File Code: 1570 (215) Datea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Subject: 1570...

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Region One

Northern Region

200 East Broadway

Missoula, MT 59802

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 (215)

#11-01-00-0018

Date: May 31, 2011

Ken Salo

Action Committee

Capital Trail Vehicle Association

P.O. Box 5205

Helena, MT 59604

Dear Mr. Salo:

This is my decision on the disposition of the appeal you filed, on behalf of the Capital Trail Vehicle

Association regarding the Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the Madison Ranger District

Decision Notice (DN) on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.

My review of your appeal was conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, 36 CFR 215.18 to ensure

the analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. I have

reviewed the appeal record, including your arguments, the information referenced in the Forest

Supervisor’s May 3, 2011, transmittal letter, and the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis and

recommendation (copy enclosed). The transmittal letter provides the specific page references to

discussions in the Environmental Assessment, DN, and project file, which bear upon your objections. I

specifically incorporate into this decision the appeal record, references, and citations contained in the

transmittal letter, and the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis and recommendation.

The Appeal Reviewing Officer has considered your arguments, the appeal record, and the transmittal

letter. He recommends the Forest Supervisor’s decision be affirmed and your requested relief be denied.

Based upon a review of the references and citations provided by the Forest Supervisor, I find the

objections were adequately considered in the DN. I agree with the Appeal Reviewing Officer’s analysis

and conclusions in regard to your appeal objections. I find the Forest Supervisor has made a reasoned

decision and has complied with all laws, regulations, and policy.

After careful consideration of the above factors, I affirm the Forest Supervisor’s decision to implement

the Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the Madison Ranger District. Your requested relief is

denied.

My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR

215.18(c)].

Sincerely,

/s/ Jane L. Cottrell

JANE L. COTTRELL

Deputy Regional Forester

cc: Dave Myers

Tim Bond

Peri R Suenram

Jan M Bowey

Ray G Smith

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Region One 200 East Broadway

P.O. Box 7669

Missoula, MT 59807

America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 Date: May 23, 2011 Route To:

Subject: 1570 (215) A&L - ARO Letter - Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the

Madison Ranger District - Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF - Capital Trail Vehicle

Association - #11-01-00-0018

To: Appeal Deciding Officer

This is my recommendation on the disposition of the appeal filed by Ken Salo, on behalf of the

Capital Trail Vehicle Association, concerning the Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on

the Madison Ranger District Decision Notice, signed by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National

Forest Supervisor.

The Forest Supervisor‘s decision adopts Alternative B-modified. The decision:

Designates 1.9 miles of unauthorized roads as system motorized roads.

Designates 3.6 miles of unauthorized trails as system motorized trails.

Designates 6.6 miles of unauthorized roads for access to dispersed camp sites as system

motorized trails.

Closes 3.4 miles of unauthorized roads to motorized use.

Closes 15.6 miles of existing system roads to motorized use.

Closes 9.9 miles of existing system trail to motorized use.

Decommissions 4.2 miles of existing system roads.

Converts 77.8 miles of existing system motorized roads to system motorized trails.

Converts 21.9 miles of existing system roads with maintenance levels 2 and 3, to

maintenance level 1.

Changes Vehicle Type/Season of Use on 116.8 miles of existing system motorized

routes.

Replaces all area delineations and the route and area restrictions identified on the 2008

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Travel Plan Map (2008 BDTPM) and September 2009 Errata with

route specific designations, as displayed in the Vehicle Type/Season of Use Map Code

Key in Appendix D of the Updated EA. This applies to the Madison Ranger District only.

In the Gravelly Landscape, designates routes that provide access to identified dispersed

campsites as system motorized trails. These trails are open to all types of vehicles.

In the Tobacco Root Landscape, allows motorized wheeled travel on existing routes

leading to identified dispersed campsites for the purpose of dispersed camping within 300

feet of designated routes open to motorized use.

Posts heritage resource protection signs at sites shown to have problems with vandalism.

Maintains a Forest Service field presence for enforcement and education.

Madison Travel MVUM, CTVA appeal #11-01-00-0018 2

If monitoring determines that trumpeter swans have returned to nesting territories on Elk

Lake, implements an area closure to boating and fishing on the north end of Elk Lake

within 1500 feet of the nest site between April 1 and July 15.

My review of the appeal was conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, 36 CFR 215.19 to

ensure the analysis and the decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy,

and orders. The appeal record, including the appellant‘s issues and recommended changes, has

been thoroughly reviewed. Although I may not have listed each specific issue, I have considered

all the issues raised in the appeal and believe they are adequately addressed below.

The appellant alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Multiple

Use-Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, the Forest Service Handbook, and the USDA Statement of Non-discrimination

(found on the inside cover of the EA). The appellant requests the decision be remanded back to

the Forest so the Forest Supervisor can change his Decision that designated existing motorized

trails for only non-motorized use—the appellant wishes the existing motorized trails to remain

motorized. The appellant also asks the Forest to consider whether the decision results in ―equal

program delivery.‖ An informal meeting was offered, but the appellant declined the offer. No

appeal points were resolved.

ISSUE REVIEW

Issue 1. The appellant alleges the comments, issues, and needs submitted by motorized

recreationists were not given a hard look, and the analysis is not in compliance with NEPA.

Response: The Forest developed a list of issues (Project File (PF), Doc. E9) based on responses

to scoping letters they received from the public. This included two letters from the appellant.

The ID team identified issues based on those scoping letters in the Updated EA (p. 6). The

appellant provided route-by-route comments during the scoping period (PF, Doc. B31). In

response to those scoping comments, the Forest provided a route-by-route rationale for changes

in access management in the Updated EA (Appendix C).

In response to comments on the EA, the Forest developed and analyzed Alternative B Modified

and published it in an Updated EA. The Forest also responded to all public comments, including

those of the appellant, on the EA (Updated EA, Appendix G). In response to public comments, the

Deciding Officer closed groomed snowmobile routes accessed by wheeled vehicles in order to

avoid damage to the groomed track. He opened the Mud Lake Trail (1.5 miles) to use by ATVs

(DN, p. 4). Also, in response to public comments, he restricted the use of full-sized vehicles on

Table Mountain Ridge Road in order to allow additional recreational opportunities to ATVs and

motorcycles (DN, p. 4).

While not identified as a key issue, the Deciding Officer recognized the desire by some members

of the public to have increased opportunities for the public who own vehicles that are not street

legal. The Deciding Officer decided to convert some roads to trails in order to meet the public‘s

expressed desire to have increased opportunities for non-street legal vehicles (DN, p. 3).

Alternative B Modified adds 12.1 miles of unauthorized roads to the authorized transportation

system (DN, p. 5). The majority of these routes (6.6 miles) were added to maintain motorized


access to dispersed camping sites to the Gravelly Landscape. The remaining roads (5.5 miles)

were added to provide motorized loop opportunities or access recreation destinations.

Alternative B Modified converts 77.8 miles of road to trail, which increases motorized

opportunities for those who own non-street legal ATVs (DN, p. 8). Overall, Alternative B

Modified allows the public motorized recreational use of 45 percent of the roads and trails on the

District (DN, p. 5).

It is clear to me the Responsible Official considered the comments, issues, and needs of the

motorized users. The comments, issues, and needs submitted by motorized recreationists were

given a hard look in compliance with NEPA.

Issue 2. The appellant alleges there is an imbalance between motorized and non-motorized

opportunities on the Forest, and that the Madison Travel Decision increases this imbalance

and segregates the motorized and non-motorized users, in violation of MUSYA and the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Response: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 declares the United States will not discriminate on the

grounds of race, color, or national origin. The law has nothing to do with supplying separate

recreational opportunities to the public based on their choice of recreational pursuit (i.e.

motorized vs. non-motorized activities).

MUSYA authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the

renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation, and wildlife on the National Forests for

multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services. MUSYA defines the terms

multiple use and sustained yield. Mulitiple Use is the "management of all the various renewable

surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best

meet the needs of the American people. Sustained Yield is "the achievement and maintenance in

perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of

the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land." Nowhere in the law is a

requirement to equally divide a Forest between two different recreational uses as the appellant

suggests.

According to the Forest Plan (ROD 2, p. 12), approximately 45 percent of the Forest falls under

non-motorized allocations in the summer and 40 percent of the Forest is non-motorized in the

winter. Using percentage of the Forest acres as the measure, more than half of the Beaverhead-

Deerlodge National Forest caters to motorized recreation.

The Updated EA (p. 6) indentified four issues, one of which is ―providing a wider variety of

motorized recreational opportunities‖. The decision to choose Alternative B Modified designates

12.1 miles of unauthorized routes to the authorized motorized system. These were added to

either provide loop opportunities or provide access to recreational destinations. These additional

authorized motorized roads and trails are changes from the original proposed action, in

preference of increased motorized routes. Additionally, two roads were changed in Alternative

B Modified to motorized trails to increase opportunities for motorized users of vehicles that do


not meet street legal requirements. Clearly the Deciding Officer was providing a wider variety

of motorized recreational opportunities with the decision.

There is no requirement to provide equal (e.g. 50/50) amounts of quality and quantity, but, in

compliance with the Forest Plan, the Forest is to offer a ―wide variety of opportunities‖. The

Forest Plan states, ―Roads: Close and stabilize or obliterate and stabilize roads not needed for

future activities‖ (Plan, p. 17). “Summer Roaded Allocation: Provide roaded natural and rural

recreation settings, and offer a wide variety of opportunities for dispersed and developed

recreational activities‖ (Plan, p. 29). ―Resources are protected and user conflicts are minimized

by allowing motorized wheeled travel only on designated routes and areas. Established routes to

dispersed campsites are recognized as part of the Forest transportation system. A system of trails

designated for non-motorized uses are also identified and available for public use‖ (Plan, p. 31).

It is clear from the discussion in the Decision Notice that the Forest Supervisor was balancing his

decision and complying with the Forest Plan. He was not balancing non-motorized with

motorized forms of recreation, but rather balancing the effects on wildlife with the effects on

motorized users (DN, p. 3). The Forest Supervisor was following the letter and intent of the

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. The decision is in compliance with MUSYA and the Forest

Plan. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has no bearing on the decision.

Issue 3. The appellant alleges the mental and physical health benefits of OHV recreation

were not given a hard look, and the decision creates a significant impact on the human

environment, in violation of NEPA.

Response: According to NEPA‘s implementing regulations, effects to be analyzed in

environmental documents include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and

health (40 CFR 1508.8). The human environment is the natural and physical environment and the

relationship of people with that environment (40 CFR 1508.14).

The Decision Notice includes a Finding of No Significant Impact, and directly addresses effects

to recreation, the social and economic situation, and public health and safety. The Decision (p.

8) discloses a two percent reduction in routes open to motorized use, which is found not to be a

significant impact on the health and safety of motorized users. The Responsible Official

recognizes the designation of routes and their appropriate use ―on National Forest System lands

is largely a recreation decision‖ (DN, p. 3). The DN (p. 5) and the EA (p. 16) display that 765

miles of motorized routes are available on the Madison Ranger District at varying times of the

year under the chosen alternative. Rationale for every closure or change in use from road to

OHV trail is given in the EA (Appendix C). The EA (Table 3, p. 11) discloses that 31.9 miles of

existing road or trail are to be changed to non-motorized use, while 5.5 miles of unauthorized

road or trail will be added to the authorized motorized system of roads and trails.

The interdisciplinary team recognized there are a variety of recreational uses available and

enjoyed on the district (EA, pp. 18, 21, 26 to 41, 48, 49, 55, and 56) and there would be effects

on those uses from the various alternatives. Determining the mental and physical benefits of

every recreational activity undertaken by the public is not required for an adequate analysis of


impacts. People are free to participate in any legal activity on National Forest Lands they find

helpful to their mental and physical well-being, and it is a highly personal choice. OHV

recreation has been available and will continue to be available on the Madison District with this

Decision. The action is not likely to result in people riding OHVs any less; it only affects where

they may ride.

The EA (pp. 39 to 40) discussed the minor displacement to other motorized routes. The needs

and desires of the OHV users were recognized and responded to with the conversion of nearly 78

miles of road to motorized trail, including loop opportunities (EA, Appendix G, p. 11, comments

30DC11-55 and -56). Mental and physical health as they relate to obesity, videophilia, and

suicide were not raised by CTVA during the 30-day EA comment period or in the scoping

comments from CTVA. The Responsible Official was not put on notice that obesity,

videophilia, and suicide were of concern to the appellant. Therefore, he is not required to

address those issues in the analysis.

I find the Responsible Official adequately considered the impact on the human environment,

including OHV users, and a reasoned balance was struck with the purpose and need to protect

natural resources, improve recreation management related to motor vehicle use, and to comply

with management area direction in the 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan. The analysis is

in compliance with NEPA.

Issue 4. The appellant alleges there was an inaccurate and biased representation of visitor

use to support motorized closures, in violation of NEPA.

Response: The Forest used the report from the National Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE) and more local data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)

for motorized and non-motorized use on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The report

results include the number of party trips and the expenditures for different motorized and non-

motorized groups, as outlined in the EA (pp. 57 to 60). Additional information from the

Montana Department of Justice vehicle registrations was used for motorized trends in the state as

part of the social and economic analysis. References are contained in the EA and project record.

The EA (pp. 64 to 66) provides additional social and economic information, including the

methodology, assumptions, and limitations.

The BDNF appropriately displayed the visitor use monitoring and other information for both

motorized and non-motorized use without bias. The Deciding Officer took a hard look at visitor

use, trends, and economic impacts of Forest travel management. The analysis and use of data is

in compliance with NEPA.

Issue 5. The appellant alleges the Decision erroneously painted user conflict as a significant

issue.

Response: One of the Purposes and Needs of the project is to decrease user conflict (EA, p. 4);

however, user conflict was not identified as a significant issue (EA, p. 6). Minimizing user


conflicts is a stated goal of the Forest Plan (p. 31). The Plan states, ―Resources are protected and

user conflicts are minimized by allowing motorized wheeled travel only on designated routes and

areas. Established routes to dispersed campsites are recognized as part of the Forest

transportation system. A system of trails designated for non-motorized uses are also identified

and available for public use.‖

Regarding ‗user conflict,‘ the publication, Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States

and its Regions and States: February 2008, states: ―One aspect of this conflict is between those

wanting motorized access rights and those more interested in protection of wilderness areas and

other wildlands. Legal precedent, user rights, land impacts and concern for the future are the

bases for positions on both sides of this issue.‖ User conflict may also be thought of as

confrontations between motorized and non-motorized users, or as conflicts between one motor

vehicle class and another. In most cases of the Madison EA, user conflicts are considered

conflicts between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation (see for example EA, Appendix

G, Response to Comments 30DC19-20). Some public comments expressed a desire for more

motorized opportunities while others wanted less motorized opportunities, thus alluding to

potential user conflicts.

In another case, the EA (p. 33) addresses user conflict from wheeled vehicles being driven on

groomed snowmobile trails resulting in costly damage and concerns about public safety. The EA

does not directly define the localized conflict levels or the amount or number of conflicts. The

Decision also addressed consistency with decisions made by Madison County to close several

county roads to wheeled vehicles on certain snowmobile routes. This also decreased user

conflicts.

The Line Officer appropriately considered user conflict an appropriate part of the Purpose and

Need. The Purpose and Need, the four Issue statements, and the analysis are in compliance with

NEPA.

Issue 6. The appellant alleges a reasonable array of alternatives was not considered as

required by NEPA.

Response: The Forest Supervisor considered eight alternatives. Four alternatives were

considered, but dropped from detailed study, including an alternative considering maximum

motorized use and one considering minimum motorized use (EA, p. 7). In addition to those

alternatives, the ID team developed four alternatives that were analyzed in detail (EA, pp. 6 to

12). Alternative B was the original proposed action. Alternative B Modified was developed in

response to public comments. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, responds to requests

from the public for no additional road and trail restrictions (Updated EA, p. 9). Alternative C

would permit motorized use on authorized roads and trails under current travel management

restrictions, but discontinues motorized use on all unauthorized routes (Updated EA, p. 12).

I find the Forest developed and considered a reasonable range of alternatives, in compliance with

NEPA.


Issue 7. The appellant alleges the cumulative effects analysis was not adequate and did not

include a meaningful evaluation of all current and reasonably foreseeable motorized

closures on motorized recreationists, including decisions and proposals on a local, state,

and regional basis, and the proposed Tester Wilderness Bill.

Response: The 2009 Revised Forest Plan EIS considered all cumulative effects of past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable management decisions on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, as a whole.

The 2009 Revised Forest Plan EIS also analyzed cumulative effects related to the recreation

allocations, including travel management (see project file, Forest Plan compact disk).

The Madison Travel Updated EA (Appendix E) contains a list of past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future activities considered for the Madison Travel Decision. The Updated EA (pp.

38 to 40) considered travel management on adjacent Ranger Districts on the BDNF, the adjacent

Gallatin National Forest, the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, lands administered by the Bureau

of Land Management (Dillon and Butte field offices), and roads under Madison County

jurisdiction (Response to Comments, Appendix G, p. 59).

The social and economic analysis considered effects of travel management planning across a five

county area as well as forest visitor use information (EA, pp. 47 to 69). The cumulative effects

to recreation opportunities (motorized/non-motorized status) by alternative are displayed in EA

(p. 39, Table 14). This is a sufficient cumulative effects area to meet the requirements of NEPA.

The implementation of Senator Tester‘s Wilderness Bill for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge is not

considered a reasonably foreseeable action. At this time Senate Bill 268 has been reintroduced,

but still is subject to changes, requires both houses of Congressional to pass the bill, and the

President to sign it.

The Forest looked beyond the project area and considered travel and visitor use. The cumulative

impacts of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable closures, changes in motorized use, and the

areas around the Madison project area were adequately considered. The analysis is in

compliance with NEPA.

Issue 8. The appellant alleges the analysis of impacts is inadequate because an evaluation

of equal motorized opportunities should have been included in the analysis and Decision

Notice, and it was not.

Response: This appeal point is related to Issue 2, Imbalance of motorized and non-motorized

opportunities, which I responded to above.

Executive Order 11644 – Use of off-road vehicles on the public lands (1972) was created ―to

establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on

public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to

promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses

of those lands.‖ There is no requirement to provide the same amount of miles for motorized

recreation as for non-motorized recreation (see also 36 CFR 212 Subpart B, Designation of


Roads, Trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands, especially 36

CFR 212.55, criteria for such designation).

The EA discloses the miles available for motorized use and for non-motorized use. The EA also

disclosed the amount of change from the existing condition for all action alternatives, including

the selected alternative. The ID Team and Responsible Official recognize managed motorized

recreation as a present and legitimate use of the Madison Ranger District (EA, pp. 25 to 26) and

as part of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum considered in the 2009 Forest Plan (EA, pp. 18

to 20). The social and economic analysis in the EA (p. 55) devotes a section to the ―Western US

OHV User Community.‖ The IDT responded to comments similar to this issue (EA, Appendix

G, Comments 30DC11-6, 30DC11-9, and 30DC11-13).

The 2011 Visitor Use Report for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest was recently

published by the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. This document is included in the

project record (Section G). Visitor satisfaction and perception of crowding are included in the

report. While the EA discusses a growth in the popularity of motorized use, it is not necessarily

appropriate for the Forest to increase the infrastructure. Providing recreational opportunities and

access needs are only two of many criteria the responsible official must consider under 36 CFR

212.55 of the Travel Rule when designating routes for motor vehicle use. National Forests are

popular with many Americans for many uses. It is not possible to accommodate all user

demands while also protecting water quality, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources that

people come to enjoy. Several management areas in the Forest Plan have a standard of no net

increase in motorized trails or in open motorized road density (Updated EA, Appendix F, pp. 31

to 34). When making a Decision, the Forest supervisor must take all of these resources and the

Forest Plan direction into consideration.

The IDT and Responsible Official analyzed the impacts of the selected alternative on all known

recreational opportunities and activities occurring on the Madison Ranger District, and disclosed

the available infrastructure for motorized and non-motorized opportunities. There is no

regulation or law requiring access for similar amounts of motorized and non-motorized use on

National Forest System lands. The Decision is in compliance with NEPA, EO 11644, 36 CFR

212, and the 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Issue 9. The appellant is unhappy about the closure of trail #6035 because, he alleges, it is a

significant motorized single-track trail. The appellant does not allege a violation of law on

this issue.

Response: The EA (Appendix C, p. 37; and Appendix G, p. 5, Response to Comment 30DC11-

16) explains the southern portion of this trail was closed by Forest Plan EIS ROD 2 because the

trail was in a portion of the Forest designated in the Forest Plan as non-motorized. This rendered

the remainder of the trail inaccessible to motorized use. There is no reason to keep a portion of

the trail open to motorized travel if one cannot legally take their vehicle to that portion.

Therefore, the Madison Travel Decision closed the rest of the trail to motorized use.


Issue 10. The appellant alleges motorized route closures are occurring in Inventoried

Roadless Areas (IRAs) and the rule published on January 5, 2001 specifically stated, “The

proposed rule did not close any roads or off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails”.

Response: The Madison Travel Decision does close some motorized routes in IRAs. The EA (p.

34, Table 12) contains a comparison of route changes in IRAs from the existing condition

(Alternative A, the No Action Alternative) to Alternative B-Modified (the chosen alternative).

The DN will convert 34.4 miles of roads to motor vehicle trails and close 15.6 miles of

motorized routes.

The appellant is correct in that the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294) states the

―proposed rule did not close any roads or off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails. The proposed rule

provided for the construction and reconstruction of roads in inventoried roadless areas where

needed pursuant to existing or outstanding rights, or as provided for by stature or treaty,

including R.S. 2477 rights, access to inholdings under the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act (ANILCA) provisions, or circumstances where a valid right-of-way exists‖

(Federal Register/Vol.66, No.9/January 12, 2001/p. 3253).

However, what the proposed rule did or did not do was moot once the final rule was published.

The final rule prohibits road construction and road reconstruction in IRAs, except in certain

circumstances, none of which have to do with recreation (see Federal Register/Vol.66,

No.9/January 12, 2001/Sec. 294.12/ pp. 3272 to 3273). More importantly, the final rule does not

prevent Forests from closing roads or trails in IRAs, as needed.

The Forest is in compliance with 36 CFR, part 294—Special Areas; the Roadless Area

Conservation Rule (2001); the Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Plan Amendment

for Montana, North Dakota, and portions of South Dakota (2001); and the 2009 Revised

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan.

Issue 11. The appellant alleges the analysis process was inequitable.

Response: The Forest followed the public involvement requirements of NEPA (Updated EA, p.

5; DN, p. 7). Scoping comments were used to identify issues (PF, Exhibit E9). The recreation

analysis estimated potential effects on motorized and non-motorized recreation (Updated EA, pp.

26 to 41). The planning team considered and responded to all submitted comments on the EA

(Updated EA, Appendix G). Each request to open or close a specific route to motorized use was

reviewed and discussed by the interdisciplinary team (DN, p. 5), and the EA provided a route-by-

route explanation of the decision (Appendix C). The Forest acknowledged consideration of

public comments by developing Alternative B Modified in response to comments (DN, pp. 3 to

6).

Additionally, the Travel Management Rule (and Executive Order 11644, as amended by

Executive Order 11989) requires designation of existing roads and trails for motorized uses and

gives discretion to the Deciding Officer to determine the Purpose and Need of the project. The

EA (p. 4) and DN (p. 2) state the Purpose and Need for action, including that the decision would


not ―construct any new or re-construct any existing roads or trails.‖ The Forest Supervisor

appropriately limited the bounds of the analysis and Decision to examining the existing road and

trail system, in compliance with the Travel Management Rule.

Some members of the public do not want any route closures to occur and others would like to see

more miles closed. It is clear the Forest Supervisor was attempting to balance uses, desires, and

impacts. I find the analysis was conducted in an appropriate and equitable manner, in

compliance with NEPA.

RECOMMENDATION

I have reviewed the record for each of the contentions addressed above and have found that the

analysis and decision adequately address the issues raised by the appellant. I recommend the

Forest Supervisor‘s decision be affirmed and the appellant‘s requested relief be denied.

/s/ Timothy W. Bond

TIMOTHY W. BOND

Appeal Reviewing Officer

cc: Dave Myers

Peri R Suenram

Jan M Bowey

Ray G Smith

Sue Heald

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Beaverhead-Deerlodge

National Forest

420 Barrett Street

Dillon, MT 59725

406 683-3900

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 Date: May 3, 2011 Route To:

Subject: Transmittal Letter - Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the Madison

Ranger District - CTVA - Appeal #11-01-00-0018

To: Appeal Reviewing Officer

In accordance with 36 CFR 215.15(e)(1), I am submitting the decision documentation for appeal

#11-01-00-0018 filed by Ken Salo, on behalf of the Capital Trail Vehicle Association (CTVA),

on the DN/FONSI for the Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the Madison Ranger

District.

The Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the Madison Ranger District project record is

contained on a CD-ROM previously provided to the Regional Ecosystem, Assessment and

Planning Staff. Electronic copies of the BDNF Forest Plan, Corrected FEIS and ROD are

available on a separate CD-ROM. In this letter, references to specific documents in the project

record are identified by the applicable Section (A through H) followed by the electronic

document file name. Electronic copies of the DN/FONSI may be found in Section A of the

project record as document Decision-notice-FONSI. An electronic copy of the updated EA may

be found in Section D of the project record as document 20110228-Updated-EA.

Hard copies of the DN/FONSI and updated EA were also provided to the Regional Ecosystem,

Assessment and Planning Staff. The DN/FONSI includes a large-sized map (folded separate

from the document) displaying routes changed in the decision. Updated EA Appendices A and B

are bound separate from the EA in a document labeled “Map Packet”. Updated EA Appendix G

is also bound separate from the EA.

Decision Being Appealed

Dave Myers, Forest Supervisor, signed a DN/FONSI deciding to designate routes for summer

motorized travel on the Madison Ranger District. The legal notice, announcing this decision,

was published in the newspaper of legal record, the Montana Standard, on March 3, 2011

(Section D, Document 20110303-Legal-Notice-of-Decision).

Forest Supervisor, Dave Myers decided to implement Alternative B Modified because it meets

the project’s purpose and need. Specifically, this decision will:

Comply with the 2009 Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards

Comply with the November 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) and the production of

a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the Madison Ranger District

Better protect natural resources

Improve recreation management related to motor vehicle use, and

Decrease user conflicts.

Specifically, my decision:

Designates 1.9 miles of unauthorized roads as system motorized roads.

Capital Trail Vehicle Association #11-01-00-0018

2

Designates 3.6 miles of unauthorized trails as system motorized trails.

Designates 6.6 miles of unauthorized roads for access to dispersed camp sites as system

motorized trails.

Closes 3.4 miles of unauthorized roads to motorized use.

Closes 15.6 miles of existing system roads to motorized use.

Closes 9.9 miles of existing system trail to motorized use.

Decommissions 4.2 miles of existing system roads.

Converts 77.8 miles of existing system motorized roads to system motorized trails.

Converts 21.9 miles of existing system roads with maintenance levels 2 and 3, to

maintenance level 1.

Changes Vehicle Type/Season of Use on 116.8 miles of existing system motorized

routes.

Replaces all Area delineations and the Route and Area Restrictions identified on the 2008

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Travel Plan Map (2008 BDTPM) and September 2009 Errata with

route specific designations as displayed in the Vehicle Type/Season of Use Map Code

Key in Appendix D of the Updated EA. This applies to the Madison Ranger District only.

In the Gravelly Landscape, designates routes that provide access to identified dispersed

campsites as system motorized trails. These trails are open to all types of vehicles.

In the Tobacco Root Landscape, allows motorized wheeled travel on existing routes

leading to identified dispersed campsites for the purpose of dispersed camping within 300

feet of designated routes open to motorized use.

Posts heritage resource protection signs at sites shown to have problems with vandalism.

Maintains a Forest Service field presence for enforcement and education.

If monitoring determines that trumpeter swans have returned to nesting territories on Elk

Lake, implements an area closure to boating and fishing on the north end of Elk Lake

within 1500 feet of the nest site between April 1 and July 15

Please refer to pages 1 and 2 of the DN for further details about the decision.

Appellant’s Participation in the NEPA Process

On August 8, 2007, an initial scoping letter (Section D, Document 20070808-Scoping-Notice-

Letter) requesting input on the proposed action was mailed to more than 700 individuals and

organizations, including Ken Salo, of CTVA (Section D, Document 20070808-Scoping-Notice-

Letter, pg 9). In response to the initial scoping letter, Ken Salo, of CTVA submitted 2 letters

providing comments (Section B, Documents 20070828Comments-CTVA-Ken-Salo and

20070828Comments2-CTVA-Ken-Salo).

A legal notice was published in the Montana Standard on January 10, 2010, initiating a 30-day

public comment period for the Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the Madison Ranger

District EA (Section D, 20100110-30day-Comment-Legal-Notice). This EA had previously

been posted on the BDNF web site. Individuals and organizations providing input on the

proposed action were notified by letter of the electronic availability of the EA and the

opportunity to comment (Section D, Documents 20100107-30-day-CommentEA-Coevr-Ltr and

20091230-30day-Comment-Mailing-List, pg 2). On February 2, 2010, Ken Salo, representing

CTVA, provided written comments on the EA (Section B, Document 20100202-30dc11_ctva).


3

Ken Salo of CTVA, received notice of the Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the

Madison Ranger District decision and the final EA (on CD) on February 28, 2011 (Section A,

Document Decision-Notice-Fonsi-Cover-Letter and Section D, Document 20101223-Updated-

EA-DNFONSI-Mailing-List, pg 1). The final EA was also posted on the BDNF web site.

Informal Disposition Meeting

Jan Bowey, Appeals Coordinator for the BDNF, left several voice mail messages with Mr. Salo

of CTVA concerning an informal disposition meeting. On April 25, 2011, she received an e-

mail message from “CTVA Action” summarizing their concerns. Jan responded to this message

with an offer to meet. On April 27, 2011, CTVA Action electronically replied indicating they

felt there was no need for a conference call. As a result, an informal disposition meeting was

not held.

Decision Documentation Responding to Points of Appeal

Mr. Salo filed the notice of appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215 and 36 CFR Part 17 (appeal, pg

1-2). Because 36 CFR Part 17 regulates the conveyance of leases in National Parks and does not

appear pertinent to the decision at hand, Jan Bowey requested clarification from CTVA. In an e-

mail message dated April 27, 2011, CTVA informed us it was their intent to file the appeal only

pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215.

The notice of appeal also references a Record of Decision or ROD. Since the decision at hand

was documented in a Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI), I assumed

references by CTVA to a ROD were intended to reference the March 3, 2011, DN/FONSI for the

Designation of Summer Motorized Travel on the Madison Ranger District.

I consolidated the numbered paragraphs of CTVA’s appeal into 11 issues. Following each issue

description, I included specific statements from CTVA’s appeal further describing the issue.

These statements are in italics and reference a page from the CTVA appeal.

Issue 1: Comments, issues, and needs submitted by motorized recreationists were not given a hard look

P. 2 – “The environmental document and ROD did not give a hard look at and largely ignored

the comments, issues, and needs submitted by motorized recreationists”.

Reference Subject Matter

DN, pg 3-4

Decision rationale for selecting Alternative B Modified

includes meeting public desire for additional

opportunities for motorized recreationists to use vehicles

that do not meet street legal requirements, reduce user

conflict between tracked and wheeled vehicles and

additional ATV routes


4


EA, Appendix G1, pg 1-46

IDT responses to recreation, transportation and

social/economic concerns submitted during the 30-day

EA comment period, including comments submitted by

motorized recreationists

Issue 2: Imbalance of motorized and non-motorized opportunities

P. 3 –“ OHV back country discovery routes and OHV byways are required to provide

opportunities for motorized recreationists equal to existing long-distance non-motorized

opportunities.”

“…the ratio of trails was heavily in favor of non-motorized opportunities before the

decision and the decision significantly worsens the ratio of trails in favor non-motorized

opportunities.”

“The most significant issue for OHV recreationists is an adequate motorized trail system.

The decision and analysis did not adequately recognize this core issue which is easily

demonstrated by the lack of a Pro-Recreation alternative.”

“…the EA and Decision are contrary to the requirements of NEPA and the Forest

Service Handbook (FSH) including FSH 1909.15 Chapter 10, Section 12.32 – Identify

Significant Issues…Meeting the unanswered needs and frustrations of thousands of motorized

recreationists is the most significant issue at hand for this Travel Management Plan…”

P. 7 – “The facts justify an increase in motorized recreational opportunities…the decision did

just the opposite…”

P. 11 – “An imbalance between motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities exists

in Montana”.

P. 12 – “The Decision does not meet the Forest Service‟s responsibility to provide an equal

quality and quantity of motorized versus non-motorized opportunities”.

P. 14 – “In order to provide equal opportunity on our public lands a reasonable starting point

would be a 50/50 sharing of motorized and non-motorized trails.”

“The national forests in Region 1 do not provide this goal and currently 66% of the trail

system is non-motorized and will be even more the trend of motorized closure being enacted

under all of the current forest and travel planning is completed.”

P. 15 – “…the allocation of trails in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest before the forest

plan ROD was unbalanced…most of the 200 miles of motorized trails closed by the forest plan

decision is high quality motorized single-track trail but was not identified as such in the EIS and

ROD”.

P. 16 – “This imbalance of opportunity cannot be considered equal program delivery and the

proposed action must address this significant issue by creating more motorized trails.”

“The Travel Plan does not adequately address this imbalance and the decision is a step

in the wrong direction and creates an even greater imbalance. This is not a reasonable direction

for the Madison Ranger District travel plan”.

P. 17 – “…the decision converts motorized trails constructed or maintained with motorized

funding to non-motorized trails which further exacerbates the inequities and further justifies

sending the decision back.”

1 Appendix G is electronically available in Section D, Document 20110228-Updated-EA-Appendix-G.


5

“Under the existing condition, 11.21% of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is

set-aside for segregated exclusive non-motorized use for 1.09% of the visitors to the

forest…Segregation in public places has not been acceptable since the Civil Rights Act of

1964…In order to reasonably meet the requirement of integration a reasonable management

goal for all multiple use lands (88.79% of the forest) should be shared multiple-use”.

P. 18 – “The decision rewards those with unreasonable expectation (segregation, removal, and

non-sharing) and punishes those with reasonable expectations (diversity, acceptance and

sharing).

“…the decision further promotes segregation on multiple-use lands but it does not

include a corresponding 50/50 sharing.”

P. 19 – “…a quality experience for motorized recreations requires about 12.5 (50/4) times the

amount of trail needed for non-motorized recreationists…surrounding conditions plus the

decision far exceeds the needs of non-motorized visitors and falls far short of the needs of

motorized recreationists…the decision does not reasonably meet equal program opportunity

criteria and goals nor does it demonstrate any reasonable trend toward correcting equal

program opportunity.”

P. 20 – “The decision did not give a hard look at and, therefore, did not provide for these much

needed types of multiple-use motorized areas”.

“The ratio of trail users is 26.71 motorized to 1 non-motorized yet the balance of existing

trails is 33% motorized to 67% non-motorized. Clearly, there is an imbalance of opportunities.”

P. 25 – “The decision is arbitrary and capricious when considering an equitable sharing of the

resources.”


DN, pg 2 Purpose and need of project

DN, pg 3-14 Decision rationale

DN, pg 5 Miles and percent of routes open to motorized use in the

decision

DN, pg 8 FONSI discloser of beneficial and potential adverse

effects of decision on recreation

EA, pg 6 Development & description of key issues and alternatives

EA, pg 6-12 Alternatives considered (including those eliminated from

detailed consideration)

EA, pg 13, Table 5 Comparison of routes open & closed to motorized use by

alternative

EA, pg 15-16, Table 8 Comparison of alternatives by vehicle type and season of

use

EA, pg 25-26 Description of recreational road and trail use in project

area

EA, pg 34-35 Direct and indirect effects analysis on IRAs for

Alternative B Modified

EA, pg 38-40 Cumulative effects analysis for recreation opportunities

EA, pg 55-63 Description of social issues for OHV use, recreational

use and user conflict in general area


6


EA, Appendix G, pg 1-42

IDT Responses to comments concerning motorized

designations as they influence recreation activities. Of

particular interest may be IDT Responses to Comments

30DC5-7, 30DC11-5(16), 30DC11-6, 30DC11-9,

30DC11-10, 30DC11-31, & 30DC11-51.

EA, Appendix G, pg 45, Comment

30DC11-43

IDT response to comment about OHV gas tax being

diverted elsewhere

Project record, Section G, Document

B-D FEIS ROD22 2010, pg 1-2

Decision to close routes on BDNF to comply with non-

motorized allocations in the 2009 Revised Forest Plan


B-D FEIS ROD2 2010, pg 21-22

Routes closed by ROD 2 on the Madison Ranger District

(see Gravelly and Madison Landscapes3)

Corrected FEIS4 for BDNF Revised

Plan, pg 357 Description of backcountry opportunities on BDNF

Corrected FEIS for BDNF Revised

Plan, pg 357-359

Comparison of Forest Plan alternatives influencing

motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities


Plan, pg 381-383

Effects on travel management of Revised Forest Plan

Alternative 6 for the Gravelly Landscape


Federal-Register-36CFR-212-251-

261-295-Final-Rule Dec 9 2005

Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for

Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule

Issue 3: Mental and physical health benefits of OHV recreation were not given a hard look

P. 4 – “In order to make a reasonable decision, the Forest Service must adequately considers the

issues and impacts associated with motorized closures on the mental and physical health of the

public.”

“…one indicator of the condition of the human environment in Montana is the suicide

rate…The Forest Service can help address this significant problem by providing an adequate

quantity and quality of motorized recreational opportunities.”

“…the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media

has become a significant social problem in the U.S.”

2 To date, two RODs, supported by analysis in the BDNF Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS, have been

issued. The first ROD (commonly referred to by the BDNF as ROD 1) was signed by the Regional Forester and

approved the 2009 Revised Forest Plan. In 2010, as instructed by the Regional Forester in ROD 1, the Forest

Supervisor signed a second ROD (commonly referred to by the BDNF as ROD 2) enacting Forest Plan travel

management direction. ROD 2 implemented motorized road and trail closures based on motorized and non-

motorized land allocations made in ROD 1. 3 All lands administered by the BDNF in the Gravelly and Madison landscapes are located on the Madison Ranger

District. Only a portion of BDNF administered lands in the Tobacco Root landscape are located on the Madison

Ranger District. As a result, the 0.12 miles of road closed to motorized use in the Tobacco Root landscape by ROD

2 are located on the Jefferson Ranger District, not the project area. 4 The Corrected FEIS for the 2009 BDNF Forest Plan is electronically available in the project record on a separate

CD-ROM.


7

P. 5 – “OHV recreation is a reasonable alternative to increase participation in outdoor

activities…prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and

children…OHV recreation is an activity that meets the physical requirements of the President‟s

fitness program and counters the epidemic of videophilia.”

P. 6 – “The EA and Decision did not give the tremendous value of OHV recreation for both

mental and physical health benefits a hard look.”

P. 23 – “The decision creates a relatively significant impact on the quality of the human

environment (places and things that residents have been able to enjoy for years) in exchange for

a relatively insignificant improvement on the natural environment...”

P. 25 – “…the decision renders even fewer motorized opportunities and takes away desperately

needed healthy recreation opportunities for the majority of the public.”

Please note, topics concerning mental and physical health – especially as they relate to obesity,

videophilia and suicide - were not raised by CTVA during the 30-day EA comment period.


DN, pg 9 FONSI disclosure of the degree to which the decision

affects public health or safety

DN, pg 3

Decision rationale for converting some roads to trails to

increase motorized recreation opportunities for vehicles

(and users) that do not meet street legal requirements

DN, pg 5 Miles of motorized routes available for use on the

Madison Ranger District

EA, pg 13, Table 5 Comparison of routes open & closed to motorized use by

alternative

EA, pg 15-16, Table 8 Comparison of alternatives by vehicle type and season of

use

EA, pg 18-26 Description of recreation use and opportunities in project

area

EA, pg 28, 30, 33 & 34 Analysis of alternatives potentially affecting public safety

on groomed snowmobile trails open to wheeled vehicles

EA, pg 55-56 Description of social values associated with motorized

and non-motorized recreation

EA, Appendix C5

Route by route rationale for changes from Alternative A

(No Action) to Alternative B Modified (decision)

EA, Appendix G6, pg 11, Comment

30DC11-56

IDT response to comment concerning dual use for a

family OHV experience.

5 Appendix C is electronically available in Section D, Document 20110228-Updated-EA-Appendix-C.

6 Appendix G is electronically available in Section D, Document 20110228-Updated-EA-Appendix-G.


8

Issue 4: Inaccurate and biased representation of visitor use P. 8 – “The document and decision are based upon an inaccurate and biased representation of

visitor use. Consequently, there is not enough existing motorized access and motorized

recreational opportunities on our public lands including the project area…”

P. 20 – “The decision does not include accurate documentation or justification to support the

motorized closures and the decision is contrary to the facts we have provided which support

continued use of all existing motorized opportunities and the development of new motorized

opportunities”.

P. 26 – “Road density does not equal motorized trail density. Impact information in the analysis

was developed based on roads and should not have been used to estimate impacts from ATV and

single-track motorcycle trails.”


DN, pg 2 Topics decision will not address

DN, pg 3-7 Decision rational

EA, pg 18-23 Description of recreation use and opportunities in project

area


area



EA, Appendix C Route by route rationale for changes from Alternative A

(No Action) to Alternative B Modified (decision)

EA, Appendix G, pg 6-7, Comment

30DC11-24

IDT response to comment concerning motorized road and

trail density

EA, Appendix G, pg 10, 12 & 13 IDT responses to comments concerning amount of

recreation opportunities available and needed




NVUMP Visitor Use Report 2011,

pg 3

Scope and purpose of National Visitor Use Monitoring

Program



pg 34

Perception of crowding by recreationists using the BDNF


NVUMP NVUM- B-DNF-Report

2006, pg 35


(used for 2009 FEIS for BDNF Revised Plan)

Issue 5: Decision erroneously painted user conflict as a significant issue

P. 10 – “The evaluation (page 4 of the final EA, Purpose and Need) and decision erroneously

painted user conflict as a significant issue and then used this erroneous conclusion to create

non-motorized opportunities…it is not reasonable to base so many motorized closures on user

conflict when it is simply not significant…the agency did not reference any facts of statistics in


9

the environmental document that demonstrate a significant percentage of conflicts between users

yet the document and decision in appropriately use this reason to justify many motorized

closures.”

“There are very few non-motorized recreationists on multiple-use trails because they

simply are not out there…Conflict of use is being used as a mechanism to eliminate multiple-use

of public land.”


DN, pg 2 Purpose and need for project


EA, pg 6 Description of key issues

EA, pg 15 Comparison of alternatives to decrease user conflict

EA, pg 33, 34 & 40 (last ¶)

Analysis of Alternative B Modified to decrease user

conflict associated with wheeled motorized use on

groomed snowmobile trails

EA, Appendix C, pg 20-27, 29-30,

32, 35, 37, 42 & 47

Rationale for changes from Alternative A (No Action) to

Alternative B Modified (decision) for routes where part

of the rationale includes changes due to user conflict


30DC33-19

IDT response to comment about motorized closures

coming from perceived social issues

Issue 6: Reasonable array of alternatives not considered

P. 7 - “An unbiased analysis and reasonable decision would have included an adequate quantity

and quality of beginning, intermediate, and advanced routes and trails for a wide cross-section

of motorized visitors including motorcycles, ATVs and four-wheel drive vehicles. Additionally,

the quantity and quality of motorized routes would have been at least equal to the quantity and

quality of non-motorized routes.”

P. 10 – There is a significant need for Youth Loops…The process did not include a reasonable

alternative to address this need”.

P. 17 “The decision does not adequately meet the basic needs of the public for multiple-use

opportunities, does not provide a proper allocation of multiple-use recreation opportunities,

does not provide a proper allocation of multiple-use recreation opportunities and does not meet

the laws requiring multiple-use management of these lands. Reasonable alternatives exist that

would meet these critical requirements and the decision must be remanded in order to evaluate

these alternatives.”

P. 18 - It is not reasonable to segregate users on single-track trails…We can all get along and

have done so for years. It is also consistent with the desegregation of public places as required

by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, it is a reasonable alternative to designate most

existing single-track trails on multiple-use lands within the project area as open to motorcycle

use.”

P. 23 – “NEPA requires consideration of all reasonable alternatives. A reasonable alternative

based on reasonable expectations for sharing and a 50/50 balance or equal trail opportunity

should have included:

a. Sharing non-motorized trails with mountain bikes and motorcycles,

b. Creating new mountain bike and motorcycle trails,


10

c. Creating ATV trails from roadbeds that both currently open and closed,

d. Creating new ATV trails

e. Creating new ATV trails that connect with converted roadbeds to create loops, and,

f. Establishing 4x4 challenge trails using roadbeds that are both currently open and closed

including use of historic mining routes.

g. A hunting season closure from 10/15 to 12/15 for existing routes where big game security

during the hunting season was adequately documented as a significant issue and

concern.

h. Sharing of routes on a system of alternating days or weeks for motorized and non-

motorized use where adequately documented as a significant issue and concern.”

P. 25 – “A reasonable alternative would include the evaluation of growth opportunities to meet

the growing needs of motorized recreations now and in the future.”

Please note, a recommendation for Youth Loops was not raised by CTVA during the 30-day EA

comment period.


DN, pg 2 Purpose and need of project and topics the decision will

not address


DN, pg 5 Miles and percent of routes open to motorized use in the

decision



EA, pg 6 Development & description of key issues and alternatives

EA, pg 6-12 Alternatives considered (including those eliminated from

detailed consideration)

EA, pg 13, Table 5 Comparison of routes open & closed to motorized use in

project area (including percent comparison)

EA, pg 15-16 Comparison of alternatives by vehicle type

EA, pg 39-40 Cumulative effects to single-track motorized users

EA, pg 71-72 & 102-106

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis of

alternatives for motorized route density and wildlife

security (including elk during the hunting season)


30DC11-23

IDT response to comment about analyzing an adequate

quantity and quality of beginning, intermediate &

advanced routes

EA, Appendix G, pg 7-8, Comments

30DC11-31 & 30DC11-32

IDT response to comment about providing opportunities

for single-track use and segregation


30DC11-56

IDT response to comment about providing dual-use for

the family OHV experience


11

Issue 7: Inadequate analysis of cumulative effects

P. 11 - “This decision combined with the new forest plan, including the conversion of roadless to

non-motorized, makes this inequity even worse by essentially converting roadless areas to non-

motorized areas which will provide 46.60 acres per wilderness visitor and 1.96 acres per

multiple-use visitor for a ratio of 24:1.”

P. 17 – “The EA and ROD did not adequately address the impending implementation of Senator

Tester‟s Wilderness Bill for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge...”

P. 20 – “…the evaluation did not include a meaningful evaluation of cumulative effects of all

current and reasonably foreseeable motorized closures on motorized recreationists including

decision and proposals on a local, state and regional basis.”

P. 22 – “…the loss of motorized opportunities must include all of the cross-country opportunities

that were available for decades and closed as part of the 3-State OHV agreement.”

“A significant issue affecting OHV recreationists is the cumulative impact of the one-two

punch of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest plan which closed 200 miles of the best OHV trails

combined with an immediate travel plan for the Madison Ranger District.”


DN, pg 5 & 6 Consideration of cumulative impacts from ROD 2 in

decision rationale

DN, pg 10 Consideration of cumulative impacts in FONSI

EA, pg 38-40 Cumulative effects on recreation experiences and

opportunities

EA, Appendix G, pg 59-61 IDT responses to comments about the cumulative effects

analysis


B-D FEIS ROD27 2010, pg 1-2

Decision to close routes on BDNF to comply with non-

motorized allocations in the 2009 Revised Forest Plan


B-D FEIS ROD2 2010, pg 21-22

Routes closed by ROD 2 on the Madison Ranger District

(see Gravelly and Madison Landscapes8)




Plan, pg 357-359

Comparison of Forest Plan alternatives influencing

motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities


Plan, pg 381-383

Effects on travel management of Revised Forest Plan

Alternative 6 for the Gravelly Landscape

7 To date, two RODs, supported by analysis in the BDNF Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS, have been

issued. The first ROD (commonly referred to by the BDNF as ROD 1) was signed by the Regional Forester and

approved the 2009 Revised Forest Plan. As instructed by the Regional Forester in ROD 1, the Forest Supervisor

signed a second ROD (commonly referred to by the BDNF as ROD 2) enacting Forest Plan travel management

direction in 2010. ROD 2 implemented motorized road and trail closures based on motorized and non-motorized

land allocations made in ROD 1. 8 All lands administered by the BDNF in the Gravelly and Madison landscapes are located on the Madison Ranger

District. Only a portion of BDNF administered lands in the Tobacco Root landscape are located on the Madison

Ranger District. As a result, the 0.12 miles of road closed to motorized use in the Tobacco Root landscape by ROD

2 are located on the Jefferson Ranger District, not the project area.


12



Plan, pg 400

Cumulative effects of travel management for Revised

Forest Plan alternatives

Issue 8: Inadequate analysis of impacts

P. 13 – “The evaluation of equal motorized opportunities and the decision did not adequately

consider the following tests:

a. Whether motorized recreationists had an equal miles of non-motorized and motorized

trails;

b. Whether motorized recreationists had an equal quantity and quality of long distance

trails comparable to the CDNST, Pacific Crest, and other long distance non-motorized

trails;

c. Whether motorized recreationists had an equal quality and quantity of motorized routes

to quality destinations…

d. Whether motorized recreationists had an equal recreation opportunity spectrum that

included motorized loops, figure 8‟s destinations and other features necessary to balance

the quantity and quality of experiences…

e. An equal motorized opportunity must include a variety of beginner, intermediate, and

expert OHV routes….

f. Whether motorized recreationists had a trail system that was equal in the level of hours

and miles of visitor use between non-motorized and non-motorized trails.

g. Whether motorized recreationists had an equal opportunity (50/50 sharing of motorized

to non-motorized trails) within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and within

Region 1.”

P. 22 – “The Forest Service is headed towards a creating a significant impact on the

environment by squeezing motorized recreationists into a motorized trail system that is too

small.”

This issue assumes the EA completed an analysis of equal motorized opportunities. This topic is

addressed in Issue 2, Imbalance of motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Please refer to

my response to Issue 2.






area

EA, pg 35-36 Direct and indirect effects analysis on road and trail use

for Alternative B Modified




13



30DC11-13

IDT response to comment similar to the issue described

on page 13 of the Notice of Appeal



pg 34


Issue 9: Closure of single-track trail 6035

P18 – “The availability of motorized single-track trails has declined dramatically. The closure

of trail 6035 from the junction with 6019 to the forest boundary was a very significant motorized

single-track trail that would be closed under the decision.”


EA, Appendix B, pg 29-30 Location of trail 6035 proposed for closure

EA, Appendix C, pg 37 Decision rationale for closing Trail 6035

EA, Appendix G

pg 4-5 Comments 30DC11-14 & 16

pg 14 Comment 30DC13-2

pg 25, Comment 30 DC19-45

pg 28, Comment 30DC2-9


pg 39, Comments 30DC5-11 & 5-13


IDT responses to comments concerning the proposed

closure of Trail 6035 to motorcycles

Issue 10: Motorized route closure in Inventoried Roadless Areas

P. 25-26 – “On page 31 of the Final EA, the following statement is made”

„Overall, roadless character would be improved by closing 12.8 miles of system roads and

trails to motorized use, decommissioning .6 miles of system road, and closing .4 miles of

unauthorized route to motorized use…‟

The Final Roadless Rule published on January 5, 2001…specifically stated „The proposed rule

did not close any roads or off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails‟. The agency must honor this

commitment.”



EA, pg 23-24 Description of IRAs in project area

EA, pg 34-35 Direct and indirect effects analysis on IRAs for

Alternative B Modified


14

Issue 11: Analysis process was inequitable P. 26-27 “…the non-motorized interests have convinced the planning team to develop a

„comprehensive‟ travel plan by using only the existing inventory of motorized routes…This

approach is inequitable because it takes the current motorized route inventory and tries to make

it the route inventory for all users…A more equitable process would have analyzed the creation,

designation and management of non-motorized trails, but not at the expense of motorized

visitors…We request that the agency remand the decision so that a correction can be made by

not using the existing motorized trail inventory for designating non-motorized trails. Instead, if

there is a need for non-motorized trails, then the agency must consider options that do not

reduce the existing opportunity for motorized users.”



DN Map Displays location of motorized and non-motorized

system routes

EA, pg 7 Consideration of alternatives that maximize motorized

and non-motorized opportunities

EA, pg 13 Comparison of motorized and non-motorized routes by

alternative

EA, pg 28-29, 31-32 & 35-38 Direct and indirect effects to road and trail use for each

alternative

EA, pg 39

Cumulative comparison of recreation opportunity

(including miles of motorized and non-motorized routes)

by alternative

EA, Appendix G, pg 1-2, Comment

30DC11-5 and pg 6, Comments

30DC11-21 & 22

IDT response to comments and use of existing motorized

route inventory and comprehensive travel planning


Federal-Register-36CFR-212-251-

261-295-Final-Rule Dec 9 2005

Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for

Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule

Should you have questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please contact Jan

Bowey, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Appeal Coordinator, at (406)842-5432

/s/ David R. Myers

DAVID R. MYERS

Forest Supervisor

cc: Ray G Smith

Peri R Suenram

Sue Heald

Date post:	11-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times