The Lost River Valley is iconic of the West’s broad, open valleys flanked by steep, dramatic mountain ranges. High elevation peaks dotted with snow fields and cirques holding small lakes sweep down to sage and grass covered hills. Below these majestic peaks, meandering river channels intertwine with meadows in this central Idaho setting. And this summer, in a victory for rural values and quiet recreation, the Lost River and Pahsimeroi Valleys were spared from becoming home to the nation’s largest off-road vehicle route and the first such route to propose state manage­ment of federal lands.

Background
In 2002 the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) proposed the Lost River Trail, a 460-mile off-road vehicle route to be built on public lands managed by the Salmon-Challis National For­est and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In addi­tion, the IDPR requested sole management authority over a two-mile wide corridor the route’s entire length. The proposed route ran from the city of Arco north to Challis and beyond, and on both sides of the Lost River Range, with two portions crossing through the heart of these mountains.

Opponents succeeded in defeating this ill-con­ceived mega-route by working together. Cutting through misinformation and rhetoric, The Wilder­ness Society and its Idaho allies revealed the ugly facts: (1) the ecological and social impacts created by increased off-road vehicle traffic would change the way of life for area ranchers and residents; (2) the unfunded maintenance and enforcement costs to municipalities and counties, as well as federal agencies, greatly outweighed the cheery forecast of the benefits that a mega-route would bring to strug­gling rural economies.

Considering the Impacts
Our concerns over the off-road vehicle route included impacts to the environment, wildlife, Wilderness Study Areas, noise, erosion, habitat frag­mentation, weeds, fire, water, route proliferation, enforcement, maintenance, monitoring, rehabilita­tion, and general route management including state control. The effects of a route this large, however, go far beyond the immediate corridor and actual route — cumulative impacts to resources and other forms of recreation enjoyed on adjacent public lands would be significant and irreversible. We also knew there would likely be increased demands placed on federal agencies and local government services, conflicts with private property owners and recreation, and impacts to the local economy. Many people shared our concerns, but did not understand the federal planning process and agency regulations that govern off-road vehicle use.

Federal law requires preparing an in-depth analysis of the environ­mental, social, and economic consequences of any major federal action in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Such an analysis must in­clude consideration of alternatives to the proposal. Since the IDPR is a state agency they were not required to undertake this type of extensive analysis, however, because their proposal required the BLM and Forest Service to sanction the route across federal land, we argued that an EIS should be prepared. When the federal agencies would not commit to an EIS, we made it very clear that we were prepared to seek immediate legal recourse to force them to do so.

An Agency’s (Blind) Ambition
The IDPR was convinced that if given the opportunity, they could manage off-road vehicle use better than the federal agencies. The opinions of federal agency staff were mixed. Some thought that a des­ignated route would help resolve conflicts over increasing motorized recreation, or that money from the IDPR would provide resources to make up for decreasing federal budgets. And, since IDPR was propos­ing the route, state officials would bear the brunt of criticism and public scrutiny. Finally, no one had developed any alternatives to the large route concept. It was the only game in town.

In addition to being the only alternative proposed, the IDPR called it a demonstration project to be used to monitor, evaluate, and test po­tential management strategies for motorized recreation in the state of Idaho. The IDPR identified the proposed “Lost River Trail” as the first of several such demonstration projects around the state. Then last April the IDPR State Director, Rick Collignon, resigned. A big propo­nent of the Lost River Trail, he left behind a cash strapped agency with low employee morale — in a poor position to expand their manage­ment portfolio with the addition of a large off-road vehicle route.

Selling Snake Oil
The IDPR compared the Lost River Trail to the Paiute Trail in Utah in order to gain the support of business leaders. The Paiute Trail con­sists of 275 miles of designated routes and hosts an estimated 47,000 ORV riders annually. Paiute Trail promoters steer riders to an addi­tional 2,500 trail miles on surrounding public lands, tying 16 local com­munities into the “unofficial” trail system. Similarly, IDPR called for the Lost River Trail to link the communities of Arco, Mackay, and Challis, envisioning trail expansion to reach 12 more communities. And like the Paiute Trail, the Lost River Trail was touted as a revenue source of millions for local economies by attracting riders from across the country. For a while, this promise of prosperity seemed to work. For example, the Custer County Commissioners were in favor of the route and had been convinced it would be an economic savior to their strug­gling communities. But these comparisons were based on anecdotal opinions obtained from Utah businesses along the Paiute Trail, not on any economic data or analysis.

Fuzzy Math
The start-up budget for the Lost River Trail project was $172,500, to be used for parking, rest-rooms, information kiosks, cattle guards, signs, maps and fencing needs. As one local citizen estimated, “The cost of purchasing a special ORV guard or a standard 8-foot cattle guard and wings is somewhere between $500-800.” Add an estimated $600/install for a backhoe, foundation material, hand labor, etc. Based on the budget allocation, this citizen commented “you will only have enough money for five cattle guards. I can count at least 20 allotments along the proposed trail just from Arco to Willow Creek Summit that will be affected.”

In addition, the IDPR proposal called for only two law enforcement officers to patrol the entire 460-mile route. Local communities, counties, road and fire districts were asked to provide mainte­nance, search and rescue, ambulance, fire, law en­forcement and manage access points with existing budgets. The BLM and Forest Service would receive no additional resources to manage thousands of new riders expected to use the route. And, human nature being what it is, those riders would also use the more than 3,000 miles of routes accessible from the official Lost River Trail.

Listening to the Locals
In Idaho, The Wilderness Society has a reputa­tion for working with people in local communities that are directly affected by federal policies. By meeting with small groups of ranchers and other community leaders, we discovered ways to work together. Some of the first things we provided were maps of the proposed off-road vehicle route. This helped us acquire very specific on-the-ground information as to the potential impacts of the route. In return, we shared our knowledge and expertise on federal land policy, agency planning requirements, and opportunities for public involvement. We concentrated our efforts on educating those most directly affected, developing relationships with private property owners, ranchers, local governments, and community leaders. We worked to dissuade the Forest Service and BLM of their initial support for the proposal. And, we organized a coalition of other conservation, hunting, wildlife, and recreation interests. The IDPR abandoned the route proposal as a direct result of our efforts.

Over the last few years we have developed a greater understand­ing of the values we share with many of the residents of these small communities. They value their way of life, which includes wildlife, peace and quiet, and low traffic. Everyone agrees that existing off-road vehicle use needs better management. Designating a 460-mile route through the heart of this remote landscape would not necessarily result in better management. Nor would it necessarily result in overall economic benefits to the local communities. Local citizens’ growing understanding of these threats prompted them to publicly oppose and thus help stop this proposal.

Do It Right the Next Time
The BLM and Forest Service should complete a comprehensive route designation process for all lands under their jurisdiction in the Lost River Val­ley. The agencies should work together to analyze the environmental and social impacts of hundreds of miles of user-created renegade routes. We expect that communities are looking at a variety of options to promote recreation and boost local economies — our recommendation is for the IDPR to work with them to develop a variety of sustainable recreation opportunities that take into consideration the qual­ity of life and values that are important to these rural residents. IDPR should also use the income they generate from off-road vehicle registrations to establish a mandatory state-wide off-road vehicle safety, education and enforcement program. Local elected officials such as county commissioners con­sistently receive complaints from private landown­ers and ranchers who experience off-road vehicle trespass spilling over from neighboring public lands. Federal land management agencies should negotiate cooperative agreements that fund county sheriffs to enforce off-road vehicle rules on federal public lands. Working together we can find solutions that are good for the landscape and the local communi­ties.

— Lahsha Johnston is the Regional Conservation Associate in the Idaho Office of The Wilderness Society. Since 1995 she has worked closely with diverse groups from other conservation, recreation, government, and other interests on a wide range of issues and projects involving wilderness and public lands management.