Advanced Resource Solutions, Inc.

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

Route Evaluation Tree Process^© FAQs

We have heard many questions over the years about the Route Evaluation Tree Process^©. Below are some of the more common questions, many of which clarify misconceptions about the Route Evaluation Tree Process^©.

If you have any question about the Route Evaluation Tree Process^©, please contact ARS at info@arsplanning.com. If you have any questions regarding individual projects, we can refer you to the appropriate agency to address those project-specific questions.

Q: Does the Route Evaluation Tree Process^© “weigh” some factors more heavily than others?

A: It must be remembered that the Route Evaluation Tree Process^© encompasses more than just route evaluation and designation. It includes steps to be taken both before and after the actual route evaluation and designation is performed. Throughout the process, a certain of amount of weighting is applied to various factors. For example:

First, when issues (e.g. T&E species) are identified by agency staff, they become a principal focus of the management goals and desired future conditions.

Second, certain factors are again weighted by agency staff as routes are evaluated (e.g. management indicator species, T&E species) to determine the proposed designation.

Third, the assignment of “weight” or “importance value” of certain factors is again addressed via discussion between agency staff as each route is given a range of suggested designations. How factors are weighed is based upon either the paradigms of the alternative as determined by agency staff (e.g. management goals) and/or the type of factor.

Fourth, the weighting of certain factors ultimately bears heavily as the agency staff develops the preferred alternative.

Fifth, certain “priority” or “weighted” factors are addressed in the NEPA document prescriptions.

And lastly, these weighted factors are again specially addressed in the implementation plan.

The weighting of factors occurs at several steps in the process, but it is not emphasized during the phase in which data is collected about the area or route. The available data is collected as objectively as possible. The weighting comes into play with regards to how the data is considered by agency staff as the data applies to the alternatives.

Q: The Route Evaluation Tree^© and software are copyrighted. I’ve heard they are impervious to alteration based upon public comment.

A: The Route Evaluation Tree^© itself has evolved over a period of more than three years to its current state, with many of the changes being made in response to comments and suggestions from both the agencies and the public for clarification and content purposes (e.g. clarifying questions, including additional categories of items, etc.).

Additionally, the Route Evaluation Tree^© software is designed to be customized for each project to reflect the specific issues for each planning area. The software provides very detailed drop-down menus that provide the agency with the option to include any topic they wish to be identified. The agency’s input and the public’s input have resulted in menus being customized to clearly reflect the issues, concerns and benefits that must be considered as part of a successful route evaluation and designation process.

Q: Does the Route Evaluation Tree^© consider critical issues such as impacts to wildlife, soils and water quality?

A: Absolutely! Route evaluation and designation cannot be performed without considering these key issues. From its incipience, the Route Evaluation Tree^© has considered impacts to sensitive resources such as wildlife (e.g. desert tortoise, game and non-game wildlife, listed species, etc.), soils (e.g. areas of erosive soils, specific route erosion concerns) and water quality (e.g. river and/or creek crossings, erosion impacts), amongst others.

One of the earliest versions of the Route Evaluation Tree^© (2002) asked questions such as:

• Does the route impact sensitive species or occupied habitat of sensitive species?

Through evolution of the process, the Route Evaluation Tree^© has developed into its current format that asks broad “trigger” or topical questions, under which there are many individual items that must be addressed. One of the topical questions, the large green box on the Route Evaluation Tree^© diagram, deals with sensitive resources. The evaluation team is asked to identify specific impacts, such as:

• Cultural Impacts (both known and suspected/modeled)

• Special Management Units (e.g. National Monuments, Wilderness Study Areas)

• Air, Water, and Soil Resources (e.g. PM10 non-attainment areas, stream crossings, sensitive soils)

• Route Density/Habitat Fragmentation

• Sensitive Habitats (e.g. riparian, habitat conservation areas)

• Sensitive Resources, including T&E species and management indicator species (e.g. wildlife, plants)

• Human Interaction Conflicts (both actual and potential) (e.g. user conflicts, trespass, route proliferation)

• Other Hazards (e.g. unexploded ordinances)

The above list is not all inclusive as the drop-down menus utilized by the Route Evaluation Tree Process^© are very detailed and significantly longer than this list. These items are just illustrative of the types of impacts considered during the route evaluation and designation process.

Q: Is route designation being done by the computer?

A: No, the human element is not removed from the route evaluation and designation process. The Route Evaluation Tree^© software is a tool designed to organize data in a trackable, systematic, retrievable, analysis-ready format. The Route Evaluation Tree^© does not designate routes. The Route Evaluation Tree^© collects information about the routes based upon the data known to and received by the agency and inputs that data into a database through a series of questions. Once the data has been collected and the questions have been answered, the Route Evaluation Tree^© software provides a potential designation or range of designations to the agency staff for their consideration.

During the NEPA process, the agency staff will develop a range of alternatives as required by NEPA, and based upon the sideboards of each alternative, identify draft designations of routes. All final route designations will be identified by the agency staff, not the software. The proposed designations determined by the agency staff is recorded in the software.

ARS’s Route Evaluation Tree^© and process is a tool to help organize data. The software helps prepare the data collected for later analysis, but it does not replace NEPA in any way, nor does it make the decision for the agency. It presents potential route designations and identifies possible options that may be developed into alternatives at a later stage, but the route evaluation is subject to continual feedback for both process and data improvement.

Q: I’ve heard the public is not involved in the process. Is that true?

A: There are concerns that the agencies must address when it comes to statutory requirements and limitations regarding public input into planning processes. These concerns largely are based upon compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). For more information, search the internet for “FACA” along with the specific agency in question to obtain more information about their specific directives and interpretation of the act.

The level of public participation is guided by the individual agencies. There are various ways in which the public can be involved in the route evaluation process and ARS encourages the agencies to solicit public involvement as early and often as possible given potential statutory constraints through methods such as:

• public meetings

• personal contact

• mailings

• website

While the public can participate by providing input and feedback on the work products of the agency, it is not always possible for the public to participate in the actual route evaluation and designation. Whether the public is actually involved in the deliberations that occur as part of the route evaluation process is determined by the agency and dictated by the various statutes that govern or give guidance on public involvement (e.g. FACA, NEPA). As such, the actual evaluations and designations generally occur during meetings with agency staff and the work products from those meetings are then made available to the public during the NEPA process for feedback.

Q: Is the Route Evaluation Tree^© a replacement for NEPA?

A: The Route Evaluation Tree^© is not a replacement for NEPA and does not perform NEPA analysis. The Route Evaluation Tree^© is a tool for gathering data to assist in the collection of some of the information that may be helpful in a NEPA analysis for current or future planning efforts, including those that would fall under NEPA. The data collected by the Route Evaluation Tree^© may be utilized by the agency during their NEPA planning process, but in and of itself, the Route Evaluation Tree^© and the data collected do not perform NEPA analysis. The information collected through the Route Evaluation Tree^© may not be the entire content of data utilized by an agency during the NEPA process. The agency staff are able to query the data collected and use it in conjunction with any other necessary data that to adequately perform the required NEPA analysis.

Q: Why doesn’t the Route Evaluation Tree^© close more routes?

Q: Why does the Route Evaluation Tree^© close so many routes?

A: Whether the number routes closed is too many or too few will depend upon an individual’s or an organization’s opinion and the interests they wish to promote. There is no predetermined outcome of the Route Evaluation Tree^© process as to the number of routes that will be closed, limited or opened. A predetermined outcome would detract from the ability of the project to provide a living, dynamic plan that will assist in the agency’s management of the travel plan.

The Route Evaluation Tree^© does not close or open routes; the agency makes the designations. The agency determines the route designations based upon project- and site-specific issues and criteria related to those issues. Those issues are identified and their associated criteria may be developed as part of this process or in conjunction with the NEPA process. This is done in order to help address statutory requirements, and public and other governmental-agency input.

Based upon statutory authority, some routes may be required to remain open (e.g. county-road right-of-way) while others may be required to be closed (e.g. an unauthorized route into Wilderness). However, the route evaluation and designation process must consider many factors prior to determining the appropriate designation for a route. The designations generally are based upon the following thought pattern:

“After consideration of this route’s characteristics, uses, impacts and benefits, both individually and collectively, and after consideration of these items along with the characteristics, needs, impacts and benefits of the surrounding routes and areas, the route’s designation is ________, aligning with the desired future conditions for the area and the management goals for this alternative.”

The Route Evaluation Tree^© does not make a determination as to the “correct” number of closed, open or limited routes. Rather, it serves as a tool to help the agency gather information regarding possible impacts, benefits and needs that can be utilized by the agency to develop an appropriate designation after careful consideration of those possible impacts, benefits and needs.

Q: Each planning area is so different. How does the Route Evaluation Tree^© address the issues of all planning areas?

A: Each planning area is faced with a basic set of planning issues relating to topics such as:

• Air Resources	• Rangeland Management/Grazing
• Biological Resources	• Recreation Management
• Cultural Resources	• Socioeconomics
• Energy Production and Transmission	• Soil Conservation
• Environmental Justice	• Special Area Designations
• Fire Management	• Transportation and Public Access
• Geology	• User Conflicts
• Hazardous Materials	• Visual Resource Management
• Lands and Realty	• Water Quality
• Mineral Resources	• Wilderness Characteristics
• Paleontological Resources

These umbrella topics all fall under the basic questions of the Route Evaluation Tree^©. However, the specifics regarding each of these topics may vary by planning area. Therefore, based upon consultation with the agency specialists, the drop-down menus within the Route Evaluation Tree^© software are customized to reflect those issues specific to the planning area.

For example:

Biological resources are often the most detailed drop-down menus developed with the agency staff. Sage Grouse may be an issue in Colorado but not in Arizona and thus Sage Grouse would appear in the menus for a Colorado-based project. Similarly, Desert Tortoise is a concern in Arizona, but would not be a concern in Oregon and thus a project in Arizona would include a drop-down menu item for Desert Tortoise but a project in Oregon would not. Additionally, the degree to which information is collected about a sensitive resource is determined with agency resource specialists. A drop-down menu for Desert Tortoise may include the following items:

• In Class I Habitat

• Proximate to Class I Habitat

• In Class II Habitat

• Proximate to Class II Habitat

• In Class III Habitat

• Proximate to Class III Habitat

The distance of “proximate” is established by the agency resource specialist prior to route evaluation and the items that would appear in the menu for any species are based upon the specific issues of the planning area. If the entire planning area has no Class III habitat, that item would not appear in the drop-down menu.

The drop-down menus for potential commercial/administrative needs are also updated. Some planning areas include adjacent military facilities. In those instances, military activities may affect the use and access needs of certain routes and military facilities would be included in the drop-down menu for commercial / administrative activities. Further, some planning areas may have “wind farms” for energy production while others may have hydrological energy sources. Therefore the utilities menu would be customized to reflect the actual issues.

Similarly, the drop-down menu for recreational uses is customized to reflect the activities of each planning area. Snowmobiles are a popular recreational activity in northern Colorado, but certainly not in southern Arizona. Water-based activities (e.g., swimming, boating, fishing) are available along the Colorado River, however those activities may not be available in other areas of Arizona.

Because not all issues are pertinent to every planning area, the drop-down menus are customized at the beginning of each project as part of the Route Evaluation Tree Process^©. We start with a basic menu, then based upon consultation with agency specialists we add (and/or delete) as necessary to create a menu that is customized to reflect planning area issues.

or, jump to:

©Advanced Resource Solutions, Inc., 2002-2005. Patent Pending.