1. INYO NATIONAL FOREST - TRAVEL ANALYSIS PROCESS Public Meeting – April 21, 2015

2. Background and Objectives  The 2005 Travel Management Rule, Subpart A, requires all Forests to:  “Identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel for administration, utilization and protection of National Forest System lands”… using a “science-based roads analysis”.  The Travel Analysis Process (TAP) is the science-based roads analysis.

3. Background and Objectives  The Objectives of the TAP are:  Inventory the road system: Describe road conditions, issues (including jurisdiction), risks, benefits, ‘opportunities’ (potential changes).  Analyze balancing the need for access with minimizing risks to important ecological, social, and economic issues. Goal is an economically and environmentally sustainable road system.  Identify potential methods for achieving the minimum necessary road system.

4. What TAP is NOT:  It does not redo Travel Management.  Travel Management analyzed unauthorized routes, and determined whether to add them to the system.  TAP analyzes only National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads, and analyzes their current condition, benefits of each road, possible issues with each road, and recommends future management actions for each road.  It is NOT Forest Plan Revision.  It does NOT make any decisions – it inventories, highlights issues and makes recommendations. The recommendations will be analyzed in the future through the NEPA process.

5. Travel Analysis - 6 Step Process 1. Setting up the analysis 2. Describing the situation 3. Identifying issues 4. Assessing benefits, problems and risks 5. Describing opportunities (potential changes) and priorities 6. Reporting

6. 1. Setting up the Analysis  Determine which roads to analyze  Unless we had new information about the road: We did not re-analyze roads in the 2003 RAP. We did not re-analyze roads added in the 2009 Travel Management Decision

7. 2. Describing the Situation  Existing Direction  Forest Plan  2005 Travel Management Rule  2009 Travel Management Decision  Gather Existing Data  No new data collected for TAP  Used recent monitoring data, NVUM surveys, maps, data from other agencies, permit data, funding data  GIS road layers.

8. 2. Describing the Situation, cont.  Existing Road System – Forest Service Maintained Maintenance Level Segments Miles Percent (by miles) 1 ( storage) 1 0.2.01% 2 (4wd) 3,508 1,79193.3% 3 ( rough passenger vehicle) 217 543.3% 4 (smooth passenger vehicle) 193 321.8% 5 (paved) 59 281.5% Total 3,978 1,905100% Table 3. National Forest System Roads, displayed by operational maintenance level. This table includes all roads, even those not fully analyzed in TAP PLUS: 558 segments (358 miles) of motorized trail

9. 2. Describing the Situation, cont.  Existing roads on the Forest, NOT maintained by the Inyo National Forest Road Management AgencyRoad segmentsMiles County189519 Local (Includes LADWP roads)32378 Private7719 State Highway877 US Highway351 Total702746 Table 2. Roads on the Forest under the jurisdiction of, or maintained by, other road management agencies.

10. Existing Condition – minimum system? Area north of the Town of Mammoth Lakes – high road density. Colors represent assigned benefit categories

11. Existing Condition – minimum system?

12. 3. Identifying Issues 1. There are inadequate resources for maintenance of existing system roads. 2. The road system needs to provide commodity production, special use and private land access. 3. The road system needs to provide access to recreation on the Forest 4. The road system needs to provide access to manage vegetation, fuels and fire

13. 5. The road system needs to provide access for traditional Native American practices, and protect cultural resources 6. The road system allows motorized uses to access and alter the character of special status areas (e.g. Wilderness). 7. Roads may cause impacts to natural resources 3. Identifying Issues (cont.)

14. 4. Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks RiskBenefit Motorized use presents risks to resources in these categories Motorized uses benefit these categories by providing opportunities Social/Recreational/Cultural Road operations issuesRoad level of development Recreation Opportunity Spectrum consistencyDispersed recreation Heritage ResourcesDeveloped recreation Tribal Interests Special Status Areas Commodity Production Inventoried Roadless Areas Grazing Wilderness Resources Minerals Research Natural Areas or Special Interest Areas Forest products (fuel wood and timber) Biological Resources Special Access Invasive plants Forest Service administrative facility Rare plants Private Land Access Terrestrial Wildlife Special Uses Aquatic Wildlife Watershed ResourcesResource Protection HydrologyForest Health WatershedAquatic Wildlife Riparian vegetationFire and fuels

15. Assessing Benefits Benefit Category Total Benefit Rating Number of Road Segments % by NumberMiles % by Mileage Low0-176536%31319% Moderate2-474235%52931% High5-1360129%84950% Total2,108-1,691- Table 5 Summary results of overall benefit rating.

16. Assessing Risks Risk Category Total Risk Rating Number of Road Segments % by NumberMiles % by Mileage Low0 to -3114254%51430% Moderate-4 to -785541%92054% High-8 to - 121115%25715% Total2,108-1,691- Table 6 Summary results of overall risk ratings

17. 5. Describing Opportunities (Potential changes) and Setting Priorities  The Forest identified the following possible road management changes, informed by the TAP guidebook:  Change jurisdiction of the road or issue a new permit (or update jurisdiction in the Forest Service Infrastructure database)  Change (usually reduce) the road’s maintenance level  Close the road – may include active decommissioning  Maintain – may include increasing or decreasing frequency  Mitigate – includes rerouting or reconstruction

18. Potential changes and priorities based on the risk and benefit matrix Note: Reducing maintenance level is a possible opportunity for every category Benefits Risks ScoresHighModerateLow High Category 1  Maintenance priority  Mitigate/ reconstruct  Reroute  Remove duplicates when possible High priority Category 2  Maintenance priority  Mitigate/ reconstruct  Reroute  Remove duplicates when possible High priority Category 3  Evaluate need  Close/decommission High priority Moderate Category 4  Maintain  Mitigate Medium priority Category 5  Maintain  Mitigate Medium priority Category 6  Evaluate need  Close/decommission Medium priority Low Category 7  Maintain Low priority Category 8  Maintain Low priority Category 9  Evaluate need  Close Low priority

19. Opportunity and Priority Matrix Results Benefits Risks ScoresHighModerateLowTotals High Category 1 76 road segments 208 miles Category 2 28 road segments 42 miles Category 3 7 road segments 8 miles 111 segments 257 miles Moderate Category 4 370 road segments 534 miles Category 5 251 road segments 252 miles Category 6 234 road segments 133 miles 855 segments 919 miles Low Category 7 155 road segments 197 miles Category 8 463 road segments 235 miles Category 9 524 road segments 172 miles 1142 segments 514 miles Totals 601 segments 848 miles 742 segments 529 miles 765 segments 313 miles 2,108 segments 1,691 miles* *Note: The number of road segments and mileage is less than shown in Table 3 because Table 3 includes all roads on the National Forest Transportation system that are maintained by the Forest Service. Table 8 shows only those road segments fully analyzed in the TAP process.

20. Roads “likely needed” and “likely not needed” for future use Likely Future Need Number of road segments analyzedMiles of road % of all TAP roads, by mileage % of all roads on the NFTS, by mileage Likely Not Needed 814*32619%17% Likely Needed1,2941,36581%83% * Of the 814 roads “likely not needed for future use”, about 350 no longer exist or are not drivable by any motorized vehicle.

21. Example of future need recommendation

22. Example of Future Need Recommendation

23. Economic Analysis – Existing Condition Objective Maintenance Level Sum of Segment Length (Miles) Cost to Maintain/ Mile Total Annual Cost 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.22 $ 103 $ - 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1,790.62 $ 115 $ 206,500 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS 53.49 $ 2,355 $ 126,000 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 32.08 $ 9,078 $ 291,000 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 28.27 $ 9,078 $ 256,500 Grand Total 1,905 $ 880,000 Estimated Annual Funds Available for Maintenance $ 512,250 Estimated Additional Funds Needed $ (367,750) % of annual maintenance needs funded 58%

24. Economic Analysis – With Recommendations Implemented Objective Maintenance Level Sum of Segment Length (Miles) Cost to Maintain/ MileTotal Annual Cost 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.2 $ 103 $ - 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES - UNPAVED 1451.6 $ 115 $ 167,500 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS - UNPAVED 53.2 $ 2,355 $ 125,500 4a - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT - paved 26.6 $ 9,078 $ 241,000 4b - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT - unpaved 5.5 $ 3,877 $ 21,500 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT - PAVED 27.2 $ 9,078$ 247,000 Grand Total1,564 $ 802,500 Estimated Annual Funds Available for Maintenance $ 512,250 Estimated Additional Funds Needed $ (290,250) % of annual maintenance needs funded 64%

25. Realities  The Inyo National Forest receives about 58% of the funding necessary to maintain its current road system.  Road conditions will likely continue to deteriorate over time, with reduced funding levels.  Closure of maintenance level 2 roads would have relatively little effect on the economic sustainability of the road system.  Using partnerships, closure, or reducing maintenance levels for more highly developed roads (ML 3, 4 and 5) would allow greatest reduction in road system costs.  Would reduce access by many vehicle types to popular recreation sites, such as campgrounds.  Transferring costs to other entity likely not possible in many cases

26. Public input on TAP requested  Most useful if received by May 18, 2015.  Most useful input:  Pertains to system roads  Site/road specific  Provides information about road benefits For example, if you know of a special use permit along a road that was not captured in the analysis  Provides information about road risks or problems  Suggestions for issues to analyze, or categories for road risks or benefits that we did not consider.  Suggestions for improving our analysis process.  Other suggests that can influence the process  Send to Supervisor’s Office (hard copy) or comments-pacificsouthwest-inyo@fs.fed.us

27. Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprd3834316 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/inyo/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprd3834316

28. Maps available for viewing