United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern Region

Publication No. MB-R3-06-08

May 2014

Record of Decision for 

Travel Management 

Gila National Forest
Cover photo: Forest road south of Luna, Quemado Ranger District, Gila National Forest

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political 

beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of 

discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – May 2014
Record of Decision 

for Travel Management

on the Gila National Forest

Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Sierra Counties, New Mexico

Lead Agency USDA Forest Service

Gila National Forest

Responsible Official Kelly M Russell, Forest Supervisor

3005 E. Camino del Bosque, 

Silver City, NM 88061

For Information Contact Lisa Mizuno

Travel Management Coordinator

(575) 388-8267

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest i

Contents

Introduction 1

General Location ......................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Need........................................................................................................................ 1

Decision and Rationale ......................................................................................................3

FEIS Effects Analysis Consideration ...............................................................................5

Public Involvement ..........................................................................................................10

Tribal Consultation..........................................................................................................10

Alternatives Considered ..................................................................................................11

Alternative B – No Action......................................................................................................... 11

Alternative C ............................................................................................................................. 12

Alternative D ............................................................................................................................. 12

Alternative E.............................................................................................................................. 12

Alternative F – Modified Proposed Action ............................................................................... 12

Alternative G – Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................... 13

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................. 13

Environmentally Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................... 13

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ....................................................13

Implementation ................................................................................................................14

Implementation Date ................................................................................................................. 14

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities .........................................................14

Contact Person........................................................................................................................... 15

Signature and Date ..........................................................................................................15

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest iii

Introduction 

General Location

The project area consists of Federal public lands managed and administered by the Gila National 

Forest (Forest), in southwestern New Mexico. The Forest has over 3.3 million acres of public 

land within its boundary with approximately 126,000 acres of other ownership, including private 

and National Park Service lands. This includes the portion of the Apache National Forest in New 

Mexico that is managed by the Gila National Forest. Figure 1 is a vicinity map of the planning 

area.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of this project is to comply with the Travel Management Rule by providing a system 

of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and time of year on 

the Gila National Forest (36 CFR 212.50). On the Gila National Forest:

• There is a need to comply with 36 CFR 212.51(a), which requires the forest to designate a 

system of roads, trails, and areas for vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time 

of year.

• There is a need to manage motorized vehicle use on National Forest System lands on the Gila 

National Forest in accordance with the provisions of the Travel Management Rule and 36 

CFR parts 212, 251, and 261.

• There is a need to comply with 36 CFR 261.13, which requires the forest to prohibit motor 

vehicle use off the system of designated roads, trails, and areas (close the forest to motorized 

cross-country travel).

• There is a need to amend the forest plan to comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 1
Figure 1. Location of the Gila National Forest

2 Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest
Decision and Rationale

Based on the analysis presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Travel 

Management on the Gila National Forest (FEIS), I have decided to select and implement 

alternative G, with the following changes: 

• Drop BR6 – this unauthorized route was proposed to be added to the National Forest System 

for administrative use or written authorization only for range management purposes on the 

Black Range Ranger District. Upon further review, it was decided that this route would not 

need to be motorized to conduct management activities associated with the allotment.

• Drop 4084 F – this closed road was proposed to be re-opened to access facilities associated 

with the Fort Bayard area water system on the Silver City Ranger District. Upon further 

review of the map of the water facilities, this was the incorrect road, and therefore, does not 

need to be re-opened for administrative use. 

• Motorize the entire length of Road 522 – just south of Highway 152, a segment of National 

Forest System Road 522 was proposed to be open for administrative use or written 

authorization only and another segment was proposed to be closed to motorized vehicles due 

to concern for vehicles, especially full-size vehicles, to be able to safely traverse the area 

without damage. The proposed closure did not eliminate access into the area as there was 

access still available from the other end. During the Silver Fire (2013), there was a need for 

direct fire vehicle access into the area off of Highway 152, so the road condition was 

improved to allow vehicle access. The designation of this road will be open to motor vehicle 

use by the public.

The changes listed above are within the range of effects described within the FEIS. These 

changes are not reflected in the alternative G FEIS map packet. The maps still show the 

symbology associated with alternative G as described in the FEIS.

Alternative G, as described in the FEIS, also reflects the public response to the DEIS as well as 

updated or new information included in the environmental analysis (appendix A of FEIS). With 

the exception of the three changes above, the designated motorized system of roads and trails, 

corridors for big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping, and motorized areas are shown 

in the alternative G FEIS map packet.

Alternative G meets the purpose and need by providing for a system of roads, trails, and areas

designated for motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and time of year as specified in the Travel

Management Rule (rule) and by minimizing adverse effects to natural and cultural resources 

(FEIS, chapter 3). The changes proposed in alternative G prohibit driving off roads or motorized 

trails unless in a designated area or fixed-distance corridor; clarify which roads and trails are open

to motorized use; and amend the forest plan to be consistent with the rule. The FEIS uses the best 

available science, as evidenced by the extensive literature citations (FEIS reference section) and, 

where appropriate, acknowledges incomplete or imperfect information.

I feel the designated motorized roads and trails open to the public and the roads and trails under 

administrative use only, provide the access needed for both the public and management of the 

Forest. The majority of the roads to be closed to motor vehicle use are less than one-half mile in 

length; some had signs of little to no use; some had cultural or natural resource concerns; and 

some were duplicates of others or parallel to each other and ended near the same locations. I 

understand that any road to be closed may remove motorized access to a potential favorite area, 

but reducing the number of motorized routes on the Forest provides better protection for water 

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 3
and soil resources, cultural resources, and aquatic and terrestrial species and habitat including 

habitat for game species such as deer, elk, and pronghorn.

Many comments favored selecting alternative E because it reduces road mileage by nearly 50

percent and because current budget trends for road maintenance are declining. Other comments 

stated that roads are not being maintained now, so we should leave them as they are. None of the 

alternatives can be fully maintained with current and projected Forest funding levels. Therefore, I 

still feel that alternative G provides a balanced effort to protect resources and provide for public 

access and continued Forest management.

Alternative G increases the motorized trail system from 16 to 179 miles—a tremendous increase 

to the Forest’s motorized trail system. It may feel like this mileage is a reduction from the current 

situation where the forest is open to cross-country travel. However, the designated system 

minimizes potential damage to natural and cultural resources related to unmanaged off-road use 

as compared to current conditions (FEIS, chapter 3). In addition to motorized trails, open roads 

will also be available to access the Forest.

This alternative provides a 3-acre area on the Reserve Ranger District for motorcycle and allterrain vehicle (ATV) use. Overall, the reduction to 3 acres of unrestricted cross-country use is a 

significant change with the elimination of cross-country travel across the entire Forest. It does not 

preclude consideration of similar opportunities if identified in the future. But the Forest may or 

may not have suitable areas that can provide for all desired uses.

Many hunters commented that being unable to drive to retrieve their game meant they would be 

unable to hunt because of their age or disability. For motorized big game retrieval and motorized 

dispersed camping corridors, I chose alternative G because it considers hunters the same as 

campers by allowing them to drive in the same places. I made this selection because the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish requested this treatment during coordination meetings and 

in comments; and it is consistent with other New Mexico national forests that proposed motorized 

big game retrieval corridors.

Alternative G would allow hunters to drive up to 300 feet from either side of roads designated 

with a corridor to retrieve their game. I understand that this may not seem to be an adequate 

distance for some hunters, and may pose an obstacle to game retrieval, especially for elk or other 

large game animals. But, reducing motorized access and route density, effects to big game species 

and their habitat would be beneficial, and the experience and/or quality of hunting may also 

benefit by reducing the probability of a motorized vehicle passing by and disturbing the hunt.

Alternative G has approximately 1,316 miles of motorized dispersed camping corridors and 

36 areas. These motorized dispersed camping corridors and the 36 areas in alternative G capture

the majority of locations where motorized dispersed camping currently occurs. I also believe the 

ability to drive off the road 300 feet from either side of the road where motorized dispersed 

camping corridors are designated is an adequate distance to establish a camp.

Many commenters expressed concern that camping will become concentrated if motorized 

dispersed camping was limited to these corridors. I do not feel this would occur as the majority of

locations traditionally used now are captured within the designated corridors and areas. Plus, 

camping is not limited to the corridors or areas. The public can park, within a vehicle length or 

vehicle-plus-trailer length, along any of the roads open to motorized use in alternative G, as well 

as county roads within the Forest, and can set up a camp any distance from the parked vehicle.

4 Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest
I have determined that the Forest Plan amendments are needed and appropriate. The changes to 

Amendments 1 through 6 were assessed in the FEIS. I have determined the amendments are not a 

significant change to the Forest Plan in terms of the National Forest Management Act. The 

amendments adopt language that complies with the Travel Management Rule.

FEIS Effects Analysis Consideration

Roads Closed to Motorized Uses – Roads that are closed to motorized uses under any of the 

alternatives will continue to be on the landscape and, to some extent, continue to impact the 

various forest resources for some time to come. These routes will continue to be sources of such 

things as fugitive dust, sediment to stream channels and aquatic habitat, and will continue to 

fragment wildlife habitat. The overall greater benefit of route closures will not be realized until 

the Forest moves forward with a public planning process to determine which of the routes should 

be restored to a more natural state to benefit resources.

Public safety – Analysis in the FEIS indicates there is no overall difference in the action 

alternatives from the current situation in which public safety concerns are relatively low. All 

action alternatives proposed restricting some National Forest System roads to highway-legal 

vehicles only. Most of these roads are within campground facilities and have considerable 

amounts of vehicle and foot traffic from campers and family groups. Therefore, I support 

restricting vehicle types along the roads listed in table 2 of the FEIS, as it reduces the potential 

risk within our recreational facilities and, for some roads, complies with state law. With this 

restriction, I understand that ATV, utility-terrain vehicle, and other non-highway-legal vehicle 

users may be impacted by having to trailer their vehicles out of or around these facilities or 

segments of roads to ride.

National Forest System Roads Maintenance Costs – Analysis in the FEIS shows that none of the 

action alternatives identify a road system that can be fully maintained with current or projected 

funding levels. A road system that fits current funding levels would be inadequate to provide an 

appropriate level of access for public and Forest management.

Continental Divide Scenic Trail – Commenters expressed concerns regarding the potential 

impacts of motorized roads and trails near to or crossing the Continental Divide Scenic Trail.

Alternative E reduces the number of motorized roads and trails crossing the trail, thus reducing 

the potential risk of motorized vehicle access to the trail system. The other action alternatives 

reduce motorized crossings from the current situation, but not to the extent of alternative E.

Alternative G does reduce the risk of motorized access to the trail and reduces motorized roads 

near the trail, improving the qualities associated with hiking the Continental Divide Scenic Trail.

National Forest System Motorized Trail Maintenance Costs – All action alternatives except 

alternative E would significantly increase the motorized trail maintenance and operational costs 

from the current situation. By designating a motorized trail system, impacts to cultural and natural 

resources are reduced, along with the potential for motorized and nonmotorized interactions. 

Although budgets could potentially increase with a designated motorized trail system, the Forest 

now has more opportunities to look at partnerships, grants, and other funding sources that could 

not previously be considered.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – All action alternatives would continue to provide a mix of 

motorized and nonmotorized opportunities on the Forest.

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 5
Visual Quality Objectives – All action alternatives would be consistent with the visual quality 

objectives of the Forest. Eliminating unlimited cross-country travel and developing unauthorized 

routes would have beneficial effects to visual qualities with the reduction of impacts to vegetation 

and soils.

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) – Alternatives D and E provide the most benefit and 

improvement to resource conditions and roadless characteristics within inventoried roadless 

areas. Impacts to roadless characteristics in alternative C are similar to the current situation.

Alternative G reduces motorized road miles by 27 percent across all roadless areas on the Forest, 

and has an increase of approximately 26 miles of motorized trail opportunities. Alternative G 

displays the potential for reducing risk to cultural and natural resources as well as some increase 

in benefit to some recreational opportunities and some resource conditions, but not all to the same 

extent as alternatives D and E.

Lower San Francisco River – This portion of the San Francisco River lies within both an 

inventoried roadless area and wilderness study area. The 1986 Forest Plan recommended that the 

Lower San Francisco River not be designated wilderness. There was a great deal of public 

comment and concern regarding the motorized route system in the San Francisco River, 

specifically the area from Big Dry Creek to Mule Creek. All alternatives in the DEIS analyzed 

changes to the route system in this area. Due to the level of public comment, I decided to have the 

San Francisco River area specifically addressed in the FEIS.

Comments included adding no motorized routes and removing motorized access from the San 

Francisco River to reduce impacts to riparian and aquatic species and their habitat. Comments 

also focused on maintaining access for fishing, camping, bird watching, and other traditional 

family outings. I recognize that this is only one of very few public access points to the river.

The action alternatives provided differing mixes and amounts of motorized roads and motorized 

dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval corridors. I feel that alternative G is the best 

choice to provide public access to the San Francisco River, continue the parking and camping 

opportunities currently used near the river, and greatly reduce the impacts to resources adjacent to 

or along the San Francisco River. Direct impacts to water quality, streambank stability, riparian 

vegetation, and aquatic species including critical habitat for loach minnow and spikedace from 

motorized uses would be eliminated at 39 of 40 stream crossings under alternative G. There is 

also a reduction of 88 percent of the motorized routes within 300 feet of the New Mexico 

Environmental Department’s listed impaired (303d) reach of the San Francisco River. 

Air Quality – Action alternatives did not vary significantly from the current situation for air 

quality. The generation of fugitive dust and emissions may be reduced due to the change in 

motorized miles of roads and trails. However, reduction of miles does not necessarily mean a 

reduction in the number of vehicles, so there may be little difference amongst alternatives.

Soils – Of the action alternatives, alternatives D and E provide the greatest reduction in relative 

risk to soils from motorized vehicle use on roads, trails, and areas within moderate or severe 

erosion hazard and unsatisfactory or unsuited soils. Alternative C exhibits the least amount of 

reduction to relative risk of impacts to soils. Alternative G shows a significant reduction, greater 

than 94 percent, for disturbance to soil resources within moderate or severe erosion hazard and 

unsatisfactory or unsuited soils with corridors being designated for motorized big game retrieval 

and motorized dispersed camping. The reduction of relative risk to soils for motorized roads and 

trails in alternative G, although not as great as alternatives D and E, still shows a measurable 

reduction.

6 Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest
Riparian and wetlands – The action alternatives vary in the potential acres of disturbance to 

riparian and wetland habitats. Alternatives D and E display the greatest reduction of potential 

disturbance by motorized roads, trails, and areas. Alternative C shows little to no change from the 

current use. Alternative G reduces potential disturbance to these resources from motorized roads 

and trails, but not to the level of alternative D or E. It is within the same range of reduction of 

potential disturbance (over 80 percent) by motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed 

camping as alternatives D and E.

Water Quality – The action alternatives vary in the effects to water resources. The assessment 

analyzed impacts to perennial, intermittent, ephemeral, Outstanding National Resource Waters, 

and impaired—New Mexico Environmental Department listed 303d—streams. The most 

reduction of potential impacts is displayed under alternative E, with little to no change under 

alternative C. Although the reduction of impacts to water resources from motorized roads and 

trails is not as high as alternative E, alternative G does reduce the overall number of crossings on 

perennial, intermittent and ephemeral channels, and impaired channels. The potential risk of 

impacts by motorized dispersed camping and motorized big game retrieval is significantly 

reduced with alternative G.

Aquatic Species – The action alternatives vary in their level of risk to aquatic resources. For the 

most part, alternatives D and E display the greatest reduction of risk to aquatic resources from 

motorized roads, trails, and areas. Alternative C displays little or no change from the current 

situation. Alternative G reduces the overall risks to aquatic resources from motorized impacts

compared to current levels, but not to the extent of alternative E. There is significant reduction of 

the risk of impacts to aquatic resources from motorized dispersed camping and motorized game 

retrieval with alternative G. 

Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat – The relative risk 

of impacts to listed aquatics species and their habitat would be reduced in alternative G. For most 

listed species, the reduction is about the same as alternatives D and E. Overall, there is a 

reduction of direct and indirect impacts and the relative risks to listed aquatic species and their 

habitat.

Aquatic Sensitive Species – The effects determinations for each sensitive aquatic species do not 

vary by the action alternatives. The potential risk to species varies slightly between alternatives, 

however, the overall effects determination shows that the species may be impacted, but it will not 

likely result in the loss of species viability or create a significant trend toward Federal listing.

Wildlife – Ungulates and Carnivores – Depending on the species, the effects of motorized route 

density and habitat disturbance vary. Alternative E reduces the potential for direct and indirect 

effects from motor vehicle interactions such as collisions or disturbance. Alternative E also has 

the greatest benefit for reducing disturbance to the species habitat. Alternative G decreases the 

potential for direct impacts to species and decreases the potential for disturbance to species and 

their habitat from motorized vehicle uses.

Mexican Gray Wolf – Effects to the wolf and its habitat vary by alternative. Alternative E 

provides the greatest beneficial effects to the Mexican gray wolf and its habitat. Alternative C 

displays little change from the current situation. The changes to the motorized system and the 

elimination of unlimited cross-country motor vehicle use under alternative G improve habitat 

conditions and decrease the potential risk of direct and indirect effects to the Mexican gray wolf, 

but not to the extent of alternative E.

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 7
Wildlife Sensitive Species – The effects determination for Forest Service aquatic sensitive species 

does not vary by alternative. However, the potential to affect individuals varied by alternative.

The effects determination for aquatic sensitive species shows that the species may be impacted, 

but it will not likely result in the loss of species viability or create a significant trend toward 

Federal listing.

Management Indicator Species – The potential to affect individuals and their habitat varies by 

alternative. Alternative G reduces the potential effect to the species and their habitat, but not to 

the extent of alternative E. Under alternative G, population levels and habitat trends will not be 

adversely affected. 

Mexican Spotted Owl – All action alternatives vary in the effects to habitat, critical habitat, and 

disturbance to individuals. Alternatives D and E provide the greatest beneficial effects to the 

species and its habitat. Alternative G also provides beneficial effects, but not to the extent of 

alternatives D and E.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog – All action alternatives vary in the amount of reduced motorized 

routes, stream crossings, and motorized use in corridors within leopard frog critical habitat and 

dispersal areas. Alternative E greatly reduces motorized activities and provides the greatest 

benefit to the species and its habitat. The changes to the motorized system and elimination of 

cross-country travel under alternative G reduce the risk of potential effects to the leopard frog, but 

not to the extent of alternative E.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher – All action alternatives vary in the effects to critical habitat and 

disturbance to individuals. Alternative E provides the greatest beneficial effects to the species and

its habitat, especially with the lack of motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed 

camping. The changes to motorized cross-country travel and the designation of corridors for 

motorized dispersed camping and big game retrieval reduce motorized activities within occupied 

sites and habitat under alternative G. This reduction is beneficial to the species and its habitat, but 

not the extent of alternative E.

Sensitive Plants – The action alternatives vary in the potential risk of disturbance to known 

occurrences of sensitive plants. Alternative E has the least potential risk of disturbance to 

sensitive plants. Alternative G has the same reduction of risk as alternative E except for four

species related to corridors for motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping.

For three of the four species, there is still a reduction of risk of disturbance when compared to the 

current situation. The fourth species does not present any change from the current level. Under 

alternative G, motorized vehicle use would not impact the majority of the sensitive plants.

Impacts to individuals will not likely result in the loss of species viability or create a significant 

trend toward Federal listing.

Invasive Species – Under all action alternatives, the potential risk of introduction, establishment,

and spread of invasive species will continue to a certain degree due to natural pathways and 

vectors. Alternative E has the least risk for the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive 

species from motorized roads, trails, and areas. Alternative C is similar in potential risks as the 

current situation. Alternative G reduces the overall potential risks, but not to the extent of 

alternative E. The reduction of acres of motorized dispersed camping and big game retrieval to 

designated corridors under alternative G greatly reduces the risk for introduction, establishment,

and spread of invasive species compared to the current situation. Also, the reduction of stream 

crossings and miles of motorized routes within riparian areas will reduce the risk of aquatic 

invasive species introduction, establishment, and spread.

8 Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest
Cultural Resources – The action alternatives vary in the relative risk of direct or indirect effects to 

cultural resources. Alternatives D and E have the least potential risk to cultural resources 

compared to the other action alternatives and the current situation. The potential risk of direct and 

indirect effects from motorized roads, trails, and areas is reduced under alternative G, but not to 

the same extent as alternatives D and E. The changes to the motorized system and the elimination 

of unlimited cross-country motor vehicle use under alternative G are highly beneficial for cultural 

resources across the Forest.

The Gila National Forest consulted with and received concurrence from the New Mexico State 

Historic Preservation Officer on travel management survey strategy, survey methods, and 

mitigation measures for sites in 2012. This report was based on alternative G, the preferred 

alternative, as described in the DEIS. Changes to alternative G that require Section 106 

compliance and consultation will be consulted through the phasing process as outlined in 

appendix I, Standard Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route Designation of the 

Southwestern Region Programmatic Agreement.

Under phasing, consultation will continue through 2013 and 2014. Several reports are currently 

being written for travel management surveys. After Section 106 consultation and compliance is 

completed on these reports, only a few hundred acres of motorized dispersed camping corridors, 

newly proposed routes, and areas remain to be surveyed. I anticipate this work will consist only 

of small survey areas, site visits, and report writing. I also anticipate that most of this work will 

be completed by the release of the first motor vehicle use map.

Phased work may show the need to protect cultural resources from potential adverse effects of 

travel management designations. If this occurs, I anticipate that some designations may be 

dropped and not appear on the motor vehicle use map.

Access for Disabled and Elderly Populations – We received many comments about retaining 

motorized roads and trails and cross-country travel to facilitate access to the Forest and other 

opportunities for people affected by age or disability. All action alternatives may have an effect 

on people with these concerns. The action alternatives treat everyone the same, and therefore, are 

not considered discriminatory. There is no legal requirement to allow persons with disabilities to 

drive places closed to motorized use, and allowing such exemptions would not be consistent with 

resource protection and other management objectives of the Travel Management Rule (29 U.S.C. 

794; 7 CFR 15e.103).

Firewood Gathering – All action alternatives may affect how people collect firewood; however 

firewood collection would continue to be allowed under all alternatives.

Jobs and Income – Compared to the current situation, alternatives D and E present the greatest 

potential for a reduction in jobs and incomes related to motorized activities. Alternatives F and G 

display less of a reduction. I do not find the effects described to be significant; however, some 

businesses and counties are likely to disagree when looking at the numbers. As identified in the 

analysis, these numbers may be overstated due to limitations of the model to assess effects 

described in the social and economic-assumptions and methodology section. Also, the potential of 

business opportunities or changes related to motorized and nonmotorized activities over time are 

unknown.

Environmental Justice – None of the action alternatives are expected to have a disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effect. 

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 9
Public Involvement

This project has been listed on the Forest’s schedule of proposed action since April 2008. Before

scoping the proposed action, from 2006 to 2007, we held 46 public meetings and open houses 

across the Forest to introduce the Travel Management Rule and the Forest travel management 

process to over 900 participants. In the fall of 2008, we held another 18 workshops, which more 

than 800 people attended. The workshops generated more than 2,000 public comments. Over 380 

individuals, including landowners, range permittees, and outfitters and guides were contacted, 

and meetings were held with local motorized user groups, conservation groups, various local 

organized groups, Federal and State agencies, and local county officials.

The Forest published the proposed action on September 11, 2009. We mailed the proposed action 

to approximately 4,000 people and we held 10 open houses. In response, we received almost 

16,000 letters and emails.

The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was released to the public on January 7, 2011, 

for a 60-day comment period; which ended March 7, 2011. We mailed the DEIS to 16,513 people 

and we held 4 open houses. In response, we received more than 2,000 comment letters on the 

DEIS.

Tribal Consultation

Tribal consultation for the Forest Service is guided by a variety of laws, Executive Orders and 

Memoranda, as well as case law. Laws include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 

subsequent amendments (Public Law 89-665, 15 October 1966), Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm, 31 October 1979), American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-341, U.S.C. 1996 and 1996a, 11 August 

1978), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-

4347, 1 January 1970), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (Public 

Law 101-601, 16 November 1990), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 

94-588, 22 October 1976, codified in 36 CFR 219). Executive Orders and Memoranda include a 

1994 Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 85, 4 May 1994), E.O. 13007 on Accommodation of Sacred Sites (61 FR 

104, 29 May 1996), and E.O. 12898 on Environmental Justice (59 FR 32, 16 February 1994).

Tribal consultation for the travel management project was also guided by Section III of the U.S. 

Forest Service Region 3 Heritage Programmatic Agreement with New Mexico State Historic 

Preservation Office, and Section V of appendix I of the programmatic agreement, the Standard 

Consultation Protocol for Travel Management Route Designation. These documents ensure that 

tribes were consulted as early as possible in the travel management planning process, to identify 

and address places of traditional and cultural significance, and ensure tribal access to those 

locations. 

10 Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest
The Gila National Forest is committed to, and has conducted tribal consultation and provided 

documents associated with the NEPA during the travel management process. These consultations 

were carried out at the government-to-government level, ensuring that interested tribes were 

given the opportunity to participate in the planning process as required in NEPA and elsewhere.

Gila National Forest has and will continue to be engaged in ongoing tribal consultation through 

all phasing work of travel management. The following 11 tribes or chapters were consulted 

regarding travel management:

• Pueblo of Acoma

• Alamo Navajo Chapter

• Ft. Sill Apache Tribe

• The Hopi Tribe

• Pueblo of Laguna

• Mescalero Apache

• The Navajo Nation

• Ramah Navajo Chapter

• San Carlos Apache

• Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo

• Pueblo of Zuni

Letters, phone calls, providing travel management materials, and face-to-face meetings at tribal 

offices were the primary methods of consultation (USDA Forest Service 2013j). Although all 

tribes were contacted, not all were available or expressed an interest in consulting at the time.

Alternatives Considered

In addition to alternative G, I considered five other alternatives. These are briefly described 

below. Chapter 2 of the FEIS provides a detailed description and comparison of these alternatives. 

Alternative A was the Forest’s proposed action, but after scoping, it was eliminated from detailed 

analysis. Reasons for eliminating the alternative are explained in chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Alternative F was identified as the modified proposed action that was carried forward during 

analysis.

Alternative B – No Action

Alternative B would continue the current situation. NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14 require 

that “agencies shall...include the alternative of no action.” This is intended to provide a baseline 

against which the effects of other alternatives can be measured. Under alternative B, crosscountry motorized use would continue and the current open National Forest System roads and 

motorized trails would remain in place. Many members of the public favored alternative B.

However, they felt that not all of the Forest System roads or unauthorized (user-created) were 

displayed, and therefore, they believed alternative B did not reflect the current situation. The rule 

allows me to incorporate roads that are currently closed or decommissioned by previous decisions 

into the process and it does not require the Forest to locate and map all unauthorized routes. But 

that did not preclude the Forest from considering including identified closed, decommissioned, or 

unauthorized routes provided by the public or Forest personnel in any of the alternatives.

I did not select alternative B because it does not meet the intent of the purpose and need by not 

implementing the Travel Management Rule; not prohibiting motorized cross-country travel; and 

not managing motor vehicle use and transportation system in accordance with the provisions of 

the Travel Management Rule and 36 CFR 212, 251 and 261.

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 11
Alternative C

Alternative C provides the most motorized opportunities. This alternative has the most miles of 

motorized roads and trails open for the public; the most miles of designated motorized dispersed 

camping corridors; and the widest areas and most miles of designated motorized big game 

retrieval. This is the only alternative that provides designated single-track motorized trail miles 

specifically for motorcycle riders. Some members of the public favored this alternative as it 

increases motorized trail miles and does not greatly change the miles of open motorized roads and 

access on the Forest. I did not choose alternative C because other alternatives better meet the 

purpose and need. Although this alternative eliminates unlimited cross-country travel, the 1-mile 

corridor for motorized big game retrieval and additional miles of motorized trails do not provide a 

significant reduction in the risk and potential impacts to natural and cultural resources compared 

to the current situation where unlimited cross-country travel is allowed.

Alternative D

Alternative D provides for moderate motorized access while providing greater protection of 

sensitive resources. This alternative has more miles of roads; provides opportunities for 

motorized trails; and has more corridors for motorized big game retrieval and motorized 

dispersed camping than alternative E, but less than the other action alternatives. The corridors for 

motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping are the same. It proposes more 

roads for seasonal use to protect resources than other action alternatives. I did not choose 

alternative D because I feel the miles of motorized roads and trails are not adequate for access 

and management of the Forest.

Alternative E

Alternative E provides the least amount of motorized roads open to the public and emphasizes the 

most resource protection and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. It does not provide 

motorized trail opportunities, limiting vehicles such as ATVs and motorcycles to designated open 

motorized roads. It does not provide designated corridors to drive off-road for big game retrieval;

therefore, all game retrieval would have to be done by foot, horseback, or other nonmotorized 

methods. Also, there are no designated corridors for motorized dispersed camping. The lack of 

motorized dispersed camping corridors would require people to park their vehicles or vehicle 

with trailers next to the side of the road and either vehicle/trailer camp next to the road or carry 

their gear to a camping spot.

Although this alternative provides the most benefit to cultural and natural resources and provides 

more opportunities for nonmotorized recreational experiences, I did not choose this alternative 

because I find the reduction of motorized road and trails too restrictive for public use and access 

to the Forest. Also, the lack of motorized dispersed camping corridors eliminates the ability for 

the camp setting to be centered around the vehicle or trailers, which is a very common activity on 

the Forest.

Alternative F – Modified Proposed Action

Alternative F is very similar to the proposed action presented during scoping. It reduces the miles 

of roads and increases the miles of motorized trails, but still emphasizes motorized recreation 

opportunities. This alternative proposes a one-half-mile motorized big game retrieval corridor for

elk retrieval and provides corridors for motorized dispersed camping. I did not select alternative F 

12 Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest
because the motorized big game corridor is not consistent with other New Mexico national forests 

that proposed motorized big game retrieval corridors nor is it in line with New Mexico 

Department of Fish and Game recommendations. The amount of motorized roads and trails and 

dispersed camping corridors are similar to alternative G.

Alternative G – Preferred Alternative

Alternative G motorized roads, trails, areas, and dispersed camping corridors are similar to 

alternative F. The differences lie in some of the roads, trails, and corridors proposed under this 

alternative, which provide a different mix of motorized and nonmotorized opportunities to be 

considered. The corridor for motorized big game retrieval and motorized dispersed camping is the 

same as alternative F. I chose this alternative for the reasons outlined previously.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed 

study. Components of these alternatives were incorporated into one or more alternatives studied 

in detail, and included in the decision.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will best promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s section 101 (42 U.S.C. 4321). The environmentally 

preferable alternative causes the least harm to the biological and physical environment. It also is 

the alternative that best protects and preserves historic, cultural, and natural resources.

I believe alternative E is the environmentally preferred alternative. Alternative E reduces road and 

motorized trail mileage open to the public by approximately 50 percent; adds the least amount of 

unauthorized routes to the motorized system; closes the most area to cross-country motorized 

travel; and greatly reduces impacts to the natural, historic, and cultural resources.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

I find that the decision to provide for a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor 

vehicle use by class of vehicle and time of year by implementing the changes listed in alternative 

G is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan’s long-term goals and objectives.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the species determinations for this proposal 

and provided a biological opinion in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(Consultation # 22420-2011-F-0032). The New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer also 

concurred. Mine is an independent decision based on the analysis for the Gila National Forest.

The specialist reports in the project record certify that alternative G is consistent with a variety of 

laws and regulations pertaining to each resource topic, and I incorporate the findings in each 

report into this record of decision. These include:

• Clean Air Act

• Clean Water Act

• Endangered Species Act

• National Environmental Policy Act

• National Forest Management Act

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 13
• National Historic Preservation Act

• Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989 (regulating motorized offroad travel)

• Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands Management)

• Executive Order 11998 (Floodplain Management)

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Implementation

If no appeal is filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may begin on, 

but not before, the 5th business day following the close of the appeal filing period (§215.15).

When an appeal is filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day 

following the date of appeal disposition (§215.2). In the event of multiple appeals of the 

decision, the implementation date is controlled by the date of the last appeal disposition.

Implementation Date

This decision will be implemented under the provisions of the Travel Management Rule, which 

requires publication of the motor vehicle use map. The motor vehicle use map is the legal 

documentation displaying the roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use on the Forest.

Implementation will occur on the effective date of the published motor vehicle use map, subject 

to administrative review timelines described below. At this time, the Forest estimates the first 

motor vehicle use map to be published in 2014.

The Forest recently experienced heavy rain events that caused flood damage to many roads 

forestwide. Some of the roads damaged during these events are designated open to motor vehicle 

use by the public under alternative G and, I do not expect a need to change the designations.

Various levels of maintenance may be necessary to repair the flood damage to these roads. We 

will work toward having these roads open for motorized use by the implementation date. 

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to the regulations at 36 CFR 215. People or 

organizations who commented on the DEIS during the 60-day notice and comment period that 

ran from January 7 until March 7, 2011, have standing to appeal. People who commented 

anonymously or outside of the notice and comment period (i.e., before or after the close of the 

comment period) do not have standing to appeal. 

The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand delivery, express delivery, or messenger 

service) with the appropriate Appeal Deciding Officer. Submit appeals to:

Regional Forester, Appeal Deciding Officer

Southwestern Region

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Fax number: (505) 842-3173

Appeals may be hand delivered to the above address during regular business hours from

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

14 Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest
Electronic appeals may be submitted to: appeals-southwestern-regional-office@fs.fed.us, with 

.doc, .rtf, .pdf, .txt, or other formats readable by Microsoft Word. The appeal must have an 

identifiable name attached or verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature may 

serve as verification on electronic appeals. When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant 

should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement confirming agency receipt. If 

the appellant does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is 

the appellant’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means (36 CFR 215.15(c)(3)).

Appeals, including attachments, must be in writing, fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14,

and filed (postmarked) within 45 days following the date of the publication of the legal 

notice of decision in the Silver City Daily Press and The Herald. The publication date of the

legal notice of the decision in the newspapers of record are the exclusive means for

calculating the time to file an appeal (§215.15 (a)). Those wishing to appeal this decision should 

not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. It is the responsibility 

of persons providing comment to submit then by the close of the appeal period.

The content of your appeal must meet the content requirements described in 36 CFR 215.14.

In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), please be advised that written 

appeals received, including names and addresses, will be considered part of the public record and 

will be available for public inspection.

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service’s appael process, please 

contact:

Lisa Mizuno

Gila National Forest

3005 E. Comino del Bosque

Silver City, NM 87508

575-388-8267

r3_gila_travel@fs.fed.us

Signature and Date

Record of Decision for Travel Management on the Gila National Forest 15