The Road RIPorter

summer solstice 2013. Volume 18 No. 2

Restoration in Action
Wildlands CPR & The Wilderness Society Issue Special Report on Five Years of
Inside
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

Legacy Roads & Trails Accomplishments

Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org

Above, a recontoured road on the Gallatin National Forest, MT, photo by Wildlands CPR; photo at right by Kent Miller.

A Look Down the Trail

deep roots in restoration
By Bethanie Walder
P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

early 20 years ago I went on a field trip to Redwood National Park to see road removal in action. I was completely exhilarated watching excavator operators reshape the hillside back to near-original contours. We talked for a long time about their work, what theyd learned and why road reclamation was so important. One operator made a comment Ive never forgotten about how they often had to knock down trees to recontour the roads. He told me that if he drove his bulldozer into a redwood growing in an old road bed, even a 50-year old tree, the tree would fall over with minimal pressure. He then said that if he drove into a similar-sized, similar-aged redwood growing in natural ground, and tapped it the same way, his machine would bounce backward and the tree would stand tall. From their experience, he and his colleagues knew that redwood trees growing in old roadbeds were clearly susceptible to toppling in storms. But no one had gone out and systematically studied why. No one, that is, until former Wildlands CPR Board member Rebecca Lloyd did just such an analysis on road reclamation on the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. In March, Becca published her first paper from her PhD research (which is built on her ten years running the Nez Perce Tribes road reclamation program on the Powell Ranger District of the Clearwater). The paper, Influence of road decommissioning on forest ecosystem recovery was published this spring in Frontiers in Ecology and it explores the impacts of restoration in a bold new way looking at both belowground and aboveground ecosystem recovery as a result of specific restoration treatments. Beccas unique approach is applicable to a broad range of treatments and could have a significant impact on practices (and ideally on restoration decisions) in the future.

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by promoting watershed restoration that improves fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and enhances community economies. We focus on reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.

Director Bethanie Walder

Science Program Director Adam Switalski

Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney Sarah Peters Policy Specialist Adam Rissien Washington/Oregon Field Coordinator Marlies Wierenga Development and Outreach Coordinator Grace Brogan Journal Editor Dan Funsch Board of Directors Susan Jane Brown, Dave Heller, Marion Hourdequin, Crystal Mario, Kathi Nickel, Brett Paben, Jack Tuholske

continued on next page

Like a Bitterroot trying to establish an anchor in parched soil, trees struggle to sink deep roots on abandoned but not fully restored roads. Photo by Dan Funsch.

2013 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

down the trail

In her research, Becca compared fully recontoured roads, abandoned roads, and natural, undisturbed reference areas. The results are astonishing, and they explain why a 50-year old tree growing on an abandoned road bed is so weak. Her study found that roots were constrained to the top 15 centimeters of the soil layer on abandoned roads, whereas rooting depth went beyond the 60-75 cm soil pits she dug on both recontoured roads and neverroaded reference areas. Roots that only go 15 cm deep will seriously compromise the stability of trees, and theyll fall over if tapped by heavy equipment, or more naturally, a heavy windstorm. But this paper applies to far more questions than rooting depth. From an aboveground perspective, Beccas research showed nothing particularly new. Belowground, however, recontoured roads were much more similar to the reference areas than abandoned roads. Whats important

, contd
system processes, accelerating the recovery of these forest ecosystems by decades to millennia. This innovative and ground-breaking study has significant implications for restoration policy. While all public land managers are assessing restoration needs for the lands they manage, the Forest Service has a particularly large and problematic road system. This legacy of old logging roads is degrading forest lands, dumping sediment into rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs, and fragmenting fish and wildlife habitat. With limited funding, unneeded roads are often simply abandoned, but this new research shows how this fails to result in effective restoration. Fully reclaiming and recontouring unneeded forest roads should be a core component of the agencys recently adopted accelerated restoration plan. Hopefully, the paper will provide the impetus for policy incentives, management directives, and sufficient funding to implement this vital work.

however, is what these belowground differences mean for restoration. Recontouring sets the land on a trajectory towards the undisturbed reference site, whereas abandoned roads are set on a completely different recovery trajectory. So while things may look similar aboveground, they are not functioning the same belowground and over time that difference will become profound. The major differences she found in soil carbon and nitrogen content, water infiltration, rooting depth, and other factors illustrate the importance of full recontouring as a restoration tool influencing water flow, vegetation, and even potentially providing important carbon sequestration opportunities. Becca concludes by not only talking about the potential importance of recontouring as a climate change tool, but also with the following: recontouring may be the only way to restore both above- and belowground eco-

An old road properly removed and recontoured in Redwood State Park (CA). Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

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
he Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program (Legacy Roads and Trails) is a cornerstone of watershed restoration in our National Forests. Created to fix environmental problems resulting from the Forest Services extensive road and trail system, Legacy Roads and Trails has reduced stream pollution, restored fish and wildlife habitat, created jobs, and improved essential roads to ensure safe access. Legacy Roads and Trails has been a success from the start; it is smartly and efficiently managed, and achieves on-the-ground results in real time. Since its inception in 2008, Congress has appropriated $270 million to Legacy Roads and Trails. With these funds, the Forest Service has: Decommissioned 4,510 miles of unneeded roads to reconnect habitat and greatly reduce the delivery of sediment to streams; Maintained and/or storm-proofed 12,053 miles of needed roads to increase their ability to stand-up during powerful storms and ensure safe access; Restored fish passage at 823 sites to provide fish and other aquatic species access to more than 1,000 miles of upstream habitat; Upgraded or fixed 3,215 miles of trails to guarantee recreationists can safely use the areas they love; Created or maintained an average of 810-1,296 jobs annually; and Reduced annual road maintenance costs by approximately $3 million per year. Legacy Roads and Trails was created specifically to provide crucial resources to fix and storm-proof the roads we need, and to reclaim unneeded roads causing the most damage. The Legacy Roads and Trails program is a proven tool that: Restores clean water and healthy fisheries, and reconnects fragmented wildlife habitat; Saves taxpayer money and creates high-wage jobs; Ensures safe and reliable access for recreation and resource management; and Enjoys broad support by a wide variety of partners. This report highlights Legacy Roads and Trails accomplishments during its first five years. It provides a general accounting of appropriated funds and spotlights a sampling of projects from across the country. As illustrated here, Legacy Roads and Trails is a mission-critical program for the Forest Service that deserves continued investment.

Editors Note: This story is exerpted from the full report, available online by clicking here.

Photo credit: USFS

Photo credit: USFWS

continued on next page

Photo credit: USFS

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

restoration in action

, contd

Overview of the Legacy Roads and Trails Program

he National Forest System stretches from Florida to Alaska and consists of 155 individual National Forests and Grasslands. Forest Service lands are crisscrossed by an astounding 374,000 miles of road more than eight times as many road miles as the national highway system. Many of these roads are often referred to as legacy roads that is, roads left on the landscape after decades of intensive logging. Some of these old roads are used today for recreational access and resource management while many others sit unneeded, unused and under-maintained a growing ecological and fiscal liability. Legacy Roads and Trails was created in FY 2008 to restore watersheds damaged by decaying roads. It funds decommissioning of unneeded roads, critical repair and maintenance on the roads and trails we do need, and projects to restore fish passage where streams cross underneath roads. Legacy Roads and Trails reduces environmental harm and long-term costs, while creating high-wage jobs and securing safe and reliable access to our national forests. With growth in outdoor recreation, hikers, hunters, fishermen, bikers, and campers rely on a small portion of the road system to access recreational destinations. This access is not assured, however, as roads continue to crumble, creating unsafe conditions or even blocking access entirely. The public rightfully expects that important recreational roads will be maintained; the Forest Service also needs access for resource management, including restoration and fire control. A safe and durable transportation system -- sized, located, and maintained appropriately to reduce risks to people, water, and forest resources -- is essential.

Photo credit: Wildlands CPR

Culverts are placed in road beds so that streams can flow under the roads. Many are damaged or too small and need to be replaced.

Funding History
Legacy Roads and Trails is funded as part of overall Forest Service appropriations as determined annually by Congress. Over the past five years, Congress has appropriated a total of $270 million to this program.
Fiscal Year Funds Appropriated (millions dollars)
$ 40 $ 50 $ 90 $ 45 $ 45

Photo credit: USFS

Roads that encroach on stream channels damage aquatic habitats and processes.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

continued on next page If we dont fix our roads were going to drink our roads. Congressman Norm Dicks Representing Washingtons 6th District, May 2007

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

restoration in action

, contd

The Challenge of Legacy Roads in National Forests

In the past, many logging roads were designed for temporary use, and often they were not well-planned or well-constructed. Roads were placed in floodplains, along steep slopes, and through wildlife habitat. Sometimes roads were densely stacked - in parallel lines - one atop the next. Once logging was complete, the roads were typically left on the landscape. Historically, the Forest Service had funds to build and maintain roads, but as timber harvests declined, so too did road maintenance funding. At this point in time, the Forest Service is able to maintain or improve only about 20% of its road system in any given year. The bulk of that funding goes towards passenger vehicle roads, which are most important for access. When roads are not maintained or under-maintained, culverts become clogged with debris, landslides occur, bridges weaken, and roads wash out. Large amounts of sediment pour into what used to be clear mountain streams, suffocating fish and burying stream channels. Hazards, such as washouts, pose serious safety risks to those driving on forest roads, at times even making access impossible.

The consequences of unmaintained roads are surprisingly severe and far-reaching:

Decaying roads break apart and dump sediment into streams polluting water, endangering fish, and reducing fishing opportunities.
Photo credit: Dave Heller

Road-related sediment degrades drinking water and increases municipal water treatment costs.

Roads fragment habitat and reduce the vitality of deer and elk herds and related hunting opportunities.

Roads help spread non-native pests, pathogens and weeds.

Photo credit: USFS

Collapsing roads cut-off access to trailheads, campgrounds and other popular recreational destinations.

Under-maintained roads fail, costing taxpayers millions in mitigation and restoration costs.

continued on next page

Photo credit: USFS

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

restoration in action

, contd

National Accomplishments

egacy Roads and Trails accomplishments begin with numbers for example, miles of roads reclaimed or maintained. But the achievements go far beyond these numbers to reach the ultimate objective watershed restoration and sustainable transportation. Replacing nearly one thousand blocked culverts means fish can now access habitat that was unreachable a few years ago. Improving and maintaining more than ten thousand miles of roads means the access to popular trails, camping sites, and fishing holes is safer. Reclaiming more than 4,000 miles of roads means wildlife can migrate more freely and rivers and streams run with cleaner, colder water. These accomplishments are significant and the beginning of an essential national investment to correct environmental and infrastructure problems created over the past century.
unit sediment delivery drainpoint up 94% problem rate road-stream up 50% hydrologic connectivity up 33%

Outcomes
Clean Water and Healthy Streams
Initial Forest Service monitoring shows that Legacy Roads and Trails treatments are highly effective at reducing hydrologic impacts. The Rocky Mountain Research Station is in the middle of a multi-year analysis of the responses of treated and untreated roads to large storms. The study assessed 60 km of decommissioned roads and found significant benefits, as displayed in the figure at right.

untreated roads after storms

Restored Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Legacy Roads and Trails projects have resulted in: 1,030 miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced; 243 acres of lake habitat restored or enhanced; 177,233 acres of terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced; 27,193 acres of water or soil resources protected, maintained, or improved; 2,114 acres treated for noxious weeds and invasive plants; and 823 stream crossings fixed to allow fish to swim upstream.

treated roads after storms

drainpoint road-stream problem rate hydrologic down 38% connectivity down 44%

Definition of Terms
unit sediment delivery down 80% A hydrologically connected road means that the road is part of the stream network. Rainfall is intercepted by road surfaces and cut slopes, and delivered to the stream, instead of infiltrating naturally. A drain point is a location where water collects and drains from a road. Poorly placed or ineffective drain points can lead to road failures. Unit sediment delivery refers to the amount of sediment delivered to a stream per length of road per year.

Roads Decommissioned, Trails Improved, Fish Passage Restored

4,144 3,035
Note: This figure is not to scale.

Key
Roads & Trails Improved (miles) Roads Decommissioned (miles) 531 180 3,077

1,509

2,799 2,113 960 581 143

929 163 2009

262

Fish Passage Restored (# of sites)

75 2012

continued on next page

2008

2010

2011

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

restoration in action

, contd
An estimate of jobs created nationally as a result of the LRT program, 2008-2012
Funds Appropriated (millions) $39
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 low estimate high estimate

Outcomes, contd
More Jobs
A 2011 University of Oregon study found that every $1 million invested in watershed restoration work creates 15-24 jobs. With $270 million appropriated so far, the Legacy Roads and Trails Program has averaged $54 million per year, creating or maintaining between 810 and 1,296 high wage jobs per year for heavy equipment operators and a variety of restoration specialists.

$50

$90

$45

$45

Taxpayer Savings
Regular maintenance, improvements, and storm-proofing reduce storm damage to roads, saving taxpayer money. Moreover, reclaiming unneeded roads eliminates future maintenance and environmental costs. The Forest Service estimates that Legacy Roads and Trails work has saved: ~$3 million per year in annual road maintenance, and ~$17 million from the deferred maintenance backlog.

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Consistent and Safe Access

Legacy Roads and Trails helps maintain needed roads and trails for both resource management and recreational access. With these funds, the Forest Service has: Constructed (or reconstructed) 123 bridges; Maintained or improved 3,215 miles of system trails; Improved 3,634 miles of roads; and Maintained 8,418 miles of roads.

Editors Note: Download the full report to see the Regional Case Studies, listings of Legacy Partners, and more! Its available by clicking here.

Legacy Roads and Trails Accomplishments by Forest Service Region, FY 2008 FY 2012
Region and % of system road miles Northern (1)* 14% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Rocky Mountain (2) 9% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Southwestern (3)* 12% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Intermountain (4)* 10% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Pacific SW (5) 12% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Totals Region and % of system road miles Pacific NW (6) 24% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Southern (8) 10% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Eastern (9) 7% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Alaska (10) 1% Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) TOTALS Roads decommissioned (miles) Roads/trails improved or maintained (miles) Culverts fixed (number) Totals

990 2,451 161

825 4,837 67

716 899 61

368 1,854 46

139 541 13

145 961 101

1,156 720 66

71 662 300 4,510 15,267 823

100 2,342 8

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

Policy Primer
New Processes For Challenging Forest Service Projects Take Effect
By Rocky Smith

y publication in the March 27 Federal Register, the Forest Service has put into effect two new processes for 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 than appeal an already approved project. Previously, pre-decisional challenges were only allowed for HFRA projects. Activists familiar with appeals or HFRA objections should not have difficulty learning and using the new processes, which are found at 36 CFR Part 218. However, there are a few key changes with which activists might be unfamiliar, described below. You can dowload the CFR directly from the web.

Applicability
The new processes apply to all projects documented in either an EA or EIS that implement a national forest or grassland land management plan. Projects documented with a categorical exclusion can still be challenged under the old appeals process (36 CFR 215). The new processes do not apply to plan amendments, as these challenges are addressed separately under the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219 subpart B). The new processes do not apply to forest plan amendments except when an amendment applies only to a project which is subject to objection.

Notices of Comment and Objection Periods

The newspaper(s) of record is (are) the official means of notification of the start of comment and objection periods. However, within four calendar days, the agency must also post this notice and its publication date on a website, making it easy to determine deadlines for comments and objections.

It used to be that citizens challenging Forest Service timber harvest could file an Administrative Appeal of the agencys decision. Under the revised rules, challenges must now come prior to those decisions. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

Policy Primer, contd

Establishing Standing/Comment Content
To be able to object to a proposed project or activity (ie. to have standing), one must first comment during an official comment period, which runs for 30 days beginning the day after the official notice for projects documented in an EA, and at least 45 days for projects documented with an EIS. The 30-day comment period for an EA cannot be extended. Commenting during any official comment period is sufficient to establish standing to later file an objection. However, late comments will not be accepted. See section 218.9 for specific filing requirements. It is the commentors responsibility to ensure timeliness, which is determined by: postmark for postal mail; shipping date for delivery by private carrier; date and time stamp for faxed comments; or date and time of receipt for electronically filed comments. For electronically filed comments, you should receive a receipt by e-mail indicating the agency has received your comments. But if not, you may also want to file your comments by another medium such as certified postal mail, return receipt requested. For projects documented with an EA, the only official opportunity for comment is often at the scoping stage. This is a significant and highly problematic change, because it does not require the Forest Service to accept comments on a proposed projects EA prior to the start of the objection period. For projects documented in an EIS, there will be two opportunities to comment scoping and the draft EIS. Comments must be specific and detailed enough to explain your concerns with the proposed project or activity. Oral comments (made to, say, the project leader) will no longer qualify you for a subsequent objection. It is very important to raise all issues of concern in your comment letter(s), because you can object based only on those issues you raise during the official comment period. Comments should be as specific as possible, and should cover all issues of interest. For this reason, all comments, general and specific, should include any potential issues of non-compliance with laws, regulations, and policies, and any contradiction with credible science or failure to use such science. The only exception to the requirement to raise specific issues applies when the agency alters a proposed action or preferred alternative after the close of the last comment period and, therefore, comments could not have been submitted prior to the objection opportunity. These changes could then be challenged for the first time in an objection, but be prepared to make the argument in your objection that the issue could not have been raised previously. When the agency makes changes in response to an objection, there is no provision in the regulation for how the agency will deal with these situations. The agency could re-issue a new proposed decision, along with a new opportunity to object. However, this seems unlikely in most cases, and if the agency moves forward and implements the modified decision with no new objection period, the only way to challenge the new decision will be through litigation.

Filing Objections
Objections for HFRA projects must be filed within 30 days of the notice of the proposed project decision, and within 45 days for non-HFRA projects. As with comments, it is the objectors responsibility to ensure timely submission. See Establishing Standing above. Objections must include basic information found at 218.8(d), and also describe the problems with the proposed project, including any violations of law regulation, and policy, if applicable. Supporting reasons for your contentions must be provided, ie. you need to support your arguments with relevant facts, and could also include scientific papers or photographs of the area supporting your assertions.
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.

continued on next page

10

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

Policy Primer, contd

One important difference from the old appeal regulations is that objectors must also suggest remedies that would resolve the objection issues. These can be simple, like the following examples: postpone project until preparation and public comment on a more complete cumulative effects analysis; remove units 1, 5, and 7 from the proposed timber sale; or retain more snags for species x, as recommended by (cite science). You also must show that issues in your objection are ones you previously raised in comments. Do this by putting a statement somewhere in each objection argument that states: We addressed this issue in section ___ (or p. ___) in our comments dated ___. If the issue was not raised in previous comments, make the argument as to why that was impossible (ie. a new trail was added to the project or a sensitive species was discovered in the project area).

Incorporation by Reference is Mostly Prohibited

The rule prohibits incorporating documents by reference in objections, except for the following: all or any part of a Federal law or regulation, Forest Service directives and land management plans, documents referenced by the Forest Service in the EA or EIS for the proposed project, and official comments previously submitted by the objector(s). For example, if you want the Forest Service to consider a scientific paper before ruling on your objection, you must include the paper with the objection. An internet citation is not sufficient.

Dont like the Forest Services proposal? Your challenge must also include a proposed remedy. Photo courtesy of U.S. Forest Service.

Emergency Situations
The Chief of the Forest Service may declare that an emergency situation exists. In these cases, there is no objection process for such projects. However, the agency must still accept comments.

Objection Decisions
If you do not resolve your objection, the reviewing officer must issue a decision within 30 days of the close of the objection period for HFRA projects, or 45 days for non-HFRA projects. The reviewing officer can extend the time for a decision by an additional 30 days.

Meetings to Resolve Objections

Another change from the appeal regulations is that the Forest Service does not have to offer a resolution meeting. The reviewing officer (the one who decides the objection) may hold a meeting with objectors to try to settle objections. Objectors can request such meetings, but the reviewing officer does not have to grant the request. Similarly, objectors are not obligated to attend meetings requested by the reviewing officer, but it may be worthwhile if you think you have a chance of resolving all or part of your objection. Typically, though, such meetings are fruitless because the Forest Service has no incentive to negotiate.

Effective Dates
The new rule is effective immediately for projects with scoping initiated on or after March 27, 2013. For projects whose public involvement processes commenced earlier, applicability of the new rule depends on various factors. See 36 CFR 218.16. These new rules are significantly different from the former appeals process concerned citizens must learn new tools and methods for challenging bad projects. That said, the appeals process was often just a temporary stop on the way to court, which may end up being the case with these challenges as well. Rocky Smith has examined Forest Service projects, plans, policies, and regulations for over 30 years on behalf of the environmental community. He can be reached at: 2rockwsmith@gmail.com.

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

11

Bibliography Notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 20,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads.

Forest Roads and Stream Sedimentation:

How Effective are Best Management Practices at Mitigating Water Pollution?
By Drew Lefebvre t has been well documented that forest roads are a major source of erosion and sediment delivery to streams nationwide (Grace and Clinton 2007; Endicott 2008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011a and 2011b). Roads interfere with natural drainage patterns and alter streamflows because they intercept, concentrate, and divert flows of water. They expose bare ground, alter soil structure, and often require steep sideslopes, resulting in increased erosion. Additionally, they are subject to the recurring disturbances of traffic and maintenance operations, which mobilize fine sediment (Endicott 2008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011a). When roads approach or cross streams and other waterways, these factors contribute to increased levels of stream sedimentation. Although roads typically occupy a small percentage of a watersheds total area, they contribute a disproportionately high percentage of sediment to a stream. Likewise, it is often a small percentage of a given roads area or length (a problem section) that is responsible for a disproportionately large amount of sediment delivery (Endicott 2008; Nelson et al. 2012). Additionally, a larger amount of sediment in streams has been correlated with a higher density of forest roads in a given watershed (Anderson and Lockaby 2011a).

Historically, under the Clean Water Act, forest roads have been treated as sources of non-point pollution. This means that, rather than going through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process for point sources, stormwater runoff from forest roads is handled through the use of Best Management Practices, or BMPs (Endicott 2008). BMPs are composed of a broad suite of treatments or activities implemented to reduce water pollution and keep pollutant levels within environmental quality goals (Helms 1998). Ideally, forest road BMPs should reduce erosion and sediment delivery, thereby reducing water quality impacts. In many regulatory programs, it is assumed that if BMPs are implemented, then water quality is protected. However, little quantitative research has been done in this area, and it is unclear just how effective BMPs truly are at protecting water quality. This article highlights some of the problems inherent in evaluating the effectiveness of forest road BMPs.

continued on next page

Weed free hay is often used as a BMP when roads are ripped to reduce surface erosion. Photo by USFS, Mt. Baker Snoqualmie NF.

12

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

Biblio Notes, contd

Best Management Practices: An Overview

Runoff from forest roads is not regulated on a national level. Instead, individual states follow their own guidelines for the protection of water quality through state water quality standards, forest practice regulations, and other guidelines (Ice et al. 2004). These guidelines include BMPs, encompassing a wide range of principles, regulations, and practices designed to reduce impacts to water quality. Though they differ from state to state, most forest road BMPs are based on a relatively small number of guiding principles, many of which relate to initial road construction (Endicott 2008): Identify and avoid areas subject to high erosion. Disturb a minimal amount of the landscape. Use road surfaces, drainage features, and stream crossings with high stability and erosion resistance. Use a forested buffer zone, which excludes roads and minimizes water crossings, to separate areas of bare ground from water. Minimize the amount of sediment that is delivered to water. Design stream crossings to allow fish 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.

Implementing BMPs
BMPs are implemented differently from state to state. Some states employ mandatory BMP programs, while others are voluntary. Most states have evaluation systems in place to monitor implementation rates of BMPs. These typically consist of state-run audits using visual cues or surveys, the majority of which report high levels of implementation (Anderson and Lockaby 2011a and 2011b; Sugden et al. 2012). However, implementation does not necessarily mean correct application. Further, correct application of BMPs does not necessarily mean that they meet their objective, namely, reducing impacts to water quality. In order to fully understand the effectiveness of BMPs for forest roads, we need to look at scientific studies that provide quantitative data by analyzing sites both with and without BMPs. Unfortunately, this is an area that has, to date, garnered very little research. The Forest Service has developed monitoring protocols for evaluating BMP effectiveness (USDA Forest Service 2002), but only a handful of peer-reviewed, published studies have comparatively and scientifically assessed the effectiveness of BMPs for forest roads (e.g., Ice et al. 2004; Endicott 2008; Wang and Goff 2008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011a and 2011b). The few quantitative studies that have been done do show some effectiveness at protecting water quality (for a detailed review see Endicott 2008). However, they also bring to light several significant problems with BMP evaluation (outlined below). These problems make quantitative BMP effectiveness studies difficult, and call into question the efficacy of using BMPs as the sole method for regulating sediment delivery from forest roads.

Road was moved out of the floodplain to maintain access and reduce impacts to fish habitat. The new road is crowned with ditches to promote effective drainage. Photo by USFS, Okanogan-Wenatchee NF.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

13

Biblio Notes, contd

Difficulties in Assessing BMP Effectiveness

Most BMP effectiveness studies are limited in duration and likely do not encompass large-scale events, such as significant storms or floods. Thus, a study would have difficulty predicting how BMPs will hold up under such stressful conditions. Conversely, if a BMP study does coincide with a large-scale event, it may underestimate BMP effectiveness (Turton et al. 2009; Anderson and Lockaby 2011b). Most BMPs do not take the spatial scale of a watershed into consideration. Headwaters or smaller streams may be more sensitive to sedimentation than areas further downstream, or larger watersheds. The amount of sediment delivery that a stream can handle is likely a function of watershed size and scale, but most BMPs do not reflect such factors (Anderson and Lockaby 2011a). Few BMP effectiveness studies make a definitive correlation between erosion rate and sediment delivery. Although studies often measure erosion rates, this is not necessarily indicative of sediment delivery, as not all eroded material ends up in the stream. This makes it difficult to draw definite correlations between erosion and water quality (Anderson and Lockaby 2011a). BMP programs overwhelmingly fail to consider the cumulative impacts of sedimentation from various sources across a single watershed. Cumulative impacts are typically larger in areas that are further downstream, have a high density of roads, have more forestry activity, or have a greater percentage of older roads. BMP programs consider these factors separately, but not cumulatively. Thus, the total impact to a watershed might go unmeasured (Endicott 2008; Anderson and Lockaby 2011b). In some cases installing the proper BMPs is simply not feasible due to severely degraded road conditions or other practicality issues. As a result, a less-than-ideal substitute BMP is often implemented. This makes assessing effectiveness difficult, as it forces the researcher to evaluate a less-than-adequate practice (Turton et al. 2009).
Silt fences (BMPs) are temporarily placed around streams as protection from excess sediment during and after construction projects. Photo by WCPR, Siuslaw NF.

Conclusion
The goal of forest road BMPs is to reduce water quality impacts. While implementation rates are generally high, this does not necessarily mean that they are truly effective at protecting water quality. There is a lack of quantitative research and the research that has been done has brought to light significant difficulties in the evaluation process. BMPs continue to be an important tool for protecting our water. This makes it vital to collect more empirical data on their effectiveness. Until then, it will be difficult to measure how well BMPs are protecting the quality of water in our forested lands. Drew Lefebvre is an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Montana. Her focus is on environmental education. To see Drews very cool presentation that accompanies this paper, click here and be sure to use the arrows to move through the presentation.

References on next page

14

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

Biblio Notes, contd

Literature Cited
Anderson, 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 stream sediment 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. USDA Forest Service/UNL Faculty Publications, Paper 58. Endicott, D. 2008. National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices. Great Lakes Environmental Center. Traverse City, 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.pdf Sugden, B.D., R. Ethridge, G. Mathieus, P.E.W. Heffernan, G. Frank, and G. Sanders. 2012. Montanas 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 from unpaved roads in the Stillwater Creek, Oklahoma watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(6), 1343-1351. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Investigating Water Quality In The Pacific Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) Users Guide. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region; Vallejo, California. Walder, B. 2011. Depaving the Way: Logging roads and clean water dont mix. Road RIPorter, 16(2). http://www.wildlandscpr.org/road-riporter/depaving-way-logging-roads-and-clean-water-dont-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.

Photos by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

15

Legal Notes
Court Overturns Snowmobile Loophole in Forest Service Travel Management Rule
By Laurie Rule, Advocates for the West

n 2005, the Forest Service revised its Travel Management Rule, which governs how the agency manages off-road vehicle use on national forest lands. The Forest Service recognized that its previous rule had become outdated and was not sufficient to control off-road vehicle use in a manner that protected natural resources and other recreation users. The agency also recognized that its prior rule was applied inconsistently across forests, and wanted a more consistent approach that would be applied on all national forests. The Forest Service revised its rule so that each national forest was required to designate the roads, trails, and areas that would be open to off-road vehicle use, and prohibit use everywhere else. However, the rule had a glaring exemption for snowmobiles that allowed the Forest Service to ignore snowmobile use in its travel planning. This exemption was the subject of a lawsuit brought by Winter Wildlands Alliance in late 2011. Like other off-road vehicle use, snowmobile use on national forest land has increased substantially over the past twenty years, and todays machines have become faster and more powerful. Advances in snowmobile technology allow them to travel at higher speeds and go farther off-trail into the backcountry, creating more widespread impacts to wildlife, air quality, water quality, and other resources. This intrusion into the backcountry also disrupts the experience of non-motorized winter recreation users such as backcountry skiers and snowshoers. In line with the increase in snowmobile use and technology, there has been a significant increase in the number of conflicts arising between snowmobiles and nonmotorized recreation users on national forests in the West.
In a victory for quiet recreation, the Court held that snowmobile routes & use must undergo a travel planning process. Photo by Dan Funsch.

On behalf of folks who desire quiet, clean, non-motorized winter recreation experiences, Winter Wildlands Alliance repeatedly urged the Forest Service to include snowmobiles in the new Travel Management Rule both before and after the agency issued the rule. In 2010, Winter Wildlands and 89 other groups sent a petition to the Forest Service asking the agency to revise the rule so that it included mandatory management of snowmobile use. However, the agency refused. Having exhausted its options with the Forest Service, Winter Wildlands sued in Federal District Court in Idaho, represented by Advocates for the West. In March 2013, the District Court ruled in favor of Winter Wildlands Alliance and threw out the Travel Management Rules snowmobile exemption.

continued on next page

16

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

Legal Notes, contd

The Court based its ruling on the language of a long-standing Executive Order (E.O.) that deals with off-road vehicle use on federal lands. As the Court noted, Executive Order 11644, issued by President Nixon in 1972, directed the Forest Service to establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. The Executive Order defined off-road vehicle as any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel, including travel over snow or ice. And under E.O. 11644, the Forest Service was required to develop regulations to provide for the administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which off-road vehicle use may be permitted and areas where off-road vehicle use may not be permitted. The Forest Service was also required to set a date by which designation of all public lands would be completed. Finally, the designation of areas and trails had to be based on protecting resources, promoting the safety of all users, and minimizing conflicts among various uses of national forests. The Court ruled that the snowmobile exemption in the 2005 Travel Management Rule violated E.O. 11644. The Court held that the exemption was contrary to the language, object, and policy of the Executive Order. After noting that E.O. 11644 required the agency to issue regulations designating areas and trails of the public lands that are open to off-road vehicle use and areas that are closed to it, the Court stated that the Forest Service met that requirement for other types of off-road vehicles but then contends in a sideways twist of logic that it is not required to issue such regulations as to over-snow vehicles. By making the designation of areas open or closed to snowmobile use completely discretionary, the Forest Service ran afoul of the requirements in E.O. 11644.

The District Court ruled that snowmobiles were subject to President Nixons Executive Order 11644, signed in 1972. Photo by CreativeGurl2012, via Flickr.

The Court concluded that: The Executive Order flatly requires the Forest Service to ensure that off-road vehicle use will be controlled and directed[.] Exec. Order 11644, 1. The Forest Service lands must be evaluated and designated. While the actual designations of use and non-use may occur at the individual forest level, the Executive Order requires the Forest Service to ensure that all forest lands are designated for all off-road vehicles. The 2005 Rule fails to do this with respect to [over-snow vehicles], and therefore fails to comply with Executive Order 11644.

Snowmobiles have become fast, powerful machines capable of travelling to remote backcountry areas. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

17

Legal Notes, contd

Wildlife depend on secure winter habitat, and the Courts ruling will help to provide it. Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Court ordered the Forest Service to issue a new rule within 180 days to designate all national forest lands as either open or closed to snowmobile use. After a request from the Forest Service to reconsider its deadline for a new rule, the Court agreed to a revised deadline of September 9, 2014. It remains to be seen whether the Forest Service appeals the District Courts decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If this decision stands, it means every national forest will have to conduct travel planning that includes snowmobile use to identify what areas and trails are open to use and what areas are closed. Many forests have conducted travel planning for wheeled off-road vehicles and will now have to go back and do winter travel planning for snowmobiles. Forests that have not completed their initial travel plans could include both summer and winter use within one plan. Regardless of how it is completed, this Court ruling will make regulation of snowmobile use on national forest lands mandatory. Such regulation will have to take into account protection of resources, promotion of safety for users of the lands, and minimization of conflicts between those users. This should help reduce impacts to wildlife, air quality, water quality and other resources and also reduce the conflicts between snowmobiles and non-motorized winter recreation users that continue to escalate on our national forests. Laurie Rule is a Senior Staff Attorney for Advocates for the West, and has successfully litigated this and other cases to protect the wildlife and wildlife habitat of the Northern Rockies and the Sagebrush Sea.

18

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

Zion National Park in the spring. Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPorter, summer solstice 2013

19