Back to Three Forests Coalition Home

Gilbert, Barrie K. 2003. Motorized access on Montana's Rocky Mountain Front: a synthesis of scientific literature and recommendations for use in revision of the travel plan for the Rocky Mountain Division. The Coalition for the Protection of the Rocky Mountain Front. 35 pp. http://www.wildmontana.org/gilbertreport.pdf

RELEVANT TO:

GRASSLANDS/ SHRUBLANDS ROADS/OFF-ROAD VEHICLES INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

DESCRIPTION

This report presents a synthesis of scientific information and provides recommendations for use in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and Travel Plan for motorized access management in the Lewis and Clark National Forest (MT). The recommendations are based on peer-reviewed scientific publications, agency reports, and personal interviews with state and federal managers. However, this report does not address non-motorized travel impacts and is primarily concerned with impacts from ATVs, motorbikes, and snowmobiles. Information on impacts of these vehicles is limited to effects on selected wildlife and does not addresses soil and vegetation disturbance, weed dispersal or pollution and noise effects on the natural or human environment. Central to this report's proposal is a policy for restricted and zoned access -- a plan separating conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users by designating different uses among each of the 4 divisions of the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

MAJOR FINDINGS

1. Roads and other transportation features threaten archaeological and historic features, fragment wildlife habitat and degrade wildland recreational experiences. (p. 5)
2. Our public lands are experiencing unprecedented intrusion from motorized access provided by highways, secondary and logging roads and seismic lines, and proliferation of ATV's on trails in summer and snowmobiles in winter. (p. 5)
3. Currently what amounts to a massive unplanned and unexamined experiment is being carried out on our wild lands and vulnerable wildlife from vehicles on land, water and snow. (p. 5)
1. Motorized use is contrary to historic, cultural and spiritual uses and compromises all of them -- some irreparably (p. 3).
2. Motorized use also threatens transboundary ecosystem connectivity and integrity. (p. 2)
4. A multitude of scientific studies of impacts exist, sufficient to justify road closures and travel restrictions while maintaining reasonable access. (p. 5)
5. We are in a much more favorable position now to understand the biological basis for implementing specific management actions for protection of different species, especially for those evolutionary and ecological factors that cause certain species to be inherently vulnerable to disturbance impacts and even extinction. (p. 5)
6. Narrow, species-by-species planning can be expected to be divisive, may require elaborate detail on local conditions with attendant delays in implementation and has little likelihood of providing adequate habitat for viable populations across the landscape as required by federal law. (p. 6)
7. In spite of there never having been a systematic, experimental study of ORV impacts on any wildlife species (Graves 2002) impacts of motorized access and greater hunting pressure and other disturbances are well known. (p. 7)
8. Constant political pressure against restrictions on ORV access marks the conflict over protection of wildlife from known impacts of recreational vehicles. In travel planning, as with other natural resource planning, the management principle has been guided by a policy of free exploitation up to a point where a problem emerges ( Rosenberg 2003)(p. 7).
9. The impacts of motorized recreation on some species may be incompletely understood but the ultimate consequences for population viability from various types of human activity are well established. Whatever the effects of human intrusion are on disturbance of wildlife species they are magnified significantly by motorized travel in two ways.
1. First, the linear distance that a motorized vehicle can travel in an average day's outing is much longer because of the speed of the vehicle.
2. Second, the noise produced by motorized vehicles enlarges substantially the disturbance zone around the vehicle because its presence can be detected by wildlife. This is true for both wheeled and tracked vehicles.
10. A situation where special protection for sensitive wildlife, without full knowledge of reasons for decline, has been a traditional management objective is in National Wildlife Refuges. (p. 7)
11. Wildlife biologists and hunters had so much direct experience with declines and extinction that they did not hesitate to lobby for immediate national protection. (p. 7)
12. We may be in a similar era where rapid expansion and availability of motorized recreation calls for a whole new era of protection of terrestrial species and ecosystems. (p. 7)

QUESTIONS RAISED FOR THE THREE FORESTS

• What large scale (i.e., extending beyond the Forest boundary) scientific knowledge exists regarding wildlife migration patterns and core habitat areas?
• Have cumulative impacts of all forms of motorized recreation been studied on any or all of the Three Forests? At the scale of Wildlife Management units or larger?
• Is long term survival of wildlife populations a driving focus for planning?
• Is a broad based precautionary approach (i.e., opting in favor of wildlife in the midst of uncertainty regarding impacts) part of it?
• Is designation of core areas for species being considered?
• What are the status and timeline for travel planning? Is the Forest intending to design travel plans forestwide, or district-by-district?
• Are seasonal closures being considered? Do any exist at the present time?

RELEVANCE TO FOREST MANAGEMENT

• Motorized roads and routes must be managed as a cohesive, interconnected system imbedded in a landscape level conservation plan.
• With changes in vehicle technology and the large number of poorly-understood species affected by motorized recreation, the Travel Plan needs to emphasize proactive precaution.
• A conservation biology approach to travel plans (e.g., identification of core areas and linkages to adjacent public land ownerships) broadens the area under consideration, which can provide for the large number of species affected by motorized recreation.
• Maps of the following need to be overlaid for travel planning:
• current seasonal ranges of big game, carnivores, and other sensitive species;
• topographic features (elevations, ruggedness) and ecological features (e.g., forest cover, habitat type);
• core habitat (year-round and/or seasonal) for sensitive species.

5. The Travel Plan should include quantitative measures if available, or qualitative rankings of sensitive species habitat suitability, including:

• Food or prey availability
• Habitat disturbance
• Security coefficients
• Mortality estimations
• Seasonal availability
• The Forest Plan should incorporate a number of quantitative landscape fragmentation analyses out of which a Travel Plan can be developed. These include:
• a density analysis of essential roads and routes;
• buffer analysis to identify the zone of impact of this transportation and access network;
• core area analysis to quantify and map habitat that remains unaffected by the essential transportation and access network;
• human-created activities and features (e.g., hunter-days, trails, campsites, inholdings.
• ORV routes that are not incorporated in the final travel plan must be considered for decommissioning and restoration of native vegetation. Routes prioritized for decommissioning should be identified on official forest maps along with their decommissioning schedule.
• Where regional traffic and human activity increases in core habitat of sensitive species, mitigation and compensatory limitation of access elsewhere need to be implemented.