DRAFT Road Management Plan for the Jackson Demonstration State Forest

1. DRAFT Road Management Plan for the Jackson Demonstration State Forest Clay Brandow CDF--Sacramento Headquarters March 2000

2. Forest Roads on JDSF are used for • Timber harvesting • Forest management activities • Public Access • Recreational Use

3. Jackson Demonstration State Forest Roads • Approximately 350 miles of actively used roads • Plus approximately 150 miles of potentially improperly abandon roads • Total mileage approximately 500

4. Note • CDF has little to no control of some of the roads on the Forest. • Examples of these types of roads include: • Highway 20 (state ownership), • Road 408 (Mendocino County), and • Road 300 along the North Fork of the South Fork of the Noyo River (privately-held legal easement).

7. The Problem • Numerous studies have shown that forest roads are a major source of management-related stream sediment (Furniss et al. 1991).

8. The Problem • Much of this sediment originates from points at or near where streams are crossed by roads, from inside ditches, and from large fill failures.

9. MSG Report’s Most Commonly Cited Causesof Large Erosion Events • Road cutbanks -- slope support removed • Culverts -- inlet plugged • Surface water concentration • Fill slopes -- poorly compacted • Fill slopes -- overloaded, deep sidecast

10. Beginning in the 1870s, railroads were used to transport logs in some watersheds; railroad grades were located along or adjacent to streambeds. Current Forest roads still use remnants of the old railroad grades in several places. More specifically on JDSF

11. More importantly • Most of the roads on JDSF, however, were constructed from the 1950's to the 1970’s. Roads constructed during this period generally included inboard ditches and cross drains. Concentrated runoff from these types of roads has been shown to be a major source of fine sediment, because the inboard ditches are often connected directly to channels that can carry the sediment to fish-bearing streams (Wemple et al. 1996).

12. MSG Report’s Most Commonly Cited Causesof Large Erosion Events • Road cutbanks -- slope support removed • Culverts -- inlet plugged • Surface water concentration • Fill slopes -- poorly compacted • Fill slopes -- overloaded, deep sidecast

13. The Solution • Approach the problem systematically by devising and executing a JDSF Forest Road Management Plan. • Safe roads • Adequate transportation network • Lowest feasible impact practical

14. DRAFT Road Management Plan intent: • provide a systematic program to ensure that the design, construction, use, maintenance, and surfacing of the Forest’s roads, road landings, and road crossings will be conducted to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to the aquatic habitats supporting anadromous fish, amphibians, and other aquatic organisms.

15. Prospective Additional Benefit of the DRAFT RMP • An additional benefit may be the long-term reduction in the costs of repairs as a result of problem avoidance.

16. Six Components of the DRAFT RMP • 1. Road Network and Stream Crossing Inventory: A plan to inventory roads, road-related facilities, and potential hazards associated with roads. • 2. Road Design and Construction Standards: Guidelines for road location, design, and construction. • 3. Road Use Restrictions: Guidelines that identify restrictions on use of roads, particularly during wet weather conditions. 

17. Six Components of the DRAFT RMP(continued) • 4. RoadInspection and Maintenance Program: Guidelines for monitoring Forest roads and establishing a maintenance program. • 5. Road Abandonment Plan: A comprehensive plan to identify and prioritize roads to be properly abandoned (i.e., closed or decommissioned) on the Forest. • 6. Schedule/Funding for Road Improvement Program: An annual monetary commitment from CDF for implementing the Road Management Plan on the Forest, as well as a method to prioritize the work.

18. 1. Road Network and Stream Crossing Inventory • Provide the basis for maintaining and mitigating the JDSF road system. • Identify problems that can be corrected through routine maintenance activities; • Assign maintenance & mitigation priorities to planning watersheds, road segments, and crossings; • Identify the most effective designs for roads, landings, and culvert problem sites • Identify roads to be properly abandoned.

19. 2. Road Design and Construction Standards • State of the practice design standards for road, landing, and crossings (The Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads by Weaver and Hagans (1994)) • Site specific augmentation where suggested by the interagency THP Review Teams • Innovation and demonstration of new techniques for reducing related impacts

20. 3. Road Use Restrictions • Wet weather restrictions on hauling • No truck hauling after 0.25” in 24 guideline • No “pumping” of fines into inside ditches • No wet weather hauling on WLPZ roads unless surfaced / quit and repair in surface break down • Blading to reduce surface moisture is discouraged • Gates on seasonal roads • Dust abatement during dry season hauling • Water drafting guidelines

21. 4. RoadInspection and Maintenance Program • Inspections in addition to inventory: • Properly abandon roads  follow-up inspections (at one year & five years) • Active road/crossing  formal (2-year cycle) and ad hoc inspections • Problem sites  storm patrol inspections

22. 4. RoadInspection and Maintenance Program • Principles of the Maintenance Program • Schedule on an “as needed” basis • Avoid excessive disturbance (excessive grading) • Leave vegetation on cutslopes, where possible • Place side-cast materials carefully

23. 5. Road Abandonment Plan • Identify and prioritize roads for proper abandonment, including improperly abandon roads that a potential sediment sources, based on the road inventory

24. Some Criteria • 1) unstable inner gorge areas, • 2) roads in close proximity to a watercourse, • 3) roads not needed for management purposes, and • 4) roads with excessive amounts of perched fill. • see Weaver and Hagans (1990, 1994).

25. 6. Schedule/Funding for Road Improvement Program • Survey approx. 100 miles of road per year • Complete road inventory within 5 years • Budget funds for implementing the Road Management Plan (RMP) • Augment these funds by using offsite mitigation associated with THPs to achieve RMP objectives where feasible

26. Focus • The focus of JDSF’s road management program will be to minimize the volume of sediment that enters watercourses, rather than to maximize the number of miles of road treated per year.  

27. Stated as a Measure of Success • The amount of sediment delivery prevented, not the mileage of treated roads, is the appropriate scale to measure the accomplishments of this Road Management Plan.

28. Stated as a Measure of Success • The amount of sediment delivery prevented, not the mileage of treated roads, will be the appropriate scale to measure the accomplishments of this Road Management Plan.

29. Conclusion • A Road Management Plan will be a important component of the Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan. • The draft Road Management Plan prepared originally for the proposed SYP/HCP makes a good starting point.

30. Questions & Comments

36. Outsloped Road with Rolling Dips