Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management 

Beartooth Ranger District 

Custer National Forest 

Carbon, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, and Park Counties of Montana 

June 2008 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale on the Beartooth Ranger 

District Travel Management Planning project (Project) on the Beartooth Ranger District 

(District), Custer National Forest (Forest). The Project involves proposals to change motorized 

and non-motorized travel management on the District and a non-significant amendment of the 

Custer National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). I have selected 

Alternative B Modified as described and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Project. 

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

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

of increased use of National Forests for recreation purposes. Increased forest visitation has led to 

concerns that much of this increased use is unmanaged and may be causing undesirable resource 

and social impacts. 

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

management focus was to inventory motorized and non-motorized routes. This effort was 

intended to establish a baseline for future analyses. The Forest undertook this work during 1999 

and 2000. This effort was in preparation of the Northern Region of the Forest Service’s (Region) 

analysis of cross-country vehicle use. In 2001, the Region distributed the Tri-State Off-Highway 

Vehicle Decision (2001 Tri-State OHV Decision) based on that analysis. The primary focus of 

the decision was to eliminate unmanaged motorized cross-country vehicle use. 

During this time, the Forest Service also provided a national framework for conducting roads 

analyses. The Forest Scale Roads Analysis for the Custer National Forest (see Project Record) 

was completed on the Forest in January, 2003 based on this framework. The report highlighted 

potential impacts of roads and/or motorized access on wildlife, water quality, cultural resources; 

right-of-way issues; and potential changes to road management objectives. 

The Beartooth Ranger District (District) initiated District-wide travel management planning in 

response to both the 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision and the Forest Scale Roads Analysis by 

issuing a Travel Management Planning Proposed Action in 2004. The key findings in the Forest 

Scale Roads Analysis report were used in the development of this proposal. The following year 

the Forest Service finalized the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule that outlined a process for motorized 

travel management planning to be used by all National Forests. The direction contained in the 

2005 Motorized Travel Rule was incorporated into the District’s ongoing travel management 

analysis and a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was distributed for public review in 

2007. The information gathered from each of these efforts and the public involvement on these 

projects was used to prepare this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for travel 

management planning on the District. 

All figures, facts, numbers, etc. in this ROD and the FEIS are approximate and based on the best 

available information. 
Record of Decision 

Page 2 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision

1.1 GENERAL LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 

The analysis area included the entire Beartooth Ranger District, situated in south-central 

Montana, and which is composed of two separate and unique geographic Units. The Beartooth 

Unit consists of approximately 512,943 acres of National Forest System lands. Approximately 

thirty miles to the east is the Pryor Unit which consists of approximately 74,932 acres of National 

Forest System lands (see Vicinity Map). 

The Beartooth Unit is well known for its portion of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness and for being a 

part of the geographic region known as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The unit is located 

approximately 60 southwest of Billings, a city of roughly 100,000 residents. This unit shares 

boundaries with the Gallatin National Forest on the west and has some common boundary with the 

Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming to the south – each of which has common boundaries with 

Yellowstone National Park (Yellowstone). The Beartooth All American Highway, which runs through 

this unit, is often referred to as a gateway to Yellowstone. The Beartooth Unit has plant and animal 

species commonly associated with the Yellowstone including grizzly bear, wolves, lynx, and mountain 

goats. The Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness comprises 65% or 332,490 acres of the District. Travel 

management on the Beartooth Unit could be characterized as more “controlled” than the Pryor Unit in 

the respect that management on the majority of the unit is shaped by management direction for 

Wilderness, research natural areas, and recommended Wilderness management areas. 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 3 

The Pryor Unit contains the southern portion of the Pryor Mountain Range, and is located 

approximately 50 miles south of Billings, MT. The unit is bordered on the north by the Crow 

Reservation. The entire south boundary and the majority of the east and west boundaries are shared 

with the BLM. Minor portions of the east and west boundaries border private lands. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of this project is to: 1) identify routes for public motorized use on the District, 2) 

provide for a variety of motorized and non-motorized opportunities, 3) minimize or mitigate 

impacts on natural and cultural resources, and 4) have enforceable travel management guidelines. 

District-wide travel planning was last addressed in 1987. Since that time, changes in land 

management policies, increases in use and demand for recreation opportunities, new 

developments and improvements in recreation-related technology, and increases in concerns about 

travel-related impacts to natural resources have occurred. These events, which are explained in 

detail in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, have led to the need to re-examine travel management planning 

on the District; they include: 

• 2001 Tri-State Off-Highway Vehicle Decision – This decision committed Forest’s to sitespecific analysis of motorized routes; there is a need to comply with this decision. 

• 2005 Motorized Travel Rule – This rule included direction on designating motorized 

routes and a related agency commitment to implement the rule by the end of October, 

2009; there is need to comply with the rule and timeline. 

• Unmanaged Recreation Use – Unmanaged recreation was identified as one of four threats 

to National Forests by the former Chief of the Forest Service; there is a need to evaluate 

unmanaged recreation related to visitor travel to identify and minimize effects. 

• Enforcement of Travel Management Restrictions – Procedural issues, inconsistencies, and 

lack of a map associated with the District’s 1987 Travel Plan have hampered law 

enforcement; there is a need to clarify travel management decisions to enhance law 

enforcement. 

• Roads in Developed Recreation Areas – Many routes within developed recreation areas 

are non-system routes; these need to be converted to National Forest System roads to be 

designated for public use. 

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION 

The Beartooth Ranger District Travel Management Proposal (Proposal) was distributed in 2004. 

The Proposal reflected the guidance at that time to include all system and non-system roads and 

trails in the proposal and display the intended use for all of them. In other words, the Proposal

contained routes where changes were proposed and routes where no changes were proposed. The 

following year the agency finalized the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule. Guidance associated with 

this Rule recommended that travel management proposals focus on proposed changes to the 

system so that the public, responsible official and the interdisciplinary team can focus on those 

areas where changes are proposed. This was different than the approach used to prepare the 

Proposal. 

To comply with the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule, the 2004 proposed action was re-formatted. As 

a part of this re-formatting effort, the Forest Service went through the original proposed action to 
Record of Decision 

Page 4 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision

determine if each of the proposed actions was reasonable and still desirable, and supplemented 

rationale for proposed actions wherever appropriate. A limited number of actions were dropped 

because conditions or use had changed, or the original basis for the proposal was not clear and 

could not be substantiated. Consequently, the original proposed action was dropped from further 

analysis (see FEIS Chapter 2). However, the proposed action was the basis for Alternative B and 

represents the re-formatting effort, updates, and input that transpired between distribution of the 

2004 proposed action and the 2007 DEIS. Specific actions associated with Alternative B are 

contained in Appendix C, Table C-2, of the FEIS and include the following types of actions that 

the Forest Service is proposing to implement: 

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

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

system trail. 

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

• Change certain unauthorized (non-system) routes to system roads and/or system trails that 

address administrative, utilization, or protection needs. 

• Change certain system road, non-system routes, and motorized system trails to nonmotorized system trails. 

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

• Designate dispersed vehicle camping along motorized routes. 

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

identified to Maintenance Level 1 system roads available for potential decommissioning in 

the future. 

The Forest Plan would be amended to change guidance related to public route designation and 

restrictions on the District in order to be in compliance with the decisions made in this Record of 

Decision (ROD). These proposed amendments can be found in Appendix B of the FEIS. They 

generally involve removing site-specific management direction related to a few specific routes. 

Management of these routes in the future would be through site-specific decisions that would be 

reflected in Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The proposed amendments to the Forest Plan are 

considered non-significant and would not require Regional Forester approval to implement. 

2. DECISION AND RATIONALE 

2.1 DECISION 

Based on my review of all the alternatives and input from interested publics, I have decided to select 

Alternative B Modified, which was developed in response to public comments on the DEIS. This 

decision includes the following details specific to Alternative B Modified. 

2.1.1 Motorized System Routes 

This decision designates for public motorized use the existing system roads and motorized trails 

on the District that are currently available for public use, with the following changes to the 

system: 

1. Some unauthorized (non-system) routes will be converted to system roads and trails, 

which are identified in the Alternative B Modified table of Appendix C of the FEIS. 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 5 

2. Some routes will become Maintenance Level 1 routes that are candidates for future 

decommissioning if no administrative, utilization, or protection need for the routes was 

identified. These are identified in the Alternative B Modified table of Appendix C of the 

FEIS. 

3. Some routes will be reserved for administrative use only, which are also identified in the 

Alternative B Modified table of Appendix C of the FEIS. 

The season of use on all motorized routes will be yearlong unless a different season of use has 

been identified for a specific route in the Alternative B Modified table of FEIS Appendix C. 

The type of vehicle designated for system roads will be highway legal vehicles, except where 

motorized mixed use has been identified in the Alternative B Modified table of Appendix C of the 

FEIS. 

The type of vehicle designation for motorized system trails will be either open to all off-highway 

vehicles, open to vehicles less than 50 inches, or open only to motorcycles as specified in the 

Alternative B Modified table of Appendix C of the FEIS. 

Dispersed vehicle camping is designated District-wide along designated motorized routes, with 

the exception of: 1) the Main Fork of Rock Creek Road (#2124) where dispersed camping will 

limited to existing sites that are not causing unacceptable resource damage as described and 

identified in Appendix D for Alternative B Modified, 2) where precluded by Forest Plan direction 

or Forest Orders (for example, where the Forest Plan prohibits camping within 100 feet of streams 

in the West Fork of Rock Creek drainage).

My decision also includes contingent designations for: 

1. A portion of the Punchbowl Road (# 2144), Picket Pin Spur (#21407), Burnt Mountain 

(#21415): These routes would be designated for public motorized use when measures to 

address the resource concerns associated with these routes (further described in the FEIS) 

have been implemented. 

2. Burnt Mountain (#21415): This route would be identified for administrative use once 

measures to address the resource concerns associated with this route (further described in 

the FEIS) have been implemented. 

3. Routes in the vicinity of the upper end of the Benbow area and Stillwater Plateau 

Trailhead (#2414 [only .8 miles], #20142, #20144, #20144B): These routes would be 

designated for public motorized use when legal (public) access to these routes has been 

obtained. 

2.1.2 Non-Motorized Routes 

This decision includes minor changes to the non-motorized trail system. Mechanized use of Red 

Lodge Creek Trail (#14) would be prohibited to reduce potential for mechanized Wilderness 

intrusion. Two system roads, Rankin Homestead (#2141C) and .69 miles of Meyers 

Creek/Lodgepole Road (#2142) would be converted to non-motorized system trails. 

Approximately 3.26 miles of non-system routes would be added to the non-motorized trail 

system, including trails: #83; #2142A; #30 (#21041); and #3A. 
Record of Decision 

Page 6 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision

2.1.3 Forest Plan Amendment 

The 1986 Forest Plan will be amended to change guidance related to public road designation and 

restrictions on the Beartooth Ranger District per route specific decisions in this ROD. These 

amendments are displayed in Appendix B of the FEIS. 

2.1.4 Forest Orders 

Any existing forest orders that are not consistent with the decision made in this ROD, such as the 

Forest Order for the 1987 Travel Plan, will be rescinded. Any new forest orders that are 

necessary for implementation of the decision in this ROD will be issued. 

Existing non-motorized system trail Forest Orders are not changed by this decision, but if 

necessary, re-issuance of the existing Forest Orders or prohibitions based on this decision is 

appropriate. 

2.2 RATIONALE FOR DECISION 

I selected Alternative B Modified because it provides sustainable natural and cultural resource 

management while providing a mix of recreation opportunities that responds to the diverse 

preferences expressed by both motorized and non-motorized users. Alternative B Modified 

provides resource and cultural considerations incorporated in response to public comments, such 

as not designating the Picket Pin Sawmill roads due to water quality concerns, which are not 

included in Alternative B. In addition, recreation opportunities identified through public 

comments on the DEIS, for example motorcycle use of Meyers Creek and Lodgepole Creek trails, 

that are not included in Alternative B have been incorporated into Alternative B Modified. 

Alternative C provides many of the natural and cultural resource considerations provided in 

Alternative B Modified, but I do not feel that it responds well to the interests expressed by 

motorized recreationists. Conversely, Alternative A does not respond well to the interests 

expressed by the non-motorized community, and it does not provide the level of natural and 

cultural resource sustainability reflected by the other action alternatives. 

Alternative B Modified includes specific alternative designs beyond those found in the original 

proposed action alternatives that will result in a reduction of ongoing and potential impacts to 

historic properties of traditional, religious, and cultural importance to affected tribes, especially 

the Crow tribe (see FEIS Chapter 2 Alternative B Modified description). It also considerably 

reduces the potential for direct and indirect effects on archaeological sites and Traditional Cultural 

Properties compared to no action. This was an important consideration in my decision-making. 

I would like to share my observations regarding what I heard and read from the public comments 

(see FEIS Chapter 5) and in discussions with various interested parties. Motorized users 

commented they believe there is enough Wilderness in Montana and that they are being closed out 

of many other areas. Many suggested that non-motorized users should go to the AbsorakaBeartooth Wilderness to enjoy a non-motorized experience. Non-motorized users commented that 

the motorized users have the majority of the area in the Pryor Unit and there should be more 

balance by identifying some large blocks of land for non-motorized uses in that land unit. Both 

types of users often expressed the feeling that the other user has enough area or should go 

somewhere else to recreate. Many non-motorized users expressed concerns that motorized 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 7 

vehicles degrade the quality of their experience. At the same time, many motorized users 

expressed concerns that many non-motorized users do not value motorized recreation such as 

riding a motorcycle or an ATV. For the motorized users, having several routes in an area that 

could be linked together was highly desirable. There were others who made suggestions for 

compromise and their comments were greatly appreciated and were helpful in working towards 

this decision. 

In reaching this decision, I have focused on finding a mix of non-motorized and motorized 

recreation opportunities that responds to the interests expressed by these diverse user groups, 

especially for the Pryor Unit. I considered the broad range of preferences expressed throughout 

this process related to motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. My decision will 

reduce the number of miles of motorized opportunities available compared to the existing 

condition, but not to the extent sought by some individuals and groups. This is especially true for 

the Pryor Unit. My decision provides an increase in the amount of non-motorized Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings compared to the existing condition in the Pryor Unit, more 

than some recreationists feel is appropriate given the large percentage of Wilderness on the 

Beartooth Unit. For every route designation proposal or proposal not to designate a route, there 

was an opposing preference and commensurate trade-off. I ultimately selected Alternative B 

Modified because I believe, based on the FEIS, it will provide for the sustainability of natural and 

cultural resources, and provide a combination of recreation opportunities that responds best to the 

diverse user preferences. 

Alternative B Modified also represents a compromise on the number of miles of motorized trails 

and mixed use routes available for OHV operation – a compromise between forest visitors that 

want more OHV opportunities, represented by Alternative A, and forest visitors that prefer less, 

represented by Alternative C. Similarly, selection of Alternative B Modified represents a 

compromise on disturbance associated with noise, especially in the Pryors - between providing 

motorized opportunities and opportunities for solitude. 

Recreational users, whether motorized or non-motorized, have expressed a desire for a spectrum 

of recreational experiences, ranging from easier, more accessible, but likely busier routes, to more 

challenging, more remote routes which provide a greater sense of isolation or solitude. Without 

effective travel management by the Forest Service, unmanaged recreation could result in the loss 

of certain opportunities within that spectrum. My decision will provide a range of such 

opportunities. 

While listening to public feedback on the DEIS, it became clear that the recreation use numbers 

included in the document became a focal point, and those numbers were quoted in many 

responses, each using those numbers to support disparate points of view. Many of those 

comments suggested that different numbers needed to be used in various formulas to assign miles 

of routes to either motorized or non-motorized designations and thereby assure “equity” between 

these two uses. These numbers were the best available data and were used for the economics 

analysis of impacts, and were provided to assist the reader in understanding general trends. I 

acknowledge the limitations of this information, but it does represent some of the best available 

information on Forest use. 

 

I do not feel that it is possible to approach travel management through application of formulas. 

Rather, route designations are dependent on other parameters such as the limitations of the natural 
Record of Decision 

Page 8 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision

and physical resources, sustainability of resources, and opportunities to meet social expectations. 

They are somewhat dependent on historical distribution and use that was also dictated by similar 

parameters. More recent increased pressure and demands for recreational use has resulted in the 

need to more actively manage recreation use, so that a spectrum of high quality recreation 

experiences will be available for all recreation users for years to come. 

Therefore, my decision reflects a management strategy that implements the current Forest Plan, 

including acceptance of the level of motorized use outlined in Alternative B Modified. I expect 

that the process to revise the Forest Plan, anticipated to begin within the next few years, will 

result in more specific direction for management of the District, especially the Pryor Unit. Until 

the Forest revisits overall management direction for the Pryor Unit through the Forest Plan 

revision process, I do not expect dramatic changes in the transportation system. 

Several important resource issues were considered in the analysis, including water quality; 

fisheries and aquatics; soils; vegetation including noxious weeds and sensitive plants; a number of 

wildlife species including grizzly bear, wolves, and lynx; inventoried roadless areas, and 

economics. In many cases, there were no significant differences between the alternatives based 

on impact indicators for the above resources, especially between Alternatives B, C, and B 

Modified. Many times all three of these alternatives fell below identified thresholds, or reduced 

impacts on a resource when compared to no action and the existing condition, although each may 

have done so to a different degree. However, Alternative B Modified did provide more actions 

that addressed site specific water quality, fisheries, and soils concerns than any of the other 

alternatives, which was an influence on my decision-making (see FEIS Chapter 2 Alternative B 

Modified description). 

Another reason I selected Alternative B Modified is that it has the best mix and most scientifically 

supportable season of use designations of all the alternatives. In the Pryor Unit, there would be 

two seasons of use to address the primary concern with route braiding and associated effects 

during the spring thaw, when vehicle operators may be tempted to drive off road to go around 

snow banks or wet spots in routes. These would include a 5/22 to 4/15 season of use for areas 

with a generally southern exposure and 6/15 to 4/15 date for areas with a more northerly 

exposure. This last season of use would also address the Bureau of Land Management’s concerns 

about vehicles accessing Sykes Road in the spring before it is suitable for driving (see Project 

Record). I also prefer Alternative B Modified because it responds to users requests to keep 

Meyers Creek and Lodgepole Creek trails available for motorcycle use, but includes a season of 

use designation of 6/15 to 12/1. This reduces concerns about motorized disturbance of wintering 

big game and moose calving in the vicinity of the trails, and provides a non-motorized experience 

during the motorized restricted period. 

The public identified the concept of contingent designation in their comments (see FEIS Chapter 

5). They suggested deferring designation of desired motorized routes until identified resource 

issues were mitigated, rather than completely foregoing designation of the route. The IDT 

considered this option on multiple routes and identified employing this concept at four particular 

locations, as stated above in the Decision section. One of these sites was of particular interest to 

me in making my decision – Burnt Mountain. 

The State of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) worked with 

the Forest to find a legal access for DNRC staff to get to a large tract of state land in the Red 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 9 

Lodge Creek area. We cooperatively identified the best existing route for this access – a nonsystem route known as Burnt Mountain (#21415). However, this route crosses a fork of Red 

Lodge Creek known to contain populations of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout and is contributing 

sediment to the creek. My decision is to convert this route to a system road and identify it for 

administrative use only contingent upon satisfactory mitigation of the routes effects on the stream 

course and habitat. I think this is a reasonable solution provided for in Alternative B Modified 

that addresses the Forest’s concerns and provides the access needed by the DNRC. 

The preliminary assessment of motorized mixed use identified in Alternative B Modified indicates 

there are no extraordinary safety concerns with these designations. I have decided to designate 

the motorized mixed use as proposed in that alternative, contingent upon completion of the 

motorized mixed use analysis. If the motorized mixed use analysis determines that any of the 

routes are not reasonably safe for motorized mixed use, the route will only be designated for 

highway legal vehicle use. 

The analysis and decision processes for this project are based on the consideration of the best 

available science. The manner in which best available science is used can be found throughout 

the ROD, DEIS, FEIS, Response to Comments, Biological Assessments, and the project file. 

Finally, my decision fits well with the agency’s overall goal to manage recreation opportunities on 

National Forest lands for the benefit of all users and in a way that sustains natural resources. 

American citizens have the right to use their Federal public lands, but in responsible and 

sustainable ways – ways that do not diminish the current or future use for everyone. My goal 

throughout this effort, especially in the numerous public meetings, was to work with all the 

myriad stakeholders concerned with the District to find an alternative that would sustain resources 

and provide a diverse set of recreation opportunities that satisfies the needs of most public 

interests, which Alternative B Modified accomplishes. As indicated in the public involvement 

section of FEIS Chapter 2, I believe the Forest Service adequately engaged interested publics and 

other agencies in developing the proposed action and throughout the NEPA process (36 CFR 

212.52). 

2.2.1 Meets the Purpose and Need 

In developing the rationale for my decision, I have addressed the “Needs” as displayed in detail 

in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. In addition, I have displayed the demonstrable benefits of Alternative 

B Modified that were assessed in an interdisciplinary manner and those brought forward from 

public input. 

1. Alternative B Modified will fulfill the need to comply with the 2005 Motorized Travel 

Rule and 2001 Tri-State OHV Decision to do site-specific analysis and designation of 

motorized roads and trails, including type of vehicle and season of use designations. 

2. It will also address the need to add motorized routes to the National Forest system road 

network that access or are within developed sites like campgrounds, recreation residence 

tracts, trailheads, and day use areas on the District by designating all necessary existing 

routes associated with these sites. 

3. Alternative B Modified addresses the need to enhance the District’s ability to enforce 

travel management restrictions by providing clear and route-specific guidance for 

motorized and non-motorized trail use. 
Record of Decision 

Page 10 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision

4. The selected alternative will provide managed motorized recreation on the District by 

designating motorized routes, as well as eliminating confusion about whether routes are 

system or non-system, and the mode of transportation that is acceptable on the route. 

3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY 

Chapter 2 details the public participation to date. The initial scoping document (Project Record) 

was sent on February 2, 2004 to approximately 91 individuals, government agencies, tribal 

governments, news media, businesses, and organizations that have shown interest in similar 

projects on the Custer National Forest. The public comment period ended on May 1, 2004. A 

legal advertisement inviting comments was placed in the Billings Gazette (Billings, MT) in 

February 2, 2004, summarizing the information provided in the document. News releases were 

sent to local newspapers. 

Public meetings were held in Red Lodge, Pryor, Bridger, Billings, and Columbus, Montana and 

Lovell, Wyoming in February 2004 to discuss the scoping document. Public meetings were also 

held in Red Lodge, Bridger, Billings, and Columbus, Montana and Lovell, Wyoming in July 

2006. 

Seven collaboration meetings were held over a period of four months in early 2007 (January 

through April). The attendance at the collaboration sessions ranged from 65 to 159 individuals. 

The attendees worked together during these seven half day sessions reviewing information and 

maps to identify points of agreement. While no specific collaborative alternative was developed, 

several points of agreement on roads and trails were reached (see Chapter 2, Table 2-1). 

In response to these efforts, over 5000 letters, personal comments, or phone calls were received. 

Collaborative group session information was documented and reviewed. The analysis of 

electronic, written and verbal comments preliminarily identified several potential issues. The 

issues identified as significant issues and were used to formulate the alternatives. 

A Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register, and a 60 day 

comment period was provided. Also, a news release was provided to local news media at the 

beginning of the DEIS comment period. 

3.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND INVITATION 

I appreciate all the energy and dedication that the members of the public have demonstrated 

through this travel management planning process, and I encourage you to stay with us, and to 

remain engaged when we begin the next generation/step of the planning process at the Forest 

Plan revision level, which is expected to begin in the next few years. That process will help us to 

further refine our management direction for both the Pryor and Beartooth units. 

I also want to acknowledge that many of you indicated a willingness to help implement this 

decision. I plan to involve you during implementation and look forward to working with you. 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 11 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES CONSIDERED 

The issues developed through scoping reflect respondents’ concerns about the environmental, 

cultural, economic, and social impacts that may result from travel management on the District. 

Combining public and agency response with Forest Service knowledge of the resources within the 

project area, the following issues related to District travel management planning were identified as 

significant issues: 

Recreation 

• Concern about motorized recreation opportunities 

• Concern about non-motorized recreation opportunities 

• Concern about opportunities for off-highway vehicle operation 

• Concern about impacts on personal recreation experiences 

• Concern about the impacts of noise from motorized recreation activities 

Cultural Resources 

• Concern about the protection of archeological sites, traditional cultural properties, 

and traditional practices. 

The following issue categories were determined not to 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. These issue categories were considered in 

the FEIS for analysis purposes. 

• Water Quality, Fisheries, and Aquatics 

• Wildlife 

• Soils 

• Vegetation 

• Inventoried Roadless Areas 

• Economics 

• Air Quality 

5. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

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

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

description of each of the alternatives is provided below. Specific information on the elements of 

each alternative is provided in Chapter 2 of the FEIS and in the FEIS Map Package. 

5.1 ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, the recreation experience in slightly less than three-quarters of the Pryor 

Unit would have a motorized recreation experience emphasis based on Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum criteria. OHV riders and drivers would find a diversity of terrain, as well as, quality of 

trails and roads to experience. OHV users would have multiple options for loop experiences, 

especially on Big Pryor Mountain. The primary use is expected to be families and groups out for 

day long rides of 20-60 miles, for sightseeing, picnicking, and non-technical riding. On 

weekends, riders could expect to encounter other groups of riders throughout the day. Hikers, 
Record of Decision 

Page 12 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision

bicyclists, and horseback riders using portions of the Pryor Unit, are likely to hear or see OHVs 

during portions of their travels. 

Recreationists’ experiences in the Beartooth Unit are not expected to be appreciably different than 

the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative A would propose to designate public motorized use on the majority of routes (system 

and non-system) identified during the 1999-2000 inventory. The only roads that would not be 

designated for public motorized use under this alternative would be those identified for 

administrative uses, those that the Forest Service does not have a legal right-or-way for use, and 

one road that has revegetated and no longer exists (see FEIS Appendix C for more information on 

these). 

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

routes). The majority of routes not included in this alternative (32 of 34 miles) represent routes 

for which the Forest Service has no legal right-of-way for public access (access is only via private 

lands). Technically, these routes are not currently part of the existing motorized network of routes 

available for legal public use. 

This alternative largely reflects the motorized road and trail elements of an alternative submitted 

by the Custer Partnership, a coalition of area groups interested in this project, including Families 

for Outdoor Recreation, Treasure State ATV, and other individuals. Other elements in the 

group’s proposal were not included in Alternative A because they were outside the scope of the 

analysis (e.g. construction) or were not consistent with guidance related to the 2005 Motorized 

Travel Rule (e.g. designation of roads with no legal right-of-way). 

5.2 ALTERNATIVE B 

OHV recreationists would find multiple motorized loop opportunities in the Pryor Unit for yearround use under this alternative – approximately two-thirds of the unit would be in motorized 

settings. In addition, several seasonal, high-elevation loops would be available for their use 

during the June 15-April 15 season of use for the Pryor Unit. Vehicle operators would find many 

choices for day-long rides during the majority of the year that offer a diversity of terrain, but may 

find it slightly more difficult to find these opportunities from April 15-June 15 during spring thaw. 

Hikers and horseback riders would find large areas or “enclaves” in the Pryor Unit with very little 

motorized use, including portions of Big Pryor Mountain, Punchbowl, and Lost Water Canyon. 

These areas would expand dramatically in size during the time of year when motorized use is 

prohibited at higher elevations (April 15-June 15). Recreationists could expect to take day-long 

hikes or horseback rides without hearing or seeing OHVs during the April 15-June 15 period; but 

may have a little more difficulty finding this type of experience the remainder of the year. 

Pack and saddle stock users could still expect to find many opportunities for riding and camping 

in the Beartooth Unit, and could expect to use the Meyers Creek and Lodgepole Creek areas 

without hearing or seeing motorized use. 

Motorcyclists could expect to have opportunities to ride in both the Beartooth and Pryor units, but 

would not find opportunities for single track motorcycle experiences. 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 13 

This alternative specifically addresses key resource concerns identified through internal and 

external scoping by not designating routes for public motorized use where concerns exist (see 

below). This alternative identifies slightly less motorized routes than no action for designation, 

but more than Alternative C. 

The primary resource concerns that are addressed by this alternative include: 

• In Alternative B, the Dryhead Vista Loop (Road #2308B) would not be designated for 

public motorized use or administrative use, and would be converted to a non-motorized 

system trail. Forest visitors would be able to access the vista through non-motorized 

means. This action is being proposed to minimize impacts to traditional cultural practices 

in the area that are easily disturbed by motorized vehicle access and/or vandalism. 

• The 300 foot access to dispersed camping allowance would not apply to the Main Fork of 

Rock Creek (Road #2421). Dispersed vehicle camping would continue to be allowed, but 

measures would be used to limit the expansion of existing sites and the creation of new 

sites to minimize impacts on cultural and natural resources. 

• Portions of routes where cultural resources are of concern were removed from designation 

consideration due to potential of continued site degradation and vandalism. (See route 

specific information in FEIS Appendix C.) 

• Portions of routes where soil and water resources are of concern were removed from 

designation consideration due to unacceptable erosion with little opportunity for 

engineered drainage without extremely high investment. (See route specific information in 

FEIS Appendix C.) 

• Meyers Creek (Trail #27) and Lodgepole (Trail #22) trails were proposed not to be 

designated for motorized travel in favor of non-motorized opportunities and wildlife 

habitat emphasis. 

• Season of use designations on roads above approximately 8,000 feet elevation were 

proposed to minimize road and resource damage during spring breakup or thawing of 

frozen soils and snow melt. 

5.3 ALTERNATIVE C 

Under this alternative, the majority of the Pryor Unit would have larger areas or “enclaves” with 

very little motorized use. Approximately half of the unit would be in motorized settings and half 

in non-motorized settings. Recreationists could expect that more effort would be required to walk 

or ride to certain destinations – for example Bear Canyon, King Canyon, and the Punchbowl area 

– and certain activities, such as hunting, could be expected to require more effort to find game. 

There would be multiple opportunities to walk, ride a horse, or mountain bike without seeing or 

hearing OHVs on adjacent ridges. You might encounter the occasional motorized vehicle being 

utilized for weed spraying or grazing permit administration on roads and trails identified for 

administrative uses. 

Recreationists accustomed to dispersed vehicle camping would find less opportunities and fewer 

desirable sites for this activity since fewer motorized routes would be designated and access to 

dispersed vehicle camping sites within 300 feet of motorized routes would not be allowed under 

this alternative. 
Record of Decision 

Page 14 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision

 

Pack and saddle stock users could still expect to find many opportunities for riding and camping 

in the Beartooth Unit, and could expect to use the Meyers Creek and Lodgepole Creek areas 

without hearing or seeing motorized use. 

Motorcyclists could expect to have opportunities to ride in both the Beartooth and Pryor units, but 

would not find opportunities for single track motorcycle experiences. 

The Pryor Unit portion of this alternative basically reflects the alternative proposed by the Pryors 

Coalition, a coalition of groups including the Eastern Wildlands Chapter of the Montana 

Wilderness Association, Yellowstone Valley Audubon Society, Our Montana, Inc., The Frontier 

Heritage Alliance, and Beartooth Back Country Horsemen. However, not every element of the 

proposal was included in the alternative analyzed for this project. The primary difference is 

exclusion of the game retrieval season of use for Punchbowl Road (see FEIS sections 2.6.3 and 

2.6.8 for more information). 

5.4 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 and non-system routes. This No Action Alternative largely reflects the set of system roads 

identified in the 1987 Travel Plan along with modifications that have been made to the system 

since 1987. The No Action Alternative also includes the existing vehicle types and seasons of use 

currently in force on the District (see FEIS Table 2-6 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. 

 

5.5 ALTERNATIVE B MODIFIED (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative B was modified in response to the public and internal comments to create Alternative 

B Modified. Alternative B Modified contains many of the same elements as Alternative B and 

would provide many of the same types of experiences. The elements of Alternative B Modified 

different from Alternative B are described in the Table 1, and provided in further detail in FEIS 

Appendix C. 

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

including the following: 

 The Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motorized 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.” 
Page 15 Beartooth Travel M

Table 1. Alternative B Modified Elements Different From Alternative B and Rationale for Modification. Alternative B Modified Alternative B Rationale for ModificatioMeyers Creek (Trail #27) and Lodgepole (Trail #22) trails would be designated as motorcycle trails with a season of use of June 15 to December 1. 

Meyers Creek and Lodgepole trails would be converted from motorcycle trails to nonmotorized trails. 

In response to public commremain motorcycle trails in opportunity on the Districtconcerns about disturbance winter range, and would haproviding spring and early non-motorized trail opport

A 2.2 mile section of Shriver Peak Road (#2088) would not be designated for public motorized use (see Alternative B-Modified map). 

The entire length of Shriver Peak Road would be designated for public motorized use. 

This action is intended to rcultural resources and tradiwould provide additional amotorized recreation oppor

The season of use dates for the following routes in the Pryors would be adjusted to 5/22 to 4/15: 

• Roads and motorized trails on Big Pryor Mountain previously 

identified with a season of use of 6/15 to 4/1. 

• Pryor Mountain Road (#2038) from the junction with Crooked 

Creek Road to the Dryhead Vista. 

• Commissary Ridge Road (#2092). • Island Ridge Road (#2093). 

These routes would have a season of use of 6/15 to 4/15. 

The change reflects more adevelop the dates and due tgenerally located in lands win more rapid snowmelt an

The eastern most approximate 1⁄2 mile of Punch Bowl Road (#2144) would be designated for vehicles less than 50 inches in width contingent upon the completion of trail maintenance work necessary to alleviate soils and water resource concerns with that section of trail. 

Route would not be designated for public motorized use. 

This change is being propocomment and for the followproposed to be designated mitigation necessary to corresource issues are addressidentified that would preve

Road #21415 would be converted from non-system to system road, and identified for administrative use only. 

Route would be identified for non-motorized trail use. 

This route would be designefforts with the State of MoResources and Conservatiostate lands. 

Graham Trail (#2013) would be designated as a trail open to all OHVs. Road would not be designated 

for public motorized use. 

Commenters indicated this preferable to other routes i

Piney Creek (#2012) east of the quarry would not be designated for public motorized use. 

Road would be designated for public motorized use. 

This route would be droppadjacent Graham Trail. Thoverall number of routes thconsolidate designated rouand increase the size of a cmotorized area. 
Page 16 

Table 1. Alternative B Modified Elements Different From Alternative B and Rationale for Modification. Alternative B Modified Alternative B Rationale for ModificatioThe southern 3⁄4 mile of Commissary Ridge (#2092) would be designated for public motorized use. 

Portion of road would not be designated. 

This change is being propocomment and because therconcerns with designating 

The first 1⁄2 mile of Roberts Bench (#20972) beginning at the junction with Punch Bowl Road (#2144) would be designated for public motorized mixed use, but the remainder of the route would not be designated. 

Entire route would be designated for motorized use. 

Fence was constructed acropreventing motorized use oreduces concerns about potresources beyond the fence 

Picket Pin Sawmill Roads #21401A and #21401B would not be designated for public motorized use. 

These two routes would be designated for public motorized use. 

Not designating these routeimpact on water quality. Tcommenters. 

Road #241412 would not be designated for public motorized use. This route would be 

designated for public motorized use. 

Not designating this route impact on water quality. Tcommenters. 

Picket Pin Spur #21407 would be designated for public motorized use contingent upon the completion of road maintenance work necessary to alleviate water resource concerns associated with the route. 

This route would be designated for public motorized use. 

Not designating this route help reduce the routes impwas highlighted by comme

The season of use for Picket Pin Road (#2140) would be yearlong. Season of use would be July 

16 to March 31 to be consistent with Gallatin National Forest. 

The need for a season of usGallatin National Forest. Tthat necessitate a season of Forest’s portion of Picket P

No pack and saddle stock restrictions are proposed for the Lake Fork, Lost Lake, Lake Mary, Keyser Brown, or Crow Lake trails. 

Pack and saddle stock restrictions are proposed for the Lake Fork, Lost Lake, Lake Mary, Keyser Brown, or Crow Lake trails. 

In response to public inputresource issues may be moaddressed through site-speadditional Wilderness manmechanisms. 

Nichols Creek (#2478) would be identified as administrative use only. Nichols Creek would not be 

designated and would be identified as a ML 1 system road. 

The District has identified route. 

The following roads in the vicinity of the upper end of the Benbow and Stillwater Plateau Trailhead areas would be designated for public motorized use contingent upon obtaining a legal right-of-way to access them. Benbow (#2414) (.08 miles) Benbow-Stillwater Road (#2014) #20142 The Golf Course (#20144) Stillwater Plateau Trailhead (#20144B) 

Roads would be designated for public motorized use. 

There is no legal right-of-wHowever, it is desirable to access Stillwater Plateau T

Beartooth Travel M
Table 1. Alternative B Modified Elements Different From Alternative B and Rationale for Modification. Alternative B Modified Alternative B Rationale for ModificatioThe following routes in Tie Flats, Beaverslide, and Punchbowl areas would be designated for public motorized mixed use (see Alternative B-Modified map): #2097A-Guard Station Green Cabin #2144-Sage Creek Road (4 mile section) #2073-Stephens Draw (2 mile section) #2073H #2085-Crooked Creek Road (1.24 mile section) #2308-Pryor Mountain Road (0.84 mile section) #2308C #230811 

#2097-Beaverslide #20972-Roberts Bench #2104-Tie Flats #2104A #2002 #2002A #2002A1 

The subject routes would be designated for highway legal vehicles. 

In response to public commchanged from a highway lemotorized use to provide aopportunities. A few of throads and lend themselves designation than a motorizthis network is proposed to designation. 

The Burnt Timber Road (#2849) would be designated for motorized mixed use. 

Burnt Timber Road would be designated for highway legal vehicles. 

This route would be designprovide consistency where routes. 

A 1.24 mile section of Crooked Creek Road (#2085) (see Alternative BModified map) would be designated for motorized mixed use. The subject portion of Crooked Creek Road would be 

designated for highway legal vehicles. 

This segment of Crooked Cas mixed motorized use to unlicensed vehicles using ttrail. Unlicensed vehicles Crooked Creek Road to BLmultiple opportunities for l

The Benbow Jeep Trail (#2415) would be designated for motorized mixed use. 

Benbow Jeep Trail would be designated for highway legal vehicles. 

In response to public commfrom a highway legal vehicmotorized use to provide aopportunity. 

A 2.2 mile section of Shriver Peak Road (#2088) west of Crater Ice Cave and east of its junction with 2095A would not be designated for public motorized use. 

This portion of Shriver Peak Road would be designated for motorized use. 

This action is proposed in rconcerns about cultural res

The following tables are intended to provide readers with comparative information about the alternatives that is not stfrom no action. For the action alternatives, the figures in the tables represent the total miles available under each tabl

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

Page 17 Beartooth Travel M
Record of Decision 

Page 18 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision 

Table 3. Summary of Miles of Roads and Trails by Alternative

Route Designation Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

No Action Modified 

Alternative B 

Designated for 

public motorized use 225 211 198 279 210 

Administrative use 

only 42 51 65 29 53 

National 

Forest 

System 

Roads 

Not designated 21 44 72 19 44 

NonSystem 

Routes 

Not converted to 

system roads or trails 19 56 76 91 57 

National Non-motorized use 279 286 289 273 279 

Forest 

System 

Trails 

Designated for 

public motorized use 118 53 0 8 58 

Table 4. Summary of Miles of System Roads and Trails by Type of Public Use Designation 

by Alternative

Type of Use Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C No Action Modified Alternative B 

Road Designation Type

All types allowed (motorized 

mixed use) 28 27 0 0 52 

Highway legal vehicles 197 185 198 279 158 

Subtotal 225 212 198 279 210 

Motorized Trail Designation Type

All types allowed 110 50 0 0 49 

Less than 50 inches only 2 2 0 2 2 

Motorcycles only 6 0 0 6 6 

Subtotal 118 52 0 8 57 

Motorized - Total Miles 341 261 198 287 267 

Non-Motorized Trail Designation Type 

All types allowed 91 98 96 88 88 

Pedestrian/hiking use only 8 9 9 6 6 

Pedestrian/hiking, and pack and 

saddle stock use only 177 177 183 177 176 

Pedestrian/hiking and mechanized 

use only 3 3 0 3 3 

Non-Motorized – Total Miles 279 287 288 274 273 

Table 5. 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 

C 

No Action Modified 

Alternative B 

Yearlong 310 167 148 269 177 

April 15 – December 1 

(Wildlife - Robertson Draw; 

Winter Recreation - Routes added 

off of West Fork of Rock Creek 

and Ingles Creek) 15 19 15 15 19 

May 15 – March 8 

(Spring Thaw - Red Lodge Creek) 0 0 0 0 3 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 19

Table 5. 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 

C 

No Action Modified 

Alternative B 

May 15 – September 30 

(Protection - Ten Gated 

Campgrounds) 7 7 7 0 7 

May 22 – April 15 

(Spring Thaw - Pryors High 

Elevation) 0 0 0 0 43 

June 15 – April 15 

(Spring Thaw- Pryors High 

Elevation) 0 60 19 0 15 

June 15 – December 1 

(Wildlife – Meyer/Lodgepole) 0 0 0 0 6 

June 30 – September 1 

(Timber Sale Mitigation - Mill 

Hollow) 0 0 0 3 0 

July 16 – March 31 

(Consistency with Gallatin NF) 12 12 7 0 0 

Table 6. Miles of non-motorized system trails with pack and saddle stock day-use 

restrictions for each alternative. 

Season of Use Alternative 

A 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

No Action Modified 

Alternative B 

Day Use – Pack and Saddle Stock 0 12 12 0 0 

6. 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. These included land zoning for quiet areas, route construction, game 

retrieval season of use on Punchbowl Road, converting all non-wilderness trails to include 

motorcycle use, use of the Custer Roads Analysis for alternative development, converting all roads 

to Mixed Motorized Use Roads or Trails Open to All Vehicles, not designating routes in areas with 

high and moderate soil hazards, creating an alternative that established seasons of use to avoid road 

closures in response to wildlife road density concerns, and specific alternatives proposed by 

organizations. Rationale for dismissal is found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 
Record of Decision 

Page 20 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision 

7. MONITORING 

Monitoring and evaluation could be used to determine if the physical, biological, social, and 

economic effects of implementing any alternative occur as predicted. Monitoring may be 

conducted by sampling a range of projects from the entire Beartooth Ranger District as outlined in 

the Forest Plan monitoring section. The following table outlines Forest Plan criteria for evaluating 

the effects of implementation, which is consistent with direction in the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule 

(36 CFR 212.57). 

Table 7. Forest Plan Monitoring Items Relevant for Travel Management 

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. 

8. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, in section 1505.2(b), 

requires that, in cases where an EIS has been prepared, the Record of Decision (ROD) must 

identify all alternatives that were considered, ". . . specifying the alternative or alternatives which 

were considered to be environmentally preferable." The environmentally preferable alternative is 

the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 

101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and 

physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Several important issues were considered in the analysis, including water quality; fisheries and 

aquatics; soils; vegetation including noxious weeds and sensitive plants; a number of wildlife 

species including grizzly bear, wolves, and lynx; cultural resources, inventoried roadless areas, and 

economics. In many cases, there were no significant differences between the alternatives based on 

impact indicators for the above resources. Many times the effects of the alternatives were below 

identified thresholds, or reduced impacts on a resource when compared to no action and the 

existing condition, although each may have done so to a different degree. 

Strictly considering environmental factors (effects to soil, air, water, wildlife, etc) Alternative C 

would be considered the environmentally preferred alternative because it designates the fewest 

miles of designated motorized routes with no allowance fro dispersed vehicle camping, and would 

have the least effects on those environmental factors. However, Alternative B Modified did 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 21

provide more actions that addressed site specific water quality, fisheries, wildlife, and soils 

concerns than any of the other alternatives (i.e. more seasonal restrictions during spring thaw and 

to reduce wildlife disturbance, and specific route non-designation and contingent designations to 

mitigate resource concerns). Alternative B Modified includes specific alternative designs beyond 

those found in the original proposed action alternatives that will result in a reduction of potential 

impacts to cultural landscapes and traditional cultural practices. I have not selected Alternative C, 

but rather Alternative B Modified for the reasons discussed in the Rationale for Decision section of 

the ROD. 

9. APPLICATION OF THE DECISION 

The actual application of the decision will be through multiple administrative actions, including 

engineering review and designation of each dual-use route, ordering and placement of signs, 

development and distribution of travel plan maps, enforcement, and monitoring. A public 

education and involvement effort is anticipated to ensure public understanding of the decision. 

Initially, it is expected that signing of the Pryor Unit will be the priority work. The actions 

associated with this decision will be incrementally implemented as funding and workforce are 

secured and as the individual actions are incorporated into the Forest Program of Work. 

Partnership dollars, grants, and volunteer work would be very beneficial in successful 

implementation of the selected alternative. Implementation activities may also be adjusted based 

on the periodic evaluation of monitoring findings, resource needs, and management priorities. 

There will be some challenges associated with enforcement of the selected alternative. However, I 

also recognize the tremendous number of people that want this effort to succeed, regardless of your 

preferred method of travel. It is my hope that much of the energy of so many individuals and 

groups that has been directed toward this planning process can now be redirected toward 

implementation on the ground. I recognize and appreciate that there are already offers of 

assistance on the table. The Custer National Forest cannot do this alone. 

10. COMPLIANCE AND CONSISTENCY WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, 

AND POLICIES 

Where applicable, compliance with laws, regulations, and policies are listed and addressed in 

various sections of the project record, the Forest Plan, and in specific resource sections in Chapter 

3 of the Beartooth Ranger District Travel Management Planning FEIS. My decision to implement 

Alternative B Modified will comply and be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies including those that follow this paragraph. 

10.1 CUSTER NATIONAL FOREST AND NATIONAL GRASSLANDSLAND AND 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 1986, AS AMENDED 

My decision is consistent with the Forest Plan’s goals and objectives and management direction, 

aside from the minor route-specific guidance that will be removed from the Forest Plan as a part of 

my decision. The FEIS also includes an evaluation of each resource for consistency with the Forest 

Plan. This can be found in FEIS Chapter 3 and in the Specialists’ Reports that are included in the 

project record. 
Record of Decision 

Page 22 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision 

The Custer National Forest and National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan were 

developed through the long-term resource management planning efforts required by the National 

Forest Management Act, as amended. This very public process set the goals, objectives, and 

forest-wide and management area standards for the Forest and provides the basis for management 

of the Forest's resources. Site-specific efforts such as travel management planning address a 

component of Forest management, but are not intended to be the more comprehensive planning 

effort associated with Forest-level land management planning. Site-specific efforts like travel 

management planning must be consistent with the Forest Plan. 

The Regional Forester, in the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan, acknowledged the multipleuse challenges the Forest confronts, back when the Plan was signed, as well as today: 

“The Forest Service vision of the Custer National Forest is of a Forest managed to benefit 

the public in harmony with the natural environment. Management direction responds to 

interested parties, to the effects on peoples lives and to the capability of the land.” 

And in the Rationale for selecting the Forest Plan in the Record of Decision, the Regional Forester 

noted: 

“No single factor or individual consideration constitutes the total rationale for my decision. 

Instead, it was the consideration of many factors and their interrelationships,...” 

...“In making this decision, I recognize the limitations of the physical and biological 

systems, and that the Custer National Forest cannot satisfy every individual or group. 

(ROD, page 13.) 

Further in the Record of Decision, the Regional Forester in summarizing the reasons for regarding 

the selection of the Forest Plan, notes: 

“I believe the Plan provides a management strategy for the Forest that maximizes net public 

benefit. This is achieved by providing a balance among commodity outputs, thus providing 

for a reasonable level of local employment while protecting amenity values such as 

wildlife, fish, scenic quality, and diverse recreation opportunities that are important to area 

residents. The Forest provides a variety of recreation activities that benefit nearby 

communities indirectly but the Forest has little control over the total benefits to these areas. 

Management is within the physical and biological capability of the land. 

One of the decisions made in the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan was the allocation of areas 

to allow for certain types of activities. Forest Plan Management Areas in the analysis area, the 

Beartooth Ranger District, are B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, P, Q, R, and T. Of these, Management 

Areas H (recommended wilderness), I (Wilderness), and L (Research Natural Areas) generally 

prohibit roads and motorized trails in them. The other management areas allow/provide for 

motorized travel within them. 

My decision complies with Federal laws and agency policies that provide for the management of 

inventoried roadless lands:

• Forest Service Manual FSM 1923: Outlines what activities are appropriate in roadless 

areas that are recommended for wilderness. 

• Forest Service Handbook 1909.12_70: Describes the process for identifying and 

evaluating potential wilderness in the National Forest System. And, 

• Forest Service Handbook 1909.15: Provides direction to complete an Environmental 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 23

Impact Statement for proposals that would substantially alter the undeveloped character of 

roadless lands 5,000 acres or greater in size. Although there has been no site specific 

proposal put forth that would alter the undeveloped character of roadless lands 5,000 acres 

or greater in size. 

My decision is also in compliance with the recently adopted 2005 Final Rule for State Petitions for 

Inventoried Roadless Area Management (Roadless Final Rule 5.13.2005 36 CFR Part 294). This 

decision will have no impact on the states ability to petition for management changes for the 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. The summary discussion for the State Petition for Inventoried 

Roadless Area Management Rule notes that it is imperative that land management must continue 

forward on a day to day basis and that the agency cannot simply stop making decisions. The 

discussion also notes that the Department wishes to be clear that the intention is that applicable 

land management plans and policies will govern during the pendency of a review of a petition. 

10.2 2005 MOTORIZED TRAVEL RULE 

10.2.1 General Route Designation Criteria 

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

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

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

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

National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreation 

opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for 

maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under 

consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and 

administration.” (36 CFR 212.55 (a)). 

I have determined that the Forest Service has considered the effects of road and motorized trail 

designation on the resources identified in the 2005 Motorized Travel Rule based on the analysis 

and information contained in the FEIS and the project record. 

10.2.2 Motorized Trail Designation Criteria 

The Rule also contains specific criteria related to designating motorized trails. It states, “In 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The objective of Alternative B Modified was to provide additional points of compromise among 

disparate user preferences while minimizing effects on resources and uses listed above. These 

resources were considered, as evidenced by the FEIS and project record, and specific measures 
Record of Decision 

Page 24 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision 

were taken to minimize the effects of route designation where issues were identified. These 

measures include contingent designations to reduce soil, fisheries, and water quality impacts; 

avoiding designation of routes clearly contributing to unacceptable resource impacts or to reduce 

the potential for impacts to cultural resources; season of use designations to reduce the potential 

for impacts on soil, vegetation, water quality, and wildlife resources, and providing a range of 

recreation opportunities on the District to minimize user conflicts. 

10.2.3 Road Designation Criteria 

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

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

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

geometry and road surfacing” (36 CFR 212.55 (c)). 

The motorized mixed use analysis and the project record display that the Forest considered the 

above items in the route designations contained in Alternative B Modified. This consideration did 

not identify any issues of significant concern. 

10.3 MOTORIZED MIXED USE ANALYSIS (36 CFR 212 AND 36 CFR 261) 

As stated previously, the preliminary assessment of motorized mixed use identified in Alternative 

B Modified indicates there are no extraordinary safety concerns with these designations. I have 

decided to designate the motorized mixed use as proposed in that alternative, contingent upon 

completion of a motorized mixed use analysis. If the motorized mixed use analysis determines that 

any of the routes are not reasonably safe for motorized mixed use, the route will only be designated 

for highway legal vehicle use. 

10.4 MINIMUM ROAD SYSTEM (36 CFR 212.5[B][1]) 

This travel management planning process has resulted in identification of the minimum road system 

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

District. Consistent with 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1), this process has involved the “science-based roads 

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

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

of the FEIS). In addition, the process has revealed that Alternative B Modified is the minimum “road 

system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the 

relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system 

minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, 

decommissioning, and maintenance.” Chapters 1 and 3 of the FEIS identify consistency with the 

Forest’s land management plan and other statutory and regulatory requirements. FEIS Appendix C, 

Chapter 2, and Chapter 3 disclose measures proposed in Alternative B Modified to minimize adverse 

resource impacts and disclose the long-term funding expectations. 

10.5 CONSISTENCY WITH ROADS ANALYSIS, 1999 

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

the Forest in January, 2003 based on this framework. The report highlighted potential impacts of roads 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 25

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

changes to road management objectives. This analysis helped inform me about potential resource issues 

associated with system roads and, to a limited extent, with non-system routes. 

10.6 FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 

My decision will ensure that public lands will be managed in a manner that will protect the quality 

of the physical and biological components of the ecosystem. Habitats will be conserved and 

enhanced through this decision and outdoor recreational opportunities will be provided for. 

10.7 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 

The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have been followed as required 

under 40 CFR 1500-1508. The ROD and FEIS comply with the intent and requirements of the 

NEPA. Alternatives in the EIS were developed and analyzed under full public disclosure. The EIS 

analyzes an acceptable range of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. It also discloses 

the impacts of each alternative and discusses the identified issues. This ROD discusses the decision 

I have made and the reasons for making the decision. 

10.8 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT 

On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 (16 U.S.C. 7 §§703 et seq. 

2001.) that outlines responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds. Upon review of 

the information in the Beartooth Travel Management FEIS, I find that my decision complies with 

this Executive Order. 

10.9 NHPA, AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT, AND NATIVE 

AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT 

Since cultural resources are nonrenewable and easily damaged, laws and regulations exist to help 

protect them. These include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) and the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Sacred and culturally 

important places fall under this purview of the NHPA, AIRFA and the Sacred Lands Executive 

Order (Executive Order 13007). Native American graves are protected under NAGPRA. 

Following the USDA Forest Service policy for NHPA Compliance in Travel Management: 

Designated Routes for Motor Vehicle Use (2005), the Forest considered all user developed roads 

and trails that were proposed for designation and the potential effects of the designation to cultural 

resources. I found that the selected alternative would preserve and protect the cultural resources. 

Coordination with pertinent Tribes has been ongoing in the form of the original project scoping 

letter, public meetings, agency meetings, letter correspondences and proposed/scheduled field trips 

which outlined the proposed project specifics and requested any concerns that they may have 

regarding cultural resources or traditional cultural practices. This coordination effort is intended to 

insure that any tribal concerns or comments are addressed throughout the NEPA process in regards 

to NHPA, ARPA, AIRFA, and NAGPRA as well as through Government to Government 

consultation. I intend to continue this consultation throughout the life of this project. 
Record of Decision 

Page 26 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision 

10.10ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

No impacts to minority or low-income populations were identified through public comment or effects 

assessment. I find that my decision does not disproportionately impact minority or low-income 

populations and is in accordance with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 32, 1994). 

10.11REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 

Disabled access is provided per the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under the Act, an individual with a 

disability will not, solely by reason of disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Forest 

Service. I find that my decision is compatible with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

 

10.12ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

There is one listed threatened and one experimental species in the project area – Canada lynx 

(threatened) and gray wolf (experimental status), respectively. The Biological Assessment 

concluded that the effects for implementation of the proposed action may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect Canada lynx because: direct effects would not result from the proposed action; 

motorized route density in lynx habitat would be 10% of the maximum road density guideline; the 

potential for encounters with individual lynx would be small; the potential for indirect effects 

would be negligible and discountable; and, the potential for cumulative effects would be small. 

The Biological Assessment concluded that the effects for implementation of the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in destruction or adverse 

modification of proposed critical habitat for gray wolves because wolves in the action area are 

designated a nonessential experimental population. 

The Yellowstone grizzly bear population was determined to be recovered and was delisted 

effective April 30, 2007 (USDI 2007). The bald eagle was determined to be recovered and was 

delisted effective August 8, 2007. Consultation on effects of proposed Federal actions on these 

species is therefore no longer required. Verbal concurrence with effects determinations for Gray 

wolf and Canada lynx was received from Lou Hanebury of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 

March 18, 2008. 

Upon review of Chapter 3 of the Beartooth Travel Management FEIS, the wildlife specialist 

report, the biological evaluation, and the concurrence letter from the USFWS, I find that my 

decision complies with the ESA. 

11. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES 

Copies of the Beartooth Travel Plan FEIS are available for review at libraries and the Custer NF 

offices in Billings and Red Lodge. It may also be accessed on the worldwide web through the 

Custer NF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/custer/projects/index.shtml. 
Record of Decision 

Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision Page 27

Additional printed or electronic (on compact disc) copies of the FEIS and this ROD are available 

upon request. The supporting project record is available for review at the Custer National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, 1310 Main St., Billings, Montana, 59105. 

 

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Vol. 2 §215.11 (2003). A written appeal 

pursuant to 36 CFR 215.14 must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the 

legal notice of this decision in the Billings Gazette newspaper, Billings, Montana. It is the 

responsibility of the appellant to ensure their appeal is received in a timely manner. The 

publication date of the legal notice of the decision in the newspaper of record is the exclusive 

means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date or timeframe 

information provided by any other source. 

 

Paper appeals must be submitted, or delivered in person between 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., to either 

of the following locations: 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 

ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, Montana 59807 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 

ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer 

200 East Broadway 

Missoula, Montana 59802 

Electronic appeals must be submitted to appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us

In electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed. An 

automated response will confirm your electronic appeal has been received. Electronic appeals must 

be submitted in MS Word, WordPerfect, or rich text format (RTF). 

It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project or activity-specific evidence and 

rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. The appeal must 

be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, the appeal must meet the 

content requirements of 36 CFR Vol. 2 §215.14 (2003), and include the following information: 

• The appellant’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available, 

• A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for 

electronic mail may be filed with the appeal), 

• When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and 

verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request, 

• The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of 

the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision, 

• The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal 

under either 36 CFR 215 or 36 CFR 251, Subpart C, 

• Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and the rationale for those 

changes, 
Record of Decision 

Page 28 Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision 

• Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the 

disagreement, 

• Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the 

substantive comments, and, 

• How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy. 

11.1 IMPLEMANTATION 

If no appeal is received, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, five (5) 

business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, implementation 

may occur on, but not before, the fifteenth business day following the date of the last appeal 

disposition. 

11.2 CONTACT PERSON 

For additional information concerning this decision or the USFS appeal process, contact Steve E. 

Williams, Forest Supervisor, Supervisor’s Office, Custer National Forest, 1310 Main Street, 

Billings, Montana, 59105, 406-657-6200.