RECORD OF DECISION for the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region April 2012 RECORD OF DECISION for the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and telecommunications device for the deaf [TDD]). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 BACKGROUND... 1 PURPOSE AND NEED... 3 DECISION... 3 DESIGNATED ROADS AND MOTORIZED TRAILS... 4 MOTORIZED BIG GAME RETRIEVAL... 5 DESIGN FEATURES... 6 MITIGATION/MONITORING... 7 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY... 8 DECISION AUTHORITY... 9 RATIONALE FOR OUR DECISION... 9 MEETING THE PURPOSE AND NEED... 9 RESPONSIVENESS TO ISSUES TRIBAL AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TRIBAL CONSULTATION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT OTHER ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 3: CURRENT SYSTEM (ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE 4: VISITOR MAP ALTERNATIVE 5: REDUCED RESOURCE IMPACTS ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAW, REGULATION, AND POLICY AVOIDING/MINIMIZING ENVIRONMENTAL HARM SHORT TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES APPENDIX A: ROADS AND TRAILS DESIGNATED AS OPEN FOR MOTOR VEHICLE USE BY DISTRICT APPENDIX B: ROUTES INCLUDED IN ALTERNATIVE 2 OF THE FEIS BUT NOT DESIGNATED IN THE SELECTED ACTION... 73

4

5 INTRODUCTION This Record of Decision (ROD) documents our decision to select Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, with modifications, and the elk only motorized big game retrieval option, for the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts (districts) Combined Travel Management Project on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (Forest). This alternative addressed the purpose and need of the project and the five issues identified during preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS). The Forest Service prepared an EIS in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The EIS documents the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. This decision implements provisions of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B). A more detailed description of the Selected Action is provided below under the heading Decision. Background Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of motorized vehicles, particularly off highway vehicles (OHVs) and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) has increased tremendously. Nationally, the number of OHV users has climbed sevenfold, from approximately 5 million in1972 to 36 million in 2000 (FR Vol. 73 No. 2). Unmanaged OHV use has resulted in unplanned roads and motorized trails, some of which have contributed to erosion and watershed and habitat degradation, and have impacted cultural resource sites. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent species are particularly vulnerable to OHV use. Unmanaged recreation, including impacts from OHVs, is one of Four Key Threats facing the Nation s Forests and Grasslands (USDA FS 2004). Federal regulations adopted on November 9, 2005, provide for designation of those National Forest System (NFS) roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use (36 CFR ). After designated roads, trails, and areas are identified on a motor vehicle use map, motor vehicle use that is not in accordance with those designations is prohibited by federal regulations (36 CFR ). In 2007, the state of Nevada also recognized the impact unmanaged OHV use was having on the cultural and ecological condition of the federal lands in Nevada by passing Senate Joint Resolution Number 10 expressing support for the designation of trails for OHVs by certain federal agencies. In the resolution, the Nevada Legislature supported actions by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service that designate specific roads, trails and areas for use by OHVs. They urged the BLM and Forest Service to carry out those actions and policies in cooperation with other groups including local law enforcement, hunting, hiking, biking, ranching, and conservation groups, and others who work on issues involving Nevada s backcountry. The resolution further urged the agencies to require OHVs to stay on designated roads and motorized trails and not pioneer unauthorized roads and motorized trails. Lastly, the resolution encouraged the federal agencies to enter into interagency agreements with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to use resources efficiently and to ensure sufficient enforcement of the policies and regulations. The project area for this ROD includes all of the NFS lands within the boundaries of the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts; approximately 1,200,000 acres (Table 1). These areas include approximately 240,000 acres of designated wilderness that are closed to motorized vehicles. The project area also includes the Bear Creek watershed (approximately 9,400 acres) on the Jarbidge Ranger District that serves as the municipal watershed for the community of Jarbidge. This watershed was closed to cross-country motorized use in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Only vehicle use on designated roads and motorized trails is permitted to protect the surface of the watershed (USDA FS 1986, IV 129). Two other municipal watersheds are located within the project area but are not protected under the Forest Plan. The Brown Creek watershed surrounds the 1

6 area where the community of Mountain City obtains the majority of its drinking water. The Flyn Spring watershed protects the area where the majority of the drinking water for the community of Shanty Town is drawn. Table 1. Acres of Wilderness and Total Acres by District District Wilderness Acres Total Acres Mountain City 0 477,056 Ruby Mountains 129, ,123 Jarbidge 110, ,907 Total 240,508 1,171,086 The Forest Transportation Atlas indicates there are approximately 1,085 miles of designated NFS roads and motorized trails that comprise the Forest Transportation System (FTS) on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. These roads and motorized trails provide access for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. They are used by anglers, hunters, other recreation users, and authorized permittees. Some of the NFS roads and motorized trails provide the primary access into and across the districts. Other NFS roads provide access for high-clearance vehicles into the backcountry. They afford opportunities for OHV drivers to explore the districts and drive on primitive, high-clearance four-wheel drive roads and motorized trails. Management of motorized travel on the districts has been a dynamic process. During the past century, the Forest has added roads to the FTS, and decommissioned roads that were causing resource impacts or were no longer needed for the use and management of the Forest. The Forest has also identified and mitigated road-related resource concerns. On portions of the districts, motor vehicles were restricted to designated roads and motorized trails through previous travel management decisions. These areas of restricted travel total about 249,400 acres, primarily in the Jarbidge and Ruby Mountains. Outside designated wilderness and the Bear Creek Municipal Watershed, the districts are currently open to cross-country motorized travel. Unauthorized roads and motorized trails have been created over time through use in this area. The unauthorized roads and motorized trails are not managed, maintained, or included on the FTS. Some unauthorized routes are well situated; provide access to popular dispersed campsites, informal trailheads, and other features; and have been in use for many years. Some have a long history as jeep trails, while others are primarily non-motorized trails. Based on inventories used in this analysis, there are approximately 1,144 miles of unauthorized routes on the districts. Most are less than 0.5 mile in length (1,603 out of 2,385 routes). While some of these routes are interconnecting motorized trails, the majority are short spurs, leading to dispersed campsites and other dispersed recreation sites. Dispersed camping is an important use on the three ranger districts and dispersed sites have been created over time through public use. These sites occur adjacent to both NFS roads and unauthorized routes. While there is not an inventory of dispersed campsites, it is common to find evidence of a dispersed camping at the end of, or along the length of, most of the roads and motorized trails on the districts. Observations by district staff estimate that approximately 90 percent of spurs less than 0.25 miles in length are associated with dispersed campsites. 2

7 Purpose and Need Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined On November 9, 2005, the Secretary of Agriculture adopted rules which provided for a fundamental change in the management of motor vehicle use on the national forests. The Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212) provides policy to control the proliferation of unauthorized roads and motorized trails and to manage the FTS in a sustainable manner by designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Until publication of the rule, there was a presumption that all roads, trails, and areas were open for use by motor vehicles. If use by motor vehicles was not appropriate for any reason, the Forest Service had to take action to close specific roads, trails, or areas to motorized use. This resulted in a largely unplanned transportation system, with many unauthorized routes established by repeated use and damage to resources occurring from uncontrolled cross-country travel. The 2005 rule provides the mechanism for transition to a new system for managing motor vehicle use. Following appropriate environmental analysis and public involvement, those roads, trails, and areas designated for motorized use will be identified on a motor vehicle use map, and any motor vehicle use not consistent with those designations will be prohibited by the rule (36 CFR261.13). In this way, the national forests will provide sustainable transportation systems for travel and recreation, and for management and protection of resources prone to damage from unmanaged use. This proposal is needed to provide the primary framework for sustainable management of motor vehicle use on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. Currently, motor vehicles may travel off designated roads or motorized trails on the districts. In their use and enjoyment of NFS lands, motor vehicle users have created approximately 2,385 unauthorized roads and motorized trails totaling approximately 1,144 miles. Prohibiting motor vehicles from traveling off designated roads and motorized trails will reduce the effects to natural and cultural resources caused by cross-country travel. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan (USDA FS 1986). It helps move the project area towards the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan by allowing motor vehicle use where it will not impact forest resources or unnecessarily impact other national forest users. The proposed additions to the FTS are needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. There is also a need to provide recreation opportunities important to the public, similar to the current opportunity levels. The purpose of this project is to designate roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use to meet recreation, access, and management objectives, while limiting environmental impacts and moving toward a more sustainable transportation system across the districts. A forest plan amendment is not needed to implement a decision based on this analysis. The rule also provides that the management of motor vehicle use is to be an ongoing process, with continuing evaluation of the designations and revision as needed (36 CFR ). It is expected that many changes to the designated system will be made over time in order to meet recreation and transportation needs and protect national forest resources. DECISION Based on the analysis in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), the associated project record, and comments brought forward by the public after publication of the FEIS. We have decided to implement Alternative 2 with some road and motorized trail specific adjustments and the motorized big game retrieval option for elk only. This decision meets the purpose and need and responds to the issues of motorized recreation opportunity and natural resource protection. Our decision incorporates modifications made to Alternative 2 in response to public comments on the DEIS, and included in the FEIS. This decision also includes our response to comments on the FEIS provided by the public between 3

8 August 5 and September 19, To review the list of roads and motorized trails we have chosen to designate, please refer to Appendix A. The ROD maps on the accompanying CD display which NFS roads and motorized trails and which proposed NFS roads and motorized trails will be designated in this decision. Designated Roads and Motorized Trails Under this decision, the total mileage of NFS roads and motorized trails on the districts will nearly double, from approximately 1,085 to 1,991 miles (Table 2). Most of the additional roads and motorized trails have been in existence for many years, but have never been formally adopted as part of the FTS. Table 2. Forest Transportation System under Selected Action (miles). Ranger District NFS Roads NFS Trails (Motorized) Proposed Roads Proposed Trails (Motorized) Mountain City Ruby Mountains Jarbidge Total 1, Combined total 1, Grand total 1,991 All roads and motorized trails designated for motor vehicle use will be identified on a motor vehicle use map. Motor vehicle use that is not consistent with the designations will be prohibited. Key elements of this decision follow. Based on the stated purpose and need for action, and informed by travel analysis, the districts will add about 906 miles of existing unauthorized routes to the FTS (Table 2). About 85 miles of these added roads and motorized trails will be open only seasonally to protect important mule deer winter range, and goshawk and sage grouse habitats. Approximately 33 miles of roads and motorized trails identified in Alternative 2 are not being designated in the Selected Action (Appendix A). Based on the analysis documented in the FEIS and included in the project record we have determined these routes would impact resources such as Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) habitat, Columbia spotted frog habitat, and cultural resources. After consulting with private landowners, approximately 17 miles of unauthorized routes could not be designated. Designation of these routes would violate the wishes of the private landowners. To reflect on the ground conditions, about 23 miles of existing NFS roads will be converted to NFS trails open to all motorized vehicles. To protect and sustain natural resources, motor vehicle use will be restricted to designated roads and motorized trails on the entire 1.2 million acres of NFS land on the three ranger districts. Unauthorized cross-country motorized use will no longer be allowed except during the elk hunting seasons when ATV/UTVs can be used up to 0.5 mile off designated roads and motorized trails to retrieve legally taken elk (see limitations below). Of the routes not being designated, some are behind private property and are not being designated at the landowner s request. Others are not accessible because they are overgrown, or only accessible from a route that is not being designated. The rest are not being designated because of a resource issue, or they are redundant with other roads being designated (Table 3). 4

9 Table 3: Reasons unauthorized routes were not designated as open for motor vehicle use. Jarbidge Ruby Mountains Mountain City Totals by Reason Aquatic Habitat Behind Private Property Bull Trout Columbia Spotted Frog Habitat Cultural Resources LCT Habitat No Access Rare Plant Habitat Redundant with Designated Routes Steep Slope >30% Weeds High Risk Wilderness Boundary Issues Riparian Habitat Total Miles Motorized Big Game Retrieval Inclusion of the motorized big game retrieval option will allow successful elk hunters to travel up to 0.50 mile off designated roads and motorized trails during the elk hunting seasons to retrieve their legally taken animal. Elk hunters taking advantage of this access are restricted to the following rules: One vehicle, one trip in and out by ATV/UTV only. Retrieval between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. only to reduce negative effects on other hunters in the area. Taking the most direct route after consideration of personal safety and other resource requirements. Crossing riparian areas, streams, and rivers only at designated road or trail crossings to prevent impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Motorized big game retrieval would not be allowed in designated wilderness areas or municipal watersheds, or when conditions are such that travel would cause damage to natural and/or cultural resources. Compliance with other applicable resource protection regulations to minimize impact to soil, water, vegetation, and other resources pursuant to 36 CFR ( c ), 36 CFR (h) and 36 CFR (a). This option will limit the annual number of trips to approximately 140 instead of allowing approximately 1,180 if retrieval of both mule deer and elk were allowed (FEIS, p. 20). It also addresses arguments presented by the public regarding the importance of retrieving elk quickly to protect the meat from spoilage and the ease with which a mule deer can be retrieved in comparison to an elk. Monitoring protocols (FEIS, Appendix B) will be used to assess impacts of off road and motorized trail motorized big game retrieval travel. If monitoring reveals or indicates unacceptable impacts to natural, biological, or cultural resources, we will assess the need for revision of the motorized big game retrieval allowances and implement additional restrictions as needed. 5

10 Design Features Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined Our decision includes the implementation of design features identified in the FEIS (FEIS, pp ) to reduce or eliminate impacts on cultural and biophysical resources and help manage potential user conflicts. These design features include the following. The Forest would follow national direction for signing and maps. (The Forest Service has developed a standard national format for the motor vehicle use map. These maps would be available at local Forest Service offices and, as soon as practicable, on Forest Service websites). User education and enforcement of the new travel management regulations would occur. This would include news releases, public meetings, and brochures describing the new travel management policy and use of the motor vehicle use map. Use of dispersed campsites at the end of designated roads and motorized trails would continue to be permitted. Use of these sites would not be restricted to camping. These sites would also be available for day use activities. Parking along designated roads and motorized trails and at the end of roads and motorized trails would be permitted. Parking adjacent to the travel lane, in pullouts, or along wide spots in the road would be considered consistent with the designation (FEIS, Figure 1). Road and trail maintenance would continue as funding is allocated by Congress. Maintenance would continue to be prioritized on an annual basis to address the most important safety and resource protection needs. If unacceptable levels of resource damage were occurring, steps to prevent further damage would be taken. If considerable adverse effects were occurring (e.g., erosion of road surface, channeling sediment into water ways, creation of parallel routes to avoid eroded areas), the road or motorized trail would be immediately restricted from motor vehicle use until the effects have been addressed or repaired and measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence (36 CFR (b)(2)). If considerable user conflict occurs, the districts may intensify education efforts or consider other responses in the future. There are several occurrences where private property, either inside or outside the district boundaries, blocks public access to NFS lands beyond the private property. When there is a NFS road or is trail identified by the Selected Action as open to the public beyond the private property boundary, we will work with the private landowner to acquire a right-of-way. If the private landowner does not wish to grant public access, the road or motorized trail beyond the private property will not be shown on the motor vehicle use map. Some landowners have already notified the Forest Service that they do not want to give the public access across their private property. The Forest Service respects the landowner s private property rights and will not display those motorized routes as open to the public beyond or across the private property. If over a twoyear period (starting from the date of the ROD) no agreement has been made towards public access across the private property, the road or motorized trail in question will be removed from the motor vehicle use map. This two-year timeline may be extended while a formal agreement is being finalized, if the landowner allows access to continue. Cultural Resource Compliance There is a need to complete the Cultural Resource compliance process on 23 roads and motorized trails located on the Jarbidge (13) and Mountain City (10) Ranger Districts (Table 4). These 23 roads and motorized trails include approximately 9.0 miles of proposed motor vehicle trail. While these roads and motorized trails are being designated by this decision, they will not be depicted on the motor vehicle use 6

11 map (and will not be open for motor vehicle use) until the compliance process is completed and the Forest has reported the results of that process along with determinations of effect to the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. Table 4: Roads and motorized trails which need cultural resource compliance completed before being displayed on the motor vehicle use map. Route Length (Miles) Route Length (Miles) Route Length (Miles) J5153B 0.4 J7377G 0.5 U J5153F 0.4 J7377J 0.7 U J5153H 0.2 M U56873C 1.4 J5153J 0.4 M U56882B 0.3 J M3458C 0.2 U56914A 0.5 J M4528B 0.3 U56917C 0.1 J7377D 0.7 M5790B 0.2 U J7377F 0.0 U Mitigation/Monitoring Mitigation measures were developed to ensure environmental effects remain at acceptable levels during implementation of the project (Chapter 2 Section 2.5 of the FEIS). The Forest Service will apply the following mitigation measures to the Selected Action: Cultural resource monitoring would be implemented on the newly authorized roads and motorized trails where eligible or potentially eligible sites have been identified that might have a potential for some form of damage related to the use of the road or motorized trail. A monitoring plan is found in Appendix B (FEIS). If new threats identified, mitigation measures would be applied as necessary to eliminate any newly identified risks to cultural resource values. Mitigation measures could include fencing, site damage assessments, excavation, and road or trail closure. The mitigation measure used would be determined through consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, Native American tribes, and interested parties. Prior to implementation, the mitigations would have to be documented in a separate site-specific environmental analysis. A set of mitigation and monitoring protocols have been developed for sensitive plant species and can be found in Appendix B (FEIS). Monitoring of rare plant locations would be performed to determine if adverse affects were occurring as a result of motor vehicle use on designated roads and motorized trails or from MBGR. If effects are identified, signing and the placement of temporary barriers may be used to protect the individual plants or habitat. If these methods prove ineffective, designated roads and motorized trails may be closed or rerouted. If monitoring identifies the need for closure or relocation of roads or trails, additional environmental analysis would be required before these measures could be implemented. Our decision incorporates all Required Monitoring identified in the FEIS Appendix B for Enforcement and Education, Cultural Resources, Soil and Water Resources, and Sensitive Plant Species, as well as the Optional Monitoring identified for Recreation. If routine monitoring determines that motor vehicle use inconsistent with the designation is occurring, steps to prevent further damage will be taken. These steps can include additional signage, construction of barriers, additional enforcement, and route closure. If inconsistent use, or adverse effects continue, the roads and motorized trails will be immediately closed to motor vehicle use until the effects have been mitigated or eliminated and measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence (36 CFR (b)(2)). 7

12 Areas with limited use of motor vehicles for the purposes of big game retrieval will be monitored to assess for damage to natural and cultural resources and/or frequently occurring actions that compromise the ability of the Forest Service to meet management objectives. This monitoring will occur in conjunction with other project or management activities. If soil damage and/or excessive damage to vegetation are discovered, the Forest Service will take the necessary action to move the area into compliance with the Forest Plan. This may include temporarily or permanently closing areas to motorized vehicle use. All permanent closure proposals will follow the required NEPA process. Designated roads as well as closed roads will be monitored periodically for excessive ruts, erosion, or sedimentation of water bodies. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY By summer of 2012, motor vehicle use maps will be available to the public at no cost at Forest Service offices and on the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest website. These maps are the legal documents identifying those roads, trails, and areas on the districts designated for motor vehicle use, including class of vehicle and time of year. The motor vehicle use map will be reviewed annually. Any changes or corrections necessitated by future travel management decisions will be incorporated into future revisions of the motor vehicle use map. Further changes to the FTS are envisioned, as outlined in the travel analysis process report. These may include closure of NFS roads and motorized trails that are impassable or no longer needed, development of new roads and motorized trails as needed for public use and resource management, or closure of roads and motorized trails in response to changes in conditions on the ground. Any such changes to the FTS will be accompanied by appropriate environmental analysis and public involvement. During the 2012 field season, the districts will begin the process of signing roads and motorized trails as a means of providing on the ground reference points for Forest visitors. The presence or absence of signs does not nullify the motor vehicle use map as the legal document and enforcement tool. User education and enforcement of the travel management regulations will occur, including public meetings and brochures describing the travel management policy and use of the motor vehicle use map. The districts will also pursue collaboration with interested stakeholders. Collaboration could include, but will not be limited to: Developing a public volunteer strategy to help implement and maintain the FTS. Signing, light maintenance, peer pressure enforcement, and monitoring. Developing a public education strategy on the FTS for forest visitors. As part of this analysis, the Forest engineer conducted and prepared an Engineering Judgment concerning mixed-use of NFS roads by both highway legal vehicles and non-highway legal vehicles. This Engineering Judgment found that (1) allowing mixed use on the proposed NFS roads was consistent with the current use of the roads (mixed use was currently occurring on the proposed NFS roads), (2) allowing mixed use on the proposed NFS roads was consistent with state law, and (3) there was no documented accident history on NFS roads on the districts. Considering that all of the NFS roads being proposed in the mixed-use analysis are maintenance level two roads, and they are by nature rough, narrow with native surfaces, low traffic volumes, and low speeds, the Forest Engineer recommended that mixed-use be allowed to continue on these NFS roads. 8

13 Some exemptions to designations (36 CFR (a)) and prohibitions (36 CFR ) will apply under this decision. Exemptions provide for motor vehicle use for emergencies, national defense, Forest Service administration, and activities authorized in writing. Examples of emergency use could include fire suppression and initial attack activities, law enforcement, and search and rescue activities. Activities allowed under written authorizations could include, but are not limited to, vegetation management (timber, fuel reduction), wildlife management and research, livestock operations, mining, predator control, access to private lands, and outfitter-guide operations. Written authorizations will specify when, where, who, and under what circumstances motorized travel is allowed. DECISION AUTHORITY The authority for the decision to manage and maintain the roads described in this document has been delegated to us by the Forest Supervisor of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. We retain authority for the management of the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts including management of the transportation system under the direction of this ROD. This decision meets the objectives, standards, guidelines and management direction as identified in the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended). RATIONALE FOR OUR DECISION We made our decision to implement the Selected Action after considering both the Purpose and Need for Action and the issues raised by the public during the public involvement process. Meeting the Purpose and Need The Purpose and Need for Action presented above and in the FEIS requires a balance between providing the convenience of motorized access and protection of natural resources. A variety of public opinions exists on where the balance should be struck between human use and environmental protection. Some might argue that the environment would best be served by eliminating or severely restricting motorized access within the entire area. Others hold that any restriction of motorized access is an infringement on personal freedom. We do not find either position consistent with our agency mission as outlined in law, regulation, and policy or the direction contained in the Humboldt National Forest Plan. In selecting an alternative, we weighed these competing interests. We did not select Alternative 1 (No Action) because it fails to meet the purpose and need, and it fails to address the long-term impacts of an ever-expanding network of unauthorized roads and motorized trails on the environment. With the exception of the designated wilderness, the districts would continue to be open to motorized travel on all roads and motorized trails (both designated and unauthorized) and crosscountry. We find this last issue, continued cross country travel and the subsequent proliferation of new routes, most problematic from an environmental perspective, as well as a source of potential conflicts between users of the national forest. The rapid increase in the number and power of both highway-legal vehicles and ATVs compels us to be more active in our management of this use. In our estimation the No Action Alternative does not sufficiently address critical elements of the Purpose and Need for Action, most specifically the need to regulate the environmental impacts of expanding motorized use. Our contacts with the public indicate users largely understand we must work together to limit these impacts on our national forests. This alternative would not meet the requirements of the Travel Management Rule, Executive orders or Although differing in approach, the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 thru 5) can reasonably be said to meet the Purpose and Need for Action. They vary in the way in which they address the issues of roadless area protection and recreation access. In selecting between them, we carefully considered the four issues. 9

14 In making this decision, we considered the environmental impact that could result or persist from designating unauthorized roads and motorized trails located on the three ranger districts. This began as early as 2005 when the Forest produced maps and asked for public input. Also in 2005, the forest developed a Route Designation Guidebook that identified resource specific management direction based on the Forest Plan (as amended). This guidebook provided resource specialists with criteria that they should consider when determining if an unauthorized road or trail should be considered for inclusion as part of the FTS. Responsiveness to Issues Issue 1: Access and Motorized/Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunities Our decision takes into account the historic level of road/trail access available on the districts and retains that level into the future. Constructed and unauthorized roads and motorized trails developed around access to water, areas with mineral abundance, and areas with good forage. Hunters and recreationists have continued to use the routes for both motorized and non-motorized access. As a result of our decision, Forest visitors will be able to drive motor vehicles on approximately 1,991 miles of the roads and motorized trails located across the districts (FEIS, p. 31, Table 11), including 906 of 1,144 miles of the previously undesignated routes. Of the nearly 960,000 acres of NFS land outside of designated wilderness, approximately 674,400 acres (70 percent) are located within 0.50 mile of this expanded road system and approximately 928,700 (97 percent) acres are within 1 mile. These figures confirm that the districts will be very accessible to both motorized and non-motorized users (see Figure Map Three FEIS p. 82). The majority of users who limit their driving to existing roads and motorized trails will experience little difference as a consequence of our decision. They will continue to have motorized access to virtually all existing roads and motorized trails and dispersed camping sites. Parking will continue to be allowed within areas of existing disturbance adjacent to designated roads/trails, within dispersed campsites and along dispersed campsite access, and at intersections of designated roads and motorized trails. Motorized vehicle use will also continue to be allowed in three dispersed camping corridors within 150 feet of designated roads and motorized trails: 1) Maggie Summit, 1.0 mile along M15774 (Mountain City Ranger District); and 2) Coon Creek Summit, Charleston/Jarbidge Road (Mountain City Ranger District); and 3) the Forest boundary north of Charleston, Charleston/Jarbidge Road (Jarbidge Ranger District) (FEIS, p. 19). As a result of our decision, users accustomed to taking their vehicles off existing roads and motorized trails will no longer have that cross-country travel opportunity. Upon publication of a motor vehicle use map identifying all roads and motorized trails designated in this decision (and those previously included in the FTS) motor vehicle use inconsistent with the designations will be prohibited by the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR ). The Selected Action allows for two exemptions to the cross-country prohibition: 1) those identified in 36 CFR , allowing for motor vehicle use for emergencies, national defense, Forest Service administration, and activities authorized in writing, and 2) limited motorized big game retrieval for elk. In addition to analyzing road/trail mileage, the FEIS (pp ) measured opportunities for motorized and non-motorized use, and the potential for conflict between the two, by projecting alternative changes in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The ROS categorizes NFS lands based on cultural and physical attributes of the landscape: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM), semiprimitive motorized (SPM), and roaded natural (RN). As the ROS category names suggest, the extent of roads/trails and human-related sights and sounds increases progressively from primitive to RN. Modeled changes in the ROS class by alternative are displayed in the FEIS, Table 18. Outside of the elk hunting season, the Selected Action would result in acreages similar to those identified for Alternative 2; 10

15 during the elk hunting seasons, acreages would be similar to the Alternative 2 with the motorized big game retrieval option. Outside of elk hunting seasons, the Selected Action will reduce ROS motorized acreage (SPM and RN) from approximately 666,800 acres (No Action) to approximately 596,200 and increase ROS nonmotorized acreage (Primitive and SPNM) from 522,100 acres (No Action) to 599,700 acres. These acreages suggest a balanced opportunity for both motorized and non-motorized users. During elk hunting seasons, the balance shifts significantly toward motorized ROS classes. The Selected Action will increase ROS motorized acreage (SPM and RN) to approximately 1,074,200 acres and decrease ROS nonmotorized acreage (Primitive and SPNM) to 120,800 acres. The shift is the result of motorized big game retrieval for elk. The FEIS projects that approximately 140 motorized retrieval trips will occur each year. Although any particular motorized trip has the potential to create conflict with non-motorized users in the area, based on the number of trips, the distance traveled, the area of use (674,000 Acres), and the length of the season (5 months) we do not believe that there will be increased user conflict. Issue 2: Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) Approximately 421,000 acres on the three ranger districts are mapped as inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). During travel management analysis, approximately 363 miles of unauthorized motorized trails were identified within the boundaries of 48 IRAs (FEIS, p. 55). Alternative 2 proposed designating approximately 210 miles of those unauthorized motorized trails in IRAs as NFS trails open to motor vehicles. The motorized trails selected only included those where there was a compelling need and where the trail was clearly established. Most (73 percent) are relatively short, less than 0.50 mile long, and many access long-used, traditional dispersed camping areas (project record). The remaining roads and motorized trails include jeep, ATV, and motorcycle trails that have existed for many years. All pre-date the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For the reasons outlined above, we are designating approximately 210 miles (as proposed in Alternative 2 of NFS trails. There are also approximately 24 miles of NFS roads located within the boundaries of IRAs. We are not changing the designation of these roads and they will remain open for motor vehicle use (FEIS, p ). By restricting motor vehicle use to designated roads and motorized trails, our decision will prohibit the expansion of routes in these roadless areas and will help protect roadless characteristics for generations to come. Our decision does not eliminate any future management options for inventoried roadless areas. It does not preempt the Forest Service from recommending that Congress designate any of these areas as wilderness. Issue 3: Resource Impacts Cultural Resources The potential for adverse effects to cultural resources will be greatly reduced under the Selected Action because of the monitoring identified in the FEIS and cultural resource specialist report. The miles of roads and motorized trails that pass through cultural resource sites will be reduced from 88 miles in Alternative 1 to 77 miles in the Selected Action. Monitoring for the effects on designated roads and motorized trails will be used to address impacts as well as to determine the effects of motorized big game retrieval on cultural resource properties. 11

16 Soil, Water, and Air Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined Based on the analysis presented in the FEIS, effects to soil and water resources will be reduced when compared to the No Action. Aquatic Species and Habitat The FEIS summarizes existing conditions and potential effects of the proposal on aquatic federally listed species, Region 4 Regional Forester s Sensitive Species, and Forest Plan Management Indicator Species and their habitats. Detailed analysis addresses LCT (federally threatened species), bull trout (federally threatened species), redband trout (management indicator species), and Columbia spotted frogs (federal candidate species). Effects are evaluated by analyzing three indicators: 1) miles within 300 feet of occupied habitat; 2) road miles located within a 300 foot buffer of locales occupied by aquatic species; and 3) functioning condition of key species watersheds. Existing bull trout and LCT populations and habitat are identified as generally stable/increasing or improving. However, the FEIS also describes localized elevated fine sediment levels resulting from motorized road and trail crossings and motorized road and trail management adjacent to occupied streams. The FEIS documents indicator values in Table 35, 36, and 37. It is quite striking that values for two of the three indicators reflect significant improvement for LCT and their habitat under all action alternatives (Alternatives 2-5). Motorized road and trail miles within 300-foot buffers decrease from percent, and stream crossings are reduced from percent. Results for bull trout and bull trout critical habitat, redband trout, and Columbia spotted frog are not as dramatic, but still reflect improvement. Values for the third indicator, watershed condition, also show improvement for all action alternatives, but the level of improvement is more modest than those for the first two indicators. As a result, we chose to identify additional actions that have the potential to further improve watershed condition. The FEIS (pp , Table 37) identifies watershed habitat condition for the key aquatic species based on route density: Functioning Appropriately (<1 mi/m2), Functioning at Risk (1-2.4 mi/mi2), and Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (>2.4 mi/m2). In developing the Selected Action, we modified Alternative 2, to address routes with specific aquatic influences. The Selected Action does not designate 76 motorized roads and motorized trails (combined length of approximately 33 miles) proposed for designation in Alternative 2 (Table 3). These unauthorized routes contribute to elevated route density, number of stream crossings, and sediment to LCT streams. For the North Fork of Green Mountain Creek and Carville Creek, baseline watershed route density is currently 2.27 m/m2, indicative of an area Functioning at Unacceptable Risk (Fisheries Biological Assessment, p. 38). The baseline route density for Gance Creek, Warm Creek, and Road Canyon Creek is currently 1.5 m/m2, considered Functioning at Risk. In Alternative 2, the route density in the Foreman Creek, Winters Creek, and California Creek watershed is reduced from 1.99 m/m2 to 1.79 m/m2, still considered Functioning at Risk. By not designating routes in these watersheds, the Selected Action will initiate moving these watersheds toward Functioning Appropriately and improve occupied habitat. By not designating these 76 roads, the number of stream crossings in occupied LCT habitat is reduced from 35 in Alternative 2 to 31 and the miles of route within 300 feet of occupied LCT habitat are reduced from 15.2 to 13.7 miles. Not designating these four routes brings the Selected Action closer to the potential effects of Alternative 3 and Alternative 5 (FEIS, pp ). 12

17 The Selected Action also follows INFISH guidance by minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) (RF2). By reducing routes, crossings, and road densities within the RHCAs, riparian management objectives such as bank stability, water temperature, and width-depth ratios will be improved compared to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 as presented in the FEIS. The Selected Action may impact individual Columbia spotted frogs, but this is not expected to lead to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability because the frogs habitat requirements (ponds or slow moving water and preference toward beaver ponds and stock ponds) are not typically directly related to roads and motorized trails (FEIS, p. 112). Wildlife Management of wildlife species and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service. Management activities on NFS lands, including those related to motor vehicle travel must be planned and implemented so they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service sensitive species. It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motor vehicle use on NFS lands. These management activities should also be designed to maintain or improve habitat for the management indicator species identified in the Forest Plan to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives also established in the Forest Plan (FSM [2]). The Selected Action meets these requirements by reducing impacts from the designation of unauthorized routes on federal Endangered Species Act candidate species (Greater sage grouse), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (bighorn sheep, northern goshawk, and pygmy rabbit), Forest Plan management indicator species (mule deer), and other species of concern (elk, migratory birds) (FEIS, p. 125). The FEIS measured effects to wildlife by analyzing three indicators: 1) total miles of roads and motorized trails within potential habitat; 2) road density within certain wildlife habitat types; and 3) acres of habitat in the Zone of Influence for each species (FEIS, pp ). For Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, the FEIS analysis incorporated the effects of seasonal road/trails closures to protect 1) critical greater sage grouse lekking, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat; 2) northern goshawk sensitive nesting and fledging habitat; and 3) mule deer winter habitat. The Selected Action 1) reduces mileage for each of the three indicators relative to Alternative 1 for all species analyzed; and 2) imposes seasonal road closures in key habitats during sensitive seasons that will offer additional protection to greater sage grouse, northern goshawk, and mule deer. In addition, upon publication of the motor vehicle use map, implementation of the cross-country travel prohibition will minimize the potential for future impacts associated with unauthorized routes. For the federal candidate species (greater sage grouse) and R4 sensitive species (bighorn sheep, northern goshawk, and pygmy rabbit), the Selected Action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. For the Forest Plan management indicator species (mule deer), and other species of concern (elk and migratory birds), the Selected Action contributes to stable trends. Although other action alternatives typically reduced mileages of the three indicators to a higher degree than the Selected Action, we are satisfied that the mileage reductions and other positive effects of the Selected Action will meet the Forest Service obligation to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; improved habitat for management indicator species identified in the Forest Plan; and other species of concern, while providing for motor vehicle use on NFS lands consistent with multiple-use objectives (FSM [2]). 13

18 Motorized Big Game Retrieval Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined The FEIS includes two alternatives allowing cross-country motorized big game retrieval where hunters who have legally shot an elk or a mule deer could drive an ATV or UTV type vehicle up to 0.5 mile off a designated road or trail to retrieve their animal. In the FEIS, Alternative 2 was modified to include this option for mule deer and/or elk, and Alternative 4 was modified to include elk only retrieval. We have heard arguments from all sides of this topic. Some hunters would like to drive cross-country to retrieve their kill. They state that advanced age, poor health, or disability limit or prohibit them from retrieving an elk or a mule deer without the use of their vehicle. Others state that cross-country vehicle use is needed to expedite the retrieval of a downed big game animal because high daytime temperatures in northeast Nevada during the earlier hunting seasons can result in meat spoilage and waste. We have also heard hunters state a right to motorized crosscountry retrieval because they have always done it that way. Finally, Elko County has expressed concern that if hunters could not drive cross-country to retrieve their mule deer or elk, they would no longer come to hunt in Elko County, and the economy would be adversely affected. Other hunters have a very different perspective. We have been told that many hunters are prepared to retrieve the animals they harvest without driving cross-country. Those hunters selectively limit their hunting to areas suitable for non-motorized retrieval, and if need be, enlist hunting partners to help. Several suggested that motorized big game retrieval would grant unwarranted access not available to other publics. Others pointed out that demand for tags is high, and that Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) will sell all available tags regardless of whether cross-country motorized big game retrieval is allowed. Still others have expressed concern regarding the potential environmental impacts associated with crosscountry travel. The FEIS documents the potential for motorized big game retrieval to cause cultural resource site degradation; sensitive plant species disturbance; soil erosion; noxious weed spread; and increased user conflicts. The landscapes most accessible and desirable to vehicles traveling cross-country (gentle slopes, stream terraces, and ridgelines and saddles) are precisely those most likely to contain prehistoric and historic sites. Within the nearly 674,400 acres of NFS land identified in Alternative 2 for motorized big game retrieval (FEIS, p. 21, Table 6), 1,371 cultural resource sites have been recorded, 755 of which are either eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (FEIS, p. 69). Twelve sensitive plant species are known to occupy approximately 3,500 acres within the motorized big game retrieval area; their potential habitat includes over 449,200 acres within the motorized big game retrieval area. Where soils are thin, such as on ridge tops where rare plant species are common, soils are easily disturbed by the spinning wheel action of vehicles, and are susceptible to erosion (FEIS, pp ). Once thin soils are disturbed, it can take years for the soils to recover. Wheeled vehicles are also a vector for transporting and spreading noxious and invasive weed seeds (FEIS, p. 195). There are approximately 15,045 acres of noxious weed populations within the Alternative 2 motorized big game retrieval area (674,400 acres). Using the formula presented on page 88 of the FEIS for estimating the average acres of disturbance per mile of route (2.4 acres per mile given a 20 foot road width), there would be approximately 385 acres of road or trail passing through high risk noxious weed populations as a result of the selected alternative (FEIS, p. 201). This is approximately 53 acres more than the amount recorded for Alternative 3 (138.5 x 2.4) (FEIS, p. 201, Table 85). With motorized big game retrieval, there is a much greater area exposed to noxious weed transmission by vehicles. Motorized big game retrieval would occur at a time when noxious weed seed heads have cured, and wheel action would create seedbeds. 14

19 By allowing motorized use within 0.50 mile of roads and motorized trails, Alternative 2 with the motorized big game retrieval option creates an additional 817, 400 acres of the semi-primitive motorized (SPM) setting for the duration of the hunting season, reducing primitive and semiprimitive motorized (SPNM) areas by 478,950 acres. With this reduction it could be expected that the number of user conflicts between motorized big game retrieval vehicle users and hunters (or others) seeking a quiet recreation experience would increase. Clearly, no single decision will be satisfactory to all. After having considered all perspectives and the FEIS analysis, we have decided to allow cross-country motorized big game retrieval for elk only, including all components described in Alternative 2. We are also reserving the option to limit or withdraw motorized big game retrieval, should monitoring identify unintended consequences that cannot reasonably be resolved. Our decision has been strongly influenced by the following: There is a substantial difference in size/weight between elk and deer; consequently, backpacking out a deer requires substantially less effort than an elk. By allowing motorized big game retrieval of elk, we are addressing the largest need. Anticipated motorized big game retrieval vehicle use is expected to be quite limited. Based upon estimates the Forest Service derived from NDOW data regarding the number of animals harvested, and estimates used for this analysis, there should be approximately 140 trips annually for the retrieval of elk. We acknowledge that this number may involve some resource degradation, but that disturbance should be quite limited. Our decision adopts the FEIS Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (FEIS Appendix B). Required monitoring will be sufficient to establish the scope of resource disturbance, and if necessary, mitigation will be implemented to resolve that disturbance. Our decision reserves the options of further restricting or withdrawing the motorized big game retrieval authorization entirely, if mitigation cannot reasonably minimize disturbance. Our decision also restricts hours of retrieval to 9 a.m.-3 p.m. This restriction, in addition to the limited number of motorized retrieval trips, will minimize the potential for conflicts between motorized and non-motorized hunters during the time of day when hunters are stalking game. Noxious Weeds Alternative 2 would reduce the miles of roads and motorized trails in high-risk areas by 3.8 miles. Highrisk areas are locations within a current noxious weed population buffered by 25 percent of its size to account for potential expansion of the area in the short term. Weeds are one of the key threats to NFS lands and, according to recent literature; motor vehicles are one of the primary vectors for the spread of weeds. We have looked at the location of proposed roads and motorized trails in relation to noxious weed populations and have weighed the risk of spread with our future ability to treat these areas. We are aware that exemptions to the rule would allow Forest Service personnel to travel cross-country to treat weeds and we suspect that in several cases this will be necessary. However, we believe that leaving the road/trail open will facilitate monitoring and treatment of these high-risk infestations and, with time, the risk of weed spread will be reduced. The districts are constantly monitoring weed populations on the districts. If any of these areas show signs of increased size related to motor vehicle traffic on the roads or trails, we do reserve the option to reassess this decision and take measures to aggressively treat the weeds source. That may mean closing the road to the public to reduce disturbance of the site until the infestation can be brought under control. 15

20 Issue 4: Social/Economic Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined Social and economic impacts were analyzed in the FEIS comparing between Alternative 2 and other alternatives on the ability of the Forest visitors to participate in forest activities, the acres of NFS lands readily accessible by foot within 0.5 miles of a designated road or motorized trail, and by the relative change between alternatives to jobs and income. Under the Selected Action few changes to the lifestyle or landscape connections will be noticeable. Economic activities occurring on the districts will continue as they do currently with the range permittees working with the district staff through the term grazing permit and annual operating plans processes to continue to manage livestock on the allotments. Road closures would minimally impact mineral operators because district staff would work with the operator to ensure their statutory rights under mining laws to enter upon public lands to search for minerals. Forest visitors will also experience few changes as a result of the Selected Action. With approximately 94 percent of the current FTS designated for motor vehicle use, there will be little to notice as changed. This Selected Action maintains people s connections to the landscape. Connections that have evolved across generations of forest visitors, passed down from one to another with stories and remembrances. Long time visitors to these districts have their special places, they have cared for them, and they have picked up trash and carted away junk left by others. These visitors, the ones working on the districts and those coming to recreate, care for these places. They have a strong connection to them and as we looked at the analysis in the FEIS we found few reasons not to maintain their access (FEIS, pg ). At the economic level the FEIS summarizes the economic report which found that because of the scale of the project and the economic structure of the county, predicting or projecting any potential changes would be difficult. The report did conclude that contributions from activities that are occurring within FS managed lands to the local Elko County economy were relatively small when compared to the total county employment. This is not to say the jobs that result from recreation on the districts are not important or that they have no value. What it means is that economic benefit for recreation on the districts is a small part of the whole recreation economic sector for Elko County and changes, such as those represented in the Selected Action, will have little, if any, impact (FEIS, pg ; Economic Specialist Report). TRIBAL AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Tribal Consultation Government to government consultation took place through letters and at informational meetings. Scoping letters were sent to the Elko Band Council, Battle Mountain Band, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, Duckwater Shoshone, Wells Band Council, and the South Fork Band. Specific letters addressed to the Tribes, councils, and Bands were sent on March 25, 2009 requesting an opportunity to brief the bands on the project. Over the period between March 2009 and present, we have been engaged with various bands and tribes in different ways. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley have entered into a formal consultation process (Wings and Roots) in which the Rangers and tribal representatives have been meeting on a regular basis and have come to agreement on the need for a travel plan. For the other bands and councils we have attended council meetings when we are included in the agenda. 16

21 Public Involvement Transportation System Identification The interdisciplinary team relied on public involvement to ensure that a full range of alternatives, representing a broad array of perspectives, would be analyzed in this FEIS. Public involvement was initiated in 2005, has continued through the decision making process, and will continue during implementation. Throughout the fall and winter of 2005, the public was invited to the Forest Service offices in Elko and Wells, Nevada, on Thursday evenings to review the maps. At these open houses, the public was invited to examine and comment on a set of maps showing the FTS and unauthorized roads and motorized trails. Sets of maps were also presented at four public meetings; one meeting each in Mountain City, Owyhee, Jarbidge, and Pole Creek. District staff also attended Gold Country ATV club meetings with a set of maps and discussed the project with the Public Land User Advisory Committee and this information was used to develop an initial list of proposed changes to the FTS. Unauthorized roads and motorized trails proposed for possible addition to the FTS were the focus of field inventories from This work led to the development of Alternative 2 presented in the January 2009 scoping document. Project Scoping and the Notice of Intent On January 9, 2009, the Forest Service published a scoping document and set of maps depicting the Alternative 2 for the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project. We met with county and tribal representatives and conservation districts. They held eight public meetings and six field trips, participated in a community forum sponsored by the Elko Chamber of Commerce, and met or spoke with many individuals. Between January 2009 and April 2009, the Forest received over 4,000 comments expressing interest in the project. These comments included both support for and opposition to Alternative 2. These comments are available in the project record. Scoping has continued since that time and because of the initial comments, the Forest decided to publish a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in October Interdisciplinary team members, district rangers, and Forest staff discussed Alternative 2 with environmental groups, grazing permittees, mining companies, OHV groups, citizens organizations, and others as requested. All parties commenting on the proposal recognize this action will change the way people use and experience the resources on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts. That people treasure those resources and wish to see them perpetuated was a common thread through the public comments. Based on scoping, the districts revised their original Proposed Action Alternative to include designation of approximately 249 miles of additional roads and motorized trails identified by the public. While the interdisciplinary team attempted to integrate all comments and suggestions into the analysis and alternative design, some suggestions were beyond the scope of the project or were encompassed by one or more of the existing alternatives. These comments and suggestions are addressed in the comment review spreadsheet that is part of the project record (0276_Comment Review Spreadsheet). This spreadsheet describes the issue brought up in the comment, identifies an analysis indicator for the issue if one was needed, and provides a response as to how the comment/issue is addressed in the EIS. DEIS and Notice of Availability On May 7, 2010, the DEIS Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register, starting the 45- day comment period. During this comment period, the districts received seven requests to extend the comment period to allow the public to develop their comments fully, allow field time to visit proposed roads and motorized trails, and to foster a better understanding of the proposed action and alternatives 17

22 described in the DEIS. On July 16, 2010, a notice was published in the Federal Register officially extending the comment period for six months (ending on December 17, 2010). During the DEIS comment period, we conducted public meetings at the following locations: Jarbidge Community Hall, Jarbidge, Nevada. Desert Inn, Elko, Nevada. Wells Fire Station, Wells, Nevada. Mountain City Visitor Center, Mountain City, Nevada. Jackpot Community Recreation Center, Jackpot, Nevada. Approximately 40 individuals attended these meetings. We collected comments on DEIS maps and discussed aspects of the DEIS and Alternative 2. Before the extended comment period ended, we also attended a set of public hearings sponsored by Elko County to obtain public information and testimony concerning the travel management project. The districts received approximately 45 written comment letters during the comment period for the DEIS. These written comments and numerous verbal comments were used to make minor corrections in the FEIS, to clarify portions of the document identified as confusing, to make minor changes to the road system, and to develop the motorized big game retrieval option studied in the FEIS. All comments received as letters or s and those received during the public meetings and hearings were considered during the preparation of the FEIS. The comments and Forest Service responses are included in the Response to Comment document that accompanies the FEIS (see CD inside back cover). Modifications Made in Response to Public Comments on the DEIS We had the interdisciplinary team analyze the Big game retrieval option under Alternative 2 for the retrieval of elk, mule deer, or both. We added mitigation measures to protect wildlife habitat (Seasonal Closures and better defined the dates of those closures). We are including the mitigations and monitoring identified for rare plant occupied and potential habitat, and cultural and natural resources. Resource specialists also spent additional time in the field surveying for cultural resources and aquatic habitats. During these surveys, several routes that were mapped were found not to exist, and others were added. Where roads or trails were impacting LCT habitat, we made a decision not to designate these routes to protect the habitat. A list of these routes is available at the end of this ROD. Publication of FEIS and Notice of Availability The FEIS was published on August 5, 2011, and a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on August 12, The publication of the FEIS provided the public with an additional opportunity to review the document prior to publication of this ROD. The districts accepted comments on the FEIS, and where appropriate, we have used them to clarify aspects of the analysis in this ROD. During the 45 day FEIS review period, the districts received 12 comments. These comments are included in the project record and the sentiments in these letters were considered while making this decision. The 45 day review period ended on September 19,

23 OTHER ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined The Forest Service analyzed five alternatives in detail, 1) No Action, 2) Proposed Action, 3) Current System, 4) Visitor Map, and 5) Reduced Resource Impacts, in response to issues raised during the scoping process. Several other alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail (FEIS, Section 2.4). Alternative 1: No Action Under Alternative 1, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No changes would be made to the current FTS that includes approximately 1,020 miles of roads open to motorized use by the public. Unauthorized routes would continue to have no status or authorization as FTS facilities. Under this alternative, motor vehicle use would not be limited to current NFS roads, except as specified in existing Forest closure orders and other designations. This means that on about 242,500 acres in designated Wilderness and the Bear Creek Municipal Watershed, motorized use would be restricted to designated roads and motorized trails, and about 960,140 acres would continue to be open to crosscountry travel. The open areas include about 1,150 miles of unauthorized routes that would continue to be available for public motorized use. We did not choose this alternative because it would not meet the purpose and need and does not comply with the Travel Management Rule. Alternative 3: Current System (Environmentally Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3 makes no changes to the current FTS. It differs from Alternative 1 through the publication of a motor vehicle use map and its subsequent prohibition of uses not designated on the map. The net effect of this alternative would be to restrict motor vehicles to designated roads and motorized trails across the entire districts. None of the existing unauthorized routes would be added to the FTS. We did not choose this alternative because it does not provide access to the many dispersed recreation sites scattered across the ranger districts. It also fails to provide access to many portions of the districts that are traditionally accessed by forest visitors. Furthermore, motorized recreation opportunities would be limited to roads and motorized trails listed in the FTS. Motorized use on many routes that have been used continuously for decades would be prohibited. This alternative was developed to address the Roadless issues and the Resource Impacts issue. The overall reduction in miles would decrease the potential impacts of designation of unauthorized roads and motorized trails in roadless areas and sensitive resource areas. However, it would also result in impacts on forest visitors by shifting recreation opportunities. Increases in the amount of land identified as primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized Recreation Opportunities (ROS) and the decrease of lands in the Semi-primitive and roaded natural ROS classification (FEIS, p. 48) would result from selection of this alternative. Alternative 3 would also reduce access that forest visitors have a landscape connection to and could result in lifestyle factors related to forest visitation and use (FEIS. pp ). This is considered the environmentally preferred alternative because it designates the least amount of road and trail open for motor vehicle use across the three ranger districts. Alternative 4: Visitor Map This alternative was based on roads displayed on the current Forest Visitor Map (2005). Most roads and motorized trails depicted on the map, and roads and motorized trails claimed by Elko County in Elko County Resolution were included in this alternative. The alternative was developed in response to the recreation and IRA issues, as well as the economic issue. It would also reduce impacts to natural, 19

24 physical, and cultural resources by reducing the overall miles of routes open for motor vehicle use on the three districts. Under this alternative, most of the unauthorized roads and many of the current NFS roads would have been designated as motorized trails open to all (1,236 miles). The remaining would have been designated as roads for a total of 1,567 miles. This alternative also includes a motorized big game retrieval component that would allow hunters to use motor vehicles to retrieve legally taken elk up to 0.5 miles from a designated road or trail. The FEIS provides a full description of this alternative and the specifics regarding the number of proposed roads and motorized trails and the number of NFS roads proposed to be changed to NFS trails, as well as the elements of the motorized big game retrieval component of the alternative. We gave this alternative a great deal of thought. The Forest Visitor Map is readily available and is easy to read and follow. The alternative closely matched the Forest Visitor Map and included unauthorized roads and motorized trails that were not concurrent with NFS roads but were included in the Elko County resolution A road marked on the map would have been designated as a road and a motorized trail marked on the map (either as a jeep trail, or a 4 wheel trail) were proposed to be designated as a motorized trail. The alternative has fewer miles and as a result fewer impacts on the landscape as described in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. It also included the motorized big game retrieval component that would allow elk hunters to use a motor vehicle to retrieve their game up to 0.5 miles from a designated road or motorized trail. On the other hand, this alternative would not allow motorized use on many important short access routes. The scale of the Forest Visitor Map (0.5 inches to a mile) does not lend itself to showing routes less than a 0.10 of a mile in length. As a result, many of the access routes to dispersed campsites, secluded day use or camping locations, and view sites were not included in the alternative. We are well aware that the public in Elko County, and in the surrounding region, comes to these districts purposefully because of dispersed camping and recreation opportunities. This alternative would designate approximately 72 percent of the roads and motorized trails on the three ranger districts and yet it includes all the current roads and motorized trails and all the roads and motorized trails identified in the Elko County Resolution As we considered this alternative, we realized while it would address the county s claims, it would not provide the access to dispersed campsites that is so important to the citizens of the county. Because this alternative would not allow motorized access to the short spur roads accessing dispersed recreation sites, we chose not to select it over the Selected Action. Alternative 5: Reduced Resource Impacts This alternative was developed in response to concerns about resource impacts. The alternative did not propose to designate any unauthorized routes in IRAs sensitive aquatic habitat, rare plant habitat, or cultural resource sites. Because the alternative started with the current system and added unauthorized routes for designation, it has the potential for greater impact than Alternative 3, but less impact than Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 4. In contrast to Alternatives 3 and 4, it includes many of the short spurs to dispersed recreation sites. It provides more primitive recreation opportunities, more semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities and less semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities, with nearly the same acres of roaded natural recreation opportunities as the Selected Action (266,161 acres compared to 261,438 acres). Alternative 5 reduces route density, and consequently potential impacts in LCT, Columbia spotted frog, and redband trout habitat. It protects IRAs by nearly eliminating motor vehicle use within the IRA boundaries. It reduces impacts to cultural resource sites by not designating 26.7 miles of route currently passing through historic properties. It has fewer perennial stream crossings, fewer intermittent stream crossings, fewer miles of roads and motorized trails on slopes greater than 30 percent, and fewer miles of 20

25 route within 300 and 150 feet of perennial and intermittent streams than the Selected Action. From a resource perspective, this alternative reduces the potential impacts caused by the existence and use of roads and motorized trails on the districts. So why did we not select this alternative? First, we listened to the local public, our neighbors. We listened to the people who use the roads and motorized trails on the districts and who care about their national forest and want to continue to be part of the management of these lands. Those people told us the access they have always enjoyed should remain open. They advised us that they understand roads and motorized trails can have impacts and may need to be closed for repairs or permanently closed when they are eroded. They feel closing motorized trails that have been open for use for the last 40+ years just because they are located in an IRA or within 300 feet of a perennial stream containing redband trout is unnecessary. We agree and accept that IRAs should be managed to maintain the quality of the IRAs that existed when they were inventoried. But the quality of those IRAs was determined with the full knowledge that they included miles of unauthorized motor vehicle trails. Consequently we do not see why a decision to designate those motorized trails, which have been used for years, should be considered by some to have a negative impact on the quality of the IRAs. We also understand, and agree with, the need to reduce road density both across the districts and in watersheds. But when 2 miles/mile 2 is an indicator of high density and the average across the districts and alternatives is less than 1.5miles/miles 2, We do not see the need to go to the extreme and decrease access just to achieve a lower route density; especially when areas with higher road densities are concentrated around communities and areas with concentrated mineral exploration activity. Second, the alternative incorporated closures of roads and motorized trails in wildlife habitat, rare plant habitat, cultural resource sites, aquatic habitats, and areas to protect wildlife species, regardless of the impacts associated with any particular road. We are not comfortable with this generic approach. A statement of closure based upon close proximity does not provide enough specificity to make a reasoned decision. Instead in the Selected Action, we have selectively culled out roads and motorized trails that have clear adverse effects, and are not designating them for the specific reasons listed in our description of the decision. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS The Forest Service rigorously explored and objectively evaluated all reasonable alternatives. Many alternatives were considered and evaluated but were not carried forward for detailed study (40 CFR ). Public comments received during the scoping process provided suggestions for alternative methods of achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives were outside the scope of travel management, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, did not meet the purpose and need, or would cause unnecessary environmental harm or unnecessarily restrict public use of the ranger districts. These proposals were grouped into two themes, which include suggestions for increased access and those that suggested less access. The FEIS provides a brief discussion of those alternatives and describes why they were not brought forward for detailed consideration (FEIS, p. 26). 21

26 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAW, REGULATION, AND POLICY The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The NEPA requires that all major federal actions significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed to determine the magnitude and intensity of those impacts, that the results be shared with the public, and the public given opportunity to comment. Our decision complies with the laws, policies, and executive orders listed below and described in the FEIS. National Forest Management Act This decision is consistent with the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended). Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) The MUSYA requires the Forest Service to administer renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple uses and sustained yield of various products and services (16 U.S.C. 529), and that such management must provide for utilizing these resources in a combination that best meet the needs of the American people (16 U.S.C. 531(a)). Through this project, tradeoffs associated with placing limitations on motorized use on the national forest were considered in relation to the natural and cultural resources on the ground. The economic section summarizes the impacts these limitations may have economic endeavors conducted on the districts. Nothing in this decision will prevent continued multiple uses on the three ranger districts. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation requirements under Section 7 of the ESA, as amended have been completed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in their biological opinion that this decision is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened species occurring within the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project area. Bull trout and LCT are known federally listed species that occur in the project area. The project area also contains designated critical habitat for bull trout. National Historic Preservation Act Cultural resource surveys have been conducted on NFS land on the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project area. A summary of these surveys is provided in the FEIS in Section Cultural Resources. In conducting these surveys, the Forest is complying with a survey protocol developed in conjunction with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The opportunity to discuss known or suspected cultural resources in or near the project area was also encouraged during scoping. Letters from the SHPO concurring with the Forest determinations are included in the project record. Clean Water Act Designation of roads and motorized trails made as a result of this analysis will be in accordance with standards, guidelines, and direction contained in the Forest Plan, best management practices, and applicable Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook direction (FEIS, pp ). This project is not expected to increase or decrease sediment contributions to the seven 303d streams partially located within the boundaries of the Mountain City Ranger District (FEIS Errata, Soil and Water Specialist Report, p. 16). There are no 303d waterways on the Jarbidge or Ruby Mountain Ranger District. 22

27 Clean Air Act Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined Emissions and fugitive dust expected from implementation of the Selected Action will be of short duration and are not expected to exceed state of Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards (46 FR 43141) (FEIS, pp ). Travel Management Rule This decision meets the requirements of 36 CFR 212.5b in that it designates roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and provides for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forestland No prime farmland or range land will be adversely affected by the Selected Action. Forestland will retain its long-term productivity. Effects on Civil Rights, Women, and Minorities This decision will not have adverse effects on civil rights, women, or minorities. See the Civil Rights discussion below. Use of the Best Available Science All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of the Selected Action. We have included all of the project design features and mitigation measures that are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on resources affected by implementation of the decision. Our conclusion is based on a review of the project record that shows a thorough analysis using the best available science. The resource analyses disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS identifies the effects analysis methodologies, references scientific sources which informed the analysis, and discloses limitations of the analysis. Executive Order (Cultural Resources) Executive Order (EO) directs federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the nation. The work accomplished in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Ranger Districts Combined Travel Management Project meets the intent of this executive order. Executive Order (Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands) National direction for travel planning, specifically off-road use of motor vehicles on federal lands, is provided by EO as amended. Section 3(a) of EO directs the Forest Service to promulgate regulations that provide for designation of trails and areas for off-road motor vehicle use. The regulations require designation of these trails and areas be based upon protection of NFS resources, promotion of public safety, and minimization of conflicts among uses of NFS lands. Section 9(b) was added to EO when it was amended by EO Section 9(b) specifically authorizes the Forest Service to adopt the policy to designate those areas or trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use and to close all other areas and trails to that use. This ROD and the supporting FEIS were completed to designate roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. After designation of the FTS, use inconsistent with the designation will be prohibited. Executive Order (Floodplains) Executive Order directs federal agencies to take action to avoid, to the extent possible, the longand short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. A 23

28 floodplain is defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of off shore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a 1 percent or greater of flooding in any given year. Forest Plan standards and guidelines identify floodplains as a process group within riparian management areas. Where possible, the districts avoided designating unauthorized roads or motorized trails within the floodplains of rivers or streams. Exceptions will include low water crossings. The Selected Action reduces the number of low water crossings on perennial streams from 696 to 495. It also decreases the miles of route within 300 feet of a perennial stream from 589 to 454 Executive Order (Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands) Executive Order 11644, as amended, provides direction for federal agencies to establish policies and procedures to control and direct the use of OHVs on public lands in order to: 1) protect the resources of those lands; 2) promote the safety of all users of those lands; and 3) minimize conflicts among various users of those lands. In response, the Forest Service developed regulations at 36 CFR 216, 219, and 295. Under these regulations, OHV use can be restricted or prohibited to minimize: 1) damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands; 2) harm to wildlife or wildlife habitats; or 3) conflicts between the use of OHVs and other types of recreation. The Selected Action makes substantial improvements in reducing redundant roads and motorized trails and minimizing resource impacts and use conflicts as required by 36 CFR and EO Executive Order (Wetlands) Executive Order requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long-term and shortterm adverse effects associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are discussed in detail in reference to riparian areas and meadows. This decision is consistent with the EO by reducing potential and ongoing effects in riparian areas across the districts. The Selected Action will prohibit motor vehicle use along 25 miles of unauthorized routes located within 300 feet of a perennial stream on the districts. Executive Order (Environmental Justice) Executive Order directs federal agencies to identify and address the issue of environmental justice, which concerns adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Public scoping and meetings were available to all people of the region and were advertised through the local media. For more information, see the Public Involvement section in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. During the course of this analysis, none of the alternatives considered resulted in any identifiable effects or issues specific to any minority or low-income population or community. The agency considered all public input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social/economic characteristics. Examination of community composition, as required under EO 12898, found no minority or low-income communities to be disproportionately affected under any of the alternatives. This was not raised as an issue during scoping. Executive Order (Recreational Fishing) Executive Order directs federal agencies to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. Section 1 of the EO directs federal agencies to evaluate effects on aquatic ecosystems and recreational fisheries, develop and encourage partnerships, promote restoration, provide access, and promote awareness of opportunities for recreational fishery resources. 24

29 The effects of this project on freshwater resources were evaluated during the analysis. With the application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including those for riparian areas, no significant adverse effects to freshwater resources will occur. Executive Order (American Indian Sacred Sites) Executive Order directs federal agencies to accommodate access to and the ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. This action will not prevent American Indian religious practitioners from accessing or using sacred sites. Executive Order (Migratory Birds) Executive Order directs federal agencies taking actions that have or are likely to have a negative impact on migratory bird populations to work with the USFWS to develop an agreement to conserve those birds. The Selected Action was reviewed to determine if migratory birds will be affected by project operations. Potential effects are disclosed in the Wildlife section of the FEIS. The Selected Action is consistent with other federal and state environmental laws and executive orders. These laws and orders have been met to the extent practicable, and the effects have been analyzed and documented in the FEIS and project record. Impacts to migratory birds from the Selected Action are expected to be minor as road densities are relatively low. The routes have been in use for long periods of time, allowing populations in the area to potentially become accustomed to motorized use on these routes. Executive Order (Hunting Opportunities/Game Species) The purpose of EO 13443, signed in 2007, is to direct federal land management agencies to facilitate expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitats. The Selected Action provides ample hunting opportunities and provides a range of motorized and non motorized hunting opportunities taking into account the various methods of hunting. Civil Rights U.S. Department of Agriculture civil rights policy requires each agency to analyze the civil rights impact(s) of policies, actions, or decisions that will affect federally conducted and federally assisted programs and activities. A civil rights impact analysis facilitates the identification of the effects of eligibility criteria, methods of administration, or other agency-imposed requirements that may adversely and disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries based on their membership in a protected group. Protected groups include multiples of similarly situated persons who may be distinguished by their common race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetics, political beliefs, or receipt of income from any public assistance program. The Selected Action would not result in any identifiable effects or issues specific to any minority or low-income population or community. The agency considered all public input from persons or groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social/economic characteristics. Examination of community composition, as required under EO 12898, found no minority or low-income communities to be disproportionately affected by the Selected Action. AVOIDING/MINIMIZING ENVIRONMENTAL HARM All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of the Selected Action. We have included all of the project design features and mitigation measures that are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on resources affected by implementation of the Selected Action. Our conclusion is based on a review of the project record that shows a thorough review using the best available science. The resource analyses disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EIS identify the effects 25

30 analysis methodologies, reference scientific sources which informed the analysis, and disclose limitations of the analysis. In addition, the Selected Action modifies Alternative 2 eliminating the designation of several routes with clear environmental impacts. Short Term Uses and Long-term Productivity The NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term uses of man s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity (40 CFR ). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). The Selected Action allows for substantial short-term motorized access on existing roads and motorized trails, including access to existing dispersed use/camping sites, while increasing the potential to improve long-term productivity by reducing the area subject to damage from cross-country motor vehicle use. Unavoidable Adverse Effects Implementation of the Selected Action does incur unavoidable adverse effects to natural resources. However, the extent of those effects has been intentionally minimized. Natural resource benefits associated with the prohibition on motorized cross-country travel (as specified in the Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR ) substantially outweigh the adverse effects of the Selected Action. The Selected Action also restricts motorized recreation opportunities by imposing unavoidable effects associated with restricting motor vehicle use to designated roads and motorized trails. Given that the roads and motorized trails designated in this decision incorporate 79 percent (906 of 1,144 miles) of existing unauthorized routes, the primary source of vehicle restrictions are those associated with the elimination of crosscountry motor vehicle travel. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or road. Designating roads and motorized trails for use, changing route designations from motorized to nonmotorized use, and allowing for cross-county motorized big game retrieval is not an irreversible commitment because the designations could be changed in the future. The Travel Management Rule allows revisions to meet changing conditions, and requires an annual review of the motor vehicle use map (36 CFR ). Road and motorized trail designation and motorized big game retrieval may be considered an irretrievable commitment because environmental impacts associated with motorized travel, motorized big game retrieval, and access restrictions associated with non-motorized use will continue during the period of designation. The period of this commitment could be minimized because required monitoring and mitigation, and annual motor vehicle use map review will allow future adjustments to meet changing conditions. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part

31 Mountain City, Ruby Mountains, and Jarbidge Combined 27