Travel Analysis; A part of the Process

Each National Forest in the Pacific Northwest is required to submit a Travel Analysis Report as part of nationwide

Winom 100 2015

requirements for the process of a Travel Management Plan (TMP).  Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, and Malheur National Forests (UNF, WWNF, & MNF) are doing their part to comply with this requirement (News Release).  This “Analysis” does not close roads in and of itself, it rather lists roads “likely needed and likely not needed” that MAY be what is actually closed after the process is completed.

Besides the national requirement (2005 Travel Management Rule), most people ask why?  Why do more roads need to be close to further restrict the public from accessing their public lands?  The regional Forest Service (Region 6) repeats the mantra of no money to maintain 90,000 miles of roads, the amount of roads is not sustainable, non-maintained roads can impact water quality and wildlife habitat, and that the roads have exceeded their lifespan.

Forest Plan, Travel Management Plan, Travel Analysis are all parts of the steps of forest management.  The way they have been issued to the public is confusing even for the most avid forest service info reader, let’s break this down:

The Forest Plan is the overarching document.  It does not close roads or specifically dictate a project, BUT its overarching influence does the affect the results of those specific projects.  The current plan has been in place is from 1990.  The Forest Service is supposed to update this every 10years and is currently working on a new one, hence the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision (BMFPR).  As this Revision moves forward, it has many steps.  First public comment on the idea of the Forest Plan, then public comment on the proposals of solutions to the perceived problems of the Forest Plan, then narrowing down to ONE proposal and public comment, then finally implementation.   The Forest Plan dictates most of the rest of the management documents.  Meetings recently both on the whole and the specific areas like ACCESS, have been a part of this process.

The Travel Management Plan (TMP) is an overarching document that dictates how the forest access is used.  It attempts to balance ACCESS with sustainable system of roads, trails, and other public motor vehicle use.  Part of any TMP process is to conduct a Travel Analysis of who, what, where, and how access is utilized on the forest.  This has also been dictated by BIG FOREST in DC (2005 Travel Management Rule). We see the TMP as the thing that tells us, the public, where we can and cannot go, on our public lands.  This is to be updated periodically.  BUT there has been requirements from 2005 Travel Management Rule to manage travel much more closely; we have seen this as Designated Routes (Subpart B and C of the Rule).  Specifically we see this in the Umatilla National Forest (UNF) as Motorized Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM).  Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur (WWNF & MNF) are “behind” on getting this done.  Part of the process of making “progress” on the TMP is to do a “Travel Analysis”.  Much like the Forest Plan, this Analysis, will not actually do anything, BUT WILL dictate the ACTION taken with the future Travel Management Plan.  So when any Forest Service Employee says that Travel Analysis does not close roads that is TRUE, BUT Travel Analysis WILL be the basis for Travel Management which Can and Will Close Roads under the current BIG FOREST desires.

A great deal of confusion is had by the order of things.

• If the 1990 Forest Plan was supposed to updated and in place by 2000 and this is 2016 you can see an issue.
• If Travel Management Plan is also supposed to be updated, in theory and in conjunction with the latest Forest Plan, you can see an issue.
• If some forest service management areas go ahead with what they have (UNF) and others are waiting for the finished product (WWNF/MNF) then get pressured into doing something (years later), than can be an issue.
• Finally if the public, realizing the loss of access in Umatilla NF rise up in WWNF/MNF to fight the loss of freedom of this new Travel Management Plan or the Forest Plan you can see an issue.

So if you combine all of these updates, revisions, environmental analysis, travel analysis, and parts of the government process into one big blob, which becomes almost an overwhelming issue, which is EXACTLY what is happening now.

The Travel Analysis states that it has had public involvement.  This is listed as the 1992 North Fork of the John Day Travel Management Plan, the 2004 Roads Analysis, the 2009 Heppner Analysis, and the six public meetings on ACCESS for the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision in 2015.  The last amount of public involvement is confusing since it was listed to be for the Forest Plan.

The Travel Analysis does not include motorized trails in the analysis.  Why should you care if ride trails?  Because a large source of our new trails are Level 1 Roads or those roads that could be classified as trails.  Plus roads provide access to the trails and for camping, Access is Freedom.

It does classify the roads into Levels (5 thru 1) and their amount of maintenance (ROAD MAINTENANCE LEVELS).  Travel Analysis then analyses the roads into management categories, 1 High Benefit-Low Risk, 2 High Benefit-High Risk, 3 Low Benefit-Low Risk, and 4 Low Benefit-High Risk, which are based on a different criteria than the roads themselves (Travel Analysis pg22).  This combination is how the Roads likely needed and likely not needed list was determined.

What can be done about it?

The Travel Analysis can be commented on, directly to headquarters or district offices.  Maps are in Appendix D and linked to below:

• Heppner District Road Management Categories
• North Fork of the John Day District Road Management Categories (not the best quality)
• Pomeroy and Walla Walla District Road Management Categories
• Walla Walla District Road Management Categories.

The Analysis informs the public on the starting point for the next step, which is Travel Planning, which will have another opportunity for public comment.  The Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision seems to be in hibernation for now as the comments from the public meetings over the last 2 years are digested.  But it is not dead, and further focus is required.

Everyone needs to be a regular @ the Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, and Malheur National Forest websites.  Sign up for their email updates of progress.  Review the documentation there, as their baseline maps may have removed roads or trails, their maps do not have the detail required, or their lists (roads to close, roads to downgrade, roads to trails, etc.) may be hard to decipher at all.  Give feedback to all of this.  Pay attention and attend the public forums for comment on each stage of the process.  If you wait until the end you will be uninformed or overwhelmed with info.  Finally, write down your SPECIFIC areas of concern, general comments or form letters do not work.