Road RIPorter 12.3 Autumn Equinox 2007

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 12.3 Autumn Equinox 2007

1/24

Autumn Equinox 2007. Volume 12 No. 3

Inside

Check out our website at:www.wildlandscpr.org

A Look Down the Trail, by BethanieWalder. Page 2

Roads to Infinity, by Ryan Talbott.Pages 3-5

DePaving the Way: The Wildland/NewUrbanist Interface, by BethanieWalder. Pages 6-7

Odes to Roads: Return of the Hydra, by

David Lien. Pages 8-9

Get with the Program: Restoration,Transportation, & ScienceUpdates. Pages 10-11

Field Notes, by Marnie Criley, MoHartmann, and Sarah Olimb.Pages 12-13

Regional Reports & Updates. Pages14-15

Biblio Notes: The Influence ofSnowmobiles on Air Qualityand Human Health, by Adam

Switalski. Pages 16-18

New Resources. Page 19

Policy Primer: RS 2477 and NationalForests, by Laurel Hagen. Pages20-21

Around the Office, Membership Info.Pages 22-23

oads to InfinityOil & Gas Assaults the Allegheny

Troubling images from the Allegheny National Forest.Clockwise from top left: habitat fragmentation from roads;waste barrels; storage tanks; a drill rig.

Fragmentation and drill rig photos courtesy of Project Lighthawk; others by Bill Belitskus.

By Ryan Talbott


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 20072

2007 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restoreildland ecosystems by preventing and removing

roads and limiting motorized recreation. We arenational clearinghouse and network, providingitizens with tools and strategies to fight roadonstruction, deter motorized recreation, andpromote road removal and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551www.wildlandscpr.org

D rectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

Commun cat onsCoordinatorason Kiely

Restorat on ProgramCoordinator

Marnie Criley

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

Legal Liaison/AgencyTraining Coordinator

arah Peters

Montana State ORVCoordinator

Adam Rissien

Program & Membershipss stant

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,

illiam Geer, Dave Havlick, Chris Kassar,Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson

Is the Tide Finally Turning?

2007has been a busy and exciting time for restoration advocates throughoutthe country, with projects and proposals regularly in the news. Wild-lands CPR worked hard, for example, to support increased funding for

restoration in the state of Montana. The final result: 34 million in new funding and a newstate restoration office, housed at the Department of Natural Resources and Conserva-tion. The new state restoration coordinator will distribute $5.7 million for watershedrestoration around the state we expect this will include road removal.

While this was a big step for Montana, restoration projects around the country have

been receiving millions, even billions, for at least the last decade. Think Everglades, LakeTahoe, Chesapeake Bay. Those billions are putting a lot of people to work, and theyrerestoring water quality in some very important regions. So whats so exciting about newrestoration funding this summer? Theres a big focus on roads.

In August, the Lake Tahoe project received another 45 million for restoration, someof which will go to stabilize or decommission roads. We also expect funds will pay formonitoring and research on the effectiveness of these road restoration efforts. The stagewas set for this appropriation with the passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act in 2000.(Unfortunately the bulk of the funding came from selling public lands around Las Vegasfor development, and thats like robbing Peter to pay Paul.)

he 30-year effort to restore the Everglades has an estimated price tag of over 10billion. An appropriations bill for some of the upcoming projects includes 375 millionfor hydrologic restoration of the Picayune Strand near Big Cypress National Preserve. Asignificant chunk of this would remove roads from a 1960s scam residential development.The Nature Conservancy now owns the failed development and the roads, which areacting like dikes, must be removed to restore hydrologic flow. This may be the largest ap-propriation for road removal ever proposed. The total Picayune Strand area is 85 squaremiles, and the proposal also includes several other projects.

And then theres the story on page 14 of this issue of The Riporter a proposed $65million appropriation for road management to restore fish passage on national forestlands. This funding is proposed for the Forest Service, and it emphasizes watershed res-toration through road decommissioning, though funds can also be used to upgrade cul-verts or conduct critical maintenance for fisheries. While this seems like a lot of money,Wildlands CPR previously estimated that it would cost approximately 93 million per yearfor 20 years to meet the Forest Service projection to decommission up to 186,000 miles ofroads on national forest lands. This would be a great start toward that annual 93 million,

but unfortunately, it is one-time money, so we still need to find ongoing funding for thiswork.

onetheless, it seems clear that the tide is turning. Proposals in the current con-gress call for nearly half a billion dollars for watershed restoration through road removal.Decision-makers are finally beginning to understand that not all roads are good, and thatremoving some will restore watershed function, wildland connectivity, and also commu-nity vitality, as this restoration work brings needed jobs. Lets hope the tide stays in forincreased watershed restoration funding, with an emphasis, of course, on road issues.


3/24


story continued on next page

oads to InfinityOil & Gas Assaults the Allegheny

By Ryan Talbott

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

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

Tcked away in the northwestern corner of Pennsylvania is thetates only national forest, the Allegheny National Forest. At

513,000 acres, the Allegheny is home to the largest old growthforest in the east between the Adirondacks and Smoky Mountains, twowild and scenic rivers, and the North Country National Scenic Trail. TheAllegheny is within a days drive of one-third of the U.S. population and ispart of Governor Rendells Pennsylvania Wilds, a statewide initiative toboost recreation and tourism in the sparsely populated northern part ofthe state.

Unfortunately, the Allegheny has few areas protected from resourceextraction. Just 1.8 percent of the forest is designated Wilderness andabout 4 percent is designated as national recreation area. Worst of all,93 percent of the subsurface mineral rights are privately owned, adding alevel of complexity unheard of in most other national forests.

The Consequence of a Split Estatey 1923 when the Allegheny was established, the surface and sub-

surface estates had already been split, and the federal government didnot acquire the subsurface mineral rights when it purchased the land toestablish the national forest. The tragic results of having such a largeproportion of subsurface rights in private hands have become apparent inrecent years. Today, there are at least 9,000 active oil and gas wells in theAllegheny, more than the other 154 national forests combined. Since 2003,oil and gas drilling has skyrocketed by 1,000 percent, from 202 new wellsdrilled in 2003 to a projected 2,000 new wells in 2007.

As a result of this high level of oil and gas drilling, the Allegheny

has the dubious honor of having as many miles of roads as much larger ational forests in the western U.S. Accordingto a 2003 roads analysis, the Allegheny has over2,700 miles of roads, a figure that is undoubtedly

uch higher today given the rate of drilling inecent years. In the Alleghenys revised forestlan, released this year, the Forest Service failed

to disclose how many new roads have beenconstructed, relying instead on the 2003 figure.

o this day, the Forest Service has not disclosedow many miles of new oil and gas roads haveeen constructed since 2003 even though the

Forest Service reviews and approves the opera-tors development plans.

Given the Alleghenys relatively small size,this high level of road development translatesinto extremely high road densities, fragmenting

abitat for numerous wildlife species includingorthern goshawk, cerulean warbler, timberattlesnake, and wood turtle. For instance, some

areas of the forest have road densities exceed-ing 18 mi/mi2, a density that resembles an urbanarea rather than a national forest.


4/24


Roads To Infinity,continued from page 3

Millstone Creek, Allegheny National Forest. Millstones East and Westranches join about a mile from its confluence with the Clarion River.

In the 1990s the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy recommendedhat the Forest Service take measures to protect West Branch Millstoneecause of its high diversity of damselflies and dragonflies. Photo by

Bill Belitskus.

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

State and Federal OversightHistorically, the Forest Service has provided little regula-

tory oversight for private oil and gas development, taking theposition that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)does not apply where the agency does not own the mineral

rights below the surface. Thus, the Forest Service has main-tained that it must allow development. A recently uncovereddocument, however, not only challenges this assertion butalso supports the argument that the Forest Service can andshould have direct control over how oil and gas operatorsaccess the federal surface to extract their oil and gas. Whilethe Forest Service is not the permitting authority in terms ofissuing well drilling permits, it does have significant authorityregarding how the forest is accessed for drilling.

When oil and gas companies want to drill on lands theydo not own, they must notify the surface owner by letter atthe same time they submit an application for a well drillingpermit to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Pro-

tection (DEP). Upon receiving this letter, the surface ownerhas 15 days to object to the location of proposed wells.Only if the application is materially deficient or violates thePennsylvania Oil and Gas Act can a permit be denied. Section205 of the Act restricts the location of wells in the vicinity ofwater wells and water bodies.

Pennsylvanias Oil and Gas Act gives additional guidanceto addressing development impacts, and in Section 205(c) itrequires the DEP to consider the impacts of proposed oil andgas wells on:

(1) Publicly owned parks, forests, gamelands and wildlifeareas.

(2) National or State scenic rivers.(3) National natural landmarks.(4) Habitats of rare and endangered flora and fauna and

other critical communities.(5) Historical and archaeological sites listed on the Fed-

eral or State list of historic places.

As a surface landowner, the Forest Service has had theauthority to file objections since 1984, when the Oil and GasAct was signed, but since that time it has filed just 3 objec-tions covering 17 wells. All of these objections were filedthis year as it became embarrassingly obvious to the Forestervice that allowing so much oil and gas drilling virtuallynchecked made for bad public relations.

Will the FS Exert Its Authority?

As stated above, the Forest Service has long insisted thatrivate oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny is not subject toEPA. However, a document obtained recently through a

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request counters that no-tion. The document addressed a proposed oil and gas devel-opment in the Allegheny Front National Recreation Area, aninventoried roadless area and one of the most remote areasin the entire national forest.

In the document, the Forest Services Office of GeneralCounsel concluded that NEPA would apply in this instance,citing the agencys 1911 Rules and Regulations that requireForest Supervisor approval for the location of roads to access

inerals. The question must be asked, if NEPA applies in this

case, why doesnt it apply in all other cases? To date, thereave been no environmental assessments on the Allegheny

or road construction associated with private oil and gasdevelopment.


5/24

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2007 5

Clean Water Act exemptionAdding to the dilemma in the Allegheny is the Energy

Policy Act of 2005. Just as oil and gas prices were rising, theEnvironmental Protection Agency, under the authority of theEnergy Policy Act, exempted earth disturbance activities as-sociated with oil and gas development from the Clean WaterActs National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination Systems(NPDES) permit requirements.

While the DEP is considering promulgating a generalpermit for oil and gas drilling at the state level, it is almostcertain to lack the regulatory oversight necessary to pro-tect not only the Allegheny, but most of Pennsylvania, whereextensive oil and gas deposits exist. This is supported by thecomments of DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty herself whopraised oil and gas drilling last year before the PA House Ap-propriations Committee:

Oil and gas drilling activity is at record levels dueo high natural gas and crude oil prices. The energy

industry responded to these market demands by re-visiting Pennsylvanias oil and gas fields. DEP staffresponded in kind working intensely to marshal

record number of permits without delayThese

nvironmental achievements help to stimulate the

conomy and create jobs. (emphasis added)

ince the Clean Water Act exemption went into effect inJune 2006, the number of wells drilled in the Allegheny hasnearly doubled. For instance, 1,200 wells were drilled in fiscalyear 2006, while that many have already been drilled in thefirst seven months of fiscal year 2007.

Solutions and lessons learnedFirst, in trying to protect an area with split estates, it is

critical to know the state laws governing mineral extractionoperations. Find out what the rights of surface owners are

and, if the landowner is an agency, pressure the agency to dowhat is within its authority to regulate surface occupancy bymineral operators. Do not trust the agency to its own duediligence.

Public Lands Private Minerals

Eastern national forests are different than westernnational forests, which were created from publicdomain lands already owned by the federal govern-ment. The federal government therefore owns themineral rights under most western national forests.

By the time the federal government began to desig-nate national forests in the east, most of the land wasalready privately owned. The Weeks Act of 1911authorized the President to acquire private lands forstreamflow protection and to be set aside as nationalforest. It did not, however, authorize the purchaseof the subsurface mineral estate and if the surfaceand subsurface estates had already been split (wereowned by two separate owners) at the time the fed-eral government acquired the surface, it would haveto pursue acquisition of the subsurface in a separateproceeding.

Allegheny NF (Pennsylvania) 93% private mineralsDaniel Boone NF (Kentucky) 67% private mineralsWayne NF (Ohio) 65% private mineralsMonongahela NF (West Virginia) 38% private min-erals

Second, if the laws in your state are archaic (like they arein Pennsylvania), lobby your state legislature to change them.

This will take time, but in the long run the efforts will be wellworth it and may bring lasting protection. Several Pennsyl-vania municipalities have passed ordinances regulating oiland gas development, and while these ordinances are beingchallenged in court, similar measures should be introducedat the state level.

Third, pursue funding to acquire mineral rights. The For-est Service should have a policy for acquiring mineral rights,o make sure they are requesting funds from Congress or

the state legislature to accomplish meaningful mineral rightsacquisition. Importantly, make sure that when the mineralights are acquired, the agency withdraws the minerals fromeasing or at the very least attaches a no surface occupancy

tipulation.

Ryan Talbott is the Forest Watch Coordinator for theAllegheny Defense Project. He has a bachelors degree in

nvironmental biology from Clarion University and a master ofstudies in environmental law degree from Vermont Law School.

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

Belitskus.


6/24


The Wildland/New Urbanist

InterfaceBy Bethanie Walder

Ithe middle of a triple digit heat wave in July, I found refuge from

he afternoon sun at a busy conference about how to build moreivable, sustainable communities in the west. One of the keynote

speakers, David Orr, talked about global climate change as we Missou-lians sought respite from its immediate effects in any cool, air-condi-tioned place we could find.

Making the ConnectionGlobal climate change and the end of the oil era were two of the

underlying, global threats that attendees of this conference wereaddressing. And while these topics have received much attentionlately, what I found most interesting was the way conference present-ers linked them to local issues and local solutions. For example, bothof these global threats are being exacerbated through out of controlsprawl [that] is devouring prime farmlands and pristine wilderness,and creating massive traffic congestion (http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism.html).

While this conference was focused on building livable communi-ties that maintain the things people love about the west, the confer-

ence itself was a part of the growing new urbanism movement (eventhough much western development is rural, as opposed to urban).This international movement is aimed at rebuilding livable cities,towns, villages and neighborhoods that integrate housing, parks/na-ture, schools, businesses, entertainment and other aspects of life intomanageable and accessible systems for residents, without being sodependent on cars.

ransportation needs are a primary focus of new urbanism asdescribed on the website newurbanism.org. The first solution theypropose to the problems mentioned above (in a list of ten steps) is: animmediate and permanent moratorium an all new major road construc-tion and expansions. Clearly there is a close link between the workwere doing and the work theyre doing, though we focus on wildlands,

and they focus on the built environment.

While reading about new urbanism, I was reminded of WildlandsCPRs inception, as a project of an organization (Alliance for a PavingMoratorium (APM)) that was working to prevent sprawl to address thecoming challenges from the end of the oil age. In effect, we grew out ofthe new urbanism movement. As we became an independent organiza-tion, however, Wildlands CPR focused our work on wildlands, not theurban growth and road issues that APM worked on. But now wevecome full circle, with our restoration program partnering with activ-ists working on community revitalization restoring the natural linkbetween wildlands, watersheds and the built environment.

Looking in the Mirror

ome of our colleagues question why we makethis link, why weve expanded our work to incorpo-rate human communities and wildlands. In definingthemselves/ourselves as biocentric, many conser-vationists have omitted the human element. But inWildlands CPRs perspective, the two are integrallylinked. Too often conservation/environmental workgets separated from human communities and hu-man concerns, and environmentalists are accused ofcaring more about trees than people. This schismfueled the jobs versus the environment conflict,and some of our most vociferous opponents.

In our restoration work we are acknowledging

the link between communities and wildlands, espe-cially the link between communities and the water-sheds that sustain them. For example, sixty millionpeople in 3,400 American communities get theirdrinking water from Forest Service lands, so water-shed restoration can help improve drinking watersupplies, among other benefits. Our restorationprogram also highlights the high-wage, high-skilljobs created in rural communities through water-shed restoration efforts like road removal. But evenmore jobs can be created when we also revitalize thehuman/built environment in local communities.

The new urbanism movement has much incommon with efforts to restore wildlands. Photoy Aslinth, courtesy of Flickr.


7/24


Folks working in new urbanism refer regularlyto revitalization, whether that means cleaning upand converting an old Brownfield site into afford-able housing, or renovating abandoned or decrepitinner city buildings into shops, housing, communitycenters, etc. Even neighborhood gardens can be aform of revitalization. But, of course, folks workingin new urbanism focus on urban areas, while mostof Wildlands CPRs restoration focuses on rural ar-eas. And while some of the principles of new urban-ism apply in rural areas, others do not, as there justisnt the concentration of people to support criticalservices like public transit. But revitalization of thebuilt environment in rural areas still makes sense asa way to maintain livable rural communities, as pro-moted by groups like the Center for Rural Affairs orthe Institute for Rural America (even if these groupshavent quite created a a commensurate, interna-tional new ruralism movement).

ew urbanists focus on what people need, andon how to build sustainable, livable communitiesthat cause less damage to the environment. Newurbanists recognize the link between restoration

and revitalization. In their stated principles, theydescribe an approach called transect planning.The result of such planning is that, the profes-sional boundary between the natural and man-madedisappears, enabling environmentalists to assessthe design of the human habitat and the urbaniststo support the viability of nature. New urbanistsare regularly linking back to nature conservation,yet conservationists only infrequently make thereciprocal link.

Thinking Globallyew urbanists are particularly concerned about global climate

change and peak oil. While they are focusing on dramatically changedurban design as a way to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses,restoration provides some opportunities to enhance the capacity ofour watersheds to withstand the unknown impacts of global climatechange. Basically, the healthier our watersheds are, the more resilientthey will be in the face of climate change, potentially providing criti-cal habitat connectivity as habitat changes throughout the world. Sorestoration work provides a way to reduce the pending effects of globalclimate change, not just to address its already-realized impacts.

Acting LocallyFully restoring wildlands and watersheds will inherently benefit

the rural communities situated adjacent to those efforts. Integratingrestoration with community revitalization will dramatically enhancethose benefits. We can learn a lot from how new urbanists defineproblems and offer solutions. We can continue to incorporate commu-nity revitalization into our restoration work, and vice versa, creating anew paradigm for rural living, with parellels to that proposed for urbanliving. And we can also recognize that rural living should remain ruraland limited. As new urbanists revitalize our cities and make themdesirable places to live again, perhaps fewer people will move intowildlands, thus reducing sprawl as well as problems in the wildland/ur-ban interface.

Restoration and revitalization are happening all over the world, ina plethora of venues. With climate change bearing down on all of us,these efforts provide some hope. To foment more hope, conservationgroups can and should partner with new urbanist and rural advocatesand planners, to work the seam between our cities, rural areas andwildlands, and we should look for new opportunities to support eachothers work. Next time we have a month-long, triple-digit heat-wave, Ihope to take respite in a restored stream, running clean and cold, righttowards town, where I can muse about the connections our work hasto other issues as well.

Photo by Dan Funsch.

Sixty million people get their

drinking water from Forest Service

lands, so watershed restoration

an help improve drinking water

supplies...

Wouldnt it be more strategic for conservation-ists to consider this link, and to address humanhabitat and human needs as we also try to protectand restore watersheds and wildlands? We shouldclearly articulate the values and benefits of restora-tion and revitalization to those from whom we need

support namely, people. Its just this approachthat resulted in significant new financial investment( 34 million) in restoration in the state of Montanathis year (see related article on page 2). From apeople perspective, advocates for this fundingtalked about job creation; worker training programs;research programs at the University level; cleandrinking water and improved hunting opportunities.However, fish and wildlife and their habitats werealso real winners in this effort.


8/24


The Hydra ReturnsBy David Lien

Browns Canyon proposed Wilderness.Photo by Mike Russo.

Hikers rest along the trail. Photo byKurt Kunkle.

I had the opportunity to meet with Colo-rados Representative Doug Lamborn recently,along with stakeholders from other groups sup-porting the proposed Browns Canyon Wilder-ness Area in Chaffee County, near Salida. Its en-

couraging that Representative Lamborn took itupon himself to initiate this meeting, and he saidwe made a strong case for Browns Canyon, buthe also met with representatives from groupsopposed to the new wilderness area.

heir primary concern seems to be ac-cess, mainly for off-highway vehicles (OHVs).In 2003, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth con-firmed the damage and antagonism being causedby OHV use on our public lands: Were seeingmore and more erosion, water degradation, andhabitat destruction. Were seeing more and moreconflicts between users. Were seeing more dam-age to cultural sites and more violation of sitessacred to American Indians. And those are justsome of the impacts.

low attrition follows road and trail devel-opment like its shadow. Wherever there is a roador OHV trail, there is slowly spreading dam-age, and OHV abuse has become a modern-dayHydra for public lands managers (The Hydra ofGreek mythology was a many-headed monsterHercules fought and killed. After each head wascutoff, two others replaced it), as verified by For-est Service Chief Bosworth.

oday in America there are 7 million miles

of roads; in our National Forest System alone,more than 460,000 miles enough to circlethe earth 18 times. Just to put that figure intoperspective, the Interstate Highway System isonly 43,717 miles long. Some 270,000 miles ofroads and routes are legally available to off-roadvehicles nationwide, over six times the lengthof the interstate highway system. Meanwhile, atleast 60,000 miles of unauthorized routes zigzagthrough public forests. Access has becomeexcess.

Former Forest Service and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation biologistAlan Christensen states flatly: Roads are the single biggest problem onthe landscapeIts well documented and everything else pales in compari-son. Its simple biology and common sense. Roads are the delivery systemor people to invade habitat. If a wildlife population is weakened by land

anagement decisions in this case motorized access youll haveigher losses from everything: winterkill, predation, hunting, accidents,

and disease.

Unfortunately, makers of all-terrain vehicles have found a strong allyin the National Rifle Association (NRA), which openly opposes the pro-tection of roadless areas and designation of wilderness areas (the goldstandard for wildlife habitat and hunting grounds). This in turn promotes

increasingly brazen and oftentimes illegal OHV use, further degrading ourdwindling backcountry wildlife habitats and hastening the demise of hunt-ing as we know it.

A poll conducted in 2000 by theTheodore Roosevelt ConservationAlliance found that 83 percent ofhunters surveyed supported effortsto keep the remaining roadless areasin national forests the way they are.In a recent survey by the ArizonaDepartment of Game and Fish, 54percent of respondents indicatedthat off road vehicle disruption rep-

resented a barrier to their participa-tion in hunting. And as Dan Heinz,retired Forest Service District Rangersays: The backlash against ORVabuse is gaining momentumTheyare ruining hunting everywhere,disrupting ranching operations, andany feeling of solitude.


9/24


The scenery and solitude of Browns Canyon are befitting of wildernessprotection. Photo by Kurt Kunkle.

Durango-based hunter David Petersen con-curs, The motorized crowd may not be able to goeverywhere they want sitting on their butts, but ifthey chase all the game out, gouge the meadows,muddy the streams and make all that noise, I haveno reason to go there. They effectively have deniedaccess to everyone who doesnt want those things.Petersen perceives that most organized ATV groupswould like to police the bad apples that give them abad name, but that no real action ever takes place.Every year, it gets much worse.

According to recent studies, only about 6percent of national forest visits involve the recre-ational use of off-road vehicles. However, this smallpercentage of users has an incredibly destructiveimpact on the landscape and the quality of recre-ation for other public lands users. A now years-oldreport by the Council on Environmental Qualitystated that, ORVs have damaged every kind ofecosystem found in the United States.

Uncontrolled off-roading also affects private landowners. Kiley Millerand John Rzeczycki, who own 160 acres south of Moab, Utah, are fighting

an ongoing court battle to keep off-highway vehicles from crossing theirproperty on an old mining road. We use four-wheelers ourselves to workon the ranch, says Rozman. But public land is supposed to be multipleuse, and the problem with OHVs is that they preclude every other use.You cant run cows out there with them tearing around, people dont wantto bike or hike near them, so wheres the multiple use?

Yes, we all use vehicles to visit our favorite spots to hike, camp, hunt,fish, or just relax, but over 90 percent of us do our actual exploring on foot.What about our rights? Besides, wilderness areas are open and accessibleto all, only certain uses are limited. One of the most important purposesof wilderness is to provide people with a broad array of outdoor recre-ational opportunities. These include backpacking, hiking, hunting, fishing,camping, horseback riding, mountaineering and rock climbing, cross-

country skiing, snowshoeing, wildlife viewing, photography, canoeing, andkayaking.

Footnotes

1 Wildlands CPR. Six Strategies for Success: Ef-fective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicle Use onPublic Lands. 2007.

2 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Eco-logical Services Division. Assessing the ecologicalimpacts of ATV trail construction and use on publiclands: factors to consider and a review of litera-ture. Internal Peer Review: 10/3/02

of trails designated for non-motorized users.As a result, most points within Chaffee County

are less than 2 miles from a motorized route. Inact, no low elevation BLM lands have wilder-ess designation east of the continental divide

in Colorado.

The Hydra is back, in the form of cross-country ORV two-tracks sprouting from maintems of thousands of miles of roads. But even

Hercules found a way to stop the Hydras re-growth. Banning cross-country use, as the newForest Service rule does, is one way to stop thisORV Hydra from growing beyond control.

David Lien is the volunteer co-chair of

Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

Wherever there is a road or OHV trail,

there is slowly spreading damage, and OHV

abuse has become a modern-day Hydra for

public lands managers.

he proposed wilderness in Colorado, Browns Canyon, is a limitedcore area of 20,000 BLM and Forest Service acres nearly surrounded by

encroaching roads and OHV trails characterized by over-use and abuse.The proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness is literally an island of still wildpublic lands that is easily traveled by foot and horseback and provides ahigh quality hunting experience.

It is readily accessed by a number of roads north, south and east, andthe adjacent Pike & San Isabel National Forests have 5,350 miles of motor-ized roads and trails. The surrounding Salida Ranger District offers over476 miles of motorized roads and trails, whereas there are only 199 miles


10/24


Program pdates, utumn 2007By Jason Kiely

estoration Program

Wildlands CPR Leads Collaborative Group on Restoration Principles

Collaboration seems to be the current solution for dealing with

natural resource issues. Collaborative groups are forming all around theWest to deal with issues ranging from fuels reduction to motorized recre-ation, and while collaboration is not the answer to all our natural resourcedilemmas, Wildlands CPR is helping lead one such effort that holds greatpromise for ecologically sound restoration in Montana. The group callsitself the Montana Forest Restoration Committee. Marnie Criley, WildlandsCPRs Restoration Coordinator, chaired the groups Vision and PrinciplesSubcommittee and serves on the Steering Committee to help guide thelarger effort.

In January 2007, the National Forest Foundation and Artemis CommonGround convened thirty-four conservationists, off-roaders, outfitters, log-gers, mill operators, and state and Forest Service officials to discuss thepossibility of writing a set of principles to guide the restoration process

on national forests in Montana. The principles would represent a zone ofagreement where controversy, delays, appeals, and litigation are signifi-cantly reduced. While we had some strong differences of opinion, every-one agreed that the effort was worth pursuing we all want to see resto-ration that would provide both ecological as well as community benefits.

From February through July, 10 people from conservation groups, theForest Service, timber mills and motorized recreation met face-to-face fornearly 50 hours to hash out a set of principles. We reviewed other resto-ration principles, including national principles that Wildlands CPR co-au-thored several years ago, and applied them to Montana.

he involvement of the Forest Service was essential for making theprinciples a viable agency tool, among other contributors to our success.

Dont think we had smooth sailing all through the process: roads, fire andthe commercial use of wood products were tough issues to resolve. How-ever, by being honest and committed, having a sense of humor, talking is-sues out and listening to each other, we were able to find common ground.While none of us changed our fundamental positions, all were changed bythe process. On August 1, the Montana Forest Restoration Working Groupunanimously approved thirteen principles and an implementation plan. Ofcourse, now comes the hard part putting the principles in practice onthe ground.

Our hope is that success with this initial

effort will fuel the groups commitment to usethese principles to advance ecologically appro-

riate restoration projects projects that putecological needs first while also addressing eco-

omic and social needs like community vitality.

Wildlands CPR will continue our involve-ent and push for road removal as a key com-onent of restoration projects. As part of theteering Committee for the Council, Marnie wille working with the Bitterroot and Lolo National

Forests to implement the Principles in on-the-ground projects.

cience CoordinatorOrganizes Conference Session

Thousands of miles of wildland roads areeing removed across North America to mitigate

their negative impacts. The U.S. Forest Servicealone has decommissioned more than 30,000

iles, and yet, research related to road removalis just beginning to catch up with the practice.

In August, Adam Switalski organized aconference session at an international joint

eeting of the Ecological Society of America and

the Society for Ecological Restoration, bringingtogether five PhDs and other scientists fromacademia, agencies, and NGOs. The session wasclosely linked to the theme of the conference,Restoration in a Changing World. Its goalswere to synthesize the current state of knowl-edge of road removal across landscape, water-hed, and site-level spatial scales and to propose

directions for future interdisciplinary research.Presenters examined the issue with a crowd of150 peers. Previously, no session had addressedthis topic.


11/24


Transportation Program

Promoting Alternatives to a Motorized UtahLaurel Hagen is nurturing a fledgling rural conservation movement in

small southern Utah towns as Wildlands CPRs Utah Coordinator, based inMoab.

Despite the lack of larger population centers, Laurel is finding a recep-tive audience. She suspects that this pushback is a reaction to area countycommissions promoting off-road vehicle events and mega-routes at theexpense of both rural lifestyles. The growing number of residents andvisitors who are in the area to backpack, rock climb, mountain bike andpursue other self-propelled activities is another factor.

Organizations and volunteers are taking a similar tack throughoutseveral areas Laurel is working. Groups are fanning out across the ruggedlandscape to document damage to off-road vehicle hot spots as well asthreats to treasured areas. This field work supports substantive commentsto the Forest Service and compelling reasons for residents to advocacatefor sensible recreation and transportation management.

he Boulder Mountain area in the Dixie National Forest serves as acase study for grassroots support for better management. The GarfieldCounty Commission has aggressively pushed ATV events and motorizedroutes, adopting plans for routes on Boulder Mountain that would connectto the infamous Paiute Trail and proposing to host an ATV jamboree. How-ever, leery of the damage to rural culture that could be caused by becom-ing an unsustainable off-road vehicle destination, the Boulder town councilvoted to reject these plans. Members of the local Alliance for the EscalanteRiver Basin are supporting this popular position by getting out in the fieldto document off-road vehicle abuses.

On the Manti-La Sal National Forest, unauthorized individuals havebeen building ATV routes using a bulldozer. Laurel is supporting the ef-forts of Red Rock Forests and the Great Old Broads for Wilderness as theymonitor such illegal behavior , as well as the Canyon Country HeritageAssociations attempts to protect ancient Indian ruins across Cedar Mesafrom illegal route-building.

On the Ashley National Forest, the Vernal-based Uinta Mountain Clubhas participated in the countys collaboration process with a diversegroup who worked together to identify appealing trails for non-motorizedrecreation, as well as appropriate motorized routes. Unfortunately, thecounty commission is now trying to modify these collaborative agree-ments. Well continue to work with pro-conservation folks on the Ashley,Dixie and Manti-La Sal National Forests to resist such heavy-handed ap-proaches taken by their respective county commissions.

Planning Montanas TravelAs Montana Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator,

Adam Rissien is working closely with grassrootsartners and allies on three priority travel plans

in Montana, as well as assisting folks on otherorests where clean water, wildlife habitat, andenjoyment of nature are threatened by out-of-control off-road vehicle use. Adam is workingon one plan for the entire Bitterroot NationalForest and two travel plans on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, based on motorizedthreats to roadless and Wilderness Study Areasand opportunities to expand the organizationalcapacity of our partner groups.

On the Bitterroot, representatives of theelway-Pintler Wilderness Chapter of the Back

Country Horsemen, a homeowners association,

Friends of the Bitterroot, the local Sierra Clubchapter, and the Montana Wilderness Associa-tion have partnered to form the Bitterroot QuietUse Coalition. Wildlands CPRs support for thisdiverse coalition is paying off. For instance,at their annual state convention in March 2007the Back Country Horsemen of Montana passeda resolution submitted by the Selway-PintlerWilderness Chapter calling for off-road vehicleeform.

More recently, the group launched awebsite, www.quietusecoalition.org, and willdistribute an inaugural edition of the Quiet

imes this fall. These outreach tools will helpcoalition leaders expand their ranks by attract-ing residents who value the peace, quiet andwildlife of a forest. Collectively, coalition mem-

ers have monitored high-value areas across theorest, sharing information on off-road vehicle

trespass, damage, and illegal route-building withthe agency.

Adam helped expand the capacity of Mon-tanans for Quiet Recreation, another coalitiondedicated to conserving landscapes for quiet

uscle-powered recreation. The group is led bya collection of outfitters, equestrians, hunters,kiers, hikers and others on the Gallatin andeaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests. With

Adams help, the group recently secured fundingto hire Sarah Juran who will serve as the groupsecreation coordinator.

Jeep safaris and ATV gatherings have had boomand bust economic impacts similar to those of otheresource extraction industries. Wildlands CPR file photo.


12/24


Swan Valley, Montana Roads History:a Mapping Project

By Marnie Criley, Mo Hartmann (Northwest Connections) and Sarah Olimb (American Wildlands)

IntroductionFor the last year and a half, Wildlands CPR and Northwest Connec-

tions have been working together to expand road restoration in the SwanValley of Montana. As part of this project, we worked with AmericanWildlands geographic information systems (GIS) lab (www.wildlands.org)to create a visual history of road development in the Swan Valley. Thisshows the progressive increase in road mileage over the last 100 years,providing a graphic picture of the current situation and how different it isfrom the past. The Swan Valley acts as a grizzly bear linkage zone betweenthe Swan Mountains to the east and the Mission Mountains to the west,making the impacts of road development even more significant. Below isan explanation of the technique used to develop this map, since progres-sive maps like this are such excellent tools for outreach to local residentsand agency personnel.

Methodologyorthwest Connections collected historic and current paper maps

from the U.S. Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Company, whileAmerican Wildlands GIS lab drew from other sources including digitalorthographic photos and digital National Agriculture Imagery Program(NAIP) images. American Wildlands scanned the paper maps (1912-1994)and digitized roads in ESRI ArcMap, a mapping software. They used digitalorthographic photos and NAIP images in combination to accurately rep-resent roads for 2005. In each image, they manually digitized the roads.

Finally, they merged the resulting layers into one, ensuring thwere represented.

Map produced by GIS Lab at AmericanWildlands. Road data is based on 1912,

1948, 1965 and 1978 USFS paper maps, 1994and 2002 Plum Creek Timber Co. papermaps, 2003 digital orthographic photos,

and 2005 NAIP imagery. Road density for1994 was corrected for missing data in the

northern part of the Swan Valley.

American Wildlands then calculated theaverage road density (miles of road/square mileof land) for each of the maps and prepared aine graph to display the increase from 1912 to

2005. However, because the road maps wereargely based on paper maps (the accuracy of

which cannot be verified) and digital imagery(that hasnt been ground-truthed and has built-in errors from digitizing and cloud/tree cover),the calculated road densities are only estimates.

For instance, if the same technology applied tothe 2005 map was applied to the 1994 map (and

ossibly the 1978 and 1965 maps), the mapsight look different, with the sharp spike of the

ast 10 years actually occurring over the last20-30 years. That said, the road density graph il-ustrates the significant increase in road density

over the past century in the Swan Valley.

Roa

4


13/24


7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Density(mi/mi2

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Road Density in the Swan Valley, Montanafrom 1912 to 2005*

* Not including area contained in USFS Wilderness Areas

19121948

19651978

1994

2005

Conclusionhe project creates a visual story of past and current road density in the Swan Valley, and is a tool for public meetings

to spark dialogue on watershed restoration needs. It is by no means a final product, but will be amended as new informationis collected through local residents, agency personnel and ground-truthing. Northwest Connections and Wildlands CPR havealready used these maps in public meetings and planning sessions to talk about the need for watershed restoration throughroad removal.

opment in t e Swan Va ey, Montana

1912 to 2005

7 4


14/24


When it comes to salmon recovery, removing dams grabs theheadlines. But decaying roads are equally damaging to endan-gered salmon populations and may finally get the attention

and funding they need.

In June, the House of Representatives approved a 65 million ex-penditure to decommission, repair and maintain Forest Service roadsthroughout the country in order to protect community water sources andthreatened, endangered and sensitive species. Introduced by Representa-tive Norm Dicks (D-WA), HR 2643 passed with bipartisan support and if ap-proved by the Senate would fund road decommissioning, culvert upgradesand repairs to storm damaged roads.

A chronic lack of investment in aging forest roads endangers publiclands, clean water and fish populations. Thousands of miles of ForestService roads in Washington and other northwest states block salmonpassage and are at risk of triggering destructive landslides. Sediment fromthese roads smother salmon and other fish eggs with sediment, and dirtyour drinking water. Failing Forest Service roads in Washington state have

resulted in violations of the Clean Water Act, and the agency estimates itneeds 300 million to decommission and repair its roads in Washington inorder to meet state standards.

ationally, the Forest Service estimates that they need to remove anestimated 140,000 to 186,000 miles of roads to bring the road system downto a manageable, maintainable system that still meets the needs of theagency and forest users. A 2003 Wildlands CPR study found that it wouldcost approximately $93 million per year for about 20 years to implementa national road removal plan. That $93 million would provide between2,000-3,000 high-wage, high-skill jobs in rural communities.

o draft the appropriation, Rep. Dicks relied on the brain trust andfootwork of a diverse collection of state officials, Indian tribes and con-

servation groups committed to salmon recovery and watershed restora-tion. Wildlands CPR recently contracted with Sue Gunn to represent usin this impressive coalition. Sue has a PhD in isotope geology and yearsof experience working on conservation appropriations and public landissues. Other Washington coalition members include the state Departmentof Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, treaty Indian tribes in westernWashington, and 10 other conservation groups.

If adopted by the Senate, this 65 million investment would be thelargest direct allocation that the Forest Service has ever received for

watershed restoration through road decommis-ioning. But Senate passage is not a done deal,

as the current Senate version, S. 1696, spon-

ored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), doesot allocate the additional funding needed for

watershed restoration.

For more information on the WashingtonWatershed Restoration Initiative, contact SueGunn at [email protected]; or visit theWashington Department of Ecology web page at

ttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/orest_practices.html

House of Representatives Allocates $65 Million toRemediate Washington Roads

State Leadership & Conservation Coalition Support the Initiative

uiattle River wash-out of 2006 in WashingtonsMount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Photocourtesy of Washington Department of Ecology.


15/24


Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) haslaunched a new campaign aimed at curbing the excessive off-roadabuse of our public lands. PEER and its new group of Rangers for

Responsible Recreation are campaigning to draw attention to the growingthreat posed by off-road vehicle misuse and to assist overburdened stateand federal land managers.

he Rangers include more than a dozen of the countrys most sea-soned law enforcement and resource management specialists from everymajor public lands agency and several administrations. According to the

groups website: Reckless off-roading is creating a backlash among manypublic lands users, including those who enjoy viewing wildlife, conduct-ing archaeological research, hiking, camping and hunting. Besides caus-ing extensive damage to natural and cultural resources, off-road vehiclesare becoming an increasingly severe public safety and law enforcementproblem, and taxpayers will be stuck with the bill to clean up their mess.Wildlands CPR board member Jim Furnish is one of the retired agencyleaders calling for reform.

For more information or to get involved, visit: www.peer.org/cam-paigns/publiclands/orv

Sortsmen and conservation groups have been forced to pressure the

Forest Service with legal action after the agency rejected pleas torotect native fish from off-road vehicle damage. Native brook trout,

already in decline in the Tellico River watershed, are threatened by suf-focating erosion caused by recreational off-roading in the Tellico Off-Road

Vehicle Area. The area includes parts of the Nantahala (North Carolina)and Cherokee (Tennessee) National Forests.

he Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) filed a Notice of Intentto Sue on behalf of sportsmen and conservation groups including theNorth Carolina and Tennessee Councils of Trout Unlimited, Public Employ-ees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and the Southern Appala-chian Biodiversity Project. They charge the Forest Service with multipleviolations of federal and state laws and its own regulations.

he Tellico Off-Road Vehicle area, in the Nantahala National Forestin the headwaters of the upper Tellico River, is one of the largest off-roadvehicle areas on public lands in the Southeast. The area has twice as manydesignated off-road vehicle routes as allowed by the Forest Services ownplan not counting innumerable illegal routes. The agency has also docu-mented dozens of stretches where routes are within 100 feet of streams again, contrary to its own rules. Years of heavy use have turned manyof Tellicos routes into massive ditches, some more than seven feet deep.In wet conditions, these eroded routes send muddy water directly intonearby creeks and streams.

he groups have asked the Forest Service to permanently close themost damaging routes, and temporarily close the entire system in thewettest months. This option was considered but rejected by the agencylast spring. Instead, without the requisite environmental review, the ForestSupervisor implemented a seasonal closure of the worst routes, but tookno action to address problems throughout the rest of the eroded system.

Groups to Sue FS for Off-road Vehicle Mismanagement

The Forest Service, at times in partner-hip with off-road users, has installed culverts,

ditches, sediment traps and water bars. But,as their own studies show, these erosion-con-trol projects are improperly designed, poorly

aintained, and often fail due to heavy use. Inaddition:

The almost 40 miles of designated routesin the system exceed the maximum density oftrails allowed by the Forest Plan by 200%;

Streams affected by the Tellico routesave 100 times more mud in them than unaf-

ected streams of similar characteristics; The Nantahala National Forest manage-

ent plan says ORV trails should provide easyto moderate levels of challenge. But ORV users

ave rated at least half of the Tellico routes asdifficult or highly difficult, attracting the biggestground-disturbing off-road vehicles.

The groups claim the Forest Service is inviolation of the Clean Water Act, the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act, the National Forest

anagement Act, the North Carolina Sedimenta-tion Pollution Control Act, and myriad federaland state regulations.

Special thanks to Southern Environmental LawCenter for information used in this report.

PEER Tackles Off Road Abuse with New Campaign

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


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.

The Influence of Snowmobile Emissions onAir Quality and Human HealthBy Adam Switalski with research assistance from Monica Wright

Introductioncenes of Yellowstone Park Rangers wear-

ing gas masks brought national attention tosnowmobile pollution. In Yellowstone (YNP)

where the cleanest air in the nation should befound, levels of pollution often exceeded thoseof downtown Los Angeles (Rodes et al. 1998).Studies were quickly initiated and two-strokesnowmobiles were banned from the Park.Elsewhere, millions of snowmobilers still revup these engines each winter and head into thesnow-covered wildlands. No federal laws regu-late snowmobile exhaust (outside Yellowstone)and accordingly they are not equipped with anypollution control devices. Air pollution fromsnowmobiles is well documented and can resultin a number of health problems. This paper re-views current research on the extent of snowmo-

bile pollution and its impacts on human health.

Snowmobile emissionsnowmobiles first gained popularity in the

1960s. At that time, the 6 horsepower machinesreached speeds of 35 mph. Powered by light-weight, high-power engines, todays snowmo-biles boast up to 225 horsepower (4 times aHarley) and can exceed 120 mph. While tech-nological advances have also produced cleanerfour-stroke engines, the vast majority of snow-mobiles are still two-stroke engines, which are

as polluting as their 1960s era predecessors.

wo-stoke engines are highly polluting. Thelubricating oil is mixed with the fuel, and 20%to 33% of this mixture is emitted unburned intothe air and snowpack (MDEQ 2004). Also, thecombustion process itself is relatively inefficientand results in high emissions of air pollutants

(NPS 2000). Because of these two reasons, two-stroke snowmobiles emitvery large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons(HC) and smoke (MDEQ 2004).

Extensive research on snowmobile pollution has been conducted inYellowstone National Park (YNP; e.g., Ingersoll et al. 1997, White and Car-oll 1998, Ingersoll 1999, Morris et al. 1999, Bishop et al. 1999, NPS 2000,ishop et al. 2001, Cain and Coefield 2001, Kado et al. 2001, Sive et al. 2002,

Janssen and Schettler 2003, Bishop et al. 2006). While the most recentWinter Use Plan has banned the use of two-stoke engines in YNP (replacingthem with limited numbers of cleaner burning four-stroke engines), thesestudies are the best available science for measuring the effects of snowmo-

iles outside the Park where two-stroke engines still dominate.

The scale of the pollution documented in YNP was remarkable. Snow-obiles were responsible for 68% to 90% of HC emissions and 35% to 68%

of CO emissions each year (NPS 2000), but make up only 6% of the total

vehicles entering the park annually. On a peak day in YNP, snowmobiles re-eased approximately 20 tons of hydrocarbons (HC) and 54 tons of carbon

onoxide (CO) into the air (NPS 2000). For comparison, in an averageday in July, ars in YNP emit 2.5 tons of HC and 17.9 tons of CO (NPS 2000).While the snowmobile season usually only lasts three months in YNP(mid-December to mid-March), their emissions equaled or exceeded thetotal annual emissions for CO and HC from other mobile sources combined(cars, buses, and snow coaches).

Please dont smog out the wildlife! Wildlands CPR file photo.


17/24


references on next page

The effects of snowmobile emissions on healthEmissions from snowmobiles have been found to contribute to serious health prob-

ems. Large numbers of snowmobiles in one area (such as parking lots), cold stable weath-er conditions, and low wind speed all increase the accumulation of toxins and increase theisk of adverse health effects (NPS 2000). Additionally, riding in groups of snowmobiles

exposes the rider to emissions from the snowmobiles in front of them. Below are someof the potential health effects from inhaling HC, CO, and particulate matter (PM) emittedrom snowmobiles.

Ways to reduce emissionsWith the negative health impacts of snowmobiles well established, several

strategies for minimizing pollution have been identified. These include usingoxygenated fuels (such as ethanol-based fuels), direct-injection two-stroke engines,and four-stroke engines. However, only four-stroke engines have been found tosignificantly reduce emissions. Electric snowmobile prototypes that produce noemissions have been developed, but are not commercially available.

he University of Denver tested the benefits of using oxygenated fuels in snow-mobiles in Yellowstone (Morris et al. 1999, Bishop et al. 2001). Oxygenated fuelsallow for more efficient combustion and hence, reduced pollution. Although theyfound a 3% to 11% reduction of CO, there was no reduction in hydrocarbon emis-sions. Direct-injection two-stroke engines have been shown to decrease hydrocar-

bon emissions from snowmobiles by 70% to 75% when compared with conventionaltwo-stroke engines, but had similar emissions for other pollutants (NPS 2000).However, neither oxygenated fuels nor direct-injection two-stroke engines wereshown to significantly reduce emissions.

everal studies have recommended replacing two-stroke engines with fourstroke engines to significantly reduce emissions and noise (Snook Fussell 1997,Miers et al. 2000, Kado et al. 2001, Eriksson et al. 2003). Banning two-stroke enginesin YNP has resulted in a 60% reduction in CO and a 96% reduction in HC emissions(Bishop et al. 2006). Additionally, Bishop et al. (2006) found improved fuel efficien-cy, reduction in visible exhaust plumes, odor, and noise.

Hydrocarbons (HC)Hydrocarbons are volatile organic

compounds that include benzene, tolu-ene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. Kadoet al. (2001) found high levels of expo-sure of benzene for various employeesin YNP. They found that workers atthe West Entrance were exposed tobenzene concentrations of 100 to 300g/m3, mobile patrol employees 100to 200 g/m3, and a mechanic work-

ing indoors 500 g/m3. The mechaniclevel of exposure exceeded the NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety andHealth recommended exposure level forbenzene (320 g/m3). While these com-pounds can cause dizziness, headaches,and loss of consciousness, the EPA hasalso identified benzene as a carcinogen,and those exposed to benzene have anincreased incidence of leukemia.

arbon Monoxide (CO)Snook Fussell (1997) quantified

carbon monoxide releases in Grandeton National Park and concluded thatourists are exposed to significant and

dangerous levels of CO. This is com-ounded by the fact that most touristsravel in large groups (eight on average,achlis 1995), snowmobile trails force

ravel directly behind other snowmo-iles, most trails are at high elevation

(increasing susceptibility to adverseeffects), and many trips require severalours of driving. CO binds to the hemo-

globin in blood and inhibits the trans-ortation of oxygen in the body. High

evels of CO exposure have been showno lead to visual impairment, reduced

work capacity and mental dexterity,oor learning, nausea, headaches, dizzi-ess, and even death (EPA 1991).

Particulate Matter (PM)Particulate matter, also found in

snowmobile emissions, is detrimental infine and coarse forms as it accumulatesin the respiratory system and can leadto decreased lung function, respiratorydisease and even death (Janssen andSchettler 2003). Of the pollutants emit-ted by snowmobiles, particulates areof special concern because their smallsize makes them easily respirable and

thus delivered directly into the lungs,causing any number of the aforemen-tioned maladies (NPS 2000).

ConclusionWhile YNP has banned two-stroke

engines, the vast majority of snowmo-bilers in the U.S. use the out-dated two-stroke technology. Two-stoke enginesare very polluting and the risk to hu-man health has been well documented.If land managers are concerned aboutair pollution and its effects on humanhealth, snowmobile use should be lim-ited and/or transitioned to less pollut-ing four-stroke engines.

Adam Switalski is Science Coordinatorfor Wildlands CPR.


18/24


Literature Cited

continued from previous page

Bishop, G.A., D.H. Stedman, M. Hektner, and J.D. Ray. 1999.An in-use snowmobile emission survey in YellowstoneNational Park. Environmental Science and Technology33:3924-3926.

Bishop, G.A., J.A. Morris, and D.H. Stedman. 2001.Snowmobile contributions to mobile source emissionsin Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Science andTechnology35: 2874-2881.

Bishop, G.A., D.A. Burgard, T.R. Dalton, D.H. Stedman, andJ.D. Ray. 2006. Winter motor-vehicle emissions inYellowstone National Park. Environmental Science andTechnology40(8): 2505-2510.

Cain, C.J., and J. Coefield. 2001. Prelimanary Air DispersionModeling Analysis of Yellowstone National Park West

Entrance Wintertime Carbon Monoxide Emissions.Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 26p.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Air QualityCriteria for Carbon Monoxide. Washington, D.C. EPA-600/8-90-045A.

Eriksson, K., D. Tjarner, I. Marqvardsen, and B. Jarvholm.2003. Exposure to benzene, toluene, xylenes and totalhydrocarbons among snowmobile drivers in Sweden.Chemosphere 50(10): 1343-7.

Ingersoll, G., J. Turk, C. McClure, S. Lawlor, D. Clow, andA. Mast. 1997. Snowpack chemistry as an indicator

of pollution emission levels from motorized wintervehicles in Yellowstone National Park. Presented at the65th Annual Western Snow Conference, May 4-8, Banff,Canada. Pp. 103-113.

Ingersoll, G. 1999. Effects of snowmobile use on snowpackchemistry in Yellowstone National Park, 1998. U.S.Geological Survey. Water Resources InvestigationsReport 99-4148. 23p.

Jamssem, S., and T. Schettler. 2003. Health implications ofsnowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. 27p.

Kado, N.Y., P.A. Kuzmicky, and R.A. Okamoto. 2001.

Environmental and occupational exposure to toxic airpollutants from winter snowmobile use in YellowstoneNational Park. Prepared for the Yellowstone ParkFoundation and National Park Service. 152p. http://www.deq.state.mt.us/CleanSnowmobile/publications/Reports/ExposureToxicAirPollutants_FinalRpt.pdf

achlis, G.E. 1995. Visitor services project Yellowstoneational Park report summary. University of Idaho

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Moscow.

iers, S.A., R.D. Chalgren, and C.L. Anderson. 2000. Noiseand Emission Reduction Strategies for a Snowmobile.ociety of Automotive Engineers. 6p.

ontana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).2004. Solutions Oxygenated Fuels. Accessed onlinein September 2007 at: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/cleansnowmobile/solutions/fuels/Oxygenated.htm

orris, J., G.A. Bishop, and D.H. Stedman. 1999. Real-timeRemote Sensing of Snowmobile Emissions at Yellowstone

ational Park: an Oxygenated Fuel Study. WesternRegional Biomass Energy Program. Lincoln, NE. 19p.

ational Park Service (NPS). 2000. Air Quality ConcernsRelated to Snowmobile Usage in National Parks.Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2000.

Rodes, C., L. Sheldon, D. Whitaker, A. Clayton, K. Fitzgerald,J. Flanagen, F. DiGenova, S. Hering, and C. Frazier. 1998.

easuring Concentrations of Selected Air PollutantsInside California Vehicles. Final report under Contract

o. 95-339. California Air Resources Board.

ive, B., D. Shively, B. Pape. 2002. Spatial Variation andCharacteristics of Volatile Organic CompoundsAssociated with Snowmobile Emissions in Yellowstone

ational Park. Preliminary research report submitted tothe National Park Service, United States Department ofthe Interior, May 28, 2002. 35p.

nook Fussell, L.M. 1997. Carbon monoxide exposure bynowmobile riders. National Park Science 17(1): 1-9ttp://www2.nature.nps.gov/parksci/vol17/vol17(1)/

07carbon.htm

White, J.J., and J.N. Carroll. 1998. Emissions from SnowmobileEngines Using Bio-based Fuels and Lubricants. Preparedor the Montana Department of Environmental Quality,y Southwest Research Institute. Report number SwRI

7383. 53p.


19/24


The Society for Ecological Restoration International andIsland Press recently published this desert/dryland restora-ion guide by David A. Bainbridge. This guide is practicallyaid out, providing resources for restoration practitioners,and managers, ranchers, farmers, educators, foresters, land-capers, gardeners and homeowners. It includes interesting

estimates of the economic cost of off-road vehicle damage.And it provides comprehensive resources and information,including scientific and indigenous knowledge about caringor and restoring desert ecosystems. According to the pref-

ace, This book provides a brief introduction to the ecology

of desert plants in southwestern North America, exploreshe causes of desertification and land abuse, and outlines therocesses and procedures needed to evaluate sites and plan,

implement, and monitor desert restoration projects.

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

This new report was recently published by Defenders ofWildlife and provides fantastic resources for folks working onhe impacts of highways on wildlife. Learn more about it at:ttp://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/habitat_con-ervation/habitat_and_highways/resources/getting_up_to_peed.php.

According to Defenders, the book seeks to crack thecode on transportation and make the process more transpar-

ent from beginning to endeverything you always wantedo know about road building, but were afraid to ask By

demystifying the world of transportation, we hope to provideconservationists with the necessary foundation for becoming

etter informed, more effective stakeholders in transporta-ion debates.

Hardcopies are available free of charge to non-profitwildlife conservation advocacy organizations. Governmentagencies and private companies may purchase hardcopiesor $25 each. Please email all questions and inquiries to [email protected].

A Guide for Desert and Dryland Restoration:

New Hope for Arid Lands

Getting up to Speed: A Conservationists Guide toWildlife and Highways

Removed road in the Little Missouri National Grasslands,North Dakota. Photo by Sara Simmers.

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


20/24


Roads to Ruin:Revised Statute 2477 and National ForestsBy Laurel Hagen

Editors Note: this article is meant only as a practical orientation for thelayperson, and does not represent the official legal positions of Wildlands CPR orour affiliates. RS 2477 law and policy is very complex and constantly shifting, and itwould be impossible to represent the full spectrum of issues here.

Iearly battles over logging in the Pacific Northwest, timber companiesould engage in what they called park prevention targeting poten-

ial parklands for clearcutting to disqualify the areas from protection.Now, in Utah, anti-wilderness forces are doing the same thing, but theyredoing it with roads and off-road vehicles. A road, an alleged road, or anysignificant evidence of the passage of vehicles can be enough to disqualifypublic lands from a chance at future protection as Wilderness.

he largest threat to our national forests is not currently logging ormining; it is the expansion of playgrounds for the motor vehicle. With theincreasing popularity and technological sophistication of off-road vehicles,lands that were once safe from damage merely because of their isolationare now in danger.

If you try to stay abreast of the ever-evolv-ing plethora of public lands issues, youve prob-ably heard something about RS 2477. The statuteis a small part of the 1866 Mining Law, whichays, The right-of-way for the construction ofighways over public lands, not reserved forublic uses, is hereby granted. A later public

ands law repealed the Mining Law, but grandfa-thered in any public rights-of-way that existedon Bureau of Land Management land before1976. However, most national forest lands werereserved for public uses (created) between1896 and 1906. Therefore, most RS 2477 claims

on national forest land must have been estab-ished before the date of the forests creation.

To make this a little more concrete, well

take a case in the La Sal Mountains outsideoab. A member of the Grand County Council

wrote a letter to the Forest Service (FS), claim-ing several RS 2477 highways in a roadless area.

hough its the countys legal responsibility toresent evidence showing that the county owns

the claim, the Council member presented nouch evidence. Utah counties generally argue

that all they need to do is publicly make sucha claim, and the roads are theirs. The county

government, they say, then has all decision-mak-ing power over that road. Thus, based on aingle letter, the Forest Service removed a largeart of the roadless area from its maps.

However, the counties position differs con-iderably from FS policy. In response to a 1996

Congressional directive banning federal agen-cies from making any final regulations pertainingto RS 2477, the FS instituted a moratorium onMany RS 2477 claims probably represent a bid to win jurisdiction over federal

lands, rather than an effort to secure access. Photo by Laurel Hagen.


21/24


validating RS 2477 claims. An RS 2477 claim on national forest land, underthis moratorium, cannot be validated by the FS unless there is an urgentneed to do so. Virtually all claims should be settled in court. Severalcounties, like Grand County, are making RS 2477 claims as part of the cur-rent forest travel planning process underway. However, the FS is supposedto make decisions about roads and recreation based only on regular plan-ning tools (such as public input, field work, and ecological assessments).Unfortunately, many FS offices are unaware of their agencys policies andregulations. This lack of knowledge makes them more subject to politicalintimidation from county governments.

Even if a case like Grand Countys were to go to court, proving up anRS 2477 claim can be a heavy lift. A county has to present evidence that aright-of-way existed before the national forest unit that holds the claim wasdesignated. Since many forests, like the Manti-La Sal, were designated atthe turn of the century, road construction records, maps, and photographsamong other important evidence can be difficult to come by. In reality, RS

2477 is currently tangled in a web of lawsuits at various places in the courtsystem, and no controversial claim is likely to be unequivocally granteduntil Congress or the courts have a final say.

Congress has been hesitant to resolve the question. The larger issuein RS 2477, of course, has little to do with transportation, and everythingto do with history, culture and values. RS 2477 routes rarely link one majordestination to another; theyre usually abandoned mine tracks, or cattletrails that meander across the countryside. The real source of all thewrangling is the question of who has control over federal public lands, andwhether conservation or resource extraction will win the day. A series of

environmental laws were passed in the 1970s; some put restrictions onfederal land for the first time. Some westerners resented federal manage-

In their efforts to lay claim to federal lands, someounties have argued that even faint tracks constituteroad. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

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

nfortunately, many FS offices are unaware of

their agencys policies and regulations.

ent of public lands on which they had longad free rein. Resurrecting RS 2477 has been atrategy for county governments to circumvent

decisions made by the federal government, byclaiming that the county owns a highway right-of-way in an area the agency wants to protect.

Right now, many county governments inUtah are trying to create large, tangled back-country trail systems for off-road vehicle use.

his shortsighted approach has the potential todestroy large portions of Utahs wildlands, frag-

enting habitat, ripping up desert waterways,and marring peace and quiet. With our partners,Wildlands CPR is making sure that all Forestervice offices in Utah have access to goodegal information. Making sure that no harmful

RS 2477 claims (like the ones in the La Sals) areegitimized as part of the travel planning process

is one of our highest priorities.

Laurel Hagen is Wildlands CPRs Utah ORVCoordinator.


22/24


Is been a hot, smoky, and extremely busyummer here at Wildlands CPR. Were finallyp to full staffing (and then some), with six

new folks on board over the last five months(four since June). Our new folks have addedincredible knowledge, experience, creativity anddepth to Wildlands CPR. In addition, theyre notall located in Missoula. We introduced LaurelHagen, in our new Moab office, in the last issueof the RIPorter, and were pleased to have begunworking with Sue Gunn on a contract basis inWashington state. Her introduction is below, aswell as some of the other new things going onhere

Welcome

ue Gunn is an earth scientist and repre-sents Wildlands CPR in the Washington Water-shed Restoration Initiative. Sue worked as anisotope geochemist for over a decade at the U.S.Geological Survey before becoming an environ-mental advocate when she moved to Washing-ton, DC to work on public lands issues for TheWilderness Society. She served first as theirdirector of Budget and Appropriations and sub-sequently as the director of their National Park

Program. She relocated to Washington State towork for Public Employees for EnvironmentalResponsibility, a watchdog organization thatsupports local, state and federal whistleblowers.She is now splitting her time between the Centerfor Environmental Law and Policy and WildlandsCPR. Sue lives in Olympia, WA, and can be con-tacted by e-mailing [email protected].

Check it out

Our new web guru, Josh Hurd, has beentapping his fingers to the bone creating our newwebsite. The new site is incredible, so take sometime to cruise around. Josh organized our re-sources into a simple, searchable database. Youcan find economics reports, literature reviews,policy primers and also links to reports from oth-er organizations that are excellent resources onour issues. Just go to the resources page of ourwebsite, highlight the type of resource yourelooking for and see what comes up! Youll alsosee big changes on the home page, where Josh

has created a simple hotlink section to current news stories, as well as anew blog, where you can, for example, link to the latest You Tube wreck-reation videos of ATVers ripping through meadows and streams, as well aslots of other current events.

Josh also worked closely with our Communications Coordinator JasonKiely to set up our new electronic e-newsletter, replacing Skid Marks. Thee-newsletter includes just one or two sentences from each article, with a

link to the full story on our website. Its a great collection of feature sto-ries, news, highlights from current events in restoration and transportationplanning, and more. Its more interactive and in-depth than Skid Marks, sowe hope youll enjoy it. Most of what was covered in Skid Marks will nowbe covered on our specific issue pages just click on, for example, ORVsin the News.

Annual Gifts Campaign

As regular readers of our newsletter, most of you know that our annualgifts campaign occurs every fall, and its that time of year. Please considerincreasing your donation this year, to ensure that Wildlands CPR stays at

the leading edge of restoration and transportation work. If youve alreadysent in a donation THANK YOU!

Thanks

Wed like to thank the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Yellowstoneto Yukon Conservation Initiative, the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, and theLazar Foundation for generous grants to support both our restoration andtransportation policy work!

Photo by Dan Funsch.


23/24


Join Wildlands CPR Today!Weve made joining Wildlands CPR easier and more effective than ever before.

lease consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

Name

Street

City, State,

Zip

Email

Phone

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Type of Membership: OrganizationIndividual/Family Business

Please send this form and your payment option to:

Wildlands CPR P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807Thank you for your support!

Payment Option #2:

Electronic Funds Transfer

from Checking Account

Payment Option #1:

Credit Card Pledge

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.


24/24

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

Non-profit Organization

US POSTAGEPAID

MISSOULA MT, 59801PERMIT NO. 569

The threat of a road into the heart of

ilderness may seem unrealistic to

some, but wild places will exist only so

long as free people work to protect them.

Scott Stouder, Keeping the Hunt Wild,

A Road Runs Through It.

CedargroveinWardCreek,

Montana.

PhotobyDanFunsch.

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wildlands-cpr
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Road RIPorter 12.3 Autumn Equinox 2007

Documents