CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN P.O. Box 710. RECEIPT REQUESTED Tucson, AZ NUMBER:

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Regional Office 333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 FAX (505) 842-3800 V/TTY (505) 842-3292 File Code: 1570/2350 Date: March 15, 2011 Ms. Cyndi Tuell Center for Biological Diversity CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN P.O. Box 710 RECEIPT REQUESTED Tucson, AZ 85702 NUMBER: 7005 1820 0003 7466 6076 Dear Ms. Tuell: This is my decision on your appeal filed on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and Amigos Bravos of the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for the West Side Travel Management Project on the Canjilon, El Rito, and Tres Piedras Ranger Districts of the Carson National Forest. Background The West Side Travel Management decision does the following: Designates roads and motorized trails for motor vehicle use and identifies them on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Restricts approximately 363 miles of system roads and associated corridors to administrative use only. Adds approximately 20 miles of road to the designated transportation system by converting maintenance level (ML) 1 roads to level 2 and adding unauthorized roads to the system. Adds a 300-foot corridor along both sides of 332 miles of certain designated roads for the purpose of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal (elk or deer) by an individual who has legally taken that animal. Adds a 150-foot corridor along both sides of 457 miles of certain designated roads for the purpose of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal (elk or deer) by an individual who has legally taken that animal. Removes approximately 15 miles of currently designated 300-foot corridor. On the remaining miles of road currently with corridors, change the purpose for using a motor vehicle up to 300 feet from a designated road from camping, parking, and firewood gathering to dispersed camping and big game (elk and deer) retrieval. Converts approximately 3 miles of FR 746, near the village of Canjilon, to a motorized trail. Seasonally restricts motor vehicle use to May 1 through December 31 on some roads for soil and watershed protection and wildlife habitat security. Seasonally restricts motor vehicle use to July 26 to April 30 on 8 miles of FR 80 on the Tres Piedras RD for elk calving habitat security. The decision also amends the Carson forest plan to use the MVUM and changes standards and guidelines for the Canjilon, El Rito, and Tres Piedras Ranger Districts. Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

Ms. Cyndi Tuell 2 Carson National Forest Supervisor, Kendall Clark published the legal notice of her decision for Travel Management on the West Side of the Carson National Forest on December 16, 2010. The Forest Supervisor is identified as the Responsible Official whose decision is subject to administrative review under the 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations. Two appeals were filed as follows: Appeal #11-03-00-0009-A215 filed by Mark Werkmeister of the New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Association (NMOHVA) on January 26, 2011. Appeal #11-03-00-0010-A215 filed by Cyndi Tuell of the Center for Biological Diversity on January 29, 2011. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.17, an attempt was made to seek informal resolution of the appeals. The record indicates that informal resolution was not reached. My review of this appeal has been conducted in accordance with 36 CFR 215.18 Formal review and disposition procedures. I have reviewed the appeal record, including the recommendations of the Appeal Reviewing Officer. My review decision incorporates the appeal record. APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER S RECOMMENDATION The Appeal Reviewing Officer found that: 1) The decision describes the actions to be taken in sufficient detail except as noted, so that the reader can understand what will occur as a result of the decision. There are 20 miles of ML 1 and unauthorized roads proposed to be added to the transportation system. Of these 20 miles, 7 miles are currently unauthorized roads proposed to be added and designated for motorized use. As noted in the appeal by the Center for Biological Diversity, these 7 miles of road did not have sufficient site-specific analysis. The EA does not adequately disclose what, if any, work on the ground would be required to bring these unauthorized roads into the system. 2) The selected alternative should accomplish the purpose and need established. The purpose and need stated in the EA reflect consistency with direction in the Forest Plan for the Carson National Forest. 3) The decision is consistent with policy, direction, and supporting evidence. The record contains documentation regarding resource conditions and the Responsible Official s decision documents are based on the record and reflect a reasonable conclusion. 4) The record reflects that the Responsible Official provided ample opportunity for public participation during the analysis and decision making process. The Responsible Official s efforts enabled interested publics the opportunity to comment and be involved in the site-specific proposal.

Ms. Cyndi Tuell 3 A copy of the Appeal Reviewing Officer s recommendation and the technical review of your appeal contentions are enclosed. APPEAL DECISION After a detailed review of the record and the Appeal Reviewing Officer s recommendation, I affirm in part with instructions and reverse in part the Responsible Official s decision on the Carson West Side Travel Management Project and non-significant forest plan amendment. The Carson West Side Travel Management Project is affirmed with the exception of adding 7 miles of unauthorized road to the designated system. I am reversing the portion of the decision that adds 7 miles of unauthorized roads to the designated system based on a lack of site-specific analysis and disclosure in the project record. Before adding these 7 miles of unauthorized road to the system and designating them for motor vehicle use, compliance with FSM 7703.26 direction and site-specific analysis under NEPA with issuance of a new decision related to these 7 miles must be done. The new decision must fully comply with public comment and appeal provisions of 36 CFR 215. My instructions are: A list of the 13 miles of ML 1 roads proposed to be opened as ML 2 and a map of these roads should be posted on the forest website. The referenced Amended Direction on the MVUM on page 5 of the Decision Notice should be deleted as it is incorrect. The correct language is reflected on page 4 of the Decision Notice. This decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR 215.18(c)]. A copy of this letter will be posted on the national appeals web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/appeals. Sincerely, /s/ Faye L. Krueger FAYE L. KRUEGER Appeal Deciding Officer, Deputy Regional Forester Enclosures (2) cc: Kendall Clark Audrey Kuykendall Chris Knopp Ruth Doyle Francisco Valenzuela Mailroom R3 Mailroom R3 Carson

Ms. Cyndi Tuell 4 Margaret Van Gilder Karen M Carter

Review and Findings Cyndi Tuell, Center for Biological Diversity Bryan Bird, WildEarth Guardians Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos #11-03-00-0010-A215 Travel Management for West Side of the Carson National Forest Canjilon, El Rito, and Tres Piedras Ranger Districts ISSUE 1: The decision fails to consider user-created and currently closed routes as new construction for NEPA analysis. Contention 1a: The appellants contend that the site specific impacts of user-created routes or currently closed routes have not been properly analyzed through the NEPA process. They claim that the Forest Service cannot make user-created routes permanent without conducting sitespecific analysis which considers an alternative with the option of closing and reclaiming those routes. The appellants state that without proper analysis of the past, present, and future impacts of each new system route, regardless of whether it exists on the ground, it is impossible to understand the cumulative environmental consequences of the Travel Management Rule (TMR) decision (Appeal, pp. 4-5). Response: The responsible official s decision adds unauthorized roads to the system and opens currently closed roads and designates them for motor vehicle use. The project record discusses these two different types of road together, although the actions are different. Closed roads (maintenance level (ML) 1) are on the forest transportation system but are closed to all motor vehicle use, while unauthorized roads must be added to the system, based on the appropriate level of site-specific analysis, before they can be designated for motor vehicle use. As the appellants note, user-created routes were developed without agency authorization and do not have the same status as National Forest System roads and trails (Appeal, p. 4). However, the Travel Management Rule also recognizes that some user-created routes are well-suited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and nonmotorized users alike, involve less environmental impact than unrestricted cross-country motor vehicle use, and would enhance the system of designated routes and areas (PR 035, p. 68268). The appellants note that it is unclear from the EA and FONSI how many miles of added routes are the user created routes and how many are maintenance level 1(ML 1) routes (Appeal, p. 4). GIS data was used to generate a map showing the ML 1 roads that would be opened and the unauthorized roads that would be added to the system. A comparison of that map with existing transportation system maps and the maps for Alternative 1 (PR 297, Figures 3, 5, 7, 12-14, pp. 24, 26, 28, 37-39) shows that approximately 13 miles of the 20 miles are ML 1 roads that would be changed to ML 2. The remaining miles include several segments of unauthorized roads that amount to 7 miles. These unauthorized roads vary in length from 50 to 100 feet to less than 0.10 1

of a mile and are currently being used to access dispersed camp sites. Some of these unauthorized roads are currently located in portions of the west side that are open to motorized cross-country travel, while some are located in existing 300-foot wide corridors that would be eliminated. Corridors would not be designated along the ML 1 roads that would be open to motor vehicle use. The appellants are correct in stating that the Forest Service cannot make user-created routes permanent without conducting site-specific environmental review; however, the Forest Service is not required to consider an alternative of closing and reclaiming those routes (Appeal, pp. 4-5), since those actions are not required under the Travel Management Rule. The FONSI states, This decision does not include any road building (PR 298, p. 13). However, 7 miles of unauthorized road would be added to the system. The EA (PR 297) does not disclose what, if any, work on the ground would be required to bring these unauthorized roads into the system. Decisions to add roads to the forest transportation system must be informed by travel analysis conducted at an appropriate scale, as well as appropriate site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement. The EA and project record include evidence of site-specific analysis of the unauthorized routes proposed to be added for some of the resources potentially impacted but not for all. Findings: The thirteen miles of ML 1 roads are already on the transportation system and do not need to be removed from this decision; however, these roads should be more clearly identified in the project record. With regard to the seven miles of unauthorized road being added to the system, the requirement for site-specific analysis by all resources has not been met. Contention 1b: The appellants contend that the mileage of user-created or ML 1 routes discussed in the FONSI (20 miles) is inconsistent with mileages addressed by the specialist reports (Soil, Watershed and Air Specialist Report 15 miles; Wildlife Specialist Report 20 miles). They state that the discrepancy is of particular concern because the Soil, Watershed and Air report does not identify any new or user-created routes added in the Canjilon Ranger District, while the Wildlife Specialist report indicates 3 new miles of route. Response: The Wildlife Specialist Report ( PR 293, p. 3) and DN/FONSI (PR 298) are consistent in the number of miles (20) being changed from level 1 to level 2 roads or adding unauthorized segments for the Canjilon, El Rito and Tres Piedras Ranger Districts. The Soil, Water and Air Specialist Report (PR 269), because of differences in terminology, does not clearly address the total number miles of roads in the FONSI. Findings: The mileage or user-created or ML 1 roads discussed in the FONSI and Wildlife Report are consistent but the mileage in Soil, Water and Air Report is unclear due to terminology which should be clarified and site-specific analysis conducted. ISSUE 2: The use of dispersed camping/motorized big game retrieval corridors violates the TMR and is not sparingly applied. 2

Contention: The appellants contend that the Forest Service s application of the exception for dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval undermines and is inconsistent with the TMR. The selected alternative will create confusion among the public, create serious enforcement problems, and lead to an expanding network of motorized routes across public forest lands. The allowance for cross-country travel for dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval on more than 68 percent of the designated motorized routes is not limited, not applied only to certain routes, or used sparingly (Appeal, pp. 6-8). Response: The appellants contend the exception to the ban on cross-country travel for MDC and MBGR is not applied sparingly, was not based on travel analysis, appropriate site-specific analysis and public involvement, conflicts with non-motorized users, and creates enforcement problems. To clarify, motorized big game retrieval is not unrestricted motorized cross-country travel. As stated in FSM 7716.13, (M)otorized access for big game retrieval is limited to the individual who legally took the animal. That person may drive or be driven to the animal. Only one vehicle may be used to retrieve the animal (emphasis added). Further, sparingly is not defined in Forest Service directives (FSM 7703 and FSM 7715), nor in the Travel Management Rule but will be at the discretion of the responsible official (PR 35, p. 68285). The creation and/or use of routes is expected to be reduced with the designation of corridors and prohibition of motorized cross country travel (EA, PR 297, p. 60). The appellants incorrectly refer to motor vehicle use for dispersed camping and big game retrieval as an exception. The use of motor vehicles for these two activities is clearly allowed under the Travel Management Rule and is not considered an exception. In designating routes under the Travel Management Rule per 36 CFR 212.51(b), the responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal. The west side, Carson National Forest, currently has 510,599 acres open to cross-country travel by motor vehicles for any use. In addition there are approximately 181 miles of designated road where motor vehicles are allowed to travel 300 feet each side of the road for camping, parking, and firewood gathering (EA, PR 297, p. 3). As the appellants note, the responsible official s decision would add 300-foot and 150-foot wide corridors along both sides of 332 miles and 457 miles, respectively, of certain designated road as specified on Figures 4, 6, and 8 (EA, PR 297, pp. 25, 27, 29). In addition, existing 300-foot wide corridors would be eliminated along both sides of 15 miles of road to address resource concerns, primarily for wildlife considerations. In all corridors, motor vehicle use would be limited solely for the purposes of big game retrieval and dispersed camping, which restricts motor vehicle use that is currently occurring. As the appellants correctly note, the acreage included in these corridors is approximately 52,800 acres. This substantially reduces the acres on the west side, Carson National Forest, open to motor vehicle use. 3

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) has requested that hunters not be singled out and treated differently than other recreationists; therefore, allowing hunters and dispersed campers to travel the same distance off designated roads in corridors is consistent with the Department s request (PR 52). In addition, the 300-foot wide corridor is also consistent with the New Mexico Habitat Protection Act, which permits motor vehicles use within 300 feet of a designated open road or trail. Rather than create enforcement problems, this has allowed NMDGF to assist the Forest Service in enforcing motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands (PR 167). NMDGF supports the designation of corridors as it has been successfully used on Habitat Protection Areas on the Carson since 1986 (PR 270, p. 2). Having two corridors widths that apply to both motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping will minimize confusion for the recreating public. Appellants are concerned that use of roads and corridors during bad weather by hunters would result in increased damage to the habitat of game species and roads. However, as noted in the EA (PR 297, p. 23), the implementation of the decision includes the application of best management practices (BMPs) in addition to standards and guidelines from the Carson forest plan to monitor the effects of motor vehicle use and take necessary actions to minimize damage. In addition, according to the R3 Travel Management Rule Guidelines (PR 120, p. 10), MBGR should not be allowed when conditions are such that motor vehicle use would cause unacceptable natural and/or heritage resource damage, and existing resource protection regulations should be enforced when conditions warrant. The decision to include the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes for dispersed camping and big game retrieval was informed by travel analysis, appropriate site specific analysis and public involvement. As discussed in the Travel Analysis Process (PR 130, p. 17) district level interdisciplinary teams (IDT) analyzed the existing road system for impacts to natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities and access, conflicts among uses, and transportation system sustainability. The primary purpose of a route, such as providing motorized access to camp sites used during the hunting season, as well as the associated values and risks were then identified and this information was presented to the public. Corridors for motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping would be added where motorized cross country travel for any purpose is currently allowed. Limiting motor vehicle use to either 150 feet or 300 feet from certain designated roads would meet the requirement of 36 CFR 212 to prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system, while acknowledging the high number of elk and deer permits sold in the west side s hunt units, the popularity of hunting, and its importance to the lifestyle for local residents and those outside the area role (EA, PR 297, p. 118). The Decision Rationale describes the considerations made by the responsible official that included providing a safe and efficient transportation system for public use and resource protection, while recognizing historic use of the national forest (DN/FONSI, PR 298, pp. 7-8). EA Chapters 1 and 3 (PR 297) outline additional public involvement and the environmental effects analysis conducted by Forest Service resource specialists. 4

The appellants request that motorized corridors be eliminated along the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST). To clarify, these existing corridors are not designated along the CDNST itself, but rather along certain designated roads that cross the trail. The CDNST crosses several collector/arterial roads on the west side, usually at a 90-degree angle which reduces the impact of motorized use on or adjacent to the trail. Motor vehicle use in the corridors would be limited to big game retrieval and dispersed camping. Unlike current forest policy within designated corridors, motor vehicle use for firewood gathering would be prohibited. To enhance the non-motorized character of the trail, several roads that parallel the CDNST would be closed under this decision (EA, PR 297, p. 116). Motor vehicle use by the general public is prohibited on the CDNST, unless that use is consistent with the applicable land management plan and is on a motor vehicle route that crosses the CDNST, as long as that use will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST (2009 CDNST Comprehensive Management Plan, PR 268, p.19). Finding: The Forest Service s allowance for the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes for dispersed camping and big game retrieval is consistent with the Travel Management Rule 36 CFR 212.51(b) and is sparingly applied. ISSUE 3: Mitigation is neither adequate nor adequately explained. Contention 3a: The appellants contend that maintenance is cited as a mitigation technique but due to funding levels, it is unclear how the Forest will be able to perform this maintenance to prevent the identified resource damage from occurring. They state that mitigation may only justify a FONSI if that mitigation can, in fact, constrain impacts within levels of significance. The appellants claim that without evaluating the efficacy of the identified mitigation in light of funding limitations, the Forest Service cannot conclude that route maintenance is sufficient mitigation. Response: CEQ regulations call for mitigation to be included if not already part of the design features for the proposed action or alternatives. A well crafted proposal limits the need for mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Regulations covering designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use include general criteria that the responsible official must consider when making those designations, including the need and availability of resources for maintenance and administration. See 36 CFR 212.55(a). Forest Service directives acknowledge these same considerations and further direct, while important, the scarcity or abundance of resources to maintain and administer designated roads, trails, and areas should not be the only consideration in developing travel management proposals (FSM 7715.5(1)(c)). The decision notice discloses all the factors the responsible official used in making the decision. Speculation regarding the potential of funding limitations does not merit impact analysis to comply with the NEPA. Finding: There is no requirement that the responsible official demonstrate an ability to fund maintenance, operation, and enforcement of designations made as part of a travel management decision; rather the requirement is to consider those factors. The analysis in the EA and decisions 5

recorded in the DN/FONSI provide correct conclusions regarding the efficacy of identified mitigation and maintenance to appropriately implement the proposed action. Contention 3b: The appellants contend that it is unclear how a proposed mitigation for FR 80 and FR 795 is going to prevent sedimentation of the Little Tusas River and Rio Tusas. Response: The seasonal restriction (PR 269, pp. 5 and 15) to Forest Roads 80 and 795 is to mitigate disturbance from motor vehicle use and protect soil and water resources (PR 297, p. 9). The Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) for the Lower Rio Chama (Rio Tusas) identified proper road maintenance (i.e. closure) as a practice to reduce turbidity (sediment) (PR 269, p. 17). Finding: The purpose for the mitigation measure for FR s 80 and 795 is identified in the EA and project record. ISSUE 4: There are inconsistent statements in the FONSI. Contention: The appellants contend that the FONSI contains inconsistent statements regarding the width of the corridor in which dispersed camping or motorized big game retrieval could occur (Appeal, p. 9). Response: The appellants correctly note inconsistent statements regarding the corridor width in the Decision Notice. The Amended Direction on the MVUM ( motor vehicle use is permitted for up to 300 feet ) is not consistent with the decision to implement two corridor widths, 300 feet and 150 feet, for the purposes of motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval (DN/FONSI, PR 298, p. 5). The amended language for Forest Plan, Motor vehicle use identified on the MVUM within a specified distance of designated roads is for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal (elk or deer) by an individual who has legally taken the animal (DN/FONSI, PR 298, p. 4), is correct and does not need to be revised as requested by the appellants. The wording in Amended Direction on the MVUM regarding corridor width is not consistent with the decision. National guidelines have been developed for the production of the Motor Vehicle Use Map and wording to be used. Because two different corridor widths will be implemented with this decision, the MVUM will not include a blanket statement regarding motorized big game retrieval and dispersed camping. Rather, the MVUM will include a dispersed camping and big game retrieval table showing the route number, distance/side of road vehicles would be allowed to travel, vehicle type and dates allowed. Findings: The Forest Plan amendment is correctly worded in the DN/FONSI. The referenced Amended Direction on the MVUM (DN/FONSI, PR 298, p. 5) language should be deleted. ISSUE 5: Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) could be further minimized. 6

Contention: The appellants contend that FR 274 and FR 666 should be closed protect IRA resources because they are in an area currently designated as closed to motorized vehicle uses (other than snowmobiles) and are immediately adjacent to the Canjilon Mountain IRA. Response: Only a short segment of FR 274 is adjacent to the Canjilon Mountain IRA; FR 666 is not adjacent to this IRA (PR 268, IRA Maps). As a result, these roads do not impact the roadless character of the IRA. FR 274B and FR274D that are immediately adjacent to the IRA will be closed under this decision; these actions would protect the IRA resources. The appellants contention that FR 274 and FR 666 are in an area currently designated as closed to motorized vehicle uses other than snowmobiles needs to be clarified. According to direction in the Carson Forest Plan, the area through which these roads traverse, except for the road corridor, should be managed as semi-primitive non-motorized in the spring, summer and fall; snowmobiles are permitted (PR 13, Recreation-3), emphasis added. The closure areas are closed or have motor vehicle restrictions in the sense that cross-country motor vehicle travel is not permitted (PR 13, Travel-3); motor vehicles must stay on designated roads. The plan also directs Canjilon Mountain be managed for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized activities; travel by wheeled vehicles is restricted to those roads or trails that are designated open on the Forest Travel Management Plan (PR 13, Semi-Primitive-2). The travel restrictions around the Canjilon Mountain IRA currently prohibit cross-country travel by motor vehicles. The responsible official s decision will not change the prohibition of cross-country travel by motor vehicles. Finding: Keeping FR 274 and FR 666 open for motor vehicle use does not impact the roadless character of the Canjilon Mountain IRA. The IRA resources are being protected under this decision by closing FR 274B and FR 274D. The area through which FR 274 and FR 666 traverse is currently closed to motorized cross-country travel; it is not closed to all motor vehicle use as appellants contend. 7

Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests P.O. Box 640 Springerville, AZ 85938-0640 (928) 333-4301 FAX: 333-5966 TTY: (928) 333-6292 File Code: 1570/2350 Date: March 14, 2011 Route To: Subject: Appeal #11-03-00-0009/10-A215, ARO, West Side Travel Management, Carson National Forest To: Regional Forester, R-3 Through: Faye Krueger, Deputy Regional Forester, Appeal Deciding Officer Subject: ARO, Appeal #11-03-00-0009/10-A215, West Side Travel Management, Canjilon, El Rito, and Tres Piedras Ranger Districts, Carson National Forest This is my recommendation on the disposition of the two appeals filed regarding the Decision Notice (DN), Environmental Assessment (EA), and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the above referenced project. Background The West Side Travel Management decision does the following: Designates roads and motorized trails for motor vehicle use and identifies them on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Restricts approximately 363 miles of system roads and associated corridors to administrative use only. Adds approximately 20 miles of road to the designated transportation system by converting maintenance level (ML) 1 roads to level 2 and adding unauthorized roads to the system. Adds a 300-foot corridor along both sides of 332 miles of certain designated roads for the purpose of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal (elk or deer) by an individual who has legally taken that animal. Adds a 150-foot corridor along both sides of 457 miles of certain designated roads for the purpose of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal (elk or deer) by an individual who has legally taken that animal. Removes approximately 15 miles of currently designated 300-foot corridor. On the remaining miles of road currently with corridors, change the purpose for using a motor vehicle up to 300 feet from a designated road from camping, parking, and firewood gathering to dispersed camping and big game (elk and deer) retrieval. Converts approximately 3 miles of FR 746, near the village of Canjilon, to a motorized trail. Seasonally restricts motor vehicle use to May 1 through December 31 on some roads for soil and watershed protection and wildlife habitat security. 1

Seasonally restricts motor vehicle use to July 26 to April 30 on 8 miles of FR 80 on the Tres Piedras RD for elk calving habitat security. The decision also amends the Carson forest plan to use the MVUM and changes standards and guidelines for the Canjilon, El Rito, and Tres Piedras Ranger Districts. Carson National Forest Supervisor, Kendall Clark published the legal notice of her decision for Travel Management on the West Side of the Carson National Forest on December 16, 2010. The Forest Supervisor is identified as the Responsible Official whose decision is subject to administrative review under the 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations. Two appeals were filed as follows: Appeal #11-03-00-0009-A215 filed by Mark Werkmeister of the New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Association (NMOHVA) on January 26, 2011. Appeal #11-03-00-0010-A215 filed by Cyndi Tuell of the Center for Biological Diversity on January 29, 2011. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.17, an attempt was made to seek informal resolution of the appeals. The record indicates that informal resolution was not reached. Review and Findings As provided for under 36 CFR 215.19(c), I am consolidating the two appeals into one recommendation letter. My review was conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, 36 CFR 215.19 to ensure the analysis and decision is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. The appeal record, including the appellant s issues and requested relief, has been thoroughly reviewed. Although I may not have listed each specific issue, I have considered all the issues raised in the appeals and believe they are adequately addressed in the attached technical review and findings document. Having reviewed the EA, decision, and project record as required by 36 CFR 215.19(b), I conclude the following: 1) The decision describes the actions to be taken in sufficient detail except as noted, so that the reader can understand what will occur as a result of the decision. There are 20 miles of ML 1 and unauthorized roads proposed to be added to the transportation system. Of these 20 miles, 7 miles are currently unauthorized roads proposed to be added and designated for motorized use. As noted in the appeal by the Center for Biological Diversity, these 7 miles of road did not have sufficient site-specific analysis. The EA does not adequately disclose what, if any, work on the ground would be required to bring these unauthorized roads into the system. 2) The selected alternative should accomplish the purpose and need established. The purpose and need stated in the EA reflect consistency with direction in the Forest Plan for the Carson National Forest.

3) The decision is consistent with policy, direction, and supporting evidence. The record contains documentation regarding resource conditions and the Responsible Official s decision documents are based on the record and reflect a reasonable conclusion. 4) The record reflects that the Responsible Official provided ample opportunity for public participation during the analysis and decision making process. The Responsible Official s efforts enabled interested publics the opportunity to comment and be involved in the site-specific proposal. After considering the claims made by the appellants and reviewing the record, I found that the Responsible Official conducted a proper and public National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that resulted in a decision that is consistent with the Carson National Forest Plan. I found no violations of law, regulations, or Forest Service Policy except as noted in the review for 7 miles of road that did not have sufficient site-specific analysis for all resource areas. Recommendation I recommend that the Responsible Official s decision and non-significant forest plan amendment relating to these appeals be affirmed in part with instructions and reversed in part regarding the appellants contentions. I recommend affirmation of the Carson West Side Travel Management project with the exception of adding 7 miles of unauthorized road to the designated system. My recommendations for instructions are: A list of the 13 miles of ML 1 roads proposed to be opened as ML 2 and a map of these roads should be posted on the forest website. The referenced Amended Direction on the MVUM on page 5 of the Decision Notice should be deleted as it is incorrect. The correct language is reflected on page 4 of the Decision Notice. I also recommend a reversal of the portion of the decision to add 7 miles of unauthorized roads to the designated system based on a lack of site-specific analysis and disclosure in the project record. Before adding these 7 miles of unauthorized road to the system and designating them for motor vehicle use, compliance with FSM 7703.26 direction and site-specific analysis under NEPA with issuance of a new decision related to these 7 miles must be done. The new decision should fully comply with public comment and appeal provisions of 36 CFR 215. /s/ Chris Knopp CHRIS KNOPP Forest Supervisor

cc: Margaret Van Gilder