Transportation Management Rule; Schedule for Implementation and Clarifying Direction

On June 8, 2006, several months after releasing their new rule, “Trav­el Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use,” the Forest Service published a schedule for its implementa­tion by 2010. And while changes to the Forest Service Manual and Hand­book (necessary for implementing the rule) have still not been released for comment, Chief Dale Bosworth included guidance to help national forests begin the process.

Additionally, Washington staff hosted trainings this spring for Forest Service employees clarifying how individual ranger districts should imple­ment the rule. The chief’s interim direction contains some hopeful points, addressing some major concerns Wildlands CPR has with the Travel Management Rule. The schedule and clarifying direction can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/.

Interim Direction

The chief issued two key interim directives that strengthen the rule, related to game retrieval, dispersed camping, and cross-country travel.

Dispersed camping and game retrieval
“The responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or big game retrieval. Such designations represent site-specific decisions associated with spe­cific roads and trails or road or trail segments, rather than a blanket excep­tion to the rule. Designations under 36 CFR 212.51(b) will be applied spar­ingly to avoid undermining the purposes of the rule…” (emphasis added).

This is a positive clarification, and could preclude district or forest-wide exemptions to the cross-country travel prohibition for game retrieval. It could also preclude the exemption of massive 600-foot wide corridors along designated routes for dispersed camping (a huge source of resource damage). The forests should apply these exemptions with great care, and rather than endorsing off-route travel for dispersed camping, the agency should deter­mine which dispersed campsites are appropri­ate, and then designate the spurs to those sites as a part of travel management planning. Ex­emptions for game retrieval should be avoided wherever possible, as cross-country motorized use degrades habitat and wildlife security. Many forests have already banned game retrieval via cross-country motorized travel, and most hunt­ers have been pleased at the improved hunting prospects. Simply stated, fewer motors equal better hunting opportunities.

Cross-country travel
Clarifying direction on designating “open areas” is also positive, stating that: “Designated areas should have natural resource character­istics that are suitable for cross-country motor vehicle use or should be so significantly altered by past actions that motor vehicle use might be appropriate. While there is no specific acreage limitation, areas should not be large or numer­ous. They are intended as specific designations covering small places with clear geographic boundaries, rather than entire landscapes” (em­phasis added). While we would argue that areas that have been “significantly altered by past ac­tions” should be allowed to rest and regenerate, this is also a positive clarification.

Staff Trainings

Trainings for agency staff also clarified the new rule’s implementation, covering topics from process overview and NEPA compliance to law enforcement, signing and funding. The Forest Service noted that the trainings, based on the as-yet unre­leased Forest Service Manual and Hand­book revisions, represented a “smorgas­bord of choices — not formal direction.”

Travel Analysis
Guidance includes a new process called Travel Analysis, which would broaden the exist­ing Roads Analysis process (where the trans­portation system is analyzed to determine the minimum acceptable road network) to include motor vehicle use on routes and in areas. The unreleased directives will also streamline the current Roads Analysis process. The trainings stress that a full inventory of all unauthorized user-created routes is not required, recogniz­ing that full route inventories are costly and time-consuming and they “imply legitimacy of user-created routes.”

The training courses affirm that the Chief expects planners to “engage in an open, col­laborative process for travel planning and route designation.” The materials further clarify: “we want public involvement at each step of the process, not cursory involvement at one or two discrete places” (emphasis added). They suggest that the planning unit “contact user groups, environmental groups, and motorized and non-motorized recreation groups, including those outside the local area” (emphasis added). This is a key point, as many travel planning processes rely too heavily on the input of local motorized recreationists at the expense of other visitors. National forest lands are owned by all Americans, and we urge the agency to consider the input of local, regional and national conser­vation and quiet use organizations.

National Environmental Policy Act
In regard to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, the training materials state that: “adding a user created route to the forest transportation system is a site-specific travel management decision that must be fully evaluated in the associated NEPA document… A proposal that may have a significant impact requires an EIS… Proposals that would “substan­tially alter the character of an Inventoried Road­less Area of 5,000 acres or more” normally require an EIS. (FSH 1909.15, Sec. 20-6)… Analysis must consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including actions taken on non-NFS lands and routes that are not under Forest Service juris­diction, e.g. county roads.” The trainings also direct that the Forest Service “must consider cumulative effects, regardless of the packaging and scope of the proposed action…Cumulative effects analysis cannot be avoided by segmenting a single proposal into small packages” (emphasis added).

In terms of scope and scale, “the focus should be on what we need, not everything that’s ever been attempted…” “All too often, unmanaged user-created routes have been given undue legitimacy as travel plan revision begins. If the route was not constructed for a distinct purpose in compliance with NEPA, it should not be considered part of the ‘existing managed system.’” Planners are also urged to “develop proposed changes to the transportation system that enjoy broad support and avoid serious environmental issues” (emphasis added). We applaud this statement, and look forward to its faithful execution on the ground.

Monitoring
The trainings also clarified some troubling language found in the rule related to monitoring. The Forest Service must monitor for “compli­ance, mixed use [such as full-size vehicles and ATVs on the same route], resource impacts, new unauthorized routes, condition surveys for roads, trails and areas, [and for] concentrated use” (emphasis added). The text of the rule gave the impression that only designated routes and areas needed monitoring, and the inclusion of the requirement to monitor for new unau­thorized routes is welcome.

Emergency Closures
Finally, the trainings correctly note that area closures related to “considerable adverse effects and temporary emergency closures do not require public involvement and overrides designation for the short term.” Such closures are accomplished by the line officer with a special order.

Conclusion

Wildlands CPR is dedicated to assisting conservationists with travel planning on national forests over the next four years. This will be a busy time, and we encourage folks to get involved early and often. So far, representation from non-motorized recreationists in travel management planning has been low, and more of us urgently need to become in­volved. Remember, designating routes for off-road vehicles doesn’t just affect motorized users; it effects quiet users as well. Please visit www.wildlandscpr.org or contact tim@wildlandscpr.org for more information on off-road vehicle monitoring, assembling a citizen’s alternative, or get­ting involved in your local travel planning process.

—Tim Peterson is Wildlands CPR’s Transportation Policy Coordinator.

Existing Forest Service Management Status as of January 2006
105 million acres on national forests generally open
46 million acres on national forests with motor vehicles restricted to existing routes
44 million acres on national forests with motor vehicles restricted to system routes
66 million acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use (on open) forests
386 thousand miles NFS road (287 thousand miles open to motor vehicles)
125 thousand miles NFS trail (32 thousand miles open to motor vehicles)

The six steps of travel management planning
1. Compile existing travel management direction.
2. Assemble resource and social data.
3. Use travel analysis to identify proposals for change.
4. Environmental analysis and decision-making.
5. Publish motor vehicle use map.
6. Implement, monitor and revise.