtonia bog, and the deteriorated portion of the route.

• 305.125 will require route delineation in sensitive plant habitat.

• 314.1 will restore from 1.2 to 1.7 miles to protect the POC spring area.

• Page 46, How the Alternatives were Developed/Emergency Operations, erroneously states, “The 

Forest Service considered and incorporated Del Norte County’s recommended roads and UARs in at 

least one of the action alternatives as follows: 305.1, 305.113, 305.114, 305.115, 305.121, 305.121b, 

305.124, 305.126, 305.130, 315.104, 405.103, 14N15, 15N36N, 16N18.4, 16N23A.1, 17N49.4, 

17N49.100, 17N49.104, 17N49.4A, 17N49.7, 18N16.100, 18N20 and 18N20.100.” All of the 

aforementioned routes were considered in at least one action alternative except for 305.1 (which does 

not exist), 305.113. 305.114, 305.115, 16N18.4, 18N16.100 and 18N20.100.

• Page 68-69, Table 2-7. The category “Miles newly designated roads within designated river corridor” 

should read, “Miles newly designated roads or motorized trails within river corridors with a 

recreation opportunity spectrum of primitive or semi-primitive non-motorized.”

• Page 81, 7th bullet, should be clarified that the “removal of the mixed-use proposal” was on specific 

ML 3 road segments.

• Page 119, Aquatic Conservation Strategy Consistency, incorrectly states “Key to meeting ACS 

objectives is to ensure that the riparian reserves network would be maintained and restored including: 

Maintain riparian structures and functions of intermittent streams.” The ACS objectives address all 

stream classifications (ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial) per the 1995 SRNF LRMP.

• Page 213, Table 3-46, includes an inadvertent error in the ranking system. The rankings of 

alternatives for each cultural resource indicator should define 5 scores instead of 4 to reflect the data 

provide in the table. The footnote (29) only describes a score of 4 as the best for the cultural resource.

• Pages 253-254, Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction, cites 

FSM 2080 (1999). This manual was superseded by FSM 2900 (2011).

• Page 255, Noxious Weeds, 1995 Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan) header inadvertently omitted the page reference: IV-130.

• Page 265, Noxious Weed Control Mitigations Common to All Action Alternatives needs to be clarified 

that new sites, if found, will also be treated, in addition to the sites listed in Table 3-78.

• Page 273, Port-Orford-Cedar/Effect Analysis, Footnote 39, mistakenly states, “Jules et al. (2002) 

found ... almost no change of infestation at 400 meters.” More accurately stated, “... there is almost 

no chance of infestation at 400 meters.”
Appendix B. Errata

Six Rivers National Forest – B-3

• Page 289, last sentence carrying over onto page 290, inadvertently left out the word “infected” in the 

following sentence: “Of the infected POC on the forest...”

• Page 296, third paragraph, fourth sentence, the percentage was incorrectly stated as 35 percent. It

should be 30 percent.

• Page 396, Griffin Creek Bridge, incorrectly states that the bridge accesses Forest Road 17N07. The 

bridge accesses Forest Road 18N07.

• Page 463 (also pp. 467, 471), Endangered Species Determination, only relates to the first paragraph. 

Sensitive Species and MIS, NTM, and S&M are not endangered species. The appropriate header 

above the second paragraph “Impacts to Other Species” was inadvertently left out.

• Page 491, References Cited, there were multiple citation errors:

• Delaney, David K., Grubb, Teryl G.; and Pater, Larry L. 1997. The correct date of the citation is 

1999.

• Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 2000. The correct date of the citation is 1999.

• Paton, W.C, C.J. Ralph. 1990. Should include authors H. R. Carter, and S. K. Nelson.

• USDA Forest Service. 1991 and 1995. Soil Management Handbooks were revised in 2010.

• USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water Quality Management was revised in 2012.

• USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. The correct date of the citation is 2011.

• Ullian and Jules. 2000. The correct citation is: Hansen, E.M., Goheen, D.J., Jules, E.S. and 

Ullian, B. 2000.

• Multiple citations for same reference:

o Cook, C. and Dresser, A. 2007, was also cited as Furniss, M.J., Clifton, C.F., Ronnenberg, 

K.L., eds., 2007.

o Environmental Protection Agency. 1992, was also cited as US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 1992.

o Environmental Protection Agency. 2007, was also cited as US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2007.

o Environmental Protection Agency. 2008, was also cited as US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2008.

o McCain, M., B. Devlin-Craig, C. Black (editors). 1995, was also cited as USDA Forest 

Service. 1995. Smith River ecosystem analysis..., and as USDA Forest Service. 1995. 

Ecosystem Analysis of the Smith River Basin.

o National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning: Final Rule and 

Record of Decision. Federal Register 77:21162-21276 was also cited as USDA Forest 

Service. 2001a. Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation.
Appendix B. Errata

B-4 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

o National Forest System Land Resources Management Planning: Final Rule and Record of 

Decision. Federal Register, 66(160) was also cited as USDA Forest Service. 2001. 

Wildland Urban Interface.

o Six Rivers National Forest. 1963-1995. Fish habitat inventories... was also cited as 

Siskiyou Research Group. 2004, and USDA Forest Service. 1991.

o Tracy Katelman, ForEverGreen Forestry and Del Norte Fire Safe Council. 2005. Del 

Norte Fire Safe Plan ... was also cited as Del Norte Fire Safe Council. 2005.

• Listed, but not cited

o Adams, S. and Sawyer, J. 1980. Past fire incidence in mixed evergreen forests of 

northwest California. Report on file Six Rivers National Forest. 22 p.

o Anderson, H.W. 1971. Relative contributions of sediment for source areas, and transport 

processes. Pages 55-63 in Krygier and Hall (1971).

o Hibbs, D.E., P. Giordano and S. Chan. 1992. Vegetation dynamics in managed coastal 

riparian areas. P. 39-41. In: 1992 Annual Report of the Adaptive Coastal Oregon 

Productivity Enhancement Program. Adaptive COPE Program, Hatfield Marine Science 

Center, Oregon State University, Newport.

o USDA Forest Service. 1991. Soil Management Handbook. WO Amendment 2509.18-91-1.

The FEIS Appendices C and G contain omissions, inadvertent grammatical and numerical errors as follows:

• Appendix C. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

o Page 102, the 2016 Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project, 2016 TO 2022 was 

inadvertently left off the Forest Service “Implementation On-Going” list.

• Appendix G. Response to Comments

o Page 167, Response first paragraph, states, “The 2005 Smith River NRA Roads Analysis 

(RAP) addressed Forest System roads with a maintenance level of 1 through 5,” which is 

incorrect and should read “The 2005 Smith River NRA Roads Analysis (RAP) addressed 

Forest System roads with a maintenance level of 1 and 2, and unauthorized routes.”

o Page 167, Response second paragraph, last sentence should read “no low-need routes 

were proposed for addition to the system.”

o Page 178, Response second paragraph, states, “At the time the DEIS was released, state, 

county, and Smith River NRA ML 3, 4 and 5 roads were being considered in this 

analysis.” It should read “At the time the DEIS was released, state, county, and Smith 

River NRA ML 3, 4 and 5 roads were not being considered in this analysis.”

o Page 178, Response first paragraph, states, “To provide for expanded motorized 

recreation in the County Road 17N07 is included.” This statement is missing a comma 
Appendix B. Errata

Six Rivers National Forest – B-5

and should read, “To provide for expanded motorized recreation in the county, Road 

17N07 is included.”

• Page 189, second Response should read “Forest Service Manual 7700 – Chapter 7710, §7716.1 

Content of Designations, effective January 8, 2009, amended July 7, 2016.”
Appendix B. Errata

B-6 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-1

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Table C-1. Selected Alternative 6 – road, motorized trail, and UAR activities and mitigations.

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

199.102 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel as needed.

199.103 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Rock/gravel entire route of infected POC as needed.

199.104 0.11 0.00 0.11 UAR 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Madrona Campground: Rock/gravel entire route of infected POC as needed.

199.105 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Darlingtonia Trailhead access.

199.106 0.18 0.00 0.18 UAR 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Eighteen-mile river access site. Rock/gravel entire route of infected POC as 

needed.

199.107 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR Restore Barricade.

199.108 0.24 0.00 0.24 UAR Restore Barricade.

199.109 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR Restore Barricade at 0.1 miles to allow parking at turnout and hiking access to river.

199.111 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel entire route of infected POC as needed.

199.111 0.07 0.02 0.09 UAR Restore Barricade.

199.111A 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 199.111.

199.112 0.29 0.00 0.29 UAR Restore Barricade.

199.113 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

305.100 0.57 0.00 0.57 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.101 1.08 0.00 1.08 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.101A 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.101B 0.50 0.00 0.50 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.102 0.15 0.00 0.15 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.103 0.14 0.00 0.14 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.104 0.14 0.00 0.14 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.105 0.22 0.00 0.22 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified.

305.106 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.107 1.25 0.00 1.25 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.108 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.109 2.43 0.00 2.43 UAR Motorized Trail Install culvert at seepy crossing and add gravel surfacing. Route delineation.

305.109 0.84 2.43 3.27 UAR Restore Barricade.
C-2 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

305.109A 1.02 0.00 1.02 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.113 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.114 0.63 0.00 0.63 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

305.115 1.74 0.00 1.74 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

305.115A 0.18 0.00 0.18 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

305.118 0.80 0.00 0.80 UAR Motorized Trail Seasonal closure required at beginning of route. Need culvert in at first spring 

site. Barricade end of route at 0.8 mi. Route delineation.

305.118 0.76 0.80 1.56 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed. Barricade.

305.119 0.22 0.00 0.22 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.120 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.121 0.63 0.00 0.63 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.121A 0.28 0.00 0.28 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.121B 1.03 0.00 1.03 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route. Barricade just before creek, near milepost 1.02.

305.123 0.63 0.00 0.63 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.124 1.20 0.00 1.20 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

305.125 1.44 0.00 1.44 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route. Seasonal gate closure, gate at both ends.

305.125A 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.126 1.56 0.00 1.56 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified

305.128 0.70 0.00 0.70 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.129 0.40 0.00 0.40 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.130 1.72 0.00 1.72 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.131 0.09 0.00 0.09 UAR Restore Barricade.

305.132 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified

305.133 0.01 0.00 0.01 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified

305.134 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Restore Barricade.

314.1 1.21 0.00 1.21 UAR Motorized Trail Barricade at milepost 1.21.

314.1 0.56 1.21 1.77 UAR Restore Barricade.

314.102 0.80 0.00 0.80 UAR Restore Barricade.

314.107 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Delineate route. Three Ponds camping area. Rock/gravel length of motorized 

trail as needed.

314.108 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.100 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-3

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

315.100 1.48 0.20 1.68 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.102 0.48 0.00 0.48 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.103 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel as needed. Elk Camp trailhead.

315.104 0.82 0.00 0.82 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.106 0.25 0.00 0.25 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.107 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.108 0.46 0.00 0.46 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

315.109 0.49 0.00 0.49 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.110 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

315.111 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

315.2 0.51 0.00 0.51 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed. Remove all culverts. Barricade.

315.3 0.98 0.00 0.98 UAR Restore Remove all culverts. Waterbars as needed. Barricade.

315.3A 0.24 0.00 0.24 UAR Restore Remove all culverts. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

315.9A 1.22 0.00 1.22 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed and barricade.

316.7A 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

316.9A 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Restore Barricade.

316.10 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed. Route delineation.

316.1 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Administrative use only; add rolling dips. POC Mitigation:

rock/gravel length of road.

316.11 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed. Route delineation.

316.12 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed. Route delineation.

316.2 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

316.3 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed. Route delineation.

316.4 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed. Route delineation.

316.5 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed. Route delineation.

316.6 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed. Route delineation.

316.7 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

316.8 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed; waterbar. Route delineation.

316.9 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

324.100 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Restore Barricade.

405.100 0.11 0.00 0.11 UAR Restore Barricade.
C-4 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

405.10 0.51 0.00 0.51 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route at milepost 0.36.

405.10 0.23 0.51 0.74 UAR Restore Barricade.

405.101 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Restore Barricade.

405.103 3.47 0.00 3.47 UAR Motorized Trail Stormproof. Improve surface drainage near creek; repair culvert.

405.9 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Restore Barricade.

411.101 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR Restore Barricade.

411.102 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Restore

427.101 0.15 0.00 0.15 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) No mitigation identified.

427.103 0.32 0.00 0.32 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Delineate route.

427.104 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR Restore Barricade.

427.105 0.29 0.00 0.29 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles County disposal site; may be gated periodically for administrative purposes.

Gravel as needed.

427.106 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Motorized Trail Stormproof. Install rolling dips to improve drainage.

427.107 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Gravel.

427.108 0.09 0.00 0.09 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

427.108A 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

13N35.5 0.14 0.00 0.14 UAR Restore Barricade.

13N35K 0.10 0.18 0.28 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Barricade.

13N37 2.00 0.00 2.00 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed)

Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

Downgrade to OML 1.

13N37.1 0.11 0.00 0.11 UAR Restore Barricade.

13N37A 0.77 0.00 0.77 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

13N37B 0.27 0.00 0.27 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

14N01 4.61 9.60 14.21 3 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Seasonal gate closure.

14N01D 1.80 0.00 1.80 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Maintain, repair, or replace each culvert; improve surface 

drainage. Seasonal gate near private property to mitigate POC risk.

14N08 0.50 0.00 0.50 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Barricade at end.

14N08T 0.11 0.00 0.11 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

14N15 0.50 0.00 0.50 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Maintain, repair, or replace each culvert; improve surface 

drainage. Proposed seasonal gate on 14N01 restricts access.

14N15.1 3.80 0.00 3.80 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbar as needed and year-round gate.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-5

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

14N32.1 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR Restore Barricade.

14N33 1.60 0.18 1.78 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed and barricade.

14N33.3 0.52 0.00 0.52 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels as on 14N33. 

Waterbars as needed. Closed by barricade on 14N33.

14N33A 0.22 0.00 0.22 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

14N38 0.40 0.00 0.40 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Improve surface drainage. Seasonal gate closure at beginning of road.

14N38 0.20 0.40 0.60 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Stormproof. Barricade and decommission past water source. Waterbar as 

needed.

14N46 2.70 0.00 2.70 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

14N46.2 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Restore Waterbars as needed and barricade.

14N46B 0.37 0.00 0.37 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Waterbars as needed and barricade.

15N01.102 0.29 0.00 0.29 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Add gravel at terminus of road where water accumulates.

15N01.102 0.19 0.29 0.48 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N01A.1 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N01A.2 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N01A.4 3.84 0.00 3.84 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Manage as ML 1 and gate year round.

15N01P 0.09 0.79 0.88 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

15N01Q 0.50 0.00 0.50 1 Motorized Trail Convert to motorized trail to Marlow Campsite.

15N01R 0.10 0.00 0.10 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade.

15N01S 0.10 0.00 0.10 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade.

15N01U 0.70 0.00 0.70 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

15N01U.1 0.58 0.00 0.58 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N02 11.10 0.00 11.10 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Replace 3 priority culverts. Seasonal gate near beginning of road.

15N02.101 0.81 0.00 0.81 UAR Motorized Trail Barricade at end.

15N02.103 0.58 0.00 0.58 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.

15N02.106 0.48 0.00 0.48 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.

15N02.107 0.42 0.00 0.42 UAR Motorized Trail Barricade at milepost 0.37, about 0.05 mile before end of road.

15N02.108 1.14 0.00 1.14 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N02.108A 0.59 0.39 0.98 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N02.2 0.24 0.00 0.24 UAR Restore Barricade.
C-6 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

15N02.4 0.49 0.00 0.49 UAR Motorized Trail Barricade at end of segment.

15N02.5 0.19 0.00 0.19 UAR Motorized Trail Proposed barricade at end of this segment.

15N02.5 0.71 0.19 0.90 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade at 15N02 junction.

15N02.5A 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Motorized Trail Gravel as needed.

15N11.2 0.32 0.00 0.32 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N11A 1.70 0.00 1.70 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N11A.1 0.25 0.00 0.25 UAR Restore Remove all culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbar as 

needed. Closed by barricade on 15N11A.

15N11B 1.39 0.00 1.39 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N13 3.80 0.00 3.80 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance on, repair/replace all culverts and drainage 

structures as needed. Seasonal gate closure.

15N13.100 0.49 0.62 1.11 UAR Restore Year-round gate closure adjacent to private landholding.

15N13.100 0.48 1.74 2.22 UAR Restore Year-round gate closure adjacent to private landholding.

15N33 0.90 0.00 0.90 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N35A 0.24 0.00 0.24 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N35B 0.57 0.00 0.57 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N35C 0.57 0.00 0.57 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N36.1 0.62 0.00 0.62 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N36C 0.55 0.00 0.55 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N36N 1.30 0.00 1.30 1 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Maintain, repair, or replace each culvert. Improve surface 

drainage with waterbars/rolling dips as needed.

15N36N 1.30 1.30 2.60 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Barricade.

15N36N.1 0.90 0.00 0.90 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Stormproof. Access to Blackhawk Bar. Maintain, repair, or replace each culvert. 

Improve surface draining with waterbars and rolling dips as needed. Add gravel 

at drainage crossings and along areas with POC. Route delineation.

15N36N.1A 0.15 0.00 0.15 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.

15N36N.1B 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel last 100 feet.

15N36N.1C 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-7

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

15N38 2.90 0.00 2.90 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve surface drainage and install culvert at stream ford on road 

near private land. Barricade last 300 feet of road, before bottom of POC stand.

15N39A 1.20 0.00 1.20 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N39A.1 0.18 0.00 0.18 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N39B 0.50 0.00 0.50 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N42 1.06 0.00 1.06 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

15N42A 0.44 0.00 0.44 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

15N45 1.13 0.00 1.13 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed and Barricade.

15N45.100 0.22 0.00 0.22 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N45.101 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Restore Barricade.

15N63 0.30 0.00 0.30 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles No mitigation identified.

16N02.1 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Bear Basin water source. Route delineation.

16N02.2 0.87 0.00 0.87 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N02.5 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

16N02D 0.61 0.00 0.61 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N02H 0.40 0.00 0.40 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed.

16N02L 1.70 0.00 1.70 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Upsize culverts, install waterbars or rolling dips. Current

seasonal gate restricts access.

16N02S 1.20 0.00 1.20 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N02S.1 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N02T 0.50 0.00 0.50 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N02T.1 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N03.100 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N03.2 0.87 0.00 0.87 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed and barricade.

16N03A 0.06 0.00 0.06 1 Motorized Trail Convert to motorized trail for access to Hurdygurdy Butte.

16N03D 1.40 0.00 1.40 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N03F 0.70 0.00 0.70 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed and barricade.
C-8 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

16N03G 0.08 0.00 0.08 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Waterbar landing as needed and barricade.

16N03H 0.30 0.00 0.30 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N03K 1.50 0.00 1.50 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Repair culverts. Current seasonal gate restricts access.

16N03L 0.20 0.00 0.20 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove all culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N10.1 0.14 0.00 0.14 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N10.2 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Closed by network to motorized access, extends off non-motorized trail.

16N15A 0.17 0.00 0.17 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N16 1.50 0.00 1.50 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Repair or replace plugged culverts.

16N16 0.60 1.50 2.10 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N18.1 1.04 0.00 1.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N18.3 0.49 0.00 0.49 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N18.4 0.67 0.00 0.67 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N18A 1.35 0.00 1.35 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Repair or replace culverts on section up to milepost 1.35 at 

bridge. Seasonal gate closure at beginning.

16N18A 0.95 1.35 2.30 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Stormproof. Remove 5 culverts. Waterbar as needed and barricade.

16N18B.1 0.66 0.00 0.66 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N18C 0.39 0.00 0.39 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N18E 0.96 0.00 0.96 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N18K 1.10 0.00 1.10 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed.

16N19 8.28 0.00 8.28 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Stormproof. Improve maintenance on, repair, or replace each of the 17 

culverts. Reinforce creek crossings and sections of road with POC 0.29 to

0.46 miles west of 16N19E intersection as needed.

16N19.1 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Water source. Rock/gravel entire route as needed.

16N19.2 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Access to Coon Creek. Rock/gravel entire route as needed.

16N19.3 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N19.4 0.87 0.00 0.87 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N19.5 0.19 0.00 0.19 UAR Restore Remove fill from culvert. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N19A 0.23 0.00 0.23 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-9

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

16N19B 1.40 0.00 1.40 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N19E 0.95 0.00 0.95 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

16N19E.1 0.41 0.00 0.41 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N19F 0.76 0.00 0.76 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N19G 0.23 0.00 0.23 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N21.1 0.15 0.00 0.15 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

16N21.2 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N21F.1 0.09 0.00 0.09 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N23 7.40 0.00 7.40 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve road drainage at all culverts. Seasonal gate closure and 

add gravel in areas with POC within 50 feet of road.

16N23.100 0.64 0.00 0.64 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.

16N23.2 0.22 0.00 0.22 UAR Motorized Trail Gravel and rock route as needed.

16N23.4 0.69 0.00 0.69 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.

16N23A.1 1.90 0.00 1.90 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.

16N24A 0.65 0.00 0.65 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N27 0.50 0.00 0.50 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N30 0.24 0.00 0.24 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N31A.1 0.22 0.00 0.22 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N31B.2 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N32 3.12 0.82 3.94 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 16 culverts.

Current seasonal gate restricts access.

16N32A 0.08 0.00 0.08 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N32C 0.47 0.00 0.47 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N33 0.70 0.00 0.70 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Seasonal gate closure. Rock/gravel POC crossing as needed.

16N33 3.70 0.70 4.40 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Barricade.

16N34 0.60 0.00 0.60 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Add culvert at milepost 0.34.

16N34 0.30 0.60 0.90 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Remove last culvert at milepost 0.9 switchback. Barricade.
C-10

– Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

16N34A 0.50 0.00 0.50 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

16N35A 0.14 0.00 0.14 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N35C 0.12 0.00 0.12 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N36 1.20 0.00 1.20 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the culverts.

16N36.1 0.69 0.00 0.69 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Repair or replace culverts.

16N36.1 0.11 0.69 0.80 UAR Restore Barricade.

16N36B 0.82 0.00 0.82 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Clean blocked culverts and install 2 additional culverts.

16N37 1.20 0.00 1.20 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 6 culverts.

Reinforce POC crossing with gravel and install culvert.

16N37B 0.17 0.00 0.17 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N38 1.32 0.28 1.60 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Reinforce POC crossing with gravel, about 170 feet west of 16N21 junction.

16N39A 0.22 0.00 0.22 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N41 1.43 0.00 1.43 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Replace culvert at milepost 0.56. Reinforce POC crossing with 

gravel and install culvert, about 200 feet east of 16N37 junction.

16N41A 0.17 0.00 0.17 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N41B 0.09 0.00 0.09 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

16N55 0.50 0.00 0.50 1 2 – High-clearance vehicles No mitigation identified.

16N55.1 0.16 0.00 0.16 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N01 0.70 0.00 0.70 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel road as needed.

17N01.1 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel length of road as needed.

17N01.100 2.49 0.00 2.49 UAR Restore Remove all culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N01.1A 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

17N01.1B 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

17N01.1C 0.09 0.00 0.09 UAR Restore Barricade. Waterbar as needed.

17N01.1D 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N01.2 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel entire route as needed.

17N01.2B 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel entire route as needed.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-11

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

17N01.3 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Motorized Trail Stormproof. Rolling dips as needed. Rock/gravel route as needed.

17N01.3A 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N03 1.20 0.00 1.20 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade.

17N04.1 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N04.2 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N04.3 0.97 0.00 0.97 UAR Restore Remove culvert and associated fill. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and 

barricade.

17N04S 1.80 0.00 1.80 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N05.100 0.88 0.00 0.88 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N05.101 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N05.4 0.32 0.00 0.32 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N05.4A 1.36 0.00 1.36 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N05.5 0.14 0.00 0.14 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N05C 0.97 0.00 0.97 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N05E 0.71 0.00 0.71 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Barricade.

17N05G 0.67 0.00 0.67 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N05U 0.28 0.00 0.28 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N07 10.39 0.00 10.39 3 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel as needed at wet areas, draws and areas with POC.

17N07.1 0.25 0.00 0.25 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N07.101 0.09 0.00 0.09 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N07.102 3.07 0.00 3.07 UAR Restore Road not stable, failing. Remove all culverts and associated fill from stream 

channels. Waterbar as needed and barricade.

17N07.2 0.51 0.00 0.51 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N07.4 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N07.5 0.32 0.00 0.32 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N07.5A 0.15 0.00 0.15 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N07.6 0.75 0.00 0.75 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N07.7 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N07G 1.62 0.00 1.62 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: rock/gravel at milepost 0.2 to ~0.22 stretch as needed.
C-12

– Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

17N07J 1.64 0.00 1.64 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Repair culvert at milepost 1.25. Rock/gravel as needed at wet 

areas, draws and areas with POC.

17N07K 0.80 0.00 0.80 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed and barricade.

17N07Q 0.22 0.00 0.22 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N07R 0.44 0.00 0.44 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culvert and associated fill. Barricade.

17N07R.1 0.16 0.00 0.16 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N07R.1A 0.25 0.00 0.25 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N08.3 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N08A 0.50 0.00 0.50 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N13 0.70 0.00 0.70 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) POC Mitigation: downgrade to ML 1. Barricade. Remove or repair road 

drainage features as needed to improve resource protection.

17N13A 0.38 0.00 0.38 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

17N14 0.33 0.00 0.33 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock and gravel at milepost ~0.14-0.16.

17N15 0.90 0.00 0.90 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade.

17N15A 0.13 0.00 0.13 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Waterbars as needed and barricade.

17N16 0.65 0.00 0.65 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

17N16.1 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N16.100 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N17 0.60 0.00 0.60 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culvert and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbars as 

needed and barricade.

17N17.1 1.98 0.00 1.98 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified.

17N18.2 0.39 0.00 0.39 UAR Restore Remove 2 culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed and barricade.

17N18.3 0.74 0.00 0.74 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N18.4 0.15 0.00 0.15 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N18A 0.94 0.00 0.94 1 2 – High-clearance vehicles No mitigation identified.

17N18C 0.67 0.00 0.67 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 3 culverts. 

Rock and gravel entire length of road as needed, infested POC.

17N18E 0.42 0.00 0.42 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N18F 0.07 0.00 0.07 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-13

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

17N20 0.19 0.00 0.19 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 3 culverts.

17N21.1 0.41 0.00 0.41 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N22A 0.79 0.00 0.79 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance on, repair, or replace culvert at milepost 0.7.

17N22A.1 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N22A.2 0.25 0.00 0.25 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N22D 0.08 0.00 0.08 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N22J 0.12 0.00 0.12 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed.

17N22W.1 0.46 0.00 0.46 UAR Restore Rolling dips as needed. Special use permit road, do not barricade.

17N23 1.30 1.50 2.80 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts, waterbars as needed and barricade.

17N23C.1 2.24 0.00 2.24 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) No mitigation identified.

17N23C.2 0.59 0.00 0.59 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) No mitigation identified.

17N26 0.25 0.00 0.25 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock and gravel entire length of road as needed, infested POC.

17N26A 0.37 0.00 0.37 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock and gravel entire length of road as needed.

17N27A.1 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 17N27A.

17N27B 0.40 0.00 0.40 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N27C 0.40 0.00 0.40 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N27D.1 0.36 0.00 0.36 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N28 0.20 0.00 0.20 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N29 1.00 0.00 1.00 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Pull fill back from landing.

17N29.100 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N29B 0.20 0.00 0.20 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N30 0.89 0.00 0.89 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars as needed. Barricade.

17N30 0.55 0.89 1.44 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Waterbars as needed. Closed by barricade on first segment of 17N30 that is 

OML 1.

17N30A 0.40 0.00 0.40 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Closed by barricade on 17N30 that is OML 1.

17N31 1.60 0.00 1.60 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

17N31.3 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N31A.1 0.36 0.00 0.36 UAR Restore Barricade.
C-14

– Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

17N32 3.40 0.00 3.40 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Seasonal gate closure. Rock/gravel POC crossing as needed.

17N32.1 0.31 0.00 0.31 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N32.2 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N32B 0.80 0.00 0.80 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N32F 1.00 0.00 1.00 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N32G 1.20 0.00 1.20 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace culverts.

17N35 0.50 0.00 0.50 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N35.100 0.35 0.00 0.35 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N36 2.50 0.00 2.50 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 14 culverts. 

Seasonal gate near beginning, just off 17N04.

17N36B 1.00 0.00 0.00 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Behind seasonal closure gate on 17N36.

17N36B.1 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N36C 0.43 0.00 0.43 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N36F 1.20 0.00 1.20 1 2 – High-clearance vehicles No maintenance identified

17N39 2.19 0.00 2.19 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Stormproof. Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 25 culverts.

Rock/gravel stretch with infected POC as needed, from junction with 411 to 

~milepost 0.65.

17N39A 0.95 0.00 0.95 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N39B 0.51 0.00 0.51 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N39C 0.12 0.00 0.12 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N40 0.65 0.00 0.65 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Seasonal gate closure.

17N40 0.35 0.65 1.00 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Waterbars as needed, barricade, and downgrade to OML 1.

17N40B 0.53 0.00 0.53 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

17N40B.1 0.19 0.00 0.19 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N40C.1 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N40D 0.18 0.00 0.18 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-15

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

17N41 4.25 0.00 4.25 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Stormproof. Improve maintenance on, repair, or replace/upgrade each of the 

13 culverts and waterbars as needed. Rock/gravel stretch with infected POC, 

from junction with 411 to ~milepost 1.05.

17N41.1 0.74 0.00 0.74 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N41.2 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N41A 0.35 0.00 0.35 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Barricade.

17N41G.1 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N41H 0.90 0.00 0.90 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock and gravel stretch approximately first 0.25 mile as needed.

17N41H.100 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N42A.100 0.48 0.00 0.48 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N43 1.00 0.00 1.00 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock and gravel stretch approximately 0.47 to 0.68 mileposts as needed.

17N43.1 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N45 0.70 0.00 0.70 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Behind seasonal closure gate on 17N36.

17N46 1.22 0.00 1.22 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Seasonal gate on 17N40 closes access to this route.

17N46A 0.16 0.00 0.16 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N48 1.66 0.00 1.66 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock and gravel entire length of road as needed.

17N48.1 0.33 0.00 0.33 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N48.3 0.16 0.00 0.16 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N48.4 0.46 0.00 0.46 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N48C 0.47 0.00 0.47 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

17N49 4.89 2.96 7.85 3 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock and gravel as needed stretch with infected POC, ~milepost 3.8, just 

north of 17N49.101 junction, for 100 feet.

17N49.1 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.100 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. .to junction with 17N49.104. Restore remaining portion of 

route.

17N49.100 3.88 0.12 4.00 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.100A 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.101 1.17 0.00 1.17 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

17N49.102 0.87 0.00 0.87 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

17N49.102A 0.71 0.00 0.71 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

17N49.102B 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 
C-16

– Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

17N49.102C 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.103 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

17N49.104 3.82 0.00 3.82 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.104 0.86 3.82 4.68 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.104A 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.104B 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

17N49.105 1.43 0.00 1.43 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.105A 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.106 0.32 0.00 0.32 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.107 0.64 0.00 0.64 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.108 0.31 0.00 0.31 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.11 4.49 0.00 4.49 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. Seasonal gate closure, gate mid-slope of 17N49.11.

17N49.11M 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.11N 0.23 0.00 0.23 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.11P 0.18 0.00 0.18 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. Proposed seasonal gates on 17N49.11 and 17N49.7 

restrict access.

17N49.11P 0.03 0.18 0.21 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.12 2.10 0.00 2.10 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.13 0.30 0.00 0.30 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.14 0.54 0.00 0.54 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.15 0.62 0.00 0.62 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.15A 0.24 0.00 0.24 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. 

17N49.2 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.3 0.23 0.00 0.23 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.4 2.04 0.00 2.04 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. Seasonal gate closure just to east of 17N49.102.

17N49.4A 1.06 0.00 1.06 UAR Restore Year-round gate.

17N49.7 3.06 0.00 3.06 UAR Motorized Trail Stormproof. Repair road drainage at spring area and two culverts. Delineate 

route. Install seasonal gate north of junction with 17N49.15.

17N49.7 0.29 3.06 3.35 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.7A 0.82 0.00 0.82 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.

17N49.8 0.39 0.00 0.39 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-17

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

17N85 1.20 0.00 1.20 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features to improve resource 

protection. Barricade.

18N01 0.10 0.00 0.10 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles No mitigations identified.

18N01 0.06 0.10 0.16 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N02.1 0.14 0.00 0.14 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N02.2 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified.

18N02.3 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel length of route as needed.

18N03 1.91 0.00 1.91 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N04.2 0.11 0.00 0.11 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N04E 0.21 0.65 0.86 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar or rolling

dips as needed and barricade.

18N05.1 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed. Closed by barricade on 18N05.100.

18N05.100 2.16 0.00 2.16 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed and barricade.

18N05.2 0.53 0.00 0.53 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars and 

barricade as needed.

18N06A 0.18 0.00 0.18 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N07 0.05 0.00 0.05 3 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Griffin Creek Bridge repair/replacement.

18N07.11 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N07.12 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified.

18N07.14 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

18N07.2 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles No mitigations identified

18N07.3 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N07.6 0.25 0.00 0.25 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed. Barricade.

18N07.8 0.38 0.00 0.38 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed. Barricade.

18N08.2 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles No mitigations identified.

18N08F 0.90 0.90 1.80 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Seasonal closure.

18N08G 1.12 0.00 1.12 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.
C-18

– Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

18N09 5.10 0.00 5.10 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Barricade just past confluence of High Plateau Creek.

18N09.100 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation at site, seasonal gate on 18N09 closes access to this route.

18N09.100 0.06 0.21 0.27 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade at 18N09.

18N09.100A 0.16 0.00 0.16 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N09.101 0.16 0.00 0.16 UAR Motorized Trail Gravel last 100 feet of route.

18N09.102 1.84 0.00 1.84 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N09.103 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N09.104 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N09.105 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N09.106 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified.

18N09.107 0.01 0.00 0.01 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigations identified.

18N09.108 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail Rock/gravel route as needed.

18N10.1 0.70 0.00 0.70 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N11 1.92 4.15 6.07 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Replace culvert at milepost 5.78.

18N11A 0.80 0.00 0.80 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N11B 0.19 0.00 0.19 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N11C 0.20 0.00 0.20 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N11D 0.46 0.00 0.46 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N11D.1 1.75 0.00 1.75 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 18N11D.

18N11D.2 0.25 0.00 0.25 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed. Closed by barricade on 18N11D.

18N11D.3 0.29 0.00 0.29 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed. Closed by barricade on 18N11D.

18N11D.4A 0.73 0.00 0.73 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N11D.5 2.11 0.00 2.11 UAR Restore Remove culverts and fill from stream channels. Waterbars as needed and 

barricade.

18N12A 0.43 0.00 0.43 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N13.100 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N13.101 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 18N13.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-19

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

18N15 1.20 0.00 1.20 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Resource Risk Mitigation: Delineate route near milepost 0.01.

Upsize culverts, install waterbars, or rolling dips.

18N15D 0.23 0.00 0.23 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N16 5.33 0.00 5.33 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Rock/gravel first 0.28 miles as needed.

18N16.100 2.60 0.00 2.60 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N16E 0.38 0.00 0.38 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N16F.1 0.16 0.00 0.16 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N16W 0.17 0.00 0.17 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N17 8.10 0.00 8.10 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Improve maintenance on, repair, or replace/upgrade each of the 

19 culverts and waterbars as needed. Current seasonal gate.

18N17.100 1.01 0.00 1.01 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N17.100A 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N17.101 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 18N17.

18N17.102 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 18N17.

18N17.103 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N17.104 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N17.104A 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 18N17.

18N17B 0.87 0.00 0.87 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Install culvert at milepost 0.5. Seasonal gate closure on 18N17.

18N17C 1.18 0.00 1.18 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Stormproof. Replace culverts at milepost 0.35 and 0.77; and maintain, repair, 

or upgrade remaining 4 culverts and improve surface drainage. Existing

seasonal gate on 18N17 restricts access.

18N17C.1 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N17G 0.12 0.00 0.12 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N17H 0.15 0.00 0.15 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N18A 0.20 0.00 0.20 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N18B 0.15 0.00 0.15 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N18C 0.08 0.00 0.08 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.
C-20

– Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

18N18D 0.13 0.00 0.13 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N19A 0.22 0.00 0.22 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove from System; Remove culverts and associated fill from stream 

channel. Waterbar as needed and barricade.

18N19B 0.20 0.00 0.20 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N19C 0.17 0.00 0.17 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N20 1.00 0.00 1.00 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbar as needed and gate.

18N20.100 0.28 0.00 0.28 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N20.100A 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channels. Waterbars as 

needed. Closed by barricade on 18N20.

18N20.101 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N20.102 0.47 0.00 0.47 UAR Restore Remove culverts and associated fill. Waterbars as needed. Closed by 

barricade on 18N20.

18N20A 0.40 0.00 0.40 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N22 2.00 0.00 2.00 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N22D 0.62 0.00 0.62 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N22E 0.14 0.00 0.14 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N23 0.10 0.00 0.10 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N24 1.10 0.00 1.10 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N26 1.75 0.00 1.75 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N26A 0.15 0.00 0.15 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N26A.2 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 18N26A.

18N26B 0.08 0.00 0.08 1 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Stormproof. Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve 

resource protection. Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N30.100 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

C-21

Road,

Motorized 

Trail Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

18N30A 0.28 0.00 0.28 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove from system. Remove culverts and associated fill from stream 

channel. Waterbar as needed and barricade.

18N30B 0.46 0.00 0.46 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N31 0.60 0.00 0.60 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N31.1 0.16 0.00 0.16 UAR Restore Closed by barricade on 18N31.

18N31.2 0.23 0.00 0.23 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N31.3C 0.18 0.00 0.18 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N31.4 1.25 0.00 1.25 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed and barricade.

18N46 0.39 0.00 0.39 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N47 0.44 0.00 0.44 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N48 0.31 0.00 0.31 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N51 0.27 0.00 0.27 1 2 – High-clearance vehicles No mitigations identified.

18N51.100 1.45 0.00 1.45 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. Barricade last 0.1 mile.

18N51.100A 0.46 0.00 0.46 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N56 0.88 0.00 0.88 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Stormproof. Replace culverts; install rolling dips as needed. Rock/gravel 100 

feet either side of infected creek crossing near milepost 0.15 as needed.

18N56.100 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N57 0.56 0.00 0.56 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

18N58.1 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N58B 0.25 0.00 0.25 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

19N34 1.95 0.00 1.95 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culvert and associated fill as needed. Waterbars as needed and 

barricade.

19N34A 0.28 0.00 0.28 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

19N34B 0.29 0.00 0.29 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.

19N34C 0.08 0.00 0.08 1 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove culverts and associated fill from stream channel. Waterbar as 

needed and barricade.
Appendix C. List of Road and Route Decisions

C-22 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-1

Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

As required by 36 CFR 218.32 (b), the Reviewing Officer provided a written response to objectors and 

their issues raised on June 28, 2017, providing the following instructions to the Forest Supervisor 

concurrently with issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD):

• Address inadvertent errors, and

• Clarify information relative to some of the issues raised during the objection process.

On August 1, 2017, the Six Rivers National Forest (forest or SRNF) fulfilled the instructions by:

• Incorporating additional citations and clarification of disclosure throughout the ROD relative to 

some of the issues raised during the objection process,

• Compiling a disclosure of inadvertent errors disclosed in Appendix B of this ROD, and

• Incorporating supplemental information in the project record to clarify how the 2005 Travel 

Management regulations and criteria (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e)) were considered during the 

planning process.

Instructions to the Responsible Official

1. Correct the regulatory citations in the Purpose and Need section of the ROD, to document that the 

section includes all of the designation criteria from 36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e).

Response: The regulatory citations in the draft ROD listed as 36 CFR 212.54; Subpart A and 36 

CFR 261.13 were corrected to Subpart A (36 CFR 212 – Administration of the NFTS) and Subpart B 

(36 CFR 212.54 – Revision of Designation of Roads and Trails), (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e) – Criteria for 

Designation of Roads and Trails) (ROD pp. 6-8).

2. Add a summary to Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations that explains how the project 

complies with the Travel Management Rule, specifically, Subpart B designation criteria (36 CFR 

212.55 (b)).

Response: A subheading under Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations, titled 2005 Travel 

Management Rule, was added to further clarify the planning process methodology used to design the 

project addressing each designation criteria for roads and trails open to motorized uses per 36 CFR 

212.55 (b) (ROD pp. 44-48). Each of the designation criteria signified in the purpose and need for 

action (FEIS pp. 13-20) listed below, were reconsidered periodically between 2005 and 2016. The 

following criteria were considered when developing the Smith River NRA Roads Analysis and OffHighway Vehicle Strategy (Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy); in 2010, during collaboration 

whereby criteria were reevaluated for select trails; in 2012, in response to scoping comments and new 

inventories; in 2014, in response to comments on the DEIS; and in 2017, in response to objection issues:
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-2 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

• (a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System (NFS) roads, NFS trails, and areas 

on NFS lands.

o In designating NFS roads and trails for motor-vehicle use, the responsible official shall 

consider effects on NFS natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of 

recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of NFS lands, the need for 

maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses 

under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance 

and administration.

• (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph 

(a) of this section, in designating NFS trails and areas on NFS lands, the responsible official shall 

consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing:

o Effects on NFS natural and cultural resources, public safety, provided for recreational 

opportunities recognizing conflicts among uses of NFS lands, access needs, the need for 

maintenance and administration of roads, trails, that would arise if the uses under 

consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and 

administration.

o The following criteria in paragraph (a) of this section was considered with the objective 

of minimizing:

 Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;

 Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;

 Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses 

of NFS lands or neighboring federal lands; and

 Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or 

neighboring federal lands.

 Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, 

taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.

• (c) Specific criteria for designation of roads. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this 

section, in designating NFS roads, the responsible official shall consider:

o Speed, volume, composition, and distribution of traffic on roads; and

o Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and road surfacing.

• (d) Rights of access. In making designations pursuant to this subpart, the responsible official 

shall recognize:

o Valid existing rights; and

o The rights of use of NFS roads and NFS trails under §212.6 (b).
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-3

• (e) Wilderness areas and primitive areas. National Forest System roads, NFS trails, and areas 

on NFS lands in wilderness areas or primitive areas shall not be designated for motor vehicle use 

pursuant to this section, unless, in the case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle use is authorized by 

the applicable enabling legislation for those areas.

In addition to the route-by-route minimizations responsive to criteria per the Travel Management 

Rule (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e)), my decision incorporates avoidance and active and passive 

restoration in the project design overall, targeting those routes that were rated as high risk per the 

Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy, resulting in the following benefits to natural and cultural 

resources:

o Water quality: restores drainage patterns/downgrading to Operational Maintenance Level 

(OML) 1 (closed to vehicle use), 45.97 miles (82%) of the unauthorized routes (UARs) 

with a high risk to water quality, and will decommission 23.47 miles (45%) of the NFTS 

roads with a high risk to water quality.

o Sensitive plants: restores drainage patterns/downgrading to OML 1, 22.97 miles (42%) 

of the UARs with a high risk to sensitive plants, and will decommission 35.1 miles (76%) 

of the NFTS roads with a high risk to botany.

o Port-Orford-cedar (POC): restores drainage patterns/downgrading to OML 1, 57.66 

miles (73%) of the UARs with a high risk to POC, and will decommission 39.89 miles 

(40%) of the NFTS roads with a high risk to POC.

o Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs): minimizes impacts to IRA-related, quiet recreation 

by designating 3.13 miles along the boundary, and by restoring drainage patterns on the 

remaining 17.37 miles of the UARs within the IRA. In addition, the decision will 

decommission or downgrade to OML 1, 7.16 miles of the NFTS roads (33%) open for 

vehicle use within the IRA.

o Wildlife: restores drainage patterns/downgrading to OML 1, 14.8 miles (99%) of the 

UARs rated as high risk, and will decommission 28.21 miles (70%) of the NFTS roads

with a high risk to wildlife.

o The Six Rivers’ LRMP allows for 20 percent reduction in sensitive plant populations as a 

threshold of concern, whereas this project stipulates 10 to 15 percent threshold, 

depending on the species. Three years of baseline sensitive plant monitoring must occur 

before routes may be designated on the motor vehicle use map (MVUM) allowing for 

motorized uses.

o Five to 10 years (or more depending on findings) of water quality, botany, POC, and 

cultural resource implementation and effectiveness monitoring.

o Route delineation (boulders or other barriers placed in locations to protect a sensitive 

site) will be used to keep vehicles on the roadway.
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-4 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

o Unauthorized routes into the North Fork Smith Botanical Area (20,000 acres) and L.E.

Horton Research Natural Area (RNA; 1,305 acres), both established for rare serpentine 

plants, were never considered for designation (recommended to be closed since the roads 

analysis process (RAP)).

o Protected cultural resources by avoiding any actions in the Helkau (17,856 acres) and 

Mus-yeh-sait-neh (960 acres) Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP).

o Maintenance and stormproofing will occur on all existing NFTS roads as well as any 

newly designated routes.

o Overall road density reduction by 5th-field watershed, with the highest resulting road 

density in the Middle Fork Smith (includes Highway 199) at 1.25 miles per square mile, 

with the other three watersheds at less than 1 mile per square mile (0.8, 0.37, 0.24).

o Only 0.16 miles total (3 routes) being designated in late successional wildlife habitat; 

1.92 miles (5 routes) in designated northern spotted owl (NSO) Critical Habitat Units

(CHU; but not in suitable habitat); 1.93 (8 routes) in designated late-successional reserve 

(LSR)/marbled murrelet (MAMU) CHU (not in suitable habitat); and none within 0.25 

miles of known NSO or MAMU sites. I am closing 60.1 miles (112 roads and UARs) in 

LSR/MAMU CHU; 52.1 miles (97 roads and UARs) in NSO CHU; and 80.39 miles (157 

roads and UARs) in known NSO territories (there are no roads within 0.25 miles of 

MAMU sites).

o Limited operating periods imposed with 0.25 miles of all known threatened and 

endangered (TES) species nest sites during project implementation.

o Designating 3.13 miles but closing 24.86 miles of roads and routes in IRAs (7.16 NFTS 

roads and 17.7 miles UAR).

3. Clarify the documentation concerning how the project applies the minimization criteria to each route 

including related to high-risk routes, unique biological diversity, soils, sensitive botanical species, 

watersheds, fish species, and POC.

Response: The Forest Service addressed minimization criteria per the 2005 Travel Management 

regulations (36 CFR 212.55 (a)-(e)) for each Maintenance Level (ML) 1 and ML 2 road and inventoried 

unauthorized route (UAR) considered for designation, disclosed in the Smith River National Recreation 

Area (NRA) Roads Analysis and Off-Highway Vehicle Strategy (RAP/OHV Strategy) (FEIS p. 9), 

carried forward under Selected Alternative 6. Based on this initial risk/need assessment of each road, 

trail and UAR segment for the RAP/OHV Strategy, the Forest Service developed explicit minimization 

recommendations further refined through additional inventories and public comment disclosed 

throughout the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The following excerpts from the 2005 

Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy: Appendix A demonstrate the robust resource issue-based 

risk/social need assessment methodology for each minimization consideration during the road and trailspecific evaluation including:
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-5

• Watershed Processes and Aquatic Resources Considerations

o Road Hazard: The following indicators identified roads that may have a higher risk of 

failure and where upgrading practices would be appropriate to protect downstream 

aquatic resources:

 Roads located on steep hillslopes,

 Roads located on weak or sensitive bedrock geology,

 Roads on low or middle slope position.

o Hillslope Class: This indicator identified the frequency of road failures, partially 

attributed to the slope of the hillside of which the road crosses. The analysis of past road 

failures indicates the ratio of failures per mile is about 8 times greater for roads located 

on hillslopes greater than 50 percent. Hillslope class categories include 0 to 20 percent, 

20 to 50 percent and greater than 50 percent.

o Hillslope Position: This indicator identified the potential for road failures. The analysis 

of past road failures indicates there is a 30 percent higher probability for roads and trails 

positioned lower on the hillslope compared to those located along the upper hillslope 

position. For the analysis, hillslope position considered 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.

o Bedrock Geology: The following indicators identified the geologic the parent material 

underlying the physical existing road and trail footprint to assess potential for mass 

wasting, landslides and catastrophic loss of the road facility. Roads and trails located on 

bedrock units Galice metasediments, Franciscan schist, Franciscan mélange, and 

Rattlesnake Creek Terrane are considered to have a high susceptibility to mass wasting.

o Aquatic Resources: The following indicators identified potential for sedimentation into 

streams and misaligned drainage patterns:

 Is the road located on slopes greater 50 percent? 

 Is the road located on weak or sensitive bedrock geology?

 Is the road located in the lower or middle hillslope position?

o A road-by-road assessment for each road hazard indicator considering past road-related 

failures, road maintenance and overall condition of the road’s drainage structures. The 

Road Assessment tables in Appendix A of the Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy also 

contain specific road information with respect to unstable road sections and upgrading or 

stormproofing opportunities.

• Botanical Areas and TES Plant Considerations: The following indicators identified roads that 

provide access for management of botanical resources or that may affect unique resources in 

Botanical areas and in threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant species habitat:
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-6 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

o Does the road provide access to or within a botanical area or TES suitable habitat areas?

If yes, then:

 Is it the main or only road or trail accessing the botanical area or TES suitable 

habitat areas?

 What is the level/intensity of use?

 Does the road or trail provide access to unique features or points of interest 

within the botanical area?

 Is the road currently affecting resources or posing a threat to the unique resources/

features within the botanical area or TES suitable habitat areas? If yes, then:

♦ What is the level of risk of introducing or exporting POC root 

disease?

♦ Is the road altering drainage patterns in a way that negatively affects 

plant communities or other unique features?

♦ 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)?

♦ Is there evidence of cross-country travel off the road?

• Port-Orford-Cedar Considerations: The following indicators identified roads and trails relative 

to presence of Phytophthora lateralis (PL) disease and POC stands.

o 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 were used to identify 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. An assigned risk rating for each road considered the proximity of the road or trail 

to POC plant associations.

o The assessment of the risk of introduction of the POC root disease considered 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 sub-watershed 

and labeled according to the categories listed below (Rose et al. 1999).
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-7

 Low Risk:

♦ Uninfested POC stands, which are in congressionally or LRMPdesignated areas such as wilderness, roadless areas, or RNAs, with 

no roads within 500 feet of any part of the stand.

♦ Uninfested POC stands, in any land designation, with no roads 

within 500 feet of any part of the stand.

♦ Infested POC stands

 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.

• Fish and Wildlife: The following indicators identified roads that provide access for management 

of fish and wildlife resources or that may affect unique resources in special habitat areas or TES

fish and wildlife species.

o Determine the primary need for the road:

 Habitat improvement projects

♦ Does the road access an existing habitat improvement project that 

needs monitoring on a regular basis?

♦ Does the road access a planned habitat improvement project, 

scheduled within the next 10 years?

 Monitoring/survey efforts

♦ Does the road provide access to an existing territory/survey site that 

requires frequent monitoring (such as peregrine falcon nest sites, 

spawning areas, etc.)?

♦ Does the road provide access to large habitat areas (such as late 

successional reserves (LSRs)) that may need future monitoring?

o Establish the primary need for the road to help determine the importance in relation to 

fish and wildlife management programs:

 Is there more than one road that leads to this area?

 What is the quality/importance of this site in relation to others on the district?

 Are there other viewpoints or ways to access the site (trail)?

o 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) 
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-8 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

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 Determine 

potential resource risk associated with road access:

o Potential effects to Special Habitat Areas and/or Riparian Reserves:

 Does the road go through Management Area 8 (Special Habitat) or Management

Area 9 (Riparian Reserves)?

 LSRs

 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.

o Potential effects to Managed Habitat Areas:

 Does the road go through Management Area 14 (South Fork Marten Area).

 Does the road go through a Survey and Manage site?

 Does the road go through a northern goshawk primary nest zone?

 Does the road go through key black-tailed deer areas (critical wintering areas)?

 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?

 Does the road go near a known fisher, marten, wolverine or other species of 

interest/concern nest/den?

 Does the road increase the potential for poaching from a sensitive habitat area?

o Overall “risk” rating based upon the answers to the following questions:

 High: Road directly accesses occupied special/managed habitat areas and has the 

potential to introduce disturbance during critical nesting/spawning periods.
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-9

 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.).

• Fire and Fuels Management: The following indicators identify roads that provide necessary 

access for fire suppression activities and fuel treatment areas.

o Determine the primary purpose of the road:

 Is the road a primary access point for suppression efforts?

 If yes, then:

 Is there more than one road that leads to this area?

 Is this road important for suppression capabilities (i.e. numerous historical 

lightning starts, access to areas with critical fire control problems, etc.)?

o Overall “risk” rating based upon the answers to the following questions:

 High: only 1 access or fastest response time to a certain area

 Moderate: 2 to 3 roads access an area

 Low: 4+ roads access an area

 Does the road accesses existing or proposed developments for suppression 

efforts? If yes, then:

♦ Is there more than one development that the road leads to?

♦ Are any developments planned along this road in the short-term (0-5 

years)?

♦ Are there any developments that have not been used or the access 

roads are overgrown?

♦ If so, evaluate whether they are actually still needed.

o Overall “risk” rating based upon the answers to the following questions:

 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.

 Does the road provides access to or serves as a control line for residential areas?

If yes, then:
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-10 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

♦ Is the road the primary ingress/egress for these residential areas?

♦ Does the road serve as a control line in protecting these residential 

areas?

o Overall “risk” rating based upon the answers to the following questions:

 High: primary ingress/egress and/or road serves as control line.

 Moderate: one of several roads, which leads to a residential area or can be used 

as a control line.

 Low: does not provide access or cannot be used as a control line for a residential 

area.

 Does the road provide access to areas requiring fuel treatments? If yes, then:

♦ Is the road the primary access for areas requiring treatments for 

which BD/KV collections were made?

♦ Is the road the primary access for areas where natural fuels 

treatments are planned or proposed?

♦ Are there additional opportunities in the long-term (5+ years)?

o Overall “risk” rating based upon the answers to the following questions:

 High: primary access to fuel treatment areas within the short-term (0 to 5 years).

 Moderate: one of several roads that provide 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).

 Does the road serve or will it serve as an established fuelbreak? If yes, then:

♦ Does the road serve as an established fuelbreak where fuel 

treatments have been completed within the past 5 years?

♦ Are fuel treatments proposed along this road within the short-term (0 

to 5 years) which will act as fuelbreaks?

• Recreation Management Considerations: The following indicators identify roads that access a 

recreation facility or are a component of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS):

o Determine the primary purpose of the road:

 Does the road provide access to a recreation facility or opportunity? If yes, then:

♦ Is there more than one site/opportunity that the road leads to?

♦ What is the quality of the site/facilities?

♦ What is the level and intensity of use?
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-11

♦ Are there similar opportunities elsewhere that would provide the 

same/similar experience?

o Overall “risk” rating based upon the answers to the following questions:

 Is traveling the road the recreation experience? If yes, then:

♦ Is it a specially designated road (i.e. Scenic Byway, Backcountry 

Discovery Trail)?

♦ Is it a noted scenic route?

♦ Is it an OHV travelway or does it lead to OHV ‘green sticker’ routes?

♦ Is it a loop road or part of a loop?

♦ Are there some primary activities that occur while people drive the road 

(i.e. birding, pleasure driving, road hunting, wildflower viewing)?

♦ Is the road used as a mountain bike route?

♦ What is the intensity of use of the road?

♦ Is this an important road to the district/forest recreation spectrum?

♦ Does this road offer some unique recreation experience that is not 

available anywhere else on the district or forest?

• Vegetation Management: The following indicators identify roads that are needed for 

implementation of vegetation management practices. The first step is to identify the primary 

purpose of the road:

o Does the road access treatable stands within sub-series and seral stages in matrix lands? If 

yes, then:

 Does the road access multiple opportunities (stands)?

 Are there additional opportunities in the next 10 to 20 years?

 Are there special forest product areas accessed by this road?

 Are the plantations requiring reforestation or other silvicultural treatments 

(including PCT) within 10 years? If yes, then:

♦ Does the road access multiple plantations?

♦ How long until treatments will be completed (how long is the road 

needed)?

♦ Does the road access treatable sub-series and seral stages within an

LSR? If yes, then:

o Does the road access multiple opportunities (stands)?

o Are there additional opportunities in the next 10 to 20 years?
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-12 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

o Are there plantations within LSR requiring silvicultural 

treatments and have available funding? If yes, then:

 Does the road access multiple plantations?

 Does the plantation have available KV funding?

 How long until treatments will be completed (how 

long is the road needed)?

 Is it near treatable sub-series and seral stage stands 

that may generate KV funding?

• Special Use Permits, Range, and Mining Claims Considerations: The following indicators 

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:

o Is the road use is authorized under a special use permit or easement? If yes, then:

 Is the road needed for current authorized use under a permit or easement?

 Is the use planned to be authorized as a new permit or a reissuance of an expired 

permit?

 Is the road expected to be needed after current permit expires?

 Will the permit be reissued considering current resource concerns or changes in 

future management of the area?

 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:

♦ Will permit be reissued following stated termination date?

♦ Is the use appropriate based upon current management guidelines in 

the area?

♦ Are alternatives access routes available on private lands that are 

more appropriate?

♦ Is the road is used for access without authorization? If yes, then:

o Would current use meet criteria for authorization of a special 

use permit (FS road is sole access to property)?

o Does current use damage resources?

o Does road meet other resource needs besides that of current 

user(s)?

o Is the road is used for access to private land or activities on 

national forest land for which there is NO special use 
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-13

authorization or legally filed mining claim with current 

assessment?

• Heritage and Cultural Resources Considerations: The following indicators identified potential 

affects to heritage and cultural resources:

o The road provides access for interpretation of heritage resource values.

o Does the road provide access to interpretive sites?

o Does the road provide access to a potential interpretive site?

o The road provides access to TCPs.

o Does the road provide access to a known TCP?

o Is there an existing MOU or LMP direction for the TCP?

o The road provides access to areas for traditional gathering and subsistence activities.

o Does the road provide access to known areas of traditional gathering and subsistence 

activities?

o Does the road provide access to potential areas for traditional gathering and subsistence 

activities?

o The road provides access for monitoring effects to archaeological or contemporary uses 

or resources.

o Does the road provide access to monitor effects of management activities and potential 

looting on archaeological sites?

o Does the road provide access to monitor if the needs by users are being met in traditional 

gathering, subsistence and spiritual activities?

Overall “risk” rating based upon the answers to the following questions:

o The potential risks to archaeological sites by transportation systems:

 Does the road and associated maintenance activities physically impact the 

archaeological site?

 Will road maintenance impact the archaeological site?

 Will access increase the opportunity for site looting?

o The potential risks to TCPs/spiritual localities by transportation systems:

 Does the road impact the visual, audible, and solitude environmental setting for 

TCPs (spiritual localities)?

 The potential risks to traditional gathering and subsistence activities from 

transportation systems:

 Does access increase competition among users for resources?
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-14 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

 Will there be any direct impacts from the road and road use on resources 

associated with gathering and subsistence activities?

o 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.

• Tribal Trust Resources Considerations: The following indicators identified potential affects to 

tribal trust resources:

o 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.

o 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.

o 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:

 Determine the primary purpose of the road:

 The road provides access to a Tribal trust property or resource.

 Road provides access for monitoring effects to Tribal trust properties and 

resources.

o Importance to Tribal trust properties.

o Some roads may provide multiple purposes as identified during in consultation with the 

Federally Recognized Tribes that have federally reserved trust resources and trust rights:

 The road provides access to a Tribal trust property or resource.

 Does the road provide access to a Tribal trust property or resource on a 

Reservation or other lands held in trust?

 Do we have mutual agreements for managing the road with a Tribe?

 Is the road adjacent to or pass through Reservation lands or other lands held in 

trust?

 Road provides access for monitoring effects to Tribal trust properties and 

resources.

 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?
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-15

 The risks to Tribal trust properties and resources by transportation systems:

 Does road impact a Tribal trust property or resource?

 Does road have the potential to affect a Tribal trust property or resource?

4. Clarify in the ROD that not all routes added to the IRA provide loop-riding opportunities.

Response: The sentence in the draft ROD stating, “I decided to designate these short segments as 

motorized trails on the NFTS, as they weave in and out of these two IRA boundaries and provide 

riding loops that tie into nearby road networks” was revised to state, “... provide riding opportunities 

that tie into nearby road networks” (ROD p. 26).

5. Reword the decision to clarify that gates and barricades would be installed in areas that severely 

restrict a vehicles ability to drive around them. This language currently exists in the FEIS (p. 282).

Response: Further discussion was included from the FEIS in the ROD as follows: Seasonal gate 

closure success is dependent on the correct timing of the closure and the ability to restrict access 

beyond the gate. The gate location can increase the efficacy of restricting illegal vehicle access. The 

preferred locations for the placement of gates are in areas that severely restrict a vehicles ability to 

drive around them. This is usually on steeper slopes along narrow sections of the road that have steep 

road cuts, which make it difficult for vehicles to breach. Placement of large boulders around gates can 

facilitate the effectiveness of the gates (ROD p. 14).

6. Clarify the portion of the Monitoring Plan concerning road related and water quality monitoring to 

include other types of monitoring that will occur, such as annual Best Management Practice (BMP)

monitoring and annual trail monitoring required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board waiver.

Response: Appendix B of the FEIS provides a comprehensive discussion of the various types of 

monitoring including water quality, POC, botanical, recreation, noxious weeds and heritage resources.

Under the federal Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated its 

authority to regulate water quality on federal lands in California to the State Water Resources Control 

Board (Water Board). The Forest Service and the Water Board developed a management agency 

agreement for management activities on NFS lands. The management agency agreement requires the 

Forest Service to implement the state-certified and EPA-approved water-quality management 

program and practices, referred to as BMPs, to protect water quality from sources of pollution. 

Implementation and annual evaluation of BMPs, along with implementation checklists at the project 

level, serve to ensure waiver compliance (FEIS pp. 413, 428-431; FEIS Appendices D and E). A 

complete listing of BMPs that apply to this project is in FEIS Appendix D (ROD p. 51).

The recommended protocol for monitoring of newly added routes is the Region 5 OHV TrailMonitoring Protocol, commonly referred to as ‘Green-Yellow-Red’. This protocol was developed in 

Region 5 specifically to evaluate OHV route impacts to soil and water resources (FEIS Appendix B 

Table B-1):
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-16 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

o Additional legal citations and discussion of monitoring are disclosed in the section

Mitigation and Monitoring (ROD pp. 20-21).

7. Clarify how long monitoring will occur.

Response: The statement, “Over the next 10-year period, at least 20 percent of the designated roads 

and trails will be monitored on an annual basis, targeting those considered high risk during the 

OHV/RAP process” has been added to section Mitigation and Monitoring (ROD p. 20).

8. Review mileage numbers and road related terminology related to key watersheds to ensure 

consistency between documents.

Response: A review of mileage numbers and road related terminology related to key watersheds was 

conducted to ensure inadvertent calculation errors, mileage discrepancies or inconsistency in 

terminology are substantive to warrant re-analysis or alter a finding or determination for any resource.

• Mileage: The greatest variability of mileage relative to the proposed action and the environmental 

analysis ranges plus or minus 3 percent. Since 2005, corrections to the database have been on 

going, prompted by field inventories or local knowledge submitted via public comment. 

Depending on when the resource analysis for FEIS were conducted, minor mileage adjustments to 

Selected Alternative 6 representing this variability are likely resultant of best available mileage 

information relative to a specific time-period, addition rounding variability and resolution of 

geographic information systems (GIS) information. Additionally, relative to the complexity of 

analysis risk assessments and indicators unique to each resource, a perception of inconsistency is 

likely without carful study of the entire FEIS and supporting reports. 

• Terminology: Road-related terminology is defined under Terminology in the glossary to the 

FEIS. This section states, “The Forest Service uses the term NFS road and NFS trail (also referred 

to as NFS routes when combined), to refer to any road or trail that is listed on the forest 

transportation atlas, other than a road or trail which has been authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. The NFS routes range 

from trails to arterial and collector roads, which may be paved or surfaced, to local roads that may 

be either improved or unimproved. The lower level, unimproved roads are not actively 

maintained, but are primarily kept open by timber sale road reconstruction and vehicle use. In 

addition to NFS routes on the transportation system, a number of other types of routes currently 

exist on the Forest. Some originated as temporary logging roads, skid trails, or firelines, which 

were never rehabilitated, and, over time, have remained open to use by the public, even though 

they are not maintained. Forest users created other routes by driving cross-country through the 

forest. These routes are not part of the forest transportation atlas, and, are therefore, referred to as 

unauthorized routes” (FEIS p. 500). Forest Service direction defines a trail as “a route 50 inches 

or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is managed as a trail” (36 CFR 212.1; FSH 
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-17

2309.11, Chapter - Zero Code). A road is defined as “a motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, 

unless identified and managed as a trail” (36 CFR 212.1) (FEIS p. 237).

A review of the FEIS indicates there are minor variations in road-related terms or phrasing, such 

as: Inventoried UARs that are proposed to have motorized use prevented via barricade, 

approximately 207 miles have been identified as high fire need roads/routes and unauthorized, 

user-created routes and areas have already affected historic properties within route/area prisms. 

However, the context of the word usage appears self-explanatory as not to be contradictory or 

sufficient to represent content error.

9. Clarify the intent of designating route 305.118 to the NFTS and ensure consistency with RNA 

direction and the Conservation Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) for conservation of Darlingtonia wetlands and associated species. 

Compare the Conservation Agreement map and Appendix to the project footprint to ensure 

consistency with this agreement.

Response:

o Still Creek-305.118 (Consistency with RNA direction): The Forest Service included the 

proposal to designate this UAR segment as a motorized trail on the NFTS under Selected 

Alternative 6, in response to public needs first expressed during the roads analysis 

process (RAP 2004-2005), and again later during scoping and comment periods. A 

kayaker and Del Norte Board of Supervisors expressed interest for motorized uses for 

Search and Rescue (S&R). Del Norte BOS also made this request to serve as motorized 

access for recreational camping and mine site exploration. The 305.118 motorized trail 

lies outside the L.E. Horton RNA, established for the study of Darlingtonia and 

serpentine plant communities. The segment that enters into the RNA will be barricaded 

under Selected Alternative 6 at the entrance to prevent continued unauthorized motorized 

uses, and surface drainage rectified under this decision. Consultation with the USDA 

Pacific Southwest Research Station indicates research studies will not be compromised

by my decision.

o Still Creek 305.118: The Conservation Agreement addresses the biology, management 

and conservation of five rare plant taxa associated with serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands 

in southwest Oregon and northwest California. These five species are on the Sensitive 

species list for the U.S. Forest Service (Regions 5 and 6) and the BLM: Epilobium 

oreganum (Oregon fireweed), Gentiana setigera (Mendocino gentian), Hastingsia 

bracteosa var. bracteosa (large-flowered rush-lily), H. bracteosa var. atropurpurea 

(purple-flowered rush-lily), and Viola lanceolata ssp. occidentalis (western bog violet).

o The geographic focus of the 2006 Conservation Agreement is the western Siskiyou 

Mountains in Josephine and Curry Counties of southwest Oregon and Del Norte County 

in adjacent California. Federal land management units within the assessment area include 
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-18 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

the Rogue River-Siskiyou and Six Rivers national forests, and Medford and Coos Bay 

Districts of the BLM. All five taxa have limited distributions, small population sizes, and 

occurrences primarily found in isolated serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands.

o The specific conservation objectives are as follows: 

 (i) To maintain and manage the ecological processes in serpentine wetland 

habitats in such a manner that they are likely to support the long-term viability of 

five rare, special-status plant species and their natural communities.

 (ii) To avoid “destruction or adverse modification” of habitat for the five specialstatus wetland plants.

 (iii) To help avoid the need for future listings under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act.

 (iv) To provide a mechanism for tracking the loss and conservation of serpentine 

wetland habitat and their associated special-status plant species in the assessment 

area over time. This will primarily entail the monitoring of (i) plant population 

sizes and (ii) threats to the populations in a series of Essential Wetlands. 

Strategies for managing these populations are also provided.

 (v) To provide information based on inventory and research for addressing 

conservation and management of rare plants associated with serpentine wetlands 

in future federal land management plans.

o The sensitive botanical species Epilobium oreganum (Oregon fireweed) will not be 

affected by Selected Alternative 6, because their habitat range does not extend into the 

project area nor have botanical surveys found them to be present within the project area

(FEIS p. 144).

o The sensitive botanical species Gentiana setigera (Mendocino gentian), is more abundant 

in Oregon than in California, where there is greater concern for its viability. There are 49 

element occurrences in Curry and Josephine Counties, Oregon; 5 occurrences in Del 

Norte County, California; and 1 occurrence in Mendocino County, California. The five 

California occurrences in Del Norte County are all located on forest on the Smith River 

NRA and support approximately 3,321 plants. Except for one occurrence growing in a 

roadside ditch on 17N49.7, no plants exist on other routes being designated to the NFTS. 

The plants growing within 30 feet of UARs being designated to the NFTS are protected 

by steep topographic landscape features that prevent motorized access and/or minimized 

via route delineation (FEIS pp. 150-151).

o The sensitive botanical species Viola lanceolata ssp. occidentalis (western bog violet) is

associated with flowing water, steep slopes, and coarse textured soils, under open canopy 

conditions with high rock and soil cover (Frost et. al. 2004). It is known only from 

southwestern Oregon and northwestern California. There are 20 occurrences in Del Norte
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-19

County. All of the occurrences on the forest are within the Smith River NRA; 105 known 

plants are located within 30 feet of designated trails. The plants growing within 30 feet of 

UARs being designated to the NFTS are protected by steep topographic landscape 

features that prevent motorized access and/or minimized via route delineation (FEIS pp. 

150-151).

o The sensitive botanical species Hastingsia bracteosa var. bracteosa (large-flowered rushlily) is endemic to a small area on the west side of the Illinois Valley in central Josephine 

County, Oregon. No known occurrences were found in California. Populations are found 

in association with low-elevation (2,780 feet) serpentine wetlands and streamsides 

scattered from Eight Dollar Mountain southwest to Rough and Ready Creek, all of which 

are outside the project area.

o The sensitive botanical species H. bracteosa var. atropurpurea (purple-flowered rushlily) is found only on the west side of the Illinois Valley in Josephine County, Oregon, 

primarily in seeps, wetlands and stream banks around Woodcock and Tennessee 

Mountains and on the middle and upper reaches of Josephine Creek, all of which are 

outside the project area.

o The Smith River NRA Act legislated management direction through eight management 

zones and Streamside Protection Zones. Streamside protection legislated in the Smith 

River NRA Act meets and, in some instances surpasses, the goals of riparian reserves in 

the ACS. The trend for upland and riparian habitats on the Smith River NRA is towards 

recovery. Additionally, baseline data collection of sensitive plant occurrences 

corresponding with UARS will occur within three years prior to designating a UAR as a 

motorized trail or road on the MVUM and occur within that timeframe over at least two 

consecutive years. The consecutive years of sampling are an attempt to account for yearto-year fluctuations due to natural population variations. Data collection will occur in 

keeping with the phenology of the respective species. Once baseline is established,

monitoring will commence within three years of the addition of motorized trails to the 

NFTS and will occur once a year thereafter for five years until analysis shows that 

occurrences are stable. The overall objective of the sensitive species management actions 

is to assess direct effects over time to sensitive plants associated with UARs designated 

on the NFTS as motorized trails and seek to guide management response. The 

management response thresholds (Appendix B of the FEIS) identifies the point at which 

management actions are triggered to avoid a loss of viability or trend toward federal 

listing of the species. Evaluating a downward change in viability rating of an occurrence 

will be based on the NatureServe ranking methodology titled Key for Ranking Species 

Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (Tomaino 2008). Specifically, these 

management actions will:
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-20 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

 Update baseline conditions for the four sensitive plant species that will refine, if 

needed, thresholds triggering management response,

 Substantiate the findings on the direct effects of the project to sensitive plants 

occurring within the active road prism and adjacent to the UAR by using a paired 

sampling approach,

 Determine if a downward trend in a sensitive plant occurrence has occurred that 

would result in a management response, and

 In coordination with the line officer, identify and implement the applicable 

management response (e.g., barricading) to prevent a loss of viability or a trend 

towards federal listing.

 The goal is to detect if a downward trend in any population has occurred through 

direct effects of motorized use that could foreshadow a loss of viability or a trend 

toward federal listing and to take management action at the management 

response threshold before a loss of viability occurs.

10. The ROD (p. 39) wording needs to be changed to reflect the correct heritage resources determination 

(no adverse effect determination, rather than no effect).

Response: The sentence in the section National Historic Preservation Act has been corrected to “The 

selection of Alternative 6 will have No Adverse Effect on properties listed or eligible for listing in the 

NRHP” (ROD p. 49), consistent with the FEIS.

11. Work with all stakeholders to develop a monitoring plan.

Response: I am dedicated to allocating financial and staff resources to establish an Implementation 

Task Force that will include groups/people who have participated in the public process for the 

Motorized Vehicle Use Plan. I fully support and appreciate the offer made by the Smith River NRA 

Collaborative (Collaborative) in Spring 2017, to host an annual field trip and collaborate on a 

science/local knowledge peer review and evaluation of inventory data to discuss learning lessons. My 

desire is this Task Force will help implement the decision with a focus on routes where there is 

perception of public uncertainty linked to effectiveness of barricade mitigations, specifically where 

threats to sensitive plants and potential for spread of POC are the greatest, or where current inventory 

data of sensitive plants is lacking. Based on the objection issues expressed during the resolution 

meeting and follow-up field trip, my interest is this Task Force to target monitoring of those trails 

designated to the NFTS that are within or near an IRA boundary, where sensitive plants are growing 

within the footprint or near routes, and evaluating the effectiveness of barriers and seasonal gates to 

prevent the spread of PL pathogen to uninfected POC stands. My decision includes collaborating with 

the Task Force to provide opportunities for the public to assist with implementation of the designated 

system by volunteering for monitoring or other activities.
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

Six Rivers National Forest – D-21

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix D. Objection Review Instructions

D-22 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

This page intentionally left blank.