Implementation Guidelines, Travel Management - Projects & Plans, Southwestern Region

Introduction

As we strive to meet our ambitious schedule to implement the Travel Management Rule (Rule) which will result in the designation of roads, trails and areas that are open to motor vehicle use, we wish to provide some revised guidance. This revised guidance updates some of the topic areas addressed in the original June 12, 2006 Guidelines, and presents new guidance for several topic areas not previously addressed.

A cornerstone of the Rule is local collaboration and decisionmaking. This is particularly important given the diversity of conditions that exist across the Southwestern Region. The following revised guidelines are intended to complement the Rule’s focus on local collaboration and decisionmaking. We do not intend to incorporate them in our directives system. They are provided for two important purposes: 1) to identify the suite of tools available to meet public interests, consistent with the intent of the Rule; and 2) to provide a level of consistency that enhances public understanding, compliance, and ease of enforcement. Consideration of these revised guidelines will provide a common starting point for the dialog that will result in designation of routes and areas open to motor vehicles and other associated management direction, while providing the flexibility to address specific situations on individual units. Consideration of these revised guidelines should result in a suite of local decisions that “feel familiar” to visitors as they recreate on different national forests in the Southwestern Region.

I. General Principles

All designations should be consistent with the primary purposes and intent of the Travel Management Rule. Proposed designations should be evaluated against the criteria in section 212.55 of the Rule. In particular, they should:

Protect natural and cultural resources.
Enhance public enjoyment of the national forests.
Promote the safety of all users.
Minimize conflicts among the various users of National Forest System (NFS) lands.

Permitting of activities that allow for cross-country travel should also be consistent with these purposes.

Current and foreseeable future uses, as well as developing technologies, are to be considered when determining the need for change. Although travel management designations are meant to be dynamic and adaptable, it is unlikely that the Region will have the resources to make frequent significant changes. Therefore the tough decisions should not be deferred. Conversely, travel management planning should not be overly restrictive to prevent a problem anticipated decades into the future.

Consistency in implementation of the Rule is important. Units are to coordinate within states and amongst adjacent Forest Service units to ensure a level of consistency in designation that promotes public understanding, compliance and ease of enforcement. In addition, units need to work closely with adjacent public land managers during designation to avoid unintended and undesirable consequences on their lands and to capture opportunities to provide desired uses.

Many roads and trails accessing National Forest System lands traverse other land ownerships and jurisdictions. Determining jurisdiction must be made locally, on a case-by-case basis, in coordination with the forest Lands staff and the Office of the General Counsel. Units should consider historic rights and other rights which may not be documented in a legal rights-of-way instrument when determining jurisdiction under federal law and applicable state law. Evidence of historic rights might include documented construction and/or maintenance records, routes depicted on GLO plats, or visitor or travel maps, signing, and other indicators of ownership assertions. Where the Forest Service has a legal right to a particular road or trail, that road or trail should be considered for designation. The Forest Service will not manage, maintain, or designate roads and trails where it does not have the right to do so. Some questions of jurisdiction have long predated the Rule. Implementing the Rule does not require resolving all these questions, nor should implementing the Rule unwittingly surrender our assertion of rights where those rights are yet to be resolved.

Units should use the designation of areas or permitting of activities that allow for cross-country travel as an opportunity to reinforce the need to comply with existing resource protection practices, e.g., preclude cutting of trees to gain access, prohibit use of motorized vehicles when soil moisture conditions are such that resource damage would occur, etc.

Administrative units should refer to publication EM-7700-30, Guidelines for Engineering Analysis of Motorized Mixed Use on National Forest Roads, to document engineering analysis associated with motorized mixed uses. Requirements for operator qualifications and personal protective equipment are established by state law. Where the responsible official proposes requirements additional to those encapsulated in state law, that decision must be advised by engineering analysis as described in EM-7700-30. The Region has established a Motorized Mixed Use Team to assist forests in the analysis. As with questions concerning jurisdiction, some questions of motorized mixed use have long predated the Travel Management Rule and may not need to be resolved to implement the Rule.

Units should consult with law enforcement entities to help ensure the viability of compliance and enforcement aspects of designations and permits used to manage motorized use on NFS lands.

II. Existing Travel Management Direction (Existing Direction)

A. General

Because travel management planning is focused on proposed changes to the forest transportation system, identification of the existing direction is an important first step. In general terms, the existing direction includes the NFS roads, trails and areas currently managed for motor vehicle use, plus the restrictions, prohibitions and closures on motor vehicle use existing on a unit.

Existing travel management direction and associated documentation determines the system of roads, trails and areas considered open to public motorized travel. Existing direction comes from: laws and regulations; official directives; forest plans; forest orders; roads analysis, including forest-wide and watershed or project specific roads analysis; and travel analysis. Additional sources of information about a unit’s managed system comes from: road and trail management objectives (RMO’s/TMO’s); maps, including visitor and travel management maps; Recreation Opportunity Guides (ROG’s); road and trail maintenance records; Infra; and other sources.

Use the best available and defensible information to identify existing direction. This will set the stage for a collaborative approach to the designation of roads, trails and areas open to motor vehicle use.

It is important to convey to all interested parties that identification of the existing direction does not preclude the designation of roads, trails or areas that are not part of the existing direction. Conversely, a road, trail or area that is currently part of the existing direction does not assure it will be designated. While the existing direction will be of great interest, in the end, decisions will be made about roads, trails and areas through the collaborative travel management planning process.

B. Roads

The existing direction for roads is forest system roads that are currently in Infra as follows:

System = National Forest System Road (NFSR)
Jurisdiction = Forest Service
Route Status = Existing
Operational Maintenance Level = 2-5

This system of open roads is reported in the Annual Roads Accomplishment Report, has been capitalized as pooled assets in real property records, and has been assigned a forest system road number.

Roads that meet any of the following criteria should not be included in the existing direction. Exclude roads where any of the following can be credibly documented:

Technical corrections—Incorrect coding in Infra such as:
1. Road record in Infra but no corresponding road exists on the ground.
2. Jurisdiction incorrectly coded as Forest Service.
3. Unauthorized roads incorrectly coded as system roads (i.e., System = NFSR) instead of UNDETERMINED during any inventory or data editing process after the road policy came into effect on January 12, 2001 (See Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7703.2).
Changes on the Ground—The road is in Infra but no longer exists on the ground or the road has been converted to another use.
Decision Not Recorded in Infra—A National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) decision to close a road exists but has not been recorded in Infra.

C. Trails

There are far fewer trails than roads currently managed for motorized use. Most trails have core data entered into Infra (i.e., trail name, number and mileage). However, many trails are missing required linear events. Approximately 40 percent of the trail miles in the Southwestern Region are missing one or more of the “big three” required linear events (i.e., trail system, jurisdiction, and trail status). These three linear events should be populated to identify the existing system of motorized trails in the Region.

In addition, “allowed use” data should be populated in the Access and Travel Management module (ATM) where no data exists and should be supplemented where allowed motorized uses are missing. In these situations, add or modify the “allowed use” data where either of the following criteria is met:

There is a relevant management decision, such as forest plan direction or a NEPA decision.
Unless a subsequent management decision has been made to the contrary, the intent to accommodate and/or encourage motorized trail use is demonstrated by existing signing, visitor maps, Web site information, a Recreation Opportunity Guide, or other Forest Service information that indicates a trail is suitable for motorized use.

Once the required linear events and allowed use data cleanup is done, the existing direction for trails is the forest system of trails populated in Infra as follows:

Trail System = National Forest System Trail
Jurisdiction = Forest Service
Trail Status = Existing
Allowed Use (from ATM) = Any motorized vehicle with a management strategy of “manage” or “accept.”

In some cases, trails that meet the preceding criteria should not be included in the existing direction. Exclude trails where any of the following can be credibly documented:

Technical corrections—Incorrect coding in Infra such as:
1. Trail record in Infra but no corresponding trail exists on the ground.
2. Jurisdiction incorrectly coded as Forest Service.
3. Unauthorized trails incorrectly coded as system trails as a result of any inventory or data editing process after January 12, 2001 (See FSM 7711.03).
Changes on the Ground—The trail is in Infra but no longer exists on the ground or the trail has been converted to another use.
Decision Not Recorded in Infra—A NEPA decision to close a trail exists but has not been recorded in Infra.

D. Areas

Areas identified in forest plans or other planning documents, which have been specifically designated for unrestricted recreational motor vehicle use, constitute the existing direction. Tracts of forest which currently lack motor vehicle use restrictions, but are not specifically designated for unrestricted recreational motor vehicle use, are not part of the existing direction for areas.

Areas designated for motor vehicle use are not intended to be large or numerous. The Rule preamble clearly states the provision allowing for this type of designation is to be applied sparingly. Designated areas are to have biophysical characteristics that are suitable for motor vehicle use, or they should be so significantly altered by past actions that motor vehicle use might be appropriate. If an area is designated, all of it will be open to cross-country motorized travel. Where practical, designated areas should be clearly delineated on the ground.

III. Dispersed Motorized Camping

National forests in the Southwestern Region provide dispersed camping opportunities that are important to the public. Dispersed motorized camping is a legitimate recreation activity and forests will remain open to that opportunity in many locations. However, safety issues and/or resource conditions may exist on-the-ground which should be cause for us to consider precluding some locations adjacent to designated routes from being available for dispersed motorized camping activities.

Do not allow dispersed motorized camping adjacent to designated routes where such use would create a public safety problem. Examples include: areas adjacent to designated roads where unmanaged ingress/egress, or roadside parking, represents a safety issue because of travel speed and/or sight distance (coordination with state and county road managers is required); areas with a history of flash flooding; proximity to public shooting ranges; or when/where such use may increase the risk of adverse affects on adjacent values (e.g., areas with dangerous fuel conditions that are down slope/upwind of a community in the wildland-urban interface).

Do not allow dispersed motorized camping adjacent to designated routes where natural and/or cultural resource conditions are such that the activity would cause adverse impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated.

When safety and critical resource conditions have been considered, and it has been determined that dispersed motorized camping can take place adjacent to a designated route, there are a number of options for managing the activity. More than one of these options (tools) may be used to best meet the intent of the Rule. Site specific considerations should determine which tool is best for managing dispersed motorized camping in a give location.

Tools available include:

Designating terminal facilities, trailheads, parking lots, and turnouts associated with the designated road or trail.
Designating specific routes to access dispersed camping sites.
Facilitating camping through roadside parking.
Designating an area for cross-country use where dispersed camping would be allowed along with other cross-country motor vehicle use.
Designating fixed distances from open routes allowing cross-country travel for the specific purpose of dispersed camping.

There are several additional considerations to keep in mind in determining which tool is most appropriate for a given location. Please keep in mind the likely future increase in demand for dispersed motorized camping as population and visitation in the Southwest continues to grow. Additionally, keep in mind that the designation may result in fewer roads being available for dispersed motorized camping, resulting in the potential for more use adjacent to the designated routes. Designations will require appropriate cultural resource clearances, and associated costs may be a consideration in tool selection.

Impacts from dispersed motorized camping go beyond wheel tracks, and a more comprehensive evaluation of potential impacts needs to be considered (e.g. sanitation, social). Monitoring of impacts from dispersed motorized camping activities should be planned for, and ability to mitigate impacts should be considered in determining which tool to use along a given route.

Designation as a Scenic-Byway, or other Scenery Management System considerations, may be relevant in determining how best to manage dispersed camping along a designated route. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum may also have a role to play in your determination.

Those forests whose management plans currently provide for fixed-width corridors adjacent to system routes are encouraged to consider all of the tools available to meet the need for dispersed motorized camping. Doing so will result in a more active approach to management of dispersed camping and a level of consistency among Forests that will enhance public understanding, compliance and enforcement.

Designating Terminal Facilities, Trailheads, Parking Lots, and Turnouts

Designating a route (road or motorized trail) includes designation of associated features of that route. Associated, or adjacent features, may include trailheads, parking lots, turnouts, or other terminal facilities such as short (less than 100 feet from the centerline of the route) spurs accessing areas used for dispersed camping or day use recreational activities. Communicating to the public which associated, or adjacent features, are designated with the route will be important and could constitute a signing effort similar to that required by designating specific routes/sites.

Designating Specific Routes/Sites

Much dispersed motorized camping takes place in the same sites year after year. These sites are easily identifiable. Terminal routes or spurs that provide access to these dispersed camping sites may be designated. Some spurs may be too short to be clearly identifiable on the motor vehicle use map (MVUM), depending on scale. Those designated routes, however, should be marked with a route marker. Informational signing, in addition to route markers, may be needed in given locations to facilitate public identification and understanding of open spur routes accessing dispersed motorized camp sites.

Facilitating Camping Through Roadside Parking

Directives will allow for roadside parking within a vehicle length from the shoulder of the road, provided it is safe to do so and without causing damage to NFS resources or facilities. Roadside parking can provide adequate access to dispersed motorized camping opportunities in many locations. Many traditionally used dispersed motorized camp sites are immediately adjacent to system roads, or within a short walking distance of those roads. Short-term demand for dispersed motorized camping sites (e.g. hunting seasons, holidays) may also be accommodated through application of this tool.

Designating associated features, specific routes/sites, and facilitating dispersed camping through roadside parking; offer the greatest opportunity for resource protection and minimizing negative resource impacts from the activity. These tools should be strongly considered as the appropriate methods to manage much dispersed motorized camping demand particularly in areas with sensitive resources, and/or where substantial increases in traditional use levels are not desirable.

Designating an Area for Cross-country Use

Designation of areas open to all cross-country motorized travel, including those associated with dispersed motorized camping, is permitted. Designation of areas may occur at a site specific scale (e.g., areas that include individual or multiple dispersed camping sites that occupy a fraction of an acre to several tens of acres) or at a more broad scale (i.e., many tens to hundreds of acres). However, as noted elsewhere, areas are not intended to be large or numerous, and should have natural resource characteristics that are suitable for motor vehicle use, or are so significantly altered by past actions that motor vehicle use might be appropriate.

Designated areas that are too small to be mapped to scale should be represented by a map symbol and a corresponding sign (or signs) on the ground to facilitate public identification of open areas. Where practical, the areas designated at a more broad scale should also be clearly delineated on the ground.

The area tool needs to be applied carefully because of the potential for negative resource impacts from unlimited motorized use within the entire area. Future increase in use could result in an area designation having undesirable consequences.

Designating Fixed Distances

Designating fixed distances should be the tool of last resort. Directives make clear that this tool “…should be used sparingly to avoid undermining the purposes of the travel management rule…” Forest supervisors should utilize this authority only when the Rule’s intent cannot be met effectively by one of the other available tools. Regional review of the travel analysis process (TAP) and the draft Proposed Action will be conducted (Travel Management Planning Process Checkpoints letter, dated 12/5/2006).

If it is determined that designating a fixed distance is the appropriate tool for a limited portion of a designated route, that distance should generally not exceed 300 feet from the centerline of the designated route.

In determining which limited portions of designated routes may be appropriate to designate a distance for cross-country travel for dispersed motorized camping consider the following factors:

Protection of natural and cultural resources. Do not allow motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping in those areas adjacent to designated routes that are associated with fragile soil features; threatened, endangered or sensitive species habitats; riparian values; known cultural resources; or have other special resource protection needs.
Limiting user conflicts. Do not allow motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping from designated routes where such use would create or exacerbate user conflicts. Examples include: areas in close proximity to private property; areas where we are trying to encourage day use to meet heavy demand; or areas where allowing cross-country travel for dispersed camping may invite illegal or other inappropriate activities or serve as an attractive nuisance.
Compatibility with other management objectives. Do not allow motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping from designated routes where such use would be incompatible with other management objectives such as those associated with Special Area Designations or Scenic Integrity Objectives

The fixed distance tool presents significant potential for negative resource impacts. Increases in use, which would be allowed within the designated corridor, could result in unacceptable resource damage. Forests need to keep in mind the fact that use levels are likely to increase as the southwest continues to grow. Consequently, this tool needs to be applied on a limited basis and only after careful consideration of the situation on the ground. A distance designation may be an appropriate tool in areas with non-sensitive resources and/or areas which receive only limited use (i.e. due to distances from population centers or a limited season of use); or possibly for locations which already receive heavy motorized camping use which does not (or would not with an increase in use) cause unacceptable negative resource impacts.

Exhibit 1 illustrates the concepts articulated above of using safety, social and resource “filters” to help determine the appropriateness of allowing dispersed motorized camping adjacent to designated routes, and which tool might be best for management of that activity in any given location.

Exhibit 1. Dispersed Motorized Camping Demand

IV. Parking Along Designated Forest Routes

Draft directive FSM 7716.1 – Content of Designations says: “The designation also includes parking a motor vehicle so that all parts of the vehicle are within one vehicle length from the edge of the road surface when it is safe to do so and without causing damage to National Forest Sysytem resources or facilities”.

Unless the final directives change, forests should identify places along designated routes where roadside parking would create unsafe conditions, or where such parking would damage resources or facilities, and should communicate to the public that no parking is allowed there.

V. Motorized Big Game Retrieval

National forests in the Southwestern Region provide hunting opportunities that are important to the public. State agencies are responsible for managing big game within the capacity of the land. Therefore, designation of routes affecting harvest and the need for cross-country travel to facilitate big game retrieval should be identified in close collaboration with the responsible state agency.

All authorizations for cross-country motorized big game retrieval (MBGR) are subject to other existing regulations intended to protect natural and/or heritage resources. This includes compliance with regulations addressing use of vehicles off roads (36 CFR 261.15), National Forest Wilderness (36 CFR 261.18), and National Forest Primitive Areas (36 CFR 261.21), as well as other applicable laws and regulations. No MBGR is allowed in Wilderness or Primitive Areas. Cross-country MBGR should not be allowed when conditions are such that cross-country travel would cause unacceptable natural and/or heritage resource damage, and existing resource protection regulations should be enforced when conditions warrant.

Authorized cross-country MBGR must be limited to those persons with a legally harvested, and properly tagged, animal. Those authorized for cross-country MBGR should take a relatively direct and safe route that minimizes negative resource effects when retrieving their harvested animal and they should take the minimum number of trips to accomplish retrieval. Only one vehicle should be allowed for cross-country MBGR per harvested animal.

Prioritization of Options to Address Motorized Big Game Retrieval (MBGR)

Units should use route designation open to all users as the first option to address MBGR. If State Game and Fish agencies have additional management needs, consider designation of routes that would be open only during the hunting seasons to reduce the distance for non-motorized big game retrieval, thereby limiting the need to allow for cross-country MBGR. The open road density in any given big game hunt unit should be a prime consideration in the determination of whether or not cross-country MBGR is authorized.

If the above preferred options are insufficient to address big game retrieval issues, cross-country MBGR can be considered, but it must be needs based. In collaboration with the State Game and Fish Departments determine what, if any, cross-country motorized big game retrieval to authorize, considering the following needs:

Need to meet state big game harvest and management objectives. Consider providing for cross-country MBGR where it would play an important role in meeting state big game harvest or management objectives. For example, there may be a need to increase hunter willingness to harvest a big game animal deeper in the interior of a big game management unit by providing an opportunity for cross-country MBGR of a downed animal.
Need to avoid spoilage of big game. Consider providing for cross-country MBGR where it would play an important role in avoiding spoilage of big game meat. Harvest of large animals such as elk, buffalo and mule deer during warmer season hunts are examples of circumstances warranting further consideration.
Need to provide for state programs related to disabled hunters. Consider providing for cross-country MBGR where it would play an important role in implementation of state regulated programs related to disabled hunters.

The appropriate tools available to provide for the use of motor vehicles to retrieve big game include:

Designating fixed distances from open routes allowing cross-country travel for the specific purpose of big game retrieval.
Designating an area for cross-country usewherein big game retrieval would be allowed in the area, along with other cross-country motor vehicle use. Only special circumstances may lend themselves to the use of this option.

State of Arizona – Additional Considerations

Discussions with the Arizona State Department of Game and Fish have identified some management needs and criteria where cross-country MBGR may be authorized for some big game species and hunt areas in Arizona. The following are to be considered when preferred options are insufficient to address big game retrieval issues:

Bear Hunts. Do not consider cross-country MBGR for bear hunts except for CHAMP program hunters.
Bison Hunts. Consider cross-country MBGR for up to 3 miles from a designated route.
CHAMP Permits. Hunters with a valid CHAMP permit can travel up to 1 mile from a designated route for cross-country MBGR for elk, deer, bison or black bear.
Elk Hunts. Consider cross-country MBGR for up to 1 mile from a designated route, except between 1 hour before sunrise and 10:00 am. For “High Country” game management units consider authorizing cross-country MBGR through midnight of the third Thursday of October. For “Low Country” game management units, consider authorizing cross-country MBGR through midnight of the first Thursday of November.

High Country: Game Management Units eligible for consideration of motorized retrieval of legally harvested elk through midnight of the third Thursday of October include 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B-North and South, 6A, 6B, 7-East and West, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12A-East and West, 12B, 13A, 13B, 27, 22-North and 23-North.

Low Country: All other Game Management Units would be eligible for consideration of motorized retrieval of legally harvested elk through midnight of the first Thursday of November.

Mule Deer Hunts. Consider cross-country MBGR for up to 1 mile from a designated route, except between 1 hour before sunrise and 10:00 am from the beginning of the Mule Deer hunts in July through midnight Sunday of the second week in October, except for GMU 12A which should be considered for yearlong needs.

VI. Exempted Uses - Written Instruments

Some vehicles and uses are exempt from the prohibitions of the designation process (36 CFR 212.51(a)). “Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulation” (36 CFR 212.51(a)(8)) is one of the exempted use. Careful consideration of these exempted uses is needed to assure the cross-country motorized travel “…specifically authorized under the written authorization…” does not result in unnecessary negative resource impacts, and meets the intent and purpose of the Rule.

A. Permitted Grazing Activities

National forests in the Southwestern Region have a long history of permitted domestic grazing use. Domestic livestock grazing is an important and valued use of National Forest System lands on all 11 national forests throughout the Region. Domestic livestock grazing activities are an integral part of the tradition, culture, and social fabric of communities throughout the Region.

Forests should ensure that grazing permit holders are aware of the Travel Management Rule (TMR) and seek their input into the designated system, any single purpose road(s) or trails(s) access needs, and needs for general cross-country travel, related to their authorized grazing activities. As a critical component of allotment management, the implementation of the TMR should be conducted in careful and considered consultation with the grazing permit holder [Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, sec. 402 (d) (e)].

Implementation of the Rule will require active management of all motorized use, including that related to permitted grazing activities. Motorized travel off the designated road system by grazing permit holders must be based on need related to carrying out required management practices, and compliance with the terms and conditions of Term Grazing Permits. Legitimate motorized use, including cross-country access, needed for conducting activities required under Term Grazing Permits will be authorized unless compelling natural and/or heritage resource issues such as those identified below require postponement or modification of the activity.

Motor vehicle use in designated wilderness areas will continue to be managed consistent with the provisions of the Wilderness Act [section 4(d)(4)(2)] that provides for limited exceptions for grazing livestock as further defined in the Congressional Guidelines (FSM 2323.22).

The regulations 36 CFR 212.51(8) and 36 CFR 261.13(h) specifically exempt motor vehicle use, that is authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations, from the prohibition on off-road travel established under 36 CFR 112.51. The preamble to 36 CFR, Part 212, (Federal Register, Volume 70, No. 216, Wednesday, November 9, 2005, Rules and Regulations, page 68284) clarifies the Secretary’s intention regarding written authorizations. In responding to public comment the Department agreed that motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations should be exempted from designations made under 36 CFR 212.51 and restrictions and prohibitions established under 36 CFR 212.81, as well as from the prohibitions in 36 CFR 261.13 and 261.14 of the rule.

Authorizations for cross-country motorized travel should meet the intent of the Rule to the fullest extent possible. Changes from historic patterns of travel should not impair management of the allotment or substantially impact the operator’s economic viability. Permittee access to manage allotments would be provided through a combination of the designated Forest system roads and other access needs identified in their Term Grazing Permit. If not currently described in a Term Grazing Permit, access needs other than the designated system, will be spelled out as a special provision in part 3 of the Term Grazing Permit (either in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP), or directly as a special provision of the permit in part 3) as presently being practiced. Since travel activities associated with Term Grazing Permits are on going, with a long history, additional NEPA and a formal decision would not be required. However, a general description of the permitted level of motorized cross-country travel for grazing activities should be addressed in the discussion of cumulative effects in any travel management NEPA documents. In the event of significant future deviations from “current access needs” for motorized use as authorized by a Term Grazing Permit, these must be disclosed through NEPA on a site specific basis.

Annual Operating Instructions (AOI’s) specify those annual actions that are needed to implement the management direction set forth in the Term Grazing Permit including the AMP. With regard to travel management needs, this will annually include a brief discussion of the use of vehicles and ATV’s within the designated road system, any single purpose use roads or trails, and a description of the annually anticipated level of cross-country travel and access consistent with the part 3 of the Term Grazing Permit and/or AMP. Any unplanned or emergency type travel not previously contemplated in the Term Grazing Permit would also be discussed with appropriate authorization and guidance established in the AOI.

All authorizations for cross-country motorized travel are subject to other existing regulations intended to protect natural and/or heritage resources. This includes compliance with regulations addressing use of vehicles off roads (36 CFR 261.15), National Forest Wilderness (36 CFR 261.18), and National Forest Primitive Areas (36 CFR 261.21), as well as other applicable laws and regulations. Cross-country motorized travel should not be allowed when conditions are such that cross-country travel would cause unacceptable natural and/or heritage resource damage, and existing resource protection regulations should be enforced when conditions warrant.

Factors to consider in determining the appropriate level of cross-country motorized travel to authorize in Term Grazing Permits include, but are not limited to the following:

Grazing Management and Operational Related

The number, location, and access (via currently designated travel routes) to range improvements (fences, corrals, cattleguards, pipelines, water delivery systems, earthen tanks) which must be checked, maintained, and repaired on a regular basis.
The anticipated need for construction of new structural and non-structural range improvements identified through adaptive management and the NEPA process related to grazing authorizations and the development of AMPs.
The past and current level of cross-country travel as demonstrated over the past 10–20 years for general range management and permit compliance purposes.
The type and complexity of grazing management and frequency of livestock movements for range management purposes.
The type of fences needing to be maintained (e.g., electric fences as opposed to traditional barbed wire fences).
The need for checking the functionality of fences and the logistics involved in the transport of repair materials to fence line locations.
The need and logistics for repair and maintenance of wildlife, waterfowl, and other types of exclosures which are the responsibility of the grazing permit holder.
The need for placing supplements in strategic locations for livestock and grazing management purposes.
The need to check gates potentially left open by other national forest users (e.g., recreationist and hunters).
The need to attend to sick or injured livestock.

Resource Management Related

The potential to damage soil, watershed, vegetation, heritage, or other forest resources.
The potential for harassment of wildlife and disruption of wildlife habitats.
Special land-use designations such as wild and scenic river corridors.
Terms and conditions in Endangered Species Act, section 7, Biological Opinions, or compliance with letters of concurrence.
Direction and requirements contained within land and resource management plans.

B. Special Use Authorizations

Special Use Authorization (SUA) holders should be informed about the Travel Management Rule and the pending designation of a system of roads, trails, and areas under the new regulation. It should be possible to satisfy some of the motorized access needs of SUA holders through the designated system, and holder input into the designation process should be sought. Some of the holders motorized access needs may be on existing routes which will not be part of the designated system, and those routes should be approved by separate authorizations as appropriate.

Special Use Authorization holders who have cross-country motorized access needs (off the designated system and off routes which are under authorization to them) will be required to request in writing what the specifics of their cross-country travel needs are, and to obtain written approval for that motorized cross-countrytravel. The standard mechanisms for granting such approval would be the approval by the authorized officer of an operating plan which would become part of the SUA, or utilizing an existing clause within the SUA. The desired end-result is that the written authorization for cross-country motorized travel would become part of the SUA and therefore be enforceable under the terms of the SUA.

The authorization for cross-country motorized travel can address annual or multi-year activities. If an operating plan for maintenance or operational activities is not already required by a permit, and motorized cross-country travel is requested, the forest will coordinate with the permit holder to amend the authorization either by adding the requirement for an operating plan or utilizing an appropriate existing SUA clause.

The written authorization for cross-country motorized travel should be needs based, authorizing only the cross-country motorized travel necessary to accomplish maintenance and operational activities necessary to conduct activities authorized by the SUA. All authorizations for cross-country motorized travel are subject to other existing regulations intended to protect natural and/or heritage resources. This includes compliance with regulations addressing use of vehicles off roads (36 CFR 261.15), National Forest Wilderness (36 CFR 261.18), and National Forest Primitive Areas (36 CFR 261.21), as well as other applicable laws and regulations. Cross-country travel should not be allowed when conditions are such that cross-country travel would cause unacceptable natural and/or heritage resource damage, and existing resource protection regulations should be enforced when conditions warrant.

Non-system motorized travel should not be authorize for holders of outfitter/guide SUA’s to scout for game, set up hunting camps, or transport clients to hunting sites. Retrieval of harvested big game animals would be managed the same as for the general public (as outlined in section V of these guidelines).

C. Forestry Activities

(Content in development)

VII. Limited Administrative Use by the Forest Service

Another exempted use (36 CFR 212.51(a)(4)) is "Limited administrative use by the Forest Service."