Www.blm.gov
|Evaluation Form for Interdisciplinary Route Analysis |
|1 |Route ID | |2 |Length | |
|3 |Location | |4 |Date | |
|5 |ID Team | |
|6 |Route Type |
| |Additional Comments Regarding the Purpose & Need of Motorized and Non-Motorized Travel on the Route: |
| | |
| | |
|8 |Potential Resource and/or User Conflicts from Motorized and Non-Motorized Travel on the Route: |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |Additional Comments Regarding Potential Resource and/or User Conflicts from Motorized and Non-Motorized Travel on the Route: |
| | |
| | |
|9 |Route Designation Alternatives |
| |No Action |
|10 |Recommended Mitigation Measures to Minimize User and Resource Conflicts for Each Alternative: |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|11 |Summary Regarding the ID Team’s Proposed Action Recommendation: |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Evaluation Checklist |
|for Interdisciplinary Route Analysis |
|Purpose & Need Criteria |Resource Criteria |
|Administrative Uses |Resource |Potentially |Comment |
| | |Affected? | |
|Use |Yes |Comment | | | |
|Fire Suppression | | |* Air Quality - Non-Attainment Area | | |
|Predator Control | | |* Wildlife | | |
|Public Safety | | |* Special Status Species #1 Habitat | | |
|Training Area/Facility | | |* Proximity to Special Status Species #1 | | |
| | | |Habitat | | |
|Vegetation Treatment Area | | |* Special Status Species #2 Habitat | | |
|Wildlife Water | | |* Proximity to Special Status Species #2 | | |
| | | |Habitat | | |
|Other Administrative Uses | | |In a Wash | | |
|Commercial Uses |Wash Crossing | | |
|Use |Yes |Comment |Proximity to a Wash | | |
|Mining | | |Herd Management Area | | |
|Mineral/Materials | | |* Vegetation | | |
|Fluid Minerals | | |* Special Status Plant Species #1 | | |
|Renewable Energy | | |* Special Status Plant Species #2 | | |
|Right-of-Way | | |Invasive Non-Native Vegetation | | |
|Utility | | |Other Vegetation | | |
|Special Recreation Permits | | |* Soils | | |
|Other Commercial Uses | | |Erosive Soils | | |
|Public Uses |Other Sensitive Soils | | |
|Use |Yes |Comment |* Watershed | | |
|Class B Road | | |Stream Crossing | | |
|Other Public Uses | | |* Cultural Resource Site | | |
|Recreational Uses |Proximity to Cultural Resource Site | | |
|Use |Yes |Comment |High Probability Cultural Resource Area | | |
|Trailhead Access | | |* Visual Resource Management Class | | |
|Loop/Connector Trail | | |Known Visual Scar | | |
|Dispersed Camping | | |* ACEC | | |
|Developed Camping | | |* Wilderness | | |
|* Hunting | | |* Wilderness Study Area | | |
|* Recreational Shooting | | |* Natural Area | | |
|* Fishing | | |Wilderness Characteristics | | |
|* Equestrian | | |Other Wilderness Characteristic Considerations | | |
|* Mountain Biking | | |* Wild & Scenic River | | |
|* Hiking | | |* National Historic Trail | | |
|Permitted OHV Events | | |Special Recreation Management Area | | |
|Wildlife Viewing | | |Recreation Management Zone | | |
|Rock hounding | | |Prescribed Recreation Setting (ROS) | | |
|Picnicking | | |* Conflicts with Other Recreational Users | | |
|Pullouts | | |* Noise | | |
|Woodcutting | | |* Adjacent Communities | | |
|Other Recreational Uses | | |Other Criteria | | |
* Signifies that there is an applicable law, regulation, Executive Order, or policy that REQUIRES this use, resource, or conflict to be considered.
Note: There is a presumption that boxes left unmarked were considered by the interdisciplinary team, and the team determined that a purpose and need is not present and/or user/resource conflicts do not exist.
|Instructions for |
|Evaluation Form for Interdisciplinary Route Analysis |
|1 |Route ID |Assign a Route ID for planning purposes. The Route ID should be |2 |Length |Length in miles. |
| | |consistently referenced in the plan, GIS, and other supporting | | | |
| | |documents in the administrative record. Include any common names. | | | |
|3 |Location |Identify the county and any other major geographic features of the |4 |Date |Date(s) the ID team evaluation took place. |
| | |area the route is in. | | | |
|5 |ID Team |All ID team members present during the evaluation. |
|6 |Route Type |
|7 |Purpose & Need of Motorized and Non-Motorized Travel on the Route: |
| |Identify all known forms of motorized and non-motorized travel that currently occur on the route including, but not limited to, four- wheel drive vehicles, |
| |two-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, mountain bikes, horseback riding, motorcycles, snowmobiles, sand rails, rock crawlers, etc. |
| |On the attached checklist, identify the purpose and need of any existing commercial, administrative, and/or recreational forms of travel on the route. |
| |Include any substantiated purposes and needs identified through public scoping comments. |
| |Identify any statutory, regulatory, and/or existing authorizations that would mandate some form of motorized or non-motorized travel on the route. |
| |Additional Comments Regarding the Purpose & Need of Motorized and Non-Motorized on the Route: |
|8 |Potential Resource and/or User Conflicts from Motorized and Non-Motorized on the Route: |
| |On the attached checklist, identify all known or potential resource and user conflicts from motorized and non-motorized travel on the route. Include any |
| |substantiated conflicts identified through public scoping comments. |
| |Ensure that all resources and users encompassed under the BLM’s multiple-use mission are considered. Resource and user conflicts that MUST be evaluated for|
| |every OHV Area proposal include, but are not limited to: |
| |The designation criteria outlined in 43 CFR 8342.1, focused on minimization of resource and user conflicts identified; |
| |Any resources that must be considered under applicable statutes, regulations, or executive orders; |
| |The goals and objectives for resource values and uses established in the applicable Resource Management Plan; |
| |Any objects or values the BLM is required to manage/protect under statute or proclamation; |
| |Any recognized purpose and need of each route, including, but not limited to, recreational, administrative, and/or authorized motorized travel; and |
| |Any other local issues identified through internal or external scoping that should be addressed. |
| |Additional Comments Regarding Potential Resource and/or User Conflicts from Motorized and Non-Motorized on the Route: |
|9 |Route Designation Alternatives: |
| |Potential route designations include, but are not limited to, Open to All Forms Travel, Open with Mitigation, Open to Specific Vehicle Types, Limited to |
| |Non-Motorized Forms of Travel, Limited Seasonally, and Closed. |
| |If appropriate, route designations should be further classified to address over-the-snow travel. This may result in different types of overlapping |
| |designations for the same route based on season. |
| |No Action |
|10 |Proposed Mitigation Measure to Minimize User and Resource Conflicts for Each Alternative: |
| |Describe any recommended mitigation measures for the route and whether they would vary by each alternative. Briefly describe how the mitigation measures |
| |would minimize the existing or potential resource and user conflicts. |
|11 |Summary Regarding the ID Team’s Proposed Action Recommendation: |
| |Highlight how the team weighed the primary purposes and needs for travel on the route, along with any proposed mitigation measures, against any major |
| |resource and user conflicts. Identify any other key route designations in the Proposed Action that warranted the ID team’s recommendation for this route. |
| |Summary should discuss how the route designation best fits the BLM’s multiple-use mission. |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.