Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement...

United States Department of Agriculture

Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project Draft Decision Notice

Forest Service Plumas National Forest

Mt. Hough Ranger District June 2016

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. 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 http://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, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

Where is this project in the NEPA process? NEPA (short for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) guides the Forest Service decision-making process and provides opportunities for interested parties to give their ideas about resource management. Input during the scoping period (step 3 in the checklist below) is important in helping the Forest Service identify resource needs which will shape the alternatives that are evaluated and lead to the formation of a decision.

The Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project falls under the provisions of the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2004a, 2004b). Public notice, comment, and administrative review for this project are governed by 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B regulations that provide for a pre-decisional objection process for projects documented in a Record of Decision or Decision Notice. The checklist below shows the steps of the NEPA process for this proposed project. The checked line indicates where the attached proposed action is in that process. Checklist items with bold outline are public involvement opportunities offered during the planning process.

____ Step One - Need for a Project

____ Step Two - Develop Project Proposal

____ Step Three - Scoping (Public Input)

____ Step Four - Develop Issues and Alternatives

____ Step Five – Environmental Effects Analysis

____Step Six –Environmental Assessment for Comment (public input, 30 days)

____ Step Seven – Response to Comments

Step Eight - Draft Decision Notice (objection filing period, 45 days)

____ Step Nine - Objection Resolution (45 days)

____ Step Ten – Decision Notice

Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project

Mount Hough Ranger District – 1 – Plumas National Forest

Introduction We, the USDA Forest Service, are proposing to replace the Jackass Creek Bridge located on a route designated as both National Forest System Route 6M40 and National Forest System Road 24N82X within the Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas County, California. The current bridge does not meet Forest Service engineering standards for public use and is causing erosion problems in the stream bank. Therefore, we are proposing to replace it with a 70 to 90 foot-long steel or concrete structure with concrete abutments. The environmental assessment documents the analysis of the proposed action to replace the bridge, and the no action alternative.

Decision I have read the Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project Environmental Assessment, reviewed the analysis in the project record including documents incorporated by reference, and fully understand the environmental effects disclosed therein. Based upon my review of all the alternatives and the comments received from the public for this project, I have decided to implement alternative 2, the proposed action.

The selected alternative would replace the Jackass Creek Bridge in a location within fifty feet downstream of the current location. The new bridge would be an approximately 60-foot long concrete structure with concrete abutments. The bridge rail system would be composed of galvanized tube steel rails, supported by steel posts. The approach rail has preservative treated timber posts with galvanized steel flex beam guardrail. The bridge would be designed to pass the 100-year flood level with several feet of clearance. National Forest System Route 6M40, also known as National Forest System Road 24N82X, would be rerouted slightly to the new bridge location. Construction is anticipated to take place during the 2016 or 2017 construction season.

No vehicles or equipment would enter the stream during construction. It is expected that the existing bridge would be used to transport construction equipment to both sides of Jackass Creek during construction of the new bridge. The bridge stringers and decking would be brought on site via truck and set in place with a crane located on the stream bank. The construction and demolition footprints would be limited to the area surrounding the bridge locations.

When the new bridge is complete, the existing bridge would be demolished and removed from National Forest System Land. Any areas of disturbed streambed would be revegetated using native plants, such as willow, to restore the stream bank, prevent erosion, and deter illegal off-road motorized traffic. The existing bridge and National Forest System Route 6M40 would remain closed to public use until the new bridge is complete. Once the new bridge is in place, the bridge would be opened to public motorized use.

The selected alternative includes design features intended to limit the environmental effects to project area resources, including:

• Visual quality: Revegetate the bridge site by planting trees and other larger plants on the north side of National Forest System Route 6M40, to meet the Forest Plan guideline, “When future resource use activity or wildfire degrades visual quality below the adopted visual quality objectives, restore visual quality by planting trees and/or other vegetation where regeneration is feasible.”

• Wildlife: Survey the bridge structure for special status bat species prior to removing the bridge.

Draft Decision Notice


• Non-native invasive species: Prevent new infestations and/or spreading existing infestations by:

o Using agreement clauses to require contractors to meet Forest Service-approved vehicle and equipment cleaning requirements/standards prior to using the vehicle or equipment in the National Forest System to prevent and control the introduction, establishment, and spread of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. This includes requiring all off-road equipment and vehicles (Forest Service and contracted) used for project implementation to be free of weeds. Clean all equipment and vehicles of all mud, dirt, and plant parts. This will be done at a vehicle washing station or steam-cleaning facility before the equipment and vehicles enter the project area. Cleaning is not required for vehicles that will stay on the roadway. Also, all off-road equipment must be cleaned prior to leaving areas infested with noxious weeds. All off-road equipment must be cleaned prior to leaving designated weed units if weeds are present at the time of implementation and are unable to be avoided.

o Using weed-free equipment, materials, mulches, and seed sources. Avoid seeding in areas where revegetation will occur naturally, unless noxious weeds are a concern. Save topsoil from disturbance and put it back to use in onsite revegetation, unless contaminated with noxious weeds. All activities that require seeding or planting will need to use only locally collected native seed sources. Use seed zones for grasses when possible otherwise plant and seed material should be collected from as close to the project area as possible, from within the same watershed and at a similar elevation whenever possible. As necessary, Plumas National Forest botanists will develop project and site-specific revegetation and seeding guidelines that will be customized from existing general guidelines.

o Monitoring during and after project implementation to assess the effectiveness of the control measures at preventing the introduction and spread of noxious weed species within the project area. Conduct post-treatment monitoring to identify the need for follow-up treatment, assess the effectiveness of the different treatment methods, and/or identify the need for alternative methods of control. Monitoring conducted by district personnel both during and following project implementation is expected to greatly reduce the likelihood of uncontrollable spread of invasive plant species in the project area.

o If possible, avoiding staging equipment, materials, or crews in noxious weed infested areas.

o As practical to do so, flagging and avoiding known weed sites in and near proposed activity areas.

o Flagging and avoiding, or treating and monitoring noxious weed locations discovered during project implementation.

o Implementing treatment to contain, control, or eradicate infestations consistent with current NEPA decisions. Control treatments will follow best management practices developed for the Storrie and Rich Fire Areas Invasive Plant Treatment Project Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2015). This may include chemical application, manual control methods, and/or a variety of prevention measures that could be developed onsite. Consider the use of barriers (plastic sheeting) or other methods to contain weeds during project implementation.

• Water quality: Forest Service National Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 2012) and Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be incorporated into the proposed action to ensure



compliance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and its Basin Plan. See table 1 below.

Table 1. Jackass Bridge best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality (USDA Forest Service 2012; R5 Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 Chapter 10)

National Core BMP R5 BMP Name, Objective and Direction Application to the Jackass Bridge Project

Road-2 Road location and design: Locate and design roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources

BMP 2.2 General Guidelines for the

Location and Design of Roads: Locate roads to minimize problems and

risks to water, aquatic, and riparian resources.

Incorporate measures that prevent or reduce impacts

through design for construction,

reconstruction, and other route system

improvements.

Implementation considers location, relocation, and design only. Construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and erosion control are covered in other best management practices.

For realignments: Choose a low maintenance design. Properly space cross drains and provide maximum filter distance between outlets and streams.

For reconstructed roads: Incorporate design features to reduce or eliminate identified water quality impacts. Surface stabilization would be considered where grades exceed 12 percent or where the road is in a streamside management zone. Design diversion potential dips where a risk of flow diversion onto the road exists. Consult with hydrologist.

Road-3 Road construction and reconstruction: avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from erosion, sediment, and other pollutant delivery during road construction or reconstruction.

BMP 2.3 Road Construction and

Reconstruction: To minimize erosion and

sediment delivery from roads during road

construction or reconstruction and their

related activities.

For reconstructed roads: No sidecasting in the streamside management zone. Schedule operations when precipitation is less likely and soil moisture is optimal for construction and rutting does not occur.

Road-7 Stream crossings: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when constructing, reconstruction, or maintaining temporary and permanent waterbody crossings.

BMP 2.8 Stream Crossings: To minimize

water, aquatic and riparian resource disturbances and

related sediment production when

constructing, reconstructing, or

maintaining temporary and permanent water

crossings

Coordinate with the hydrologist for construction or reconstruction of any temporary or permanent stream crossing.

Establish and preserve vertical control through the crossing structure.

Place bridge and arch footings below the scour depth for the 100-year flood flow plus the appropriate factor of safety.

Fuel and service equipment according to BMP 2.11.

Keep excavated materials outside of the channel and floodplain. Install erosion control if needed to prevent material from entering these areas.

Construct diversion prevention dips if site has potential for flow diversion onto the road.

Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing: Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from

BMP 2.11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing:

To prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials from discharging into

Project personnel would be aware of the Forest Spill Plan, including who to contact and other steps to take in case of a spill. A spill kit would be kept on-site. All waste oil, containers, and other materials would be



National Core BMP R5 BMP Name, Objective and Direction Application to the Jackass Bridge Project

fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources during equipment refueling and servicing activities.

nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater

resources.

removed from National Forest System lands and properly disposed of.

For heavy equipment: Storage of hazardous materials (including fuels) and servicing and refueling of equipment would be conducted at pre-designated locations outside of riparian conservation areas. If fueling and/or storage of hazardous materials are needed within riparian conservation areas, those sites must be reviewed and approved by the district hydrologist or aquatic biologist. Additional protection measures, such as containment devices, may be necessary.

Reasons for the Decision When compared to the no action alternative this selected alternative will ensure continued public and administrative access. The selected alternative ensures public safety while meeting the Forest Service Manual 7722.03 requirements for a bridge designed and managed for motorized use. In the long term, it will also reduce sedimentation and resulting impacts to water quality and aquatic resources (Environmental Assessment pages 12-14). The selected alternative meets these needs while creating only minor or short term environmental effects to other resources, such as recreation, visuals and non-native invasive species. There would be no effect to wildlife, rare plants, or historic resources.

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered the no action alternative. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need to provide for recreational and administrative access and reduce impacts to the watershed.

Public Involvement and Scoping The public and local tribal government representatives were invited to review and comment on the proposal. On September 23, 2015 a legal notice for a public comment period was published in the Feather River Bulletin. A scoping letter and attachment of additional information was mailed to approximately 25 individuals, 68 industry and governmental organizations, 11 special use permit holders, and local Native American tribes. The project proposal was listed in the Plumas National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions and information was posted to the Plumas National Forest website. The Forest received one comment from Pacific Gas and Electric Company supporting the project and providing load rating requirements for their maintenance vehicles. In addition, we received correspondence from a recreational group supporting continued public use of the road to provide access for recreational opportunities. No issues with the proposed action were identified as a result of public comments and no alternatives were proposed. The complete list of individuals and organizations contacted can be found in the project record.

On April 20, 2016, the Forest Service mailed a letter announcing the availability of the Environmental Assessment and a legal notice was published in the Feather River Bulletin initiating a 30-day public comment period. Three comments were received during the thirty day comment period. For a list of comments on the EA and our responses to the comments, please see Appendix 1 – Response to Public Comments.



A complete list of agencies and people consulted can be found on page 19 of the EA.

Finding of No Significant Impact After considering the environmental effects described in the environmental assessment and specialist reports, and considering the Finding of No Significant Impact on pages 19-23 of the environmental assessment, I have determined that the selected alternative will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations I find that this project is consistent with the standards and guidelines for land management activities described in the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Therefore, this project is consistent with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (EA page 22). In addition, the Project complies with the Endangered Species Act (EA page 15), the Clean Water Act (EA page 22), the National Historic Preservation Act (EA page 18) and other federal, state, and local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (EA page 23).

Administrative Review and Objection Rights This proposed project is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B.

Eligibility to File Objections Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project either during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with § 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated opportunities.

Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual, objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only. If an objection is submitted on behalf of a number of individuals or organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement of having previously submitted comments on the project (§ 218.7). Names and addresses of objectors will become part of the public record.

Contents of an Objection Incorporation of documents by reference in the objection is permitted only as provided for at §218.8(b). Minimum content requirements of an objection are identified in (§ 218.8(d) include:

• Objector’s name, address, and telephone number if available; with signature or other verification of authorship supplied upon request;

• Identification of the lead objector when multiple names are listed, along with verification upon request;

• Name of project, name and title of the responsible official, national forest/ranger district of project;



• Sufficient narrative description of those aspects of the proposed project objected to, specific issues related to the project, how environmental law, regulation, or policy would be violated, and suggested remedies which would resolve the objection; and,

• Statement demonstrating the connection between prior specific written comments on this project and the content of the objection, unless the objection issue arose after the designated opportunity(ies) for comment.

Filing an Objection Written objections, including any attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Reviewing Officer Daniel Lovato, Acting Forest Supervisor, c/o Katherine Carpenter, Objections Coordinator, 159 Lawrence Street, Quincy, CA, 95971, fax 530-283-7746, within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record, The Feather River Bulletin. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an email message, portable document file (.pdf), plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc or .docx) to: [email protected].

Please put Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project in the subject line of the message. It is the responsibility of Objectors to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner (§ 218.9).

The publication date in the Feather River Bulletin, newspaper of record, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection of this project. Those wishing to object to this proposed project should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Implementation If no objections are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, the 5th day following the close of the objection period. When objections are filed, implementation may occur on following the issuance of the Review Officer’s letter and once any instructions are addressed.

Contact For further information concerning the Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project, contact Janine Book at 530-283-7652 or [email protected], during normal business hours.

Approved by:

DRAFT DECISION – NO SIGNATURE JANINE BOOK Date Acting District Ranger Mt. Hough Ranger District Plumas National Forest

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Appendix 1 – Response to Public Comments Introduction The following information displays Forest Service responses to public comments on the Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project Environmental Assessment released in April 2016. This document includes (1) a table listing the name and location of the commenter, and the date of the comment, (2) the comments included in each letter, and (3) a narrative of comment statements and Forest Service responses. The comment statement is taken from the comment letters. A complete copy of each letter received is available in the project record, hereby incorporated by reference.

Summary of Comments Received The Responsible Official received written comments from two individuals and one organization. Table 2 identifies those who commented, and assigns a number to each comment letter. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation 40 CFR 1503.4 states that an agency preparing a final Environmental Assessment shall assess and consider comments both individually and collectively, and shall respond by one or more of the means listed below.

Table 2. Summary of comments received during the 30-day comment period for the Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project

Comment Number Commenter Name Affiliation/Organization Date Comment

Received

1 Dave Kitchen 4/22/2016 2 Mike Rich South Side Keepers 5/5/2016

3 Mike Crump Butte County Federal/State

Land Use Coordinating Committee

5/5/2016

Comments and Responses The comments received and the Forest Service responses are listed below. They are organized by general concern topic.

Recreational Opportunities

Comment: I would like to go on record in favor of building the bridge, I use this trail 10-20 times a year or more it leads to my favorite place to camp. It is the only way to get to the high lakes that has a decent area to park and ride into the high lakes, the area at rock creek is so crowded in the summer I could not leave my vehicle there and feel that it would be safe. this is an excellent use of monies, I know of several people that also love this area and trail please build the bridge! [Comment 1]

Response:

Thank you for your comment.



Comment: The Butte County Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee (The Coordinating Committee) supports the Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement Project. The Project will improve safe access from the Tobin leg of Forest Trail 6M40, thereby enhancing public safety and recreational opportunities. [Comment 3]

Response: Thank you for your comment. The primary purpose of the project is to improve safety and maintain access for both administrative and public use.

Temporary Closure

Comment: I’m in favor of the bridge replacement but do not favor the closing of the bridge. I understand it doesn’t meet there standards anymore but is the bridge a real threat to safety. If it is then it should have been closed immediately. If its just the fs wanting to be up to date then keep it open until they get the new one built. There is no parking for trailers or overnight staging on the rock creek side so bye closing the bridge we will not be able to keep the trail cleared and maintained and wont be able to stay the nigh as we cant leave vehicles at rock creek overnight. Could it be possible to put restrictions on the bridge? weight limit, one vehicle at a time ect? So please don’t close it unless its absolutely a safety reason! [Comment 2]

Response: The existing bridge, consisting of a railroad flatcar decked with timber planks and of unknown age, was not constructed by the Forest Service. A damaged, undersized curb delineates the edge of the deck. There are no bridge or bridge approach railings. The structure is supported by concrete footings that are undermined and not providing uniform support. Federal Law (American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials) and Forest Service policy require bridges to be designed and constructed to provide minimum accepted levels of safety for the user. Used railroad flatcars, sold as surplus at the end of their metal fatigue life, have structural and configuration deficiencies that do not meet this standard. Forest Service policy prohibits the use of railroad flatcar pieces in new bridges and requires the closure and removal of existing bridges that include flat car units (FSM 7722).

The Forest Supervisor put the temporary closure order in place on April 6, 2016. The temporary closure order was issued immediately after the Forest Supervisor was notified by the Regional Engineer that the bridge does not meet Forest Service standards for continued public and administrative use. The forest order was implemented under the authority of the Forest Service travel management regulations (36 CFR 212.52(b)(2)) due to the concerns for public safety. It is not part of the current decision and is considered the ‘existing condition’. However, the closure is temporary and, as described in the Decision above, will lifted after completion of the new bridge (which is anticipated to occur in 2017).

Alternate access, via the Rock Creek leg of the trail (at CA HWY 70 near Rock Creek to trail 6M42 junction) will be available during the closure, following maintenance to clear/grade the trail. Access to the High Lakes area remains available via the Lassen National Forest.



Comment: The current Emergency Closure Order for the existing bridge eliminates public access to the High Lakes area along Forest Trail 6M40 from the Tobin area, an important recreational, emergency, fire suppression and utility access route. The Ranger District has indicated that signage will be placed at the top entrance of this jeep trail; we believe such signage will need to be very prominently positioned to catch users' attention to avoid situations where users do not realize it is closed to through traffic at its intersection with Jackass Creek. Additionally, the signage should include a map showing the Rock Creek alternate route. [Comment 3]

Response: Alternate access, via the Rock Creek leg of the trail (at CA HWY 70 near Rock Creek to trail 6M42 junction) will be available during the closure, following maintenance to clear/grade the trail. Currently, only experienced ATV riders can navigate the Rock Creek leg due to large rocks and deep gullies on the route. Access to the High Lakes area remains available via the Lassen National Forest.

The public was notified of the closure via a news release that was circulated on April 6, 2016. Gates and signs will be installed at the top of the Jackass side of 6M40 at its intersection with 6M42, and there will be signs at the bridge as well notifying the public of the closure and alternate routes. We will also install a sign at the bottom of 6M40 on the Rock Creek side. Signs will be clearly visible to motorized users.

Comment: We understand that the existing railroad flatcar bridge is considered substandard as it does not comply with Forest Service Manual policy, and current engineering and structural standards for road bridges. The Environmental Assessment, however, states that "It is expected that the existing bridge would be used to transport construction equipment to both sides of Jackass Creek during construction of the new bridge". This appears to indicate that the existing bridge is not an immediate safety hazard due to structural concerns. [Comment 3]

Response: The existing bridge, consisting of a railroad flatcar decked with timber planks and of unknown age, was not constructed by the Forest Service. Flatcar bridges cannot typically be load rated because there is no data available that documents the load cycle history of the flatcar. A damaged, undersized curb delineates the edge of the deck. There are no bridge or bridge approach railings. The structure is supported by concrete footings that are undermined and not providing uniform support.

Federal Law (American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials) and Forest Service policy require bridges to be designed and constructed to provide minimum accepted levels of safety for the user. Used railroad flatcars, sold as surplus at the end of their metal fatigue life, have structural and configuration deficiencies that do not meet this standard.

Forest Service policy prohibits the use of railroad flatcar pieces in new bridges and requires the closure and removal of existing bridges that include flat car units (FSM 7722). Use of the bridge by contractors during construction activities would be done to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. It would be on a limited basis and under controlled situations where additional safety measures, such as structural supports, can be temporarily put in place.



Comment: The Emergency Closure Order creates a significant negative impact to the public, by blocking recreational as well as search and rescue access to the Tobin leg of Forest Trail 6M40 until project completion, currently projected for sometime in 2017. [Comment 3]

Response: The Environmental Assessment acknowledges that the temporary closure order and construction would result in a temporary impact on recreational access. However, under the no action alternative the closure order would be in place indefinitely until the bridge is replaced in the future or an alternative access is available. While we acknowledge that there are effects to recreationists in the short term, the project would have long term benefits. In addition, as described above, alternative access is available.

Additionally, any Federal, State, or local officer or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force in the performance of official duty is exempted from the closure order. Emergency access during the closure would be similar to any other closure on the Forest. The Plumas County Sheriff’s Office and Calfire have keys and will be able to access the road in case of an emergency. However, it should be noted that due to the existing condition of the bridge Plumas National Forest wildland fire suppression engines do not and would not cross this bridge due to safety concerns. Therefore, it is likely that emergency services would use a different access route, if at all possible. Replacement of the bridge would allow this route to be used safety for emergency access in the future.

Comment: In light of this consideration, and the apparent lack of any immediate safety hazard, the Coordinating Committee requests that the Forest Service consider allowing public access "crossing at their own risk" across the existing bridge until project initiation, with appropriate safety information/disclaimers on signage at the bridge. lf this is not possible, we ask that Search and Rescue, Cal Fire and the Plumas County SherifFs Office have keys/combos to the PG&E gates that are going to be installed at the bridge during closure [Comment 3]

Response: For the reasons described in the environmental assessment and stated in the previous responses, Forest Service policy does not allow public or administrative access across the current bridge. Additionally, any Federal, State, or local officer or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force in the performance of official duty is exempted from the closure order.

Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement...

Documents

Transcript of Jackass Creek Bridge Replacement...