The purpose and need of this Travel Plan is to offer a balanced range of motorized road and trail related recreation opportunities in the Forest that is consistent with the management prescriptions adopted in the Revised Forest Plan.  These prescriptions include standards for the miles of open roads and motorized trails allowed per square mile.  This Travel Plan shows which roads and trails will remain open to meet these road and trail density standards

United States Forest Service

English

DigitalCommons@USU

Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) 1997 Record of Decision Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Travel Plan, Targhee National Forest United States Forest Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs  Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation United States Forest Service, "Record of Decision Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Travel Plan, Targhee National Forest" (1997). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 387. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/387 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@usu.edu. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intennountaln Region Targ'-National Fo",SI Record of Decision for the Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Travel Plan TOOIIBE NATIONAL FOREST OPEN ROAD AND OPEN MOTORIZED TRAIL TRAVEL PLAH RECORD 01' DECISION Bonnev ille, Butte, Clark, Fremont , Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison and Teton Counties, Idaho Lincoln and Teton Counties, Wyoming THE DECISION - AN OVERVIEW This document presents my decision for the open motorized road and trail network for the Targhee National Forest. It e xplains why I have selected the Tl:avel Plan Por t. ion of Alternat ive 3M, as modified between the draft EIS and final EIS (displayed as Alternative 3M in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (final EIS) for the 1997 Revised Forest Plan). The purpose and need of this Tra vel Plan is t.o offer a balanced range of motorized road and trail related recreation opportunities in the Forest that is consistent with the management prescriptions adopted in th~ Rp.viaed Forest Plan. These prescriptions include standards for the miles of open roads and motorized trails allowed per square mi l e. This Travel Plan shows which roads and trails will remain open to meet these road and trail density standards. The Travel Plan in A.lternative 3M, as modified from the Revised Forest Plan draft EIS, in response to site specific public comments, responds to the need for a reasonable network of motorized roads and trails that meet the open road and open motorized trail route density (OROMTRD) standards in the Revised Forest Plan. This dec i sion provides for 1,517 miles of open motorized roads, 2 5 miles of seasonally restricted roads and 540 miles of open motorized trai ls. Prior to this decision 1,985 miles of roads were open, 73 miles or road were seasonally restricted and 773 miles o f trail were open for motorized use. Therefore, t here will be a reduction of approximately 408 open miles of road, 48 miles of seasonally rest:ricted road, and 233 miles of open motorized trail from existing condition to meet the OROMTRD standards specified i n the Revise d Forest Plan. Fo r more specifics, see Table IV-l3 on page 1V-45 in the final £15. Some signing of open motorized routes will begin this fall consistent wi th the Travel Plan maps. ROD - 1 We wi ll also imp lement a monito ring and e va luation s tra tegy to as s ess the e ffe c tiveness of this mo torized trave l plan. Th is monitori ng item is a pr iority o ne for the Fo r est ( See Rev i sed Fo r est Plan, Chapter V f o r f u r ther details), which mean s it is mandatory. In the process of preparing th is Record o f Dec is i o n and its accompany i ng Travel Maps we ident ified numerous i nst a nc e s in wh ic h Appe ndix C o f the Final EIS could be clarified and updated. This decision i s based o n tha t c orrec ted Appendix C . BACKGROUND One of t he most contro versial aspects of the Revised Forest Plan j } the key issue of access and what level of motorized access is appropriate for the Targhee National Forest . The R@v ised Plan has numerous management prescriptions and included in most of these pres c r i ptions is an access t3ble that indicates t he type of access (motorized or nonmotorized), c ross country travel and road and trail travel that is allowed year round and seasonally, including an open road and open motorized tra i l route density for most prescriptions . This Record of Decision des i gnates the r o ads and trails that will be open for motorized use t o begin ':'mplementation of the Revised Forest Plan . The final EIS for the Revised Forest Plan portrays both the cumulative effects and site specific considerations fOl the motorized road and trail network (See Appendix C of the final EIS for further information) . During the Revi s ; on of the Forest Plan, each motorized road and tra i l was carefully scrutinize d by the Interdisciplinary Team (lOT) and field going personnel from the Ra nger Districts. Resource concerns included elk security and elk habita t effectivenes s , Threatened, Endangered and sens i tive species habitat, riparian areas, sensitive ooils and stee I-slopes. The public was also involved in this analysis and disclosure which is summarized below . PUBLIC INVOLVBMBNT Public involvement has been e xtensive throughout the plann ing and analysis pro cess leading to th i s decision. Key public convnent and participation was o b t a i ned o n numerous o c casions. I feel confident that all i nterested publ ics have had ample opportunities to participat e and shat'e theit' c o ncerns r egarding this Travel Plan. The following outlines the major s t eps i n the public involvement effort. • In Oc tober of 1994, meetings were held in Idaho Falls and Driggs to g i ve the public an opportunity to identify whic h individual areas, roads and t ra ils should be permanently open, permanently closed, o bliteratec! or seasonally restricted . ROD - 2 • Open hou s es were held in June 1995 in Idaho Falls, Ashton, and Rexburg at the Henry ' 9 Fork Watershed Council meeting to present the proposed , c t ion, (Alternative 3M i n the draft EIS for the Revised Fo rest Plan ) to int e rested people, gather informat ion and exchange ideas . The DEIS was available fo -:- a 90- day comment period from February 1996 t o June 1996. The Travel Plan was displayed on maps 11 and 12. Other alternatives in the Draft EIS displayed different Travel Plans to meet the road and trail density standards for those alternatives (v arious maps 2-20) • During the comment period, numerous public information meetings were held throughout the local area . Detailed travel maps were on display for Alternative 3M and participants were asked at each meeting to provide input as to why individual roads and trails should be open or closed. Substantive access corrrnents and the responses are IJ.8ted in Appendix A of the final EIS for the Revised Forest Plan (Pgs . 1-1 through I-84). Public i nvolvement and discussions continue . We listened to all points of view and incorporated many suggestions. I am confident the staff listened, and that public involvement in this process has strengthened this decision. PLAHNING RECORDS With the above c o llaboration with the public , other agencies and expert ~8e from many Forest Servic e employees, an lOT completed the e nvironmental analyses as summarized in the Final EIS (Chapter IV) & the updated Appendix C . The Team has provided detailed explanations of the analysis and results of the planning process in planning records. Detailed planning r e c ord s can be reviewed at: Fo rest Superv isor's Office Ta rghee National Forest 420 N. Bridge Street St . Anthony, Idaho 83445 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERI!:!> Based on available data, public involvement, and Final EIS Appe.,dix C (as updated), three reasonable alternatives that address vary ing Trav e l P l an s were cons idered. The three Alternat i ves analyzed in deta i l a r e brief ly described below . For a more complete di s cuss i on of alternat i v e developmen t see the f i nal EI~, Appendix C . ROD - 3 Alternativ e 1 "No Action" - This alternati ve wo u l d leave the 19 9 6 Tra vel plan in place. This alternative was displayed on travel ma p s f o r Alternative 1 in the draft EIS and final EIS (maps 2 and 3 ). Approximate l y 1 , 985 miles of road , 73 miles of seasonally restr icted r o a d , and 773 mi l es of motorized trail would remain open, as are currently a v a i lable . No additional road closures would be implemented at th i s time. Al t ernative 3M (draft EIS) - The alternative is t he travel plan for Alternative 3M , as displayed in the draft EIS for the Revi s ed Fore st Plan (maps 2 and 3) . It was also the proposed action . This alternative had 1,560 miles of open road , 120 miles of seAsonally restricted roarl, and 438 miles of open motorized trail . The selected alternative. Alternative 3M (final EIS), as mod i f ied between draft and final EIS - approxim3tes the travel plan that was displayed in the final EIS for the Revised Forest Plan (maps 11 and 12). As displayed in the final EIS, this alternative had 1,511 miles of roads, 25 miles of seasonally restricted road, and 540 miles of motorized trails open for use . O1'IIBR ALTERHA~rIVl!!S CONSIDERED BUT ELININATED .. ROM DETAILED STUDY The draft EIS and final EIS alE'o displayed open motorized road and trail travel plans f o r five other alternatives considered (2,3,4-6) . Neither of these alternat i ves were s elected by the Regional Forester t o b e the Revised Forest Plan and therefore were eliminated from detailed study !.n this travel plan analysis because they did not meet the densities d e cided upon in the Revised Forest Plan. TIlE DBCISION My decil~ ion is to adopt the road and trail network as shown in Alternative 3M which was modified a : -.er r" l iewing site specific public col'M'tents made on the draft EIS for the Revised Plan (see attached map). The system, as mapped, will offer a variety of motorized and nonmotorized use across the Forest in a.n environmentally acceptable way. The map clearly describes where people may go to either enjoy or avoid motorized ac t ivities. ROD - 4 The following illustratt..s the miles of roads and c. ra il s which will b e open for mo torized use by Ranger District: Miles o f Miles o f Miles of Road Open Seasonally Open Trail For Restricted Motorized Roads Use Dubois "i.strict 359 11 98 Island Park 423 4 24 Ashton 356 0 18 Palisades 287 7 258 Teton Basin 152 142 TOTAL 1,57 7 25 540 MONITORING COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION 0 .. ROAD AND TRAI L CLOSURES This project includes the conrnitment of the Forest to implement all the road and trail closures and to monitor the effectiveness of the closures as described in the Monitoring Plan for the Revised Forest Plan. RATIONALE FOR THE DBCISION Alternative 3M, as detailed in the accompanying Travel Maps and updated final EIS Appendix C, is the result of the alternative development and public i nvolvement stages of the Forest Plan Revision process. Important considerations to protect the environment that have influenced my decision include: Protection of the basic resources (air, soil, and water), as mandated by our agency's missio n, vision and guiding principles, are provided for with the Travel Plan. The local and national people who use the Targhee National Forest, the communities they live in, and the relationship of the Forest Serv ice with people and local communities . Compared t o the other alternatives, Alternative 3M, as modified, will implement the open motorized road and trail density standards for the Forest. Reasonable a c cess tc the Forest is provided on a system of designated routes. ROD - 5 This decision is one that invol ved a balanc i ng Clf c o mpelling r e source concerns and competing public interests wit h t imely , responsible e cosystem recovery . I have reached my decision after ca r eful c.onsiderat i on o f t he environmental an a lysis of the effects of the three alternatives, publ ic corrments rec eived between draft and final EIS and associat ed planning records . I selected the Travel Plan for Alternative 3M, as modified , becau s e i t best meets the most important objectives of the Reg i onal Fo rester' s decision in selecting Alternative 3M as the Re v ised Forest Plan: management of the Forest for sustainabili t y of all components of the ecosystem, ma intaining or improv ing habitat for all wildlife species, especially elk and grizzly bear, maintaining o r improving ripar ian conditions, protecting long-term soil productiv ity and p roviding an array o f rec rea t i o nal opportunities . Other important considerations were: r oad less area reso urces, f ish habitat , and elk and deer • .... inter range . FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS As the Forest Supervisor (Oeciding Officer), I have considered the multitude of statutes governing manag ement o f the Targhee Nationa l Forest, and I believe that this decision represents the best possible approach relative to harmonizing and reconciling the current statutory duties of the Forest Service related to Travel Management. This decis i on complies with the 1997 Revised Forest Plan for the Targhee National Forest . The open motorized road and trail network, as proposed in Alternative 3M, as modified, meets the open motor ized road and trail route density standards for all prescr i ption areas for the Forest. This dec i sion complies with the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Standards Act as s hown by the conc lus ions presented in Chapter IV of the Final EIS for t he Rev ised Forest Plan and Appendix C o f the Final EIS. This Travel Plan complie s with the Endangered Species Act and the US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion as shown in the conclusions presented in Chapter I V, Wi ldlife sect ion of the Final EIS . THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE I am identifying the selected Alternative 3M, as modified, as environmentally preferable based o n the following interpretation of the law and agency policy. Regulations implementi ng the National Env i r o nmental Pol icy Act (NEPA) require agencies to specify the alternative o r alternatives which were considered to be e nvi r o nmentally preferable (40 CFR lSOS .2 (b» . Fore s t Service pol i cy further define s environmentally preferable as an alternat i v e ROD - 6 that best meets the goals o f s e c t ion 101 of NEPA . Ordinarily this is the alternat i ve that causes the least damage to the biological and physical env i r onment and best protects, ~reserves, and enhances historical, cultur al , - ' d natural resources . In some cases there may be more than o ne envir onmentally preferable alternative (FSH 1909.15-0S). Sectl.on 131 of NEPA dec l ares national environmental policy, c alling o n fede ral , state, and l ocal governments and the public to create a nd maintain c o nditions under wh l. c h humans and nature can exist in productive harmony. This broad policy i s further defined in six goals: (1) fulfil l the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the envi r onment for succ£ ~ding generations: (2) a ssure for all Americans safe, healthful, producti ve, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings: (3) attain the widest. range o f benef i cial uses of the environment without oegradation, risk t o health or s afety, or other undes i rable and unintended consequences ; (4) preserve i mpo r tant histor ic, cultural, and natura l aspects o f ou r national heritage and maintain wherever possible an environment which supports diver sity and variety of individual choice; (S) achieve a balance bet ween po pulation and resource use wh i ch will permit high standards of liv i ng and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum atta i nable recycling of depletable r esources . The goals of Section 101 are s imil a r to the principles of ecosystem management and of the Revised Forest Plan, call ing for susta i nable and balanced use, and p r ovision for future generations. Section 101 does not c all for the exclusion of Americans from use of thei r natura l resources, but does demand that such uses avoid degradation of the environment . Alternative 3M, as modified best meets the goals of Sec t ion 101 of NEPA. By t h is standard , the selected Alternat ive 3M, as modified is the environmentall y preferable a l ternative for this Travel Plan . MITIGATION AND MOKITORING All practicable means to avoid or minimize e n vironmental harm from the proposed deS ignat ion of open motorized roads and trails in Selected A1ternati\oe 3M, as modified, have been ado pted. Monitoring the effectiveness of road closures in priority o ne (per Chapter V, Revised Forest Plan) and wi ll check the effectiver.ess of the closu r es and a c hievement o f Total Motorized Access Route Density and Open Road and Open Motori zed Trail Route Density (further i nformatio n can be found on pag es V-39 through V-41 of the Revised Fore st Plan). ROD - 7 APPUL AND IIIPLBICZN'l'ATION This decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 2 15 . Any appeal of this decision must be fully cons i stent with 36 CFR 2 15.14, Content of Notice of Appeal, i ncluding the reasons for apf':al and must be filed with: Appea l Reviewi ng Off i cer USDA-Forest Service 324 25th Street Ogden , Utah Any appeal must be postmarked within 45 days from the date the legal no t ice of this decision is published in the Idaho ?alls Poat Register . If no appeal is filed, implementation may occur o n, but not before, 5 business days fr om the close of the appeal f i ling period . If an appeal is f iled, i mplement ation may not occur !t')r 15 days follow i ng the date of appeal disposition. n 8k:w ~B. REESE Forest Supervisor ROD - 8 to' c.s . ~ PIlIn'IIIC OPPlCl , 1991. )1) · 061 I 21036 UC IOlf 1'0. I AUG 15 \991 Date ' ____________ __ Includes the Counties of Bonnevillo, Butte, Clark, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison, and Teton of Idaho and Lincoln and Teton Counties of Wyoming. The Un~ed States Department of Agricuijure (USDA) prohibits discrimination in ~ programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohiMed Uases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require aijemative means for communication of program information (braille. large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791 . To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agricuijure, U.S. Department of Agricuijure, WaShington, DC 20250, or call 1-800-245-6:J40 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TID). USDA is an equal opportunity em-ployer. 

Record of Decision Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Travel Plan, Targhee National Forest

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1386&amp;context=govdocs

Record of Decision Open Road and Open Motorized Trail Travel Plan, Targhee National Forest

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@USU