Road Riporter 12.4 Winter Solstice 2007

Winter Solstice 2007. Volume 12 No. 4

Restoring Montana, One Collaboration at a Time By Marnie Criley

Inside… A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 Restoring Montana, by Marnie Criley. Pages 3-6

Diverse interests came together to find common ground, and crafted the Restoration Principles for Montana. Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.

Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation Program Updates. Pages 10-11

Regional Reports & Updates. Page 7

Policy Primer: The ABCs of Travel Planning, by Sarah Peters and Adam Rissien. Pages 12-13

DePaving the Way: Things aren’t always what they seem, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 8-9

Odes to Roads: Beach Bums, by Ted Williams. Pages 14-15 Biblio Notes: Just a Few Bad Apples?, by Jason Kiely and Chris Kassar. Pages 16-18

New Resources. Pages 19 Citizen Spotlight: Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 20-21 Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org

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

FS Shell Game Thwarts Road Fix

I

n June, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) wrote to the Forest Service asking some pointed questions about management of their road system. In October the Forest Service finally responded — the unfortunate thing is that even though Senator Cantwell asked some good questions, she didn’t get many good answers.

Director Bethanie Walder

A few things are painfully clear from the agency’s response: • The Forest Service does not have a good sense of how its road system is impacting national forest resources, and what it would take to reduce those impacts; • The Forest Service is playing a shell-game with maintenance costs and road classifications, rather than seeking critically needed funding to bring their road system up to minimum water quality or wildlife standards; • Roads are being indiscriminately closed to address funding shortfalls, not to address resource management needs. The letter to Cantwell revealed a disturbing approach to the funding problem. The Forest Service first pointed out that federal regulations require that “management of the system of NFS roads be conducted in a manner that is sustainable with current levels of funding …” (36 CFR 212 A). (Wildlands CPR strongly supports this policy in concept, unfortunately, agency efforts to implement it are fatally flawed.) The letter then explains that it is agency policy to reduce the service level of roads to a level that can be sustained with expected funding. The result? Fewer roads are available for passenger vehicles, and more roads are either closed or open only to high clearance vehicles. This backward thinking only exacerbates natural resource damage, and potentially increases public anger over access. Not to mention that even with these reductions, there is still a $5 billion backlog, so they remain out of compliance with their own policies. The Forest Service should have enough money to maintain their road system, but this means increasing funding, not decreasing maintenance. The Forest Service is in charge of the largest road system in the world, and the bulk of it is in a terrible state of disrepair, wreaking havoc on America’s natural resources and natural heritage. The American taxpayer will continue to pay for these roads, either in a proactive way by investing in needed maintenance and restoration (thereby preventing new damage), or in a reactive way, by paying to clean up the messes and clean up our water, when the roads fail. A significant portion of the road system is no longer needed and could be restored to natural conditions. The agency should first determine the minimum road system needed, and then manage their funds and roads to realize that minimum system. Restoring unneeded roads to natural conditions should be an important part of this process. This letter from the Forest Service provides a disturbing look at how the agency is managing (or not managing) its road system. With limited knowledge about the extent of the environmental impacts of Forest Service roads and even less motivation to solve the problem effectively, the agency is instead playing an ecologically dangerous shell game that will only result in greater impacts on the ground. We’re working to prevent that. To read the letter, go to www.wildlandscpr.org/files/NFsroadsresponse.pdf

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.

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 Associates Cathy Walters Adams & 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, Winter Solstice 2007

Restoring Montana, One Collaboration at a Time By Marnie Criley, Restoration Coordinator

I

n February 2007 I took my puppy to a newly formed collaborative’s first meeting to draft a set of Montana restoration principles. I knew some folks; others I’d recently met for the first time. People in the group held different views about how national forest lands in Montana should be managed, but we had agreed to come together to find common ground around the issue of forest restoration. We knew it wasn’t going to be an easy process, but the tension in the room was at least in part eased by the presence of a 3 month old, floppy-eared beagle named Gypsy, who tried to drink our coffee and fell asleep on my pile of restoration documents. Over the next 6 months, both Gypsy and our collaborative grew from infancy to maturity. Our collaborative did it through a process that I think is worth reflecting upon.

Photos courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.

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 around communities to motorized recreation on public lands. While I’m not convinced collaboration is the answer to all our natural resource dilemmas, the Montana restoration collaborative that Wildlands CPR is involved in holds great promise for accomplishing ecologically sound restoration projects in Montana. In January 2007, the National Forest Foundation and Artemis Common Ground convened thirty-four representatives of conservationists, motorized users, outfitters, loggers, mill operators, and state government and Forest Service officials to discuss the possibility of writing a set of principles that might help guide the restoration process on national forests in Montana. These principles would represent a “zone of agreement” where controversy, delays, appeals, and litigation are significantly reduced. While we recognized that there were some strong differences of opinion in the room, everyone agreed that the effort was worth pursuing — we all wanted to see restoration projects occur on the ground that would provide both ecological as well as community benefits. At that first meeting the group brainstormed a list of 60 restoration vision categories and restoration attributes. We formed three subcommittees: one to work on a set of restoration principles, one to come up with a plan to implement those principles, and one to plan a field trip to talk about restoration outside of a meeting room. We named ourselves the Montana Forest Restoration Working Group and set a deadline of August 1, 2007 to complete the principles and an implementation plan. I volunteered to chair the Vision and Principles Subcommittee as well as serve on the Steering Committee to help guide the larger effort.

— story continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

3

— Restoring Montana, continued from page 3 — Over the course of the next six months, our Vision and Principles Subcommittee met face-to-face for nearly 50 hours to hash out a set of principles that everyone could agree on. The core Principles Subcommittee consisted of 10 people representing conservation groups, the Forest Service, timber mills and motorized recreation. We reviewed and took ideas from several other restoration principles, including the Citizen’s Call for Ecological Restoration that Wildlands CPR co-authored several years ago. I think one of the keys to our success was that we meshed as a group almost immediately, thanks in large part to everyone’s sense of humor, as well as their firm belief that these principles could really make a difference in accomplishing needed restoration work in a timely manner. It also helped that members had experience with other collaborative efforts. Finally, the involvement of the Forest Service was essential to making the principles a viable tool for the agency to utilize. Now don’t think that we had smooth sailing all through the process. Roads, fire and the commercial use of wood products were some of the issues we had to spend extra time on in order to reach consensus. However, by being honest, by talking issues out and by really listening to each other, we were able to find common ground. It required some give on everyone’s part — in order to make this work we would all have to leave our comfort zones and explain our positions to people who might not think like we do. At times I questioned whether I was “giving in” too much on issues in order to reach consensus — I imagine all involved had those gut check moments where they realized that they were representing a constituency of people, be it environmentalists or loggers, who expected us to speak up for their interests. The key is to figure out what can work for your interests as well as the interests of the person sitting at the table with you. It’s hard work but as you struggle through it, you realize the process is almost as important as the end product. You get to know the mill worker as a person and you start understanding his or her perspective better. I would

Getting out on the ground helped shift the group’s focus from a potential ideological divide to a pragmatic, resultsoriented approach. Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.

hazard to say that some friendships were started in the process. Subcommittee members admitted to me that they enjoyed our four and five-hour gatherings. I agreed to meet on my 40th birthday and my fellow subcommittee members brought me a birthday cake.

While none of us have changed our fundamental positions, I think we all were changed by the process.

On August 1, the Montana Forest Restoration Working Group approved the thirteen principles (see next page) and the implementation plan. Next, the group agreed to change its name to the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) — reflecting its new mission to see that the Principles and Plan are put into practice. Finally, every member of the group agreed to serve on the new MFRC and we added three new people to the Steering Committee. While none of us have changed our fundamental positions, I think we all were changed by the process. Of course, now comes the really hard part — putting the restoration principles into practice on the ground. My hope is that our success with this initial effort will fuel our commitment to use these principles to get ecologically appropriate restoration projects happening on Montana’s national forests; restoration projects that put ecological needs first while also addressing economic and social needs including community vitality.

Restoring roads will provide steady work for heavy equipment operators and others. Road removal in progress on Arapaho-Roosevelt NF (CO) Photo by Wendy Magwire, U.S. Forest Service.

4

On November 1, we had the first meeting of the Lolo Forest Restoration Committee, a collaborative group whose purpose will be to work with the Lolo National Forest to design restoration projects consistent with our Restoration Principles. Wildlands CPR will continue its involvement in this process and continue to push for road removal to be a key component of restoration projects on Montana’s national forests. For more information, go to www.montanarestoration.org

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Restoration Principles

T

he following principles should be applied when planning and executing all forest restoration work on national forest lands in Montana. Projects should adhere to all applicable principles. Parties working on restoration projects should:

1) Restore functioning ecosystems by enhancing ecological processes: Restore ecosystems and biotic composition to achieve ecological integrity through recovery of species diversity, water quality and quantity, soil quality and function, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and resilience. Project design will utilize adaptive management, recognizing the dynamic character of ecosystems and the unpredictability of the future. Active and Passive Management strategies (see Appendix A for definitions) will be used to attain desired ecosystem objectives and future conditions. 2) Apply adaptive management approach: Restoration will be conducted through adaptive management that includes assessment, project design, implementation, research and monitoring. Adaptive management is an approach to natural resource policy that embodies a simple imperative: actions are experiments; learn from them. The process does not necessarily follow a specific pattern, but rather is dynamic and responds to inputs and outcomes at any point along the way (See Figure 1). 3) Use the appropriate scale of integrated analysis to prioritize and design restoration activities: Use landscape, watershed and project level ecosystem analysis in both prioritization and design of projects unless a compelling reason to omit a level of analysis is present. While economic feasibility is essential to project implementation, priorities should be based on ecological considerations and not be influenced by funding projections. 4) Monitor restoration outcomes: Monitoring is essential for determining the effectiveness of implemented restoration projects. Baseline measurements, project monitoring, and the incorporation of research complete the information feedback loop used in future project design. Monitoring must be conducted at multiple scales.

5) Reestablish fire as a natural process on the landscape: Reestablishment of natural fire regimes may be accomplished through Passive or Active Management. Passive Management allows for natural processes to take place by not suppressing natural fire starts, subject to cultural and social constraints. Active Management includes silvicultural treatments and/or the reintroduction of fire as prescribed fire. Mechanical treatments may be needed in order to reintroduce fire. Restoration activities, including design and implementation, should be tailored to the fire regimes of each forest type (see Appendix B). Fire is used to both achieve ecological objectives and ultimately increase public understanding and acceptance of fire as a natural process. Once fire is reintroduced, natural or prescribed fires could be implemented or permitted on a natural interval thereby restoring this fundamental process within the forest community. 6) Consider social constraints and seek public support for reintroducing fire on the landscape: The use of fire in restoration will require a commitment to ecological principles combined with sensitivity to social constraints. Current and expanding human occupation of forest landscapes, carbon dioxide release, clean air regulations, and other factors may limit the widespread return of fire. As such, where the risk of social backlash is high, the use of fire will move forward only when broad public support can be gained. Proper use of fire as a component of restoration, combined with community outreach, can enhance public support and understanding over time.

Principles continue on next page Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.

More information, background, figures and appendices are available on the website: www.montanarestoration.org

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

5

— Restoration Principles, continued from previous page — 7) Engage community and interested parties in the restoration process: Community involvement and support enhances the ability to achieve restoration on the ground. Successful restoration seems to occur when there is a consensus building, grassroots collaborative group whose mission is to coordinate efforts that enhance, conserve and protect natural resources and local lifestyles for present and future generations. Restoration efforts should be developed jointly by agency staff, community members, and other interested parties. This cooperation will lead to better and more productive outcomes and the wide range of knowledge, opinions, and interests will contribute to project design and implementation. Finally, landscape level approaches are more efficient and effective than smaller individual project efforts and should lead to increased quality of life and a greater sense of connection to the landscape. 8) Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat and connectivity: Restoration projects should enhance habitat for the complex of terrestrial and aquatic species that are native to the target location or ecosystem. Projects should, when ecologically beneficial, enhance habitat connectivity to promote free migration and movement of native species between and through natural landscapes. Enhanced connectivity does not preclude future active management. 9) Emphasize ecosystem goods & services and sustainable land management: Restoration activities should lead to the sustained abundance of ecosystem goods & services within the landscape. Ecosystem goods & services encompass human derived goods and services from ecological landscapes and sustainable ecosystems. Restoration activities should be evaluated for the potential to influence these services and provide goods. 10) Integrate restoration with socioeconomic well-being: Restoration efforts must enhance long-term social benefits and be economically feasible to ensure success. Restoration activities should emphasize landscapes that provide sustained employment opportunities, and maintain thriving communities, both rural and supporting urban areas. Com-

munities should benefit from restoration in numerous ways including employment opportunities, healthy living environments, and intact infrastructures. A sustainable, vibrant, integrated forest industry infrastructure is critical to implementation of viable restoration projects involving vegetative management by providing necessary equipment, expertise and markets to help offset restoration costs. 11) Enhance education and recreation activities to build support for restoration: Promote education and recreation activities and facilities which interpret and complement the natural function of the ecosystem. Education and recreation activities on national forest lands are highly important and can provide opportunities for people to both observe and appreciate restoration efforts. 12) Protect and improve overall watershed health, including stream health, soil quality and function and riparian function: Restoration activities should focus on restoring and maintaining properly functioning conditions in high value watersheds and riparian areas. Stream bank, stream channel and stream crossing restoration and improvements in priority watersheds are critical to achieving watershed health and resiliency to allow for functioning hydrologic conditions and aquatic habitat. Restoration projects should include efforts to minimize long-term soil degradation and erosion and should also strive to improve soil productivity, increasing soil water infiltration rates and water holding capacity. 13) Establish and maintain a safe road and trail system that is ecologically sustainable: National Forest System roads and trails provide important access for land management activities and public use. However, many national forests currently have some roads and trails that are adversely impacting watersheds and wildlife. The Forest Service, along with local communities and interested parties, should analyze which roads and trails will be maintained, constructed, reconstructed, or decommissioned to address ecological concerns and access needs. Road and trail restoration and maintenance can improve wildlife and fisheries habitat, protect watersheds, and improve public access.

Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.

6

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Lewis and Clark National Forest Releases Two Travel Plans

YNP Snowmobile Update

The Lewis and Clark National Forest (LCNF) released two separate travel plans on October 1. One covers the Jefferson District, while the other covers the Rocky Mountain Front Division, evaluating both summer and winter motorized travel and recommending road mileage for closure. It appears that the LCNF decided to simultaneously protect the majority of the Rocky Mountain Front from motorized recreation, while keeping other areas open to it. That said, even the Jefferson District, which covers nearly one million acres, adopted a plan that significantly improves conditions on the ground. And that’s a good thing: in the Little Belt Mountains alone there were nearly 1,200 miles of bladed roads, 436 miles of “high clearance roads,” and more than 500 miles of trails open to off-road vehicle use. By contrast, only 62 miles had been previously designated as quiet trails. While the majority of routes and roads remain open to motorized use, the number of trails designated for non-motorized use increased to 573 miles in the new plan. That’s nearly a tenfold increase in areas designated for traditional, active recreation.

It’s winter in Montana, which means that it’s time to update the snowmobile situation in Yellowstone National Park. Just in case you haven’t followed this, the Park Service changes their winter recreation management nearly every year, as they struggle to adopt a snowmobile plan that will be legally and politically defensible. It’s a bit confusing, but while the current decision technically (on paper) decreases the number of snowmobiles in the park, it actually allows nearly twice the number of snowmobiles that have been using the park during the past three years. The low numbers of snowmobile visitors during the past few years has led to vastly improved winter conditions, and these gains could be lost under the new decision if snowmobile numbers begin to increase again. On November 20, the Park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on a long-term plan to guide management of winter use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The plan “reduces the daily number of snowmobiles (from the number called for in the Draft EIS preferred alternative, 720) to . . . 540 snowmobiles per day in Yellowstone and 65 snowmobiles in Grand Teton and the Parkway.” The Park’s scientists actually recommended capping snowmobile use at levels closer to the actual use for the past three years, (approximately half of what the agency says they will allow). The new decision will increase the noise influence of snowmobiles from the current zone of 21 square miles to 63 square miles. In addition, the new decision will increase wildlife impacts, air and water pollution. Greater Yellowstone Coalition, National Parks Conservation Association, The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Winter Wildlands Alliance, and Sierra Club have announced that they will seek a court review of this decision.

The largest blocks designated for non-motorized transportation include about three-fourths of the Middle Fork of the Judith Wilderness Study Area, most of the Tenderfoot drainage and most of the Deep Creek/Smith River Corridor. But these are just two of 14 inventoried roadless areas; the rest were not substantially protected. It is critical for roadless areas to remain free of motorized recreation, and the Jefferson plan is problematic in this sense. On the other hand, the bulk of the Rocky Mountain Front was protected from motorized recreation. While the new plan is far from perfect, it views the Front as a place for hikers and horsemen, while offering motorized access along certain existing roads. This is probably one of the more restrictive plans we will see. Kudos to the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front and others, for their hard work to elevate the status of this area as a mecca for traditional recreation, and to so clearly articulate the impacts motorized recreation has on clean water, wildlife and other recreationists. More information on the Coalition’s work can be found at http://www.savethefront. org/issues/motorized.php.

Snowmobilers head out into another season. Photo by Will Tardy, courtesy of Flickr.com.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

7

Closed Roads: Open for Business? By Bethanie Walder

H

ere in the U.S., and pretty broadly throughout the western world, people have become accustomed to the concept that “no means no.” While this slogan was created by activists working to end violence against women, and especially date rape, the meaning can and should apply to other things as well. No should mean no, in whatever context it is used, including public land management. Unfortunately right now, it seems that on national forests, that might not be the case. In the past few years, the Forest Service has started a new trend to promote motorized recreational use on gated roads. I don’t know about you, but when I see a locked gate across a road, I assume that means I shouldn’t drive on that road. I assume that the gate means the road is closed. I also think that most people who see locked gates across roads assume the same. I’ve been trained to understand that no always means no, and that locked gates mean that things are closed.

When Closed Means Open

With their new approach to off-road vehicle use, the Forest Service is reversing this basic concept, and reversing any gains they might have been making in enforcing limits on off-road vehicle recreation. Forest Service staff have been actively promoting the use of “maintenance level 1” (ML1) roads for motorized recreation. The problem is that ML1 roads are, by definition, closed. According to the Forest Service Handbook, maintenance level one is “assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. . . . Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.” Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses.” FSH 7709.58, 12.3 The last time I checked, off-road vehicles were “vehicular traffic.” But this is where the Forest Service seems to forget that no means no. Because definitions in the Forest Service Handbook are not necessarily enforceable in a court of law, the Forest Service has decided that they can flout this definition by not just allowing, but promoting motorized use behind the gates. The Bitterroot National Forest, for example, has recently updated their visitor map to promote motorized use on numerous ML1 roads.

8

When the dust settles, will the Forest Service send a consistent message to off-roaders? Wildlands CPR file photo.

There is a catch — there are ML1 roads for which the Forest Service has issued a formal closure order — to protect wildlife, clean water or other natural resources. These closure orders are legally enforceable, and they clearly state what uses are prohibited on the road or trail in question. In most instances, the agency will post a sign at the gate, indicating the specifics of the closure. The confusion comes in when the FS has downgraded roads to lower maintenance levels, including ML1, without issuing closure orders and without posting signs (and sometimes without installing gates). The secondary confusion comes in when signs explaining the closures are vandalized and removed. Then, all that’s left is a gate (if it hasn’t been vandalized as well). If the Forest Service aggressively promotes the use of motorized recreation on some gated, closed roads, but not on others, then how are drivers ever supposed to know what a gate means when they see one. It’s just nonsensical, and extremely counterproductive to their efforts to manage motorized recreation.

Instead of the new travel planning process improving enforcement capacity for the agency, it may very well encourage riders to drive around gates.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

When finished with the ongoing travel planning process, each forest will issue “motor vehicle use maps” (MVUMs) that show where vehicles are and are not allowed. If the map recently issued by the Bitterroot National Forest is any indication (although it’s not a formal MVUM), new MVUMs will show some ML1 roads, many of them likely gated, as open to motorized use by off-road vehicles. Instead of the new travel planning process improving enforcement capacity for the agency, it may very well encourage riders to drive around gates. So perhaps we need to start a new campaign on public lands, with a mantra of “closed mean closed,” because the Forest Service doesn’t seem to understand the consequences of their proposed actions.

ity and wildlife, for example, but those impacts are no longer accounted for in the same way, since they are being caused by “trails” instead of “roads.” If the Forest Service wants to enable off-road vehicle riders to legally drive on Forest Service roads (most ORVs are not street legal, so they are not allowed on FS roads unless specific exceptions have been made in state law), then they should either reclassify the roads as ML2 (which requires more maintenance), or they should create a new travelway definition for “motorized routes,” and those motorized routes should be managed with the same natural resource requirements as roads.

End of the Road

The Montana Conservation Corps works to revegetate a removed road and landing. Photo by Adam Switalski.

What’s in a Name?

This contradictory management policy is further exacerbated by the agency’s newly adopted (2005) definitions of roads and trails. Can you spot the difference?

As part of travel planning, numerous forest managers are making the line between trail and road so blurry that it is not even visible. Further, they are promoting actions that will seriously impact their capacity to enforce any new travel restrictions. It’s time for the agency to ensure that “closed means closed,” and to make a clear distinction that roads (and if necessary, motorized routes) are for motorized use and trails are for non-motorized use. Non-motorized recreationists and wildlife advocates must demand that the agency provide this clarity for all forest users, and that the agency apply the concept of “closed means closed.” One of the primary purposes of the new travel planning process was to address the threat of unmanaged recreation. It’s laughable to think that promoting motorized use on closed roads will help the agency manage recreation more effectively.

Road: “A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.” Trail: “A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail.” The basic meaning of these two definitions is that a road is a road, unless we manage it as a trail, and vice versa. However, as if exploiting their own loophole, the agency is now promoting motorized use behind closed gates by considering a double classification for many ML1 and ML2 roads (those suited only for high-clearance vehicles) — they are “roads” and they are also “motorized trails.” In other words, an ML1 road can be simultaneously classified as a closed road, and as a trail open to motorized use. Such a road could have a gate across it to prohibit passenger cars, but it would be legal for ORV users to drive around the gate to use the road. Unfortunately, the Forest Service does not have trail density standards to protect wildlife or aquatic resources. By obliterating the line between road and trail, between motorized and non-motorized access, the agency has made it nearly impossible to manage roads and trails from a biological/ ecological perspective (though some national forests do appear to include motorized routes when calculating open road densities). Nonetheless, if you reclassify a road as a trail, all of a sudden your road maintenance backlog has dropped, your road density has dropped, your wildlife management requirements have changed, etc. But the reality is that the same impacts are still occurring on the ground, the same impacts to water qual-

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Riders’ tracks violate another closure, while the Forest Service send mixed signals to riders. Wildlands CPR file photo.

9

Program Updates, Winter 2007 By Jason Kiely

Restoration Program

T

here’s no way around it: watershed restoration costs money. As reported in the previous issue of The Road RIPorter, Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA) earmarked $65 million in the House Interior Appropriations bill for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program. The Senate’s Interior Appropriation bill earmarked $55 million for forest health projects, but contained no provision for road remediation. As a result, Sue Gunn, Wildlands CPR representative in Washington, and Executive Director Bethanie Walder mobilized to reach out to environmental organizations in other states to contact their Senators and urge them to add comparable funding in the Senate bill. Wildlands CPR prompted and/or helped craft sign-on letters from partner organizations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico. Wildlands CPR is also helping other westerners learn about the benefits of road removal. Restoration Coordinator Marnie Criley and Wildlands CPR board member Rebecca Lloyd addressed 50 leaders from eight states when they led a road restoration panel at the ground-breaking “Pay Dirt” conference organized by Western Progress, a new think tank. The conference was focused on building a restoration economy in the intermountain west; road removal could be a key part of such economic development.

Science

Science Coordinator Adam Switalski collected interesting data on the ecological effects of road removal on the Clearwater National Forest (ID), where Rebecca Lloyd has been working with the Nez Perce Tribe for years to restore salmon fisheries and wildlife habitat by decommissioning unstable and unnecessary roads. As reported on the front page of a recent edition of The Missoulian, preliminary results of ongoing field monitoring reveal that bear and moose are found in greater numbers on decommissioned and removed roads, respectively. The project also captured images of wolf and cougar on removed roads. Adam is working with another Board member, Cara Nelson, a restoration professor in the School of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana, to test the effectiveness of different native seed mixes for use on removed roads. Adam and a graduate student have been scouting out possible study sites on the Clearwater and Kootenai National Forests (MT).

Elk captured by remote camera on a removed road on the Clearwater National Forest. Wildlands CPR file photo.

ging roads in a highly roaded and logged area recently acquired from Plum Creek Timber. The land is in a grizzly bear corridor, and we are helping restore this key linkage.

And on the Flathead National Forest (MT), Adam collaborated with the Forest Service and local group Northwest Connections to plant local, native seeds to help reduce erosion and invasion of weeds along old log-

Adam did spend some time in the office. On the ORV side, he made critical contributions to the Izaak Walton League of America, providing them with a review of the impacts of off-road vehicles to fish and wildlife for inclusion in their new report, Collision Course? Off-Road Vehicle Impacts on Hunting and Fishing.

10

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Transportation Program

A

fter two years of frustration, and a legal fight with the Forest Service, Wildlands CPR is now the proud recipient of an enormous amount of data about national forest road and off-road vehicle management and impacts on the 84 national forests in the west. In June, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy (MT) compelled the Forest Service to settle our lawsuit. During settlement negotiations, the agency granted us all of the information we requested. Thanks to Western Environmental Law Center’s great work in the courtroom and on the phones, this story received impressive media coverage. Legal liaison Sarah Peters will lead the analysis and distribution of this information; we’ve already received numerous requests from conservation partners who recognize the ecological and fiscal impacts inflicted by wildland roads and off-road vehicles. In Montana, Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator Adam Rissien has been strongly supporting the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition. He and Communications Coordinator Jason Kiely helped coalition leaders issue a commanding response to the Bitterroot National Forest’s proposed travel plan, which threatens both Wilderness Study Areas and roadless areas. The Coalition has also crafted a citizens’ vision for the plan, one that emphasizes protection of these critical wildlife corridors and headwaters of a blue ribbon trout stream. Adam also serves as an emissary to natural allies in this effort, making presentations to local fish and wildlife groups, backcountry horsemen, and winter recreation organizations. Webmaster Josh Hurd helped Adam create www.quietusecoalition.org where you can find more information. After a series of meetings with Region One staff, Adam also helped convene conservationists and Forest Service planners to discuss travel planning expectations and ways to reduce conflict during the travel planning process. The session was facilitated by the National Forest Foundation, and it opened more doors for improving agency action in Region One on travel planning. Close work with the agency organizing this event also seems to have had an impact on how the Bitterroot framed their Travel Plan, expanding the field of interest beyond “motorized opportunities” to better consider all of the stakeholders and their travel planning needs. In Utah, Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator Laurel Hagen continues to build local capacity in communities threatened by cancerous off-road vehicle creep throughout area public lands. See how Laurel has put her artistic talents to use in building organizational capacity by improving the web site

The Freemont River, in proposed Wilderness east of Capital Reef National Park, Utah. Wildlands CPR file photo.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

This vandalized sign once pointed out that the road is closed to motor vehicles. Wildlands CPR file photo.

for the Uinta Mountain Club in northern Utah: www.uintamountainclub.org. She’s worked with them in real-time as well, providing training on the best ways to engage in public processes to advance conservation and quiet recreation values. In southern Utah, Laurel is helping the Boulder Community Alliance promote their area as a quiet recreation destination, on an unavoidable collision course with the county commissions who champion unbridled off-road vehicle facilities expansion. She is also helping them field a team of activists to comb the land and compare notes with the Dixie National Forest’s proposals so the Alliance can educate others on what an acceptable travel plan should look like. On the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Laurel has secured funding to enable Moab-based Red Rock Forests hire an outreach coordinator to organize around travel planning in the Abajo Mountains. And she’s coordinated with the Great Old Broads for Wilderness to map off-road vehicle impacts in the area. Laurel is also working to protect the backcountry areas of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Working with The Wilderness Society, Laurel drafted and recruited sign-ons to comments calling for reasonable limits on off-road travel and recreation. As in the Boulder Mountain area, Laurel is organizing grassroots citizens to serve as legitimate counterweights to county commissions hooked on the hollow promise of an economic boost that off-road vehicle use is supposed to deliver to rural communities.

11

The ABC’s of Travel Planning By Adam Rissien and Sarah Peters

Introduction

In 2005, the Forest Service published new regulations in the Federal Register1 (commonly called the Travel Management Rule) for managing the Forest Service Transportation System. The Travel Management Rule, found in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 212), has three sections: Subpart A, “Administration of the Forest Transportation System”; Subpart B “Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use”; and Subpart C “Use by Over-Snow Vehicles.” This article explains the intersection of these three subparts during the travel planning process.

Subpart A

In 2001, then Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck signed the “Road Management Strategy Rule and Policy,” commonly known as the “Roads Rule.”2 This rule signaled a new direction for the agency, as its goal was to guide future management of the entire road network. Decisions on road density standards and decommissioning were left to the local level, and each national forest had two years to determine the “minimum road system required to balance access objectives with ecosystem health goals.”3 To meet the deadline the agency looked only at roads for passenger vehicles, called maintenance level 3, 4 or 5 roads. Left out were roads closed to the public and those for high clearance vehicles (maintenance level 1 and 2 respectively) — analysis for these roads was delayed until a project level action triggered review. Unfortunately, most national forests still have not completed a comprehensive review of their entire road system. Fast forward to 2005, when, with the release of the Travel Management Rule, many forest officials promptly forgot about their obligations under the Roads Rule. While significant changes were made to the old policy, two key requirements remained. The first is that “the responsible official must identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands.”4 In order to identify the minimum road system, the Forest Service must complete a full, science-based roads analysis. The second requires responsible officials to “identify the roads … that are no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives and that, therefore, should be decommissioned or considered for other uses, such as for trails.”5 These two requirements are essential to any good travel management plan. With a comprehensive review, maintenance level 1 and 2 roads will be examined. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency among land managers to shortcut the review process by only addressing Subpart B of the travel management rule.

12

Subpart B

Unmanaged motorized recreation was a key threat identified by former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who instituted the 2005 Travel Management Rule. To address the threat, the rule mandates that forest officials produce a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) illustrating the specific routes and areas open to summer off-road vehicle use. The MVUM becomes the basis for enforcement, and users must know where travel is legal by referencing the map, not by relying solely on road or trail signs. This establishes a “closed unless open” policy where roads, trails and areas are protected from motorized use unless the map shows otherwise. Forest officials can release an MVUM that simply designates the official road and trail system, or it can propose changes through the travel planning process.6 However, motorized recreation is only one aspect of travel management, and the opportunity to create good transportation and recreation plans is often lost in the mad rush to produce an MVUM — the Subpart A requirement for comprehensive review has been one such casualty. Bosworth tied each national forest’s annual performance review to the publication of an MVUM, and all travel plans must be completed by December 2009. To guide implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the agency proposed new directives in its forest manuals and handbooks. One, called “travel analysis,” incorporates the roads analysis (discussed below) and goes a step further by including motorized routes. Release of the final directives is not expected until spring 2008. However, we have already seen at least one forest, the Black Hills National Forest (SD), complete a travel analysis in preparation for travel planning, and expect that other forests will follow suit.

Barricaded road on Clearwater NF (ID) Wildlands CPR file photo.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Plugged culvert and road washout in B.C. (Canada) Photo by Adam Switalski.

Subpart C

The Travel Management Rule eliminated 36 CFR 295: “Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads,” which had provided authority to manage snowmobile use. To replace it, Subpart C of 36 CFR 212 was created. Unfortunately, while the new rule (mostly) eliminated cross-country travel, it separated its impacts between uses, effectively de-emphasizing damage and disruption caused by snowmobile use. This means that separate winter use plans or existing forest plans will guide snowmobile use. The deadline for completing MVUMs does not apply to motorized winter recreation, so the agency is under no obligation to address over-snow vehicles during travel planning.

Travel Planning and Subpart A

Unfortunately, many forest officials skip travel analysis, missing an opportunity to evaluate their maintenance level 1 and 2 roads and highlight opportunities for decommissioning. Another problem is that the purpose and need of a travel planning project is sometimes phrased in a manner that narrows its scope to only designating motorized recreational use, avoiding decisions on the minimum roads system. In order to address these shortcomings, Wildlands CPR recommends the following actions: •

•

• •

Roads Analysis Through Travel Analysis

The roads analysis process as adopted in 2001 was intended to be comprehensive, looking at multiple scales (ecoregional, forest, and project) and evaluating the ecological effects of roads. But that goal was never realized, as analysis was done only at the forest scale, and only for maintenance level 3-5 roads. It can be argued that “travel analysis” now gives the Forest Service a second chance at roads analysis, and activists should try to persuade agency officials to finish what they started when they analyzed their maintenance level 3-5 roads. In the draft directives, before the agency proposes a travel management action, officials are to conduct travel analysis. We are awaiting the final directives before evaluating them fully, but key points stand out. The proposed Chapter 20 for the Forest Service Handbook [FSH 7709.55 Ch. 20.02(1)(a)] states that one objective is to identify the minimum road system needed and establish a complete inventory of all system roads and trails7. The first step is to “complete an interdisciplinary science-based analysis of road system opportunities.”8 Travel analysis must be based on “a complete and accurate inventory of NFS roads, NFS trails, and designated areas within the area being analyzed.”9 This does not mean that every user-created route on the forest must be mapped, but that the previously authorized travel system must be determined. Travel analysis, similar to roads analysis, should be “broad-scale,” and should inform the decisions made at the Ranger District or administrative level that implement the “minimum road system” and make “travel management decisions.”10 Unfortunately, this weakens a key part of the roads analysis process. The proposed directives removed the requirement that a roads analysis should be based on the “best available” science,11 instead requiring a “science-based” analysis. The proposed directives also de-emphasize the need to remove roads, and instead concentrate on adding to the existing system. This allows more roads to be identified as necessary for a minimum system and for fewer roads (if any) to be identified for decommissioning.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

•

Request that travel planning meet Subpart A obligations, identifying the minimum road system and recommending the removal of unneeded, damaging roads and trails; Verify that officials completed a roads analysis that included all roads. If maintenance level 1 and 2 roads were not evaluated, then demand they be assessed through travel analysis; Request that officials conduct travel analysis before developing proposed actions, and include a sciencebased travel analysis at multiple scales; Find out the forest’s obligations under their forest plan. Initiating subpart B independent of the minimum road system may conflict with the Forest Plan in regards to (1) environmental and fiscal resource objectives [36 CFR 219.10(a)(b)]; Remind officials that they must identify the minimum road system as required by Executive Order 11644.

Conclusion

Since the 2005 Travel Management Rule’s release, Forest Service officials have focused almost exclusively on designating summer motorized recreation and effectively ignored their obligations under 36 CFR 212, Subparts A and C. It is necessary to ask each responsible official to conduct travel analysis, as outlined in the draft directives, and to include roads analysis and snowmobiles. Even then, conservationists will need to make sure such analysis considers multiple levels, is science-based and includes all system roads. Finally, even the best analysis is useless if the responsible official artificially narrows the travel planning scope to focus only on designating summer motorized recreation routes. Conservationists need to meet with the Forest Service to request that they conduct a comprehensive travel planning process that includes all recreational uses and identifies the minimum road system, including decommissioning opportunities.

Footnotes

1 Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216/Wednesday, November 9, 2005. 2 See The Road RIPorter issue 6-2 or visit http://www.wildlandscpr. org/understanding-new-national-forest-system-roadmanagement-strategy. 3 Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001. 4 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1). 5 36 CFR 212.5(b)(2). 6 See The Road RIPorter Vol. 10-4 for a full explanation or visit http:// www.wildlandscpr.org/long-anticipated-forest-service-orv-rulefizzles-protection 7 FSH 7709.55. 8 FSM 7712.4(1). 9 FSM 7712.1(4). 10 See FSM 7712.1(2). 11 FSM 7710.3(1).

13

Beach Bums By Ted Williams

Editor’s note: This essay is an abbreviated version of the original, and reprinted by permission of the author. It originally appeared (in its entire length) in the 1/1/07 issue of Audubon. Wildlands CPR has highlighted the ORV issue at Cape Hatteras, and ORVs in beach habitats, in other Road-RIPorters. See Jan DeBlieu’s excellent essay, “Here’s Sand in Your Eye” (Vol. 8#2, 2003); see the Biblio Notes in Vol. 6#5 (2001), and also short updates in Skid Marks Sept. 19, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003. The Audubon field tech in the essay, Sidney Maddock, is a former Wildlands CPR Board member.

W

hat’s wrong with this picture: off-road vehicles (ORVs) monopolizing barrier beaches on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, aborting nesting attempts by colonial waterbirds, oystercatchers, threatened piping plovers, and threatened and endangered sea turtles; crushing eggs and young of all these species; and imperiling and/or intimidating the roughly 90 percent of visitors who travel by foot. Answer: These long, thin islands that help insulate the northern half of the state from storms and provide critical habitat to vanishing wildlife are part of our National Park System. Seventy miles of them were designated as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 1953. Such abuse results largely from ongoing priorities of the Bush administration that give lie to its “new park policy,” announced August 31, 2006, of favoring the protection of natural and cultural resources over recreation. Even if such a policy were genuine, it would hardly be new. Throughout most of its history the National Park Service has been a beacon for the nation and the world, protecting and restoring native ecosystems. Other federal resource agencies have been charged by Congress with managing for “multiple use,” but despite the fact that about 274 million people visit national parks each year, this has never been part of the Park Service’s mandate. Unlike the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Service does not auction off timber, minerals, or cattle forage. Unlike the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it does not manipulate habitat for maximum production of favored species. Current management of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore is, however, one of the better examples of how the Park Service is flouting federal laws, such as its own organic act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the General Authorities Act (which requires that all park units be managed as a single system); executive orders by Presidents Nixon and Carter (which forbid ORV use unless it can be demonstrated that it won’t compromise natural values); and the seashore’s enabling legislation (which requires that it be “permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness”). “Primitive wilderness” is hardly what Audubon North Carolina’s deputy director Walker Golder, Audubon field technician Sidney Maddock, and I have encountered on our outings to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore these past two summers. Instead we’ve seen: casings of spent fireworks (illegal in the park because they discourage nesting); footprints and tire tracks on the wrong side of symbolic (string) fences erected to protect nesting birds; bumper stickers that featured circled and slashed renderings of piping plovers or proclaimed, “I love piping plover, tastes

like chicken;” a passenger on a speeding ORV heckling us because Maddock was toting a spotting scope. In 2005 what I would have called traffic jams were defined by both my companions as “relatively light summer use.” Said Maddock, “Look, there are parking spaces left.” The opposition is vocal, with the loudest, ugliest voices those of the Orwellian-named Outer Banks Preservation Association, whose flier reads: “The Endangered Species Act has become the favorite ‘tool’ of the radical environmentalists who want to obstruct development, resource extraction, many public works projects, and also YOUR rights to recreate responsibly on YOUR public lands. . . . The radical enviro-crazies and Hollywood fat-cat sycophants who want to shut you out of YOUR public lands…” With the warm sea wind in our faces and

14

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

A lone set of tracks belies the damage done by beach drivers. Photo courtesy of Airstream Life magazine.

Piping plover nests and eggs. Photo on right by Laurie MacIvor. Both photos courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

brown pelicans skimming the waves, Golder, Maddock, and I stood next to the symbolic fencing at Cape Point on Hatteras Island. To our left, in the open vehicle area, the sand was clean and white. But to our right it was festooned with seaweed behind which sanderlings hunkered. “Wrack,” as it’s called, is vital to beach birds because it provides rich habitat for their invertebrate prey as well as protection from the wind. ORV tires destroy wrack. In 2005 the seashore failed to get its symbolic fencing up before April 1, thereby violating guidelines set forth in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s piping plover recovery plan. In 2006 it got the fencing up in time, but mostly where it wasn’t needed—i.e., marginal fishing areas, where it wouldn’t offend. Then, when bird-breeding behaviors were observed in unfenced areas, the seashore delayed or failed to take action. The popular beaches—at Cape Point, South Beach, Bodie Island, Hatteras Inlet, and Ocracoke, for example—all had legal ORV traffic in front of unfledged shorebirds or waterbirds. In 2006 black skimmers at Cape Point failed on their first nesting attempt. Some re-nested and were incubating on July Fourth, when there were 17 documented instances of trespass. Fireworks were set off illegally. In the mid-1980s there were 1,000 pairs of colonial waterbirds at Cape Point. Now there are fewer than 100. That decline reflects a breach of law. Thirty-five years ago President Nixon issued an executive order directing the Department of the Interior to issue ORV-use regulations within six months. In 1978 (seven and a half years late) the seashore hatched a “draft interim management plan,” thereby eliciting histrionics from the ORV lobby. Management decided not to finalize it. Since then the seashore has, when convenient, operated under the interim plan, a document rife with deficiencies such as suggested closures for nesting birds that the Interior Department’s own consultants say are grossly inadequate. “At the beginning of the 2006 season the seashore said they were going to follow their newly minted Draft Interim Protected Species Management Strategy plan,” said Maddock. “As the season wore on and that plan would have caused closures they deviated even from their own lax guidelines.” Diminished as they are, the colonial waterbirds at Cape Point and adjacent South Beach are still an important part of the seashore’s production. But after predators destroyed many of the nests of least terns, common terns, and black skimmers in 2006, the seashore opened South Beach back up to ORVs. Then, when the remaining eggs hatched, it didn’t put up fencing. Not far from the Point, in the ephemeral ponds created by rain and overwash, we watched three diminutive birds with sand-colored backs, white bellies, black breast bands, and orange legs and bills as they alternately dashed and froze along the moist edges. They were piping plovers. There had been a successful nest at Cape Point this year—the only one for the entire seashore. ORVs aren’t entirely to blame. Predation of eggs and chicks is a growing problem on most of the seashore. Some of this predation is the result of the massive development along the Outer Banks in the past 30 years

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

and the corresponding increase in cats, foxes, and garbage-swilling raccoons. But ORV operators discard bait and fish entrails, and they don’t like skates and sharks, so instead of releasing them, they leave them on the beach. All this offal, along with other garbage and purposeful feeding, attracts gulls, resulting in loss of eggs and chicks. When the seashore closes areas to vehicles the dearth of gulls is sudden and dramatic. And at times ORVs play the main role in chick loss and nest failure attributed to “predation.” For example, last June at Hatteras Inlet two oystercatcher chicks were lost to predators due to the seashore’s refusal to close the beach. When the chicks wandered into the traffic, Maddock asked ORV operators to please wait until the chicks could rejoin their parents. When the ORV operators refused, one chick fled and got nailed by a ghost crab. The other, abandoned after traffic flushed the adults, became hypothermic and got eaten by a grackle. ORV drivers are never silent, and the Park Service is terrified of them. For instance, after they publicly accused its biologists of concocting excuses for fencing off more beach by herding piping plovers west toward Cape Point (a physical impossibility), the seashore instructed field personnel to approach birds from the east. To comply, however, they had to disturb a large tern colony. As for the ORV management plan required by law to have been implemented in 1972, the seashore hopes to have it ready by 2009. Toward this end it has embarked on what it calls “negotiated rule making,” a process by which private “stakeholders” do the Park Service’s job for it by promulgating regulations for themselves. The seashore has spent the last year just trying to figure out who should sit at the table, and at this writing it’s still figuring. “We’ve agreed to participate because they asked us,” said Derb Carter of the Southern Environmental Law Center. “But I really question whether the ORV crowd will accept any level of compromise. . . . There’s not going to be much incentive for environmentalist involvement if this is just going to be a distraction from actions that the seashore should be taking.” So far ORV interests dominate the stakeholder committee. The Hatteras Island Homeowners Coalition (a group committed to limiting ORVs on Hatteras) tried and failed to get a seat. But the Outer Banks Preservation Association succeeded. Its representative at the table will be none other than Dave Goodwin, moderator of the “Free Access Dammit!” forum of the pro-ORV chatroom Fish Mojo. — Ted Williams is a freelance environmental writer. He write the conservation column for Fly Rod & Reel magazine and is regularly featured in magazines such as Audubon. He tends to like piping plovers more than ORVs.

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.

Just a Few Bad Apples?

Research Shows Many Off-Roaders Break the Law By Jason Kiely and Chris Kassar Editor’s Note: Bibliography Notes typically covers the ecological effects of roads or ORVs by reviewing scientific literature. However, assumptions about social behavior also influence the debate around the management of off-road vehicle use on public lands. This edition of Bibliography Notes explores one important social science issue that has been studied by researchers.

Introduction

The ecological impacts of off-road vehicles on water, air and land have been well documented. In the past five to ten years, however, these issues have taken on social dimensions, and social scientists have begun exploring the attitudes and behaviors of off-road vehicle drivers. Countless newspaper articles are peppered with myths perpetuated by off-roaders, such as: “elite environmentalists are locking the public out of public lands;” “the old and infirm need vehicles to explore the forest;” “if you give folks a place to ride their ATVs, they won’t break the rules;” and “it’s just a few bad apples riding where they’re not supposed to and causing damage.” This article examines important social science research that debunks the “few bad apples” myth. Analysis includes a review of three state-level surveys revealing that a majority of off-roaders break the law. These studies point to the failure of this myth and show a pronounced preference and practice among off-road vehicle recreationists to travel cross-country and ride off of legal routes.

Montana

In 2006, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks received survey responses from 446 owners of registered off-road vehicles. Among the full sample of respondents, 23% “always or sometimes” ride cross-country even though off-route riding is against the rules in Montana and has been since 2001. Over 28% “sometimes or never” avoid riparian areas and wetlands, in violation of rules for federal and state public lands in Montana. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed have used an off-road vehicle while hunting. The majority of this hunting subset admits to riding crosscountry — over 58% have traveled off of legal routes to retrieve downed game.

16

Bad apples or good apples? Wildlands CPR file photo.

Colorado

A 2001 Colorado study cited the state of Montana’s off-road vehicle public education program as a model to emulate. According to the Colorado study, Montana’s “On the Right Trail” program “provided a list of key behavioral traits that define an ‘ethical hunter’ — with several of these related to proper OHV use.” However, as discussed above, the more recent Montana study revealed a significant disregard for the rules among many off-road vehicle riders, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the state’s education program. This supports the key conclusion of the Colorado study: “information and education per se – will not result in substantial behavioral change” (emphases in original).

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Monaghan and Associates, a marketing research firm, conducted the 2001 study at the behest of the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding, a coalition of off-road vehicle representatives, environmentalists and public officials. Researchers surveyed Colorado off-road vehicle riders through a series of three focus groups. Monaghan and Associates found that the majority of off-roaders understand that staying on designated routes is “fundamental trail etiquette” and that going off trail is not “correct” off-road vehicle behavior. The survey revealed, however, that regardless of this knowledge “as many as twothirds of adult users go off the trail occasionally.” A significant percentage of riders, 15-20%, admitted to frequently breaking the rules and riding off of legal routes often. Survey participants also stated that “others” ride offroute and cause most of the damage.

ORV tracks “adorn” Factory Butte, Utah. Photo by Marcel Huijser.

Utah

In a separate study, the Utah Division of Parks & Recreation commissioned Utah State University to survey riders to determine their “OHV uses and owner preferences.” The university conducted a telephone survey of 335 riders from a random sample of the 50,676 people who registered offroad vehicles with the state in 2000. The Utah report reveals that a high percentage of riders prefer to ride “off established trails” and did so on their last outing. Of the ATV riders surveyed, 49.4% prefer to ride off established trails, while 39% did so on their most recent excursion. Of the dirt bike riders surveyed, 38.1% prefer to ride off established trails, while 50% rode off established trails on their most recent excursion. When surveyed on issues affecting off-road vehicle use in Utah, survey respondents recognized the need for enforcement but not the need for protecting the natural resources where they ride. This questions the assumption that off-road vehicle riders will stay on-route if educated that cross-country travel is illegal or damaging. One-third of the respondents said there should be more law enforcement presence in OHV areas. Only 6% cited “resource management conservation” as the most important issue affecting off-road vehicle use in Utah.

Nevada

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found a near universal disregard for motorized guidelines when the BLM experimented with a “voluntary off-road vehicle route system” in Nevada. The area in question serves as a refuge for the disappearing Sand Mountain Blue butterfly, a species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. A 2006 monitoring report compiled over a three-year period found that “98 percent of all existing routes continued to be used and new routes were created, indicating an ongoing expansion of habitat degradation.” The study also found that half of the places where riders violated guidelines were near signs that discouraged them from proceeding into sensitive butterfly habitat. The cumulative impacts of such “noncompliance points” were four-fold as each discouraged route experienced multiple incursions.

riders are educated as to where they are and are not allowed to ride. In contrast, the research above shatters the myth that damage and conflicts are being caused by an insignificant percentage of off-road vehicle riders. The findings of these studies suggest that even if the “demand” for more offroad vehicle riding opportunities is met, riders will continue to fulfill their preferences by riding off legal routes. They also conclude or at least strongly suggest that education and information alone are not effective strategies for changing off-road behavior. Instead, Monaghan and Associates offers the following recommendation: “In order to be successful and actually influence behavior, OHV users must be motivated to behave properly.” While more social science research is needed to determine what will motivate users to behave properly, anecdotal research (Wildlands CPR 2007) argues most strongly for increasing enforcement, and especially increasing the consequences for breaking the law, through mechanisms like vehicle confiscations, increased fines, and closing areas to all motorized users when motorized trespass occurs.

Conclusion

One can assume that many folks will not tell the truth when asked if they participated in a behavior known to be illegal or generally perceived to be in conflict with social norms. This tendency is known as the “social desirability bias” and defined as under-reporting undesirable attributes and/or over-reporting desirable attributes due to the tendency to present oneself in a favorable light (Groves et. al. 2004). Therefore, the percentage of off-roaders who violate the rules is likely even higher than revealed in the survey results discussed above. Many public land managers assume that designating additional offroad vehicle routes will lead directly to greater compliance, less crosscountry travel and, as a result, less resource damage and fewer conflicts among incompatible uses. Some believe that off-road vehicle riders will quit creating renegade routes once more routes are designated “open” and

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Definitely bad apples: participants in Moab’s Jeep Safari drive through the stream. Wildlands CPR file photo.

— references on next page — 17

— continued from previous page —

References Archie, M.L., H.D. Terry, B. Walder, and N. Jackson. 2007. Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands. Wildlands CPR, Missoula, MT. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/Reports/ EnforcementReport.html. Fischer, A.L., D.J. Blahna, and R. Bahr. 2002. Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah (Revised). Institute for Outdoor Recreation & Tourism, Department of Forest Resources, Utah State University for Utah Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Parks & Recreation. http://extension.usu.edu/iort/ files/uploads/pdfs/revisedOHVreport.pdf.

Three dirt bikers flee the scene after assaulting the leader of a Sierra Club hike who raised his camera to document the illegal motorized intrusion of the Great Burn Recommended Wilderness near the IdahoMontana border on July 30, 2006. The repeat offender, Timothy David Turner, was later arrested for felony aggravated assault. Clearwater County granted him a misdemeanor plea of disturbing the peace after federal prosecutors failed to take the case. Photo courtesy of the Sierra Club.

Frueh, LM. 2001. Status and Summary Report on OHV Responsible Riding Campaign. Prepared by Monaghan and Associates for the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding. http://www.wildlandscpr. org/status-and-summary-report-ohvresponsible-riding-campaign. Groves, R.M., et al. Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004, p. 208. Lewis, M.S., and R. Paige. 2006. Selected Results From a 2006 Survey of Registered Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Owners in Montana. Responsive Management Unit Research Summary No. 21. Prepared for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. http:// fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=19238. Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sand Mountain Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes pallescens ssp. arenamontana) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 84. See pages 2426061. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/denialpetition-list-sand-mountain-blue-butterflythreatened-or-endangered.

18

Collision Course: Off-road vehicle impacts on hunting and fishing The Izaak Walton League of America recently published an excellent report on the impacts of ORVs on hunting and fishing. Wildlands CPR assisted with the scientific overview of how ORVs and roads impact hunting and fishing. In addition, the report includes personal stories about negative experiences hunters and anglers have had with ORVs in the field. The League also included a summary of a survey in which state fish and wildlife managers were asked about ORV impacts on hunting and fishing. According to the introduction from the report, “The three sections of this report all point toward similar conclusions—that ORVs can indeed have some negative impacts on hunting and fishing, and that better enforcement and education are vital to reducing these impacts.” The report concludes with policy recommendations to address the problems. Read it at: http://iwla. org/publications/wilderness/OHVreport.pdf

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Thrillcraft Available The Foundation for Deep Ecology has released a new book, Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. Edited by George Wuerthner, this shocking book is packed with more than 100 powerful, color photographs and two dozen insightful essays. Wildlands CPR Executive Director Bethanie Walder and Board member David Havlick both contributed essays to the book. The book covers off-road vehicle culture, environmental impacts caused by off-road vehicles, policy decisions that have led to such rampant abuse, suggestions for reform, and inspiring success stories. George Wuerthner also worked tirelessly behind the lens to provide most of the photographs, illustrating the intense environmental destruction caused by off-road vehicles of all types. These high quality images cover regions and landscapes from across the United States. From jet skis on crowded beaches in the southeast, to ATVs tearing up arid lands in the Colorado Plateau, to two-wheeled tracks criss-crossing fragile tundra ecosystems in Alaska, the photographs in this volume clearly expose the damage off-road-vehicles wreak on our natural areas. Wildlands CPR has partnered with the Foundation for Deep Ecology to distribute the book through our large network of grassroots activists. They will, in turn, hand-deliver the book to local policy makers, law enforcement officials, and concerned citizens. Other essays in the book include: Tom Butler’s “Mind and Machine: A Brief History of Human Domestication,” Rick Bass’s “Fourteen Gardens:

Reflections of an Activist,” D.J. Schubert’s “Snowmobiles and Public Lands: Unacceptable Impacts on a Winter Landscape,” Barrie Gilbert’s “No Wild, No Wildlife: The Threat from Motorized Recreation” and others by wildlife scientists and activists. In his foreword, founder and president of the Foundation for Deep Ecology, Douglas Tompkins writes: “Every American who values clean air and water, healthy wildlife populations, and the opportunity to find some peace and quiet while enjoying public lands has a stake in this fight…This book seeks to alert all Americans to this crisis of motorized wreckreation…Take it as a challenge to read this book, to look carefully at the damage being done to your land. Become enraged, and engaged. Ultimately, only citizen action can counter the elitist minority that wants to use the commons as outdoor NASCAR-style abusement parks. As owners and trustees of America’s public lands, will we fight for the freedom of wild places to stay wild, or allow the damage to continue? Will we be true patriots, or cowards, who turn away from the looting of our natural heritage?”

Wildlands CPR’s E-newsletter Wildlands CPR has discontinued publication of skidmarks and now publishes a monthly e-newsletter. Visit www.wildlandscpr.org to sign-up. The newsletter includes news, views, analysis, images and resources related to watershed restoration, off-road vehicles, and roads. It’s much, much more comprehensive than our old newsletter and will keep you upto-date on these issues year-round. The e-newsletter links directly to www. wildandscpr.org for analysis and information you can use — check it out, and if you like what you see sign up and forward to your friends so they can sign up too!

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

19

The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the awesome citizens and organizations we work with, both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and lessons learned. Please e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to [email protected].

Keeping Wildlife Connected, in the Southern Rockies By Bethanie Walder

I

n 1995, Wildlands CPR hosted our first-ever training session for activists to monitor road impacts. Among the 30 or so participants was a member of the equally young organization, the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP). Both SREP and Wildlands CPR were interested in creating interconnected landscapes of functioning, intact habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species, and everything else that depends on them. During the ensuing 12 years, we’ve continued to work with SREP, and we’ve been ever-impressed by their incredible success from both the research and policy perspectives. Below are highlights of SREP’s many accomplishments – too many to list in one short article. One of the most interesting things about their work is how it has adapted over time to fit changing conditions. Through those adaptations, SREP has become an incredibly strong and influential organization not just in the southern rockies, but throughout the west. SREP was founded in 1992 to create an ecoregional approach to conservation. Their initial emphasis was on research to synthesize existing science and clearly identify the threats and impacts to natural resources in the southern rockies. SREP used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) resources to analyze and depict these impacts. They acted as a resource for other groups in the region, conducting needed mapping projects and disseminating their accumulated research for other groups to use in their advocacy efforts. SREP planning map shows priority work areas.

In 2002/2003, the board and staff decided to take their vision and apply it on the ground. They reviewed their research, and met with conservation groups in the area to identify a new niche. As a result of that process, they refocused their efforts on restoring landscape connections with a particular emphasis on wildlife corridors and linkages and specifically, highway mitigation. Engaging in highway mitigation meant working with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). In a novel approach for a conservation organization, SREP went directly to CDOT and FHWA and sought funding to address wildlife connectivity across highways. SREP’s ten year record of excellent mapping and research helped them make their case. CDOT liked the idea and in 2004, FHWA awarded SREP a $90,000 grant to both prioritize wildlife linkages within the state and then to identify mitigation opportunities within those linkages to restore connectivity. In 2005, SREP received an additional $120,000 to complete the project.

With the CDOT funding, SREP conducted a series of in-depth studies on wildlife connectivity and highway impacts that included very specific management recommendations. To understand the management side, SREP staff also had to become experts at the highway planning process. According to SREP Development and Communications Director Monique DiGiorgio, “CDOT has now included wildlife language in every long-term highway planning document that affects priority wildlife linkage zones identified by SREP.” With this critical policy effort, SREP has dramatically altered the playing field for the future by ensuring CDOT will address wildlife concerns from the earliest planning stages.

20

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

But their successes aren’t all policy-based. Through their unique capacity to work with the public, policy makers and transportation and federal land managers, SREP has been able to bring real dollars into Colorado to fix habitat fragmentation problems. In 2005, SREP was a key force in getting Congress to allocate $420,000 for a wildlife overpass on I-70 near Vail Pass. While the overpass hasn’t yet been built (and more funding is still needed), CDOT has convened an expert panel to create a preliminary design for the project. In addition, SREP recently partnered with Ouray County to raise approximately $100,000 for wildlife mitigation on US 550. This project will enable the county to build 10 wildlife escape ramps along an 8 mile stretch of highway that has wildlife fencing but no crossing structures. In addition, wildlife group up along one end of the fence and cross the road in significant numbers at that area. This recently led to a fatal animal-vehicle collision. With this funding, planners will also extend the fence into the actual habitat to try and prevent animals from surging onto the highway near the edge of the fence. At the same time, SREP is working with experts to determine more functional methods to get wildlife across the highway safely.

the proposed wildlife overpass. They will find out in a few weeks whether or not that funding will be awarded. DiGiorgio described SREP’s biggest success as, “raising public and agency awareness about the importance of wildlife connectivity across highways, especially through our work on the Vail Pass wildlife bridge, and getting the funds allocated through Congress. In addition, we’ve

seen a major transition in the last four years, with CDOT taking ownership of the overpass project and engaging more and more in wildlife connectivity issues across highways.”

To complement their on the ground projects, SREP developed an active citizen-science monitoring program — especially along the Vail Pass corridor on I-70 where they raised funding for the wildlife bridge. According to DiGiorgio, “SREP recruits volunteers and we teach them about habitat fragmentation, wildlife connectivity, scientific methodologies and policy. Each volunteer adopts one of our cameras and is responsible for all aspects of data collection in association with their photo transect.” The project has 20 steady volunteers, responsible for 50 cameras. SREP raised nearly $100,000 in private donations to fund this research, which will provide pre-overpass baseline data on wildlife presence; data collection will continue after the bridge is installed to monitor its effectiveness.

One thing SREP staff have determined is that you must stay engaged over the long haul, even when the politics are not encouraging. When they started their highways work, CDOT was run in a very different way, and the state was not investing in wildlife protection and restoration. As the politics have changed, SREP has found more and more doors open to them, but that’s only because they stuck it out during the difficult periods. SREP has traveled a long, winding and very successful road to their current work on the ground; what’s explained here is only the tip of the iceberg of their activities. With their critical combination of science, mapping, policy work and advocacy, they’ve been able to bring real funds into Colorado to fix very real wildlife problems. Over the next few years, SREP will be expanding beyond the mitigation work to look at comprehensive protection, mitigation and restoration strategies (including some work we’re doing with them on road removal) in 6-7 critical areas. We extend a huge thanks to them for their incredible work in the southern rockies and beyond!

Looking at the landscape level, SREP has requested nearly half a million dollars in federal and state funding to assess the entirety of the I-70 corridor for wildlife mitigation, to expand on their earlier successes with

For more information about SREP’s excellent programs, check out their website at restoretherockies.org.

SREP’s remote cameras catch visits by bear and sage elk (right) in key habitat linkage corridors. Photos courtesy of SREP.

SREP also identified a mitigation need along SR 160 east of Durango and worked to raise the priority of that project, which CDOT eventually funded with hazard mitigation money. In that area, CDOT is installing an animal detection system in Spring 2008 that will alert drivers when wildlife are on the road. This allows wildlife to cross the road over a large area, without fencing or under/overpasses, but still has the potential to dramatically reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

21

T

he first snow of the season finally fell during Thanksgiving week, blanketing everything in brilliant white and heralding the arrival of the winter recreation season, including both skiing and snowmobiling. And as another winter begins, there’s been yet another round of changes to the Yellowstone winter recreation plan (see page 7). Perhaps five years from now, when the snow starts to fly, there will actually be a definitive plan for managing recreational access to our nation’s first national park. Read on for the latest happenings at Wildlands CPR…

Welcome

We were delighted to be able to bring Cathy Walters Adams back to Wildlands CPR as our Program Associate. She was our office assistant for almost two years and she’s back with us halftime now, assisting in the office and with other program work. It’s absolutely fantastic to have her back in the office! As is typical in the fall, we have two graduate students from the University of Montana working on research projects. Many thanks, in advance, to Shannon Donahue for reviewing recent literature on the impact of roads on bears, and to Peter Bugoni for reviewing the impacts of oil and gas development (and associated linear barriers) on wildlife. Both of these will update previous reviews, as we like to keep you informed of new research as it becomes available. We’re also very happy to have another UM graduate student, Greg Peters, working on a project to help us distribute 5,000 copies of the book Thrillcraft, as described below.

responsible off-road vehicle recreation. Many thanks to the Foundation for Deep Ecology for publishing the book and donating them to Wildlands CPR to distribute. Thanks, too, to all of the grassroots groups who will do the legwork to get these books into the hands and onto the desks of the people who need to understand and regulate this problem more effectively.

Thanks

We’d like to start with a big thanks to everyone who has responded to our annual gifts campaign request. We’re well on our way to our goal of $35,000. If you haven’t sent in a contribution yet, now is the time, and we do need your help to reach that goal! Many thanks to the following foundations for their generous support of our work this quarter: Foundation for Deep Ecology, Harder Foundation, Maki Foundation, Page Foundation, Patagonia, and Weeden Foundation.

Partings

Say it isn’t so!! Dave Havlick, Board President, author of No Place Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America’s Public Lands; author of numerous other exceptionally written essays about roads, restoration and ORVs, former Road-RIPorter editor, former road inventory field dude extraordinaire, professor of geography specializing in restoration, and all around great guy, has reached his term limit for being on the Wildlands CPR board. In December, Dave will have to step down, and we’ll miss his dedication, insights, humor, and presence on the board. He’s been involved on or off with Wildlands CPR since 1995, so we won’t let him get too far away, but rules are rules, and he’ll have to step down. Thanks Dave — for everything you’ve done to make Wildlands CPR a better organization! We’ll introduce you to our new Board members in the next issue.

Thrillcraft

As mentioned on page 22, the Foundation for Deep Ecology has just published their latest coffee-table advocacy book, Thrillcraft. In early November, the Foundation donated 5,000 copies of the book to Wildlands CPR (a $100,000 in-kind contribution). Greg Peters spent most of the fall contacting grassroots groups throughout the country to determine how many copies of the book they would like to receive and distribute to decisionmakers, agency managers, local officials and media representatives. Before the books were even in the warehouse, Greg had 4,800 copies already accounted for, and we expect to have all of them into activists’ hands before Christmas. We also developed a great brochure and several resources for groups to use to accompany the book. It’s a great opportunity to raise awareness of the intense level of damage and destruction caused by ir-

22

As the field season ends, Wildlands CPR will encourage planners to turn their attention to restoration projects for next year. Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 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, Winter Solstice 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

Quiet recreation at its finest... floating the Grand Canyon, October 2007. Photo by Dan Funsch.

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

The road running through this meadow is nothing more than a potholed portal for bad ideas, a puncture wound that won’t heal, allowing human fallability to flow unchecked into the delicate heart of healthy land. — Guy Hand, “Pining for an Oak Meadow” from A Road Runs throught It.

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