Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

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

Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and 

Alternatives 

2.1 OVERVIEW OF CHANGES FROM DRAFT TO FINAL EIS 

• The Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Detailed Analysis section was expanded to 

include additional alternatives identified in comments on the DEIS. 

• Alternative B Modified was added in response to public comments. 

• The Public Participation Summary was updated with information on public involvement for 

the DEIS. 

• The discussion on route maintenance was moved from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2 and expanded. 

• Mileage and effects tables were updated with information on Alternative B Modified. 

2.2 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter reviews the public involvement process, identifies issues, and describes and compares 

three alternatives considered for management of motorized and non-motorized travel. A summary of 

effects by alternative is also displayed at the end of this chapter. 

2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY 

Ashland Ranger District Travel Management EIS public participation is summarized in this section. 

The summary describes public involvement, identifies persons and organizations contacted during 

preparation of the EIS, and specifies time frames for accomplishing goals in accordance with 40 CFR 

1506.6 

Public involvement includes the steps necessary to identify and address public concerns and needs. 

The public involvement process assists agencies in: (1) broadening the information base for decision 

making; (2) informing the public about the Proposed Action and the potential impacts that could result 

from the project; and (3) ensuring that public needs are understood by the agencies. 

Public participation is required by NEPA at three specific points: the scoping period, review of the 

Draft EIS, and receipt of the Record of Decision. In addition, the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule 

specifies that there must be public involvement in the process of designating motorized roads and 

trails. 

Table 2-1 lists the public meetings conducted in conjunction with the process to date. 

2.3.1 PUBLIC SCOPING 

Scoping is a process used to help identify specific areas of concern related to the proposal during the 

early portion of the detailed environmental analysis. The initial scoping document (see Project 

Record) for this project was distributed on November 26, 2007 to approximately 237 individuals, 

government agencies, tribal governments, news media, businesses, and organizations that have shown 

interest in projects on the Custer National Forest, and in particular on the Ashland Ranger District. 

The scoping document was also posted on the Forest’s web page. The scoping document provided 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-2 Ashland Travel Management Fianl EIS – Chapter 2 

information on the purpose and need for the project, described the proposed action, and asked for 

comments. A news release inviting comments was placed in the Billings Gazette (Billings, MT) on 

November 27, 2007. News releases were also sent to local newspapers including the Miles City Star, 

Independent Press, Powder River Examiner, Outlook, and Yellowstone County News. These media 

efforts helped to publicize the proposal and comment period. Interested parties were asked to 

comment within 30 days. Due to technical issues that delayed placing the scoping document on the 

Forest’s web page for several days, the comment period was extended and additional 15 days, which 

ended January 25, 2008. 

Public meetings were held in Ashland, Broadus, Miles City, and Billings, Montana in December 2007 

to discuss the scoping document (see Table 2-1). 

Table 2-1. Summary of Public Meetings 

Location Date/Time Number of Attendees 

Proposed Action Scoping Meetings 

Ashland, MT December 11, 2007, 6:00-8:00 pm 28

Miles City, MT December 12, 2007, 6:00-8:00 pm 5

Billings, MT December 13, 2007, 6:00-8:00 pm 25

Broadus, MT December 17, 2007, 6:00-8:00 pm 6

DEIS Public Meetings 

Broadus, MT October 27, 2008, 1:00 pm 0 

Ashland, MT October 27, 2008, 6:00 pm 11 

Colstrip, MT October 28, 2008, 6:00 pm 10 

Billings, MT October 29, 2008, 6:00 pm 11 

In response to these efforts, just over 60 letters, personal comments, emails, or phone calls were 

received. The analysis of electronic, written, and verbal comments preliminarily identified several 

potential issues. Three of these issues were identified as significant and were used to formulate 

elements of the alternatives (see Issues section below). 

2.3.2 NOTICE OF INTENT 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal 

Register on September 5, 2008. The NOI identified that when the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement was distributed, the public would have a 45-day comment period from the date when the 

Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Also, a 

news release will be provided to local news media at the beginning of the 45-day comment period on 

the Draft EIS. 

2.3.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR THE DEIS 

The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register October 3, 2008 

which began a 45-day comment period. In response to a public request, the comment period was 

extended 15 days for a total of 60 days. News releases were provided to local news media at the 

beginning of the comment period. The Draft EIS was distributed to interested parties identified in the 

updated District Travel Management Planning EIS mailing list on September 26, 2008. The DEIS 

was also posted on the Forest’s web page. The Forest conducted four public open houses to provide 

information and encourage input on the DEIS (see Table 2-1). The public open house meetings 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-3 

provided the public with the opportunity for one-on-one discussions with the District Ranger and 

interdisciplinary team members. In response to the comment period, the Forest received 44 comment 

letters, e-mails, and documented phone conversations on the DEIS. One of the 44 letters was received 

after the comment period deadline. Further information on commenters, substantive comments 

identified in the letters, e-mails, and phone conversations, and agency responses to comments can be 

found in Chapter 5. 

2.4 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 

One purpose of scoping is to identify the significant issues that should be analyzed in depth within an 

EIS (40 CFR 1501.7). The significant issues become the focus of the analysis and guide alternative 

development. All public scoping comments were considered by the interdisciplinary team and 

Responsible Official, and are documented in the project record. 

The IDT used the public comments on the scoping document, along with internal scoping, to develop 

a list of issues related to potential effects of this project. The IDT and the District Ranger went 

through a process to identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS versus those 

which are not significant and therefore only warrant brief discussion of why they are not considered 

significant. In general, the significant issues identified through that process represent those resources 

with the greatest potential to be significantly impacted by the project. Significant issues pertain to 

resources or other components of the environment that are of public value or interest and that are 

sensitive to potential changes in travel management. The Forest Supervisor concurred with the list of 

significant and other than significant issues. These issues were used to develop the range of 

alternatives and are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. The list of other than significant issues are 

addressed in Section 2.4 

No additional significant issues were identified during the comment period for the Draft EIS. 

2.4.1 RECREATION 

Concern about motorized recreation opportunities. Reductions in the amount of routes available 

for motorized use could reduce the opportunities available for motorized recreation, diminish the 

ability to retrieve big game using motorized routes, and reduce dispersed camping opportunities. 

Alternative A and elements of Alternative B Modified were developed to respond to this issue. 

Indicators: 

• Acres in rural, roaded natural, and semi-primitive motorized ROS settings within the 

District. 

• Miles of motorized system roads and trails to be designated on the District. 

Concern about non-motorized recreation opportunities. Increases in the amount of routes 

designated for motorized use could reduce the quality of non-motorized recreation experiences, reduce 

opportunities for non-motorized big game hunting opportunities, and reduce opportunities for solitude, 

away from noise generated by motorized vehicles. Elements of Alternative B and Alternative B 

Modified were developed in response to this issue. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-4 Ashland Travel Management Fianl EIS – Chapter 2 

 Indicators: 

• Acres in semi-primitive non-motorized settings within the District, including inside and 

outside of Hiking and Riding Areas. 

• Acres in semi-primitive non-motorized settings within the District during big game hunting 

seasons, including inside and outside of Hiking and Riding Areas. 

Concern about opportunities for off-highway vehicle operation. The use of unlicensed offhighway vehicles on roads is not consistent with State of Montana motor vehicle laws. Designating 

roads (as opposed to motorized mixed use roads or motorized trails) would limit opportunities for offhighway vehicle use. This issue was used in designing Alternatives A, B, and B Modified. 

 Indicators: 

• Miles of mixed use system roads in the project area. 

• Miles of motorized system trails in the project area. 

Concern about impacts on personal recreation experiences. The Forest Service and commenters 

recognized the potential for travel management changes to not only impact individual’s personal 

experiences and connection to forest lands, but it also has the potential to increase or decrease conflict 

between forest users, particularly between motorized and non-motorized uses. Alternatives B and B 

Modified were developed in part to address concerns such as these. 

2.4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Concern about protection of archeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and traditional 

practices. Actions associated with designation, such as converting non-system routes to system 

routes, have the potential to adversely impact the scientific, traditional, cultural, and intrinsic values of 

archeological, cultural, and historic sites. In addition, proposed actions could have an adverse effect 

to certain areas of traditional importance to local tribes. 

 Indicators: 

• Total number of cultural resource sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

• Number of priority asset sites within the APE. 

• Number of culturally sensitive sites within the APE. 

2.4.3 WILDLIFE 

Concern about disturbance of wildlife and impacts to wildlife habitat. Human use associated with 

system and non-system road and trail designation has the potential to disturb wildlife through noise 

and visual effects. Human use can disrupt activities such as foraging habits, resting location selection 

and duration, nesting, and denning. In addition, changes in road densities can affect the quality of 

wildlife habitat. The Forest Service identified and analyzed the effects of travel management 

alternatives on federally threatened, Forest Service sensitive, big-game, and other wildlife species and 

their habitat. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-5 

 Indicators: 

• Effects determinations for federally listed threatened or endangered species, Forest Service 

sensitive species, Custer National Forest management indicator species, and other species 

of concern. 

• Deer and Elk – Motorized Route Density and Percent secure habitat within deer and elk 

habitat on the District. 

• General wildlife – Percent of land unit that is core wildlife habitat based on motorized and 

non-motorized routes on the District. 

2.5 OTHER ISSUES 

The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act states that agencies should discuss, “only briefly issues other than significant ones” (40 CFR 

1500.4[c]). The following issues were determined to not be significant issues because they did not 

drive development of alternatives or major components of alternatives, there were no significant 

effects associated with the proposed actions, or both. 

2.5.1 WATER QUALITY, FISHERIES, AND AQUATICS 

The action of adding routes to the system has the potential to influence water quality indirectly 

through on-site erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Actions can also influence water quality 

and channel processes as a result of improper route location. 

Indicators: 

• Miles of actions that reduce risks on routes within the project area. 

• Miles of actions that increase risks on routes within the project area. 

• Effects determinations for listed Forest Service sensitive species and other species of 

concern. 

2.5.2 SOILS 

Adding routes to the transportation system on high and medium risk soils could increase the potential 

to compact, displace, or erode soils such that there is a loss of soil productivity. 

 Indicator: 

• Miles of motorized routes by high/very high and medium erosion hazard rating on the 

District. 

2.5.3 VEGETATION 

Concerns have been expressed about the effects of designating routes on native and rare vegetation 

found on the District. Designation of additional system roads and trails, along with the associated 

dispersed vehicle camping, has the potential to cause ground disturbance that could lead to noxious 

weed establishment and/or encouraging spreading. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-6 Ashland Travel Management Fianl EIS – Chapter 2 

 Indicators: 

• Acres and Percent of potential vegetation impacts by moderate risk category for motorized 

routes on the District. 

• Weed susceptible Acres within designated road corridors within the project area. 

• Total weed infested Acres within motorized route potentially affected corridor. 

• Effects determinations for listed Forest Service sensitive species and other species of 

concern. 

2.5.4 ECONOMICS 

The functional economic area that surrounds the District consists of Rosebud County and Powder 

River counties in Montana and the immediate surrounding counties. For the two-county functional 

economic area evaluated, the total economic effects of recreation overall, and specifically recreation 

tied to motorized and non-motorized activities, are very small compared to the total economic activity 

in the area. Though changes in use attributable to the alternatives outlined in the economic report are 

difficult to estimate (see Project Record), the dominance of hunting as a recreation choice and the 

expectation that the number of hunters using the District is not expected to change as a result of the 

alternatives (see Chapter 3 Recreation) means that the proposed travel management changes would 

have little effect on the overall economy of the two-county area. 

Given this information, no further discussion of this issue is included in the EIS. 

2.5.5 AIR QUALITY 

There is concern that the addition of routes to the transportation system may lead to an adverse impact 

on air quality. Encountering motorized use emissions and fugitive dust on Forest roads and trails 

could have an undesirable effect on the quality of a recreational experience. These effects are 

typically transitory in nature and not long lasting. There are typically good air dispersion 

characteristics and low inversion potential across the District. In addition, traffic is generally at lower 

speeds that result in less dust generation. 

Air quality across the District is considered good to excellent. All areas within and immediately 

adjacent to the District currently meet all state and federal air quality standards (MTDEQ, 2008). The 

nearest Montana non-attainment area for particulate matter is Lame Deer, MT (approx. 30 miles west) 

and Laurel, MT (approx. 150 miles west) with sulfur dioxide concerns. 

The Northern Cheyenne Reservation is a non-federal Class 1 Area under the 1977 Clean Air Act. 

This area is located west of the Ashland District and prevailing winds are from the southwest. The 

nearest areas of non-attainment are Lame Deer, MT for particulate matter (approximately 30 miles 

west) and Laurel, MT for sulfur dioxide levels (approx. 140 miles west). Implementation of any of 

the alternatives is expected to maintain air quality conditions due to 1) good dispersion characteristics 

across the District, 2) low inversion potential across the District, 3) low emissions from vehicles 

relative to other potential sources, and 4) reduced or equivalent route miles open to motorized vehicles 

under all alternatives compared to the existing condition. Compliance with State and Federal air 

quality standards would occur under all alternatives. Given this information, no further discussion of 

this issue is included in the EIS. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-7 

2.5.6 HIKING AND RIDING AREAS (MANAGEMENT AREA J) 

A concern was identified regarding motorized recreation within the Hiking and Riding Areas (HRA) 

on the District and the potential that motorized activities have to diminish the characteristics of those 

areas. There are three HRAs on the District – the Cook Mountian, King Mountain, and Tongue River 

Breaks HRAs. There are currently 20.6 miles of system routes within the HRAs. The Forest Plan 

prohibits public motorized use of these areas, but allows some management activities including 

motorized vehicle use associated with grazing activities (USDA Forest Service 1987). The existing 

routes are used infrequently for administrative purposes. 

Alternatives A and B would reduce the overall miles of motorized routes by 11.4 miles within HRAs, 

compared to the No Action Alternative. None of the alternatives would cause irreversible or 

irretrievable effects to the existing characteristics of the HRAs. All of the alternatives would comply 

with existing law, regulation, and policy. Since public motorized use is not currently allowed within 

the HRAs and the action alternatives would reduce the administrative routes by 11.4 miles, this issue 

will not be analyzed further in the EIS. 

2.5.7 ENFORCEMENT 

Public comment related to law enforcement issues focused on enforcing regulations, providing more 

law enforcement presence, and providing the public with signing and education. These comments 

tended to concentrate on motorized activities on the forest, and were raised by both motorized and 

non-motorized recreationists. A number of comments highlighted impacts associated with the lack of 

enforcement, such as resource damage and diminished recreation experience for other forest visitors. 

Some comments suggested that there was a need for additional law enforcement personnel to handle 

the increase of motorized use on the forest. 

In 2005, the Motorized Travel Rule changed the legal authority for regulating off-route travel of motor 

vehicles. The final rule modified regulations in 36 CFR 295 which historically governed the 

management of OHVs on National Forests. In addition, the rule changed the enforcement authority 

for motor vehicle restrictions from 36 CFR 261 Subpart B: Special Orders to the Subpart A: General 

Prohibitions section, making motor vehicle violations in the future a strict liability infraction. This 

change relieves the Agency of the posting and signing requirements of 36 CFR 261 Subpart B and 

authorizes map notification to be the enforcement tool in the future. The decision mandates that 

Districts and administrative units complete a travel management review with public involvement to 

designate motorized roads, trails, and areas and produce Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) that 

identifies these designations (36 CFR 212.56). Once this is completed, travel management restrictions 

may be enforced under Subpart A without being required to post and maintain prohibition signs in the 

field. This change is expected to improve enforceability of motor vehicle operation violations. 

In addition, the text on the MVUM will include standardized information on the purpose and content 

of the map as well as a statement about motorized vehicle operator’s responsibilities and fines. The 

text states, “It is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on National Forest System lands on 

the Ashland Ranger District other than in accordance with these designations (36 CFR 261.13). 

Violations of 36 CFR 261.13 are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months 

or both (18 U.S.C. 3571(e)).” 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-8 Ashland Travel Management Fianl EIS – Chapter 2 

Currently, there is one full-time Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) stationed on the Custer National 

Forest. The District also has permanent staff trained as Forest Protection Officers (FPO). FPOs have 

limited law enforcement authority and responsibilities compared to LEOs, but are capable of issuing 

citations for travel management violations associated with the prohibition created under the 2005 

Motorized Travel Rule found at 36 CFR 261.13. Changes in the budget to facilitate increases in law 

enforcement capability can be accomplished through changes in allocations within Forest budgets, 

securing additional budget funding from within the Northern Region, or supplementing budgets with 

grants and similar funds. 

Changes in Forest priorities to increase law enforcement capability would most likely occur through 

two options. First, the Forest can determine which programs, such as developed recreation, travel 

management enforcement, wildlife, etc., should be emphasized and allocate the funds to accomplish 

objectives related to those priorities. Another method is to prioritize the work of existing permanent 

staff so that there is increased emphasis on enforcement of travel management violations. 

Given this information and the fact that law enforcement is an administrative rather than biophysical 

aspect of travel management planning, no further discussion of this issue is included in the EIS. 

2.5.8 CLIMATE CHANGE 

A January 13, 2009 Forest Service document titled Climate Change Considerations in Project Level 

NEPA Analysis states, “It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or 

multiple projects on global climate change and therefore determining significant effects of those 

projects or project alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at any scale.” (USDA Forest 

Service, 2009) This project only has the potential to have indirect effects on global climate change, if 

any, and will not have any direct effects, because the scope of the project is limited to designating 

routes for motor vehicle use. Given this information, no further discussion of this issue is included in 

the EIS. 

2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

In response to agency and public issues, three action alternatives were developed. Alternatives A, B, 

and B Modified were analyzed in detail along with the No Action Alternative. A general description 

of each of the alternatives is provided below. 

Tables 2-3 and 2-4 are intended to provide readers with comparative information about the 

alternatives that is not strictly focused on changes from no action. For the action alternatives, the 

figures in the tables represent the total miles available under each table category if that alternative is 

implemented. The figures used for the No Action Alternative represent the current miles for each of 

the categories listed. 

Table 2-5 summarizes important features and rationale for each of the alternatives. Detailed 

information on the alternatives is displayed on the comparison maps (see Map Package) and in the 

route specific tables provided in Appendix C. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-9 

2.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A (EXISTING CONDITION) 

Alternative A was developed in response to multiple public comments expressing a desire to designate 

most or all of the motorized routes identified in the 1999-2000 inventory of the District for public 

motorized use. This alternative consists of routes identified during the 1999-2000 inventory, 

excluding: 

1. Routes that have been decommissioned, obliterated, or are otherwise unavailable for public 

motorized use based on documented decisions since 2000. 

2. Routes for which the Forest Service has no legal right-of-way for public use. This is necessary 

to be in compliance with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule guidance and to make this 

alternative viable for implementation. These routes were either identified as candidates for 

decommissioning/obliteration or, if an administrative need was identified, they were proposed 

for administrative use only. This affects 74 miles of routes. 

3. Existing administrative routes, which would remain administrative use only (61 miles). 

Consequently, Alternative A includes designating the majority of both system and non-system routes 

on the District for public motorized use. Primary motorized travelways would either be designated as 

roads, or where appropriate, as mixed motorized use roads. For the most part, all other routes would 

be designated as motorized trails. To maximize motorized opportunities, no season of use would be 

designated on any routes, and motorized trails would be designated for use by all motor vehicles. This 

alternative approximates the existing condition (e.g. motorized use of existing system and non-system 

routes). 

Designation of motorized trails under this alternative is intended to: 1) expand opportunities for 

motorized recreation opportunities, and 2) more accurately describe the characteristics and nature of 

these routes. In other words, routes proposed to be motorized trails do not display characteristics 

typically associated with roads, such as surfacing, engineering, and prescribed clearing widths. In 

many cases, the routes were not engineered, do not have any surfacing which has resulted in rutting 

and no defined drainage, and they may become impassable when wet. 

This alternative includes the following actions (see Appendix C for route specific actions and 

rationale): 

• Add 126 miles of non-system routes to the transportation system as either roads or motorized 

trails; 123 miles for public motorized use and 3 miles for administrative use. 

• Identify 22 miles of system roads (two roads) as candidates for decommissioning. 

• Identify 44 miles of existing system roads for administrative use. 

• Convert 492 miles of system roads to system motorized trails open to all motor vehicles. 

• Designate 37 miles of system roads for mixed motorized use. 

The 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision authorized dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of motorized 

routes on the District. During the past eight years, the District has not observed unacceptable adverse 

impacts from this activity that warrants proposing a change to this activity under this alternative. 

The tables at the end of this section provide a summary of the elements associated with this alternative 

(Table 2-5) and a summary of alternative mileages (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). Appendix C provides a list 

of the route specific actions proposed under this alternative. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-10 Ashland Travel Management Fianl EIS – Chapter 2 

This alternative largely reflects an alternative submitted in response to the proposed action by a 

combination of organizations that partnered together to develop the alternative (further described in 

Section 2.6.1). Some elements in the partnership’s proposal were not included in Alternative A 

because they were not consistent with guidance related to the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule (e.g. 

designation of roads with no legal right-of-way). 

2.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B consists of designating a system of motorized routes that provides the public with 

motorized recreation opportunities, while addressing resource concerns and recreation opportunity 

concerns. Primary travelways included in this alternative would be designated as roads, or where 

appropriate, as mixed motorized use roads, and, for the most part, all other routes would be designated 

as motorized trails. Designation of motorized trails under this alternative is intended to: 1) expand 

opportunities for motorized recreation opportunities, and 2) more accurately describe the 

characteristics and nature of these routes. In other words, routes proposed to be motorized trails do 

not display characteristics typically associated with roads, such as surfacing, engineering, and 

prescribed clearing widths. In many cases, the routes were not engineered, do not have any surfacing 

which has resulted in rutting and no defined drainage, and they may become impassable when wet. 

The Forest Service followed this general screening process to develop this alternative: 

1. System and non-system routes for which the Forest Service did not have a legal right-of-way 

for public motorized use were evaluated to determine if administrative use was needed. If 

needed, the routes were proposed for administrative use, if they were not needed they were 

identified as candidates for decommissioning or obliteration. 

2. Recent decisions on actions within the District that involved travel management were reviewed 

to determine if the rationale was still appropriate/applicable and if there was any new 

information that would warrant a change. 

3. The remaining system and non-system routes were evaluated to determine if there was an 

administrative, utilization (including recreation), resource, or protection need for the route. If 

a need existed, system routes were proposed for designation and non-system routes were 

proposed to be added to the system and designated. If no need was identified, system routes 

were identified as candidates for decommissioning and non-system routes were identified as 

candidates for obliteration. 

4. At the same time, the Forest Service also assessed whether routes were parallel with each 

other, i.e. routes that were generally within 1⁄2 mile of each other. Where parallel routes 

existed, only one route was selected for public motorized designation. 

5. Finally, based on public input, a season of use that limited motorized travel in key wildlife 

security habitat areas during big-game hunting seasons was developed. The purpose of this 

measure was to provide additional wildlife security and increase opportunities for nonmotorized hunting. District personnel identified routes within Forest Plan Management Area 

D (wildlife emphasis areas) and proposed to enhance wildlife security and non-motorized 

hunting opportunities during Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks archery and rifle big-game 

hunting seasons – September 1 to December1. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-11 

 

This alternative includes the following actions (see Appendix C for route specific actions and 

rationale): 

• Add 56 miles of non-system routes to the transportation system as either roads or motorized 

trails; 18 miles for public motorized use and 38 miles for administrative use. 

• Identify 75 miles of system roads as candidates for decommissioning. 

• Identify 91 miles of existing system roads for administrative use. 

• Convert 392 miles of system roads to system motorized trails open to all motor vehicles. 

• Designate 37 miles of system roads for mixed motorized use. 

• Designate a season of use of December 2 – August 31 on 18 miles of system roads and 

motorized trails. 

The 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision authorized dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of motorized 

routes on the District. During the past eight years, the District has not observed unacceptable adverse 

impacts from this activity that warrants proposing a change to this activity under this alternative. 

The tables at the end of this section provide a summary of the elements associated with this alternative 

(Table 2-5) and a summary of alternative mileages (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). Appendix C provides a list 

of the route specific actions proposed under this alternative. 

2.6.3 ALTERNATIVE B MODIFIED (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative B Modified is largely the same as Alternative B, but has been modified to respond to 

public and internal concerns. The differences between the alternatives are summarized in Table 2-2. 

This alternative includes the following actions (see Appendix C for route specific actions and 

rationale): 

• Add 64 miles of non-system routes to the transportation system as either roads or motorized 

trails; 26 miles for public motorized use and 38 miles for administrative use. 

• Identify 80 miles of system roads as candidates for decommissioning. 

• Identify 80 miles of existing system roads for administrative use. 

• Convert 400 miles of system roads to system motorized trails open to all motor vehicles. 

• Designate 37 miles of system roads for mixed motorized use. 

• Designate a season of use of December 2 – August 31 on 27 miles of system roads and 

motorized trails. 

The tables at the end of this section provide a summary of the elements associated with this alternative 

(Table 2-5) and a summary of alternative mileages (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). Appendix C provides a list 

of the route specific actions proposed under this alternative. 

2.6.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative consists of designation of the existing system roads1

 on the District. This 

is different from Alternative A (existing condition) which proposes to designate both existing system 

1

 The decision to use existing system roads as the foundation for no action stems from 2005 Motorized Travel Rule guidance, including 

the following: 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-12 Ashland Travel Management Fianl EIS – Chapter 2 

 

and non-system routes. The No Action Alternative also includes the existing vehicle types and 

seasons of use currently in force on the District (see Table 2-5 for details). 

Designation of the existing network of system roads would not require any further NEPA and 

represents the starting point for any proposed changes to the routes or areas available for public 

motorized use. Based on this information, no action was determined to be designation of the existing 

system roads and trails. 

System roads that the Forest Service does not have legal right-of-way for public access to use will be 

included in this alternative, unlike the action alternatives. This is because not designating these 

system roads would constitute an action, which would be inconsistent with the premise of the No 

Action Alternative.

 The Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use guide prepared by the Forest Service to aid in 

implementing the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule affirms that the starting point for travel analyses is the current network of 

system roads. 

 The Motor Vehicle Route and Area Designation Guide (version 111705) states, “There is no need to initiate a NEPA process 

to designate those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are already managed for motor vehicle use where that 

use will continue unchanged, or to retain existing restrictions on motor vehicle use.” 
Chapter 2: Public Particip

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Table 2-2. Differences between Alternative B Modified and Alternative B, and the rationale for the modificati

Alternative B Modified Alternative B Route2 Rationale for Modific

40011 40012 40232 45023 47854 47855 48012 

Designate these system routes with a season of use of 12/2 – 8/31. 

Designate these system routes with a yearlong season of use. 

48014 

Respond to public comments for additional nonopportunities. 

Designate these system routes with 4032 Provides important dispersed vehicle camping oa yearlong season of use. 

Designate these system routes with a season of use of 12/2 – 8/31. 4503 Respond to public comments that the portion of 

should be designated with a yearlong season of dispersed vehicle camping opportunity; the SOU gate would not be changed from Alternative B. 

40954 There is a fence across this route with no gate an

revegetated. 

4467 47911 

No identified administrative, utilization, or prot

Do not designate this route for public motorized use. 

Designate as system motorized trail open to all motor vehicles. 

4432D End designation at the fence line - no identified 

protection need for the route beyond fenceline. 

Designate as motorized trail open to all motor vehicles. 

System route - candidate for decommissioning. 

40957 Provides important dispersed vehicle camping o

Designate as motorized trail open 41338 Respond to public comments to use these routes to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

Identify as administrative use only. 

48058 Respond to public comments to make this a mot

additional loop opportunities. 

Designate as system motorized trail open to all motor vehicles. 

Do not designate this system route for public motorized use. 

42123 Respond to public comments to provide addition

loop opportunity. 

Designate as system motorized trail open to all motor vehicles. 

Route was not identified in inventory. 

413111 Provides important dispersed vehicle camping o

Do not add this non-system route to the system. 

Add non-system route to the system and designate as a motorized trail open to all motorized vehicles. 

47983 The route has naturally revegetated – there is no 

utilization, or protection need. 

Add non-system route to system and designate as motorized trail 

Segment A - Add non-system to system and designate as 

44094 Respond to public comments to make this a mot

additional loop opportunities. 

2 The proposed action may contain all or a portion of the route; see the Alternative B Modified Map and Appendix C for specific portions and segment lengt
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-14 Ashland Travel ManagTable 2-2. Differences between Alternative B Modified and Alternative B, and the rationale for the modificati

Alternative B Modified Alternative B Route2 Rationale for Modific

open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

administrative use. Segment B - Do not add this nonsystem route to the system. 

44103 441042 

Add non-system route to the system and identify for administrative use only. 

Do not add this non-system route to the system. 

4410B 

Provide administrative access to range improvem

Do not add this non-system route to the system. 

Add non-system to system as a road open to highway legal vehicles. 

44235 Address heritage resource concerns with this rou

Do not designate this system route 4432D for public motorized use. 

Identify as administrative use only. 

4435 

No identified administrative, utilization, or prot

Identify as administrative use only. Convert this system road to system 

motorized trail. 

44351 Identify the west portion as administrative only 

other identified utilization or protection need. 

Convert this system road to system motorized trail open to all vehicles. 

Identify as administrative use only. 44501 Respond to the public to use this route for a loop 

Add non-system route to the system and designate as a motorized trail open to all motorized vehicles. 

Add non-system route to the system and identify for administrative use only. 

44502 Respond to the public to use this route for a loop 

Convert this system road to system motorized trail open to all vehicles. 

Identify as administrative use only. 47696 Respond to the public for access in this area and 

vehicle camping. 

Do not add this non-system route to the system. 

Add non-system to system as a road open to highway legal vehicles. 

47905 Address heritage resource concerns with this rou

Add non-system route to system and designate as motorized trail open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

Add non-system route to the system and identify for administrative use only. 

47704 Respond to the public to use this route additiona

opportunity. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-15 

Table 2-3. Summary of miles3

 of roads and trails by alternative.

Route Designation Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

B Modified

No Action

Road: All types allowed 

 (motorized mixed use) 37 37 37 0 

Road: Highway legal vehicles 101 101 101 676 

Trail: All types allowed 612 405 406 0 

Trail: Vehicles 50 inches or less 0 0 17 0 

Public 

motorized 

use 

Subtotal 750 543 561 676 

Administrative use 92 175 161 61 

Total Miles of System Routes 842 718 722 737 

National Forest 

System Roads 

and Trails 

System roads not designated for public 

motorized or administrative use 22 75 78 0 

Non-System 

Routes 

Non-system routes not converted to system 

roads or trails 19 90 83 146 

Total Miles of Routes not designated or not 

converted for public motorized or 

administrative use

41 165 161 146 

Total 883 883 883 883 

Table 2-4. Miles of system roads and trails designated for public motorized use by proposed 

season of use designation for each alternative.

Season of Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative B 

Modified 

No Action

Yearlong 750 525 534 676 

December 2 – August 31 

(Provide Non-Motorized Hunting) 0 18 27 0 

Total 750 543 561 676 

 

3 Mileage comparison between tables may not be exact due to rounding. 
Page 2-16 Chapter 2: Public Partici

Table 2–5. Summary of Elements for Each Alternative 

Element Alternative A (Existing Condition) Alternative B Alternative B Modified (Preferred Alternative) 

Type of Vehicle Designations 

In general, primary travelways would be designated as system roads, which are only available for use by highway-legal vehicles. The majority of high clearance vehicle roads (Maintenance Level 2) would be converted to system trails open to all motor vehicles. A limited number of roads would be designated as mixed motorized use where connections between proposed motorized trails were important. (The map package provides a display of the type of vehicle designation for each route.) 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus: 

A limited number of trails would be designated for use by vehicles 50 inches or less in width. 

Sdh

Season of Use Designations 

Season of use for all designated routes is yearlong. 

Season of use for all designated routes is yearlong except for the following seasons of use. December 2-August 31 – 18 miles of routes in three locations would have this season of use to provide additional wildlife security and to increase opportunities for non-motorized hunting. See Appendix C and the map package for the specific routes involved. 

Season of use for all designated routes is yearlong except for the following seasons of use. December 2-August 31 – 27 miles of routes in six locations would have this season of use to provide additional wildlife security and to increase opportunities for non-motorized hunting. See Appendix C and the map package for the specific routes involved. 

S

Dispersed 

Vehicle 

Camping 

Designations Access for dispersed vehicle camping would be allowed within 300 feet of all designated system roads and motorized trails on the District. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. S

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 
Chapter 2: Public Particip

Page 2-17 Ashland Travel Mana

Table 2–5. Summary of Elements for Each Alternative 

Element Alternative A (Existing Condition) Alternative B Alternative B Modified (Preferred Alternative) 

Administrative Use 

Roads identified for administrative use are not designated for public motorized use due to: 1) the lack of legal right-of-way for public access, 2) existing administrative use roads at administrative sites, 3) and past decisions. Appendix C includes all non-system roads that would be converted to system roads and identified for administrative use, as well as any additional system roads that would be identified for administrative use. 

Roads identified for administrative use are not designated for public motorized use due to: 1) the lack of legal right-of-way for public access, 2) existing administrative use roads at administrative sites, 3) past decisions, and 4) to provide needed administrative access to powerlines, range improvements, etc. when this is the only identified need for the route, such as a parallel route. Appendix C includes all non-system roads that would be converted to system roads and identified for administrative use, as well as any additional system roads that would be identified for administrative use. 

Same as Alternative B. R

admpadinca
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-18 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

2.6.5 ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

2.6.5.1 Administrative Exemptions 

Exemptions to off road travel as described in 36 CFR 212.51(a) would be allowed. Exemptions 

include administrative activities such as law enforcement, fire, emergencies, military operations, 

noxious weed control, permit activities, and other official business purposes. All such use requires 

authorization from the appropriate Line Officer, detailing when, where, who, and under what 

circumstances motorized travel would be allowed. 

2.6.5.2 Administrative Sites 

System roads associated with administrative sites will not be designated for public motorized use, 

except those roads that provide access to visitor services. 

2.6.5.3 System Roads with Forest Service Maintenance Obligations 

System roads that the FS has a legal obligation to maintain will not be removed from the system, but 

may or may not be designated for public motorized use. 

2.6.5.4 Roads Under Permit 

In instances of special use permits for ingress/egress to private inholdings, a road will generally be 

designated for public motorized use when the Forest Service has road maintenance responsibilities. In 

instances of road use permits, a road may be closed to public use when the permit holder is assigned 

road maintenance responsibilities. 

2.6.5.5 No Legal Right-of-Way for Public Access 

Routes that the Forest Service has no legal right-of-way for public motorized access will not be 

designated for public motorized use. 

2.6.5.6 Designated Routes Required to be Part of the National Forest System 

In accordance with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, only system routes can be designated for public 

motorized use. If motorized routes that are currently non-system roads are desired for motorized use, 

an action is required to add them to National Forest transportation system. 

2.6.5.7 Dispersed Vehicle Camping Authorized Only on National Forest System Lands 

Under Alternatives that allow access for dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of a motorized 

route, access is only authorized on NFS lands, not on private, state, or other federal lands that may be 

within 300 feet of designated routes. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-19 

2.6.5.8 Implementation 

In order to implement this project, the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule requires the Forest to make a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map available to the public, free of charge. The Forest also expects to install signs 

on all designated routes, undertake an estimated two year education campaign regarding new travel 

management direction and rules, and patrolling. These activities, other than publishing the MVUM, 

may vary in extent subject to the availability of funding. 

Until the Record of Decision (ROD) for this project is implemented, the current decisions for the 

existing network of system roads remain in effect. The ROD and its implementation will supercede 

the existing network of motorized system roads when the Motor Vehicle Use Map is published and 

any associated orders are in place. 

Sign purchase and installation is a one time cost, but the remaining costs such as patrolling and Motor 

Vehicle Use Map production would be incurred annually. Annual funding levels are subject to 

variation. 

2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM DETAILED 

ANALYSIS 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed 

in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided 

suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives 

may have been outside the scope of travel management, duplicative of the alternatives considered in 

detail, incorporated into alternatives considered in detail, determined to be components that would 

cause unnecessary environmental harm, or are already addressed by law, regulation or policy. 

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for the 

reasons summarized below. 

2.7.1 PARTNERSHIP ALTERNATIVE 

This commentor-submitted alternative was intended to maximize motorized recreation opportunities 

on the District, and would have included designation of the majority of the routes in the District. 

Fourteen organizations partnered to develop this alternative. The organizations are: 

Treasure State ATV Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Association 

Rimrock 4X4 Inc. Park City Recreation Association 

Treasure State Alliance Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association 

Billings Motorcycle Club Families For Outdoor Recreation 

Laurel Rod and Gun Club Magic City 4 Wheelers Inc. 

Colstrip ATV Association Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Association 

Colstrip Gun Club Park City Recreation Association 

Citizens for Balanced Use Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association 

Custer Rod and Gun Club Families For Outdoor Recreation 

Alternative A is similar to this alternative; however the alternative included designation of routes for 

which the Forest Service has no legal right-of-way for public access. Consequently, the alternative, as 

submitted, has been dropped since it does not comply with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule guidance. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-20 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

Alternative A is intended to reflect the concerns identified in the submitted alternative while also 

complying with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule guidance. 

2.7.2 SEPARATE MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED USES 

The public suggested separating or zoning motorized and non-motorized use on the District to reduce 

user conflicts. Zoning areas by type of use or similar management prescription is more appropriate 

for land management planning. This analysis is focused on the designation and use of motorized 

routes (roads and trails), rather than prescriptive land use direction that would require a significant 

amendment of current Forest Plan land use direction which is beyond the scope of this analysis. 

2.7.3 ESTABLISH TRIGGERS FOR ROUTE CLOSURES 

Commenters suggested that “triggers” and responses should be established “when user created routes 

are illegally established”, or if there are excessive resource impacts. First, the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) establishes those routes available for public motorized use. Any use that is not in 

compliance with the MVUM is illegal. No additional trigger is necessary to enforce public motorized 

use on the District. 

The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule requires National Forests to monitor the effects of travel 

management decisions and use in accordance with Forest Plans where decisions are implemented. 

The Forest Plan for the Custer includes monitoring of travel management decisions. This travel 

management decision, whichever alternative is selected, would be implemented in compliance with 

the Forest Plan. This monitoring is intended to serve as the trigger for changing or modifying travel 

management decisions due to unacceptable resource impacts. 

2.7.4 ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTES BE DESIGNATED FOR PUBLIC MOTORIZED USE 

There are multiple reasons why routes are proposed for administrative use only. They include 

concerns such as vandalism of facilities or cultural resources and lack of a legal right-of-way for 

public use. However, their may be a need for occasional administrative use of the route for activities 

such as maintaining facilities. Maintaining these routes for administrative use is especially important 

where disposal of the route would then have required cross-country vehicle travel, a practice 

discouraged by the agency, to accomplish the administrative work. 

It is neither practical or, in some cases, in compliance with agency guidance to allow public use on 

routes identified for administrative use. 

2.7.5 DO NOT DESIGNATE ROAD #4797 

One commenter indicated that road #4797 should not be designated because it goes through riparian 

areas and across a dam. Field observations indicate that the route does not go through any riparian 

areas. The route does cross a portion of the dam for the Three X Bar Reservoir. This route has gone 

over the dam for many years and there are no signs of rutting or other cause for concern based on field 

observations of both engineering and range staff on the Forest. Given this information and the 

importance of this route for access to the area, the Forest does not intend to modify or create an 

alternative based on this comment. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-21 

2.7.6 ROUTES SHOULD NOT BE DESIGNATED ON HIGHLY ERODIBLE SOILS, 

RIPARIAN AREAS, WETLANDS, WET MEADOWS, AND EPHEMERAL PONDS 

There are bands of highly erodible soils throughout the District. Numerous routes intersect these 

bands for varied distances. It would not be practical to eliminate all routes or portions of routes on 

highly erodible soils, and have a functioning network of routes to adequately administer, utilize, and 

protect District lands and resources. In some cases, hardening, surfacing, or other measures are in 

place to minimize impacts to these resources. Locations of route segments that would be improved by 

implementing similar measures will be considered for addition to the list of opportunities contained in 

Appendix D of the environmental document. Finally, the effects of route designation on the resources 

mentioned above will be evaluated and disclosed in the environmental document. 

2.7.7 DO NOT ADD ROUTES OR FURTHER REDUCE MILES OF ROUTES IN MODERATE 

AND HIGH RISK SOILS AND THAT HAVE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS IN HIGH 

RISK WATERSHEDS, TO REDUCE IMPACTS IN THOSE WATERSHEDS. 

In compliance with NEPA, this EIS includes limited analysis of these two non-significant "other 

issues", water quality and soils. This proposal was not intended to resolve all issues with existing 

routes, nor was the analysis for soils and water quality intended to pinpoint what effect specific routes 

proposed to be added to the system may have on individual watersheds. It was used to indicate if the 

proposal moved water quality and soils impacts in a beneficial or adverse direction on a watershed 

basis. Opportunities to further reduce risks and/or mitigate impacts that are outside the scope of this 

analysis are identified in Appendix D. 

2.7.8 DO NOT DESIGNATE DISPERSED VEHICLE CAMPING IN AREAS WITH STEEP 

TOPOGRAPHY AND SENSITIVE RESOURCES TO AVOID POTENTIAL ADVERSE 

IMPACTS 

This concern was indirectly considered when developing Alternative B and Alternative B Modified. 

No site-specific areas of concern with dispersed vehicle camping were identified. In determining 

whether to designate dispersed vehicle camping, the IDT did consider: 1) that there have not been any 

specific issues identified during the last 8 years of this activity that indicate the 300 foot allowance has 

been an issue; 2) the period of highest use on the District is during the fall, when conditions are at 

their driest reducing the potential for soil, water quality and similar resource impacts; 3) many 

sensitive areas are not desirable for dispersed vehicle camping (wetlands, grades greater than 6%, 

etc.); 4) terrain tends to limit where visitors tend to camp; 5) typically, heavy use occurs in same 

location every year and these locations have not been in sensitive areas. 

2.7.9 FURTHER REDUCE MOTORIZED USE TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR 

SPREAD OF NOXIOUS WEEDS 

Alternatives B and B Modified would not designate routes that bisect the most problematic weed 

infestations. Weeds will continue to spread as a result of motorized and non-motorized resource 

management activities, recreational use, wildlife, and natural processes. In compliance with the 2006 

Custer National Forest Weed EIS and ROD, the Forest Service will monitor routes for early detection 

of new weed infestations and treat them, and will treat road corridors to reduce the effects of weed 

spread. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-22 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

2.7.10 INCREASE SECURE COVER TO 30-50% OF FORESTED AREA 

Alternatives B and B Modified exceed the regional protocol to maintain 30% secure habitat for elk. 

There is no identified biological need to provide more secure habitat than identified in the regional 

protocol. 

2.7.11 THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM 30% OF THE DISTRICT IN NON-MOTORIZED 

SETTINGS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NON-MOTORIZED HUNTING 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Establishing land allocations for types of recreational use (for example, 30% of District for walk-in 

hunting) are outside the scope of travel planning, and would more appropriately be addressed in 

Forest-wide land management planning. This process is intended to facilitate a mix of recreational 

opportunities with consideration of topographic features and vegetation and be in compliance with the 

current Cunster National Forest Land and Resource Plan. 

2.7.12 DO NOT CONVERT ROADS TO TRAILS, OR CONVERT NO MORE THAN 10%, OR 

LIMIT TRAILS TO 50 INCH OR LESS VEHICLES TO DISCOURAGE ADDITIONAL 

USE AND THE IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON EXISTING USES 

There is little information available to determine if designating motorized trials will or will not 

encourage any additional recreational use of the District. Forest Service observations also indicate 

that unlicensed vehicles are currently being used on the District during hunting season. Designating 

trails is intended, in part, to accomodate this use rather than attempting to generate new use. Forest 

Service staff field observations suggest that District recreational use is low outside of hunting seasons, 

thus conflicts are not anticipated during these times. 

2.7.13 SEASONALLY CLOSE ADMINISTRATIVE ROADS DURING BIG GAME HUNTING 

SEASON 

Use of administrative roads by permittees is addressed through their permits and based on specific 

allotment operational needs, such as operation and maintenance of water resoures and powerlines, 

herd management, and similar activities. Many of these activities are required to occur after 

September 1 and it would not be practical or responsible to eliminate them. Regulating these types of 

activities is outside the scope of this analysis, which is focused on public motorized use. 

2.7.14 THERE SHOULD BE NO NET LOSS OF MOTORIZED OPPORTUNITIES TO 

COUNTER THE CUMULATIVE LOSS OF OTHER MOTORIZED OPPORTUNITIES 

No net loss of motorized opportunities is assumed to mean no net loss in the current miles of system 

and non-system motorized routes on the District. Crafting an alternative that yielded no net loss of 

motorized opportunities would require construction of new motorized routes to offset routes that 

cannot legally be designated (no legal public right-of-way) or are irresponsible to designate (human 

health and safety or resource concerns). Construction of routes is outside the scope of this process; 

therefore technically it is not feasible under this proposal to create an alternative that will result in no 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-23 

net loss of motorized opportunities as defined above. However, the addition of nearly all of the nonsystem motorized routes on the District is considered in Alternative A. 

2.7.15 PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MOTORIZED OPPORTUNITIES BY DESIGNATING 

ROUTES CLOSED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ACCOMMODATE A FULL-SIZE 

VEHICLE FOR 50 INCH WIDE OR LESS VEHICLES 

In Alternatives B and B Modified, routes that were not designated were done so because of resource 

concerns; human health and safety concerns; the route has naturally re-vegetated; the route is parallel 

to another motorized route; or because there was no legal public right-of-way. Designating these 

routes for motorized use would be counter to the rationale used to develop these alternatives. In 

Alternative A, only a limited number of routes were not designated, which would not be designated 

regardless of vehicle type (i.e. no legal public right-of-way). 

2.7.16 EXPAND SECURE ELK HABITAT TO MAINTAIN A VIABLE AND HEALTHY ELK 

POPULATION 

Alternatives B and B Modified exceed the regional protocol to maintain 30% secure habitat for elk. 

There is no identified biological need to provide more secure habitat than identified in the regional 

protocol. 

2.7.17 FURTHER RESTRICT MOTORIZED USE TO PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURES 

FROM IMPACTS 

Several system and non-system routes in Alternative B Modified will not be desigated in order to 

reduce impacts to heritage resources. The updated Forest Service Trails Handbook (October, 2008) 

resolves concerns with converting roads to motorized trails, because it establishes maintenance 

standards for motorized trails that are similar to road standards. Furthermore, sites crossed by 

proposed motorized trails were sampled and a determination was made that the sites are stable and 

increased vehicle use is not expected to effect these sites. Finally, sites that may be at risk due to a 

variety of circumstances will be monitored as per the Site Identification Strategy (SIS) as part of the 

Programmatic Agreement. Cultural resource site monitoring will continue and if effects to cultural 

resources are observed, regardless of the source, plans to remove, reduce or mitigate the effects will 

be pursued. 

2.7.18 PROTECT WATER QUALITY LIMITED STREAMS IN NEED OF TMDL 

DETERMINATION AND WATERSHEDS LISTED AS HIGH RISK 

No TMDLs are located within the Forest boundary and only one is located immediately downstream; 

Lower Hanging Woman. Tributaries to Lower Hanging Woman that are within the Forest boundary 

are identified in Chapter 3, Water Quality Section, table titled Summary of Streams on the 2006 

Montana 303(d) List Within or Immediately Adjacent to the District. The TMDL for Hanging Woman 

has not yet begun. EF Armells and Little Porcupine Creeks are located far from the District, in fact, 

Little Porcupine Creek is all the way on the north side of the Yellowstone River. Category 3 TMDL 

streams have not had beneficial uses assessed, and therefore causes and sources have not been 

identified. However, moderate and high risk Category 3 TMDL streams carried forward to effects 

analysis include the following watersheds: Upper Beaver Creek, Lower Little Pumpkin Creek, Otter 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-24 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

Creek-Brian, Otter Creek-Horse, Otter Creek-Newell and Powder River-Plum (Chapter 3, Water 

Quality Section, table titled Summary of Streams on the 2006 Montana 303(d) List Within or 

Immediately Adjacent to the District.). The preferred alternative proposes actions that decrease net 

risk to water resources in all of these Category 3 watersheds. 

The preferred alternative proposes actions that increase net risk to water resources in only three (11%) 

of the 28 moderate and high risk watersheds on the District, while actions that decrease net risk are 

proposed in 24 watersheds (86%). Risk remains unchanged in one watershed. None of the 

watersheds with a net increase are high risk watersheds or have TMDL category 5 streams. 

2.7.19 DO NOT DESIGNATE ROUTES WITH INCREASED POTENTIAL TO HARM 

AMPHIBIANS. DO NOT DESIGNATE ROUTE THAT FOLLOW STREAMS IN HIGH 

AND MODERATE RISK WATERSHEDS 

The analysis for Alternatives B or B Modified did not indicate a need to further minimize impacts to 

these species by not designating routes along stream courses. This proposal was not intended to 

resolve all issues with existing routes, nor was the analyses for aquatics intended to pinpoint what 

effect specific routes proposed to be added to the system may have on individual species. It was used 

to indicate if the proposal moved aquatic impacts in a beneficial or adverse direction. 

2.7.20 DO NOT DESIGNATE ROUTES, (1) ON GRADES GREATER THAN 15%, (2) 

LOCATED ABOVE TREE LINE ON HIGHLY EROSIVE SOILS OR POORLY 

LOCATED, (3) LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF FISH BEARING STREAMS AND 

LAKES, (4) HAVE STREAM CROSSINGS WITHOU BRIDGES, AND ONLY 

DESIGNATE DISPERSED VEHICLE CAMPING WHERE ON LOW TO MODERATE 

HAZARD RATING SOILS 

1) Routes on grades greater than 15% does not necessarily indicate there is an issue. Consequently, 

blanket dismissal of these routes is not warranted or reasonable. The Forest Plan does not preclude 

construction or designation of routes on grades greater than 15% if the Forest Supervisor approves use 

of the route. This approval is generally based upon consideration of site specific factors and 

resources. 2) There are no areas above treeline on the Ashland Ranger District. 3) The data does not 

indicate an issue with Cow Creek or Otter Creek, and in many cases there is a desire to provide access 

to lakes or streams, especially those that are stocked for fishing. 4) Bridges are not the only 

appropriate method for crossing streams. There are a variety of crossing types which can be used to 

cross streams with low or no impact, depending on environmental and route-specific charactistics. 5) 

The Forest Service identified the following considerations before proposing to designate dispersed 

vehicle camping: A) many sensitive areas are not desirable for dispersed vehicle camping (wetlands, 

grades greater than 5%, etc.); B) the highest use on the District is during the fall, when areas tend to 

be dry; C) there have not been any specific issues identified during the last 8 years of this activity that 

indicate the 300 foot allowance has been an issue; D) terrain tends to limit where folks tend to camp; 

E) typically, heavy use occurs in same location every year and have not been in sensitive areas. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-25 

2.7.21 DESIGNATE ROUTES BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE FUNDING 

AVAILABLE 

Based on past and projected funding levels, the Forest is unlikely to have sufficient funding to 

maintain to standard all of the routes necessary for the administration, utilization, and protection of the 

District for the foreseeable future. Consequently, it is not practical to limit designated routes or the 

transportation system to only those routes that can be maintained to standard. The Forest prioritizes 

maintenance work and routinely applies for additional/supplemental funding to increase the number of 

miles of road and trail maintenance completed. If significant issues arise, road closures are considered 

to protect resources and/or user safety. 

2.7.22 DO NOT DESIGNATE ROUTES IN OCCUPIED HABITAT FOR GREAT PLAINS 

TOAD, NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG, AND PLAINS SPADEFOOT 

The analysis in the DEIS for Alternative B did not indicate a need to further minimize impacts to these 

species, by not designating routes along stream courses. This proposal was not intended to resolve all 

issues with existing routes, nor was the analyses for aquatics intended to pinpoint what effect specific 

routes proposed to be added to the system may have on individual species. It was used to indicate if 

the alternatives moved aquatic impacts in a beneficial or adverse direction. 

2.7.23 CREATE A SEASON OF USE TO REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS WHEN SOILS ARE 

AT INCREASED RISK OF EROSION 

In compliance with NEPA, the EIS included sufficient analysis of these "other issues", water quality 

and soils, to substantiate that the proposed actions would not have significant impacts to these 

resources. This proposal was not intended to resolve all issues with existing routes, nor was the 

analyses for soils and water quality intended to pinpoint what effect specific routes proposed to be 

added to the system may have on individual watersheds. It was used to indicate if the proposal moved 

water quality and soils impacts in a beneficial or adverse direction on a watershed basis. 

Opportunities to further reduce risks and/or mitigate impacts that are outside the scope of this analysis 

are identified in Appendix D. 

2.7.24 SITE-SPECIFIC ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

The public provided a number of comments on the management of specific routes. All of these 

comments were considered and several were used in developing Alternative B Modified. A number 

of others were not included in any of the alternatives, and were dropped for varying reasons. 

Appendix G displays the disposition and rational for these routes. 

2.8 COMPARISON OF EFFECTS 

Table 2-10 (found at the end of the chapter) provides a summary of the effects of implementing each 

alternative. Information in Table 2-11 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of 

effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-26 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

2.8.1 ROUTE MAINTENANCE NEEDS 

Introduction 

Commentors indicated concerns that adding system roads and trails could increase the need for 

maintenance. Commentors also questioned whether converting a road to a trail would mean the route 

would receive less maintenance. The 2005 Motorized Travel Rule also includes a criterion related to 

maintenance needs that must be considered. This section is intended to address that criterion by 

considering the maintenance of motorized routes. 

Regulatory Framework 

Road Maintenance guidelines are prescribed in Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 Road System 

Operations and Maintenance Handbook and Forest Service Manual 7730 -Road Operation and 

Maintenance. Trail Maintenance guidelines are prescribed in Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 Trails 

Management Handbook and Forest Service Manual 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related 

Resource Management, Chapter 2350 – Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities. The 

Forest’s road and trail activities are conducted in compliance with these directives. 

The Forest is required to maintain National Forest System roads in a condition to safely accommodate 

intended use in accordance with the maintenance objective for that road. Trail maintenance is 

intended to preserve the trail and related facilities to meet established objectives for that trail. 

Maintenance Standards 

The Forest Service has established national maintenance standards/criteria for both roads and trails. 

The standards/criteria establish the corporate level of quality the Forest Service expects to provide. 

These standards/criteria include key measures related to health; safety; facility conditions; and 

compliance with laws, regulations, and policies. The trail standards also identify critical standards 

that if not met would pose “a high probability of immediate or permanent loss to people or property.” 

Immediate actions must be taken to correct or mitigate the problem if one arises, such as closing the 

route to the public until the issue is addressed. 

Each route is assigned a maintenance level or trail class which reflects the routes operation and 

maintenance standards/criteria. The higher the maintenance level or trail class number (1-5) the higher 

the standard of maintenance. 

Maintenance Funding Overview 

Based on past funding levels, the Forest is unlikely to have sufficient funding to maintain to standard 

all of the routes necessary for the administration, utilization, and protection of the District for the 

foreseeable future. As a result, the Forest prioritizes maintenance work and routinely applies for 

additional/supplemental funding to increase the number of miles of road and trail maintenance 

completed. 

Road and trail maintenance funding can only be applied to system roads and trails. Similarly, road 

funding can only be used for road maintenance, and trail funding can only be used for trail 

maintenance. Because the District does not currently have any system trails, trail maintenance funds 

have not been expended on the District in the past. The Forest receives an annual trail maintenance 

allocation, which would be the source for any trail maintenance conducted on the District, in addition 

to any supplemental funding (ex: state trails grants) that can be secured. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-27 

Maintenance does not occur on every mile of road or trail every year. As mentioned above, 

maintenance is prioritized across the Forest and accomplished based on the funding received. Over the 

past 6 years, the Forest annual road maintenance accomplishment ranges any where from 0 to 17% of 

high clearance vehicle roads (Maintenance Level 2), 3 to 62% of roads suitable for passenger vehicles 

(Maintenance Level 3) and 0 to 81% of roads having a moderate degree of user comfort (Maintenance 

Level 4) on the District. The following table displays the miles of road receiving annual maintenance 

on the District for the past 6 years. 

Table 2-6. Summary of Road Miles Receiving Annual Maintenance4

 by 

Maintenance Level.

Fiscal Year 

Ashland District (October 1 – September 30) 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

2 - High Clearance Vehicles 17 8 4 2 5 5 

3 - Suitable For Passenger Cars 32 67 3 17 16 67 

4 - Moderate Degree Of User Comfort - 1 - - - - 

Evaluation Methodology 

There are many factors to consider when determining maintenance needs such as volume, type, class, 

and composition of traffic. For this evaluation, the miles of system routes by maintenance level/trail 

class and route designation was used to determine the relative maintenance needs for each alternative. 

Evaluation of Route Maintenance Needs 

The following table displays the miles of motorized system routes by the proposed road maintenance 

level/trail class and the proposed route designation for each alternative. 

Table 2-7. Miles of System Routes by Maintenance Level/Trail Class and Route Designation for 

Each Alterative

Maintenance Level or 

Trail Class Trail Class 2 

Road 

Maintenance 

Level 1 

Road Maintenance Level 2 Road Maintenance Level 3 

Route Designation

Open to 

Public 

Motorized 

Use 

Administrative 

Use 

Open to 

Public 

Motorized 

Use 

Administrative 

Use 

Open to 

Public 

Motorized 

Use 

Administrative 

Use 

Alternative A 612 28 48 92 90 0 

Alternative B 405 28 48 175 90 0 

Alternative 

B Modified 423 28 48 161 90 0 

No Action 0 28 586 61 90 0 

Routes designated for administrative use would only be used by Forest Service personnel, or by 

permit holders, contractors, etc., through a written authorization issued under federal law or 

 

4

 Based on data specific to maintenance that were readily available. Totals include maintenance associated with timber harvest contracts, 

county agreements, and other appropriated forest funds. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-28 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

regulation. These routes have extremely low traffic volumes and are controlled by the authorizing 

permit which in some cases also requires the permittee or contractor to provide route maintenance. 

For these reasons, route maintenance needs for routes designated for administrative use are typically 

much less than comparable routes designated for public motorized use. 

There are the same miles of Maintenance Level 1 routes in all alternatives. Maintenance Level 1 

routes are in storage between intermittent uses. The period of storage exceeds 1 year. Basic custodial 

maintenance is performed to prevent damage to adjacent resources and to perpetuate the route for 

future resource management needs. Some degree of road deterioration may occur. These routes are 

not available for motorized use. 

The miles of Maintenance Level 3 routes designated for public motorized use are the same for all 

alternatives. 

In general, Trail Class 2 and Maintenance Level 2 routes have similar maintenance needs based on the 

roads and trails maintenance handbooks (FSH 7709.59 and FSH 2309.18). 

Given the above information, comparison of maintenance needs by alternative will be based on miles 

of routes available for public motorized use. Miles of administrative use routes is not included 

because generally these routes require less maintenance and maintenance costs are in some cases 

offset. 

Table 2-8. Summary of Miles of Maintenance Level 2 and Trail Class 2 System 

Routes Open to Public Motorized Use for each Alterative.

Maintenance Level/Class Trail Class 2 Road Maintenance Level 2 Total 

Alternative A 612 48 660 

Alternative B 405 48 453 

Alternative B Modified 423 48 471 

No Action 0 586 586 

By combining Trail Class 2 and Maintenance Level 2 routes designated for public motorized use, a 

comparison of alternatives can be made. As the above table indicates, Alternative A has the most 

miles designated for public motorized use in this comparison (660 miles) and therefore the most 

potential maintenance need. The No Action Alternative is the second highest with 586 miles. 

Alternative B and B Modified would be roughly 30% less of Alternative A and 20% less of No Action 

Alternative. 

2.9 MONITORING 

Monitoring is one of the cornerstones of contemporary adaptive management. Without monitoring, it 

is difficult to evaluate whether or not management actions are effective or determine how actions 

might be modified to improve effectiveness. Monitoring is vital to inform the Forest Service whether 

or not there is a need to change or make new travel management decisions. Changes to the system of 

designated routes may include new routes, removing designations, or changing designated vehicle 

classes or seasons of use. Revisions to designations are governed by 36 CFR 212.54. In most cases, 

these changes (including connected actions and cumulative effects) can be addressed on a site-specific 

basis and may not trigger reconsideration of decisions governing the entire system of designated 

roads, trails and areas on an administrative unit or a ranger district. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-29 

Travel management monitoring would help answer questions, such as: 

 Are the motorized travel designations having unanticipated impacts, adverse or beneficial, on 

water quality, soils, fisheries, aquatic species, and vegetation? 

 Are the motorized travel designations having impacts, adverse or beneficial, on cultural 

resources? 

 Are the motorized travel designations effective and therefore resulting in the anticipated 

effects on wildlife and recreation opportunities? 

There are two principal sources of new information that the Forest Service will consider in 

determining if there is a need to modify travel management decisions: 1) monitoring – formal and 

informal monitoring, including resource specialist’s field observations, and 2) public feedback. 

Formal and informal monitoring is addressed further below. Public feedback may either be solicited 

by the Agency or initiated by the public. Public input on the travel management program of work, 

designations, and route proposals is encouraged and welcomed. 

Travel management monitoring will be tiered to Forest Plan monitoring activities. The level and 

intensity of monitoring will be adapted as needed based on changing needs, findings, and budget 

levels. The results of monitoring and public feedback will be reviewed annually, at a minimum, 

during preparation of the MVUM for the subsequent year. If the District Ranger determines that a 

change to District travel management should be investigated, the process outlined under Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 18 (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(ii)) will be used to review 

the new information and determine what type of documentation, if any, or other compliance would be 

appropriate to address any proposed change. 

Travel management monitoring will primarily focus on two types of monitoring activites: 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. 

2.9.1 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING 

This monitoring activity will focus on compliance with Forest Service travel management 

implementation requirements, namely (1) producing the annual MVUM and (2) installing and 

maintaining route markers (road and trail numbers) that are consistent with the MVUM. 

Monitoring would consist of: (1) reviewing whether or not the annual MVUM was produced and 

made available to the public in both hardcopy and web-based formats in a timely manner, and (2) 

reviewing whether or not route signing markers have been installed and are reasonably being 

maintained, i.e. deferred route marker maintenance is not accumulating. 

2.9.2 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING 

This monitoring activity will focus on evaluating the effectiveness of management and enforcement in 

achieving the desired outcomes from this decision, especially success at restricting motor vehicle use 

to designated routes. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-30 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

The following table contains the travel management enforcement monitoring measure identified in the 

Forest Plan, which is anticipated to be a primary source of monitoring information used to determine 

if there is a need for change in the future. 

Table 2-9. Forest Plan Travel Management Effectiveness Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Item Data Source Monitoring Objective 

Variability Which 

Would Initiate 

Further Evaluation 

Corrective 

Measures 

Off-roadvehicle use 

and damage 

and Travel 

Plan 

effectiveness. 

(A-3) 

Travel Plan 

(violation and 

incident reports, 

number of 

variances granted). 

To determine compliance 

with travel plan direction 

(and, therefore, 

effectiveness in achieving 

resource protection 

objectives). To assist in 

determination of 

effectiveness of restriction 

methods, public 

understanding of travel 

plan direction. 

Conflicts with Forest 

Management Area 

goals. 

Review situation for 

change in 

implementation 

techniques such as 

signing, barriers, 

public contacts, etc. 

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act through the Montana Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) established with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is required, and 

includes monitoring of sites for travel management effects. Cultural resource monitoring will be 

implemented within the Project Area in order to assess the effectiveness of this project relative to the 

protection and preservation of significant heritage resources. This cultural resource monitoring 

program is based upon an adaptive management approach that may necessitate specific changes if site 

disturbances are observed. Should detrimental effects occur, site evaluative testing and formal 

consultation with the Montana SHPO to identify measures to reduce, remove or mitigate these effects 

will be necessary. These monitoring results will be presented in the Annual Heritage Reports required 

by the MT PA. 

Additional effectiveness monitoring information is expected to be generated through other ongoing 

monitoring efforts such as the Forest’s annual weed monitoring program and the periodic Best 

Management Practices audits. 

2.9.3 MONITORING PLAN 

The District Ranger will develop an implementation and effectiveness monitoring plan within one 

year of the date of the decision for this project. The monitoring plan will identify monitoring items 

that are most critical to determining if implementation of the decision is satisfactory and if the 

decision has been effective. The plan may include criteria similar to the Forest Plan, such as potential 

data sources/measures, monitoring objectives, thresholds or indicators that change may be needed, and 

potential corrective measures. 

2.10 FOREST SERVICE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The Forest Service preferred alternative is Alternative B Modified. Alternative B Modified is the 

“preferred” alternative based on Responsible Official and interdisciplinary team deliberations. This 

alternative provides the road system necessary for the administration, utilization, and administration of 

the District. It also appears to respond best to the significant issue of providing a range of recreation 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-31 

opportunities, by providing more non-motorized hunting opportunities than Alternative A or the No 

Action Alternative while still maintaining ample opportunities for motorized recreation. Alternative B 

Modified responds to public comments on the DEIS better than Alternative B by designating some 

additional key motorized routes and designating a season of use on some additional routes for nonmotorized hunting opportunities. Environmental impacts would generally be reduced under 

Alternative B Modified when compared to Alternative A and the No Action Alternative. 

The Responsible Official (the Custer Forest Supervisor) may select any combination of travel 

management actions as presented and analyzed within this document. 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-32 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

Table 2-10. Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Feature Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

B Modified 

No Action 

Alternative 

Recreation 

Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Roaded Natural ROS (During SOU5/Outside 

SOU) 114,108/NA6 114,027/ 

114,027 

114,004/ 

114,004 116,928/NA 

Acres of Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS (During 

SOU/Outside SOU) 320,418/NA 292,260/ 281,485 

296,192/ 

279,049 337,798/NA 

Miles of motorized roads and trails (During SOU/Outside 

SOU) 750/NA 543/525 561/534 676/NA 

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS (During 

SOU/Outside SOU) 67,734/NA 95,972/ 106,746 

92,063/ 

109,206 47,533/NA 

Opportunity for Off-Highway Vehicle Operation 

Miles of Mixed Use System Roads (During SOU/Outside 

SOU) 37/NA 37/37 37/37 0 

Miles of Motorized System Trails-All Motor Vehicles 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 612/NA 405/387 406/379 0 

Miles of Motorized System Trails-Vehicles 50” or Less in 

Width (During SOU/Outside SOU) 0/NA 0/0 17/17 0 

Total Miles available for Off-Highway Vehicle Operation 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 649/NA 442/424 460/433 0 

Cultural Resources

Total Number of Cultural Resources within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) 513 440 443 494 

Number of Priority Asset Sites within the APE 46 45 45 46 

Number of Culturally Sensitive Sites within the APE 42 35 35 39 

Wildlife

Threatened or Endangered Wildlife Species

Number of species with No Jeopardy 1 1 1 1 

Number of species with potential to effect, but not likely 

to adversely affect. 1 1 1 1 

Number of species with potential to effect, and likely to 

adversely affect 0 0 0 0 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Number of Species with Beneficial Impact 0 0 0 0 

Number of Species with No Impact 13 13 13 13 

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals or 

Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards 

Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or 

Species 9 9 9 9 

Number of Species likely to result in a trend to Federal 

listing or loss of viability 0 0 0 0 

Management Indicator Species

Number of Species with Positive Effects 0 0 0 0 

Number of Species with Neutral Effects 16 16 16 16 

Number of Species with Negative Effects 0 0 0 0 

 

5

 SOU = Season of Use 

6 NA = Not Applicable
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-33 

Table 2-10. Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Feature Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

B Modified 

No Action 

Alternative 

Elk

Motorized Route Density (miles per square mile) 

(SOU/Non-SOU) 1.09/NA 0.83/0.80 0.85/0.82 1.00/NA 

Percent secure habitat within elk habitat 28.33/NA 36.25/37.69 35.53/37.50 24.90/NA 

General Wildlife

Percent of Land Unit that is core wildlife habitat (based on 

motorized routes) 22% 28% 28% 18% 

Water Quality, Fisheries, and Aquatics

Net Increase or Decrease in Risk Compared to No Action 

(Percent) +8 -20 -19 0 

Net Increase or Decrease in Risk Compared to Existing 

Condition (Percent) -12 -37 -36 -18 

Sensitive Fish and Amphibian Species

Number of Species with No Impact or Beneficial Impacts 3 5 5 3 

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals or 

Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards 

Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or 

Species 2 0 0 2 

Number of Species likely to result in a trend to Federal 

listing or loss of viability 0 0 0 0 

Recreational Fish Species and Rare Macroinvertebrates

Alternatives with No Impact or Beneficial Impact No Yes Yes No 

Alternatives with potential to effect individuals or 

Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a Loss of 

Viability to the Population or Species Yes No No Yes 

Soils

Severe Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public use 484 338 355 428 

Moderate Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public use. 252 196 205 239 

Vegetation

Moderate Risk Areas – Motorized Routes

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas (% of Project Area) 20 (Trace) 10 (Trace) 10 (Trace) 20 (Trace)

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas (% of Project Area) 773 (Trace) 403 (Trace) 415 (Trace) 686 (Trace)

Miles in Moderate Risk Area 9 4 4 8 

Weeds Susceptibility

Weed Susceptible Acres within designated road corridor 62,717 46,665 48,138 57,606 

Weed Infestation

Total Infested Acres within Motorized Route potentially 

affected corridor 1869 1646 1650 1811 

Sensitive Plants

Number of Species with No Impact 2 2 2 2

Number of Species with potential to effect individuals or 

Habitat but will not Likely Contribute to a trend towards 

Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or 

Species 1 1 1 1

Number of Species likely to result in a trend to Federal 

listing or loss of viability 0 0 0 0 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-34 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

Table 2-11. Summary of Changes in Effects Compared to the No Action Alternative

Feature Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

B Modified

Recreation

Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Roaded Natural ROS (During 

SOU7

/Outside SOU) 

Reduced by 2,820 

acres/ 

NA 

Reduced by 2,901 

acres/ 

Reduced by 2,901 acres 

Reduced by 2,924 

acres/ 

Reduced by 2,924 acres

Acres of Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS (During 

SOU/Outside SOU) 

Reduced by 17,380 

acres/ 

NA 

Reduced by 45,538 

acres/ 

Reduced by 56,313 

acres 

Reduced by 41,606 

acres/ 

Reduced by 58,749 

acres 

Miles of motorized roads and trails (During 

SOU/Outside SOU) 

Increased by 74 miles/

Increased by 74 miles

Reduced by 133 miles/ 

Reduced by 151 miles 

Reduced by 115 miles/ 

Reduced by 142 miles 

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunity 

Acres of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS 

(During SOU/Outside SOU) 

Increased by 

20,201/ NA 

Increased by 48,439/ 

Increased by 59,213 

acres 

Increased by 44,530/ 

Increased by 61,673 

acres 

Opportunity for Off-Highway Vehicle Operation 

Miles of Mixed Use System Roads Increased by 37 

miles Increased by 37 miles Increased by 37 miles 

Miles of Motorized System Trails All Motor 

Vehicles 

Increased by 612 

miles 

Increased by 405 

miles 

Increased by 406 

miles 

Miles of Motorized System Trails Vehicles 50” or 

Less in Width No change No change Increase of 17 miles 

Total Miles available for Off-Highway Vehicle 

Operation 

Increased by 649 

miles 

Increased by 442 

miles 

Increased by 460 

miles 

Cultural Resources

Total Number of Cultural Resources within the APE Increase of 19 sites Decrease of 54 sites Decrease of 51 sites 

Number of Priority Asset Sites within the APE No change Decrease of 1 site Decrease of 1 site 

Number of Culturally Sensitive Sites within the APE Increase of 3 sites Decrease of 4 sites Decrease of 4 sites 

Wildlife

Threatened or Endangered Wildlife Species

Number of species with No Jeopardy No change; no species jeopardized 

Number of species with potential to effect, but not likely to 

adversely affect. 

No change; Actions are not likely to adversely affect the 

single species analyzed 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Change from the No Action Alternative No Change; Actions are not likely to result in a trend to 

Federal listing or loss of viability 

Management Indicator Species

Change from the No Action Alternative No Change; Actions are not likely to negatively effect 

species 

Deer & Elk

Motorized Route Density in miles per square mile 

(SOU/Non-SOU) 

Density increase by 

.09/NA 

Density decreases by 

.17 / 

Density decreases by 

.20 

Density decreases by 

.15 / 

Density decreases by 

.18 

Percent secure habitat within elk habitat (SOU/NonSOU) Increase of 3% / 

Increase of 3% 

Increase of 11% / 

Increase of 13% 

Increase of 11% / 

Increase of 13% 

 

7

 SOU = Season of Use 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 Page 2-35 

General Wildlife

Percent of District that is core wildlife habitat (based 

on motorized routes) Increase of 4% Increase of 10% Increase of 10% 

Water Quality, Fisheries, and Aquatics

Water Quality 

Miles of actions that reduce risks on routes 

within the project area 

66 miles of actions 

reducing risks 

183 miles of actions 

reducing risks 

187 miles of actions 

reducing risks 

Miles of actions that increase risks on routes 

within the project area 

125 miles of actions 

increasing risks 

55 miles of actions 

increasing risks 

62 miles of actions 

increasing risks 

Sensitive Aquatic Species

Change from No Action Alternative No change 

Changes two species 

from May Impact to 

No Impact 

Changes two species 

from May Impact to 

No Impact 

Recreational Fish Species and Rare Macroinvertebrates

Change from No Action Alternative No change 

Changes species from 

May Impact to No 

Impact 

Changes species from 

May Impact to No 

Impact 

Soils

Severe Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public use Increase of 56 miles Decrease of 90 miles Decrease of 73 miles 

Moderate Erosion Hazard Rating 

Miles of Motorized Routes designated for public 

use. 

Increase of 13 miles Decrease of 43 miles Decrease of 34 miles 

Vegetation

Moderate Risk Areas - Motorized Routes

Acres Potential Frequent Use Areas No Change Decrease of 10 acres Decrease of 10 acres 

Acres Potential Infrequent Use Areas Increase of 87 acres Decrease of 283 acres Decrease of 271 acres 

Miles in Moderate Risk Area Increase of 1 miles Decrease of 4 miles Decrease of 4 miles 

Weeds Susceptibility

Weed Susceptible Acres within designated road 

corridor 

Increase of 5111 

acres 

Decrease of 10,941 

acres 

Decrease of 9,468 

acres 

Weed Infestation

Total Infested Acres within Motorized Route 

potentially affected corridor 58 additional acres 165 fewer acres 161 fewer acres 

Sensitive Plants

Change from No Action Alternative No change; Actions are not likely to result in a trend to 

Federal listing or loss of viability 
Chapter 2: Public Participation, Issues and Alternatives 

Page 2-36 Ashland Travel Management Final EIS – Chapter 2 

- End of Chapter 2 -