Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 Page 1-1 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed 

Action 

1.1 OVERVIEW OF CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT TO THE FINAL EIS 

• Table 1-2 was updated to include references to Climate Change. 

• The Revised Statute 2477, Motorized Game Retrieval, and Motorized Cross-Country Areas 

sections were updated with new information from the updated Forest Service Manual and 

Handbook and new Regional guidance. 

• Maintenance discussion was moved to Chapter 2. 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

1.2.1 AGENCY TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

Travel management planning, or management of roads and trails, has received increasing attention in 

the last decade within the Forest Service. This increased attention is largely the result of increased use 

of National Forests for recreation purposes. Increased forest visitation has led to concerns that much 

of this increased use is unmanaged and may be causing undesirable resource and social impacts. 

One of the initial activities on the Custer National Forest (Forest) related to travel management 

planning was inventorying motorized and non-motorized routes. This inventory, conducted during 

1999 and 2000, established a baseline for future analyses. This effort was specifically in preparation 

for the Northern Region (Region) of the Forest Service analysis of cross-country vehicle use. That 

analysis resulted in the Tri-State Off-Highway Vehicle Decision (2001 Tri-State OHV Decision) in 

2001. The primary focus of the decision was restricting motorized vehicles to the use of existing 

motorized routes. 

During this time, the Forest Service developed a national framework for conducting roads analyses. 

The Forest Scale Roads Analysis for the Custer National Forest (see Project Record) was completed 

in January, 2003 based on the above framework. The report highlighted potential impacts of roads 

and/or motorized access on wildlife, water quality, cultural resources; right-of-way issues; and 

potential changes to road management objectives. The key findings in the Forest Scale Roads 

Analysis report were considered in the development of this proposal. 

In 2005, the Forest Service finalized the Motorized Travel Rule which outlined a process for 

motorized travel management planning to be used by all National Forests. The Rule requires 

distribution of a Motor Vehicle Use Map to the public for implementation of travel management 

decisions, which the Forest Service has commited to completing by the end of 2009. The Forest 

Service Manual and Handbook amendments that reflect implementation of the 2005 Motorized Travel 

Rule went into effect on January 7, 2009. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Page 1-2 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 

1.2.2 DISTRICT TRAVEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND PLANNING 

National Forest System road or trail – A 

forest road or trail that the Forest Service has 

determined is necessary for the protection, 

administration, or utilization of the National 

Forest System and the use and development of 

its resources, and identified in the forest 

transportation atlas. 

Unauthorized route – A route that is not a 

National Forest System road or trail or a 

temporary road or trail and that is not included 

in a forest transportation atlas. 

The Ashland Ranger District (District) contains a network of system and unauthorized (non-system) 

routes. The District’s system roads are generally a result of: (1) historic routes determined to be 

needed for management of the District; (2) roads 

developed or improved in conjunction with specific 

agency activities such as timber harvesting; (3) and 

access needs associated with permits. However, while 

system roads generally infer some level of engineering 

design was involved in their development, this is not 

the case for most of the system roads on the District. 

Non-system routes on the District are generally 

believed to have developed in conjunction with 

permitted and recreational activities. The accrual of 

non-system routes has raised concerns about potential 

unintended effects, such as degraded wildlife habitat and diminished quality of recreation experiences. 

The primary travelways on the District, such as Cow Creek (#4095), O’Dell Creek (#4131), Wilbur 

Creek Cutoff (#4775), and Beaver Creek (#4133), generally tend to be improved, better maintained 

routes that are typically suitable for use by passenger vehicles. In addition, there are a limited number 

of District roads that were designed and constructed during timber harvest activities, or were 

improved to agency standards during fire rehabilitation efforts suitable for high-clearance vehicle use. 

The majority of routes on the District are rough, unsurfaced, sometimes over-grown and/or grassed-in, 

slow-speed routes that are typically more suitable for high-clearance vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, and 

motorcycles. When wet, these routes often become impassable. 

Non-system routes on the District are generally believed to have developed in conjunction with 

recreational and permitted activities. The accrual of non-system routes has raised concerns about 

potential unintended effects, such as degraded wildlife habitat and dimished quality of recreation 

experiences. 

District-wide travel management planning was last addressed on the District in 1992. However, the 

majority of the elements contained in that decision do not appear to have been implemented. Further, 

the conditions on the ground and agency policy have changed since 1992, which would make 

implementation of the 1992 decision impractical and inconsistent with current policy. 

The Ashland Ranger District initiated the current travel management planning effort in late summer 

2007 and distributed a scoping letter for the proposed action on November 26, 2007, and distributed a 

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for public review on September 26, 2008. A Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register was published on October 3, 2008, which initiated a 45-day 

comment period. The comment period was extended for an additional 15 days for a total of 60 days in 

response to a public request. The proposal was developed in compliance with the 2005 Motorized 

Travel Rule, the Custer National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and other 

related guidance. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) incorporates information gained 

from past planning efforts, current agency guidance, and specialist’s input, along with the comments 

received from the public on the proposed action. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 Page 1-3 

1.2.3 FOUR THREATS TO FOREST AND GRASSLAND HEALTH 

Former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth identified four key threats to maintaining and restoring 

the health of America’s forests and grasslands: fuels and fire, invasive species, unmanaged recreation, 

and habitat fragmentation. The Chief noted specific concerns related to unmanaged motorized 

recreation and the creation of unplanned motorized routes, and the potential for these to have adverse 

impacts on natural resources. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule was developed to address this 

concern. Chief Bosworth committed to implementing this rule by the end of December, 2009. Gail 

Kimball, current Forest Service Chief, affirmed the agencies commitment to meeting this timeline. 

This project is a part of that commitment. 

1.2.4 ROADS ANALYSIS 

The Forest completed the Forest Scale Roads Analysis

in January, 2003. The report indicated that route 

density (system and non-system) on the District may 

be of concern in terms of impact on wildlife secure 

habitat (see Wildlife section of Chapter 3 for 

information on this topic). The report also highlighted 

cultural resource concerns with maintenance level 3, 4, 

and 5 roads on the District (see Cultural Resource 

section of Chapter 3 for information on this topic). 

Maintenance Level (ML) 1 – A system road in 

“storage” for future use. 

ML 2 – Typically a low speed, single-lane, 

native-surfaced, high-clearance vehicle road. 

ML 3 – Typically a low speed, single-lane, 

gravel-surfaced, passenger vehicle road.

ML 4 – Typically a double-lane, gravel-surfaced 

road.

ML 5 – Typically a double-lane paved road.

1.2.5 GENERAL LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 

The District, situated in southeast Montana, is composed of a single geographic unit, and is separate 

from other National Forest System lands (see vicinity map below). As such, the District is the single 

largest block of contiguous federal ownership in Eastern Montana, consisting of approximately 

436,546 acres of National Forest System land. However, within the Forest boundary, there are 

502,152 acres of land that includes both private inholdings and adjacent lands in other ownership. 

The Ashland Ranger District is situated on a remmant plateau which has eroded away to leave the 

present landforms. The plateau stands out from the surrounding prairie because of its elevation and 

the ponderosa pine forest. The elevation ranges from 3,200 to 4,300 feet and generally falls within the 

11-15 inch precipitation zone. Vegetation includes dense stand of ponderosa pine, hardwood draws, 

sagebrush, and open grass uplands. These lands contain and support a large variety of landforms, 

vegetation, wildlife, and uses. The vegetation on the District consists of ponderosa pine and 

grasslands interspersed by draws and ridges resulting in a landscape pattern that is approximately half 

timbered and half grassland. Game species are abundant with strong populations of deer, grouse, wild 

turkey, and elk. Non-game species are also abundant and can be found throughout the District. The 

District has a large grazing program, a significant fuels reduction program, and has considerable 

lightning caused fires annually. In the past eight years, over 25% of the District has burned from 

wildfires. 

The entire District is within the State of Montana, with the majority of District lands located in 

Powder River County and a smaller portion in Rosebud County. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Page 1-4 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 

Figure 1-1. Vicinity map. 

1.2.6 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE 

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) discloses the potential environmental, cultural, social, 

and economic consequences of implementing alternatives to manage travel management within the 

Ashland Ranger District, Custer National Forest, Montana. The consequences of taking no action are 

also disclosed. This EIS, in conjunction with public comments, legal requirements, and existing 

management direction, will be used to establish travel management direction for the District. 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and need for the project, 

and the proposed action. 

Chapter 2 – Public involvement, issues, and 

alternatives.

Chapter 3 – Description of the affected 

environment and environmental impacts of the 

alternatives. 

Chapter 4 – Project coordination, references, 

and those involved in preparation of the 

document. 

Chapter 5 – Response to comments. 

This analysis is organized into five chapters and an 

appendices section. Chapter 1 identifies the reasons 

that the project is being conducted, legal requirements, 

and analysis parameters. Chapter 2 describes the 

public involvement, issues, and alternatives, including 

those not analyzed in detail. Chapter 3 presents the 

applicable affected environment and environmental 

consequences for each of the significant and other 

issues identified for this project. Chapter 4 describes 

the coordination conducted for this process and the 

individuals responsible for preparing the document. 

Chapter 5 displays the Forest’s response to public and agency comments to the Draft EIS. The 

Appendices incorporate additional material needed to more fully understand the analyses and 

alternatives. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 Page 1-5 

This EIS has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA provisions (40 CFR 1500), the 

National Forest Management Act and its accompanying regulations, Forest Service Manuals and 

Handbooks, and applicable Department of Agriculture and agency guidance. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

In December 2005, the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule took effect for all National Forest System lands 

(Appendix A). The new rule directs National Forests to designate roads, trails, and areas suitable for 

public motorized travel. The actions described in this document are part of the planning process to 

select routes for designation under the new regulation. National Forests are expected to complete the 

planning and designation process by the end of 2009. This commitment is displayed in the Chief’s 

Schedule for Implementation of the Travel Management Rule for National Forests and Grasslands 

available on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/. The Forest needs to 

complete travel management for the District to fulfill this commitment. 

The purpose of travel management planning is to: 1) identify routes for public motorized use on the 

District, 2) provide for a mix of motorized and non-motorized opportunities, 3) minimize impacts on 

natural and cultural resources, and 4) have enforceable travel management decisions that meet the 

direction of the 2005 Motorized Travel Management Rule. 

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION 

The Forest Service is proposing to designate the roads and trails available for public motorized use on 

the District in compliance with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule. The existing system roads are 

considered the starting point for this analysis. Consequently, this proposal consists of the proposed 

changes to system roads (also known as actions) that the Forest Service is considering. The proposal 

includes the following types of actions: 

• Designate a system of roads and trails on the District for motorized public use. 

• Designate the type of vehicle and season of use for each system road and motorized system 

trail. 

• Change certain system roads to motorized trails or mixed motorized use roads. 

• Change certain non-system routes to system roads or system motorized trails. 

• Identify those system roads and non-system routes to be used for administrative use only. 

• Designate dispersed vehicle camping along system roads and motorized trails. 

• Change system roads for which there is no identified administrative, utilization, or protection 

need to Maintenance Level 1 system roads available for potential decommissioning in the 

future. 

1.5 SCOPE OF DECISION TO BE MADE 

1.5.1 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

The decision to be made is to designate a road and trail system on the District for public motorized 

use. In addition, some unauthorized (non-system) routes could be converted to system roads and 

motorized trails, and some system roads may be changed to system motorized trails. The type of 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Page 1-6 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 

vehicle and season of use would also be designated for each system road and motorized system trail. 

Dispersed vehicle camping distances or site specific restrictions would also be determined. 

Existing Forest Orders that are not consistent with the decision made in the ROD would be rescinded 

and any new ones that are necessary for implementation would be issued. 

1.5.2 DECISIONS THAT WILL NOT BE MADE 

There were several subjects that commenters thought should be decided through this process, 

including cross-country game retrieval, exemptions for accessibility, changes to rights of access, 

decommissioning or obliterating routes, construction of motorized and non-motorized routes, and 

over-the-snow vehicle use. The Deciding Official has determined that these actions are outside the 

scope of the analysis for this process. Specific rationale related to the determination for cross-country 

game retrieval, exemptions for accessibility, and changes to rights of access determination can be 

found in section 1.6 Legal Framework. 

1.6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

The Forest Service must comply with laws, regulations, and policies in management of the District. 

The Forest Plan is a part of the policy framework within which the Forest Service must conduct the 

analysis of District travel management planning. This framework also includes the laws, regulations, 

and policies that relate to travel management. 

1.6.1 AUTHORITY FOR TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING 

The Secretary of Agriculture’s authority for travel management rulemaking, and regulating the use 

and occupancy of National Forest System lands are set forth in 16 U.S.C. 551; 23 U.S.C. 205; 7 

U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 551; E.O. 11644; E.O. 11989 (42 FR 26959); 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 

460l– 6a, 460l–6d, 472, 497b, 497c, 551, 580d, 1134, 3210; 30 U.S.C. 185; 43 U.S.C. 1740, 1761–

1771; 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 460l– 6d, 472, 551, 620(f), 1133(c)–(d)(1), 1246(i). 

1.6.2 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11644 AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11989 

Executive Order (EO) 11644 required federal land management agencies to establish policies and 

procedures for management of motorized vehicles on public lands to protect resources, promote safety 

of users, and minimize conflicts among uses. Executive Order 11989 amended EO 11644 with 

additional guidance on protecting resources when establishing policies related to motorized travel on 

public lands. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule is the agency’s implementation of these executive 

orders. 

1.6.3 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13443 

EO 13443 requires federal land management agencies to consider the effects of agency actions on 

hunting, hunter participation, and wildlife habitat; work cooperatively with State and tribal entities on 

wildlife management; and consider programs and recommendations of comprehensive wildlife 

planning efforts. Chapter 3 discloses the effects of the proposed action on hunting, hunting 

participation, and wildlife habitat, and compliance with applicable species-specific and comprehensive 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 Page 1-7 

wildlife management plans. Chapter 4 discloses consultation with State and tribal agencies regarding 

the proposed action. 

1.6.4 2005 MOTORIZED TRAVEL RULE 

1.6.4.1 Designation Criteria 

The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule requires consideration of the effects of designating roads, trails and 

areas on specific resources and components of travel management. The Rule states, “In designating 

National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on the National Forest System 

lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System 

natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreation opportunities, access needs, 

conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of 

roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the 

availability of resources for that maintenance and administration.” (36 CFR 212.55 (a)). 

The Rule also contains specific criteria related to designating trails and roads. For trails, it states, “In 

addition to the criteria listed in paragraph [a] of this section, in designating National Forest System 

trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the 

following, with the objective of minimizing: (1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other 

forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) 

Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreation uses of National Forest 

System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and (4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle 

uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands. In addition, the responsible 

official shall consider: (5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated 

areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and others factors.” (36 CFR 212.55 (b)) 

For roads, the Rule states, “In addition to the criteria in paragraph [a] of this section, in designating 

National Forest System roads, the responsible official shall consider: (1) Speed, volume, composition, 

and distribution of traffic on roads; and (2) Compatibility of vehicle class with road geometry and 

road surfacing.” (36 CFR 212.55 (c)) 

The effects associated with resources listed in the criteria identified above, are disclosed in this 

document for consideration by the responsible official. This disclosure of effects, in many cases, 

coincides with the disclosure of effects necessary for compliance with NEPA. However, the 

requirements of the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule do not supplant compliance with NEPA, rather the 

effects disclosure required by the Rule are in addition to that required by NEPA. The location of the 

effects disclosures for each of the criteria are listed in the following table. Because no designated 

motorized areas are proposed in any of the action alternatives, there is no discussion of criteria related 

to designation of areas. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Page 1-8 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 

Table 1–1. Guide to Locating Criteria Considerations Identified in the 2005 Motorized Travel 

Management Rule

Rule Criteria Location in Document 

General 

Natural Resources Soils, Water, Vegetation, and Wildlife sections of Chapter 

3; Air Quality and Climate Change in the Issues section of 

Chapter 2. 

Cultural Resources Cultural Resources section of Chapter 3. 

Public Safety Refer to Safety section below. 

Provision of Recreation Opportunities Recreation section of Chapter 3. 

Access Needs Refer to Access section below. 

Conflicts Among Uses of National Forest System Lands Recreation and Cultural Resource sections of Chapter 3; 

also refer to discussion below. 

Need for Maintenance and Administration of Roads, Trails 

and Areas That Would Arise As a Result of Designation 

Refer to Maintenance section in Chapter 2. 

Availability of Resources for Maintenance and 

Administration 

Refer to Maintenance section in Chapter 2. 

Trail Specific 

Damage to Soil, Watershed, Vegetation and Other Forest 

Resources 

Soils, Water, Vegetation, and Wildlife sections of Chapter 

3; Air Quality and Climate Change in the Issues section of 

Chapter 2. 

Harassment of Wildlife and Significant Disruption of 

Wildlife Habitats 

Wildlife section of Chapter 3. 

Conflicts Between Motor Vehicle Use and Existing or 

Proposed Recreation Uses of National Forest System 

Lands or Neighboring Federal Lands 

Recreation section of Chapter 3. 

Conflicts Among Different Classes of Motor Vehicle Uses 

of National Forest System Lands or Neighboring Federal 

Lands 

Recreation section of Chapter 3. 

Compatibility of Motor Vehicle Use with Existing 

Conditions in Populated Areas, Taking Into Account 

Sound, Emissions, and Others Factors 

Generally not a concern - designated routes are generally 

not adjacent to populated areas on this District; also see 

Recreation section of Chapter 3 and Air Quality and 

Climate Change in Issues section of Chapter 2. 

Road Specific 

Speed, Volume, Composition, and Distribution of Traffic 

on Roads 

Refer to Safety section below. 

Compatibility of Vehicle Class with Road Geometry and 

Road Surfacing 

Refer to Safety section below. 

Access Needs 

As required by the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, access to National Forest lands was considered. The 

1986 Forest Plan access objective is to provide at least one access point per five miles of 

administrative boundary where it has been determined that there is not adequate access from National 

Forest System land. There are some areas on the District that are not easily accessible by the general 

public, because private lands adjacent to the Forest as well as topographic features preclude access or 

roads/trails do not exist. Some additional access points have been identified outside of this process 

and, over time, access to the Forest may increase. However, the intent will not be to provide road/trail 

access to all areas on the Forest. Any access needs identified will be evaluated in a separate analysis 

from this project. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 Page 1-9 

 

Accessibility 

Special provisions aimed at providing people with disabilities motorized opportunities not available to 

all forest users have not been included in this proposal. In the comments and responses on the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule published on November 9, 2005 in the Federal Register, the agency states, 

“Under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person with a disability can be denied 

participation in a Federal program that is available to all other people solely because of his or her 

disability. In conformance with section 504, wheelchairs1 are welcome on all National Forest System 

lands that are open to foot travel and are specifically exempt from the definition of motor vehicle in § 

212.1 of the final rule, even if they are battery-powered. However, there is no legal requirement to 

allow people with disabilities to use OHVs or other motor vehicles on roads, trails, and areas closed to 

motor vehicle use because such an exemption could fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest 

Service’s travel management program (7 CFR 12e.103). Reasonable restrictions on motor vehicle 

use, applied consistently to everyone, are not discriminatory”. 

Similarly, in the comments and responses on the updated Forest Service Manual and Handbook travel 

management planning guidance published on December 9, 2008 in the Federal Register, the agency 

states, “Consistent with section 504, FSM 2353.05, and Title V, Section 507(c), of the Americans 

With Disabilities Act, wheelchairs and mobility devices, including those that are battery powered, that 

are designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for location and that are suitable for use in 

an indoor pedestrian area are allowed on all NFS lands that are open to foot travel. There is no legal 

requirement to allow people with disabilities to use motor vehicles on roads, on trails, or in areas that 

are closed to motor vehicle use. Restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to 

everyone are not discriminatory. Generally, granting an exemption from designations for people with 

disabilities would not be consistent with the resource protection and other management objectives of 

designation decisions and would fundamentally alter the nature of the Forest Service’s travel 

management program (29 U.S.C. 794; 7 CFR 15e.103).” 

The relative effects of the alternatives on forest visitors are addressed in the Recreation section of 

Chapter 3. 

Conflicts Among Uses of National Forest System Lands 

The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule requires consideration of conflicts among uses of National Forest 

System lands. The Recreation and Cultural Resources sections of Chapter 3 each address aspects of 

conflicts among uses, primarily among users, including effects of motorized activities on nonmotorized forest visitors and effects of motorized activities on uses associated with traditional 

religious and cultural practices. Conflict among other uses that may result from designation of system 

roads and trails, such as conflicts between motorized recreation and timber harvest activities, range 

management, and permit administration, were considered, but no substantive conflicts between these 

uses were identified. 

Safety 

The primary focus of public safety associated with route designation is mixing licensed and 

unlicensed vehicle use on District roads and trails. Commenters expressed an interest in having 

opportunities to operate unlicensed vehicles, while others have expressed safety concerns with 

permitting this activity. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule lists public safety as one of the general 

criteria to be considered during the designation of roads, trails, and areas. The Forest Service believes 

1

 A wheelchair is, “a device designed solely for use by a mobility impaired person for locomotion that is suitable for use in an indoor 

pedestrian area” (ADA, Title V Section 507 (c)). 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Page 1-10 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 

that both mixed motorized use roads and motorized trails are legitimate and appropriate uses of the 

National Forests. 

Public safety on Forest roads and trails depends on many factors including the condition of the 

facility, speed traveled, type of vehicles, human factors like driver expectations, and environmental 

factors such as weather, noise, and/or visual distractions. National Forest System roads are designed 

primarily for use by highway-legal vehicles (motor vehicles that are licensed or certified for general 

operation on public roads within the State) such as a passenger car or log truck. Motorized mixed use 

is defined as designation of a National Forest System road for use by both highway-legal and nonhighway-legal motor vehicles. Currently all roads on the District require the use of highway-legal 

vehicles. No roads are currently designated as motorized mixed use. 

Designating National Forest System roads for motorized mixed use involves safety and engineering 

considerations. A motorized mixed use analysis must be completed by a qualified engineer. The level 

of analysis is to be based on personal knowledge, expertise, and experience. During the analysis, the 

engineer will review crash probability and crash severity. 

Designating system trails for motorized use does not require a motorized mixed use analysis. Trail 

use and characteristics, such as slower vehicle speeds than roads, generally indicate that crash severity 

and crash frequency are expected to be lower than for roads. Although the District does not have any 

motorized trails at this time, they are under consideration in this analysis. Motorized trails are 

common on many National Forests and nationally the Forest Service estimates that it has 

approximately 47,000 miles of motorized trails (USDA Forest Service, 2008). 

It should be noted that designation of roads or trails for motor vehicle use by a particular class of 

vehicle under 36 CFR 212.51 should not be interpreted as encouraging or inviting use, or to imply that 

the road, trail, or area is passable, actively maintained, or safe for travel. Designation only indicates 

the types of vehicles that are permitted to be used on that route. 

Montana State Law 

The Forest Service defers to state laws in regard to operation of vehicles on roads and trails. State 

laws related to roads fall under: Montana Code Annotated, Title 61. Motor Vehicles. State laws 

related to trails fall under: Montana Code Annotated, Title 23 Parks, Recreation, Sports, and 

Gambling, Chapter 2 Recreation. 

The Forest would not deviate from State of Montana motor vehicle law by proposing motorized mixed 

use on National Forest System roads and motorized trails. 

To operate a motor vehicle (highway-legal) on National Forest System roads, the vehicle must be 

registered with a valid license plate and the operator must possess a State drivers license and when 

operating a motorcycle must have a “motorcycle endorsement” on the license. 

Montana State Law does provide exemptions for use of non-highway-legal (aka off-highway or 

unlicensed) vehicles on National Forest System roads if the forest has designated and approved that 

road for such use (i.e. designated for motorized mixed use). The exemptions allow the operator of a 

non-highway-legal vehicle to be under 16 years of age but at least 12 years of age if at the time of 

driving the vehicle the operator has in their possession a certificate showing the successful completion 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 Page 1-11 

of an off-highway vehicle safety education course approved by the State of Montana Department of 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and is in the physical presence of a person who possesses a drivers license. 

Montana State Law does not require that motor vehicles be licensed to operate on trails, but if they are 

not licensed they must have an OHV sticker. 

Operator Responsibilities 

Operating a motor vehicle on National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and in 

areas on National Forest System lands carries a greater responsibility than operating a vehicle in a city 

or other developed setting. Not only must the motor vehicle operators know and follow all applicable 

traffic laws, but they need to show concern for the environment and other forest users. The misuse of 

motor vehicles can lead to the temporary or permanent closure of any designated road, trail, or area. 

Users need to be aware of and comply with the following standard language found on the Motorized 

Vehicle Use Map per Forest Service policy: “Operators of motor vehicles are subject to State traffic 

law, including State requirements for licensing, registration, and operation of the vehicle in question. 

Motor vehicle use, especially off-highway vehicle use, involves inherent risks that may cause property 

damage, serious injury, and possibly death to participants. Riders should drive cautiously and 

anticipate rough surfaces and features, such as snow, mud, vegetation, and water crossings common 

to remote driving conditions. Participants voluntarily assume full responsibility for these damages, 

risks, and dangers. Motor vehicle operators should take care at all times to protect themselves and 

those under their responsibility.” 

Much of the Custer National Forest is remote, and medical assistance may not be readily available. 

Cellular telephones do not work in many areas of the Custer National Forest. Operators should take 

adequate food, water, first aid supplies, and other equipment appropriate for the conditions and 

expected weather. 

1.6.4.2 Administrative Use 

In some situations, it is necessary and/or prudent for the Forest Service to identify a route for 

administrative use only. The most common situation on the District is when no right-of-way for 

public access exists, but access is needed to conduct administrative activities. In other cases, 

administrative use routes may be identified to reduce the potential for vandalism of facilities or to 

protect the public from health and safety concerns. Typically, permitted use of an administrative route 

is for access to maintain facilities or improvements associated with permitted activities such as water 

developments, power lines, and pipelines. 

Several respondents expressed concerns about how travel management planning might impact their 

permitted use, or asked that exemptions or similar measures be included in this analysis for their 

permit activities. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule Section 212.51(a) states that: 

Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on 

National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the 

responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the National Forest System, provided that 

the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these designations: 

(1) Aircraft; 

(2) Watercraft; 

(3) Over-snow vehicles (see § 212.81); 

(4) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service; 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Page 1-12 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 

(5) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes; 

(6) Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes; 

(7) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and 

(8) Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law 

or regulations. 

In other words, motorized use associated with permitted activities is exempt from the route 

designation process that is the subject of this analysis. Authorization for motor vehicle use for 

permitted activities, through a permit or another mechanism, is to be addressed separate from the 

designation process. That authorization must be “a written authorization issued under Federal law or 

regulations.” 

Some commenters were concerned that routes identified for administrative use only will provide 

permittees motorized access not available to the general public. These commenters would prefer that 

routes that are available for permittee use be designated for public motorized use so that everyone has 

the same motorized access. This perception may always exist. However, motor vehicle use of 

administrative use routes is intended to be infrequent and only for specific, agency-approved activities 

required for administration, utilization, or protection of National Forest System resources, and in the 

case of permittees, limited to the authorization contained in their permit. 

Motor vehicle use may occur by personnel from the Forest Service or other agencies, such as state law 

enforcement or game management agencies, or those authorized to use the route “under a written 

authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.” Permit holders, such as utility companies, 

grazing permit holders, or outfitter/guides, are not automatically granted access to administrative use 

only routes. Their use of administrative routes must be specifically authorized in writing, must be 

necessary to conduct the activities authorized in their permit, must be for specific administrative 

routes, and may be limited to certain times of the year, as appropriate. 

1.6.4.3 Public Rights-Of-Way Access 

The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule states that, “In making designations pursuant to this subpart, the 

responsible official shall recognize: (1) Valid existing rights; and (2) The rights of use of National 

Forest System roads and National Forest System trails under § 212.6(b)” (36 CFR 212.55 (d)). This 

proposal is consistent with this direction. Furthermore, this proposal would not alter any existing 

authorizations for the use of routes on the District including, rights-of-way, road special use permits, 

operating plans, or special use permits. For example, this proposal does not contain actions that 

would alter the Forest Service’s commitment made in a road use permit authorizing a property owner 

to use National Forest System roads to access their private property. 

1.6.4.4 Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 Rights-Of-Way 

Commentors indicated an interest in the role of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in this process. The 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule exemption for legally documented rights-of-way held by State, county, or 

other local public road authorities covers rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 that have been adjudicated 

through the Federal court system or otherwise formally established. However, Congress has placed a 

moratorium on rulemaking concerning recognition of any unresolved R.S. 2477 rights-of-way claims. 

In addition, identification of unresolved R.S. 2477 rights-of-way is outside the scope of this project. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 Page 1-13 

However, the Forest Service may, outside of this project, make a non-binding administrative 

determination as to the potential validity of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way claim for land use planning and 

management purposes. If the Forest Service identifies a potentially valid R.S. 2477 right-of-way claim 

through a non-binding determination, the agency will encourage the claimant to accept jurisdiction 

pursuant to an easement granted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (23 U.S.C. 317) or by the 

Forest Service under Section 2 of the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA) (16 U.S.C. 533) 

or to adjudicate the claim pursuant to the Quiet Title Act (28 U.S.C. 2409a). 

1.6.5 MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM (36 CFR 212.5(b)(1)) 

This travel management planning process is expected to result in identification of the minimum road system 

necessary to meet the utilization (including recreation), protection, and administration needs of the District. 

Consistent with 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1), this process will involve the “science-based roads analysis” and 

“broad spectrum of interested and affected citizens, other state and federal agencies, and tribal 

governments” necessary for determining the minimum road system needed (see Chapters 2 and 3 of the 

EIS). In addition, the process is expected to result in the minimum “road system determined to be needed 

to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management 

plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term 

funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts....” 

Chapters 1 and 3 of the EIS identify consistency with the Forest’s land management plan and other 

statutory and regulatory requirements. EIS chapters 1, 2, and 3 disclose measures proposed to minimize 

adverse resource impacts and disclose the long-term funding expectations. 

1.6.6 REGIONAL TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING GUIDANCE 

1.6.6.1 Motorized Game Retrieval 

The District is not proposing to designate any motorized game retrieval. In a June 30, 2006 letter to 

Forest and Grassland Supervisors, the Regional Forester for Region One of the Forest Service 

provided guidance that stated, “Travel off route for big game retrieval is not recommended and must 

have Regional Forester approval prior to initiating any proposals that consider off route use for this 

purpose”. No extraordinary circumstances were identified that warranted proposing motorized crosscountry game retrieval on the District, consequently designation of motorized big game retrieval was 

not proposed in the DEIS. 

Subsequent to distribution of the DEIS, the Forest Service issued a new Travel Management Manual 

(January, 2009) and issued a January 16, 2009 Regional Forester’s memo replacing the June 30, 2006 

memo. The new Travel Management Manual states that, “The responsible official may include in a 

designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest roads and 

forest trails where motor vehicle use is allowed, 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 the animal (big game retrieval). The subsequent January 16, 2009 

memo from the Regional Forester stated, “Decisions that include the use of motorized vehicles within 

a specified distance of designated routes for the purpose of big game retrieval should only be made 

after consulting with the Regional Forester.” 

Big game retrieval on the District was reviewed following the issuance of this new guidance. Again, 

no extraordinary circumstances were identified that warranted proposing motorized cross-country 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action 

Page 1-14 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 1 

game retrieval on the District, consequently designation of motorized big game retrieval is not 

proposed in the FEIS. 

The use of non-motorized game carts for game retrieval would not be affected by this proposal. 

1.6.6.2 Motorized Cross-Country Areas 

In a June 30, 2006 letter to Forest and Grassland Supervisors, the Regional Forester for Region One of 

the Forest Service provided guidance that stated, “Designated areas should have natural resource 

characteristics that are suitable for cross-country motor vehicle use or should be so significantly 

altered by past actions that motor vehicle use might be appropriate”. Similar language was included 

in the January 8, 2007 Forest Service Travel Management Manual, “Areas should have natural 

resource characteristics that are suitable for cross-country motor vehicle use or should be so altered by 

past events that motor vehicle use might be appropriate. Examples might include sand dunes, 

quarries, the exposed bed of draw-down reservoirs, and other small places with clear geographic 

boundaries.” 

The Forest Service did not identify any areas suitable for motorized cross-country use on the Sioux 

Ranger District based on this guidance. As a result, designated cross-country motorized areas are not 

being proposed as a part of this project. 

1.6.7 1986 CUSTER NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Forest Plan directs management of all Forest Service administered lands within the Forest 

including the District. The Forest Plan provides both Forest-wide Management direction and 

direction for specific management areas. Forest Plan direction related to travel management is listed 

in Appendix B. 

- End of Chapter 1 -