Riporter 14.3

Autumn Equinox 2009. Volume 14 No. 3

The Political Economy of Watershed Restoration By Josh Hurd

Protecting water quality through restoring watersheds has always made good economic sense. Now, it’s become politically feasible as well. Photo above by Adam Switalski, at right by Dan Funsch.

— story begins on page 3 —

Inside… A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 The Political Economy of Watershed Restoration, by Josh Hurd. Pages 3-5 DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder. Pages 6-7

Odes to Roads: The Spirit of Restoration, Part Two, by Thomas R. Petersen. Pages 8-9 Legal Notes, by Mike Anderson. Pages 10-11 Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation Program Updates. Pages 12-13

Field Notes, The Economic Impacts of the 2008 Legacy Roads & Trails Remediation Initiative in Idaho and Montana, by The Wilderness Society. Pages 14-15 Biblio Notes: A Review of the Impacts of ORVs on Soil, by Adam Switalski and Allison Jones. Pages 16-18

Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 19-21 Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Visit us online:

wildlandscpr.org

P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

A Watershed Speech “Our shared vision must begin with a complete commitment to restoration. Restoration, for me, means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources while making our forests far more resilient to climate change.” — US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. With these words, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack set out a new vision for national forest management — one that harkens back to the foundation of the Forest Service more than 100 years ago, with a primary focus on protecting water resources. While his speech did stray into the more familiar topics of hazardous fuel reduction, fire danger, insects, and other “timber management” issues, it was refreshing that in this era of climate change he chose water and watershed health to set the context of his remarks. It seems that it really may be a new vision for the agency. Roads, it turns out, are one of the biggest contributors to water quality problems on our national forests. Vilsack wasn’t afraid to mention this, nor was the person who introduced him, Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA). As part of his introduction, Dicks touted some of the initial successes of the Forest Service’s Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (see many previous RIPorters). Legacy Roads has provided $90 million in the last two years to protect and restore clean drinking water and endangered fisheries habitat by fixing culverts and performing other critical maintenance on needed roads, while decommissioning unneeded roads. While Legacy Roads continues, the agency is beginning to look at their road system in a different way, acknowledging both its oversized capacity and the profound ecological effects the system has, especially in light of the multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Even former FS Chief Gail Kimbell acknowledged the need to “rightsize” the forest road system in testimony provided to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees this spring. And we must note that Vilsack did explicitly state that, “In many of our forests, restoration will also include efforts to improve or decommission roads, to replace and improve culverts, and to rehabilitate streams and wetlands.” So there it is, in black and white – road decommissioning will be part of the future of national forest management. The agency is on the verge of moving in a new direction. They’ve been there before and then fallen back into their same old ruts. But by taking the bull by the horns at the beginning of his tenure, Vilsack has the potential to push the Forest Service into an agency focused on watershed restoration at its core. Speeches alone won’t make that happen. He must pressure new FS Chief Tom Tidwell to translate vision into reality by providing the structure and capacity to build a new Forest Service for the 21st Century — one that focuses on restoring watershed health and water quality, especially in light of climate change. We can only hope that there’s a brand new beginning for the Forest Service that immediately builds from the words Vilsack used at the end of his speech: “But I return again to the simple act that we Americans often take for granted every day: turning on those water faucets. The clean water that emerges is made possible in large part by the stewardship of our working rural land and our forests in particular. My hope, and I trust you share it, is that together we can foster a greater appreciation in this country for our forests and that all Americans, regardless of where they live, see the quality of their lives, and the quality of their forests as inseparable.”

2

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by promoting watershed restoration that improves fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and enhances community economies. We focus on reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands. Director Bethanie Walder

Development Director Tom Petersen Science Coordinator Adam Switalski

Legal and Agency Liaison Sarah Peters Montana State ORV Coordinator Adam Rissien

Restoration Campaign Coordinator Sue Gunn Program Associate Cathrine L. Walters Journal Editor Dan Funsch Interns & Volunteers Adam Bender, Heather McAdams, Greg Peters, Stuart Smith Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd, Crystal Mario, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben © 2009 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

The Political Economy of Watershed Restoration By Josh Hurd Editor’s Note: This is an Executive Summary from Wildlands CPR’s report. For a copy of the full report, or each of the six individual reports, go to: www.wildlandscpr.org/resources.

W

atershed restoration provides much more to society than just clear streams, clean drinking water, healthy aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, and thriving forests. It also constitutes an increasingly important part of rural and urban economies. Restoration employs thousands of Americans, many from declining extraction-based sectors of the economy, in well-paying jobs. It often increases long-term community vitality and quality of life. Watershed restoration presents a rare “win-win” situation to conservation and business communities. As such, an expansion of the ecological restoration sector of the economy is in the nation’s best interest.

Unfortunately, relatively little research has been done on the watershed restoration sector of the economy. Important questions remain unanswered. What does the public think about watershed restoration? Who funds most current restoration projects? What policy changes are needed to expand the restoration economy? Wildlands CPR undertook an ambitious yearlong research project to help provide some answers, culminating in the publication of six reports: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Perceptions of Watershed Restoration; Economic Benefits of Watershed Restoration; Characteristics of Watershed Restoration Funding; Innovative Financial Mechanisms to Fund Watershed Restoration; Business and Regulatory Environments of Watershed Restoration; and 6. Possibilities of Forming an Ecological Restoration Trade Association. These reports are an important first step in building up knowledge about various aspects of the watershed restoration economy. This executive summary discusses the findings of each of the six reports, and concludes with a summary of the most important recommendations.

What is Watershed Restoration?

Ecological restoration activists, scientists, and practitioners debate about what actually constitutes proper restoration. The Society for Ecological Restoration’s definition is: Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. This leaves much room for interpretation and goes beyond watersheds to include all ecological restoration. For our research, we deemed a project or activity restoration-related if it seemed to fit the spirit of the Society for Ecological Restoration’s definition, especially as applied to watersheds. Some management activities are controversially labeled as restoration, and we purposefully avoided these contentious issues. We deemed a project watershed-related if the project was designed to affect the terrestrial and aquatic components that impact large or small watersheds. This could include, for example, projects to restore free-flowing rivers through dam removal; projects to reduce stream sedimentation through road removal; in-stream restoration activities; mining reclamation that would reduce or

As the first major U.S. city to undertake a comprehensive watershed restoration effort, Seattle focused on the Cedar Creek watershed, from which much of the city’s drinking water flows. Photo by Adam Switalski.

prevent acid mine-drainage; etc. We did not include projects that dealt exclusively with forest stand manipulation to address forest structure or fuel hazard reduction, as these projects do not typically consider watershed benefits as their primary purpose. In addition, urban resource management and watershed restoration may be integrally related. For example, Maryland has a program that taxes household sewer connections in order to pay for sewage treatment plant upgrades. While this project in and of itself may not be watershed restoration, the project is part of a much larger watershed-level effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. One major component of the restoration program in the Chesapeake is pollution prevention, to ensure that the water entering the bay is as clean as possible. Thus we deemed the Maryland subprogram as a watershed restoration activity because its ultimate purpose was to enhance the watershed.

— continued on page 4 —

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

3

— continued from page 3 —

Public Perceptions of Watershed Restoration Understanding public perceptions of watershed restoration is critically important to ensure public support for restoration activities. The public elects officials who have political sway in implementing projects. They vote on bond measures and other restoration funding mechanisms. They also can vociferously oppose projects. We conducted research into how the public perceives watershed restoration activities in order to better address these issues, reaching the following conclusions: •

•

•

Among Americans’ environmental concerns, clean drinking water is at the top of the list. Accordingly, they are also concerned about healthy lakes, rivers, and streams; While almost 70% of Americans support watershed restoration, an even greater number — 90% — are concerned about healthy lakes, rivers, and streams; and People are primarily concerned about their local environments and are most motivated to support local watershed restoration efforts.

Economic Characteristics and Benefits of Watershed Restoration People often misunderstand watershed restoration as an activity with no product. This misunderstanding is predictable given the complex economic nature of restoration activities. Therefore, it is critical to understand both how watershed restoration fits within an economic framework and the general economic benefits arising from restoration. Our research found the following: •

•

•

4

Watershed restoration is subject to market factors that make its goods and services difficult to trade in traditional economic markets. This usually results in the government acting as the primary provider of watershed restoration. The demand comes from society as a whole, since restored watersheds are a public good; Measured by damage caused, willingness to pay, political referenda, averted expenditures, travel costs incurred, and changes in housing values, researchers consistently conclude that watershed restoration has significant economic benefits; and Watershed restoration projects have other economic benefits as well, directly and indirectly employing many people and potentially contributing to the long-term viability and growth of communities.

A former road in the Cedar Creek watershed, ten years after its restoration. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Characteristics of Watershed Restoration Funding Because so few traditional markets exist for the products that arise from healthy watersheds, local, state, and federal governments fund the majority of restoration efforts. However, little research exists on how these governments go about funding this work. By understanding funding mechanisms and trends in their use, the public can become better informed about how to increase funding for restoration activities. Our research concluded: •

•

•

State and local governments usually provide the majority of funds for major watershed restoration projects, although the federal government does significantly contribute; A large variety of funding mechanisms provided by different levels of government typically fund largescale and consistently viable restoration projects; and A heavy reliance on issuing debt (e.g. bonds) to pay for restoration activities may change how governments fund watershed restoration in the future.

Innovative Financial Mechanisms to Fund Watershed Restoration The watershed restoration sector of the economy needs more funding sources. Even though various levels of government already fund—directly or indirectly—the majority of restoration work, these financial and regulatory mechanisms do not achieve the level of restoration that the country needs for a more sustainable natural environment and for a sustained, long-term restoration sector of the economy. We investigated possible financial recommendations and reached the following findings:

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

•

•

•

Funding mechanisms differ according to whether liable parties exist that have caused or continue to cause the environmental damage that requires restoration; A variety of innovative and promising funding options exist, including mitigation banking, taxes on damaging activities, tax increment financing, special governmental districts, resort taxes, and surcharges on retail goods; and Future national climate change legislation has the potential to fund watershed restoration activities. While the science and economics behind whether carbon offsets can fund watershed restoration is uncertain, the potential does exist to fund restoration through adaptation and mitigation monies.

•

•

Recommendations These research findings on the various aspects of the restoration sector of the economy yielded many recommendations. The following five items are among the most important: •

Business and Regulatory Environments of Watershed Restoration The watershed restoration economy would not exist without the private businesses that implement restoration work. Without robust growth and revenue generating opportunities, expanding and mainstreaming the restoration economy is unlikely. Therefore, it is prudent to analyze what the business environment of watershed restoration is like, what helps and hinders it, and what precipitates long-term economic viability within the sector. This analysis yielded the following results: •

• •

Preliminary evidence shows that watershed restoration firms who engage in federal contracts tend to be small businesses that employ less than ten people and have annual revenues of less than one million dollars. The majority of the firms principally engage in construction activities, but many forestry, consultative, and administrative firms exist as well; The permitting process for restoration projects can be duplicative and time consuming, but permitting is required to ensure good work; Some practitioners are concerned about liability for their restoration treatments, fearing that they could face lawsuits if their work fails for unforeseen and unintended reasons 10 or 20 years in the future.

A trade association would be best equipped to alleviate the significant gap of knowledge that still exists on the ecological restoration sector of the economy; and Restoration firms must perceive that the benefits of joining a trade association would outweigh the time and money it costs them.

•

• • •

Environmental activists should develop talking points and formalize a public relations campaign to better inform the public about the connection between restoring watersheds and clean drinking water; To ensure financial stability, the restoration sector of the economy needs multiple new funding sources that should be at local, state, and national levels and consist of multiple different mechanisms; Government agencies should consider implementing streamlined and coordinated watershed restoration permitting processes; Government agencies should enact a wider variety of permit shields for properly designed watershed restoration projects; and Businesses that engage in ecological restoration should form an industry trade association that lobbies all levels of government for business-friendly restoration policy, researches industry activities, and undertakes critical public outreach.

Possibilities of Forming an Ecological Restoration Trade Association Changes in public policy greatly affect the ecological restoration industry. Many other industries that are similarly dependent on the government for their existence have formed themselves into trade associations to influence public policy to their advantage. In doing so, they leverage the respect, influence, and resources of their entire industry to help shape their own future. We researched the possibility of forming an ecological restoration trade association, concluding that: •

The primary goal of a restoration trade association would likely be to conduct lobbying and outreach in order to expand market opportunity, influence regulation, and maximize profits for shareholders;

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Matting was used on the old roadbed to prevent weeds. Photo by Adam Switalski.

5

Fifteen Years and Going Strong By Bethanie Walder

S

ometimes you get so busy with day-to-day work that you don’t even realize when you’ve crossed an important milestone. That’s just what happened this June at our annual board/staff retreat when we realized it was our 15th anniversary this year. And what a busy, exciting and successful 15 years it’s been… Wildlands CPR was founded in 1994 by a group of activists, conservation biologists and environmental lawyers who met to share strategies for fighting roads and off-road vehicles on public lands. Founders Katie Alvord and Kraig Klungness coordinated the meeting and took on the responsibility to implement the many strategies that were developed there, including creating a new organization to act as a clearinghouse for scientific, legal and strategic information about roads and ORVs on public lands. Katie and Kraig spent that first year overseeing the development of some of Wildlands CPR’s resources that remain key foundations of our work, including: • a bibliographic database on the ecological effects of roads (first developed by Reed Noss in 1995, and updated every other year since then) – now in the update process for 2009 and including more than 12,000 citations; • the “Road-Ripper’s” Guides to the Forest Service, Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, quickly followed by guides to off-road vehicles and road removal; and • our original workshop series to train citizen activists to document roads and calculate road densities to pressure the agency to comply with road management standards. During our first few years we focused primarily on being a clearinghouse, providing assistance to thousands of activists on road and ORV strategy questions, while also training more than 1,000 activists to conduct road surveys and ORV impact surveys. Our bibliographic database was publicized long before “road ecology” became popular, providing a critical resource to land managers, scientists, activists and decision-makers regarding the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles – the database has been used by people all over the world, and by every land management agency in the country. After that initial burst of key resources, we focused the next few years on building strong relationships with grassroots groups throughout the country. Those relationships provided us with a unique “bird’s eye-view” about common management problems/themes cropping up in multiple places, enabling us to provide strategic leadership on public lands transportation policy reform nationally. For example, in 1999 we led a coalition of more than 100 groups to formally petition the Forest Service to overhaul their off-road vehicle management. (A few years later we updated our strategic plan with a specific goal of stopping cross-country ORV travel on

6

The fragility of natural systems requires us to practice land management with humility; restoring wildlands represents just such an approach. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

50% of the national forests.) Our petition provided a compendium of the available science on off-road vehicle impacts, as well as site-specific examples of problematic management on dozens of national forests. In large part as a response to our 1999 petition (though perhaps a little after the fact), in 2005 the Forest Service began a national “transportation planning process” to close national forest lands to cross-country travel and to complete new travel plans for all national forests. We’ve been co-leading (with The Wilderness Society) the national campaign to influence these travel planning processes. And while travel planning isn’t finished yet, to date it appears that more than 20,000 miles of roads and user-created routes have been closed (about ¼ of the former, ¾ of the latter), and more than 10 million acres of land have been protected from cross country travel by ORVs. The bulk of the decisions will be coming out in the next 12-15 months, and the trend looks positive for a continuation of statistics like these. We’re thrilled to report that by the end of 2010, as the new travel plans come on line, nearly all national forest lands will be closed to cross country travel (except in discrete designated areas).

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

And it’s not just on the ORV side that we’ve been succeeding – Wildlands CPR is trusted by state and federal agency staff, congressional staff, activists and university professors as THE source for information about watershed restoration emphasizing road reclamation. During the past few years we’ve focused our energy on securing new funding for the Forest Service, in particular to implement watershed restoration priorities, and we’ve been outrageously successful. In fiscal years 2008-09 combined, the FS received ~$90 million for the newly created Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative. They also received at least $228 million in stimulus funds for road and trail maintenance, including critical culvert upgrades. While it remains difficult to analyze how those stimulus funds were allocated, we were informed that $25 million of that went directly to road decommissioning work! If you add that to the $90 million already allocated, that’s $115 million in two years, with another $100 million on the table in the FY ’10 appropriations bill that is still under considWildlands CPR Program Associate Cathrine Walters looks ahead to the next 15 eration. We also worked directly in the state of MT years. Photo by Dan Funsch. to increase watershed restoration funding by $34 million in 2007, largely overseen by a new statewide on restoration and jobs in 2003 – once again office of watershed restoration. What are the on the ground results of all showing cutting-edge leadership in the restothat money? The FY ’08 Legacy Roads funds were used to reclaim more ration arena. This year we worked with The than 500 miles of roads nationally, resulting in more than 60,000 acres of Wilderness Society to analyze how many people habitat improved (and many forests didn’t even calculate the habitat acrereceived jobs from the first year’s Legacy Roads age). For FY ’09, the FS estimates it will more than double their restoration allocations in Idaho and Montana (see pages efforts – reclaiming more than 1300 miles of roads, resulting in more than 14-15 this issue), so we could start to show real 65,000 acres of habitat and 566 miles of streams restored this year alone. green jobs progress on the ground. In addition, Wildlands CPR’s work is having an unprecedented and very significant we just completed a series of reports on the impact on the ground! political economy of watershed restoration (see cover story this issue). We understand that A huge obstacle to restoration work has always been funding, thus road reclamation isn’t the only step to restoring our emphasis over the past few years on getting the money to the Forest watersheds, and we’re excited about expanding Service to do the necessary work. And it turns out that all that money our programs to incorporate more watershed provides real jobs on the ground. Wildlands CPR was one of the first restoration activities. conservation organizations to embrace and promote the concept of green jobs – well before it was popular to do so. We published our first report During the past 15 years, Wildlands CPR has been instrumental in dramatically changing transportation management on Forest Service lands, with a couple of small excursions into BLM and Park Service lands as well (e.g. we were part of an important lawsuit that reduced ORV trails in Big Cypress National Preserve (FL) from 23,000 miles of user-created routes to 400 miles of designated routes). Our work has increased the Forest Service’s capacity to restore watersheds by reclaiming unneeded roads and upgrading/maintaining needed roads. We have also played an essential role in beginning to reform Forest Service off-road vehicle management nationally. Thanks to our many grassroots partners, and our extraordinarily talented staff, we’ve been able to identify effective, cuttingedge strategies that have profound results on the ground. We’re looking forward to continuing to provide leadership to the conservation community and public land managers regarding transportation and watershed restoration for at least another 15 years! Wildlands CPR has been a leading catalyst for restoring wildlands through road removal. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

7

The Spirit of Restoration By Thomas R. Petersen

Editor’s Note: This is the conclusion of a two-part series.

Photo by Steve Dutch.

N

on-native people are also considering spirit in restoration. William R. Jordan III, who was editor of the journal “Restoration and Management Notes” (now called “Ecological Restoration”), says this about the act of restoration: “It isn’t enough, having caused harm, or just having caused change, to say, ‘We won’t do it anymore.’ There should be recompense, in kind. What do you do to recompense for causing change in the case of nature? What you do should be some rich, deeply conceived act, carried out in terms that address the wrong. Having a landscape with lots of nature in it depends on finding a way to connect nature with culture. Restoration has a crucial component to bring to that relationship. Indigenous cultures generally tried to achieve some reciprocal relationship with nature, mediated into material and spiritual terms. Restoration, at the mechanical level, is the mechanical part of that reciprocal relationship.” But what is the spiritual part of that reciprocal relationship?

8

Bill TallBull was a Northern Cheyenne elder and member of the Medicine Wheel Alliance, a group of native and non-native people formed to protect the Wheel, especially in native people’s use of the site for vision quests and sacred ceremonies. President Clinton selected TallBull as a member of the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for sacred sites. Before he passed away, TallBull spoke with me about the spirits that inhabit not just the Medicine Wheel but all of Medicine Mountain in northeastern Wyoming. “All over Medicine Mountain,” he explained, “native people see the rock spirits move from one piece of granite to another, they see the tree spirits dash from Douglas fir to ponderosa pine, and we see the plant spirits move among the sage when we collect materials for our ceremonies.” TallBull paused a moment and his coal-black eyes narrowed as if part of him saw the spirits even then. “We have been taught to see these spirits since we were young children, and our elders were taught by their elders. This kind of seeing is a part of us. White people are not taught this way. No wonder we see the spirits and whites don’t.”

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

TallBull said the spirits have been active around Medicine Mountain for thousands of years, and they are active today. TallBull told me of a time when he was walking to the Wheel on a vision quest, approaching quietly from the south along the same ridge Evan and I had walked. A quarter mile from the Wheel he came to a flat stone wall twelve feet high. He stopped. A blood-red wolf appeared from the stone wall as if materializing from the wall itself. It locked its amberyellow eyes on TallBull like two steady flames in a bright red lantern. TallBull stared back at the red wolf. It turned in a circle, once. As suddenly as it appeared, the red wolf melted back into the wall, ghostlike. “I don’t know what the wolf was saying to me,” TallBull reflected. “Maybe nothing. Maybe it was just the mountain’s way of letting me know the spirits were with me, that they were joining me in my journey.” Another native elder says, “…the trees, the four-leggeds, the wingeds, the insects, even stones, all are alive and conscious.” The spirit of restoration considers living spirits in the land, the idea that restoring the physical landscape somehow, with attentiveness and consciousness, also restores these living spirits. This is a different belief system and a different hope from those of most of the modern Western world. Archeologist Michael Wilson suggests that to fully comprehend a site like the Medicine Wheel “… probably requires a world view in which the secular/religious dichotomy simply does not exist.” But restoration is nothing if not pure possibility and the notion that you and I can give back to the land and to some extent reverse the mistakes of the past. Restoration is a positive belief system. William Jordan writes: “Exact restoration is impossible. So is preservation. So let’s get on with the conversation. We have all these influences on the ecosystem which are not only inadvertent,

but invisible to us. What I’m driving at is that it’s the commitment to restore the ecosystem that forces us to explore all that we’ve done to the system, and to uncover all of these hidden, unseen, or unrealized influences. That’s how we get to know who we are in relationship to that system. That experience generates an ecological definition of who we are.”

Restoration is nothing if not pure possibility and the notion that you and I can give back to the land and to some extent reverse the mistakes of the past.

Although this idea of a living earth is new and difficult for many in our Western culture, it was not new to my more ancient ancestors, the northern European and Danish peoples. The Gauls referred to their spiritual faculties being awakened by the Wouivre, telluric (magnetic or cosmic) currents that move through the ground, represented symbolically by serpents. The ancients came to these places to receive what the earth could give them, literally “the Gift of the Earth.” They came not only to be affected by them, but to actively awaken the earth’s dormant energies. It was an exchange, a kind of sacred dialogue, and not a one-way taking. The earth was seen as a living being of matter, and energy currents and interchange took place with humans also possessing this spiritual energy. Dolmens or megaliths—large stones—were placed where these currents were particularly strong. Large stones were gathered centuries ago at the top of Medicine Mountain, in a sacred place that had drawn sojourners there for millennium. The Wheel was formed and rock cairns built. I think of these Celtic dolmens and the currents that course the earth and remember Evan on that snowy Fourth of July at the Wheel. His sky-blue rain jacket lit up the white landscape as he tossed light green sage and soft yellow cornmeal offerings to the wind. But then, surprisingly, Evan fell to his knees at the Wheel and stared at the central cairn. Our family rarely prays in the traditional manner, and never on our knees, and yet Evan seemed pulled to the earth by the presence of something much greater than he or I consciously understood. In the blinding and blowing snow he remained kneeled and fixed.

— Thomas R. Petersen is Development Director for Wildlands CPR, and the editor of the book “A Road Runs Through It.”

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

9

Status of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule By Mike Anderson, The Wilderness Society, and Sarah Peters

T

he Roadless Area Conservation Rule was adopted by the U.S. Forest Service on January 12, 2001, after the most extensive public involvement in the history of federal rulemaking. The Roadless Rule generally prohibited road construction and timber cutting in 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas, covering about 30 percent of the National Forest System. The Roadless Rule came under a coordinated and sustained attack by the timber industry and its allies immediately after it was adopted in January 2001, and over eight years later, a final resolution has not yet been reached.

The Status of the Tongass

Currently, the 2001 Roadless Rule is in effect nationwide except in Idaho and in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Thus, the Forest Service may not undertake activities that violate the Roadless Rule on 40 million out of the 58.5 million total acres of inventoried roadless areas. Roadless area projects in the Tongass National Forest are subject to approval by the Secretary of Agriculture.

In April 2007 the Forest Service agreed to temporarily defer timber sales in the Tongass roadless areas through settlement of a lawsuit over the Tongass land management plan. The Tongass logging moratorium continued until the Forest Service completed a revision of its management plan, which occurred in February 2008.

In December 2003, the Bush Administration amended the Roadless Rule by temporarily exempting the Tongass National Forest’s 9.3 million acres of inventoried roadless areas from the Rule. The exemption, which was adopted pursuant to a settlement of litigation brought by the state of Alaska, was supposed to remain in effect only until the Administration adopted a permanent rule for Alaska. However, no further rulemaking has occurred in Alaska, leaving the legally-viable duration of the Tongass exemption in doubt.

We are now waiting to see whether the Obama Administration will continue the temporary exemption of the Tongass from the Roadless Rule.

The State Petitions Rule and its Demise In May 2005, the Administration repealed the Roadless Rule and replaced it with a state petition process. The State Petitions Rule allowed road building and logging to resume in accordance with local forest management plans, and established a cumbersome process for individual state governors to request different management rules for roadless areas within their respective states. However, there was no certainty that the petition process would result in any protection for roadless areas. In September 2006, Judge Laporte, a federal judge in California, invalidated the Bush Administration’s State Petitions Rule and reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule nationwide, except in the Tongass. Judge Laporte held that the State Petitions Rule amounted to a repeal of the Roadless Rule and had been promulgated without complying with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The Bush Administration appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

Roadless areas — both protected and unprotected — are critical ingredients for a healthy water supply. Photo by Dan Funsch.

10

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Undeterred by the California court’s invalidation of the State Petitions Rule, the Bush Administration relied on general authorities of the Administrative Procedure Act to continue pursuing state-specific amendments to the Roadless Rule. Federal rulemaking processes were initiated for roadless areas in Idaho and Colorado. In October 2008, the Administration adopted a separate roadless rule for the state of Idaho, which has since been challenged in federal court. In Colorado, a draft rule was published in 2008 but not finalized prior to the end of the Bush Administration in January 2009. On August 5, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the California district court decision invalidating the Bush Administration’s rule and reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Ninth Circuit decision required the Forest Service to comply with the Roadless Rule in all national forests except those in Idaho (due to the separate Idaho rule) and the Tongass National Forest, (due to the Tongass temporary exemption).

Under the Obama Administration’s interim directive, Montana roadless areas like this one (along the Idaho state line, containing Heart Lake) are to be managed under the terms of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Photo by Paul Shively.

Yet to be determined is whether the Obama Administration will finalize a Colorado rule and whether the Idaho rule will stand up in court.

We are now waiting to see whether the Tenth Circuit will reverse or affirm Judge Brimmer’s decision that the Roadless Rule violated NEPA and the Wilderness Act.

Conflicting Judicial Decisions

Interim Direction

Contrary to court decisions in the Ninth Circuit upholding the legality of the Roadless Rule, the Wyoming federal district court has twice declared the Rule to be invalid. In August 2008, Judge Brimmer released his second decision on the Roadless Rule, once again ruling that it violated NEPA and the Wilderness Act and enjoining the Forest Service’s use of the Rule nationwide. Environmental intervenors have again appealed Judge Brimmer’s decision to the Tenth Circuit, and on August 6, 2009 the Obama Administration joined them in that appeal.

On May 28, 2009, the Obama Administration issued a one-year interim directive requiring approval by the Secretary of Agriculture of any road-building or logging projects in roadless areas. The directive does not apply to roadless areas in Idaho, but does apply to those in the Tongass National Forest.

Since Judge Brimmer’s injunction was in direct conflict with Judge Laporte’s injunction in California district court, the Bush Administration requested that both the Wyoming and California district courts suspend or change their injunctions in order to relieve the Forest Service of the potential to be held in contempt of court for complying or not complying with the Roadless Rule. In December 2008, Judge Laporte issued a partial stay of her injunction, temporarily reducing the geographic scope of her 2006 injunction to states located within the Ninth Circuit, plus New Mexico (since it is one of the state co-plaintiffs). However, now that the Ninth Circuit has affirmed Judge Laporte’s 2006 decision, the temporary stay has been lifted and the Roadless Rule is back in effect nationwide (except in Idaho and the Tongass National Forest).

Conclusion The current status of the 2001 Roadless Rule is that all National Forests with Inventoried Roadless Areas, except those in Idaho and the Tongass, must comply with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Conflicting decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Wyoming district court put the Forest Service in a difficult legal position, which will likely continue at least until the Tenth Circuit decides on the appeal of Judge Brimmer’s decision. It is also possible that the Obama Administration could identify a new administrative approach to resolving lingering and conflicting roadless questions, or that Congress could choose to independently protect roadless areas. — Mike Anderson is an attorney with The Wilderness Society. — Sarah Peters is Legal Liaison for Wildlands CPR.

Meanwhile, in June 2009, Judge Brimmer denied the government’s request and continued his nationwide injunction prohibiting the Forest Service from implementing the Rule. Judge Brimmer’s decision cleared the way for the Tenth Circuit to begin to consider environmentalists’ appeal of Judge Brimmer’s initial 2003 decision.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

11

Program Updates, Autumn 2009 Restoration Program

L

ate spring and early summer marked a very busy-time for our restoration program. Our Restoration Campaign Coordinator Sue Gunn has been informing Congress and the new Administration about the value of watershed restoration and road removal for protecting clean drinking water, enhancing wildlife and aquatic habitat, improving resiliency in the context of climate change, saving taxpayer dollars, and creating green jobs in rural communities. Sue and Executive Director Bethanie Walder traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with key agency and Congressional staffers to promote various restoration projects. Top among those projects: The renewal of funding for the Legacy Roads and Trails Restoration Initiative at $100 million dollars a year; and the initiation of a forest roads program as part of the reauthorization of the National Transportation Bill. This program would provide funding for maintenance of the 20-40,000 miles of forest roads most used by forest visitors and help free up other Forest Service funds to decommission and repair the balance of the system. The new forest roads program has been included in the House mark-up of the Transportation bill; it’s now up to the Senate to pass it – unfortunately, at this point in time they’ve opted to extend the current transportation bill for another 18 months before considering a new one (these bills usually last 5-6 years). In addition, Wildlands CPR was joined by The Wilderness Society and Pacific Rivers Council in co-hosting two Congressional briefings on the importance of these programs. Bethanie and Sue met with a host of DC staffers and officers, including top officials at the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Federal Highways Administration, Office of Management and Budget, and the Council on Environmental Quality.

Natural regeneration is slow where a 1988 fire burned hot in the North Fork of the Blackfoot River, Montana. Photo by Dan Funsch.

12

Our Restoration Research Associate Josh Hurd finished six reports that make up a new “Political Economy of Watershed Restoration” series. The highlights from the six reports are featured in this issue’s

cover story, and you can download the full reports at www.wildlandscpr.org/ resources. Once he was finished with his year-long research project, Josh left to enjoy the rest of the summer and prepare for graduate school where he’ll be pursuing a Masters in Public Policy at the University of Chicago. We’ll miss you Josh! Back at the ranch and in the field, the “Adams” (Adam Rissien, our Montana ORV Coordinator, and Adam Switalski, our Staff Scientist) have begun an innovative new partnership (cost-share agreement) with the Lolo National Forest. We’ve hired two field staff to conduct location, condition and impact surveys of a portion of the Lolo’s road system. Switalski trained the crew (one of whom is suspiciously also named Adam, while the other field tech’s last name is McAdams) to document wildlife signs, noxious weeds, signs of road or culvert failure and/or other hydrologic damage, and off-road vehicle abuse. Switalski and our field coordinator Greg Peters have also been busy on the Clearwater National Forest (ID), working with local volunteers and with University of Montana students to conduct field research and analysis on decommissioned roads. For example, Greg and Adam are following up on previous reports indicating that recontoured and regrown ex-roads are popular with bears. As one report asks, “Is their use driven by food, security, or both?” Interestingly, it appears as though there are significantly more foods on decommissioned roads than on open roads. Greg will be working with volunteers to collect data until the end of October.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Transportation Program

A

dam Rissien has been spending most of his time addressing travel plans, with a focus on the Bitterroot National Forest. The Bitterroot released its draft plan and Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) this summer, and Adam continues to coordinate with the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition (BQUC) to participate in the planning process. Adam has helped BQUC prioritize their field monitoring efforts to document use and impacts. We hope that, as a result, the Bitterroot will be a kinder, gentler place for hikers, backcountry horsemen, mountain bikers, traditional hunters, skiers, and wildlife. Wildlands CPR and BQUC have been engaged with Bitterroot travel planning since the process started and we are delighted to see that some of their initial work has already paid off. The preferred action in the DEIS protects the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area, a critical roadless area in the region. In addition, it currently provides only very limited motorized recreational opportunities in two other roadless areas – this is a huge victory, though we will continue to work to fully protect those two roadless areas.

We look forward to working with the Dixie on the restoration and decommissioning efforts that will emerge from this process. On a less exciting note, and in large part because most of the travel planning is now finished in Utah, we’ve made the difficult decision to close our UT office at the end of September. Laurel’s done a great job on travel planning and rural organizing and we’ll hate to see her go, but the primary projects for which we hired her are coming to completion. Thanks for everything you’ve done for Wildlands CPR Laurel – we’ll sure miss having you on staff! Sarah Peters, our legal liaison, has been spreading her expertise around many forests. In addition to her invaluable help with legal issues on the Bitterroot and Dixie National Forests, Sarah provided advice on an appeal of new ATV trail construction in Idaho, a forest travel plan in Oregon, the resolution of a construction appeal near the Oregon coast, early intervention in a travel plan in the Cascades, road litigation in southern Montana, protecting a wild and scenic river in Idaho, and possible litigation regarding snowmobile recreation in northern Utah. She also interpreted impenetrable thickets of policy-speak for activists, on issues such as Travel Management Rule Directives, “Infra baselines” and the Forest Service’s “Road Analysis Process.” Sarah and Greg also worked to finalize our “Managing the Miles” report about Forest Service road policies and practices. We featured the results of that report in the last issue of The RIPorter, but we are just now tying up all the loose ends to post the full report on our website. Check it out at: www. wildlandscpr.org/resources.

Utah ORV Coordinator Laurel Hagen successfully concluded a multi-year Travel Planning process with the Dixie National Forest, which contains much of the green headwaters of southern Utah’s canyon country. Back when the process began, the Three Forests Coalition (TFC) of Utah wrote and submitted a science-based Citizens’ Alternative Travel Plan during the pre-draft period. After the draft plan was released, Laurel worked with community groups to collect local land lore, raise money to hire a field worker, conduct trainings and outreach, and write up detailed sitespecific comments. Laurel coordinated the legal and policy-based comments of the TFC. When the final draft emerged, it was greatly improved, but still had some problems. The TFC appealed the new plan, and negotiated with the Forest Service to reach a resolution. The TFC agreed to drop our appeal, and in exchange the Forest Service corrected several problems, most notably not designating any new roads within inventoried roadless and other sensitive areas!

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Agency travel plans (theoretically) balance motorized and non-motorized uses on national forest roads and trails. Ensuring that these uses don’t harm the environment is one goal of Wildlands CPR’s transportation program.

Photo credits: horse and cyclists courtesy of BLM, jeeps by Laurel Hagen.

13

The Economic Impacts of the 2008 Legacy Roads & Trails Remediation Initiative in Idaho and Montana By Joe Kerkvliet, The Wilderness Society

Notes: i

I

n 2008, the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Initiative (LRRI) provided funds for the repair, maintenance, and decommissioning of Forest Service roads and trails. In this analysis, we document the expenditures on these projects in national forests in Idaho and Montana and project the economic impacts of these projects in the counties in which the work occurred. We confirmed the identity of 36 LRRI projects, 19 in Montana, and 17 in Idaho, and obtained detailed information from the Federal Procurement Data System. The information we obtained included: the county in which the project occurred, the dollar amount of the contract and the address of the business awarded the contract. We used this information to conduct an economic impact analysis for the county in which the project was located using IMPLAN.i Chart 1 shows the dollar amounts of the Montana LRRI contracts, both in the counties in which the projects are located and in the counties in which the bidwinning contractors are located. Chart 2 shows the projected economic impacts of the Montana projects.

ii iii

In summary, we confirmed over $2 million in LRRI projects in 12 Montana counties. Businesses in nine Montana counties were awarded more than $1.8 million in LRRI contracts.ii As contractors hired workers and purchased materials, LRRI funds resulted in $2.49 million in increased final demand for Montana businesses, $0.65 million increased wages, $0.38 million increased business income, and approximately 35 jobs. Nearly all sectors experienced positive economic impacts. The sectors with the largest increases in final demand ranged from logging, construction, forestry services, wholesale trade, real estate, food and drinking establishments, and owner-occupied housing.iii Chart 3 shows the dollar amounts of the Idaho LRRI contracts, both in the counties in which the projects are located and in the counties in which the successful contractors are located. Chart 4 shows the projected economic impacts of the Idaho projects. In summary, we confirmed $1.6 million in LRRI projects in ten Idaho counties. Businesses in ten Idaho counties were awarded more than $1.5 million in LRRI contracts.iv As contractors hired workers and purchased materials, LRRI funds resulted in $1.86 million in increased final demand for Idaho businesses, $0.24 million increased wages, $0.27 million increased business income, and approximately 18 jobs. Nearly all economic sectors experienced positive economic impacts. The sectors with the largest increases in final demand ranged from domestic trade, logging, construction, forestry services, wholesale trade, real estate, food and drinking establishments, environmental consulting, and owner-occupied housing.v For more information: Joe Kerkvliet, PhD, Senior Resource Economist, Bozeman, MT (406) 581-9826, [email protected]

14

iv v

IMPLAN© software (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2004) used to project the total economic impacts of the changes in final demand. IMPLAN uses a system of linear structural input-output equations describing the purchase and sales decisions of as many as 509 economic sectors, several representative consumers, and several types of federal, state, and local governmental units. IMPLAN is widely used by federal agencies, academics, and private consultants to estimate the impacts of various projects, including proposed changes in resource management plans. One Montana LRRI contract was awarded to an Idaho business and one to a Washington business. To project economic impacts, we ran a small sample of impact analyses for Montana LRRI projects and applied the average of the multipliers we obtained from the sample. We assumed that the LRRI funds were spent in four business sectors (proportions in parentheses): logging (.33), agriculture and forestry support (.33), maintenance and repair construction (.165), and environmental consulting (.165). The multipliers used were: final demand, 1.2 if the contractors address was in a different county, 1.45 if the contractors address was in the same county, wages, .2 for outof- county and .5 if in-county, business income .188 for both in and out-of county, jobs per dollar, .0000176. One Idaho LRRI contract was awarded to an Oregon business and one to a Washington business. To project economic impacts, we ran a small sample of impact analyses for Idaho LRRI projects and applied the average of the multipliers we obtained from the sample. We assumed that the LRRI funds were spent in four business sectors (proportions in parentheses): logging (.33), agriculture and forestry support (.33), maintenance and repair construction (.165), and environmental consulting (.165).There were no projects in Idaho completed by in-county contractors. The multipliers used were: final demand, 1.2, wages, .155, business income .175, jobs per dollar, .0000176.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

CHART 2: MONTANA LRRI ECONOMIC IMPACTS Chart 2: Montana LRRI Economic COUNTIES ImpactsIN inPROJECT Project Counties

CHART 1: MONTANA Chart 1: Montana LRRI Project LRRI PROJECT ANDand Contract Dollars CONTRACT DOLLARS

Wheatland

Wheatland LRRI PROJECT $ LRRI CONTRACT $

Stillwater

Stillwater

Silver Bow

Silver Bow

Sanders

Sanders

Rosebud

Rosebud

Ravalli

Ravalli

Missoula Madison

Lincoln

Lincoln

Judith Basin

Judith Basin

Gallatin

Gallatin

Flathead

Flathead

Carbon

Carbon 1000000

BUSINESS INCOME

Madison

Lewis and Clark

500000

WAGES

Missoula

Lewis and Clark

0

FINAL DEMAND

Yellowstone

COUNTY

COUNTY

Yellowstone

0

1500000

1000000

1500000

DOLLARS (2007)

DOLLARS (2007)

CHART 4: IDAHO

CHART 3: IDAHO Chart 3: Idaho LRRI Project and LRRI PROJECT AND Contract Dollars CONTRACT DOLLARS

Chart 4: Idaho LRRI Economic Impacts LRRI ECONOMIC IMPACTS in Project Counties IN PROJECT COUNTIES

Washington

Washington

Valley Teton

LRRI PROJECT $ LRRI CONTRACT $

Stevens

Valley

FINAL DEMAND

Teton

BUSINESS INCOME

WAGES

Stevens Shoshone

Payette

Payette

Lewis

Lewis

Lemhi

Lemhi

COUNTY

Shoshone

COUNTY

500000

Kootenai Idaho

Kootenai Idaho

Clearwater

Clearwater

Caribou

Caribou

Caldwell

Caldwell

Boundry

Boundry

Bonner

Bonner Benewah

Benewah

Ada

Ada 0

200000

400000

600000

DOLLARS (2007)

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

800000

3

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

DOLLARS (2007)

15

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 15,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

A Review of the Impacts of ORVs on Soil By Adam Switalski and Allison Jones Editor’s Note: This BiblioNote is an excerpt from Wildlands CPR and Wild Utah’s ORV BMPs published last year. To see a list of Best Management Practices for planning and management of ORV routes or to view the full report visit: www.wildlandscpr.org/ORV-BMPs.

H

ealthy forest soils provide nutrients and the physical foundation for plants. Soils are also home to many animals that burrow beneath the surface. One important characteristic of forest soil is that it contains pore space or tiny cracks and crevices that fill with air and water. Pore spaces allow rain and snowmelt to enter the soil, gases to escape, and tree and other plant roots to grow.

At right, deep ruts created by ORVs crossing a wet area. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Compaction and Erosion

Off-road vehicles can cause compaction of soil pore spaces. Weighing several hundred pounds, ORVs can compress and compact soil (Nakata et al. 1976, Snyder et al. 1976, Vollmer et al. 1976, Wilshire and Nakata 1976), thus reducing its ability to absorb and retain water (Dregne 1983), and decreasing soil fertility by harming the microscopic organisms that would otherwise break down the soil and produce nutrients important for plant growth (Wilshire et al. 1977). An increase in compaction decreases soil permeability, resulting in increased flow of water across the ground and reduced absorption of water into the soil. This increase in surface flow concentrates water and increases erosion of soils (Wilshire 1980, Webb 1983, Misak et al. 2002). Increased erosion due to ORVs also adds sediment to streams (Sack and da Luz 2003, Chin et al. 2004), which decreases water quality, buries fish eggs, and generally reduces the amount and quality of fish habitat (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Erosion of soil is accelerated in ORV use areas directly by the vehicles and indirectly by increased runoff of precipitation, and by creating conditions favorable to wind erosion (Wilshire 1980). Knobby and cup-shaped protrusions from ORV tires that aid the vehicles in traversing steep slopes are responsible for major direct erosional losses of soil. As the tire protrusions

16

Trails that ascend directly up steep inclines can lead to rutting and erosion. Wildlands CPR file photo.

dig into the soil, forces far exceeding the strength of the soil are exerted to allow the vehicles to climb slopes. The result is that the soil and small plants are thrown downslope in a “rooster tail” behind the vehicle. This is known as mechanical erosion, which on steep slopes (about 15o or more) with soft soils may erode as much as 40 tons/mi (Wilshire 1992). The rates of erosion measured on ORV trails on moderate slopes exceed natural rates by factors of 10 to 20 (Iverson et al. 1981, Hinckley et al. 1983), whereas use of steep slopes has commonly removed the entire soil mantle, exposing bedrock. Measured erosional losses in high use ORV areas range 2 2 from 1.4-242 lbs/ft (Wilshire et al. 1978) and 102-614 lbs/ft (Webb et al. 1978). A more recent study by Sack and da Luz (2003) found that off-road vehicle use resulted in a loss of more than 200 lbs of soil off every 100 feet of trail each year. Some soils, such as those supporting biological soil crusts, require decades to centuries to recover (Belnap 2003).

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Most soils are vulnerable to compaction and erosion due to several factors. An analysis of more than 500 soils at more than 200 sites found that virtually all types of soils are susceptible to ORV damage (Schubert and Associates 1999). Some soils such as clay-rich soils, while less sensitive to direct mechanical displacement by ORVs, have higher rates of erosion than most other soil types, and when compacted can result in a strong surface seal that can increase rainwater runoff and increase gullying (Sheridan 1979). Sandy and gravelly soils are susceptible to direct excavation by ORVs, and when stripped of vegetation they are susceptible to rapid erosion processes – usually by rill and gully erosion. Compaction is also greater in wet, poorly drained soils than well-drained soils (Willard and Marr 1970, Burde and Refro 1986). Finely textured soils are more prone to erosion than coarser soils (Welch and Churchhill 1986). In addition to the chemical make-up of soils, location of ORV routes is a determinant to whether soils erode. Routes on steep slopes (about 15o or more) are more likely to cause erosion (Welch and Churchhill 1986), as are routes in higher elevation alpine areas (Willard and Marr 1970, Marion 1994). Additionally, forests that receive higher precipitation are more susceptible to erosion than drier forests (Cole and Bayfield 1983, Burde and Renfro 1986). ORV impacts on forest soils are compounded by the loss of vegetation following ORV use. It is well known that stable vegetation keeps soil in its place (Wilshire 1983, Belnap 1995), and once anchoring vegetation is removed,

While most common in the arid southwest, cryptobiotic soils are found throughout the West. Photo courtesy of U.S. Geological Service.

soil erosion increases. For example, soil exposure is increased when vehicles damage or uproot plants, thereby allowing the exposed soils to easily become wind blown or washed away by water. Wilshire et al. (1978) report on both the direct effects of ORVs on vegetation such as crushing and uprooting of foliage and root systems, as well as the indirect effects caused by the concomitant erosion. This includes undercutting of root systems as vehicle paths are enlarged by erosion, creation of new erosion channels on land adjacent to vehicle-destabilized areas due to accelerated runoff or wind erosion, burial of plants by debris eroded from areas used by vehicles, and reduction of biological capability of the soil by physical modification and stripping of the more fertile upper soil layers (Wilshire et al. 1978).

Impacts of ORVs on Cryptobiotic Soils

While cryptobiotic soil crusts are more often associated with arid and semi-arid regions, they are important components of some western forests as well. Cryptobiotic crusts, which were historically widespread in western U.S. arid lands, are being rapidly depleted across rangelands today. These crusts increase the stability of otherwise easily erodible soils, increase water infiltration in a region that receives limited precipitation, and increase fertility of soils often limited in essential nutrients such as nitrogen and carbon (Johansen 1993, Belnap et al. 1994). ORVs are highly destructive to these fragile cryptobiotic crusts. A single pass of an ORV through cryptobiotic crusts will increase wind and water erosion of surface soils that were previously protected by the crusts (pers. Comm., Howard Wilshire, USGS-retired). This in turn can trigger rapid loss of the underlying topsoil, which can take up to 5,000 years to reform naturally in arid regions (Webb 1983). The destruction of cryptobiotic soils by ORVs can reduce nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria, and set the nitrogen economy of nitrogen-limited arid ecosystems back decades. Even small reductions in crust can lead to diminished productivity and health of the associated plant community, with cascading effects on plant consumers (Davidson et al. 1996). In general, the deleterious effects of ORV use on cryptobiotic crusts is not easily repaired or regenerated. The recovery time for the lichen component of crusts has been estimated at about 45 years (Belnap 1993). After this time the crusts may appear to have regenerated to the untrained eye. However, careful observation will reveal that the 45 year-old crusts will not have recovered their moss component, which will take an additional 200 years to fully come back (Belnap and Gillette 1997). Additionally, radical reduction of soil biota, including bacteria and fungi, results from compaction. Soil microorganisms in desert soils exposed to ORV use are typically reduced from about 4 to less than 1 million/g, which in turn reduces the bacterial oxidation that makes nitrates available to plants (Liddle 1997). A severe loss of nitrates to plants is significant in typically nitrogen poor arid environments, and may even eventually lead to desertification (Belnap 1995). Soil doesn’t stand a chance against off-road vehicles. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

— Adam is Wildlands CPR’s Science Coordinator and Allison is Conservation Biologist for the Wild Utah Project.

17

— continued from previous page —

References Belnap, J. 1993. Recovery rates of cryptobiotic crusts: inoculant use and assessment methods. Great Basin Naturalist 53:89-95. Belnap, J. 1995. Surface disturbances—their role in accelerating desertification. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 37: 39-57. Belnap, J. 2003. The world at your feet: desert biological soil crusts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(5): 181-189. Belnap, J. and D.A. Gillette. 1997. Disturbance of biological soil crusts: impacts on potential wind erodibility of sandy desert soils in SE Utah. Land Degradation and Development 8: 355362. Belnap, J., K.T. Harper, and S.D. Warren. 1994. Surface disturbance of cryptobiotic soil crusts: Nitrogenase activity, chlorophyll content, and chlorophyll degradation. Arid Lands Research and Rehabilitation. 8: 1-8. Burde, J.H., and J.R. Renfro. 1986. Use impacts on the Appalachian Trail. Pages 138-143 in R.C. Lucas, editor. Proceedings: National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-212, Ogden, UT. Chin, A., D.M. Rohrer, D.A. Marion, and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2004. Effects of all terrain vehicles on stream dynamics. Pages 292-296 in Guldin, J.M. technical compiler, Ovachita and Ozark Mountains Symposium: Ecosystem Management Research. USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.General Technical Report SRS-74, Ashville, NC. Cole, D.N., and N.P. Bayfield 1993. Recreational trampling of vegetation: Standard experimental procedures. Biological Conservation 63(3): 209-215. Davidson, D.W, W.D. Newmark, J.W. Sites, D.K. Shiozawa, E.A. Rickart, K.T. Harper, and R.B. Keiter. 1996. Selecting Wilderness areas to conserve Utah’s biological diversity. Great Basin Naturalist 56: 95-118. Dregne, H.E. 1983. Physical effects of off-road vehicle use. Pages 1530 in R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire. Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. Springer-Verlag, New York. Hinckley, B.S., Iverson, R.M. and B. Hallet. 1983. Accelerated water erosion in ORV-use areas. Pages 81-96 in Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire, editors, Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles. Springer-Verlag, New York. Iverson, R.M., Hinckley, B.S., and R.H. Webb. 1981. Physical effects of vehicular disturbance on arid landscapes. Science 212: 915-917. Johansen, J.R. 1993. Cryptogamic crusts of semiarid and arid lands of North America. Journal of Phycology 29: 140-147. Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London. 639 pp. Marion, J.L. 1994. An assessment of trail conditions in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region, Research/Resources Management Report, Atlanta, GA. Misak, R.F., J.M. Al Awadhi, S.A. Omar, and S.A. Shahid. 2002. Soil degradation in Kabad area, southwestern Kuwait City. Land Degradation & Development. 13(5): 403-415. Nakata, J.K., H.G. Wilshire, and G.G. Barnes. 1976. Origin of Mojave Desert dust plumes photographed from space. Geology 4(11): 644-648.

18

Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72-82. Sack, D., and S. da Luz. 2003. Sediment flux and compaction trends on off-road vehicle (ORV) and other trails in an Appalachian forest setting. Physical Geography 24(6): 536-554. Schubert and Associates. 1999. Petition to enhance and expand regulations governing the administration of recreational offroad vehicle use on National Forests. Published by Wildlands CPR, Missoula, MT 188p. www.wildlandscpr.org/orvs/ ORVpetition.doc Sheridan, D. 1979. Off-road vehicles on public land. Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office. Report No. 041-011-00041-6. Washington, D.C. Snyder, C.T., D.G. Frickel, R.E. Hadley, and R.F. Miller. 1976. Effects of off-road vehicle use on the hydrology and landscape of arid environments in central and southern California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report #76-99. 45p. Vollmer, A.T., B.G. Maza, P.A. Medica, F.B. Turner, and S.A. Bamberg. 1976. The impact of off-road vehicles on a desert ecosystem. Environmental Management 1(2):115-129. Webb, R.H.. 1983. Compaction of desert soils by off-road vehicles. Pages 51-79 in: Webb, R.H. and Wilshire, H.G., editors, Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles. Springer-Verlag, New York. Webb, R.H., Ragland, H.C., Godwin, W.H., and D. Jenkins. 1978. Environmental effects of soil property changes with off-road vehicle use. Environmental Management 2: 219-233. Welch, D.M., and J. Churchill. 1986. Hiking trail conditions in Pangnirtung Pass, 1984, Baffin Island, Canada. Parks Canada Report, Ottawa, Canada. Willard, B.E., and J.W. Marr. 1970. Effects of human activities on alpine tundra ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Biological Conservation 2:257-265. Wilshire, H.G. 1980. Human causes of accelerated wind erosion in California’s deserts. Pages 415-433 in D.R. Coates and J.B. Vitek, editors, Thresholds in Geomorphology. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London. Wilshire, H.G. 1992. The wheeled locusts. Wild Earth 2: 27-31. Wilshire, H.G. 1983. The impact of vehicles on desert soil stabilizers. Pages 31-50 in Webb, R.H. and Wilshire, H.G., editors, Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles. SpringerVerlag, New York. Wilshire, H.G. and J.K. Nakata. 1976. Off-road vehicle effects on California’s Mojave Desert. California Geology 29(6):123-132. Wilshire, H.G., G.B. Bodman, D. Broberg, W.J. Kockelman, J. Major, H.E. Malde, C.T. Snyder, and R.C. Stebbins. 1977. Impacts and management of off-road vehicles. The Geological Society of America. Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Policy. Wilshire, H.G., Nakata, J.K., Shipley, S., and K. Prestegaard. 1978. Impacts of vehicles on natural terrain at seven sites in the San Francisco Bay area. Environmental Geology 2: 295-319.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

GAO Report Looks at Managing Off-Road Vehicles

Independent Study Examines Travel Planning

In June 2009 the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands on managing off-road vehicles on public lands. Entitled “Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles,” the report examined trends in off-road vehicle use and its environmental and social impacts, agency planning processes and actions in the field, as well as executive orders and agency regulations. The 60-page report found that off-road vehicle use (both authorized and unauthorized) increased from 2004 to 2008, along with varying impacts. Interviews with land managers show that most field units cannot manage existing OHV areas in a sustainable manner — communication and enforcement were among the areas most in need of improvement.

The Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia conducted a national assessment of the Forest Service’s off-road vehicle travel management planning process. Several of Wildlands CPR’s staff were interviewed for the report, which identifies challenges facing land managers. All are exacerbated by the difficulty inherent in coordinating travel planning throughout the National Forest System: • Interpreting the Travel Management Rule • Limited time & resources • Understanding and documenting current conditions • Public involvement • Leadership and commitment • Motor vehicle use map • Enforcement • Specific Technical challenges

The GAO recommended that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management improve strategic planning in order to protect resources while providing recreational opportunities. Specifically, it recommended adopting more results-oriented goals and performance measures, as well as strategies and time frames to achieve goals.

To overcome these challenges, the authors propose dozens of approaches, ranging from clarifying the original intent of the travel planning rule, to forming partnerships and leveraging funding, to making the process more transparent and inclusive, to improving enforcement. The report is most useful for forests in the early stages of travel planning.

To see the full report visit: www.eenews.net/public/25/11990/features/documents/2009/07/31/document_ gw_01.pdf

For the full report, visit: www.virginia.edu/ien/docs/ National%20Assessment%20of%20TMP%20-%20Full%20Document.pdf

Appeals Court rules against Kane County in Road Case A panel for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September that Kane County, Utah acted illegally when it replaced federal signs restricting offroad vehicle use in the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument and other Bureau of Land Management areas. In 2003, the County removed BLM signs and put up their own, inviting off-roaders on hundreds of roads within and around the monument. The County asserted that the antiquated R.S. 2477 statute gave them authority over road

management. In 2005, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and The Wilderness Society filed suit, and in 2008 a District Court ruled against Kane County, saying it had not proved that it had authority over the roads.

heard in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. In that case, San Juan County is arguing that the National Park Service had no right to close the Salt Creek Road in Canyonlands National Park because it qualified as an R.S. 2477 road.

The Appeals Court panel agreed with the District Court, although one of the panel’s three justices dissented. The panel did not rule specifically on the validity of the county’s R.S. 2477 claims, however. At press time, a separate trial on R.S. 2477 claims is being

It’s uncertain whether Kane County will appeal the 10th Circuit panel decision. If they do, the case would be heard by the entire 10th Circuit Court. There are over 900 miles of open road in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

19

Montana’s Senator Tester Introduces Forest Management Bill

S

enator Jon Tester (D-MT) recently introduced The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009, which was developed through a partnership of organizations and individuals working on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Tester took a lot of heat for not making the details of the bill more public as he, his staff, and a select few constituents were working out the final version. The full text can now be found at: www. tester.senate.gov/forest. We took a few minutes to skim through the bill, which Senator Tester was very clear to say was NOT a “wilderness” bill, but instead a “forest jobs and stewardship bill.” Below is our initial take on what we like and what we don’t.

The Good Stuff

Long before it became legislation, we reviewed the original Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership Proposal, and we had some very real concerns about how they described watershed restoration, the reliance on temporary roads, and a failure to include any real “effectiveness monitoring.” We are pleased to see that the Tester bill has addressed some of these concerns. •

•

•

•

There is no mention of temporary roads in the bill. Instead, the bill introduces a new term, “access road,” which is a road used to implement the bill, but then reclaimed and revegetated or converted to a trail within 5 years of its construction. (“Temporary roads,” on the other hand, don’t have to be revegetated until 10 years after completion of the project for which the road was built.) Restoration projects include efforts to reduce road densities down to 1.5 miles per square mile of land (but they don’t seem to mandate this reduction). Further, and perhaps more importantly, motorized trails are to be included with roads in the calculation of road density on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Few forests do this, but it’s critically important – we are very happy to see this in the bill language. The bill includes monitoring requirements that explicitly address the effectiveness of watershed restoration on ecological health. In addition, the language regarding adaptive management addresses management changes that might be needed because of climate change. More often than not (and in an earlier bill draft), monitoring requirements only include whether or not actions were taken, regardless of whether they had the intended “benefits.” The bill proposes designating more than half a million acres of wilderness, in various places throughout the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Kootenai and Lolo National Forests.

The Not-So-Good Stuff

We have some concerns with the bill: • statements regarding forest health and catastrophic fire that do not seem ecologically justified; • expectations that stewardship contracting will provide enough funds for watershed restoration activities on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest; • mandated timber targets; and, • efforts to “permanently protect and enhance motorized recreation opportunities.”

Forest Health

Wildlands CPR doesn’t work directly on timber/forest structure/fire restoration issues. That said, the bill includes, as a primary purpose, the need to “reduce wildfire management costs by reestablishing natural fire regimes outside of a wildland-urban interface.” This section also states a need to “reduce the size and severity of uncharacteristic fires on forest land.” Many of the forests in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are high-elevation lodgepole pine that evolved with stand-replacing fire. Lodgepole cones won’t open to release their seeds without the heat generated from big fires. Such stand-replacing fires are exactly what occurred in Yellowstone National Park in 1988, and they are ecologically normal and necessary. The bill clearly distinguishes between the backcountry and the wildland/urban interface, but it seems to recommend similar treatments.

Wildlands CPR facilitated a road to trail restoration project on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. While Tester’s bill proposes some restoration for the area, it does not guarantee funding such work. Photo by Adam Switalski.

20

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Stewardship Contracting/Mandated Harvest

While we have few concerns about stewardship contracting in theory, it has rarely been able to generate the funds necessary to conduct all of the proposed restoration in a project. This problem is further exacerbated by the drop in wood products prices due to the home-construction slowdown. We are pleased that the Seeley Lake part of the project can be funded with direct appropriations, but we are concerned that the proposed logging will take precedence over restoration. The bill mandates a certain amount of logging each year, which will tie the agency’s hands and may set a bad precedent for future bills. Perhaps most disconcerting is that the legislation sunsets after 15 years, or at the end of the mandated logging, whichever is later, and this sunset provision is not contingent on completing the restoration. While the introductory language of the bill appears to put watershed restoration and timber harvest on a level playing field, the fine print makes it clear that watershed restoration remains a secondary objective at best.

Designations/Protections for Motorized Recreation We repeatedly hear the argument that if Wilderness is going to be designated/permanently protected, then motorized recreation should be too. But it’s a false dichotomy. The only way to get Wilderness is through legislative action, while opportunities to drive around for fun or transport exist practically everywhere. Once motorized recreation is mandated by legislation, land managers’ hands are tied regarding its ecological impacts. Interestingly, the bill is inconsistent on this topic, with different provisions for different recreation areas. The West Big Hole, in particular, does not seem to receive as much protection as other areas.

Conclusion

We know that there are numerous other good and bad things in this bill, and we have met with Tester’s office about our specific concerns. Senator Tester clearly worked hard to try to make a lot of different interests

happy. While there are some things that we like in concept, we’re concerned about whether or not they will work in practice. Having reviewed a lot of integrated land management bills, however, we do believe that Tester has avoided some of the pitfalls of other bills. For example, this bill does not appear to circumvent the National Environmental Policy Act, the off-road vehicle Executive Orders, or other laws. It does, however, legislate a forest plan, and mandate that a certain number of acres be treated annually, which could set a dangerous precedent while also making it challenging to comply with the National Forest Management Act and other substantive environmental laws. The forest stand management components of the bill will probably be more controversial than the motorized recreation issues, with even the Forest Service questioning whether it’s possible to sustainably log that many acres annually on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 offers some good steps toward restoration, it protects a lot of land as wilderness, and it doesn’t directly circumvent environmental laws; but it also includes some highly controversial components. In our ideal world, watershed restoration practices would be fiscally separated from resource extraction, and we will continue to work and advocate for such efforts.

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

Yellowstone Snowmobile Update The number of snowmobiles allowed in Yellowstone National Park would be cut by more than half under an Obama administration proposal announced in July. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the proposed rule would limit snowmobile use to 318 snowmobiles and 78 multi-passenger snowcoaches daily for the next two winters, down from 720 snowmobiles per day allowed last winter.

Last year, a Park Service plan would have allowed 540 snowmobiles daily into Yellowstone. Environmental groups challenged that plan in court, and a Washington, D.C. District Court struck it down. In response, the Park Service unveiled a new plan to allow 318 snowmobiiles per day (the same as allowed under the Interior Department’s proposal). Also last year, ruling on a separate lawsuit brought by snowmobilers, District Judge Brimmer in Cheyenne, Wyoming ruled that 720 snowmobiles should be allowed while a long-term plan was crafted. Judge Brimmer said recently that he has no authority to block Salazar’s current plan.

The rule would extend for two years, during which time the Interior Department would conduct an environmental analysis and determine a permanent level.

At one point, the Clinton administration proposed an outright ban. A daily average of 205 snowmobiles entered the park in 2008-09.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

21

M

uch to our delight, there hasn’t been a wildfire in sight this summer. It’s been pleasantly cool, with a few hot days sprinkled in here and there to remind us that it’s summer, though the record-breaking rain in August definitely made us question what season it really was. And in the midst of all this really nice weather, we’ve been managing to get a bunch of work done, too…

Field survey project This June we hired Heather McAdams and Adam Bender (yes, the third Adam employed by Wildlands CPR at one time) to conduct a series of road surveys on the Lolo National Forest. This project is part of a cost-share agreement we entered into with the Lolo to begin surveying some of their roads to provide critical and needed information as they address road management over time. Heather and Adam have been doing a terrific job documenting weeds, drainage problems, inaccuracies with the maps (including both roads that exist on the land but don’t appear on the map and vice versa), and otherwise assessing the condition of dozens of miles of roads on the forest.

Unfortunate news – we’re closing our UT office We’re very disappointed to report that we will be closing our UT office as of September 30. We opened this office 2.5 years ago as part of our multi-state campaign to influence travel planning on national forest lands. Wildlands CPR has been hosting two “state coordinators” (one in Montana, one in Utah), while other organizations are hosting similar positions in their states to address off-road vehicle management on Forest Service lands. Since the agency was supposed to complete all travel planning by the end of 2009, the campaign was initially designed to end this December. As we approach that time, we’ve been assessing our

needs for future years combined with our shrinking budget as a result of the economic slowdown. With only limited funding, and with travel planning largely completed in UT, it only made sense to close the UT office. Laurel Hagen will continue to work for us on a part time contract to finish two important projects, after which Wildlands CPR will no longer have a formal presence in UT. We’ll all be sorry to see Laurel go – she has brought a very creative approach to her position, building up an amazing network of rural UT activists who have been outspoken about ORV problems – quite effectively countering many myths. She’s also brought fierce determination, extraordinary humor, a sharp intellect and a talented writing and drawing pen to her position and to Wildlands CPR. We’ll miss you Laurel, and we hope to be able to work with you again in the future.

Thanks and keep it coming… Wildlands CPR is in the midst of our annual gifts campaign – celebrating our 15th anniversary. Help us keep the organization strong by contributing to our annual gifts campaign today. Our campaign goal is $40,000, and we’re making progress, but we’re still in the early stages of the effort. Thanks so much to all of you who’ve already contributed, and to all of you who will be doing so soon.

Photo by Dan Funsch.

22

We’d also like to thank the Bullitt and Wilburforce Foundations for generous grants to support Wildlands CPR.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Support Wildlands CPR Today!

We’ve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before. Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program • Reducing Overhead

• Making Your Gift Easier

Monthly giving puts your contribution directly into action and reduces our administrative costs. The savings go to restoring wildlands and building a more effective network.

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your credit card or bank statement will contain a record of each gift; we will also send a year-end tax receipt for your records.

• Our Promise To You You maintain complete control over your donation. To change or cancel your gift at any time, just write or give us a call.

Name Phone Street Email

City, State, Zip

Type of Membership:

Individual/Family

Organization

Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account $5/Month

$10/Month

$20/Month

other

I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated above from my checking account once per month.

Signature

Payment Option #2: Credit Card Pledge

$10/Month (minimum)

$20/Month

other

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express Credit Card Number: _________________________________ CSC Number: ________________ *(see below)

Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confidential. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: __________________________________________

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation, please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the address below. Please send this form and your payment option to: Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

* The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a credit card (usually in the signature field).

Thank you for your support! 23

Glacier National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.

Non-profit Organization US POSTAGE PAID MISSOULA MT, 59801 PERMIT NO. 569

Our shared vision must begin with a complete commitment to restoration. Restoration, for me, means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources while making our forests far more resilient to climate change. — Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper with soy-based ink.