road riporter 12.4 winter solstice 2007

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 12.4 Winter Solstice 2007

1/24

Winter Solstice 2007. Volume 12 No. 4

Inside

Check out our website at:www.wildlandscpr.org

A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2

Restoring Montana, by Marnie Criley. Pages 3-6

Regional Reports & Updates. Page 7

DePaving the Way: Things arent always what theyseem, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 8-9

Restoring Montana,

One Collaboration at a TimeBy Marnie Criley

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

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

Odes to Roads: Beach Bums, by Ted Williams. Pages 14-15

Biblio Notes: Just a Few Bad Apples?, by Jason Kiely andChris Kassar. Pages 16-18

New Resources. Pages 19

Citizen Spotlight: Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, byBethanie Walder. Pages 20-21

Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

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


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 20072

2007 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restorewildland ecosystems by preventing and removingroads and limiting motorized recreation. We area national clearinghouse and network, providingcitizens with tools and strategies to fight roadconstruction, deter motorized recreation, and

promote road removal and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551www.wildlandscpr.org

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

CommunicationsCoordinatorJason Kiely

Restoration ProgramCoordinator

Marnie Criley

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

Legal Liaison/AgencyTraining Coordinator

Sarah Peters

Montana State ORVCoordinator

Adam Rissien

Program AssociatesCathy Walters Adams & Andrea Manes

Membership/WebMarketing Associate

Josh Hurd

Utah State ORVCoordinator

Laurel Hagen

Journal EditorDan Funsch

Interns & VolunteersCarla Abrams, Mike Fiebig, Marlee Ostheimer,

Ginny Porter

Board of DirectorsAmy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish,William Geer, Dave Havlick, Chris Kassar,

Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson

FS Shell Game Thwarts Road Fix

In June, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) wrote to the Forest Service asking some point-ed questions about management of their road system. In October the Forest Servicefinally responded the unfortunate thing is that even though Senator Cantwell asked

some good questions, she didnt get many good answers.

A few things are painfully clear from the agencys response:

The Forest Service does not have a good sense of how its road system is impactingnational forest resources, and what it would take to reduce those impacts;

The Forest Service is playing a shell-game with maintenance costs and road clas-

sifications, rather than seeking critically needed funding to bring their road system up tominimum water quality or wildlife standards;

Roads are being indiscriminately closed to address funding shortfalls, not to ad-dress resource management needs.

The letter to Cantwell revealed a disturbing approach to the funding problem. TheForest Service first pointed out that federal regulations require that management of thesystem of NFS roads be conducted in a manner that is sustainable with current levelsof 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 explainsthat it is agency policy to reduce the service level of roads to a level that can be sustainedwith 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 backwardthinking only exacerbates natural resource damage, and potentially increases public an-

ger over access. Not to mention that even with these reductions, there is still a $5 billionbacklog, so they remain out of compliance with their own policies.

The Forest Service should have enough money to maintain their road system, butthis means increasing funding, not decreasing maintenance. The Forest Service is incharge of the largest road system in the world, and the bulk of it is in a terrible state ofdisrepair, wreaking havoc on Americas natural resources and natural heritage.

The American taxpayer will continue to pay for these roads, either in a proactive wayby 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 theroads fail. A significant portion of the road system is no longer needed and could berestored to natural conditions. The agency should first determine the minimum road sys-tem needed, and then manage their funds and roads to realize that minimum system. Re-

storing 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 ismanaging (or not managing) its road system. With limited knowledge about the extent ofthe environmental impacts of Forest Service roads and even less motivation to solve theproblem effectively, the agency is instead playing an ecologically dangerous shell gamethat will only result in greater impacts on the ground. Were working to prevent that.

To read the letter, go to www.wildlandscpr.org/files/NFsroadsresponse.pdf


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007 3

story continued on next page

Restoring Montana,

One Collaboration at a TimeBy Marnie Criley, Restoration Coordinator

In February 2007 I took my puppy to a newlyformed collaboratives first meeting to draft aset of Montana restoration principles. I knew

some folks; others Id recently met for the firsttime. People in the group held different viewsabout how national forest lands in Montanashould be managed, but we had agreed to cometogether to find common ground around theissue of forest restoration. We knew it wasntgoing to be an easy process, but the tensionin the room was at least in part eased by the

presence of a 3 month old, floppy-eared beaglenamed Gypsy, who tried to drink our coffee andfell asleep on my pile of restoration documents.Over the next 6 months, both Gypsy and ourcollaborative grew from infancy to maturity.Our collaborative did it through a process that Ithink is worth reflecting upon.

Collaboration seems to be the current solution for dealing with natu-ral resource issues. Collaborative groups are forming all around the Westto deal with issues ranging from fuels reduction around communities tomotorized recreation on public lands. While Im not convinced collabora-tion is the answer to all our natural resource dilemmas, the Montana resto-ration collaborative that Wildlands CPR is involved in holds great promisefor accomplishing ecologically sound restoration projects in Montana.

In January 2007, the National Forest Foundation and Artemis CommonGround convened thirty-four representatives of conservationists, motor-ized users, outfitters, loggers, mill operators, and state government andForest Service officials to discuss the possibility of writing a set of prin-ciples that might help guide the restoration process on national forests inMontana. These principles would represent a zone of agreement wherecontroversy, delays, appeals, and litigation are significantly reduced.While we recognized that there were some strong differences of opinionin the room, everyone agreed that the effort was worth pursuing we allwanted to see restoration projects occur on the ground that would provideboth 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 subcommit-tees: one to work on a set of restoration principles, one to come up witha plan to implement those principles, and one to plan a field trip to talkabout restoration outside of a meeting room. We named ourselves theMontana Forest Restoration Working Group and set a deadline of August 1,2007 to complete the principles and an implementation plan. I volunteeredto chair the Vision and Principles Subcommittee as well as serve on theSteering Committee to help guide the larger effort.

Photos courtesy ofMontana Forest Restoration Working Group.


4/24


Restoring Montana,continued from page 3

Over the course of the next six months, our Vision andPrinciples Subcommittee met face-to-face for nearly 50 hoursto hash out a set of principles that everyone could agree on.The core Principles Subcommittee consisted of 10 peoplerepresenting conservation groups, the Forest Service, timbermills and motorized recreation. We reviewed and took ideasfrom several other restoration principles, including theCitizens Call for Ecological Restoration that Wildlands CPRco-authored several years ago. I think one of the keys to oursuccess was that we meshed as a group almost immediately,thanks in large part to everyones sense of humor, as well astheir firm belief that these principles could really make a dif-ference in accomplishing needed restoration work in a timelymanner. It also helped that members had experience withother collaborative efforts. Finally, the involvement of theForest Service was essential to making the principles a viabletool for the agency to utilize.

Now dont think that we had smooth sailing all throughthe process. Roads, fire and the commercial use of woodproducts were some of the issues we had to spend extra timeon in order to reach consensus. However, by being honest,by talking issues out and by really listening to each other, wewere able to find common ground. It required some give oneveryones part in order to make this work we would allhave to leave our comfort zones and explain our positions topeople who might not think like we do.

At times I questioned whether I was giving in toomuch on issues in order to reach consensus I imagine allinvolved had those gut check moments where they realizedthat they were representing a constituency of people, be itenvironmentalists or loggers, who expected us to speak upfor their interests. The key is to figure out what can work for

your interests as well as the interests of the person sitting atthe table with you. Its hard work but as you struggle throughit, you realize the process is almost as important as the endproduct. You get to know the mill worker as a person and youstart understanding his or her perspective better. I would

hazard to say that some friendships were started in theprocess. Subcommittee members admitted to me that theyenjoyed our four and five-hour gatherings. I agreed to meet

on my 40th birthday and my fellow subcommittee membersbrought me a birthday cake.

While none of us have changed ourfundamental positions, I think weall were changed by the process.

Getting out on the ground helped shift the groups focusfrom a potential ideological divide to a pragmatic, results-oriented approach. Photo courtesy of Montana Forest

Restoration Working Group.

Restoring roads will provide steady work for heavy equipment operatorsand others. Road removal in progress on Arapaho-Roosevelt NF (CO)

Photo by Wendy Magwire, U.S. Forest Service.

On August 1, the Montana Forest Restoration WorkingGroup approved the thirteen principles (see next page) andthe 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 andPlan are put into practice. Finally, every member of the groupagreed to serve on the new MFRC and we added three newpeople to the Steering Committee.

While none of us have changed our fundamental posi-tions, I think we all were changed by the process. Of course,now comes the really hard part putting the restorationprinciples into practice on the ground. My hope is that oursuccess with this initial effort will fuel our commitment to usethese principles to get ecologically appropriate restorationprojects happening on Montanas national forests; restorationprojects that put ecological needs first while also addressing

economic and social needs including community vitality.

On November 1, we had the first meeting of the LoloForest Restoration Committee, a collaborative group whosepurpose will be to work with the Lolo National Forest todesign restoration projects consistent with our RestorationPrinciples. Wildlands CPR will continue its involvement inthis process and continue to push for road removal to be akey component of restoration projects on Montanas nationalforests.

For more information, go to www.montanarestoration.org


5/24


1) Restore functioning ecosystems by enhancing ecological processes: Re-store ecosystems and biotic composition to achieve ecological integrity throughrecovery of species diversity, water quality and quantity, soil quality and function,terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and resilience. Project design will utilize adaptivemanagement, recognizing the dynamic character of ecosystems and the unpredict-ability of the future. Active and Passive Management strategies (see Appendix A fordefinitions) will be used to attain desired ecosystem objectives and future condi-tions.

2) Apply adaptive management approach: Restoration will be conductedthrough adaptive management that includes assessment, project design, implemen-tation, research and monitoring. Adaptive management is an approach to naturalresource policy that embodies a simple imperative: actions are experiments; learnfrom 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 (SeeFigure 1).

3) Use the appropriate scale of integrated analysis to prioritize and designrestoration activities: Use landscape, watershed and project level ecosystemanalysis in both prioritization and design of projects unless a compelling reason toomit a level of analysis is present. While economic feasibility is essential to projectimplementation, priorities should be based on ecological considerations and not beinfluenced by funding projections.

4) Monitor restoration outcomes: Monitoring is essential for determining theeffectiveness of implemented restoration projects. Baseline measurements, projectmonitoring, and the incorporation of research complete the information feedbackloop used in future project design. Monitoring must be conducted at multiple

scales.

Restoration Principles

5) Reestablish fire as a natural pro-cess on the landscape: Reestablishmentof natural fire regimes may be accom-plished through Passive or Active Man-agement. Passive Management allowsfor natural processes to take place bynot suppressing natural fire starts, sub-ject to cultural and social constraints.Active Management includes silvicultur-al treatments and/or the reintroductionof fire as prescribed fire. Mechanicaltreatments may be needed in order toreintroduce fire. Restoration activities,including design and implementation,

should be tailored to the fire regimes ofeach forest type (see Appendix B).

Fire is used to both achieve ecolog-ical objectives and ultimately increasepublic understanding and acceptance offire as a natural process. Once fire is re-introduced, natural or prescribed firescould be implemented or permitted ona natural interval thereby restoring thisfundamental process within the forestcommunity.

6) Consider social constraints andseek public support for reintroducing

fire on the landscape: The use of fire inrestoration will require a commitmentto ecological principles combined withsensitivity to social constraints. Cur-rent and expanding human occupationof forest landscapes, carbon dioxiderelease, clean air regulations, and otherfactors may limit the widespread returnof fire. As such, where the risk of socialbacklash is high, the use of fire willmove forward only when broad publicsupport can be gained. Proper use offire as a component of restoration,combined with community outreach,

can enhance public support and under-standing over time.

Principles continueon next page

More information, background, figuresand appendices are available on the

website: www.montanarestoration.org

The 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:

Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.


6/24


7) Engage community and interested parties in therestoration process: Community involvement and supportenhances the ability to achieve restoration on the ground.Successful restoration seems to occur when there is aconsensus building, grassroots collaborative group whosemission is to coordinate efforts that enhance, conserve andprotect natural resources and local lifestyles for present and

future generations. Restoration efforts should be developedjointly by agency staff, community members, and otherinterested parties. This cooperation will lead to better andmore productive outcomes and the wide range of knowledge,opinions, and interests will contribute to project design andimplementation. Finally, landscape level approaches are moreefficient and effective than smaller individual project effortsand should lead to increased quality of life and a greatersense of connection to the landscape.

8) Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat and connec-tivity: Restoration projects should enhance habitat for thecomplex of terrestrial and aquatic species that are native tothe target location or ecosystem. Projects should, when eco-

logically beneficial, enhance habitat connectivity to promotefree migration and movement of native species between andthrough natural landscapes. Enhanced connectivity does notpreclude future active management.

9) Emphasize ecosystem goods & services and sustain-able land management: Restoration activities should leadto the sustained abundance of ecosystem goods & serviceswithin the landscape. Ecosystem goods & services encom-pass human derived goods and services from ecologicallandscapes and sustainable ecosystems. Restoration activi-ties should be evaluated for the potential to influence theseservices and provide goods.

10) Integrate restoration with socioeconomic well-being:Restoration efforts must enhance long-term social benefitsand be economically feasible to ensure success. Restora-tion activities should emphasize landscapes that providesustained employment opportunities, and maintain thrivingcommunities, both rural and supporting urban areas. Com-

Restoration Principles, continued from previous page

munities should benefit from restoration in numerous waysincluding employment opportunities, healthy living environ-ments, and intact infrastructures. A sustainable, vibrant,integrated forest industry infrastructure is critical to imple-mentation of viable restoration projects involving vegetativemanagement by providing necessary equipment, expertiseand markets to help offset restoration costs.

11) Enhance education and recreation activities to buildsupport for restoration: Promote education and recreationactivities and facilities which interpret and complement thenatural function of the ecosystem. Education and recreationactivities on national forest lands are highly important andcan provide opportunities for people to both observe andappreciate restoration efforts.

12) Protect and improve overall watershed health, in-cluding stream health, soil quality and function and riparianfunction: Restoration activities should focus on restoring andmaintaining properly functioning conditions in high valuewatersheds and riparian areas. Stream bank, stream channel

and stream crossing restoration and improvements in prioritywatersheds are critical to achieving watershed health andresiliency to allow for functioning hydrologic conditions andaquatic habitat. Restoration projects should include efforts tominimize long-term soil degradation and erosion and shouldalso strive to improve soil productivity, increasing soil waterinfiltration rates and water holding capacity.

13) Establish and maintain a safe road and trail systemthat is ecologically sustainable: National Forest System roadsand trails provide important access for land managementactivities and public use. However, many national forests cur-rently have some roads and trails that are adversely impact-ing watersheds and wildlife. The Forest Service, along with lo-

cal communities and interested parties, should analyze whichroads and trails will be maintained, constructed, reconstruct-ed, or decommissioned to address ecological concerns andaccess needs. Road and trail restoration and maintenance canimprove wildlife and fisheries habitat, protect watersheds,and improve public access.

Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.


7/24


The Lewis and Clark National For-est (LCNF) released two separate travelplans on October 1. One covers theJefferson District, while the other cov-ers the Rocky Mountain Front Division,evaluating both summer and winter mo-torized travel and recommending roadmileage for closure. It appears that theLCNF decided to simultaneously pro-tect the majority of the Rocky Mountain

Front from motorized recreation, whilekeeping other areas open to it.

That said, even the Jefferson Dis-trict, which covers nearly one millionacres, adopted a plan that significantlyimproves conditions on the ground.And thats a good thing: in the LittleBelt Mountains alone there were nearly1,200 miles of bladed roads, 436 milesof high clearance roads, and morethan 500 miles of trails open to off-roadvehicle use. By contrast, only 62 mileshad been previously designated as qui-et trails. While the majority of routes

and roads remain open to motorizeduse, the number of trails designatedfor non-motorized use increased to 573miles in the new plan. Thats nearly atenfold increase in areas designated fortraditional, active recreation.

The largest blocks designated fornon-motorized transportation includeabout three-fourths of the Middle Forkof the Judith Wilderness Study Area,most of the Tenderfoot drainage andmost of the Deep Creek/Smith RiverCorridor. But these are just two of 14inventoried roadless areas; the restwere not substantially protected. It iscritical for roadless areas to remain free

of motorized recreation, and the Jeffer-son plan is problematic in this sense.

On the other hand, the bulk of theRocky Mountain Front was protectedfrom motorized recreation. While thenew plan is far from perfect, it views theFront as a place for hikers and horse-men, while offering motorized accessalong certain existing roads. This isprobably one of the more restrictiveplans we will see. Kudos to the Coali-tion to Protect the Rocky MountainFront and others, for their hard workto elevate the status of this area as a

mecca for traditional recreation, and toso clearly articulate the impacts motor-ized recreation has on clean water,wildlife and other recreationists. Moreinformation on the Coalitions work canbe found at http://www.savethefront.org/issues/motorized.php.

Lewis and Clark National ForestReleases Two Travel Plans

Its winter in Montana, whichmeans that its time to update thesnowmobile situation in YellowstoneNational Park. Just in case you haventfollowed this, the Park Service changestheir winter recreation managementnearly every year, as they struggle toadopt a snowmobile plan that will belegally and politically defensible. Its abit confusing, but while the current de-

cision technically (on paper) decreasesthe number of snowmobiles in thepark, it actually allows nearly twice thenumber of snowmobiles that have beenusing the park during the past threeyears. The low numbers of snowmobilevisitors during the past few years hasled to vastly improved winter condi-tions, and these gains could be lostunder the new decision if snowmobilenumbers begin to increase again.

On November 20, the Park Superin-tendent Suzanne Lewis signed a Recordof Decision (ROD) on a long-term plan

to guide management of winter use inYellowstone and Grand Teton NationalParks. The plan reduces the dailynumber of snowmobiles (from the num-ber called for in the Draft EIS preferredalternative, 720) to . . . 540 snowmobilesper day in Yellowstone and 65 snowmo-biles in Grand Teton and the Parkway.The Parks scientists actually recom-mended capping snowmobile use atlevels closer to the actual use for thepast three years, (approximately half ofwhat the agency says they will allow).The new decision will increase the

noise influence of snowmobiles fromthe current zone of 21 square miles to63 square miles. In addition, the newdecision will increase wildlife impacts,air and water pollution.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition,National Parks Conservation Associa-tion, The Wilderness Society, NaturalResources Defense Council, WinterWildlands Alliance, and Sierra Clubhave announced that they will seek acourt review of this decision.

YNP SnowmobileUpdate

Snowmobilers head outinto another season.

Photo by Will Tardy,courtesy of Flickr.com.


8/24


Here in the U.S., and pretty broadly throughout thewestern world, people have become accustomed tothe concept that no means no. While this slogan

was created by activists working to end violence againstwomen, and especially date rape, the meaning can and shouldapply to other things as well.

No should mean no, in whatever context it is used,including public land management. Unfortunately right now, itseems that on national forests, that might not be the case. Inthe past few years, the Forest Service has started a new trend

to promote motorized recreational use on gated roads. I dontknow about you, but when I see a locked gate across a road,I assume that means I shouldnt drive on that road. I assumethat the gate means the road is closed. I also think that mostpeople who see locked gates across roads assume the same.Ive been trained to understand that no always means no, andthat locked gates mean that things are closed.

When Closed Means OpenWith their new approach to off-road vehicle use, the

Forest Service is reversing this basic concept, and reversingany gains they might have been making in enforcing limits onoff-road vehicle recreation. Forest Service staff have been ac-tively promoting the use of maintenance level 1 (ML1) roadsfor motorized recreation. The problem is that ML1 roads are,by definition, closed.

According to the Forest Service Handbook, maintenancelevel one is assigned to intermittent service roads during thetime they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure periodmust exceed 1 year. . . . Appropriate traffic managementstrategies are prohibit and eliminate. Roads receivinglevel 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or construc-tion standard, and may be managed at any other maintenancelevel during the time they are open for traffic. However, whilebeing maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traf-fic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses.FSH 7709.58, 12.3

The last time I checked, off-road vehicles were vehiculartraffic. But this is where the Forest Service seems to forgetthat no means no. Because definitions in the Forest ServiceHandbook are not necessarily enforceable in a court of law,the Forest Service has decided that they can flout this defini-tion by not just allowing, but promoting motorized use behindthe gates. The Bitterroot National Forest, for example, hasrecently updated their visitor map to promote motorized useon numerous ML1 roads.

There is a catch there are ML1 roads for which theForest Service has issued a formal closure order to pro-tect wildlife, clean water or other natural resources. Theseclosure orders are legally enforceable, and they clearly statewhat uses are prohibited on the road or trail in question. Inmost instances, the agency will post a sign at the gate, indicat-ing the specifics of the closure. The confusion comes in whenthe FS has downgraded roads to lower maintenance levels,

including ML1, without issuing closure orders and withoutposting signs (and sometimes without installing gates). Thesecondary confusion comes in when signs explaining theclosures are vandalized and removed. Then, all thats left isa gate (if it hasnt been vandalized as well). If the Forest Ser-vice aggressively promotes the use of motorized recreationon some gated, closed roads, but not on others, then how aredrivers ever supposed to know what a gate means when theysee one. Its just nonsensical, and extremely counterproduc-tive to their efforts to manage motorized recreation.

Closed Roads: Open for Business?By Bethanie Walder

Instead of the new travel planningprocess improving enforcementcapacity for the agency, it may

very well encourage riders to drivearound gates.

When the dust settles, will the Forest Service send aconsistent message to off-roaders? Wildlands CPR file

photo.


9/24


When finished with the ongoing travel planning process, each forestwill issue motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) that show where vehiclesare and are not allowed. If the map recently issued by the BitterrootNational Forest is any indication (although its not a formal MVUM), newMVUMs will show some ML1 roads, many of them likely gated, as opento motorized use by off-road vehicles. Instead of the new travel planningprocess improving enforcement capacity for the agency, it may very wellencourage riders to drive around gates. So perhaps we need to start a newcampaign on public lands, with a mantra of closed mean closed, becausethe Forest Service doesnt seem to understand the consequences of theirproposed actions.

ity and wildlife, for example, but those impactsare no longer accounted for in the same way,since they are being caused by trails instead ofroads.

If the Forest Service wants to enable off-roadvehicle riders to legally drive on Forest Serviceroads (most ORVs are not street legal, so theyare not allowed on FS roads unless specific ex-ceptions have been made in state law), then theyshould either reclassify the roads as ML2 (whichrequires more maintenance), or they shouldcreate a new travelway definition for motorizedroutes, and those motorized routes should bemanaged with the same natural resource require-ments as roads.

End of the RoadAs part of travel planning, numerous forest

managers are making the line between trail androad so blurry that it is not even visible. Further,they are promoting actions that will seriouslyimpact their capacity to enforce any new travel

restrictions. Its time for the agency to ensurethat closed means closed, and to make a cleardistinction that roads (and if necessary, motor-ized routes) are for motorized use and trails arefor non-motorized use. Non-motorized recre-ationists and wildlife advocates must demandthat the agency provide this clarity for all forestusers, and that the agency apply the conceptof closed means closed. One of the primarypurposes of the new travel planning process wasto address the threat of unmanaged recreation.Its laughable to think that promoting motorizeduse on closed roads will help the agency managerecreation more effectively.

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

Whats in a Name?This contradictory management policy is further exacerbated by the

agencys newly adopted (2005) definitions of roads and trails. Can you spotthe difference?

Road: A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identifiedand managed as a trail.

Trail: A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches widethat is identified and managed as a trail.

The basic meaning of these two definitions is that a road is a road, un-less we manage it as a trail, and vice versa. However, as if exploiting theirown loophole, the agency is now promoting motorized use behind closedgates by considering a double classification for many ML1 and ML2 roads(those suited only for high-clearance vehicles) they are roads and theyare also motorized trails. In other words, an ML1 road can be simultane-ously classified as a closed road, and as a trail open to motorized use. Sucha 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 standardsto protect wildlife or aquatic resources. By obliterating the line betweenroad and trail, between motorized and non-motorized access, the agencyhas made it nearly impossible to manage roads and trails from a biological/ecological perspective (though some national forests do appear to includemotorized routes when calculating open road densities). Nonetheless,if you reclassify a road as a trail, all of a sudden your road maintenancebacklog has dropped, your road density has dropped, your wildlife man-agement requirements have changed, etc. But the reality is that the sameimpacts are still occurring on the ground, the same impacts to water qual-

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


10/24


Restoration Program

Program Updates, Winter 2007By Jason Kiely

Theres no way around it: watershed restoration costs money. Asreported in the previous issue of The Road RIPorter, RepresentativeNorm Dicks (D-WA) earmarked $65 million in the House Interior Ap-

propriations bill for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program. TheSenates Interior Appropriation bill earmarked $55 million for forest healthprojects, but contained no provision for road remediation. As a result, SueGunn, Wildlands CPR representative in Washington, and Executive DirectorBethanie Walder mobilized to reach out to environmental organizations inother states to contact their Senators and urge them to add comparablefunding in the Senate bill. Wildlands CPR prompted and/or helped craftsign-on letters from partner organizations in Arizona, California, Colorado,Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico.

Wildlands CPR is also helping other westerners learn about the bene-fits of road removal. Restoration Coordinator Marnie Criley and WildlandsCPR board member Rebecca Lloyd addressed 50 leaders from eight stateswhen they led a road restoration panel at the ground-breaking Pay Dirtconference organized by Western Progress, a new think tank. The confer-ence was focused on building a restoration economy in the intermountain

west; road removal could be a key part of such economic development.

ScienceScience 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 foryears to restore salmon fisheries and wildlife habitat by decommissioningunstable and unnecessary roads. As reported on the front page of a recentedition of The Missoulian, preliminary results of ongoing field monitoringreveal that bear and moose are found in greater numbers on decommis-sioned and removed roads, respectively. The project also captured imagesof wolf and cougar on removed roads.

Adam is working with another Board member, Cara Nelson, a restora-tion professor in the School of Forestry and Conservation at the Universityof Montana, to test the effectiveness of different native seed mixes foruse on removed roads. Adam and a graduate student have been scoutingout possible study sites on the Clearwater and Kootenai National Forests(MT).

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

ging roads in a highly roaded and logged arearecently acquired from Plum Creek Timber. The

land is in a grizzly bear corridor, and we arehelping restore this key linkage.

Adam did spend some time in the office. Onthe ORV side, he made critical contributions tothe Izaak Walton League of America, providingthem with a review of the impacts of off-roadvehicles to fish and wildlife for inclusion in theirnew report, Collision Course? Off-Road Vehicle

Impacts on Hunting and Fishing.

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

photo.


11/24


Transportation Program

After two years of frustration, and a legal fight with the ForestService, Wildlands CPR is now the proud recipient of an enormousamount 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 tosettle our lawsuit. During settlement negotiations, the agency granted usall of the information we requested. Thanks to Western EnvironmentalLaw Centers great work in the courtroom and on the phones, this storyreceived impressive media coverage. Legal liaison Sarah Peters will leadthe analysis and distribution of this information; weve already receivednumerous requests from conservation partners who recognize the ecologi-cal and fiscal impacts inflicted by wildland roads and off-road vehicles.

In Montana, Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator Adam Rissien has beenstrongly supporting the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition. He and Commu-nications Coordinator Jason Kiely helped coalition leaders issue a com-manding response to the Bitterroot National Forests proposed travel plan,which threatens both Wilderness Study Areas and roadless areas. TheCoalition has also crafted a citizens vision for the plan, one that empha-

sizes protection of these critical wildlife corridors and headwaters of ablue ribbon trout stream. Adam also serves as an emissary to naturalallies in this effort, making presentations to local fish and wildlife groups,backcountry horsemen, and winter recreation organizations. WebmasterJosh Hurd helped Adam create www.quietusecoalition.org where you canfind more information.

After a series of meetings with Region One staff, Adam also helpedconvene conservationists and Forest Service planners to discuss travelplanning expectations and ways to reduce conflict during the travel plan-ning process. The session was facilitated by the National Forest Founda-tion, and it opened more doors for improving agency action in Region Oneon travel planning. Close work with the agency organizing this event alsoseems to have had an impact on how the Bitterroot framed their Travel

Plan, expanding the field of interest beyond motorized opportunities tobetter consider all of the stakeholders and their travel planning needs.

In Utah, Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator Laurel Hagen continues to buildlocal capacity in communities threatened by cancerous off-road vehiclecreep throughout area public lands. See how Laurel has put her artistictalents to use in building organizational capacity by improving the web site

for the Uinta Mountain Club in northern Utah:www.uintamountainclub.org. Shes worked withthem in real-time as well, providing training onthe best ways to engage in public processesto advance conservation and quiet recreationvalues.

In southern Utah, Laurel is helping the Boul-der Community Alliance promote their area as aquiet recreation destination, on an unavoidablecollision course with the county commissionswho champion unbridled off-road vehicle facili-ties expansion. She is also helping them field a

team of activists to comb the land and comparenotes with the Dixie National Forests proposalsso the Alliance can educate others on what anacceptable travel plan should look like.

On the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Laurelhas secured funding to enable Moab-based RedRock Forests hire an outreach coordinator toorganize around travel planning in the AbajoMountains. And shes coordinated with theGreat Old Broads for Wilderness to map off-roadvehicle impacts in the area.

Laurel is also working to protect the

backcountry areas of the Glen Canyon NationalRecreation Area. Working with The WildernessSociety, Laurel drafted and recruited sign-onsto comments calling for reasonable limits onoff-road travel and recreation. As in the BoulderMountain area, Laurel is organizing grassrootscitizens to serve as legitimate counterweightsto county commissions hooked on the hollowpromise of an economic boost that off-roadvehicle use is supposed to deliver to rural com-munities.The Freemont River, in proposed Wilderness east of Capital

Reef National Park, Utah. Wildlands CPR file photo.

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


12/24


IntroductionIn 2005, the Forest Service published new regulations in

the Federal Register1 (commonly called the Travel Manage-ment Rule) for managing the Forest Service TransportationSystem. The Travel Management Rule, found in the Code ofFederal Regulations (36 CFR 212), has three sections: SubpartA, Administration of the Forest Transportation System;Subpart B Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for MotorVehicle Use; and Subpart C Use by Over-Snow Vehicles.This article explains the intersection of these three subparts

during the travel planning process.

Subpart AIn 2001, then Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck signed

the Road Management Strategy Rule and Policy, commonlyknown as the Roads Rule.2 This rule signaled a new direc-tion for the agency, as its goal was to guide future manage-ment of the entire road network. Decisions on road densitystandards and decommissioning were left to the local level,and each national forest had two years to determine theminimum road system required to balance access objec-tives with ecosystem health goals.3 To meet the deadline theagency looked only at roads for passenger vehicles, calledmaintenance level 3, 4 or 5 roads. Left out were roads closedto the public and those for high clearance vehicles (mainte-nance level 1 and 2 respectively) analysis for these roadswas delayed until a project level action triggered review.Unfortunately, most national forests still have not completeda comprehensive review of their entire road system.

Fast forward to 2005, when, with the release of the TravelManagement Rule, many forest officials promptly forgot abouttheir obligations under the Roads Rule. While significantchanges were made to the old policy, two key requirementsremained. The first is that the responsible official mustidentify the minimum road system needed for safe and ef-ficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protec-tion of National Forest System lands.4 In order to identifythe minimum road system, the Forest Service must complete

a full, science-based roads analysis. The second requires re-sponsible officials to identify the roads that are no longerneeded to meet forest resource management objectives andthat, therefore, should be decommissioned or considered forother uses, such as for trails.5

These two requirements are essential to any good travelmanagement plan. With a comprehensive review, mainte-nance level 1 and 2 roads will be examined. Unfortunately,there has been a tendency among land managers to shortcutthe review process by only addressing Subpart B of the travelmanagement rule.

Subpart BUnmanaged motorized recreation was a key threat

identified by former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, whoinstituted the 2005 Travel Management Rule. To address thethreat, the rule mandates that forest officials produce a MotorVehicle Use Map (MVUM) illustrating the specific routes andareas open to summer off-road vehicle use. The MVUM be-comes the basis for enforcement, and users must know wheretravel is legal by referencing the map, not by relying solelyon road or trail signs. This establishes a closed unless open

policy where roads, trails and areas are protected from mo-torized use unless the map shows otherwise. Forest officialscan release an MVUM that simply designates the official roadand trail system, or it can propose changes through the travelplanning process.6

However, motorized recreation is only one aspect oftravel management, and the opportunity to create goodtransportation and recreation plans is often lost in the madrush to produce an MVUM the Subpart A requirement forcomprehensive review has been one such casualty. Bosworthtied each national forests annual performance review to thepublication of an MVUM, and all travel plans must be com-pleted by December 2009.

To guide implementation of the 2005 Travel Management

Rule, the agency proposed new directives in its forest manu-als and handbooks. One, called travel analysis, incorporatesthe roads analysis (discussed below) and goes a step furtherby including motorized routes. Release of the final directivesis not expected until spring 2008. However, we have alreadyseen 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.

The ABCs of Travel PlanningBy Adam Rissien and Sarah Peters

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


13/24


Subpart CThe Travel Management Rule eliminated 36 CFR 295: Use

of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads, whichhad provided authority to manage snowmobile use. To re-place 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-empha-sizing damage and disruption caused by snowmobile use.This means that separate winter use plans or existing forestplans will guide snowmobile use. The deadline for completingMVUMs does not apply to motorized winter recreation, so theagency is under no obligation to address over-snow vehiclesduring travel planning.

Roads Analysis Through Travel AnalysisThe roads analysis process as adopted in 2001 was in-

tended to be comprehensive, looking at multiple scales (eco-regional, forest, and project) and evaluating the ecologicaleffects of roads. But that goal was never realized, as analysiswas done only at the forest scale, and only for maintenancelevel 3-5 roads. It can be argued that travel analysis nowgives the Forest Service a second chance at roads analysis,and activists should try to persuade agency officials to finishwhat they started when they analyzed their maintenancelevel 3-5 roads.

In the draft directives, before the agency proposes atravel management action, officials are to conduct travelanalysis. We are awaiting the final directives before evalu-ating them fully, but key points stand out. The proposedChapter 20 for the Forest Service Handbook [FSH 7709.55 Ch.20.02(1)(a)] states that one objective is to identify the mini-mum road system needed and establish a complete inventoryof all system roads and trails7. The first step is to completean interdisciplinary science-based analysis of road system op-portunities.8 Travel analysis must be based on a completeand accurate inventory of NFS roads, NFS trails, and designat-ed areas within the area being analyzed.9 This does not meanthat every user-created route on the forest must be mapped,but that the previously authorized travel system must bedetermined. Travel analysis, similar to roads analysis, shouldbe broad-scale, and should inform the decisions made at

the Ranger District or administrative level that implementthe minimum road system and make travel managementdecisions.10

Unfortunately, this weakens a key part of the roadsanalysis process. The proposed directives removed therequirement that a roads analysis should be based on thebest available science,11 instead requiring a science-basedanalysis. The proposed directives also de-emphasize the needto remove roads, and instead concentrate on adding to theexisting system. This allows more roads to be identified asnecessary for a minimum system and for fewer roads (if any)to be identified for decommissioning.

Travel Planning and Subpart AUnfortunately, many forest officials skip travel analysis,

missing an opportunity to evaluate their maintenance level1 and 2 roads and highlight opportunities for decommission-ing. Another problem is that the purpose and need of a travelplanning project is sometimes phrased in a manner thatnarrows its scope to only designating motorized recreationaluse, avoiding decisions on the minimum roads system.

In order to address these shortcomings, Wildlands CPR

recommends the following actions:

Request that travel planning meet Subpart Aobligations, identifying the minimum road system andrecommending the removal of unneeded, damagingroads and trails;

Verify that officials completed a roads analysis thatincluded all roads. If maintenance level 1 and 2 roadswere not evaluated, then demand they be assessedthrough travel analysis;

Request that officials conduct travel analysis beforedeveloping proposed actions, and include a science-based travel analysis at multiple scales;

Find out the forests obligations under their forest plan.Initiating subpart B independent of the minimum roadsystem may conflict with the Forest Plan in regards to(1) environmental and fiscal resource objectives [36 CFR219.10(a)(b)];

Remind officials that they must identify the minimumroad system as required by Executive Order 11644.

ConclusionSince the 2005 Travel Management Rules release, Forest

Service officials have focused almost exclusively on desig-nating summer motorized recreation and effectively ignoredtheir obligations under 36 CFR 212, Subparts A and C. It isnecessary to ask each responsible official to conduct travelanalysis, as outlined in the draft directives, and to include

roads analysis and snowmobiles. Even then, conservation-ists will need to make sure such analysis considers multiplelevels, is science-based and includes all system roads. Finally,even the best analysis is useless if the responsible officialartificially narrows the travel planning scope to focus onlyon designating summer motorized recreation routes. Conser-vationists need to meet with the Forest Service to requestthat they conduct a comprehensive travel planning processthat includes all recreational uses and identifies the minimumroad system, including decommissioning opportunities.

Footnotes1 Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216/Wednesday, November 9, 2005.2 See The Road RIPorterissue 6-2 or visit http://www.wildlandscpr.

org/understanding-new-national-forest-system-road-management-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 RIPorterVol. 10-4 for a full explanation or visit http://

www.wildlandscpr.org/long-anticipated-forest-service-orv-rule-fizzles-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).

Plugged culvertand road washoutin B.C. (Canada)

Photo by AdamSwitalski.


14/24


Beach BumsBy Ted Williams

Whats wrong with this picture: off-road vehicles (ORVs) mo-nopolizing barrier beaches on North Carolinas Outer Banks,aborting nesting attempts by colonial waterbirds, oystercatch-

ers, threatened piping plovers, and threatened and endangered sea turtles;crushing eggs and young of all these species; and imperiling and/or intimi-dating the roughly 90 percent of visitors who travel by foot.

Answer: These long, thin islands that help insulate the northern half ofthe state from storms and provide critical habitat to vanishing wildlife arepart of our National Park System. Seventy miles of them were designatedas the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 1953.

Such abuse results largely from ongoing priorities of the Bush adminis-tration that give lie to its new park policy, announced August 31, 2006, offavoring the protection of natural and cultural resources over recreation.

Even if such a policy were genuine, it would hardly be new. Through-

out most of its history the National Park Service has been a beacon for thenation and the world, protecting and restoring native ecosystems. Otherfederal resource agencies have been charged by Congress with managingfor multiple use, but despite the fact that about 274 million people visitnational parks each year, this has never been part of the Park Servicesmandate. Unlike the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Manage-ment, the Park Service does not auction off timber, minerals, or cattleforage. Unlike the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it does not manipulatehabitat for maximum production of favored species.

Current management of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore is, how-ever, one of the better examples of how the Park Service is flouting federallaws, such as its own organic act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migrato-ry Bird Treaty Act, and the General Authorities Act (which requires that allpark units be managed as a single system); executive orders by Presidents

Nixon and Carter (which forbid ORV use unless it can be demonstratedthat it wont compromise natural values); and the seashores enablinglegislation (which requires that it be permanently reserved as a primitivewilderness).

Primitive wilderness is hardly what Audubon North Carolinasdeputy director Walker Golder, Audubon field technician Sidney Maddock,and I have encountered on our outings to the Cape Hatteras NationalSeashore these past two summers. Instead weve seen: casings of spentfireworks (illegal in the park because they discourage nesting); footprintsand tire tracks on the wrong side of symbolic (string) fences erected toprotect nesting birds; bumper stickers that featured circled and slashedrenderings of piping plovers or proclaimed, I love piping plover, tastes

like chicken; a passenger on a speeding ORVheckling us because Maddock was toting a spot-ting scope. In 2005 what I would have called traf-fic jams were defined by both my companionsas 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 Out-er Banks Preservation Association, whose flierreads: The Endangered Species Act has becomethe favorite tool of the radical environmental-ists who want to obstruct development, re-source extraction, many public works projects,and also YOUR rights to recreate responsibly onYOUR public lands. . . . The radical enviro-cra-zies and Hollywood fat-cat sycophants who wantto shut you out of YOUR public lands

With the warm sea wind in our faces and

Editors 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 ofAudubon. Wildlands CPR has highlighted theORV issue at Cape Hatteras, and ORVs in beach habitats, in otherRoad-RIPorters. See Jan DeBlieus excellentessay, Heres Sand in Your Eye (Vol. 8#2, 2003); see the Biblio Notes in Vol. 6#5 (2001), and also short updatesin Skid Marks Sept. 19, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003. The Audubon field tech in the essay, Sidney Maddock, is aformer Wildlands CPR Board member.

A lone set of tracks belies the damagedone by beach drivers. Photo courtesyof Airstream Life magazine.


15/24


brown pelicans skimming the waves, Golder, Maddock, and I stood next tothe symbolic fencing at Cape Point on Hatteras Island. To our left, in theopen vehicle area, the sand was clean and white. But to our right it wasfestooned with seaweed behind which sanderlings hunkered. Wrack, asits called, is vital to beach birds because it provides rich habitat for theirinvertebrate prey as well as protection from the wind. ORV tires destroywrack.

In 2005 the seashore failed to get its symbolic fencing up before April1, thereby violating guidelines set forth in the Fish and Wildlife Services

piping plover recovery plan. In 2006 it got the fencing up in time, butmostly where it wasnt neededi.e., marginal fishing areas, where itwouldnt offend. Then, when bird-breeding behaviors were observed inunfenced areas, the seashore delayed or failed to take action. The popularbeachesat Cape Point, South Beach, Bodie Island, Hatteras Inlet, andOcracoke, for exampleall had legal ORV traffic in front of unfledgedshorebirds or waterbirds.

In 2006 black skimmers at Cape Point failed on their first nesting at-tempt. Some re-nested and were incubating on July Fourth, when therewere 17 documented instances of trespass. Fireworks were set off illegally.In the mid-1980s there were 1,000 pairs of colonial waterbirds at CapePoint. Now there are fewer than 100.

That decline reflects a breach of law. Thirty-five years ago PresidentNixon issued an executive order directing the Department of the Interior

to issue ORV-use regulations within six months. In 1978 (seven and a halfyears late) the seashore hatched a draft interim management plan, there-by eliciting histrionics from the ORV lobby. Management decided not tofinalize it. Since then the seashore has, when convenient, operated underthe interim plan, a document rife with deficiencies such as suggested clo-sures for nesting birds that the Interior Departments own consultants sayare grossly inadequate. At the beginning of the 2006 season the seashoresaid they were going to follow their newly minted Draft Interim ProtectedSpecies Management Strategy plan, said Maddock. As the season woreon and that plan would have caused closures they deviated even fromtheir own lax guidelines.

Diminished as they are, the colonial waterbirds at Cape Point andadjacent South Beach are still an important part of the seashores produc-tion. But after predators destroyed many of the nests of least terns, com-

mon terns, and black skimmers in 2006, the seashore opened South Beachback up to ORVs. Then, when the remaining eggs hatched, it didnt put upfencing.

Not far from the Point, in the ephemeral ponds created by rain andoverwash, we watched three diminutive birds with sand-colored backs,white bellies, black breast bands, and orange legs and bills as they alter-nately dashed and froze along the moist edges. They were piping plovers.There had been a successful nest at Cape Point this yearthe only one forthe entire seashore.

ORVs arent entirely to blame. Predation of eggs and chicks is a grow-ing problem on most of the seashore. Some of this predation is the resultof the massive development along the Outer Banks in the past 30 years

and the corresponding increase in cats, foxes,and garbage-swilling raccoons. But ORV opera-tors discard bait and fish entrails, and they dontlike skates and sharks, so instead of releasingthem, they leave them on the beach. All thisoffal, along with other garbage and purposefulfeeding, attracts gulls, resulting in loss of eggsand chicks. When the seashore closes areasto vehicles the dearth of gulls is sudden anddramatic.

And at times ORVs play the main role inchick loss and nest failure attributed to preda-tion. For example, last June at Hatteras Inlettwo oystercatcher chicks were lost to predatorsdue to the seashores refusal to close the beach.When the chicks wandered into the traffic, Mad-dock asked ORV operators to please wait untilthe chicks could rejoin their parents. When theORV operators refused, one chick fled and gotnailed by a ghost crab. The other, abandonedafter traffic flushed the adults, became hypo-thermic and got eaten by a grackle.

ORV drivers are never silent, and the ParkService is terrified of them. For instance, after

they publicly accused its biologists of concoct-ing excuses for fencing off more beach by herd-ing piping plovers west toward Cape Point (aphysical impossibility), the seashore instructedfield personnel to approach birds from the east.To comply, however, they had to disturb a largetern colony.

As for the ORV management plan requiredby law to have been implemented in 1972, theseashore hopes to have it ready by 2009. Towardthis end it has embarked on what it calls negoti-ated rule making, a process by which privatestakeholders do the Park Services job for itby promulgating regulations for themselves. The

seashore has spent the last year just trying tofigure out who should sit at the table, and at thiswriting its still figuring. Weve agreed to partici-pate because they asked us, said Derb Carterof the Southern Environmental Law Center. ButI really question whether the ORV crowd willaccept any level of compromise. . . . Theres notgoing to be much incentive for environmentalistinvolvement if this is just going to be a distrac-tion from actions that the seashore should betaking.

So far ORV interests dominate the stake-holder committee. The Hatteras Island Home-owners Coalition (a group committed to limiting

ORVs on Hatteras) tried and failed to get a seat.But the Outer Banks Preservation Associationsucceeded. Its representative at the table will benone other than Dave Goodwin, moderator ofthe Free Access Dammit! forum of the pro-ORVchatroom Fish Mojo.

Ted Williams is a freelance environmentalwriter. He write the conservation column for Fly

Rod & Reel magazine and is regularly featuredin magazines such as Audubon. He tends to like

piping plovers more than ORVs.

Piping plover nests and eggs. Photo onright by Laurie MacIvor. Both photoscourtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


16/24


Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of thescientific literature in our 15,000 citation bibliography on the

physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. Weoffer bibliographic searches to help activists access importantbiological 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

IntroductionThe ecological impacts of off-road vehicles on water, air and land have

been well documented. In the past five to ten years, however, these issueshave taken on social dimensions, and social scientists have begun explor-ing the attitudes and behaviors of off-road vehicle drivers.

Countless newspaper articles are peppered with myths perpetuatedby off-roaders, such as: elite environmentalists are locking the public outof public lands; the old and infirm need vehicles to explore the forest; ifyou give folks a place to ride their ATVs, they wont break the rules; andits just a few bad apples riding where theyre not supposed to and caus-ing damage.

This article examines important social science research that debunksthe few bad apples myth. Analysis includes a review of three state-levelsurveys revealing that a majority of off-roaders break the law. These stud-ies point to the failure of this myth and show a pronounced preference andpractice among off-road vehicle recreationists to travel cross-country andride off of legal routes.

MontanaIn 2006, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks received survey responses

from 446 owners of registered off-road vehicles. Among the full sample ofrespondents, 23% always or sometimes ride cross-country even thoughoff-route riding is against the rules in Montana and has been since 2001.Over 28% sometimes or never avoid riparian areas and wetlands, in vio-lation of rules for federal and state public lands in Montana.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed have used an off-road vehiclewhile hunting. The majority of this hunting subset admits to riding cross-country over 58% have traveled off of legal routes to retrieve downedgame.

ColoradoA 2001 Colorado study cited the state of

Montanas off-road vehicle public educationprogram as a model to emulate. According to theColorado study, Montanas On the Right Trailprogram provided a list of key behavioral traits

that define an ethical hunter with severalof these related to proper OHV use. However,as discussed above, the more recent Montanastudy revealed a significant disregard for therules among many off-road vehicle riders, point-ing to the ineffectiveness of the states educationprogram. This supports the key conclusion ofthe Colorado study: information and educationper se will not result in substantial behavioralchange (emphases in original).

Editors Note:Bibliography Notes typically covers the ecological effects of roads orORVs by reviewing scientific literature. However, assumptions about social behavioralso influence the debate around the management of off-road vehicle use on publiclands. This edition of Bibliography Notes explores one important social scienceissue that has been studied by researchers.

Bad apples or good apples? Wildlands CPR file photo.


17/24


references on next page

Monaghan and Associates, a marketing research firm, conducted the2001 study at the behest of the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHVRiding, a coalition of off-road vehicle representatives, environmentalistsand public officials. Researchers surveyed Colorado off-road vehicle rid-ers through a series of three focus groups.

Monaghan and Associates found that the majority of off-roaders un-derstand that staying on designated routes is fundamental trail etiquetteand that going off trail is not correct off-road vehicle behavior. The sur-vey revealed, however, that regardless of this knowledge as many as two-thirds of adult users go off the trail occasionally. A significant percentageof riders, 15-20%, admitted to frequently breaking the rules and riding offof legal routes often. Survey participants also stated that others ride off-route and cause most of the damage.

UtahIn a separate study, the Utah Division of Parks & Recreation commis-

sioned Utah State University to survey riders to determine their OHV usesand owner preferences. The university conducted a telephone survey of335 riders from a random sample of the 50,676 people who registered off-road vehicles with the state in 2000.

The Utah report reveals that a high percentage of riders prefer to rideoff established trails and did so on their last outing. Of the ATV riderssurveyed, 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% preferto ride off established trails, while 50% rode off established trails on theirmost recent excursion.

When surveyed on issues affecting off-road vehicle use in Utah, surveyrespondents recognized the need for enforcement but not the need forprotecting the natural resources where they ride. This questions theassumption that off-road vehicle riders will stay on-route if educated thatcross-country travel is illegal or damaging. One-third of the respondentssaid there should be more law enforcement presence in OHV areas. Only6% cited resource management conservation as the most important is-sue affecting off-road vehicle use in Utah.

NevadaThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found a near universal disregard

for motorized guidelines when the BLM experimented with a voluntaryoff-road vehicle route system in Nevada. The area in question servesas a refuge for the disappearing Sand Mountain Blue butterfly, a speciesproposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. A 2006 monitoringreport compiled over a three-year period found that 98 percent of all ex-isting routes continued to be used and new routes were created, indicatingan ongoing expansion of habitat degradation. The study also found thathalf of the places where riders violated guidelines were near signs thatdiscouraged them from proceeding into sensitive butterfly habitat. Thecumulative impacts of such noncompliance points were four-fold as eachdiscouraged route experienced multiple incursions.

ConclusionOne can assume that many folks will not tell the truth when asked if

they participated in a behavior known to be illegal or generally perceivedto be in conflict with social norms. This tendency is known as the socialdesirability bias and defined as under-reporting undesirable attributesand/or over-reporting desirable attributes due to the tendency to presentoneself in a favorable light (Groves et. al. 2004). Therefore, the percentageof off-roaders who violate the rules is likely even higher than revealed inthe survey results discussed above.

Many public land managers assume that designating additional off-road vehicle routes will lead directly to greater compliance, less cross-country travel and, as a result, less resource damage and fewer conflictsamong incompatible uses. Some believe that off-road vehicle riders willquit creating renegade routes once more routes are designated open and

riders are educated as to where they are and arenot allowed to ride.

In contrast, the research above shattersthe myth that damage and conflicts are beingcaused by an insignificant percentage of off-roadvehicle riders. The findings of these studiessuggest that even if the demand for more off-

road vehicle riding opportunities is met, riderswill continue to fulfill their preferences by ridingoff legal routes. They also conclude or at leaststrongly suggest that education and informationalone are not effective strategies for changingoff-road behavior.

Instead, Monaghan and Associates offersthe following recommendation: In order to besuccessful and actually influence behavior, OHVusers must be motivated to behave properly.

While more social science research isneeded to determine what will motivate users tobehave properly, anecdotal research (WildlandsCPR 2007) argues most strongly for increasing

enforcement, and especially increasing the con-sequences for breaking the law, through mecha-nisms like vehicle confiscations, increased fines,and closing areas to all motorized users whenmotorized trespass occurs.

ORV tracks adorn Factory Butte, Utah. Photo byMarcel Huijser.

Definitely bad apples: participants in Moabs JeepSafari drive through the stream. Wildlands CPR filephoto.


18/24


References

continued from previous page

Archie, M.L., H.D. Terry, B. Walder, and N.Jackson. 2007. Six Strategies for Success:

Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicleson 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 OwnerPreferences in Utah (Revised). Institutefor Outdoor Recreation & Tourism,Department of Forest Resources, UtahState University for Utah Department ofNatural Resources Division of Parks &Recreation. http://extension.usu.edu/iort/files/uploads/pdfs/revisedOHVreport.pdf.

Frueh, LM. 2001. Status and Summary Reporton OHV Responsible Riding Campaign.Prepared by Monaghan and Associates forthe Colorado Coalition for ResponsibleOHV Riding. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/status-and-summary-report-ohv-responsible-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 RegisteredOff-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Owners inMontana. Responsive Management UnitResearch Summary No. 21. Prepared forMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=19238.

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 2007. 12-Month Findingon a Petition to List the Sand MountainBlue Butterfly (Euphilotes pallescensssp. arenamontana) as Threatened orEndangered with Critical Habitat. FederalRegister, Vol. 72, No. 84. See pages 24260-61. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/denial-petition-list-sand-mountain-blue-butterfly-threatened-or-endangered.

Three dirt bikers flee the scene after assaulting the leader of a SierraClub hike who raised his camera to document the illegal motorizedintrusion of the Great Burn Recommended Wilderness near the Idaho-

Montana border on July 30, 2006. The repeat offender, Timothy DavidTurner, was later arrested for felony aggravated assault. ClearwaterCounty granted him a misdemeanor plea of disturbing the peaceafter federal prosecutors failed to take the case. Photo courtesy of the

Sierra Club.

Collision Course: Off-road vehicleimpacts on hunting and fishing

The Izaak Walton League of America recently published anexcellent report on the impacts of ORVs on hunting and fishing.Wildlands CPR assisted with the scientific overview of how ORVsand roads impact hunting and fishing. In addition, the reportincludes personal stories about negative experiences hunters andanglers have had with ORVs in the field. The League also includeda summary of a survey in which state fish and wildlife managerswere asked about ORV impacts on hunting and fishing.

According to the introduction from the report, The threesections of this report all point toward similar conclusionsthat

ORVs can indeed have some negative impacts on hunting andfishing, and that better enforcement and education are vital toreducing these impacts. The report concludes with policy rec-ommendations to address the problems. Read it at: http://iwla.org/publications/wilderness/OHVreport.pdf


19/24


The Foundation for Deep Ecology has released a new book, Thrillcraft:The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. Edited byGeorge Wuerthner, this shocking book is packed with more than 100 pow-erful, color photographs and two dozen insightful essays. Wildlands CPRExecutive Director Bethanie Walder and Board member David Havlick bothcontributed essays to the book. The book covers off-road vehicle culture,environmental impacts caused by off-road vehicles, policy decisions thathave led to such rampant abuse, suggestions for reform, and inspiring suc-cess stories.

George Wuerthner also worked tirelessly behind the lens to providemost of the photographs, illustrating the intense environmental destruc-

tion caused by off-road vehicles of all types. These high quality imagescover regions and landscapes from across the United States. From jet skison crowded beaches in the southeast, to ATVs tearing up arid lands inthe Colorado Plateau, to two-wheeled tracks criss-crossing fragile tundraecosystems in Alaska, the photographs in this volume clearly expose thedamage off-road-vehicles wreak on our natural areas.

Wildlands CPR has partnered with the Foundation for Deep Ecologyto distribute the book through our large network of grassroots activists.They will, in turn, hand-deliver the book to local policy makers, law en-forcement officials, and concerned citizens.

Other essays in the book include: Tom Butlers Mind and Machine:A Brief History of Human Domestication, Rick Basss Fourteen Gardens:

Wildlands CPR has discontinued publication of skidmarks and nowpublishes a monthly e-newsletter. Visit www.wildlandscpr.org to sign-up.

The newsletter includes news, views, analysis, images and resourcesrelated to watershed restoration, off-road vehicles, and roads. Its much,much more comprehensive than our old newsletter and will keep you up-to-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 theycan sign up too!

Reflections of an Activist, D.J. SchubertsSnowmobiles and Public Lands: UnacceptableImpacts on a Winter Landscape, Barrie GilbertsNo Wild, No Wildlife: The Threat from Motor-ized Recreation and others by wildlife scientistsand activists. In his foreword, founder andpresident of the Foundation for Deep Ecology,Douglas Tompkins writes:

Every American who values clean air andwater, healthy wildlife populations, and the oppor-tunity to find some peace and quiet while enjoying

public lands has a stake in this fightThis bookseeks to alert all Americans to this crisis of motor-ized wreckreationTake it as a challenge to readthis book, to look carefully at the damage beingdone to your land. Become enraged, and en-

gaged. Ultimately, only citizen action can counterthe elitist minority that wants to use the commonsas outdoor NASCAR-style abusement parks. Asowners and trustees of Americas public lands,will we fight for the freedom of wild places to staywild, or allow the damage to continue? Will webe true patriots, or cowards, who turn away fromthe looting of our natural heritage?

Thrillcraft Available

Wildlands CPRs E-newsletter


20/24


The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of theawesome citizens and organizations we work with,

both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlightingsuccessful strategies and lessons learned. Please

e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight [email protected].

I

n 1995, Wildlands CPR hosted our first-ever training session for activ-ists to monitor road impacts. Among the 30 or so participants wasa member of the equally young organization, the Southern Rockies

Ecosystem Project (SREP).

Both SREP and Wildlands CPR were interested in creating intercon-nected landscapes of functioning, intact habitat for terrestrial and aquaticspecies, and everything else that depends on them. During the ensuing 12years, weve continued to work with SREP, and weve been ever-impressedby their incredible success from both the research and policy perspec-tives. Below are highlights of SREPs many accomplishments too manyto list in one short article. One of the most interesting things about theirwork is how it has adapted over time to fit changing conditions. Throughthose adaptations, SREP has become an incredibly strong and influentialorganization not just in the southern rockies, but throughout the west.

SREP was founded in 1992 to create an ecoregional approach to con-

servation. Their initial emphasis was on research to synthesize existingscience and clearly identify the threats and impacts to natural resourcesin the southern rockies. SREP used Geographic Information Systems (GIS)resources to analyze and depict these impacts. They acted as a resourcefor other groups in the region, conducting needed mapping projects anddisseminating their accumulated research for other groups to use in theiradvocacy efforts.

In 2002/2003, the board and staff decided to take their vision and ap-ply it on the ground. They reviewed their research, and met with con-servation groups in the area to identify a new niche. As a result of thatprocess, they refocused their efforts on restoring landscape connectionswith a particular emphasis on wildlife corridors and linkages and specifi-cally, highway mitigation.

Engaging in highway mitigation meant working with the Colorado De-partment of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highways Administra-tion (FHWA). In a novel approach for a conservation organization, SREPwent directly to CDOT and FHWA and sought funding to address wildlifeconnectivity across highways. SREPs ten year record of excellent mappingand research helped them make their case. CDOT liked the idea and in2004, FHWA awarded SREP a $90,000 grant to both prioritize wildlife link-ages within the state and then to identify mitigation opportunities withinthose linkages to restore connectivity. In 2005, SREP received an additional$120,000 to complete the project.

With the CDOT funding, SREP conducteda series of in-depth studies on wildlife connec-tivity and highway impacts that included veryspecific management recommendations. To un-

derstand the management side, SREP staff alsohad to become experts at the highway planningprocess. According to SREP Development andCommunications Director Monique DiGiorgio,CDOT has now included wildlife language in ev-ery long-term highway planning document thataffects priority wildlife linkage zones identifiedby SREP. With this critical policy effort, SREPhas dramatically altered the playing field for thefuture by ensuring CDOT will address wildlifeconcerns from the earliest planning stages.

Keeping Wildlife Connected, in theSouthern Rockies

By Bethanie Walder

SREP planning map shows priority work areas.


21/24


But their successes arent all policy-based. Through their uniquecapacity to work with the public, policy makers and transportation andfederal land managers, SREP has been able to bring real dollars into Colo-rado to fix habitat fragmentation problems. In 2005, SREP was a key forcein getting Congress to allocate $420,000 for a wildlife overpass on I-70 nearVail Pass. While the overpass hasnt yet been built (and more funding isstill needed), CDOT has convened an expert panel to create a preliminarydesign for the project. In addition, SREP recently partnered with OurayCounty to raise approximately $100,000 for wildlife mitigation on US 550.This project will enable the county to build 10 wildlife escape ramps alongan 8 mile stretch of highway that has wildlife fencing but nocrossing structures. In addition, wildlife group up along oneend of the fence and cross the road in significant numbers atthat area. This recently led to a fatal animal-vehicle collision.With this funding, planners will also extend the fence into theactual habitat to try and prevent animals from surging ontothe highway near the edge of the fence. At the same time,SREP is working with experts to determine more functionalmethods to get wildlife across the highway safely.

SREP also identified a mitigation need along SR 160 east of Durangoand worked to raise the priority of that project, which CDOT eventuallyfunded with hazard mitigation money. In that area, CDOT is installing ananimal detection system in Spring 2008 that will alert drivers when wildlifeare 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 dramati-cally reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.

To complement their on the ground projects, SREP developed an ac-tive citizen-science monitoring program especially along the Vail Passcorridor on I-70 where they raised funding for the wildlife bridge. Ac-cording to DiGiorgio, SREP recruits volunteers and we teach them about

habitat fragmentation, wildlife connectivity, scientific methodologies andpolicy. Each volunteer adopts one of our cameras and is responsible forall aspects of data collection in association with their photo transect.The project has 20 steady volunteers, responsible for 50 cameras. SREPraised nearly $100,000 in private donations to fund this research, whichwill provide pre-overpass baseline data on wildlife presence; data collec-tion will continue after the bridge is installed to monitor its effectiveness.

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

seen a major transition in the last four years,with CDOT taking ownership of the overpassproject and engaging more and more in wildlifeconnectivity issues across highways.

One thing SREP staff have determined isthat you must stay engaged over the long haul,even when the politics are not encouraging.

When they started their highways work, CDOTwas run in a very different way, and the statewas not investing in wildlife protection andrestoration. As the politics have changed, SREPhas found more and more doors open to them,but thats only because they stuck it out duringthe difficult periods. SREP has traveled a long,winding and very successful road to their cur-rent work on the ground; whats explained hereis only the tip of the iceberg of their activities.With their critical combination of science, map-ping, policy work and advocacy, theyve beenable to bring real funds into Colorado to fix veryreal wildlife problems. Over the next few years,

SREP will be expanding beyond the mitigationwork to look at comprehensive protection,mitigation and restoration strategies (includ-ing some work were doing with them on roadremoval) in 6-7 critical areas. We extend a hugethanks to them for their incredible work in thesouthern rockies and beyond!

For more information about SREPs excel-lent programs, check out their website at restor-etherockies.org.

the proposed wildlife overpass. They will findout in a few weeks whether or not that fundingwill be awarded.

DiGiorgio described SREPs biggest successas, raising public and agency awareness aboutthe importance of wildlife connectivity acrosshighways, especially through our work on theVail Pass wildlife bridge, and getting the fundsallocated through Congress. In addition, weve

SREPs remote cameras catch visits by bear and sage elk (right) in key

habitat linkage corridors. Photos courtesy of SREP.


22/24


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 snowmo-biling. And as another winter begins, theres been yet another round ofchanges to the Yellowstone winter recreation plan (see page 7). Perhapsfive years from now, when the snow starts to fly, there will actually be a de-finitive plan for managing recreational access to our nations first nationalpark.

Read on for the latest happenings at Wildlands CPR

WelcomeWe were delighted to be able to bring Cathy Walters Adams back to

Wildlands CPR as our Program Associate. She was our office assistant foralmost two years and shes back with us halftime now, assisting in the of-fice and with other program work. Its 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, inadvance, to Shannon Donahue for reviewing recent literature on the impactof roads on bears, and to Peter Bugoni for reviewing the impacts of oiland gas development (and associated linear barriers) on wildlife. Both ofthese will update previo

road riporter 12.4 winter solstice 2007

Documents