InsIde… Visit us online: wildlandscpr.orgT he R o a d RIP oRTeR ummr 2013. Vum1 8 N. 2 A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2-3 Restoration In Action: LRT Accomplishments, by Wildlands CPR & The Wilderness Society. Pages 4-8 Policy Primer: New Process For Challenging FS Decisions, by Rocky Smith. Pages 9-11 Biblio Notes: Effectiveness of BMPs, by Drew Lefebvre. Pages 12-15 Legal Notes: Snowmobiles Subject to Travel Planning, by Laurie Rule. Pages 16-18 Restoration in ActionWI ddCPR & ThWI dRCI Ty Issue pecial Report on Five years of Legacy Roads & Trails Accomplishments Above , a rec ontour ed road on the Ga llatin Na tional F orest, MT , photo b y Wildla nds CPR ; photo a t right by Kent Miller .
Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild placepromoting watershed restoration that impro
sh and wildlife habitat, provides clean waterenhances community economies. We focus
reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public
P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org
Director
Bethanie Walder
Science Program DirectAdam Switalski
Legal Liaison/Staff AttornSarah Peters
Policy Specialist Adam Rissien
Washington/OregonField Coordinator
Marlies Wierenga
Development and OutreaCoordinator
Grace Brogan
Journal Editor Dan Funsch
Board of Directors Susan Jane Brown, Dave Heller,
Marion Hourdequin, Crystal Mario, Kathi NiBrett Paben, Jack Tuholske
dP RT I RTRTI
By Bethanie Walder
A Look Down the trAiL
Nearly 20 years ago I went on a feld trip to Redwood National Park to see road removal inaction. I was completely exhilarated watching excavator operators reshape the hillside back to
ear-original contours. We talked or a long time about their work, what they’d learned and why roadeclamation was so important. One operator made a comment I’ve never orgotten — about howhey oten had to knock down trees to recontour the roads. He told me that i he drove his bulldozernto a redwood growing in an old road bed, even a 50-year old tree, the tree would all over withminimal pressure. He then said that i he drove into a similar-sized, similar-aged redwood growingn natural ground, and tapped it the same way, his machine would bounce backward and the treewould stand tall.
rom their experience, he and his colleagues knew that redwood trees growing in old roadbeds werelearly susceptible to toppling in storms. But no one had gone out and systematically studied why.
No one, that is, until ormer Wildlands CPR Board member Rebecca Lloyd did just such an analysisn road reclamation on the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. In March, Becca published herrst paper rom her PhD research (which is built on her ten years running the Nez Perce Tribe’s roadeclamation program on the Powell Ranger District o the Clearwater).
he paper, “Inuence o road decommissioning on orest ecosystem recovery” was published thispring in Frontiers in Ecology and it explores the impacts o restoration in a bold new way – look-ng at both belowground and aboveground ecosystem recovery as a result o specifc restorationreatments. Becca’s unique approach is applicable to a broad range o treatments and could have aignifcant impact on practices (and ideally on restoration decisions) in the uture.
— continue on next pae —
Like a Bitterroot trying to establish an anchor in parched soil, trees struggle to sink deep roots onabandoned — but not fully restored — roads. Photo by Dan Funsch.
n her research, Becca compared ully re-ontoured roads, abandoned roads, andatural, undisturbed reerence areas. Theesults are astonishing, and they explain
why a 50-year old tree growing on anbandoned road bed is so weak. Hertudy ound that roots were constrained tohe top 15 centimeters o the soil layer onbandoned roads, whereas rooting depth
went beyond the 60-75 cm soil pits sheug on both recontoured roads and never-oaded reerence areas. Roots that onlyo 15 cm deep will seriously compromise
he stability o trees, and they’ll all over i apped by heavy equipment, or more natu-ally, a heavy windstorm.
ut this paper applies to ar more ques-
ons than rooting depth. From an above-round perspective, Becca’s researchhowed nothing particularly new. Below-round, however, recontoured roads were
much more similar to the reerence areashan abandoned roads. What’s important
dW Th TRI, cont’
however, is what these belowground dier-ences mean or restoration. Recontouringsets the land on a trajectory towards theundisturbed reerence site, whereas aban-doned roads are set on a completely di-erent recovery trajectory. So while thingsmay look similar aboveground, they arenot unctioning the same belowground andover time that dierence will become pro-ound.
The major dierences she ound in soilcarbon and nitrogen content, water infltra-tion, rooting depth, and other actors illus-trate the importance o ull recontouring asa restoration tool – inuencing water ow,vegetation, and even potentially providingimportant carbon sequestration opportuni-
ties. Becca concludes by not only talkingabout the potential importance o recon-touring as a climate change tool, but alsowith the ollowing:
“…recontouring may be the only way torestore both above- and belowground eco-
system processes, accelerating the reery o these orest ecosystems by decto millennia.”
This innovative and ground-breaking shas signifcant implications or restorpolicy. While all public land managerassessing restoration needs or the lthey manage, the Forest Service haparticularly large and problematic system. This legacy o old logging roadegrading orest lands, dumping sediinto rivers, streams, lakes and reservand ragmenting fsh and wildlie haWith limited unding, unneeded rare oten simply abandoned, but this research shows how this ails to resueective restoration. Fully reclaiming
recontouring unneeded orest roads shbe a core component o the agencycently adopted “accelerated restoraplan. Hopeully, the paper will providimpetus or policy incentives, managedirectives, and sufcient unding to imment this vital work.
An old road properly removed and recontoured in Redwood State Park (CA). Photo by AdamSwitalski.
Restoration in Action: The First Five Years of the Legacy Roads and Trails Program
Published APril 2013 by WildlAnds CPr & The Wilderness soCieTy
exeCuTive summAry
The Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program (Legacy Roadsand Trails) is a cornerstone o watershed restoration in our National
orests. Created to fx environmental problems resulting rom the Forestervice’s extensive road and trail system, Legacy Roads and Trails haseduced stream pollution, restored fsh and wildlie habitat, created jobs,nd improved essential roads to ensure sae access. Legacy Roads andrails has been a success rom the start; it is smartly and eciently man-ged, and achieves on-the-ground results in real time.
ince its inception in 2008, Congress has appropriated $270 million toegacy Roads and Trails. With these unds, the Forest Service has:
✔Decommissioned 4,510 miles of unneeded roads to reconnect
habitat and greatly reduce the delivery o sediment to streams;
✔Maintained and/or storm-proofed 12,053 miles of needed roads to increase their ability to stand-up during powerul storms andensure sae access;
✔Restored sh passage at 823 sites to provide fsh and otheraquatic species access to more than 1,000 miles o upstreamhabitat;
✔Upgraded or xed 3,215 miles of trails to guarantee recreation-ists can saely use the areas they love;
✔Created or maintained an average of 810-1,296 jobs annually;and
✔✔Reduced annual road maintenance costs by approximately $3million per year.
egacy Roads and Trails was created specifcally to provide crucialesources to fx and storm-proo the roads we need, and to reclaim un-eeded roads causing the most damage. The Legacy Roads and Trailsrogram is a proven tool that:
• Restores clean water and healthy fsheries, and reconnects rag-mented wildlie habitat;
• Saves taxpayer money and creates high-wage jobs;
• Ensures safe and reliable access or recreation and resource
management; and
• Enjoys broad support by a wide variety o partners.
his report highlights Legacy Roads and Trails accomplishments dur-ng its frst fve years. It provides a general accounting o appropriatedunds and spotlights a sampling o projects rom across the country. Aslustrated here, Legacy Roads and Trails is a mission-critical program orhe Forest Service that deserves continued investment.
he National Forest System stretches rom Florida to Alaska and consists o 155individual National Forests and Grasslands. Forest Service lands are crisscrossed by
n astounding 374,000 miles o road – more than eight times as many road miles as theational highway system. Many o these roads are oten reerred to as legacy roads – that
s, roads let on the landscape ater decades o intensive logging. Some o these old roadsre used today or recreational access and resource management while many others sitnneeded, unused and under-maintained – a growing ecological and fscal liability.
egacy Roads and Trails was created in FY 2008 to restore watersheds damaged byecaying roads. It unds decommissioning o unneeded roads, critical repair and main-
enance on the roads and trails we do need, and projects to restore fsh passage wheretreams cross underneath roads. Legacy Roads and Trails reduces environmental harm andong-term costs, while creating high-wage jobs and securing sae and reliable access tour national orests.
With growth in outdoor recreation, hikers, hunters, fshermen, bikers, and campers relyn a small portion o the road system to access recreational destinations. This access isot assured, however, as roads continue to crumble, creating unsae conditions or evenlocking access entirely. The public rightully expects that important recreational roads
will be maintained; the Forest Service also needs access or resource management, includ-ng restoration and fre control. A sae and durable transportation system -- sized, located,nd maintained appropriately to reduce risks to people, water, and orest resources -- isssential.
Culverts are placed in road beds so that stream
fow under the roads. Many are damaged or
small and need to be replaced.
Photo credit: Wildlan
Photo credit: USFS
Roads that encroach on stream channels damage aquatic
habitats and processes.
“I we don’t fx our roads we’re going to drink our roads.”
Congressman Norm Dicks
Representing Washington’s 6th District, May 2007
Legacy✔Roads✔and✔Trailsis unded as part o overaForest Service appropriations as determined annuaby Congress. Over the past fve years, Congress has propriated a total o $270 million to this program.
n the past, many logging roads were designed or temporary use, andten they were not well-planned or well-constructed. Roads were placed
n oodplains, along steep slopes, and through wildlie habitat. Sometimesoads were densely stacked - in parallel lines - one atop the next. Once log-ing was complete, the roads were typically let on the landscape.
Historically, the Forest Service had unds to build and maintain roads, buts timber harvests declined, so too did road maintenance unding. At thisoint in time, the Forest Service is able to maintain or improve only about0% o its road system in any given year. The bulk o that unding goesowards passenger vehicle roads, which are most important or access.
When roads are not maintained or under-maintained,culverts become clogged with debris, landslides occur,bridges weaken, and roads wash out. Large amountso sediment pour into what used to be clear mountainstreams, suocating fsh and burying stream channels.Hazards, such as washouts, pose serious saety risks tothose driving on orest roads, at times even making ac-cess impossible.
The consequences o unmaintained roads areurprisingly severe and ar-reaching:
Legacy Roads and Trails accomplishmentsbegin with numbers – or example, miles o roads reclaimed or main-tained. But the achievements go ar beyond these numbers to reach the ultimate objective – watershed restoration
and sustainable transportation. Replacing nearly one thousand blocked culverts means fsh can now access habitat that
was unreachable a ew years ago. Improving and maintaining more than ten thousand miles o roads means the accessto popular trails, camping sites, and fshing holes is saer. Reclaiming more than 4,000 miles o roads means wildlie canmigrate more reely and rivers and streams run with cleaner, colder water. These accomplishments are signifcant andthe beginning o an essential national investment to correct environmental and inrastructure problems created over thepast century.
✔ Restored Fish and Wildlife Habitat
egacy Roads and Trails projects have resulted in:✔– 1,030 miles o stream habitat restored or enhanced;✔– 243 acres o lake habitat restored or enhanced;✔– 177,233 acres o terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced;✔– 27,193 acres o water or soil resources protected, maintained, or
improved;✔– 2,114 acres treated or noxious weeds and invasive plants; and✔– 823 stream crossings fxed to allow fsh to swim upstream.
Outcomes
✔ Clean Water and Healthy Streams
nitial Forest Service monitoring shows that Legacy Roads and Trails treatments are
ighly eective at reducing hydrologic impacts. The Rocky Mountain Research Stations in the middle o a multi-year analysis o the responses o treated and untreated roadso large storms. The study assessed 60 km o decommissioned roads and ound signif-ant benefts, as displayed in the fgure at right.
— continue onext pae —
Denition of T
A hydrologically conected road meansthe road is part of th
stream network. Raiintercepted by roadfaces and cut slopesdelivered to the streinstead of inltratingnaturally.
A drain point is a locwhere water collectdrains from a road. Pplaced or ineectivepoints can lead to rofailures.
Unit sediment deliv
refers to the amounsediment delivered stream per length oper year.
Key
Roads & Trails Improved
(miles)
Roads Decommissioned(miles)
Fish Passage Restored(# o sites)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Roads Decommissioned, Trails Improved, Fish Passage Restored
A 2011 University o Oregon study ound that every $1 million invested inwatershed restoration work creates 15-24 jobs. With $270 million appropri-
ted so ar, the Legacy Roads and Trails Program has averaged $54 million perear, creating or maintaining between 810 and 1,296 high wage jobs per yearor heavy equipment operators and a variety o restoration specialists.
An estimate of jobs created nationally
result of the LRT program, 2008-201
Funds Appropriated (millions)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
high estimate
$45$90$50$39
low estimate500
1,000
1,500
2,000
✔
Consistent and Safe Accessegacy Roads and Trails helps maintain needed roads and trails or both resource manage-
ment and recreational access. With these unds, the Forest Service has:✔– Constructed (or reconstructed) 123 bridges;✔– Maintained or improved 3,215 miles o system trails;✔– Improved 3,634 miles o roads; and✔– Maintained 8,418 miles o roads.
✔ Taxpayer Savings
egular maintenance, improvements, and storm-proofng reduce storm damage to roads, savingaxpayer money. Moreover, reclaiming unneeded roads eliminates uture maintenance and envi-onmental costs. The Forest Service estimates that Legacy Roads and Trails work has saved:
✔– ~$3 million per year in annual road maintenance, and✔– ~$17 million rom the deerred maintenance backlog.
Legacy Roads and Trails Accomplishments by Forest Service Region, FY 2008 – FY 2012
Regionand % o system road miles
Northern (1)*
14%Roads decommissioned (miles)
Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)Culverts xed (number)
Rocky Mountain (2)9%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
Southwestern (3)*12%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
Intermountain (4)*10%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
Pacifc SW (5)12%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
Totals
9902,451161
71689961
13954113
1,15672066
1002,342
8
Pacifc NW (6)24%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
Southern (8)10%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
Eastern (9)7%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
Alaska (10)1%
Roads decommissioned (miles)Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)
Culverts xed (number)
TOTALSRoads decommissioned (miles)
Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles)Culverts xed (number)
8254,837
67
3681,854
46
145961101
71662300
4,51015,267823
Regionand % o system road miles
Totals
Outcomes, cont’d
Editor’s Note:
Download the full report to seethe Regional Case Studies, listin
he new processes apply to all projects documented in eithern EA or EIS that implement a national orest or grassland land
management plan. Projects documented with a categorical ex-lusion can still be challenged under the old appeals process36 CFR 215).
he new processes do not apply to plan amendments, as thesehallenges are addressed separately under the 2012 Planningule (36 CFR 219 subpart B). The new processes do not applyo orest plan amendments except when an amendment appliesnly to a project which is subject to objection.
Notices of oent and bjection
Peiodshe newspaper(s) o record is (are) the ofcial means o notifca-on o the start o comment and objection periods. However,
within our calendar days, the agency must also post this noticend its publication date on a website, making it easy to deter-
mine deadlines or comments and objections.
B y publication in the March 27 Federal Register, the Forest Service has put into eect two new processesor administrative challenges to project decisions that implement land management plans. One applies to
projects done under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), and the other applies to non-HFRA projects.This new regulation replaces the appeal process.
All project challenges will now be “pre-decisional,” i.e. one must “object” to a proposed project, rather thanappeal an already approved project. Previously, pre-decisional challenges were only allowed or HFRA proj-
ects.
Activists amiliar with appeals or HFRA objections should not have difculty learning and using the new pro-cesses, which are ound at 36 CFR Part 218. However, there are a ew key changes with which activists might
be unamiliar, described below. You can dowload the CFR directly rom the web.
It used to be that citizens challenging Forest Service timber harvest could an Administrative Appeal of the agency’s decision. Under the revised ruleschallenges must now come prior to those decisions. Photo courtesy of Bureof Land Management.
o be able to object to a proposed project or activity (ie. to have “standing”), onemust frst comment during an ofcial comment period, which runs or 30 days be-inning the day ater the ofcial notice or projects documented in an EA, and at
east 45 days or projects documented with an EIS. The 30-day comment period
or an EA cannot be extended.
Commenting during any ofcial comment period is sufcient to establish stand-ng to later fle an objection. However, late comments will not be accepted. Seeection 218.9 or specifc fling requirements.
is the commentor’s responsibility to ensure timeliness, which is determined by:postmark or postal mail; shipping date or delivery by private carrier; date andme stamp or axed comments; or date and time o receipt or electronicallyled comments. For electronically fled comments, you should receive a receipt
by e-mail indicating the agency has received your comments. But i not, you maylso want to fle your comments by another medium such as certifed postal mail,eturn receipt requested.
or projects documented with an EA, the only ofcial opportunity or comment isten at the scoping stage. This is a signifcant and highly problematic change,
because it does not require the Forest Service to accept comments on a proposedproject’s EA prior to the start o the objection period. For projects documented inn EIS, there will be two opportunities to comment – scoping and the drat EIS.
Comments must be specifc and detailed enough to explain your concerns withhe proposed project or activity. Oral comments (made to, say, the project leader)will no longer qualiy you or a subsequent objection.
It is very important to raise all issues o conin your comment letter(s), because you can obased only on those issues you raise during thecial comment period. Comments should be as sp
ic as possible, and should cover all issues o inteFor this reason, all comments, general and speshould include any potential issues o non-coance with laws, regulations, and policies, andcontradiction with credible science or ailure tosuch science.
The only exception to the requirement to raise spic issues applies when the agency alters a propaction or preerred alternative ater the close olast comment period and, thereore, comments cnot have been submitted prior to the objectionportunity. These changes could then be challeor the frst time in an objection, but be preparemake the argument in your objection that the could not have been raised previously.
When the agency makes changes in responsan objection, there is no provision in the regulor how the agency will deal with these situatThe agency could re-issue a new proposed decialong with a new opportunity to object. Howethis seems unlikely in most cases, and i the agmoves orward and implements the modifed sion with no new objection period, the only wa
challenge the new decision will be through litiga
Filing bjections
Objections or HFRA projects must be fled w30 days o the notice o the proposed project sion, and within 45 days or non-HFRA projectwith comments, it is the objector’s responsibiliensure timely submission. See “Establishing Sing” above.
Objections must include basic inormation oun218.8(d), and also describe the problems withproposed project, including any violations oregulation, and policy, i applicable. “Supporeasons” or your contentions must be provided
you need to support your arguments with releacts, and could also include scientifc paperphotographs o the area supporting your assert
Agency actions carried out under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) are governed by a slightly different challenge process. Photo courtesy of US Forest Service.
One important dierence rom the old appeal regu-ations is that objectors must also suggest remedies hat would resolve the objection issues. These canbe simple, like the ollowing examples: “postponeproject until preparation and public comment on amore complete cumulative eects analysis;” “remove
nits 1, 5, and 7 rom the proposed timber sale;” orretain more snags or species x, as recommendedby (cite science).”
You also must show that issues in your objection arenes you previously raised in comments. Do this by
putting a statement somewhere in each objection ar-ument that states: “We addressed this issue in sec-on ___ (or p. ___) in our comments dated ___.” I he issue was not raised in previous comments, makehe argument as to why that was impossible (ie. aew trail was added to the project or a sensitive spe-ies was discovered in the project area).
ncopoation by refeence ismostly Pohibited
he rule prohibits incorporating documents by reer-nce in objections, except or the ollowing: all orny part o a Federal law or regulation, Forest Ser-ice directives and land management plans, docu-
ments reerenced by the Forest Service in the EA orIS or the proposed project, and ofcial comments
previously submitted by the objector(s). For example,you want the Forest Service to consider a scientifc
paper beore ruling on your objection, you must in-lude the paper with the objection. An internet cita-on is not sufcient.
meetings to resolvebjections
Another change rom the appeal regulations is thathe Forest Service does not have to oer a resolutionmeeting. The reviewing ofcer (the one who decideshe objection) may hold a meeting with objectors
o try to settle objections. Objectors can requestuch meetings, but the reviewing ofcer does notave to grant the request. Similarly, objectors areot obligated to attend meetings requested by theeviewing ofcer, but it may be worthwhile i youhink you have a chance o resolving all or part o our objection. Typically, though, such meetings areruitless because the Forest Service has no incentiveo negotiate.
egency itations
The Chie o the Forest Service may declare that an emergency situation existhese cases, there is no objection process or such projects. However, the agmust still accept comments.
bjection Decisions
I you do not resolve your objection, the reviewing ofcer must issue a decwithin 30 days o the close o the objection period or HFRA projects, or 45 or non-HFRA projects. The reviewing ofcer can extend the time or a decby an additional 30 days.
ffective Dates
The new rule is eective immediately or projects with scoping initiated oater March 27, 2013. For projects whose public involvement processes menced earlier, applicability o the new rule depends on various actors. SeCFR 218.16. These new rules are signifcantly dierent rom the ormer appprocess — concerned citizens must learn new tools and methods or challenbad projects. That said, the appeals process was oten just a temporary stothe way to court, which may end up being the case with these challenges as
— Rocky Smith has examined Forest Service projects, plans, policies, and rlations for over 30 years on behalf of the environmental community. He careached at: [email protected].
Don’t like the Forest Service’s proposal? Your challenge must also include a proposed redy. Photo courtesy of U.S. Forest Service.
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientic literatuour 20,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effects of roadoff-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access impo
biological research relevant to roads.
FRT Rd d TR dITTI:hW FFCTI R BT gT PRCTIC TITIgTIg WTR PTI?
By Drew Lefebvre
— continue on next pae —
It has been well documented that orest roads are a major sourceo erosion and sediment delivery to streams nationwide (Gracend Clinton 2007; Endicott 2008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011and 2011b). Roads interere with natural drainage patterns andlter streamows because they intercept, concentrate, and divertows o water. They expose bare ground, alter soil structure, andten require steep sideslopes, resulting in increased erosion. Addi-onally, they are subject to the recurring disturbances o trafc and
maintenance operations, which mobilize fne sediment (Endicott008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011a). When roads approachr cross streams and other waterways, these actors contribute to
ncreased levels o stream sedimentation.
Although roads typically occupy a small percentage o a water-hed’s total area, they contribute a disproportionately high per-
entage o sediment to a stream. Likewise, it is oten a small per-entage o a given road’s area or length (a “problem section”)hat is responsible or a disproportionately large amount o sedi-ment delivery (Endicott 2008; Nelson et al. 2012). Additionally, aarger amount o sediment in streams has been correlated with aigher density o orest roads in a given watershed (Anderson andockaby 2011a).
Historically, under the Clean Water Act, orest roads have treated as sources o non-point pollution. This means that, rathan going through the National Pollutant Discharge EliminaSystem (NPDES) permitting process or point sources, stormwruno rom orest roads is handled through the use o Best Magement Practices, or BMPs (Endicott 2008). BMPs are compo a broad suite o treatments or activities implemented to redwater pollution and keep pollutant levels within environmquality goals (Helms 1998).
Ideally, orest road BMPs should reduce erosion and sedimenlivery, thereby reducing water quality impacts. In many regulaprograms, it is assumed that i BMPs are implemented, then wquality is protected. However, little quantitative research has done in this area, and it is unclear just how eective BMPs truly
at protecting water quality. This article highlights some o the plems inherent in evaluating the eectiveness o orest road BM
Weed free hay is often used as a BMP when roads are ripped to reduce surface erosion. Photo by USFS, Mt. Baker Snoqualmie NF.
Runo rom orest roads is not regulated on a national level. Instead, individual states ollow theirown guidelines or the protection o water quality through state water quality standards, orestpractice regulations, and other guidelines (Ice et al. 2004). These guidelines include BMPs, encom-
passing a wide range o principles, regulations, and practices designed to reduce impacts to waterquality. Though they dier rom state to state, most orest road BMPs are based on a relatively smallnumber o guiding principles, many o which relate to initial road construction (Endicott 2008):
• Identiy and avoid areas subject to high erosion.• Disturb a minimal amount o the landscape.• Use road suraces, drainage eatures, and stream crossings with high stability and erosion
resistance.• Use a orested buer zone, which excludes roads and minimizes water crossings, to sepa-
rate areas o bare ground rom water.• Minimize the amount o sediment that is delivered to water.• Design stream crossings to allow fsh and other animals, as well as wood and other debris,
to pass through.• Anticipate triggering events, such as large storms, which may add extra stress to BMPs.
• Maintain all roads, stream crossings, and associated BMPs.
Road was moved out of the oodplain to maintain access and reduceimpacts to sh habitat. The new road is crowned with ditches to promeffective drainage. Photo by USFS, Okanogan-Wenatchee NF.
pleenting BmPs
MPs are implemented dierently rom state to state. Some statesmploy mandatory BMP programs, while others are voluntary.
Most states have evaluation systems in place to monitor implemen-ation rates o BMPs. These typically consist o state-run audits us-ng visual cues or surveys, the majority o which report high levels implementation (Anderson and Lockaby 2011a and 2011b;ugden et al. 2012). However, implementation does not necessar-y mean correct application. Further, correct application o BMPsoes not necessarily mean that they meet their objective, namely,educing impacts to water quality. In order to ully understand theectiveness o BMPs or orest roads, we need to look at scientifctudies that provide quantitative data by analyzing sites both withnd without BMPs.
Unortunately, this is an area that has, to date, garnered very littleesearch. The Forest Service has developed monitoring protocolsor evaluating BMP eectiveness (USDA Forest Service 2002), butnly a handul o peer-reviewed, published studies have compara-vely and scientifcally assessed the eectiveness o BMPs or or-
st roads (e.g., Ice et al. 2004; Endicott 2008; Wang and Go 008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011a and 2011b). The ew quan-tative studies that have been done do show some eectiveness at
protecting water quality (or a detailed review see Endicott 2008).However, they also bring to light several signifcant problems withMP evaluation (outlined below). These problems make quantita-ve BMP eectiveness studies difcult, and call into question thefcacy o using BMPs as the sole method or regulating sedimentelivery rom orest roads.
Most BMP eectiveness studies are limited in duration and likely do not encompassarge-scale events, such as signifcant storms or oods. Thus, a study would have di-culty predicting how BMPs will hold up under such stressul conditions. Conversely, i aMP study does coincide with a large-scale event, it may underestimate BMP eective-
ess (Turton et al. 2009; Anderson and Lockaby 2011b).
Most BMPs do not take the spatial scale o a watershed into consideration. Head-waters or smaller streams may be more sensitive to sedimentation than areas urtherownstream, or larger watersheds. The amount o sediment delivery that a stream canandle is likely a unction o watershed size and scale, but most BMPs do not reectuch actors (Anderson and Lockaby 2011a).
ew BMP eectiveness studies make a defnitive correlation between erosion rate andediment delivery. Although studies oten measure erosion rates, this is not necessarilyndicative o sediment delivery, as not all eroded material ends up in the stream. Thismakes it difcult to draw defnite correlations between erosion and water quality (An-erson and Lockaby 2011a).
MP programs overwhelmingly ail to consider the cumulative impacts o sedimentationrom various sources across a single watershed. Cumulative impacts are typically largern areas that are urther downstream, have a high density o roads, have more orestryctivity, or have a greater percentage o older roads. BMP programs consider these
actors separately, but not cumulatively. Thus, the total impact to a watershed might gonmeasured (Endicott 2008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011b).
n some cases installing the proper BMPs is simply not easible due to severely degrad-d road conditions or other practicality issues. As a result, a less-than-ideal substituteMP is oten implemented. This makes assessing eectiveness difcult, as it orces theesearcher to evaluate a less-than-adequate practice (Turton et al. 2009).
Silt fences (BMPs) are temporarily placaround streams as protection from excsediment during and after constructionprojects. Photo by WCPR, Siuslaw N
onclsion
The goal o orest road BMPs is to reduce water quality impacts. While implementationrates are generally high, this does not necessarily mean that they are truly eective atprotecting water quality. There is a lack o quantitative research and the research that hasbeen done has brought to light signifcant difculties in the evaluation process.
BMPs continue to be an important tool or protecting our water. This makes it vital to collectmore empirical data on their eectiveness. Until then, it will be difcult to measure how wellBMPs are protecting the quality o water in our orested lands.
— Drew Lefebvre is an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Mon- tana. Her focus is on environmental education.
To see Drew’s very cool presentation that accompanies this paper, click here and be sureto use the arrows to move through the presentation.
ITRTR CITdAnderson, C.J., and B.G. Lockaby. 2011a. The effectiveness of forestry best management practices for
sediment control in the southeastern United States: a literature review. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 35(4), 170-177.
Anderson, C.J., and B.G. Lockaby. 2011b. Research gaps related to forest management and streamsediment in the United States. Environmental Management, 47, 303-313.
Grace, J.M., and B.D. Clinton. 2007. Protecting Soil and Water in Forest Road Management. USDAForest Service/UNL Faculty Publications, Paper 58.
Endicott, D. 2008. National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roadsand Their Prevention by Best Management Practices. Great Lakes Environmental Center. TraverseCity, MI.
Helms, J.A. (ed.). 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.Ice, G., L. Dent, J. Robben, P. Cafferata, J. Light, B. Sugden, and T. Cundy. 2004. Programs assessing
implementation and effectiveness of state forest practice rules and BMPs in the west. Water, Air,and Soil Pollution: Focus, 4, 143-169.
Nelson, N., T. Black, C. Luce, and R. Cissel. Legacy Roads And Trails Monitoring Project Update.2012. Unpublished report by the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 5p. http://
www.fs.fed.us/GRAIP/downloads/case_studies/2012LegacyRoadsMonitoringProjectUpdate.pdfSugden, B.D., R. Ethridge, G. Mathieus, P.E.W. Heffernan, G. Frank, and G. Sanders. 2012. Mon-
tana’s forestry best management practices program: 20 years of continuous improvement. Journal of Forestry, 110(6), 328-336.
Turton, D.J., M.D. Smolen, E. and E. Stebler. 2009. Effectiveness of BMPs in reducing sediment fromunpaved roads in the Stillwater Creek, Oklahoma watershed. Journal of the American Water Re- sources Association, 45(6), 1343-1351.
USDA Forest Service. 2002. Investigating Water Quality In The Pacic Southwest Region: Best Manage-ment Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) User’s Guide. USDA Forest Service Pacic SouthwestRegion; Vallejo, California.
Walder, B. 2011. Depaving the Way: Logging roads and clean water don’t mix. Road RIPorter, 16(2).
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/road-riporter/depaving-way-logging-roads-and-clean-water-don’t-mix Wang, J. and W.A. Godd. 2008. Application and effectiveness of forestry best management practices
in West Virginia. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 25 (1): 32-37.
In 2005, the Forest Service revised its Travel Man-agement Rule, which governs how the agency
manages o-road vehicle use on national orestands. The Forest Service recognized that its previ-us rule had become outdated and was not sufcient
o control o-road vehicle use in a manner that pro-ected natural resources and other recreation users.he agency also recognized that its prior rule waspplied inconsistently across orests, and wanted more consistent approach that would be appliedn all national orests. The Forest Service reviseds rule so that each national orest was required toesignate the roads, trails, and areas that would bepen to o-road vehicle use, and prohibit use every-
where else. However, the rule had a glaring exemp-on or snowmobiles that allowed the Forest Service
o ignore snowmobile use in its travel planning. Thisxemption was the subject o a lawsuit brought byWinter Wildlands Alliance in late 2011.
ike other o-road vehicle use, snowmobile usen national orest land has increased substantiallyver the past twenty years, and today’s machinesave become aster and more powerul. Advancesn snowmobile technology allow them to travel atigher speeds and go arther o-trail into the back-ountry, creating more widespread impacts to wild-e, air quality, water quality, and other resources.his intrusion into the backcountry also disrupts the
xperience o non-motorized winter recreation usersuch as backcountry skiers and snowshoers. In line
with the increase in snowmobile use and technology,here has been a signifcant increase in the number conicts arising between snowmobiles and non-
motorized recreation users on national orests in theWest.
On behal o olks who desire quiet, clean, non-motorized winter recreatioperiences, Winter Wildlands Alliance repeatedly urged the Forest Servicinclude snowmobiles in the new Travel Management Rule both beore and the agency issued the rule. In 2010, Winter Wildlands and 89 other gr
sent a petition to the Forest Service asking the agency to revise the rule soit included mandatory management o snowmobile use. However, the agreused. Having exhausted its options with the Forest Service, Winter Wildlsued in Federal District Court in Idaho, represented by Advocates or the WIn March 2013, the District Court ruled in avor o Winter Wildlands Alliand threw out the Travel Management Rule’s snowmobile exemption.
In a victory for quiet recreation, the Court held that snowmobile routes & use must undergtravel planning process. Photo by Dan Funsch.
he Court based its ruling on the language o a long-standing Executive OrderE.O.) that deals with o-road vehicle use on ederal lands. As the Court noted,xecutive Order 11644, issued by President Nixon in 1972, directed the Forestervice to “establish policies and provide or procedures that will ensure that these o o-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to
protect the resources o those lands, to promote the saety o all users o those
ands, and to minimize conicts among the various uses o those lands.” Thexecutive Order defned o-road vehicle as any motorized vehicle designed orr capable o cross-country travel, including travel over snow or ice. And under.O. 11644, the Forest Service was required to develop regulations to provideor the administrative designation o the specifc areas and trails on public landsn which o-road vehicle use may be permitted and areas where o-road vehiclese may not be permitted. The Forest Service was also required to set a date
by which designation o all public lands would be completed. Finally, the des-gnation o areas and trails had to be based on protecting resources, promotinghe saety o all users, and minimizing conicts among various uses o nationalorests.
he Court ruled that the snowmobile exemption in the 2005 Travel Management
ule violated E.O. 11644. The Court held that the exemption was contrary tohe language, object, and policy o the Executive Order. Ater noting that E.O.1644 required the agency to issue regulations designating areas and trails o
he public lands that are open to o-road vehicle use and areas that are closedo it, the Court stated that the Forest Service met that requirement or other types o-road vehicles but then “contends in a sideways twist o logic that it is notequired to issue such regulations as to over-snow vehicles.” By making the des-gnation o areas open or closed to snowmobile use completely discretionary, theorest Service ran aoul o the requirements in E.O. 11644.
The Court concluded that:
The Executive Order atly requires the Forest Service to “ensure” that o-road vehicleuse “will be controlled and directed[.]”Exec. Order 11644, § 1. The Forest Service lands must be evaluated and designated. While the actual designations o useand non-use may occur at the individual orest level, the Executive Order requires theForest Service to ensure that all orest landsare designated or all o-road vehicles. The2005 Rule ails to do this with respect to[over-snow vehicles], and thereore ails tocomply with Executive Order 11644.
nowmobiles have become fast, powerful machines capable of travel- ng to remote backcountry areas. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land
Management.
The District Court ruled that snowmobiles were subject to President Nixon’s Executive Order 11644, signed i1972. Photo by CreativeGurl2012, via Flickr.
The Court ordered the Forest Service to issue a new rule within 180 days todesignate all national orest lands as either open or closed to snowmobile use.Ater a request rom the Forest Service to reconsider its deadline or a new rule,the Court agreed to a revised deadline o September 9, 2014. It remains to beseen whether the Forest Service appeals the District Court’s decision to the NinthCircuit Court o Appeals.
I this decision stands, it means every national orest will have to conduct travelplanning that includes snowmobile use to identiy what areas and trails are opento use and what areas are closed. Many orests have conducted travel planningor wheeled o-road vehicles and will now have to go back and do winter travelplanning or snowmobiles. Forests that have not completed their initial travelplans could include both summer and winter use within one plan. Regardless o how it is completed, this Court ruling will make regulation o snowmobile use onnational orest lands mandatory. Such regulation will have to take into accountprotection o resources, promotion o saety or users o the lands, and minimiza-tion o conicts between those users. This should help reduce impacts to wildlie,air quality, water quality and other resources and also reduce the conicts be-tween snowmobiles and non-motorized winter recreation users that continue to
escalate on our national orests.
— Laurie Rule is a Senior Staff Attorney for Advocates for the West, and has suc- cessfully litigated this and other cases to protect the wildlife and wildlife habitat of the Northern Rockies and the Sagebrush Sea.
— eal otes, cont’ —
Wildlife depend on secure winter habitat, and the Court’s ruling will help to provide it.Photo by Dan Funsch.
