Smith River National Recreation 

Area Restoration and Motorized 

Travel Management Project

Draft Record of Decision

Forest

Service

Six Rivers

National Forest

Gasquet

Ranger District

R5-MB-290a

December 2016
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

Draft Record of Decision

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official:

Merv George Jr., Forest Supervisor

Six Rivers National Forest

1330 Bayshore Way

Eureka, CA 95501

For More Information Contact:

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

Carolyn Cook (707) 441-3551, Natural Resources Staff Officer, Forest Supervisor’s Office
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft 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 ................................................14

Response to DEIS Comments.....................................................................................................16

Mitigation and Monitoring .........................................................................................................18

Reasons for the Decision ..............................................................................................................18

Striking a Balance among Multiple Uses...................................................................................19

Motorized-Dependent Recreational Experiences.......................................................................20

Conflicts among uses..................................................................................................................21

Administrative Uses ...................................................................................................................26

Conservation of Our Forest Resources.......................................................................................27

Del Norte County: Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values........................................................32

Local Native American cultural values and contemporary uses ................................................32

Affordability and availability of resources for maintenance and administration 

of designated roads and trails.....................................................................................................33

Public safety ...............................................................................................................................33

Access to public and private lands .............................................................................................34

Public Involvement.......................................................................................................................34

Scoping.......................................................................................................................................34

Comment on the DEIS................................................................................................................35

Alternatives Considered in Detail, but Not Selected .................................................................36

Alternative 1 (No Action)...........................................................................................................36

Alternative 4 ...............................................................................................................................36

Alternative 5 ...............................................................................................................................37

Environmentally Preferable Alternative.....................................................................................39
Draft Record of Decision

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

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations.................................................................39

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ..............................................................................39

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.................................................................39

Endangered Species Act (§7(c)) for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species...............40

Clean Water Act .........................................................................................................................41

Clean Air Act of 1970 ................................................................................................................42

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act........................................................................................................42

Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species 64 FR 6183 (February 8, 1999) ................................43

Forest Service Sensitive Species................................................................................................43

Special Area Designations..........................................................................................................43

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice .........................................................................44

Implementation Date....................................................................................................................44

Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions...................................................................... A-1

List of Tables

Table 1. Selected Alternative 6 – summary of changes to the NFTS.............................................. 9

Table 2. Collaborative group recommendations authorized under Alternative 6.......................... 15

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

List of Figures

Figure 1. Main stem of the Smith River. .......................................................................................... 2

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

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. Administrative mapping correction to the ROS from semi-primitive 

non-motorized to semi-primitive motorized in the vicinity of Blackhawk Bar..................... 22

Figure 7. Siskiyou Wilderness east of the project area.................................................................. 23

Figure 8. Unauthorized routes (UARs) closed and restored, and motorized trails 

designated in IRAs. ............................................................................................................... 25

Figure 9. Unauthorized route (UAR) that remains in good condition even without maintenance.27

Figure 10. Coastal cutthroat trout swimming the North Fork Smith River....................................... 28

Figure 11. Distribution of Phytophthora lateralis, the pathogen that causes 

Port-Orford-cedar root disease. ............................................................................................. 29

Figure 12. McDonalds rockcress—an herbaceous perennial forb................................................. 30
Draft 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, Subparts 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 shall be carried forward in time to meet 

anticipated access needs on an economical and environmentally sound basis, 

and the method chosen for financing 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 established without agency environmental analysis or public involvement. 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 they are 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): Either a user-created road or a trail or a Forest Service legacy road closed to the public, where OHV 

use is still occurring (considered an unintended use). As UARs, these roads or trails are not included in the forest transportation 

atlas and do not receive maintenance (see Subpart B below).

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.
Draft 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 road 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, off-highway 

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 beginning 

of the next century, the increase in the number of visitors to NFS lands is likely (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 motorized travel would be 

restricted to roads, trails and areas 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) (FEIS pp. 6, 26-27).

At that time, there was no codified legal mechanism to 

display the designated NFTS to the public, so the SRNF 

published visitor-use maps and US Geological Survey 

(USGS) maps identifying roads and motorized trails 

designated for legitimate OHV use. In 2009, the SRNF 

replaced these maps with their motor vehicle use map 

(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 final travel management rule. 

The 2009 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. OHV’s 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. Main stem of the Smith River.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 3

Final Travel Management Rule

The 2005 final 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 vehicle 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 motor-vehicle 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 a mobility-impaired person, which are 

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

and Title V, §507(c)).

The final directives describe a travel analysis process used for 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 roads, trails, and areas open for use by vehicle type and season under 36 CFR 212.51.

Subpart A

Subpart A of the final 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.

Unlike other national forests, since 1990, cross-country OHV travel off designated roads and trails within 

the Smith River NRA has not been allowable. 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).
Draft Record of Decision

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

The SRNF’s Subpart A travel analysis considered the 

conversion of UARs to motorized trails and the reclassification 

of NFTS road maintenance levels5 to better manage motorized 

travel and restore environments, altered during their original 

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. 

The combined travel analysis reports provide recommendations 

for eliminating roads; restoring drainage patterns on select 

UARs; and allowing, restricting, or prohibiting motorized travel 

on the NFTS. The combined travel analysis reports include the 

following documents:

• 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) 16 and ML 27 roads on the NFTS.

• The SRNF Roads Analysis Process (RAP; USDA 2003) and Smith River NRA Travel Analysis 

Process (TAP; USDA 2005) present the analysis and management recommendations for MLs 38

, 

4, and 5 roads on the NFTS. The scope of my decision does consider downgrading select 

segments of ML 3, but does not include consideration for mixed use on any of them.

 

5 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).

6 ML 1 road: 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 storm-runoff 

patterns. Maintenance level (ML) 1 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.

7 ML 2 road: Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. 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.

8 ML 3 road: Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in a standard passenger 

car. 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 low- and highclearance vehicles.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 5

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

classifications, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Because the Smith River is a designated key watershed9

, the 

Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy also includes 

recommendations for restoring drainage patterns on select 

segments of inventoried UARs, where there is a high degree of 

resource damage and mitigating effects is not feasible, as 

represented in Figure 4.

Where mitigation measures could feasibly rehabilitate 

conditions prior to future use, as illustrated in Figure 5, where 

outsloping, surfacing and placement of waterbars can rectify 

trenching from tires, the Smith River NRA RAP/OHV Strategy 

 

9 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 (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 4. Unauthorized route (UAR) that 

has altered drainage patterns.

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.
Draft Record of Decision

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

recommends designating them as motorized trails on the NFTS. This will allow for legitimate use by allterrain vehicles (ATVs), motorcycles and high-clearance wheeled vehicles.

Subpart B

Subpart B of the final travel management rule requires designating roads, trails, and areas open to motorvehicle use on national forests (36 CFR 212.50). 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 motor 

vehicle use map (MVUM), the requirements of participatory 

provisions of the final travel management rule must be 

fulfilled and a federal decision made in compliance with 

NEPA, incorporating minimization criteria per 40 CFR 

1508.20. Once a road or motorized trail is open for motorvehicle 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 final 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 best serve communities.

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

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

and rectify and restore environments damaged by unmanaged motorized travel (36 CFR 212.54; Subpart 

A and 36 CFR 261.13; Subpart B; 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, 

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

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

efficient for administrative motorized-vehicle travel and access for multiple-use management.

• Restoration. There is a need for restoring natural drainage patterns and reducing sedimentation 

from unneeded UARs and NFTS roads currently affecting riparian and streamside areas.

Figure 5. Unauthorized route (UAR) where 

OHV use has caused trenching, 

channeling storm run-off.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 7

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

NFTS.

Responsible Official Required Considerations

The responsible official shall consider the following when designating roads, trails, and areas on the 

provision of opportunities, access needs, and user conflicts among uses of NFS lands (36 CFR 212.55(a)):

• 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. 

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

forest hazards and improving the NFTS infrastructure.

• 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.

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

areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated. 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 NRA10. The Six Rivers Road 

Maintenance Project complements the Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and 

Motorized Travel Management Project, by preserving investments in NFTS infrastructure to 

mandated design standards that 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).

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

rectifying or improving drainage infrastructure along select road segments and UARs converted 

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

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

 

10 The Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project - The decision includes an annual specialist review process to advise the line officer

on which roads should be prioritized for maintenance based on capability (available funding, equipment and staff resources), 

local environmental and infrastructure conditions, and need for use (administrative and public).
Draft Record of Decision

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

Other Considerations

The SRNF will also consider the following, when making any limited changes to NFTS roads per 36 CFR 

212.55(b)(1)):

• Minimizing harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat.

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

lands or neighboring federal lands.

• Minimizing conflicts among different classes of motor-vehicle uses on 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.

• Speed, volume, composition and distribution of traffic on roads.

• Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and surfacing.

• Maintaining valid existing rights of use and access (rights-of-way).

Decision

Based on the analysis in the Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel 

Management Project FEIS and the Project Record, including public comment and consultation, 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 meets the Purpose and Need—providing 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, cultural, environmental and socioeconomic community values.

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 communities. Equally as important to me, Alternative 6 

will protect the renowned, rare and outstanding 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, Appendices A and D). My desire and 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 
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 9

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 within the river corridor either side 

of wild classified reaches of the Smith River, to honor local public interests to preserve the Smith River 

NRA’s outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) per PL 101-612; 104 Stat. 3209. Although my decision will 

make limited changes primarily within the North Fork Smith IRA, by designating a total of 3 miles of 

UARs as motorized trails on the NFTS along the borders, I am compensating for the environmental 

impacts by barricading 12 miles of UARs 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). I am not authorizing any new road or motorized trail designations (for further 

discussion see the rationale section).

Outside of the areas deferred from consideration, my decision will implement Subpart A, make 

limited changes to 2009 MVUM concerning where and when motorized uses are allowable in compliance 

with Subpart B, and will implement maintenance, stormproofing and corrective activities during the life 

of the action to minimize environmental impacts, summarized in Table 1 (FEIS pp. 4, 59-60).

Table 1. Selected Alternative 6 – summary of changes to the NFTS.

Action Existing 

Status New Status Current NFTS Changes to NFTS

Open to motorized 

use: All highway and 

non-highway legal, 

high-clearance 

(4WD) vehicles, 

motorcycles and allterrain vehicles 

(ATVs).

Designate on 

NFTS UAR11

Motorized Trail (>50" wide) 46 miles 495 total miles on 

NFTS:

ML 1 – 88 miles

ML 2 – 254 miles

ML 3 – 111 miles

ML 4 – 11.8

ML 5 – 18.5

483 total road 

miles

Motorized Trail 

(MT) – 12.2 miles

156 miles UARs

507 total miles on 

NFTS:

ML 1 – 77 miles

ML 2 – 244 miles

ML 3 – 97 miles

ML 4 – 11.8

ML 5 – 18.5

448 total road 

miles

Motorized Trail 

(MT) – 59 miles

0 UARs

ML 2 (open) 4.6 miles

ML 3 (open) 0.4 miles

Upgrade/

Convert

ML 1 

(closed) ML 2 (open) 4.2 miles

ML 1 

(closed) Motorized Trail 0.56 miles

Downgrade/

Convert ML 3 (open) ML 2 (open/mixed-use) 15 miles

Close to motorized

use: All vehicles 

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) and 

remove from NFTS. 39 miles

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

remove from NFTS. 14 miles

Restoration of 

Drainage 

Patterns

UAR

Barricade and restore, 

hydrologically stable, 

not designated for 

motorized use.

93 miles

 

11 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 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.
Draft Record of Decision

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

Action Existing 

Status New Status Current NFTS Changes to NFTS

Improve and 

maintain NFTS 

infrastructure.

Seasonal

Gates

Closures

NFTS roads 

and 

motorized 

trails12 open 

year-round

NFTS roads and motorized 

trails closed to restrict 

timing of open status.

18 gates

Stormproofing ML 1 and 2 and Motorized Trails 106 miles

Griffin Creek 

Bridge Repair

Structurally 

impaired Structurally sound 1 bridge

Parking Sites

at trailheads UAR Sign, gravel and maintain 4 sites

Administrative mapping change to 

the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS)13

Semiprimitive nonmotorized

Semi-primitive motorized 2 acres Final change 

would be 2 acres

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 Forest Service MLs 1 to

5). My decision did not make any changes to current maintenance level classifications, and all 

maintenance activities are constrained to previously maintained surfaces, ditches, culverts, and cut and fill 

slopes within the road prism; 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).

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, ML 3 roads

Designations respond to the need for public and administrative motorized access. 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 the publication of the revised MVUM.

Upgrade from ML 1 to ML 2 on the NFTS:

• 4.2 miles of ML 1 (closed) roads to ML 2 (open) roads.

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

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

legal, high-clearance wheeled vehicles.

 

12 Motorized trails on the Smith River NRA are travel ways generally greater than 50-inches wide, open to all motorized and nonmotorized public uses year-round.

13 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): My decision will make an administrative mapping change to the ROS along a reach 

of the Smith River classified as a recreational river area per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 2(b)(3), designated as 

Management Area 15 (Recreational River) per the 1995 SRNF LRMP. Those rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by 

road may have some development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 11

Downgrade ML 3 to ML 2 (street and non-street legal vehicles allowed) on the NFTS:

• 15.28 miles of ML 3 (open) roads to ML 2 (mixed-use) roads to allow for mixed-use along Forest 

Roads 17N49 and 17N07.

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

allows for use by both highway legal and non-highway legal, high clearance wheeled vehicle 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 an 

exceptional loop opportunities available for mixed-use. The road-surface type use levels and road 

geometry are compatible with this type of use.

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

are mitigatable.

Designated OHV parking:

• Allow parking and staging at four sites along Forest Road 17N49.

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

Designate UARs on the NFTS as ML 1 (closed):

• 11.8 miles of UARs designated as ML 1 (closed) roads. 

The designation of segments of UARs as ML 1 roads on the NFTS will provide for future administrative 

needs. 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 any culverts), installing rolling dips 

or waterbars as necessary to establish maintenance-free conditions, and barricading them to prevent 

motorized access.

Downgrade ML 2 to ML 1 on the NFTS:

• Downgrade 20 miles of ML 2 (open) roads to ML 1 (closed) roads.

The downgrading to ML 1 roads will close select segments to all motorized uses (no vehicle class 

allowed), primarily aimed at the minimizing maintenance costs on low-use roads.

Remove from the NFTS:

• Decommission 53 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

The decommissioning of select road segments respond to minimizing impacts and restoring forest 

resources and reducing maintenance costs. For roads that are currently non-drivable and present a low

risk, removing the road from the NFTS may simply involve an amendment to the NFTS database. 
Draft Record of Decision

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

However, in other cases, when a road is still drivable and/or there is a moderate or high resource risk, 

actions associated with decommissioning listed below 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 eliminates the need for road maintenance, reestablishing pre-road construction drainage patterns and storing the stream crossing road fill at 

stable locations, away from streams.

• Waterbar. Water dispersion treatments are designed to stop water 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 will be removed by hand and weed propagules (seeds) over multiple 

years to remove the seed bank.

• Parking sites. Add 4 parking sites at trailheads along Forest Road 17N49.

Restore drainage patterns:

• 93 miles on UARs.

Restored routes are not part of the NFTS. The objective is to leave the route corridor in a natural slope 

condition that provides for natural slope surface drainage, promotes revegetation and minimizes surface 

flow and channel diversion, erosion, and sedimentation; and subsequent damage to soil and water 

resources during storm events (stormproofing). Restoration of drainage patterns 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 road or route, restoring drainage 

patterns on UARs may require as little as a simple barricade or as much as the use of heavy equipment to 

correct drainage problems. The specific actions applied will respond to localized conditions and may 

include the following treatments:

• Remove culverts or rolling dips. These water dispersion and/or containment treatments are all 

designed to minimize stream diversion potential (i.e. prevent water from plugged culverts flowing 

downgrade along the road or motorized trail), protect the travel surface, as well as reduce the 

potential for off-site sediment delivery. The term culvert includes cross drains and stream crossings.

• Waterbar. Water dispersion treatments are designed to stop water 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.

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

unless the route intersects with road(s) identified for decommissioning whereby access is already 

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

a road or route and/or culverts removed, re-contouring (grading) slopes, etc., depending on slope 
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 13

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 identified 

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

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

surfaces and promote revegetation of barren soils.

Resource Risk Mitigations/Maintaining NFTS roads and motorized trails:

Mitigation measures are actions designed to avoid, reduce, or eliminate route-related impacts on forest 

resources. In some cases, the following is both a management action and a mitigation. Appendix A 

identifies by road and trail mitigations necessary to minimize risks to public safety and unintended effects 

to botanical, wildlife, or aquatic species, and water quality. Mitigations apply to NFTS roads and 

motorized trails.

• Eighteen (18) seasonal gate closures. Adding gates to implement season-of-use designations 

on NFTS roads where 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 as a method to reduce the 

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

closure dates vary depending the resource objective, location and existing ground conditions, but 

in general, the dates range from October to May.

• 107 miles of stormproofing.

14 This includes actions on open roads and trails. This includes 

adding waterbars/rolling dips and drainage improvement (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 structure including activities such as water 

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

• Griffin Creek Bridge repair. This is a phased bridge repair focused on removal and demolition.

This phase includes removing the bridge railing for re-use when the deck and curbs are reestablished 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 bridge repair design is to be fully supported from abutment 

to abutment. The second phase entails excavating the base of the existing abutments to establish a 

new center footing to complement the two exterior footings for each abutment. These forms will 

 

14 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 complement the higher-cost treatments 

(e.g., putting level 1 roads into road storage, decommissioning, road realignments, redesigning of culverts for fish passage), typically 

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

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

be constructed for reinforced concrete columns to tie into footings, and three steel girders on 

abutment seats with new diaphragms between girders will be installed. The girders will be 

painted, the formwork for the deck constructed, the reinforced concrete deck poured and curb 

installed, and the bridge railing reinstalled.

• Additional Resource Mitigations

o Route Delineation will involve the placement of a physical barrier to travel, such as 

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

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.

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

gravel along sections of road 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 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. Information 

will be made available in maps and literature available at the Gasquet Ranger District

office, or 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—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 and 43-45).

Their efforts represents 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 an ideal of 

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

proposed by the Forest Service for designation as motorized trails, considered most controversial by the 

public. My decision reflects their work.

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 

FLPMA, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and NEPA. In this letter, Secretary Vilsack states 
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 15

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 Del Norte county collaborative group recommendations, 

refined in response to scoping and public comments on the DEIS as displayed in Table 2 (FEIS pp. 43-45).

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.

0.0-3.78

Motorized Trail

3.78–4.0

Restore

17N49.104 Add to trail system as motorized 

trail; barricade sensitive habitat.

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

Incorrectly identified as being 

recommended for motorized 

access.

Apparently was mistakenly 

placed in wrong table.

Remove from system to protect 

Darlingtonia bog; alternate 

access available; route should 

not be added.

0.0-1.4

Restore

17N49.106 Barricade and restore. Portion within IRA. The group agreed not to add the 

last short section in the IRA.

0.0-0.32

Restore

305.109 –

“Pine Flat”

Add to trail system 

as motorized trail.

Portion within IRA and includes 

sensitive plants; extra emphasis 

management needed to 

designate for motorized access.

The group agreed 

to add to the terminus.

0.0-2.4

Motorized Trail

305.118

Add to trail system as motorized 

trail; end trail at Still Creek; 

seasonal closure required; need 

culvert at POC site.

POC/bog issues; route provides 

search/rescue access.

Designate for motorized access, 

but shorten to prevent OHV 

access to bog before Still Creek; 

seasonal closure required; need 

culvert at POC site.

0.0-0.8

Motorized Trail

0.8-1.5

Restore

305.125 Add to trail system as motorized 

trail; barricade sensitive habitat.

Historic mine route. Meadows 

require protection.

Designate for motorized access, 

but barricade 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 pond 

near end of route.

0.0-1.2

Motorized Trail

405.10

Add to trail system 

as motorized trail; barricade if 

sensitive plants are found.

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
Draft Record of Decision

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

Response to DEIS Comments

In order 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, Appendix 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 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 mixeduse 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 and/or McDonalds rockcress (Arabis macdonaldiana), resulting in a lower risk rating:

• Designate UAR 305.126 and the first 1,000 feet of UAR 315.100 as motorized trails with route 

delineation. 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, 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 Forest Road 17N49.101, 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 at the end of Forest Road 14N08.

• Field inventory identified existing gates on 16N03K, seasonally closed to the public, making the 

proposal to add gates unnecessary.

In response to concerns about unique botanical resources, I decided to:

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

Six Rivers National Forest – 17

• Decommission Forest Road 14N38 beyond the water source.

• Since I am designating UAR 17N23C.1 to the NFTS as an ML 1 road, a barricade will be placed

at the intersection to restrict motorized access.

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. In response to concerns for maintaining 

future administrative access, my decision includes:

• Repair Griffin Creek Bridge. The first phase of the 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 year-round gate.

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

and rescue access.

Neighboring lands and private property access

In response to concerns from a private landowner:

• Do not designate or barricade UAR 411.102. This route 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, my 

decision will:

• Construct a year-round gate on UAR 15N13.100 instead of a barricade, 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.

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 pp. 431). On 
Draft Record of Decision

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

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 (must meet 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. Order No. R1-2015-0021 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. Please know that providing for administrative and public

motorized access were weighed against the risks, carefully examined to determine the right mix of 

motorized and non-motorized use opportunities. The benefits are certainly worth the risks. As such, 

mitigations and monitoring are required to help better inform future actions.

My decision incorporates mitigation measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts to various 

natural and cultural resources in compliance 36 CFR 212.55(b)(1), Forest Plan, Region 5 Soil 

Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18); SRNF Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Invasive Plant 

Species and Aquatic Organisms (2014); national, regional, and state water-quality standards (FEIS pp 49-

53 and Appendix D).

My decision incorporates monitoring to inform the agency on if, when and where mitigations and 

corrective actions occur to limit resource effects below set threshold of concern, and verify the accuracy 

of analysis assumptions and conclusions (FEIS pp. 53 and Appendix B).

Specifically, condition surveys of roads and motorized trails provide a record of up-to-date surface 

conditions. As a standard practice, the agency itemizes and rank 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).

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, public, administrative and outdoor 

recreational experiences. My decision will make limited changes to the NFTS in alignment with travel 

analysis and collaborative recommendations, consultation, new information and changed circumstances 

(Chapter 3 of the FEIS; Appendix C).
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 19

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.

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 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 maintains a 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, 

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

The final 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, in 

part, provided during the collaborative process in 2010 and during the comment period, made by Del 

Norte County Board of Supervisor (BOS) representatives.

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 
Draft Record of Decision

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

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 

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 SRNF. 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 reside in 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 2103; 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. 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 raised their apprehensions 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 for 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 recreational sites, my decision 

designates 46 miles of motorized trails, reclassifies five miles of ML 2 and 3 (open) roads and converts 4

miles now classified ML 1 (closed) roads in storage to ML 2 roads, open for residents and visitors to enjoy. 

This will provide designated motorized access to 56 inventoried dispersed recreational sites.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 21

My decision to implement Selected Alternative 6 will convert select UAR segments to designated ML 

2 classified roads and motorized trails on the NFTS to serve community interests for motorized access 

near Blackhawk Bar. Although my review of the FEIS indicates a project-specific SRNF LRMP 

amendment to the recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) is necessary for me 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 to the NFTS as depicted in Figure 6, my review of the mapping change indicates my decision is 

already in conformance with land management direction (for Management Area 15).

My decision to change the NFTS in the Blackhawk Bar area of interest will occur along a reach of the 

Smith River classified as a recreational river area, 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, per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 

2(b)(3). A ROS classification (LRMP, p. IV-61 of semi-primitive motorized is consistent with land 

management direction for recreational river segments (LRMP pp. IV-62 to -63; Appendix A (Smith River 

NRA Management Plan) and the Smith River NRA Act). Therefore, I find this an administrative mapping 

correction pursuant to (36 CFR 219.13(c)) and (§ 219.16(c)(6)). I believe this is a wise decision, as it is 

evident from public comments this area is well-used by many locals living in surrounding communities 

for camping, sightseeing, exploring, fishing, hiking, hunting, to name a few. In order to keep travelers 

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 users 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. I fully appreciate our forest provides a spectrum of 

recreation experiences and unique challenges for exploration and discovery, as well as ventures for quiet 

reflection and solitude where one can just get away from it all. These landscapes represent some of the 

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

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

Figure 6. Administrative mapping correction to the ROS from semi-primitive non-motorized to semi-primitive 

motorized in the vicinity of Blackhawk Bar.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 23

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.

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)

I want to honor individuals drawn to wild roadless areas and 

those who practice spiritual ceremonies that require

introspective isolation and silence. 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), not only provide special places cherished by many 

people living in Del Norte County, they also attract visitors 

who contribute to Del Norte County’s economy. I too,

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 considering the 

diverse public interests accounting for 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. 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 (FEIS pp. 215-252).

Ideally, as I understand it, a key contributor to the character of IRAs is 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 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 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 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 

Figure 7. Siskiyou Wilderness east of the 

project area.
Draft Record of Decision

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

as motorized trails in IRAs. Recognizing the level of controversy, I carefully considered the IRA 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.

For this reason, my decision designates only 3.13 miles of motorized trails in the North Fork Smith and 

.03 miles in the Ship Mountain IRAs. 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 loops that tie into nearby road networks. It is my 

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

In order to rectify and compensate for the 3.13 miles of localized motorized trail resource effects, my

decision will decommission 6.3 miles of unneeded road segments and barricade and restore drainage 

patterns on 17.4 total miles of unneeded multiple short UAR segments in IRAs, as illustrated in Figure 8

(FEIS p. 240).

My expert indicates it is likely motorized use of UARs has altered size and distribution of rare plant 

occurrences and their habitats, although the magnitude of human disturbances is unknown. It becomes 

apparent based on my review of the analysis for botanical resources, that the dynamic inter-relationships 

of environment and human disturbances are complex; and in some cases, can be beneficial. The known 

federally listed and 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 re-establishment 

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 expert 

suggests 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 read about public concerns that motorized vehicle tires spread PL by transporting wet soils carrying

disease that kill POC. Right now, my review of the project record indicates 245 acres of POC forests are 

diseased, representing approximately 7 percent of the total population within the IRAs. When considering 

the risk of spreading PL in context of designating motorized trails, 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).
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 25

Figure 8. Unauthorized routes (UARs) closed and restored, and motorized trails designated in IRAs.
Draft Record of Decision

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

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 preserving healthy POC forests. The two of the 

motorized trails I am designating access very small acreages of POC, individual 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. Additionally, I 

considered the risks to downstream larger patches of POC forests. Apparently, disease is already present 

in these POC forests as well (FEIS pp. 230-231).

I fully appreciate disturbance caused by OHV use can led to the eventual replacement of native plant 

species with invasive non-native species (weeds). Many invasive species have life forms that 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.

I am willing to invest resources in barricading to block unintended OHV travel on select unneeded 

UARs, and do appreciate, monitoring condition surveys may reveal barricades are being breached and 

damaged by public, making repeated repair 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 ROS. With this in mind, I am satisfied Alternative 6 will preserve natural and roadless area 

features and character.

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.

Collaboration indicates there is consensus locally that I should consider how my decision affects

diverse livelihoods and human wellbeing in Del Norte County. Since I grew up in this area, 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 wildlife. 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.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 27

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 which allow ground fires to reach the crown more easily, making fires more 

difficult to control. I take very seriously the growing urban/wildland interface requires adjustments in 

strategies to protect life and property that can only be serviced by a well-designed NFTS.

Conservation of Our Forest Resources

I am committed to the 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, collaborative and public comments indicates elevated 

interests in preserving high water quality, POC forests and 

endemic rare botanical plants (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, discussed in detail in the following sections.

It is important to remember, although my decision authorizes 

changes to the NFTS, none of those UARs I am designating as 

motorized trails or roads reclassified on the NFTS providing for OHV use, entail ground disturbance from 

new road construction or reconstruction, as illustrated in Figure 9.

Watershed and Fisheries Resources

After very serious consideration of all the alternatives considered in detail, I have concluded 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. Especially as compared to the No 

Action alternative (the existing NFTS) (FEIS pp. 48-59).

Figure 9. Unauthorized route (UAR) that 

remains in good condition even without 

maintenance.
Draft Record of Decision

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

Today, the Smith is one of the few river basins in 

California that remains undammed. Designated as a key 

watershed in the SRNF Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan), the Smith River preserves water quality 

throughout a system of large refugia crucial to at-risk fish 

stocks, as seen in Figure 10 (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.

My decision authorizes installing larger stream crossing 

culverts, 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 of the unneeded UARs and roads 

removed (decommissioned) from the NFTS will be placed in storage (free draining, hydrologically benign 

condition), with physical barriers installed to restrict motor vehicle use.

My review of the analysis for soils and geology indicates the combination of decommissioning roads, 

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. 

Benefits will likely be greatest where roads are located on highly erosive soils, geologically unstable 

and/or steep slopes or near streams. In this case, passive restoration will occur when motorized vehicle 

use no longer occurs, leading to revegetation of the physical travelway footprint. This will set the stage to 

restore natural drainage patterns in the long term (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 by reshaping 

slopes and stabilizing eroding soils to lower non-point source pollution into waterways. Consultation with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that the project was not likely to adverselyaffect listed fish or Critical Habitat. 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 selecting Alternative 6 reduces the overall ML 1, ML 2 and UAR 

miles on the Smith River NRA by 38 percent, with a maximum road density of 1.3 miles per square mile, 

measured at the 6th-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 Selecting Alternative 6 provides a balanced approach to conserve our natural resources, while 

providing a reasonable minimum NFTS.

Figure 10. Coastal cutthroat trout

swimming the North Fork Smith River.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 29

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. 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. Of the POC on SRNF, most of the 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. 

Port-Orford cedar even a few feet away from 

water or seasonally saturated soils is at little risk 

regardless of the management strategy imposed.

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 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 11 (FEIS pp. 271-272, 288-291). 

Although I initially considered a strategy to 

decommission roads to prevent motorized travel

in 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.

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.

Figure 11. Distribution of Phytophthora lateralis, the 

pathogen that causes Port-Orford-cedar root disease.
Draft Record of Decision

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

Starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Smith River NRA identified vehicle-access points that 

increased the risk of spread into uninfected POC stands. The forest began implemented a variety of roadclosure 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 FS 

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 

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 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 listed endangered McDonalds

rockcress, depicted in Figure 12, and at least 27 plants 

considered rare by the California Native Plant Society. 

Eight 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 avoids designating UARs to motorized trails 

within the North Fork Botanical Area. I have decided to barricade all UARs within the botanical area to 

protect over 20,000 acres of endemic and rare plant habitat. I am also authorizing strategic placement of 

educational signs so visitors will be aware of how their actions can alter fragile natural environments and 

encourage responsible behavior.

Figure 12. McDonalds rockcress—an

herbaceous perennial forb.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 31

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 grow 

on or within 30 feet of the UAR, indicating a tolerance to the current low level of vehicle-related 

disturbance. (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 with route delineation, 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 do appreciate that complex, ecological variables warrant further investigation. For this 

reason, I am authorizing a sample of sensitive plant populations to be monitored over a 10-year period. 

This monitoring will 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 part 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 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 northern spotted owl from noisegenerating activities on high priority roads within 0.25 miles of occupied NSO activity centers (AC, nest 

site), prohibiting activities between February 1 and July 31 unless surveys determine the birds are not 

nesting. No LOP (limited operating period) 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, and 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 
Draft Record of Decision

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

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 occupied 

MAMU site, unless surveys determine the birds are non-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 NFT roads and 

barricade 93 miles of unneeded UARs will promote the recovery of contiguous wildlife habitats, now 

fragmented by their physical footprints. My expert indicates this will mitigate motorized vehicle noise 

disturbance in these select areas. No modification to suitable nesting or roosting habitat will occur, and no 

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 to 

contribute toward minimizing disturbances to NSO and MAMU, while rectifying prior habitat 

modifications aiding in long-term recovery.

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 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, including riding OHVs

for recreation, fishing, hunting, hiking, rafting, and wildlife viewing contribute 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 1947, 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 

Smith River Rancheria (now called the Tolowa Dee-Ni′ Nation), 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 with a heritage 

as Native Americans 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.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 33

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 and sacred sites and areas to avert pillaging

and vandalism, is a wise and responsible decision.

Affordability and availability of resources for maintenance and 

administration of designated roads and trails

I fully appreciate costs are unique to each maintenance level classification, are based on amount of public 

use and safety issues (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2350 and 7700) that are guided by trail and road 

management objectives (TMOs and RMOs), operational maintenance levels (OMLs)15 and state traffic 

regulations (California Vehicle Code (CVC); 36 CFR 212.5a)16. 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 roads in storage or a maintenance free condition.

My review of the project record also indicates substantial benefits from stormproofing aimed at

lowering the risk for extremely costly repair due to storm-related landslides or loss of infrastructure in the 

long-term. 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 (FEIS pp. 383-386, 388, 392-394, 389, 399-400).

Public safety

My decision provides for educating the public by strategically placing informational and speed limit signs 

to let users know about the health risks linked to breathing asbestos, and to encourage drivers to slow 

down to keep dust levels low to lessen the potential for inhaling contaminated air (FEIS pp. 176-181, 186-

189, 195-199).

My decision to improve the NFTS infrastructure and upgrade the ML on select road segments 

accounted for compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and surfacing and the speed, volume, 

 

15 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.

16 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.
Draft Record of Decision

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

composition and distribution of traffic on roads. I am satisfied 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. My review of the project record indicates little threat to public health from vehicle 

emissions considering the low levels relative to the isolated populated areas and where more concentrated 

along the Smith River and forks (FEIS pp. 92-94).

I am also authorizing the repair Griffin Creek Bridge located on Forest Road 18N07 (Knopki Creek 

Road), which 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 load-bearing 

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 used by many as the main access to the upper Knopki 

Creek watershed, where popular dispersed recreation opportunities exist, such as Sanger Lake, Sanger 

Meadows, and access to Youngs Valley Trailhead, a popular trail into the Siskiyou Wilderness. The road 

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 US highway 

construction projects waste staging and disposal. For this reason, I find 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, Appendix G). For this 

reason, my decision will restrict public access to private land inholding parcels by placing gates or other 

barriers to prevent trespassing and looting.

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 Smith River Rancheria (now called 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 
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 35

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 Board of Supervisors (BOS) in twoby-two meetings eight times, including one field trip, and also provided two presentations to the Board of 

Supervisors 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 the concerns 

expressed by Del Norte County’s BOS and sheriffs’ 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 changing the terminology used in the analysis (e.g., the term restoration was clarified as 

restoration of drainage patterns in the environmental analysis documents, and the phrase adding routes to 

the NFTS has been changed to designating routes on the NFTS) (FEIS pp 30-33; 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 Del Norte 

County’s BOS, the Smith River Alliance, the Friends of Del Norte, the Northwest Trail Riders, the Blue 

Ribbon Coalition, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, the Del Norte Resource Advisory Committee, 

the Deschutes County 4 Wheelers, the Four Runners of Klamath Falls, the Pacific Northwest Four Wheel 

Drive Association, PacifiCorp, ADH Environmental, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, and 841 individuals.

A compilation of public comments received during the DEIS comment periods and the response to 

these comments is located in Appendix G of the FEIS. Comments received during the scoping period are 

located in the project record at the Forest Supervisor’s office, in Eureka, California, and are available for 

review upon request.
Draft Record of Decision

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

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.

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, 

trails and areas designated on the NFTS, in order 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 National Recreation Area Act). The SRNF 

published a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) in 2009, displaying the designated 495 total road miles on 

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 2005 final travel management rule (36 CFR 

212)). Under the No Action alternative, activities to revise the NFTS to better accommodate motorized 

recreational uses, coupled by 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 NFS network features more than 155 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 in to sensitive riparian and streamside areas. It is Forest Service 

policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to aquatic dependent species and habitat, and 

avoid significant disruption of aquatic dependent species and habitat while providing for motorized public 

use on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). I do not find the No Action alternative provides the greatest 

protection measures for riparian and aquatic habitats, since unneeded roads would not be decommissioned 

nor UARs barricaded, where risks to aquatic dependent 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 parking sites along 17N49,

compared to Alternatives 4 and 6.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 37

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 motorized trail. Specifically, Alternative 

4 analyzed:

• Changes to NFTS – Open:

o Designate UARs on NFTS as open:

 58 miles of UARs as motorized trails.

 12.6 miles of ML 2 and 3 (open) 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 (closed) roads to ML 2 (open/mixed-use) roads.

o Convert road to trail: 8 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

o Parking sites: 5 parking sites along 17N49.

• Changes to NFTS – Closed:

o Designate UARs on NFTS as closed: 4 miles of ML 1 (closed) roads.

o Downgrade to ML 1: 16 miles of ML 2 (open) roads to ML 1 (closed) 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: Structurally sound bridge.

Of all action alternatives, Alternative 4 would designate the most motorized roads and motorized 

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 5, 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 greatest level of protection for POC 
Draft Record of Decision

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

and other botanical resources of any of the alternatives. Specifically, this alternative avoids designating

motorized trails in IRAs, unneeded inventoried UARs 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:

• 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 (open) 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 (closed) roads to ML 2 (open/mixed-use) roads.

o Convert road to trail: 0 miles of ML 1 and 2 roads.

o Parking sites: 1 parking site along 17N49.

• Changes to NFTS – Closed:

o Designate UARs on NFTS as closed: 6.8 miles of ML 1 (closed) roads.

o Downgrade to ML 1: 54.33 miles of ML 2 (open) roads to ML 1 (closed) 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: Structurally sound bridge.

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 unneeded UARs and decommissioning 100 miles of NFTS roads. This alternative would 

designate 7.4 miles of motorized trails, compared to 44.7 and 66.3 new 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, service search and rescue and fire suppression efforts during a wildfire. 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.
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 39

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, and aesthetically and 

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 EIS in compliance with NEPA.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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 Chapter 3 of the FEIS. These laws include:

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

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 Section 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 and will have No Effect on properties listed or eligible 

for listing in the NRHP (FEIS pp. 200-214).
Draft Record of Decision

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

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 the northern spotted owl (NSO) and marbled murrelet (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 habitat removal (17 acres) 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.

Botany

There are no occurrences of the federally listed endangered McDonalds rockcress within 100 feet of 

inventoried UARs that will be designated 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.

Fisheries

In 2007, SRNF consulted with NMFS on the proposed action at that time (Smith River Road Management 

and Route Designation Biological Assessment (RMRD BA, 2007). The SRNF received a Letter of 

Concurrence from NMFS concurring with the determination of “not likely to adversely affect” for the 

proposed action described in the 2007 Smith River RMRD BA.

With the release of the 2014 NMFS Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho 

salmon recovery plan, SRNF began work on a Watershed and Fisheries Restoration Program (WFRP), 

and initiated formal consultation with NMFS on the WFRP. The WFRP addresses actions that are 

identified in the SONCC coho recovery plan, and watershed restoration actions identified in the Six 

Rivers LRMP under the ACS.

As part of the Watershed and Fisheries Restoration Biological Assessment (WFRBA) development, 

NMFS and USFS biologists reviewed projects under development, including the Smith River TM EIS. It 

was determined that the road and trail actions under the FEIS were consistent with those in the WFRBA. 
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 41

The FEIS as a whole, implements action identified in the SONCC coho salmon recovery plan aimed at 

reducing sediment into the Smith River. The FEIS was reviewed on September 7, 2015, with NMFS 

during a Fish Level 1 meeting. The 2015 FEIS proposed actions were found to be consistent with the 

process, activities and monitoring described in the 2015 WFRBA and 2015 WFR Biological Opinion 

(WFRBO). As required in the WFRBO, annual review of planned implementation would occur at the 

fisheries Level 1 meetings. Therefore, §7 consultation requirements for coho salmon has been fulfilled.

The WFRBA describes 16 activities (instream, riparian, road decommissioning, culvert upgrades, etc.) 

that meet the ACS and ESA listed fish recovery objectives. The programmatic WFRBA describes the 

processes, design features and checkpoints by which an activity is developed, implemented and monitored.

Activities analyzed in the WFRBA were found to have the potential range of determinations: No Effect, 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect (negligible or strictly beneficial effects) and Likely to Adversely Affect (short 

term negative with long term beneficial), based on the proximity of the activity to occupied habitat, 

probability of an effect occurring, and the magnitude of the potential effect on habitat components and 

individuals. All projects covered under the WFRBA meet the ACS and all LRMP standards and guidelines 

pertaining to anadromous fish species, riparian reserves and water quality objectives.

The forest received a Biological Opinion on the WFRP from NMFS on December 14, 2015 due to the 

potential for some of the activities covered by the WFRP have the potential to result in take of ESA-listed 

salmonids due to heavy equipment operating within occupied habitat or in close proximity to coho habitat. 

The WFRBA leaves the project specific determination to the NEPA phase of the consulted process.

Thorough analyses of federally listed SONCC coho salmon and consultation with the NMFS have 

been completed fulfilling §7 of the ESA consultation requirements (19 USC 1536 (c)). Therefore, this 

decision is compliant with the ESA.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)

In addition to the §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 under 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, passive restoration via road 

decommissioning and reduction in overall road density and barricading unneeded UARs should benefit 

fisheries habitats.

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. The Forest Service and the Water Board

developed a management agency agreement to for management activities on NFS lands. The management 
Draft Record of Decision

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

agency agreement requires the Forest Service to implement the state-certified and EPA-approved waterquality 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. The 

Selected Alternative 6 meets the conditions of the North Coast Water Quality Control Board, Waiver of 

Waste Discharge Requirement, Order No. R1-2015-0021.

The 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 Selected Alternative 6. 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; Appendices D and E). A complete listing of BMPs that apply to this 

project are in Appendix D.

Clean Air Act of 1970

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. The Smith River NRA 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 Section 2(a) (ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 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 Smith River, its forks and tributaries 

within the NRA external boundary were again re-designated under Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act pursuant 

to the Secretary of Interior’s 1981 decision. Classification of some tributaries within the Smith River 

NRA was upgraded and some tributaries were added. The wild and scenic river boundaries, as required 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, were established in the LRMP. The boundaries of the river 
Draft Record of Decision

Six Rivers National Forest – 43

segments within the excluded areas remain at high watermark under the State of California designation.

For each of the river and stream 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 Wild and Scenic River 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 (FEIS pp. 308). This project is compliant with the WSR Act.

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; 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. Project 

area 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 including 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

The Selected Alternative complies with laws, regulations, and policies that pertain to the following 

special areas. In addition, this decision enhances the values that make these special areas unique.

• Research Natural Areas. There are two research natural areas on the Smith River National 

Recreation Area—the L.E. Horton Research Natural Area and the Craigs Creek Research Natural 

Area—established to enhance long-term ecosystem and plant research. My decision will not 

designate inventoried UARs within Research Natural Areas 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).
Draft Record of Decision

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

• Special Interest Areas. These areas are set aside to manage for their 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 coincide 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 a total 

of 3.1 miles of motorized trails within IRAs, which is 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 (within a quarter mile) to wilderness boundaries; therefore, they 

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 within the classified wild and scenic rivers corridors. 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, they will not be disproportionately affected by this project. (FEIS pp. 339-349).

Implementation Date

Implementation of this project is expected to take place from 2017 to 2032.

MERV GEORGE JR. Date

Forest Supervisor
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-1

Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Table A-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 No mitigations identified.

199.103 0.10 0.00 0.10 UAR 3 – Suitable for passenger cars POC Mitigation: 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. POC Mitigation: rock/gravel entire route of 

infected POC as needed.

199.105 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Darlingtonia Trail head access.

199.106 0.18 0.00 0.18 UAR 3 – Suitable for passenger cars Eighteen-mile river access site. POC Mitigation: 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 to allow parking at turnout and hiking access to river.

199.111 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: 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 Delineate route.

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

Appendix A. 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

305.109 2.43 0.00 2.43 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: at seepy crossing with POC, install culvert and add 

gravel. Route delineation.

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

POC Mitigation: seasonal closure required at beginning of route. Gate 

mid-Oct to early June; need culvert in at POC site. Barricade end of 

route. Route delineation.

305.118 0.76 0.80 1.56 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed. POC Mitigation: 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. POC Mitigation: 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. POC Mitigation: 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 Delineate route.

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 POC Mitigation:barricade at milepost 1.21.

314.102 0.80 0.00 0.80 UAR Restore Barricade.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-3

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

314.107 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Delineate route. Three Ponds camping area. POC Mitigation: 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.

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 No mitigations identified. 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 Delineate route.

315.109 0.49 0.00 0.49 UAR Restore Barricade.

315.110 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

315.111 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

315.2 0.51 0.00 0.51 UAR Restore Waterbars/rolling dips as needed. Remove all culverts. POC Mitigation: 

barricade.

315.3 0.98 0.00 0.98 UAR Restore Remove all culverts. Waterbars as needed. POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.1 0.26 0.00 0.26 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Administrative use only; add rolling dips. POC Mitigation: rock/gravel 

length of road.

316.11 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.12 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.2 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.3 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.4 0.07 0.00 0.07 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation. POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.5 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.6 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

316.7 0.02 0.00 0.02 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation.
A-4 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix A. 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

316.8 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Motorized Trail Route delineation; waterbars. POC Mitigation: gravel as needed.

316.9 0.06 0.00 0.06 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: 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.

405.10 0.51 0.00 0.51 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route. Route delineation 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 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.

427.106 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Motorized Trail Install rolling dips to improve drainage.

427.107 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: gravel.

427.108 0.09 0.00 0.09 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: 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)

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 POC Mitigation: seasonal gate closure.

14N01D 1.80 0.00 1.80 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Maintain, repair, or replace each culvert; improve surface drainage. POC 

mitigation: seasonal gate near private property to mitigate POC risk.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-5

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

14N08 0.50 0.00 0.50 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: 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 Maintain, repair, or replace each culvert; improve surface drainage. POC 

Mitigation: proposed seasonal gate on 14N01 restricts access.

14N15.1 3.80 0.00 3.80 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve resource 

protection. Waterbar as needed and year round gate.

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. POC Mitigation: seasonal gate closure at 

beginning of road.

14N38 0.20 0.40 0.60 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Barricade and decommission past water source. Waterbar as needed.

14N46 2.70 0.00 2.70 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) 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 POC Mitigation: 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) Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve resource 

protection. Manage as ML1 & 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.
A-6 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix A. 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 11.10 0.00 11.10 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Replace 3 priority culverts. POC Mitigation: 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.

15N02.4 0.49 0.00 0.49 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: 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 No mitigation identified

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 Improve maintenance on, repair/replace all culverts and drainage 

structures as needed. POC Mitigation: 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. Waterbars as 

needed and barricade.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-7

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

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 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

Access to Blackhawk Bar. Keep; Maintain, repair or replace each culvert. 

Improve surface draining with waterbars and rolling dips as needed. POC 

Mitigation: add gravel at drainage crossings and along areas with POC.

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 POC Mitigation: rock/gravel last 100 ft.

15N36N.1C 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail No mitigation identified

15N38 2.90 0.00 2.90 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Improve surface drainage and install culvert at stream ford on road near 

private land. POC Mitigation: barricade last 300' 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) 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) 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) Waterbars/rolling dips as needed.

16N02L 1.70 0.00 1.70 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Upsize culverts, install waterbars or rolling dips. POC Mitigation: current 

seasonal gate restricts access.
A-8 – Smith River National Recreation Area Restoration and Motorized Travel Management Project

Appendix A. 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

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 a small peak on 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) Remove or repair road drainage features as needed to improve resource 

protection. Waterbars as needed and barricade. 

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 Repair culverts. POC Mitigation: 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 Repair or replace plugged culverts.

16N16 0.60 1.50 2.10 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) 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 Repair or replace culverts on section up to MP 1.35 at bridge. POC 

Mitigation: seasonal gate closure at beginning.

16N18A 0.95 1.35 2.30 2 Remove from NFTS – Decommission Remove 5 culverts. Waterbar as needed and barricade.

16N18B.1 0.66 0.00 0.66 UAR Restore Barricade.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-9

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

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) Waterbars/rolling dips as needed.

16N19 8.28 0.00 8.28 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

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. POC Mitigation: rock/gravel entire route as needed.

16N19.2 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles Access to Coon Creek. POC Mitigation: 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.

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) 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 Improve road drainage at all culverts. POC Mitigation: seasonal gate 

closure and add gravel in areas with POC within 50' 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 POC Mitigation: 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.
A-10

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

Appendix A. 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

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 Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 16 culverts. POC 

Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: 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 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. POC Mitigation: 

barricade.

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 Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the culverts.

16N36.1 0.69 0.00 0.69 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles 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 Clean blocked culverts and install 2 additional culverts.

16N37 1.20 0.00 1.20 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 6 culverts. POC 

Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: reinforce POC crossing with gravel, about 170' 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.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-11

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

16N41 1.43 0.00 1.43 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Replace culvert at milepost 0.56. POC Mitigation: reinforce POC crossing 

with gravel and install culvert, about 200' 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 POC Mitigation: rock/gravel road as needed.

17N01.1 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: rock/gravel route as needed.

17N01.1B 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: rock/gravel entire route as needed.

17N01.2B 0.03 0.00 0.03 UAR Motorized Trail POC Mitigation: rock/gravel entire route as needed.

17N01.3 0.13 0.00 0.13 UAR Motorized Trail Rolling dips as needed. POC Mitigation: 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.
A-12

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

Appendix A. 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

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 POC Mitigation: 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. 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.

17N07J 1.64 0.00 1.64 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Repair culvert at milepost 1.25. POC Mitigation: 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) 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 POC Mitigation: rock and gravel approximately milepost 0.14-0.16.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-13

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

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 Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 3 culverts. POC 

Mitigation: 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.

17N20 0.19 0.00 0.19 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles 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 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 Waterbars/rolling dips as needed.

17N22W.1 0.46 0.00 0.46 UAR Restore Rolling dips as needed. SUP 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 - barricaded on network

17N23C.2 0.59 0.00 0.59 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) No mitigation identified - barricaded on network

17N26 0.25 0.00 0.25 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: rock and gravel entire length of road as needed, infested 

POC.

17N26A 0.37 0.00 0.37 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: rock and gravel entire length of road as needed.
A-14

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

Appendix A. 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

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) 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.

17N32 3.40 0.00 3.40 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: 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 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 Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 14 culverts. POC 

Mitigation: 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.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-15

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

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

Improve maintenance, repair, or replace each of the 25 culverts. POC 

Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: seasonal gate closure.

17N40 0.35 0.65 1.00 2 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) 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.

17N41 4.25 0.00 4.25 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Improve maintenance on, repair, or replace/upgrade each of the 13 

culverts and waterbars as needed. POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: 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.
A-16

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

Appendix A. 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

17N46 1.22 0.00 1.22 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: rock and gravel as needed stretch with infected POC, 

~milepost 3.8, just north of 17N49.101 junction, for 100'.

17N49.1 0.04 0.00 0.04 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.100 0.12 0.00 0.12 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate 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 Delineate route.

17N49.102 0.87 0.00 0.87 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.102A 0.71 0.00 0.71 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.102B 0.17 0.00 0.17 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.102C 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

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 Delineate route.

17N49.104 0.86 3.82 4.68 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.104A 0.05 0.00 0.05 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.104B 0.08 0.00 0.08 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

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 Delineate route.

17N49.108 0.31 0.00 0.31 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.11 1.94 0.00 1.94 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.11 2.55 1.94 4.49 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route. POC Mitigation: seasonal gate closure, gate mid-slope of 

17N49.11, near long 124.0119W and lat 41.88593.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-17

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

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 Delineate route. POC Mitigation: 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 Delineate route.

17N49.14 0.54 0.00 0.54 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.15 0.62 0.00 0.62 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.15A 0.24 0.00 0.24 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.2 0.20 0.00 0.20 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.3 0.23 0.00 0.23 UAR Restore Barricade.

17N49.4 1.29 0.00 1.29 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N49.4 0.75 1.29 2.04 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route. POC Mitigation: seasonal gate closure - just to east of 

17N49.102

17N49.4A 1.06 0.00 1.06 UAR Restore Year-round gate.

17N49.7 0.91 0.00 0.91 UAR Motorized Trail Repair road drainage at spring area and two culverts. Delineate route

and gravel areas with POC.

17N49.7 2.15 0.91 3.06 UAR Motorized Trail Repair road drainage at spring area and two culverts. Delineate route. 

POC Mitigation: 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 Delineate route.

17N49.8 0.39 0.00 0.39 UAR Motorized Trail Delineate route.

17N85 1.20 0.00 1.20 UAR 1 – Basic custodial care (closed) Remove or repair road drainage features to improve resource protection.

POC Mitigation: 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 1.75 0.00 1.75 3 3 – Suitable for passenger cars POC Mitigation: rock/gravel segment 100′ either side of Sanger Lake 

outlet as needed.

18N02 0.85 1.75 2.60 3 3 – Suitable for passenger cars POC Mitigation: install seasonal gate closure.

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 POC Mitigation: rock/gravel length of route as needed.
A-18

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

Appendix A. 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

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. POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: 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. POC Mitigation: 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.

18N09 5.10 0.00 5.10 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles POC Mitigation: barricade just past confluence of High Plateau Creek.

18N09.100 0.21 0.00 0.21 UAR Motorized Trail Route Delineation at site, POC Mitigation: 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 POC Mitigation: gravel last 100' 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.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-19

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

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 POC Mitigation: 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 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. 

POC Mitigation: 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.

18N15 1.20 0.00 1.20 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles Resource Risk Mitigation: Delineate route near milepost .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 POC Mitigation: 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.
A-20

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

Appendix A. 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

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

Improve maintenance on, repair, or replace/upgrade each of the 19 

culverts and waterbars as needed. POC Mitigation: 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 Install culvert at milepost 0.5. POC Mitigation: seasonal gate closure on 

18N17.

18N17C 1.18 0.00 1.18 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Replace culverts at milepost 0.35 and 0.77; and maintain, repair or 

upgrade remaining 4 culverts and improve surface drainage. POC 

Mitigation: 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.

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.
Appendix A. List of Road and Route Decisions

Six Rivers National Forest 

–

A-21

Road,

Motorized Trail

Number

Miles Beginning 

Mile Point

Ending

Mile Point

Existing

Status Final Status or Maintenance Level Mitigations

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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.

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.
A-22

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

Appendix A. 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

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 Delineate route.

18N51.100A 0.46 0.00 0.46 UAR Restore Barricade.

18N56 0.88 0.00 0.88 2 2 – High-clearance vehicles

Replace culverts; install rolling dips as needed. POC Mitigation: 

rock/gravel 100' 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.