Forest Service Issues Long Awaited Travel Management Directives
Just as this, the final year of the four-year travel planning initiative began, the Forest Service issued a series of guidance documents — known as ‘directives’ — providing detailed instructions to Forest Supervisors on how to go about travel planning. Unfortunately, portions of these directives run contrary to regulatory requirements as they relate to road and trail management, as well as the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Common sense would dictate that forest managers should first identify the needed and unneeded roads, and second designate which of the needed roads are open to motorized public use. But after taking a closer look at the loopholes the Forest Service wrote into these directives, it seems that political desires, rather than common sense, played the leading role in their creation.
The very real on the ground effect of this seemingly innocent exemption is staggering. Almost 57 percent, or 214,000 miles, of the nearly 375,000 miles of system roads are designated to be maintained for high clearance vehicle use, while another 25 percent, or 93,000 miles, are managed as closed to all vehicular traffic. Furthermore, these roads are the most likely to fail, the least likely to be maintained to appropriate standards, and as a result, the most environmentally harmful.
The directives re-state the ambiguous definition of a trail that is contained within 36 CFR 212.1 (“A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail.” FSM 2353.05) rather than taking the opportunity to clarify the physical differences between a road and a trail on the ground. Instead, they add an additional category of trail, those open to “all motor vehicles, including both highway-legal and non highway-legal vehicles.” FSM 7711.3(5)(c).
If a route can accommodate a full-sized vehicle the size of a hummer (or as small as a passenger car), which, as we all know, is a highway-legal vehicle, it is a road as far as environmental effects are concerned whether it is called a road or not. As such, the allowance to construct these motorized “trails” in roadless areas undermines the fundamental function of the Roadless Rule, which is to disallow the construction of roads in roadless areas.
“The Committees on Appropriations expect that each individual National Forest or Grassland will comply fully with all travel management regulatory requirements, particularly the science-based analysis in 36 CFR 212.5 (b)(1), the identification of unneeded roads in 36 CFR 212.5(b)(2), and the criteria for designation in 36 CFR 212.55(a) and (b). The Committees expect the Forest Service to identify priorities, and associated resource requirements, to fully comply with the regulatory requirements of 36 CFR 212.5(b) (1) and (2).” 155 Cong. Rec. H2089-01 at H2110. (Feb. 23, 2009).
This language directs the agency to comply with all travel management regulations as it spends money on recreation management. The language provides activists with an opportunity to re-engage the Forest Service to ensure they identify their minimum road system as part of travel planning, and that’s just what we’re doing now.
A Maze of Loopholes
The directives generally offer a logical process for planning a motorized transportation system, but, frustratingly, also provide a series of loopholes, that when applied in concert, allow forests to dodge the most basic of planning responsibilities. The basic process outlined in the directives includes a detailed, science-based analysis of all motorized roads and trails on the forest, and might (we’ll talk about this more in Loophole 3) result in a final product that identifies a minimum system of routes necessary for the “administration, utilization, and protection” of the forest. (“Use travel analysis (FSM 7712; FSH 7709.55, ch. 20) to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1).” (7703.12 (1)))Common sense would dictate that forest managers should first identify the needed and unneeded roads, and second designate which of the needed roads are open to motorized public use. But after taking a closer look at the loopholes the Forest Service wrote into these directives, it seems that political desires, rather than common sense, played the leading role in their creation.
Loophole 1
The directives say that forests need to conduct a scientific and fiscal analysis to guide travel planning, but then exempt any forest that has already begun the planning process from having to do so. (FSM 7712(1)) At the time the directives went into effect in January, 113 of 155 forests had at a minimum issued notices to solicit public input on a proposed action or had compled travel planning by issuing an MVUM, effectively exempting themselves from the requirement to comprehensively review each motorized system route before proposing it for inclusion on a final map.Loophole 2
The directives say that any forest that has finished its motorized route designations can make subsequent designation decisions without ever having to conduct a broad-scale analysis of the motorized transportation system. (FSM 7712(4)) So, once exempt, always exempt.Loophole 3
The directives say that forests do not have to identify the minimum necessary road system as part of the exercise of deciding where motorized vehicles can drive (see, for example, FSM 7712(2) separating travel analysis to identify a minimum system from travel analysis to identify roads and trails appropriate for motorized use). In other words, it would be acceptable to designate every road for motorized travel without first — or, in some cases, ever — deciding which subset of roads are necessary and which are not. This is analogous to making a meal without knowing how many people you will be feeding, what time they want to eat, or what dietary restrictions they may have.Loophole 4
The directives say that forests do not actually have to take a comprehensive look at all of their roads when identifying the minimum necessary road system. Instead, the directives provide an exemption for forests that completed this examination for their Maintenance Level (ML) 3-5 roads (passenger vehicle roads) in response to the first regulation, issued in 2001, requiring determination of the minimum road system. (FSM 7712(7)) However, approximately 82% of national forest roads are ML 1 (closed roads, not suitable for passenger vehicle use) or ML 2 (high-clearance vehicle roads). Only a handful of forests completed an analysis of all ML 1-5 roads, with most forests focusing primarily on ML 3-5 roads. And, not surprisingly, they decided that they needed to keep most of the roads they analyzed. Those forests that did assess their lower-volume roads tended to find many roads that were causing significant environmental impacts and were no longer needed. It’s these roads that should be decommissioned in order for the Forest Service to implement a “minimum road system.” But, as a result of these directives and the manner in which most forests are implementing the 2005 travel management rule, whether or not these roads should remain in the system likely will never be analyzed.The very real on the ground effect of this seemingly innocent exemption is staggering. Almost 57 percent, or 214,000 miles, of the nearly 375,000 miles of system roads are designated to be maintained for high clearance vehicle use, while another 25 percent, or 93,000 miles, are managed as closed to all vehicular traffic. Furthermore, these roads are the most likely to fail, the least likely to be maintained to appropriate standards, and as a result, the most environmentally harmful.
Another Blow to Inventoried Roadless Areas
The directives make it clear that the Forest Service believes they can legally designate — and potentially construct — “trails” in roadless areas that can accommodate full-sized vehicles such as hummers, jeeps, and SUVs. While the 2001 Roadless Rule itself allows motorized use in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and provides for the construction of new trails as long as motorized use does not conflict with the IRA characteristics, it specifically prohibits construction or designation of new roads in these special areas.The directives re-state the ambiguous definition of a trail that is contained within 36 CFR 212.1 (“A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail.” FSM 2353.05) rather than taking the opportunity to clarify the physical differences between a road and a trail on the ground. Instead, they add an additional category of trail, those open to “all motor vehicles, including both highway-legal and non highway-legal vehicles.” FSM 7711.3(5)(c).
If a route can accommodate a full-sized vehicle the size of a hummer (or as small as a passenger car), which, as we all know, is a highway-legal vehicle, it is a road as far as environmental effects are concerned whether it is called a road or not. As such, the allowance to construct these motorized “trails” in roadless areas undermines the fundamental function of the Roadless Rule, which is to disallow the construction of roads in roadless areas.
Conclusion
Recognizing the importance of travel planning, Congress included specific report language in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 directing the Forest Service to conduct a scientific-based roads analysis for all maintenance level roads, and to identify roads for decommissioning in order to achieve the minimum road system:“The Committees on Appropriations expect that each individual National Forest or Grassland will comply fully with all travel management regulatory requirements, particularly the science-based analysis in 36 CFR 212.5 (b)(1), the identification of unneeded roads in 36 CFR 212.5(b)(2), and the criteria for designation in 36 CFR 212.55(a) and (b). The Committees expect the Forest Service to identify priorities, and associated resource requirements, to fully comply with the regulatory requirements of 36 CFR 212.5(b) (1) and (2).” 155 Cong. Rec. H2089-01 at H2110. (Feb. 23, 2009).
This language directs the agency to comply with all travel management regulations as it spends money on recreation management. The language provides activists with an opportunity to re-engage the Forest Service to ensure they identify their minimum road system as part of travel planning, and that’s just what we’re doing now.