Road Riporter 12.3 Autumn Equinox 2007

Autumn Equinox 2007. Volume 12 No. 3

Roads to Infinity

Oil & Gas Assaults the Allegheny

— By Ryan Talbott

Inside… A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 Roads to Infinity, by Ryan Talbott. Pages 3-5 DePaving the Way: The Wildland/New Urbanist Interface, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 6-7 Odes to Roads: Return of the Hydra, by David Lien. Pages 8-9 Get with the Program: Restoration, Transportation, & Science Updates. Pages 10-11 Field Notes, by Marnie Criley, Mo Hartmann, and Sarah Olimb. Pages 12-13 Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 14-15 Biblio Notes: The Influence of Snowmobiles on Air Quality and Human Health, by Adam Switalski. Pages 16-18 New Resources. Page 19 Policy Primer: RS 2477 and National Forests, by Laurel Hagen. Pages 20-21 Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org

Troubling images from the Allegheny National Forest. Clockwise from top left: habitat fragmentation from roads; waste barrels; storage tanks; a drill rig. Fragmentation and drill rig photos courtesy of Project Lighthawk; others by Bill Belitskus.

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

Is the Tide Finally Turning?

2007

has been a busy and exciting time for restoration advocates throughout the country, with projects and proposals regularly in the news. Wildlands CPR worked hard, for example, to support increased funding for restoration in the state of Montana. The final result: $34 million in new funding and a new state restoration office, housed at the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The new state restoration coordinator will distribute $5.7 million for watershed restoration around the state — we expect this will include road removal. While this was a big step for Montana, restoration projects around the country have been receiving millions, even billions, for at least the last decade. Think Everglades, Lake Tahoe, Chesapeake Bay…. Those billions are putting a lot of people to work, and they’re restoring water quality in some very important regions. So what’s so exciting about new restoration funding this summer? There’s a big focus on roads. In August, the Lake Tahoe project received another $45 million for restoration, some of which will go to stabilize or decommission roads. We also expect funds will pay for monitoring and research on the effectiveness of these road restoration efforts. The stage was set for this appropriation with the passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act in 2000. (Unfortunately the bulk of the funding came from selling public lands around Las Vegas for development, and that’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.) The 30-year effort to restore the Everglades has an estimated price tag of over $10 billion. An appropriations bill for some of the upcoming projects includes $375 million for hydrologic restoration of the Picayune Strand near Big Cypress National Preserve. A significant chunk of this would remove roads from a 1960s scam residential development. The Nature Conservancy now owns the failed development and the roads, which are acting like dikes, must be removed to restore hydrologic flow. This may be the largest appropriation for road removal ever proposed. The total Picayune Strand area is 85 square miles, and the proposal also includes several other projects. And then there’s the story on page 14 of this issue of The Riporter — a proposed $65 million appropriation for road management to restore fish passage on national forest lands. This funding is proposed for the Forest Service, and it emphasizes watershed restoration through road decommissioning, though funds can also be used to upgrade culverts or conduct critical maintenance for fisheries. While this seems like a lot of money, Wildlands CPR previously estimated that it would cost approximately $93 million per year for 20 years to meet the Forest Service projection to decommission up to 186,000 miles of roads on national forest lands. This would be a great start toward that annual $93 million, but unfortunately, it is “one-time” money, so we still need to find ongoing funding for this work. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the tide is turning. Proposals in the current congress call for nearly half a billion dollars for watershed restoration through road removal. Decision-makers are finally beginning to understand that not all roads are good, and that removing some will restore watershed function, wildland connectivity, and also community vitality, as this restoration work brings needed jobs. Let’s hope the tide stays in for increased watershed restoration funding, with an emphasis, of course, on road issues.

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and promote road removal and revegetation. Director Bethanie Walder Development Director Tom Petersen Communications Coordinator Jason Kiely Restoration Program Coordinator Marnie Criley Science Coordinator Adam Switalski Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator Sarah Peters Montana State ORV Coordinator Adam Rissien Program & Membership Assistant Andrea Manes Membership/Web Marketing Associate Josh Hurd Utah State ORV Coordinator Laurel Hagen Journal Editor Dan Funsch Interns & Volunteers Carla Abrams, Mike Fiebig, Marlee Ostheimer, Ginny Porter Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson © 2007 Wildlands CPR

2

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Roads to Infinity

— By Ryan Talbott

Oil & Gas Assaults the Allegheny

T

ucked away in the northwestern corner of Pennsylvania is the state’s only national forest, the Allegheny National Forest. At 513,000 acres, the Allegheny is home to the largest old growth forest in the east between the Adirondacks and Smoky Mountains, two wild and scenic rivers, and the North Country National Scenic Trail. The Allegheny is within a day’s drive of one-third of the U.S. population and is part of Governor Rendell’s “Pennsylvania Wilds,” a statewide initiative to boost recreation and tourism in the sparsely populated northern part of the state. Unfortunately, the Allegheny has few areas protected from resource extraction. Just 1.8 percent of the forest is designated Wilderness and about 4 percent is designated as national recreation area. Worst of all, 93 percent of the subsurface mineral rights are privately owned, adding a level of complexity unheard of in most other national forests.

The Consequence of a Split Estate

By 1923 when the Allegheny was established, the surface and subsurface estates had already been split, and the federal government did not acquire the subsurface mineral rights when it purchased the land to establish the national forest. The tragic results of having such a large proportion of subsurface rights in private hands have become apparent in recent years. Today, there are at least 9,000 active oil and gas wells in the Allegheny, more than the other 154 national forests combined. Since 2003, oil and gas drilling has skyrocketed by 1,000 percent, from 202 new wells drilled in 2003 to a projected 2,000 new wells in 2007. As a result of this high level of oil and gas drilling, the Allegheny has the dubious honor of having as many miles of roads as much larger

Yes, this is a Forest Service sign reading “National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.” Photo by Bill Belitskus.

Bogus Rocks is a few miles northeast of Marienville in the Allegheny National Forest. Photo by Bill Belitskus.

national forests in the western U.S. According to a 2003 roads analysis, the Allegheny has over 2,700 miles of roads, a figure that is undoubtedly much higher today given the rate of drilling in recent years. In the Allegheny’s revised forest plan, released this year, the Forest Service failed to disclose how many new roads have been constructed, relying instead on the 2003 figure. To this day, the Forest Service has not disclosed how many miles of new oil and gas roads have been constructed since 2003 even though the Forest Service reviews and approves the operators’ development plans. Given the Allegheny’s relatively small size, this high level of road development translates into extremely high road densities, fragmenting habitat for numerous wildlife species including northern goshawk, cerulean warbler, timber rattlesnake, and wood turtle. For instance, some areas of the forest have road densities exceeding 18 mi/mi2, a density that resembles an urban area rather than a national forest.

— story continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

3

— Roads To Infinity, continued from page 3 —

State and Federal Oversight

Historically, the Forest Service has provided little regulatory oversight for private oil and gas development, taking the position that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply where the agency does not own the mineral rights below the surface. Thus, the Forest Service has maintained that it must allow development. A recently uncovered document, however, not only challenges this assertion but also supports the argument that the Forest Service can and should have direct control over how oil and gas operators access the federal surface to extract their oil and gas. While the Forest Service is not the permitting authority in terms of issuing well drilling permits, it does have significant authority regarding how the forest is accessed for drilling. When oil and gas companies want to drill on lands they do not own, they must notify the surface owner by letter at the same time they submit an application for a well drilling permit to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Upon receiving this letter, the surface owner has 15 days to object to the location of proposed wells. Only if the application is materially deficient or violates the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act can a permit be denied. Section 205 of the Act restricts the location of wells in the vicinity of water wells and water bodies. Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act gives additional guidance to addressing development impacts, and in Section 205(c) it requires the DEP to consider the impacts of proposed oil and gas wells on: (1) Publicly owned parks, forests, gamelands and wildlife areas. (2) National or State scenic rivers. (3) National natural landmarks. (4) Habitats of rare and endangered flora and fauna and other critical communities. (5) Historical and archaeological sites listed on the Federal or State list of historic places.

Millstone Creek, Allegheny National Forest. Millstone’s East and West branches join about a mile from its confluence with the Clarion River. In the 1990’s the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy recommended that the Forest Service take measures to protect West Branch Millstone because of its high diversity of damselflies and dragonflies. Photo by Bill Belitskus.

As a surface landowner, the Forest Service has had the authority to file objections since 1984, when the Oil and Gas Act was signed, but since that time it has filed just 3 objections covering 17 wells. All of these objections were filed this year as it became embarrassingly obvious to the Forest Service that allowing so much oil and gas drilling virtually unchecked made for bad public relations.

Will the FS Exert Its Authority?

As stated above, the Forest Service has long insisted that private oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny is not subject to NEPA. However, a document obtained recently through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request counters that notion. The document addressed a proposed oil and gas development in the Allegheny Front National Recreation Area, an inventoried roadless area and one of the most remote areas in the entire national forest. In the document, the Forest Service’s Office of General Counsel concluded that NEPA would apply in this instance, citing the agency’s 1911 Rules and Regulations that require Forest Supervisor approval for the location of roads to access minerals. The question must be asked, if NEPA applies in this case, why doesn’t it apply in all other cases? To date, there have been no environmental assessments on the Allegheny for road construction associated with private oil and gas development.

Heavy sedimentation into the Allegheny Reservoir creates a startling contrast. Photo courtesy of Project Lighthawk.

4

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Clean Water Act exemption

Adding to the dilemma in the Allegheny is the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Just as oil and gas prices were rising, the Environmental Protection Agency, under the authority of the Energy Policy Act, exempted earth disturbance activities associated with oil and gas development from the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit requirements. While the DEP is considering promulgating a general permit for oil and gas drilling at the state level, it is almost certain to lack the regulatory oversight necessary to protect not only the Allegheny, but most of Pennsylvania, where extensive oil and gas deposits exist. This is supported by the comments of DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty herself who praised oil and gas drilling last year before the PA House Appropriations Committee: “Oil and gas drilling activity is at record levels due to high natural gas and crude oil prices. The energy industry responded to these market demands by revisiting Pennsylvania’s oil and gas fields. DEP staff responded in kind — working intensely to marshal a record number of permits without delay…These environmental achievements help to stimulate the economy and create jobs. (emphasis added) Since the Clean Water Act exemption went into effect in June 2006, the number of wells drilled in the Allegheny has nearly doubled. For instance, 1,200 wells were drilled in fiscal year 2006, while that many have already been drilled in the first seven months of fiscal year 2007.

Public Lands — Private Minerals Eastern national forests are different than western national forests, which were created from “public domain” lands already owned by the federal government. The federal government therefore owns the mineral rights under most western national forests. By the time the federal government began to designate national forests in the east, most of the land was already privately owned. The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the President to acquire private lands for streamflow protection and to be set aside as national forest. It did not, however, authorize the purchase of the subsurface mineral estate and if the surface and subsurface estates had already been split (were owned by two separate owners) at the time the federal government acquired the surface, it would have to pursue acquisition of the subsurface in a separate proceeding. Allegheny NF (Pennsylvania) – 93% private minerals Daniel Boone NF (Kentucky) – 67% private minerals Wayne NF (Ohio) – 65% private minerals Monongahela NF (West Virginia) – 38% private minerals

Solutions and lessons learned

First, in trying to protect an area with split estates, it is critical to know the state laws governing mineral extraction operations. Find out what the rights of surface owners are and, if the landowner is an agency, pressure the agency to do what is within its authority to regulate surface occupancy by mineral operators. Do not trust the agency to its own due diligence.

Second, if the laws in your state are archaic (like they are in Pennsylvania), lobby your state legislature to change them. This will take time, but in the long run the efforts will be well worth it and may bring lasting protection. Several Pennsylvania municipalities have passed ordinances regulating oil and gas development, and while these ordinances are being challenged in court, similar measures should be introduced at the state level. Third, pursue funding to acquire mineral rights. The Forest Service should have a policy for acquiring mineral rights, so make sure they are requesting funds from Congress or the state legislature to accomplish meaningful mineral rights acquisition. Importantly, make sure that when the mineral rights are acquired, the agency withdraws the minerals from leasing or at the very least attaches a “no surface occupancy” stipulation. — Ryan Talbott is the Forest Watch Coordinator for the Allegheny Defense Project. He has a bachelor’s degree in environmental biology from Clarion University and a master of studies in environmental law degree from Vermont Law School.

DEP public information meeting June 1, 2007, held at 11 AM on a Friday morning. Three citizens attended. Photo by Bill Belitskus.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

5

The Wildland/New Urbanist Interface By Bethanie Walder

I

n the middle of a triple digit heat wave in July, I found refuge from the afternoon sun at a busy conference about how to build more livable, sustainable communities in the west. One of the keynote speakers, David Orr, talked about global climate change as we Missoulians sought respite from its immediate effects in any cool, air-conditioned place we could find.

Making the Connection Global climate change and the end of the oil era were two of the underlying, global threats that attendees of this conference were addressing. And while these topics have received much attention lately, what I found most interesting was the way conference presenters linked them to local issues and local solutions. For example, both of these global threats are being exacerbated through “out of control sprawl [that] is devouring prime farmlands and pristine wilderness, and creating massive traffic congestion” (http://www.newurbanism. org/newurbanism.html). While this conference was focused on building livable communities that maintain the things people love about the west, the conference itself was a part of the growing “new urbanism” movement (even though much western development is rural, as opposed to urban). This international movement is aimed at rebuilding livable cities, towns, villages and neighborhoods that integrate housing, parks/nature, schools, businesses, entertainment and other aspects of life into manageable and accessible systems for residents, without being so dependent on cars. Transportation needs are a primary focus of new urbanism as described on the website newurbanism.org. The first solution they propose to the problems mentioned above (in a list of ten steps) is: “an immediate and permanent moratorium an all new major road construction and expansions.” Clearly there is a close link between the work we’re doing and the work they’re doing, though we focus on wildlands, and they focus on the built environment. While reading about new urbanism, I was reminded of Wildlands CPR’s inception, as a project of an organization (Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (APM)) that was working to prevent sprawl to address the coming challenges from the end of the oil age. In effect, we grew out of the new urbanism movement. As we became an independent organization, however, Wildlands CPR focused our work on wildlands, not the urban growth and road issues that APM worked on. But now we’ve come full circle, with our restoration program partnering with activists working on community revitalization — restoring the natural link between wildlands, watersheds and the built environment.

6

The new urbanism movement has much in common with efforts to restore wildlands. Photo by Aslinth, courtesy of Flickr.

Looking in the Mirror Some of our colleagues question why we make this link, why we’ve expanded our work to incorporate human communities and wildlands. In defining themselves/ourselves as “biocentric,” many conservationists have omitted the human element. But in Wildlands CPR’s perspective, the two are integrally linked. Too often conservation/environmental work gets separated from human communities and human concerns, and environmentalists are accused of caring more about trees than people. This schism fueled the “jobs versus the environment” conflict, and some of our most vociferous opponents. In our restoration work we are acknowledging the link between communities and wildlands, especially the link between communities and the watersheds that sustain them. For example, sixty million people in 3,400 American communities get their drinking water from Forest Service lands, so watershed restoration can help improve drinking water supplies, among other benefits. Our restoration program also highlights the high-wage, high-skill jobs created in rural communities through watershed restoration efforts like road removal. But even more jobs can be created when we also revitalize the human/built environment in local communities.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Folks working in new urbanism refer regularly to revitalization, whether that means cleaning up and converting an old “Brownfield” site into affordable housing, or renovating abandoned or decrepit inner city buildings into shops, housing, community centers, etc. Even neighborhood gardens can be a form of revitalization. But, of course, folks working in new urbanism focus on urban areas, while most of Wildlands CPR’s restoration focuses on rural areas. And while some of the principles of new urbanism apply in rural areas, others do not, as there just isn’t the concentration of people to support critical services like public transit. But revitalization of the built environment in rural areas still makes sense as a way to maintain livable rural communities, as promoted by groups like the Center for Rural Affairs or the Institute for Rural America (even if these groups haven’t quite created a a commensurate, international “new ruralism” movement). New urbanists focus on what people need, and on how to build sustainable, livable communities that cause less damage to the environment. New urbanists recognize the link between restoration and revitalization. In their stated principles, they describe an approach called “transect planning.” The result of such planning is that, “the professional boundary between the natural and man-made disappears, enabling environmentalists to assess the design of the human habitat and the urbanists to support the viability of nature.” New urbanists are regularly linking back to nature conservation, yet conservationists only infrequently make the reciprocal link.

Sixty million people get their drinking water from Forest Service lands, so watershed restoration can help improve drinking water supplies... Wouldn’t it be more strategic for conservationists to consider this link, and to address human habitat and human needs as we also try to protect and restore watersheds and wildlands? We should clearly articulate the values and benefits of restoration and revitalization to those from whom we need support — namely, people. It’s just this approach that resulted in significant new financial investment ($34 million) in restoration in the state of Montana this year (see related article on page 2). From a people perspective, advocates for this funding talked about job creation; worker training programs; research programs at the University level; clean drinking water and improved hunting opportunities. However, fish and wildlife and their habitats were also real winners in this effort.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Photo by Dan Funsch.

Thinking Globally New urbanists are particularly concerned about global climate change and peak oil. While they are focusing on dramatically changed urban design as a way to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses, restoration provides some opportunities to enhance the capacity of our watersheds to withstand the unknown impacts of global climate change. Basically, the healthier our watersheds are, the more resilient they will be in the face of climate change, potentially providing critical habitat connectivity as habitat changes throughout the world. So restoration work provides a way to reduce the pending effects of global climate change, not just to address its already-realized impacts.

Acting Locally Fully restoring wildlands and watersheds will inherently benefit the rural communities situated adjacent to those efforts. Integrating restoration with community revitalization will dramatically enhance those benefits. We can learn a lot from how new urbanists define problems and offer solutions. We can continue to incorporate community revitalization into our restoration work, and vice versa, creating a new paradigm for rural living, with parellels to that proposed for urban living. And we can also recognize that rural living should remain rural and limited. As new urbanists revitalize our cities and make them desirable places to live again, perhaps fewer people will move into wildlands, thus reducing sprawl as well as problems in the wildland/urban interface. Restoration and revitalization are happening all over the world, in a plethora of venues. With climate change bearing down on all of us, these efforts provide some hope. To foment more hope, conservation groups can and should partner with new urbanist and rural advocates and planners, to work the seam between our cities, rural areas and wildlands, and we should look for new opportunities to support each other’s work. Next time we have a month-long, triple-digit heat-wave, I hope to take respite in a restored stream, running clean and cold, right towards town, where I can muse about the connections our work has to other issues as well.

7

The Hydra Returns By David Lien

I had the opportunity to meet with Colorado’s Representative Doug Lamborn recently, along with stakeholders from other groups supporting the proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness Area in Chaffee County, near Salida. It’s encouraging that Representative Lamborn took it upon himself to initiate this meeting, and he said we made “a strong case” for Browns Canyon, but he also met with representatives from groups opposed to the new wilderness area. Their primary concern seems to be “access,” mainly for off-highway vehicles (OHVs). In 2003, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth confirmed the damage and antagonism being caused by OHV use on our public lands: “We’re seeing more and more erosion, water degradation, and habitat destruction. We’re seeing more and more conflicts between users. We’re seeing more damage to cultural sites and more violation of sites sacred to American Indians. And those are just some of the impacts.”

Hikers rest along the trail. Photo by Kurt Kunkle.

Former Forest Service and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation biologist Alan Christensen states flatly: “Roads are the single biggest problem on the landscape…It’s well documented and everything else pales in comparison. It’s simple biology and common sense. Roads are the delivery system for people to invade habitat. If a wildlife population is weakened by land management decisions — in this case motorized access — you’ll have higher losses from everything: winterkill, predation, hunting, accidents, and disease.” Unfortunately, makers of all-terrain vehicles have found a strong ally in the National Rifle Association (NRA), which openly opposes the protection of roadless areas and designation of wilderness areas (the gold standard for wildlife habitat and hunting grounds). This in turn promotes increasingly brazen and oftentimes illegal OHV use, further degrading our dwindling backcountry wildlife habitats and hastening the demise of hunting as we know it.

Slow attrition follows road and trail development like its shadow. Wherever there is a road or OHV trail, there is slowly spreading damage, and OHV abuse has become a modern-day Hydra for public lands managers (The Hydra of Greek mythology was a many-headed monster Hercules fought and killed. After each head was cutoff, two others replaced it), as verified by Forest Service Chief Bosworth. Today in America there are 7 million miles of roads; in our National Forest System alone, more than 460,000 miles — enough to circle the earth 18 times. Just to put that figure into perspective, the Interstate Highway System is only 43,717 miles long. Some 270,000 miles of roads and routes are legally available to off-road vehicles nationwide, over six times the length of the interstate highway system. Meanwhile, at least 60,000 miles of unauthorized routes zigzag through public forests. Access has become excess.

8

Brown’s Canyon proposed Wilderness. Photo by Mike Russo.

A poll conducted in 2000 by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance found that 83 percent of hunters surveyed supported efforts to keep the remaining roadless areas in national forests the way they are. In a recent survey by the Arizona Department of Game and Fish, 54 percent of respondents indicated that off road vehicle disruption represented a barrier to their participation in hunting. And as Dan Heinz, retired Forest Service District Ranger says: “The backlash against ORV abuse is gaining momentum…They are ruining hunting everywhere, disrupting ranching operations, and any feeling of solitude.”

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Durango-based hunter David Petersen concurs, “The motorized crowd may not be able to go everywhere they want sitting on their butts, but if they chase all the game out, gouge the meadows, muddy the streams and make all that noise, I have no reason to go there. They effectively have denied access to everyone who doesn’t want those things.” Petersen perceives that most organized ATV groups would like to police the bad apples that give them a bad name, but that no real action ever takes place. “Every year, it gets much worse.” According to recent studies, only about 6 percent of national forest visits involve the recreational use of off-road vehicles. However, this small percentage of users has an incredibly destructive impact on the landscape and the quality of recreation for other public lands users.1 A now years-old report by the Council on Environmental Quality stated that, “ORVs have damaged every kind of ecosystem found in the United States.”2

The scenery and solitude of Brown’s Canyon are befitting of wilderness protection. Photo by Kurt Kunkle.

Uncontrolled off-roading also affects private landowners. Kiley Miller and John Rzeczycki, who own 160 acres south of Moab, Utah, are fighting an ongoing court battle to keep off-highway vehicles from crossing their property on an old mining road. “We use four-wheelers ourselves to work on the ranch,” says Rozman. “But public land is supposed to be multiple use, and the problem with OHVs is that they preclude every other use. You can’t run cows out there with them tearing around, people don’t want to bike or hike near them, so where’s the multiple use?” Yes, we all use vehicles to visit our favorite spots to hike, camp, hunt, fish, or just relax, but over 90 percent of us do our actual exploring on foot. What about our rights? Besides, wilderness areas are open and accessible to all, only certain “uses” are limited. One of the most important purposes of wilderness is to provide people with a broad array of outdoor recreational opportunities. These include backpacking, hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, horseback riding, mountaineering and rock climbing, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, wildlife viewing, photography, canoeing, and kayaking.

of trails designated for non-motorized users. As a result, most points within Chaffee County are less than 2 miles from a motorized route. In fact, no low elevation BLM lands have wilderness designation east of the continental divide in Colorado. The Hydra is back, in the form of crosscountry ORV two-tracks sprouting from main stems of thousands of miles of roads. But even Hercules found a way to stop the Hydra’s regrowth. Banning cross-country use, as the new Forest Service rule does, is one way to stop this ORV Hydra from growing beyond control. — David Lien is the volunteer co-chair of Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

Wherever there is a road or OHV trail, there is slowly spreading damage, and OHV abuse has become a modern-day Hydra for public lands managers. The proposed wilderness in Colorado, Browns Canyon, is a limited core area of 20,000 BLM and Forest Service acres nearly surrounded by encroaching roads and OHV trails characterized by over-use and abuse. The proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness is literally an island of still wild public lands that is easily traveled by foot and horseback and provides a high quality hunting experience. It is readily accessed by a number of roads north, south and east, and the adjacent Pike & San Isabel National Forests have 5,350 miles of motorized roads and trails. The surrounding Salida Ranger District offers over 476 miles of motorized roads and trails, whereas there are only 199 miles

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Footnotes 1 Wildlands CPR. “Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands.” 2007. 2 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Ecological Services Division. “Assessing the ecological impacts of ATV trail construction and use on public lands: factors to consider and a review of literature.” Internal Peer Review: 10/3/02

9

Program Updates, Autumn 2007 By Jason Kiely

Restoration Program Wildlands CPR Leads Collaborative Group on Restoration Principles Collaboration seems to be the current “solution” for dealing with natural resource issues. Collaborative groups are forming all around the West to deal with issues ranging from fuels reduction to motorized recreation, and while collaboration is not the answer to all our natural resource dilemmas, Wildlands CPR is helping lead one such effort that holds great promise for ecologically sound restoration in Montana. The group calls itself the Montana Forest Restoration Committee. Marnie Criley, Wildlands CPR’s Restoration Coordinator, chaired the group’s Vision and Principles Subcommittee and serves on the Steering Committee to help guide the larger effort. In January 2007, the National Forest Foundation and Artemis Common Ground convened thirty-four conservationists, off-roaders, outfitters, loggers, mill operators, and state and Forest Service officials to discuss the possibility of writing a set of principles to guide the restoration process on national forests in Montana. The principles would represent a “zone of agreement” where controversy, delays, appeals, and litigation are significantly reduced. While we had some strong differences of opinion, everyone agreed that the effort was worth pursuing — we all want to see restoration that would provide both ecological as well as community benefits. From February through July, 10 people from conservation groups, the Forest Service, timber mills and motorized recreation met face-to-face for nearly 50 hours to hash out a set of principles. We reviewed other restoration principles, including national principles that Wildlands CPR co-authored several years ago, and applied them to Montana. The involvement of the Forest Service was essential for making the principles a viable agency tool, among other contributors to our success. Don’t think we had smooth sailing all through the process: roads, fire and the commercial use of wood products were tough issues to resolve. However, by being honest and committed, having a sense of humor, talking issues out and listening to each other, we were able to find common ground. While none of us changed our fundamental positions, all were changed by the process. On August 1, the Montana Forest Restoration Working Group unanimously approved thirteen principles and an implementation plan. Of course, now comes the hard part — putting the principles in practice on the ground.

10

Our hope is that success with this initial effort will fuel the group’s commitment to use these principles to advance ecologically appropriate restoration projects — projects that put ecological needs first while also addressing economic and social needs like community vitality. Wildlands CPR will continue our involvement and push for road removal as a key component of restoration projects. As part of the Steering Committee for the Council, Marnie will be working with the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests to implement the Principles in on-theground projects.

Science Coordinator Organizes Conference Session

Thousands of miles of wildland roads are being removed across North America to mitigate their negative impacts. The U.S. Forest Service alone has decommissioned more than 30,000 miles, and yet, research related to road removal is just beginning to catch up with the practice. In August, Adam Switalski organized a conference session at an international joint meeting of the Ecological Society of America and the Society for Ecological Restoration, bringing together five PhDs and other scientists from academia, agencies, and NGOs. The session was closely linked to the theme of the conference, “Restoration in a Changing World.” Its goals were to synthesize the current state of knowledge of road removal across landscape, watershed, and site-level spatial scales and to propose directions for future interdisciplinary research. Presenters examined the issue with a crowd of 150 peers. Previously, no session had addressed this topic.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Transportation Program Promoting Alternatives to a Motorized Utah Planning Montana’s Travel Laurel Hagen is nurturing a fledgling rural conservation movement in small southern Utah towns as Wildlands CPR’s Utah Coordinator, based in Moab. Despite the lack of larger population centers, Laurel is finding a receptive audience. She suspects that this pushback is a reaction to area county commissions promoting off-road vehicle events and “mega-routes” at the expense of both rural lifestyles. The growing number of residents and visitors who are in the area to backpack, rock climb, mountain bike and pursue other self-propelled activities is another factor. Organizations and volunteers are taking a similar tack throughout several areas Laurel is working. Groups are fanning out across the rugged landscape to document damage to off-road vehicle hot spots as well as threats to treasured areas. This field work supports substantive comments to the Forest Service and compelling reasons for residents to advocacate for sensible recreation and transportation management. The Boulder Mountain area in the Dixie National Forest serves as a case study for grassroots support for better management. The Garfield County Commission has aggressively pushed ATV events and motorized routes, adopting plans for routes on Boulder Mountain that would connect to the infamous Paiute Trail and proposing to host an ATV jamboree. However, leery of the damage to rural culture that could be caused by becoming an unsustainable off-road vehicle destination, the Boulder town council voted to reject these plans. Members of the local Alliance for the Escalante River Basin are supporting this popular position by getting out in the field to document off-road vehicle abuses. On the Manti-La Sal National Forest, unauthorized individuals have been building ATV routes using a bulldozer. Laurel is supporting the efforts of Red Rock Forests and the Great Old Broads for Wilderness as they monitor such illegal behavior , as well as the Canyon Country Heritage Association’s attempts to protect ancient Indian ruins across Cedar Mesa from illegal route-building. On the Ashley National Forest, the Vernal-based Uinta Mountain Club has participated in the county’s collaboration process with a diverse group who worked together to identify appealing trails for non-motorized recreation, as well as appropriate motorized routes. Unfortunately, the county commission is now trying to modify these collaborative agreements. We’ll continue to work with pro-conservation folks on the Ashley, Dixie and Manti-La Sal National Forests to resist such heavy-handed approaches taken by their respective county commissions.

As Montana Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator, Adam Rissien is working closely with grassroots partners and allies on three priority travel plans in Montana, as well as assisting folks on other forests where clean water, wildlife habitat, and enjoyment of nature are threatened by out-ofcontrol off-road vehicle use. Adam is working on one plan for the entire Bitterroot National Forest and two travel plans on the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest, based on motorized threats to roadless and Wilderness Study Areas and opportunities to expand the organizational capacity of our partner groups. On the Bitterroot, representatives of the Selway-Pintler Wilderness Chapter of the Back Country Horsemen, a homeowner’s association, Friends of the Bitterroot, the local Sierra Club chapter, and the Montana Wilderness Association have partnered to form the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition. Wildlands CPR’s support for this diverse coalition is paying off. For instance, at their annual state convention in March 2007 the Back Country Horsemen of Montana passed a resolution submitted by the Selway-Pintler Wilderness Chapter calling for off-road vehicle reform. More recently, the group launched a website, www.quietusecoalition.org, and will distribute an inaugural edition of the “Quiet Times” this fall. These outreach tools will help coalition leaders expand their ranks by attracting residents who value the peace, quiet and wildlife of a forest. Collectively, coalition members have monitored high-value areas across the forest, sharing information on off-road vehicle trespass, damage, and illegal route-building with the agency. Adam helped expand the capacity of Montanans for Quiet Recreation, another coalition dedicated to conserving landscapes for quiet muscle-powered recreation. The group is led by a collection of outfitters, equestrians, hunters, skiers, hikers and others on the Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests. With Adam’s help, the group recently secured funding to hire Sarah Juran who will serve as the group’s recreation coordinator.

Jeep safaris and ATV gatherings have had “boom and bust” economic impacts similar to those of other resource extraction industries. Wildlands CPR file photo.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

11

Swan Valley, Montana Roads History: a Mapping Project By Marnie Criley, Mo Hartmann (Northwest Connections) and Sarah Olimb (American Wildlands)

Introduction

For the last year and a half, Wildlands CPR and Northwest Connections have been working together to expand road restoration in the Swan Valley of Montana. As part of this project, we worked with American Wildlands’ geographic information systems (GIS) lab (www.wildlands.org) to create a visual history of road development in the Swan Valley. This shows the progressive increase in road mileage over the last 100 years, providing a graphic picture of the current situation and how different it is from the past. The Swan Valley acts as a grizzly bear linkage zone between the Swan Mountains to the east and the Mission Mountains to the west, making the impacts of road development even more significant. Below is an explanation of the technique used to develop this map, since progressive maps like this are such excellent tools for outreach to local residents and agency personnel.

Methodology

Northwest Connections collected historic and current paper maps from the U.S. Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company, while American Wildlands’ GIS lab drew from other sources including digital orthographic photos and digital National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) images. American Wildlands scanned the paper maps (1912-1994) and digitized roads in ESRI ArcMap, a mapping software. They used digital orthographic photos and NAIP images in combination to accurately represent roads for 2005. In each image, they manually digitized the roads. Finally, they merged the resulting layers into one, ensuring that all roads were represented.

Map produced by GIS Lab at American Wildlands. Road data is based on 1912, 1948, 1965 and 1978 USFS paper maps, 1994 and 2002 Plum Creek Timber Co. paper maps, 2003 digital orthographic photos, and 2005 NAIP imagery. Road density for 1994 was corrected for missing data in the northern part of the Swan Valley. 12

American Wildlands then calculated the average road density (miles of road/square mile of land) for each of the maps and prepared a line graph to display the increase from 1912 to 2005. However, because the road maps were largely based on paper maps (the accuracy of which cannot be verified) and digital imagery (that hasn’t been ground-truthed and has builtin errors from digitizing and cloud/tree cover), the calculated road densities are only estimates. For instance, if the same technology applied to the 2005 map was applied to the 1994 map (and possibly the 1978 and 1965 maps), the maps might look different, with the sharp spike of the last 10 years actually occurring over the last 20-30 years. That said, the road density graph illustrates the significant increase in road density over the past century in the Swan Valley.

Road De

1912

1948

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

7

Road Density in the Swan Valley, Montana from 1912 to 2005*

Density (mi/mi2)

6

2005

◆

5 4 3 2 1965

1 1912

0 1900

1948

◆

1910

1920

1930

1940

1978

◆

1994

◆

◆

◆ 1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

* Not including area contained in USFS Wilderness Areas

Conclusion

The project creates a ‘visual story’ of past and current road density in the Swan Valley, and is a tool for public meetings to spark dialogue on watershed restoration needs. It is by no means a final product, but will be amended as new information is collected through local residents, agency personnel and ground-truthing. Northwest Connections and Wildlands CPR have already used these maps in public meetings and planning sessions to talk about the need for watershed restoration through road removal.

evelopment in the Swan Valley, Montana 1912 to 2005

1965

1978

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

1994

2005 13

House of Representatives Allocates $65 Million to Remediate Washington Roads State Leadership & Conservation Coalition Support the Initiative

W

hen it comes to salmon recovery, removing dams grabs the headlines. But decaying roads are equally damaging to endangered salmon populations and may finally get the attention — and funding — they need. In June, the House of Representatives approved a $65 million expenditure to decommission, repair and maintain Forest Service roads throughout the country in order to protect community water sources and threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Introduced by Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA), HR 2643 passed with bipartisan support and if approved by the Senate would fund road decommissioning, culvert upgrades and repairs to storm damaged roads. A chronic lack of investment in aging forest roads endangers public lands, clean water and fish populations. Thousands of miles of Forest Service roads in Washington and other northwest states block salmon passage and are at risk of triggering destructive landslides. Sediment from these roads smother salmon and other fish eggs with sediment, and dirty our drinking water. Failing Forest Service roads in Washington state have resulted in violations of the Clean Water Act, and the agency estimates it needs $300 million to decommission and repair its roads in Washington in order to meet state standards. Nationally, the Forest Service estimates that they need to remove an estimated 140,000 to 186,000 miles of roads to bring the road system down to a manageable, maintainable system that still meets the needs of the agency and forest users. A 2003 Wildlands CPR study found that it would cost approximately $93 million per year for about 20 years to implement a national road removal plan. That $93 million would provide between 2,000-3,000 high-wage, high-skill jobs in rural communities. To draft the appropriation, Rep. Dicks relied on the brain trust and footwork of a diverse collection of state officials, Indian tribes and conservation groups committed to salmon recovery and watershed restoration. Wildlands CPR recently contracted with Sue Gunn to represent us in this impressive coalition. Sue has a PhD in isotope geology and years of experience working on conservation appropriations and public land issues. Other Washington coalition members include the state Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, treaty Indian tribes in western Washington, and 10 other conservation groups. If adopted by the Senate, this $65 million investment would be the largest direct allocation that the Forest Service has ever received for

14

Suiattle River wash-out of 2006 in Washington’s Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Photo courtesy of Washington Department of Ecology.

watershed restoration through road decommissioning. But Senate passage is not a done deal, as the current Senate version, S. 1696, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), does not allocate the additional funding needed for watershed restoration. For more information on the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, contact Sue Gunn at [email protected]; or visit the Washington Department of Ecology web page at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/ forest_practices.html

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Groups to Sue FS for Off-road Vehicle Mismanagement

S

portsmen and conservation groups have been forced to pressure the Forest Service with legal action after the agency rejected pleas to protect native fish from off-road vehicle damage. Native brook trout, already in decline in the Tellico River watershed, are threatened by suffocating erosion caused by recreational off-roading in the Tellico Off-Road Vehicle Area. The area includes parts of the Nantahala (North Carolina) and Cherokee (Tennessee) National Forests.

The Forest Service, at times in partnership with off-road users, has installed culverts, ditches, sediment traps and water bars. But, as their own studies show, these erosion-control projects are improperly designed, poorly maintained, and often fail due to heavy use. In addition:

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) filed a Notice of Intent to Sue on behalf of sportsmen and conservation groups including the North Carolina and Tennessee Councils of Trout Unlimited, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project. They charge the Forest Service with multiple violations of federal and state laws — and its own regulations.

• The almost 40 miles of designated routes in the system exceed the maximum density of trails allowed by the Forest Plan by 200%; • Streams affected by the Tellico routes have 100 times more mud in them than unaffected streams of similar characteristics; • The Nantahala National Forest management plan says ORV trails should provide “easy to moderate levels of challenge.” But ORV users have rated at least half of the Tellico routes as difficult or highly difficult, attracting the biggest ground-disturbing off-road vehicles.

The Tellico Off-Road Vehicle area, in the Nantahala National Forest in the headwaters of the upper Tellico River, is one of the largest off-road vehicle areas on public lands in the Southeast. The area has twice as many designated off-road vehicle routes as allowed by the Forest Service’s own plan — not counting innumerable illegal routes. The agency has also documented dozens of stretches where routes are within 100 feet of streams — again, contrary to its own rules. Years of heavy use have turned many of Tellico’s routes into massive ditches, some more than seven feet deep. In wet conditions, these eroded routes send muddy water directly into nearby creeks and streams. The groups have asked the Forest Service to permanently close the most damaging routes, and temporarily close the entire system in the wettest months. This option was considered but rejected by the agency last spring. Instead, without the requisite environmental review, the Forest Supervisor implemented a seasonal closure of the worst routes, but took no action to address problems throughout the rest of the eroded system.

The groups claim the Forest Service is in violation of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and myriad federal and state regulations. — Special thanks to Southern Environmental Law Center for information used in this report.

PEER Tackles Off Road Abuse with New Campaign

P

ublic Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has launched a new campaign aimed at curbing the excessive off-road abuse of our public lands. PEER and its new group of “Rangers for Responsible Recreation” are campaigning to draw attention to the growing threat posed by off-road vehicle misuse and to assist overburdened state and federal land managers. The Rangers include more than a dozen of the country’s most seasoned law enforcement and resource management specialists from every major public lands agency and several administrations. According to the group’s website: “Reckless off-roading is creating a backlash among many public lands users, including those who enjoy viewing wildlife, conducting archaeological research, hiking, camping and hunting. Besides causing extensive damage to natural and cultural resources, off-road vehicles are becoming an increasingly severe public safety and law enforcement problem, and taxpayers will be stuck with the bill to clean up their mess.” Wildlands CPR board member Jim Furnish is one of the retired agency leaders calling for reform. For more information or to get involved, visit: www.peer.org/campaigns/publiclands/orv

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Scenes like this are all-too-common on our public lands. Wildlands CPR file photo.

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.

The Influence of Snowmobile Emissions on Air Quality and Human Health By Adam Switalski with research assistance from Monica Wright

Introduction Scenes of Yellowstone Park Rangers wearing gas masks brought national attention to snowmobile pollution. In Yellowstone (YNP) where the cleanest air in the nation should be found, levels of pollution often exceeded those of downtown Los Angeles (Rodes et al. 1998). Studies were quickly initiated and two-stroke snowmobiles were banned from the Park. Elsewhere, millions of snowmobilers still rev up these engines each winter and head into the snow-covered wildlands. No federal laws regulate snowmobile exhaust (outside Yellowstone) and accordingly they are not equipped with any pollution control devices. Air pollution from snowmobiles is well documented and can result in a number of health problems. This paper reviews current research on the extent of snowmobile pollution and its impacts on human health.

Snowmobile emissions Snowmobiles first gained popularity in the 1960s. At that time, the 6 horsepower machines reached speeds of 35 mph. Powered by lightweight, high-power engines, today’s snowmobiles boast up to 225 horsepower (4 times a Harley) and can exceed 120 mph. While technological advances have also produced cleaner four-stroke engines, the vast majority of snowmobiles are still two-stroke engines, which are as polluting as their 1960s era predecessors. Two-stoke engines are highly polluting. The lubricating oil is mixed with the fuel, and 20% to 33% of this mixture is emitted unburned into the air and snowpack (MDEQ 2004). Also, the combustion process itself is relatively inefficient and results in high emissions of air pollutants

16

Please don’t smog out the wildlife! Wildlands CPR file photo.

(NPS 2000). Because of these two reasons, two-stroke snowmobiles emit very large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and smoke (MDEQ 2004). Extensive research on snowmobile pollution has been conducted in Yellowstone National Park (YNP; e.g., Ingersoll et al. 1997, White and Carroll 1998, Ingersoll 1999, Morris et al. 1999, Bishop et al. 1999, NPS 2000, Bishop et al. 2001, Cain and Coefield 2001, Kado et al. 2001, Sive et al. 2002, Janssen and Schettler 2003, Bishop et al. 2006). While the most recent Winter Use Plan has banned the use of two-stoke engines in YNP (replacing them with limited numbers of cleaner burning four-stroke engines), these studies are the best available science for measuring the effects of snowmobiles outside the Park where two-stroke engines still dominate. The scale of the pollution documented in YNP was remarkable. Snowmobiles were responsible for 68% to 90% of HC emissions and 35% to 68% of CO emissions each year (NPS 2000), but make up only 6% of the total vehicles entering the park annually. On a peak day in YNP, snowmobiles released approximately 20 tons of hydrocarbons (HC) and 54 tons of carbon monoxide (CO) into the air (NPS 2000). For comparison, in an average day in July, cars in YNP emit 2.5 tons of HC and 17.9 tons of CO (NPS 2000). While the snowmobile season usually only lasts three months in YNP (mid-December to mid-March), their emissions equaled or exceeded the total annual emissions for CO and HC from other mobile sources combined (cars, buses, and snow coaches).

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

The effects of snowmobile emissions on health Emissions from snowmobiles have been found to contribute to serious health problems. Large numbers of snowmobiles in one area (such as parking lots), cold stable weather conditions, and low wind speed all increase the accumulation of toxins and increase the risk of adverse health effects (NPS 2000). Additionally, riding in groups of snowmobiles exposes the rider to emissions from the snowmobiles in front of them. Below are some of the potential health effects from inhaling HC, CO, and particulate matter (PM) emitted from snowmobiles.

Hydrocarbons (HC)

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter (PM)

Hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds that include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. Kado et al. (2001) found high levels of exposure of benzene for various employees in YNP. They found that workers at the West Entrance were exposed to benzene concentrations of 100 to 300 µg/m3, mobile patrol employees 100 to 200 µg/m3, and a mechanic working indoors 500 µg/m3. The mechanic level of exposure exceeded the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended exposure level for benzene (320 µg/m3). While these compounds can cause dizziness, headaches, and loss of consciousness, the EPA has also identified benzene as a carcinogen, and those exposed to benzene have an increased incidence of leukemia.

Snook Fussell (1997) quantified carbon monoxide releases in Grand Teton National Park and concluded that tourists are exposed to significant and dangerous levels of CO. This is compounded by the fact that most tourists travel in large groups (eight on average, Machlis 1995), snowmobile trails force travel directly behind other snowmobiles, most trails are at high elevation (increasing susceptibility to adverse effects), and many trips require several hours of driving. CO binds to the hemoglobin in blood and inhibits the transportation of oxygen in the body. High levels of CO exposure have been shown to lead to visual impairment, reduced work capacity and mental dexterity, poor learning, nausea, headaches, dizziness, and even death (EPA 1991).

Particulate matter, also found in snowmobile emissions, is detrimental in fine and coarse forms as it accumulates in the respiratory system and can lead to decreased lung function, respiratory disease and even death (Janssen and Schettler 2003). Of the pollutants emitted by snowmobiles, particulates are of special concern because their small size makes them easily respirable and thus delivered directly into the lungs, causing any number of the aforementioned maladies (NPS 2000).

Ways to reduce emissions

Conclusion

With the negative health impacts of snowmobiles well established, several strategies for minimizing pollution have been identified. These include using oxygenated fuels (such as ethanol-based fuels), direct-injection two-stroke engines, and four-stroke engines. However, only four-stroke engines have been found to significantly reduce emissions. Electric snowmobile prototypes that produce no emissions have been developed, but are not commercially available.

While YNP has banned two-stroke engines, the vast majority of snowmobilers in the U.S. use the out-dated twostroke technology. Two-stoke engines are very polluting and the risk to human health has been well documented. If land managers are concerned about air pollution and its effects on human health, snowmobile use should be limited and/or transitioned to less polluting four-stroke engines.

The University of Denver tested the benefits of using oxygenated fuels in snowmobiles in Yellowstone (Morris et al. 1999, Bishop et al. 2001). Oxygenated fuels allow for more efficient combustion and hence, reduced pollution. Although they found a 3% to 11% reduction of CO, there was no reduction in hydrocarbon emissions. Direct-injection two-stroke engines have been shown to decrease hydrocarbon emissions from snowmobiles by 70% to 75% when compared with conventional two-stroke engines, but had similar emissions for other pollutants (NPS 2000). However, neither oxygenated fuels nor direct-injection two-stroke engines were shown to significantly reduce emissions. Several studies have recommended replacing two-stroke engines with four stroke engines to significantly reduce emissions and noise (Snook Fussell 1997, Miers et al. 2000, Kado et al. 2001, Eriksson et al. 2003). Banning two-stroke engines in YNP has resulted in a 60% reduction in CO and a 96% reduction in HC emissions (Bishop et al. 2006). Additionally, Bishop et al. (2006) found improved fuel efficiency, reduction in visible exhaust plumes, odor, and noise.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

— Adam Switalski is Science Coordinator for Wildlands CPR.

— references on next page — 17

— continued from previous page —

Literature Cited Bishop, G.A., D.H. Stedman, M. Hektner, and J.D. Ray. 1999. An in-use snowmobile emission survey in Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Science and Technology 33: 3924-3926. Bishop, G.A., J.A. Morris, and D.H. Stedman. 2001. Snowmobile contributions to mobile source emissions in Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Science and Technology 35: 2874-2881. Bishop, G.A., D.A. Burgard, T.R. Dalton, D.H. Stedman, and J.D. Ray. 2006. Winter motor-vehicle emissions in Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Science and Technology 40(8): 2505-2510. Cain, C.J., and J. Coefield. 2001. Prelimanary Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis of Yellowstone National Park West Entrance Wintertime Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 26p. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide. Washington, D.C. EPA600/8-90-045A. Eriksson, K., D. Tjarner, I. Marqvardsen, and B. Jarvholm. 2003. Exposure to benzene, toluene, xylenes and total hydrocarbons among snowmobile drivers in Sweden. Chemosphere 50(10): 1343-7. Ingersoll, G., J. Turk, C. McClure, S. Lawlor, D. Clow, and A. Mast. 1997. Snowpack chemistry as an indicator of pollution emission levels from motorized winter vehicles in Yellowstone National Park. Presented at the 65th Annual Western Snow Conference, May 4-8, Banff, Canada. Pp. 103-113. Ingersoll, G. 1999. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpack chemistry in Yellowstone National Park, 1998. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4148. 23p. Jamssem, S., and T. Schettler. 2003. Health implications of snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. 27p. Kado, N.Y., P.A. Kuzmicky, and R.A. Okamoto. 2001. Environmental and occupational exposure to toxic air pollutants from winter snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. Prepared for the Yellowstone Park Foundation and National Park Service. 152p. http://www. deq.state.mt.us/CleanSnowmobile/publications/Reports/ ExposureToxicAirPollutants_FinalRpt.pdf

18

Machlis, G.E. 1995. Visitor services project – Yellowstone National Park report summary. University of Idaho Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Moscow. Miers, S.A., R.D. Chalgren, and C.L. Anderson. 2000. Noise and Emission Reduction Strategies for a Snowmobile. Society of Automotive Engineers. 6p. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2004. Solutions – Oxygenated Fuels. Accessed online in September 2007 at: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/ cleansnowmobile/solutions/fuels/Oxygenated.htm Morris, J., G.A. Bishop, and D.H. Stedman. 1999. Real-time Remote Sensing of Snowmobile Emissions at Yellowstone National Park: an Oxygenated Fuel Study. Western Regional Biomass Energy Program. Lincoln, NE. 19p. National Park Service (NPS). 2000. Air Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage in National Parks. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2000. Rodes, C., L. Sheldon, D. Whitaker, A. Clayton, K. Fitzgerald, J. Flanagen, F. DiGenova, S. Hering, and C. Frazier. 1998. Measuring Concentrations of Selected Air Pollutants Inside California Vehicles. Final report under Contract No. 95-339. California Air Resources Board. Sive, B., D. Shively, B. Pape. 2002. Spatial Variation and Characteristics of Volatile Organic Compounds Associated with Snowmobile Emissions in Yellowstone National Park. Preliminary research report submitted to the National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, May 28, 2002. 35p. Snook Fussell, L.M. 1997. Carbon monoxide exposure by snowmobile riders. National Park Science 17(1): 1-9 http://www2.nature.nps.gov/parksci/vol17/vol17(1)/ 07carbon.htm White, J.J., and J.N. Carroll. 1998. Emissions from Snowmobile Engines Using Bio-based Fuels and Lubricants. Prepared for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, by Southwest Research Institute. Report number SwRI 7383. 53p.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

A Guide for Desert and Dryland Restoration: New Hope for Arid Lands The Society for Ecological Restoration International and Island Press recently published this desert/dryland restoration guide by David A. Bainbridge. This guide is practically laid out, providing resources for restoration practitioners, land managers, ranchers, farmers, educators, foresters, landscapers, gardeners and homeowners. It includes interesting estimates of the economic cost of off-road vehicle damage. And it provides comprehensive resources and information, including scientific and indigenous knowledge about caring for and restoring desert ecosystems. According to the preface, “This book provides a brief introduction to the ecology of desert plants in southwestern North America, explores the causes of desertification and land abuse, and outlines the processes and procedures needed to evaluate sites and plan, implement, and monitor desert restoration projects.” Removed road in the Little Missouri National Grasslands, North Dakota. Photo by Sara Simmers.

For more information or to order the book, go to www. desertrestore.org

Getting up to Speed: A Conservationist’s Guide to Wildlife and Highways This new report was recently published by Defenders of Wildlife and provides fantastic resources for folks working on the impacts of highways on wildlife. Learn more about it at: http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/habitat_conservation/habitat_and_highways/resources/getting_up_to_ speed.php.

Bighorn sheep looking both ways before they cross. Wildlands CPR file photo.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

According to Defenders, the book “seeks to crack the code on transportation and make the process more transparent from beginning to end—everything you always wanted to know about road building, but were afraid to ask… By demystifying the world of transportation, we hope to provide conservationists with the necessary foundation for becoming better informed, more effective stakeholders in transportation debates.” Hardcopies are available free of charge to non-profit wildlife conservation advocacy organizations. Government agencies and private companies may purchase hardcopies for $25 each. Please email all questions and inquiries to jesse. [email protected].

19

Roads to Ruin: Revised Statute 2477 and National Forests By Laurel Hagen

Editor’s Note: this article is meant only as a practical orientation for the layperson, and does not represent the official legal positions of Wildlands CPR or our affiliates. RS 2477 law and policy is very complex and constantly shifting, and it would be impossible to represent the full spectrum of issues here.

I

n early battles over logging in the Pacific Northwest, timber companies would engage in what they called “park prevention” — targeting potential parklands for clearcutting to disqualify the areas from protection. Now, in Utah, anti-wilderness forces are doing the same thing, but they’re doing it with roads and off-road vehicles. A road, an alleged road, or any significant evidence of the passage of vehicles can be enough to disqualify public lands from a chance at future protection as Wilderness. The largest threat to our national forests is not currently logging or mining; it is the expansion of playgrounds for the motor vehicle. With the increasing popularity and technological sophistication of off-road vehicles, lands that were once safe from damage merely because of their isolation are now in danger.

If you try to stay abreast of the ever-evolving plethora of public lands issues, you’ve probably heard something about RS 2477. The statute is a small part of the 1866 Mining Law, which says, “The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.” A later public lands law repealed the Mining Law, but grandfathered in any public rights-of-way that existed on Bureau of Land Management land before 1976. However, most national forest lands were “reserved for public uses” (created) between 1896 and 1906. Therefore, most RS 2477 claims on national forest land must have been established before the date of the forest’s creation. To make this a little more concrete, we’ll take a case in the La Sal Mountains outside Moab. A member of the Grand County Council wrote a letter to the Forest Service (FS), claiming several RS 2477 highways in a roadless area. Though it’s the county’s legal responsibility to present evidence showing that the county owns the claim, the Council member presented no such evidence. Utah counties generally argue that all they need to do is publicly make such a claim, and the roads are “theirs.” The county government, they say, then has all decision-making power over that “road.” Thus, based on a single letter, the Forest Service removed a large part of the roadless area from its maps.

Many RS 2477 claims probably represent a bid to win jurisdiction over federal lands, rather than an effort to secure access. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

20

However, the counties’ position differs considerably from FS policy. In response to a 1996 Congressional directive banning federal agencies from making any final regulations pertaining to RS 2477, the FS instituted a moratorium on

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

validating RS 2477 claims. An RS 2477 claim on national forest land, under this moratorium, cannot be validated by the FS unless there is an “urgent need” to do so. Virtually all claims should be settled in court. Several counties, like Grand County, are making RS 2477 claims as part of the current forest travel planning process underway. However, the FS is supposed to make decisions about roads and recreation based only on regular planning tools (such as public input, field work, and ecological assessments). Unfortunately, many FS offices are unaware of their agency’s policies and regulations. This lack of knowledge makes them more subject to political intimidation from county governments. Even if a case like Grand County’s were to go to court, proving up an RS 2477 claim can be a heavy lift. A county has to present evidence that a right-of-way existed before the national forest unit that holds the claim was designated. Since many forests, like the Manti-La Sal, were designated at the turn of the century, road construction records, maps, and photographs among other important evidence can be difficult to come by. In reality, RS

Unfortunately, many FS offices are unaware of their agency’s policies and regulations. In their efforts to lay claim to federal lands, some counties have argued that even faint tracks constitute a “road.” Photo by Laurel Hagen.

2477 is currently tangled in a web of lawsuits at various places in the court system, and no controversial claim is likely to be unequivocally granted until Congress or the courts have a final say. Congress has been hesitant to resolve the question. The larger issue in RS 2477, of course, has little to do with transportation, and everything to do with history, culture and values. RS 2477 routes rarely link one major destination to another; they’re usually abandoned mine tracks, or cattle trails that meander across the countryside. The real source of all the wrangling is the question of who has control over federal public lands, and whether conservation or resource extraction will win the day. A series of environmental laws were passed in the 1970’s; some put restrictions on federal land for the first time. Some westerners resented federal manage-

ment of public lands on which they had long had free rein. Resurrecting RS 2477 has been a strategy for county governments to circumvent decisions made by the federal government, by claiming that the county owns a highway rightof-way in an area the agency wants to protect. Right now, many county governments in Utah are trying to create large, tangled backcountry trail systems for off-road vehicle use. This shortsighted approach has the potential to destroy large portions of Utah’s wildlands, fragmenting habitat, ripping up desert waterways, and marring peace and quiet. With our partners, Wildlands CPR is making sure that all Forest Service offices in Utah have access to good legal information. Making sure that no harmful RS 2477 claims (like the ones in the La Sals) are legitimized as part of the travel planning process is one of our highest priorities. — Laurel Hagen is Wildlands CPR’s Utah ORV Coordinator.

User-created routes extend the impacts of soil compaction and facilitate the spread of noxious weeds. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

21

I

t’s been a hot, smoky, and extremely busy summer here at Wildlands CPR. We’re finally up to full staffing (and then some), with six new folks on board over the last five months (four since June). Our new folks have added incredible knowledge, experience, creativity and depth to Wildlands CPR. In addition, they’re not all located in Missoula. We introduced Laurel Hagen, in our new Moab office, in the last issue of the RIPorter, and we’re pleased to have begun working with Sue Gunn on a contract basis in Washington state. Her introduction is below, as well as some of the other new things going on here…

Welcome Sue Gunn is an earth scientist and represents Wildlands CPR in the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative. Sue worked as an isotope geochemist for over a decade at the U.S. Geological Survey before becoming an environmental advocate when she moved to Washington, DC to work on public lands issues for The Wilderness Society. She served first as their director of Budget and Appropriations and subsequently as the director of their National Park Program. She relocated to Washington State to work for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog organization that supports local, state and federal whistleblowers. She is now splitting her time between the Center for Environmental Law and Policy and Wildlands CPR. Sue lives in Olympia, WA, and can be contacted by e-mailing [email protected].

Check it out Our new web guru, Josh Hurd, has been tapping his fingers to the bone creating our new website. The new site is incredible, so take some time to cruise around. Josh organized our resources into a simple, searchable database. You can find economics reports, literature reviews, policy primers and also links to reports from other organizations that are excellent resources on our issues. Just go to the resources page of our website, highlight the type of resource you’re looking for and see what comes up! You’ll also see big changes on the home page, where Josh

22

Photo by Dan Funsch.

has created a simple hotlink section to current news stories, as well as a new blog, where you can, for example, link to the latest You Tube “wreckreation” videos of ATVers ripping through meadows and streams, as well as lots of other current events. Josh also worked closely with our Communications Coordinator Jason Kiely to set up our new electronic e-newsletter, replacing Skid Marks. The e-newsletter includes just one or two sentences from each article, with a link to the full story on our website. It’s a great collection of feature stories, news, highlights from current events in restoration and transportation planning, and more. It’s more interactive and in-depth than Skid Marks, so we hope you’ll enjoy it. Most of what was covered in Skid Marks will now be covered on our specific issue pages — just click on, for example, “ORVs in the News.”

Annual Gifts Campaign As regular readers of our newsletter, most of you know that our annual gifts campaign occurs every fall, and it’s that time of year. Please consider increasing your donation this year, to ensure that Wildlands CPR stays at the leading edge of restoration and transportation work. If you’ve already sent in a donation — THANK YOU!

Thanks We’d like to thank the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, and the Lazar Foundation for generous grants to support both our restoration and transportation policy work!

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

Join Wildlands CPR Today!

We’ve made joining 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: Credit Card Pledge

$10/Month (minimum)

$20/Month

Payment Option #2: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account other

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express Credit Card Number: _________________________________

$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

CSC Number: ________________ *(see below) Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: __________________________________________ * 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! The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007

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.

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership donation ($30 standard membership, or more), 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 23

Cedar grove in Ward Creek, Montana. Photo by Dan Funsch.

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

The threat of a road into the heart of wilderness may seem unrealistic to some, but wild places will exist only so long as free people work to protect them. Scott Stouder, Keeping the Hunt Wild, A Road Runs Through It.

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