Advanced Resource Solutions, Inc.

Advanced Resource Solutions, Inc.

Specializing in Land Use, Travel Management and Recreation Planning, Mediation and Environmental Compliance

Route Evaluation

The evaluation process begins by completing an “Area Overview”. The area overview is an integral part of the evaluation process by providing a high level summary of the data gathered during the steps preceding route evaluation. In order to adequately evaluate and designate routes, the evaluation team must be familiar with a broad range of topics: the existing and potential issues, concerns, trends, resources, and conditions, as well as concurrent and past planning projects, desired future conditions, etc. The area overview is performed at several scales and integrates discussion of those scales with each other (e.g. planning area to sub-region to sub-subregion, the relationship between the sub-subregion and the overall planning area, and so forth).

During this overview, the evaluation team begins by looking at the largest management unit - the entire planning area. Next, they proceed to the sub-region (or travel management unit or geographic area) where they will be evaluating routes. The area overview is performed for that sub-region, discussing in greater detail issues that may be unique to the sub-region and providing a better understanding as to how the sub-region is inner-connected with other sub-regions and the planning area. Once the sub-region has been discussed, if there are sub-subregions, each of those would also repeat the same overview process.

Information discussed during the area overview is captured into the Route Evaluation Tree^© software for future retrieval and reference, with discussion points such as:

• Special Management Units, both existing and proposed (e.g. ACECs, SRMAs)

• Previous or Concurrent Planning Projects

• Area Allocations, both existing and proposed (e.g. ROS, VRM)

• Desired Future Conditions

• Portal Access, Urban Interface

• Commercial, Administrative Uses

• Sensitive Resources (e.g. wildlife, plants, cultural sites, soils, riparian)

• Recreational Activities

• Trends (e.g. increasing/decreasing visitors, activity types, resource trends, commercial trends, law enforcement, route proliferation areas)

• Mitigation directives from planning documents or other agencies (e.g. Fish & Wildlife Service)

• Route types (e.g. federal highways, county roads, two-track routes, motorcycle routes)

Once the overviews have been completed for the planning area as a whole and the sub-region in which the evaluation team will be working on route evaluations, the evaluation of the routes begins. The evaluation team progresses through a sub-region (or travel management unit), numbering each route as they go to insure that each route is evaluated. However, it is important to remember that the routes are not evaluated in isolation. They are evaluated both individually and collectively with the surrounding routes and areas. One cannot occur without the other because a single route on its own may not have the same impacts when it is considered in relationship with surrounding routes and areas.

The route is assigned a unique number and route characteristics are identified, such as route condition (e.g., use level, evidence of construction, route type), route and area designations under previous planning efforts, and origin/history of the route (if known). This data supplies the foundation of knowledge for the route. Additionally, if any citizen proposals for a route have been submitted, that data may be captured into the software.

The evaluation team progresses through the Route Evaluation Tree^© by gathering specific information about each route through a series of questions arranged in a sieve-like fashion to address the various statutory guidance and issues previously identified. The questions generally fall into the five following categories:

• Identification of legal easements, right-of-ways, and other issues related to permitted commercial access or real-estate title and private property (e.g. vested, prescriptive rights), administrative access, economic issues (e.g. local plans, tourism);

• Identification of known or potential resources impacts and concerns:

- Air Quality

- Area Allocations

- Biological

- Plants (e.g. state and federal T&E species, unique plant assemblages)

- Sensitive Habitat (e.g. riparian, washes)

- Wildlife (e.g. state and federal T&E species, management indicator species, habitat types)

- Cultural Sites / Polygons

- Human Interaction Conflicts (e.g. user conflicts, trespass, safety concerns, route proliferation)

- Route Density/Habitat Fragmentation

- Soils (e.g. soils condition in the area, erosion concerns for the route)

- Special Management Units (e.g. National Monuments and Monument Objects, Wilderness, ACECs)

• Consideration of ways in which to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts and identification of the effect of cumulative impacts, etc. (identification of these occurs during designation)

• Identification of the public uses of a route (e.g. recreational opportunities)

• Identification of potential or actual route redundancy

The manner in which the questions are answered leads the evaluation team down one of a series of “limbs” or pathways in the Route Evaluation Tree^© depending upon how the questions are answered.

Routes are evaluated based upon the best available data contained in the GIS coverages, the knowledge of the agency staff (including previous planning efforts that may affect the route or area), information provided to the agency from the public, and/or other data sources (e.g. other local, state and federal resource agencies). If certain information is not available or not available to a sufficient level of detail, the route may be flagged in the software and notations added to indicate that additional information is necessary. After that information has been developed, obtained or confirmed, the route will be re-evaluated. Additionally, a “suspected” or “potential” use or impact may be identified in the Route Evaluation Tree^© software by indicating the information is not known specifically but is likely based upon professional judgment. Agency staff may then follow up with the appropriate specialists or databases to obtain the necessary data and re-evaluate the route with this additional information. Further, since the public will have opportunity to review the route evaluation data and the recommended route designations, information previously unknown to the agency may be discovered at that time allowing for re-evaluation of the route and changes to the designation if necessary.¹

If any of the identified impacts are in violation of statutes governing the protection of the resource (e.g. Wilderness Act), the evaluation team takes a “hard look” pause to further consider the route’s potential designation based upon the impacts to the resource. Consideration is given to whether the potential or actual impact could be avoided, minimized or mitigated, and if so, what steps would need to be taken (e.g. seasonal closure, vehicle type limitations, speed limits, species-specific mitigation measures). If the route must be closed for legal reasons, the evaluation of the route still continues to gather additional data that may be utilized or is often necessary for a thorough analysis of the larger planning area (e.g. landscape perspective, collective effects). It is important to remember that the information gathered by the Route Evaluation Tree Process^© is not just for use during the route evaluations. It can be utilized for other current or future planning efforts so it is important to be as thorough as possible in the evaluation phase of the process.

Each route evaluation progresses through an entire pathway of the Route Evaluation Tree^© as a means of gathering information that will be considered during the designation step and possibly utilized in future planning efforts. No pathway is stopped prematurely based upon a specific response to a question. This assists the evaluation team in considering collective effects and provides them with a more thorough understanding of issues and uses pertaining not only to the individual route, but also to the travel management unit and planning area as a whole. The evaluation team is thus better suited to consider the “landscape perspective” as each route is evaluated, with a more thorough understanding of the flora and fauna, as well as the commercial, administrative and public uses of the area. This full pathway for each route is the key to a systematic and logical approach, verifying that the same questions are asked of each route and that the same type of information is gathered for each route.

Once all the questions along the specific pathway of the Route Evaluation Tree^© have been asked and answered, and the responses and details about each response collected into the software, the evaluation team is directed to a specific “rosette” of possible recommended designations for the route based upon the information gathered through the evaluation process. See step 18 (recommending a designation) for a discussion of the rosette and the next step in the process.

1. It is recognized that there is still much information that is unknown (e.g. cultural sites). Therefore, in those circumstances when a particular type of impact is not identified or when on a broader basis there are no identifiable impacts and the answer to the impacts question is “No”, it is actually recognized that the impacts are non-existent or unknown. The effective use of the memo fields described above to address the “unknowns” is therefore strongly encouraged.