 To join the teleconference, dial , passcode #  To download handouts :  Click the Handouts button at the top of the screen, right hand side.  The Handouts button looks like this:  To ask a question:  Click the ‘Q&A’ tab at the top of the screen, type your question in the dialog box, then click ‘Ask’.  If you need to provide feedback during the presentation, please click on the drop-down arrow next to the Feedback tool.

Maria Ulloa, Forest Program Lead Core Team :  Marianne Emmendorfer, team leader  Marcos Rios, Engineering  Cherie Klein, Mapping and GIS Extended Team :  Steven Ray, Forest Engineer  Karen Miller, Forest Heritage Resource Program Manager  Linn Gassaway, North Zone Archaeologist (Cultural Resources Data Steward)  Fletcher Linton, Forest Botanist

The travel analysis process (TAP) is science-based and will inform future travel-management decisions that move administrative units toward the minimum road system (MRS). The TAP considers ecological, social, and economic impacts. The TAP must be documented in a Travel Analysis Report (TAR), which includes:  Maps displaying all system roads that shows those roads which will potentially remain and those that may be removed or changed in the future (under site-specific NEPA).  Information about the analysis as it relates to the criteria found in 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1).

Travel Analysis Process Goal: Management and sustainability of a road system that minimizes adverse environmental impacts by assuring roads are in locations only where they are necessary to meet access needs, and can be maintained within budget constraints.

 In Subpart A, use of motorized trails is only included in the recreation access criteria. Travel Analysis of motorized trails occurs in Subparts B and C.  Subpart A is intended to complement, rather than replace, other planning processes.  The Travel Analysis Report does not include a decision under NEPA, instead, it informs future proposed actions regarding the National Forest road system.

 Implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule;  Use the Region 5 Travel Analysis Process, Subpart A Guidebook (November 2012);  Update criteria and analysis from 2003 Sequoia National Forest Road Analysis Process (March 2012); and  Identify opportunities to have a properly sized road system for Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Sequoia National Forest personnel conducted a RAP in 2003 in accordance with FSM 7712, which:  Evaluated the maintenance level 1 through 5 roads, and considered non-system roads (i.e. county, state and private routes) in the assessment of benefit, risk and opportunities.  Maps and spreadsheets displaying all the system roads and their associated risks and benefits.  Information about the analysis as it relates to the criteria found in Forest Service Manual 7700.

RAP Process (FS-643, p.16)TAP Process (PSW TAP Guide, p.6) Step 1-Set up the analysis Step 2-Describe the situation Step 3-Identify issues Step 4-Assess benefits, problems and risks Step 4-Assess risks, problems and benefits Step 5-Describe opportunities and set priorities Step 6-Report

RAPTAP Guidebook Recommendations Geologic Hazard Indicators of Watershed –level Issues: Cumulative effects of roads on aquatic and riparian resources and impact to priority and other high value watersheds Stream Crossing Density Riparian Zone – Stream Proximity Indicators of Degradation of Riparian Areas: Direct effects on channel and riparian habitat and function and impact to high value resources Aquatic Risk Factor Composite Rating

RAPTAP Guidebook Recommendations Heritage Resources Indicators of Damage to Cultural Resources: Threatened Sites Road Density Effects to Wildlife Habitat (roaded miles per mile squared): Indicator of Road Density: Disturbance due to road concentration Indicators of Degradation and Disturbance based on Land Allocation: Roads in PACs Scenic Resources -the impacts the road segment prism has on scenic integrity. Indicators for botanical resources: Indicators for Noxious Weed and Nonnative, Invasive Plants:. Terrestrial Risk Factor Composite Rating

RAPTAP Guidebook Recommendation Private/Non-recreation Public Access Public Access (Recreation) Indicator of Disruption to Quiet Recreation: Proximity to Selected Trails Indicator of Wilderness Degradation: Road Intrusion in Wilderness Administrative Site Access. Vegetation Management Fire Protection Roads are a useful tool in protecting areas from fires based on position on slope and continuity of fuelbeds, on whether the road provides access to facilities or private property to be protected, and whether there is a high incidence of ignitions. Indicator of Human-caused Fire: Proximity to Known Human-caused Fire Origin Points Access Composite Rating

RAPTAP Guidebook Recommendation Lifestyle, Attitudes, Beliefs & Values: This factor is based on the extent the road system may affect human lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, and values. Access to Native American gathering and cultural sites are included here. The PSW Guidance contains Appendix G: Guidance for Communication and Public Engagement. Economics by Road Maintenance Level This factor is based on our ability to maintain the existing road system with the current budget. PSW Guidebook p. 21 states: Appendix C – R5 Economic Analysis Calculator – Annual Road Maintenance was developed to give a broad scale view of the forest’s ability to sustain the unit’s road system at objective maintenance levels with expected levels of funding (FSM ). Social Composite Rating

A composite rating of low, moderate and high was assigned to each road based on combining values of the risk or benefit factors. A cumulative score was given from a sum total of all the risk or benefit factors. For example, the TAP aquatic risk composite adds the three factors for a composite range of 3 to 12, which were then added to the composite for terrestrial risks (5-15) for a total risk composite of 8 to 27. This composite was rated: Low=8-13, Moderate=14-20, or High=21-27

Similarly, on the benefits side: Access ratings were summed to give a range of 5-21, and Social ratings were summed to give range of 2-6. The total benefit composite for the TAP is: Low=21-27, Moderate=14- 20, or High=7-13 NOTE: The ratings for risk and benefit are flipped numerically and by color. The bottom line for the person who just glances through is: large numbers (red color) are “high risk or low use” and low numbers (green color) are “low risk or high use”.

The 2003 RAP considered 1,621 miles of road, and the TAP considers 1,646 miles of road in the Sequoia National Forest designated transportation system. This includes roads designated as “closed”. The additional mileage is due to:  Corrections to road mileage from old cartographic features to surveyed data (i.e. GPS) or current imagery,  Adding existing routes to the designated transportation system (i.e. campgrounds around Lake Isabella).

 Each road was analyzed using the risk and benefit factors.  Criteria where ratings are assigned through GIS analysis were updated in the spreadsheet.  Where roads needed a non-GIS update (generally the access criteria) the TAP team reviewed both the map and spreadsheet to determine whether to keep the existing rating, or update it based on the criteria description.  When manually updating non-GIS criteria, the team erred on the side of maintaining access.

Current Risk Current Benefit Current Opportunities

Risk Equivalent Need or Benefit Equivalent Low/Low: Consider for reduced maintenance level, closure, or decommissioning (low priority) Low/Moderate: Consider for reduced maintenance level. Low/High: Consider for reduced maintenance level. Moderate/Low: Consider for reduced maintenance level, closure, or decommissioning (medium priority). Moderate/Moderate: Consider for road maintenance priority, storm proofing, or reconstruction (medium priority). Moderate/High: Consider for road maintenance priority, storm proofing, or reconstruction (medium priority). High/Low: Consider for reduced maintenance level, closure, or decommissioning (high priority). High/Moderate: Consider for road maintenance priority, storm proofing, reconstruction, or reroute (high priority). High/High: Consider for road maintenance priority, storm proofing, reconstruction, or reroute (high priority). Once roads are sorted into these nine rating pair categories, further screening of individual ratings could be done to further refine opportunities and priorities.

Though the TAP core team assigned ratings for the access factors, we need you to review and suggest changes to specific factors:  Private and Non-recreation Public  Public Recreation  Lifestyles, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values We also need your review for typos or other errors.

Go to the website:  Review the maps and spreadsheets for those roads you’re interested in;  Download the Feedback Form, fill it in, and it to: comments-pacificsouthwest- with Subject: Travel Analysis Process; orcomments-pacificsouthwest-  Mail it to the address listed on the form. All Feedback is Due by September 20, 2013

Contact: Marianne Emmendorfer, TAP team leader Kings Canyon Road Dunlap, CA extension 313 Website: