The ABC’s of Travel Planning II, or The Charmed Existence of Snowmobiles

In “The ABC’s of Travel Planning” (see The Road RIPorter, 12-4, 2007), the authors discussed the Forest Service’s “Travel Management Rule,” which established a “closed unless open” policy for motorized users of forest lands. This positive policy change now appears much faded, however, as two glaring shortcomings have surfaced. First, the Rule allows Forest Service officials to focus only on Subpart B, requiring the publication of a “motorized vehicle use map” (or MVUM) for summer use, thereby missing the opportunity to create broad recreation and transportation plans. And second, the Rule opts out “over-snow vehicles” (OSVs) unless the forest manager decides to include them in the travel management process. This article discusses this preferential treatment given one type of motorized use, that of OSVs.

Why are snowmobiles excluded?
The Rule provides little insight into why the Forest Service decided to give snowmobiles a free pass. The rule-writers agree that snowmobiles are “off-road vehicles” under Executive Order 116441 and thus are subject to “administrative designation of the specific areas and trails on public lands on which the use of off-road vehicles may [or may not] be permitted.”2 This would appear to require the regulation of OSVs, but instead, the agency “believes that cross-country use of snowmobiles presents a different set of management issues and environmental impacts than cross-country use of other types of motorized vehicles.”3 As evidence, the agency offers that unlike ATVs, “over-snow vehicles traveling cross-country generally do not create a permanent trail or have a direct impact on soil and ground vegetation.”4 This assessment ignores minimizing user conflicts per the Executive Orders, and disregards the growing anecdotal evidence of snowmobile damage to alpine tundra, reforested areas (tree-top damage), and streambanks and riverbeds at water crossings.

There are two important caveats to the decision exempting snowmobiles. First, the Rule allows a forest manager the authority to “allow, restrict, or prohibit snowmobile travel, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis,” meaning that it is entirely up to the local official (Forest Supervisor, most likely) whether snowmobile use will be addressed in a forest’s travel planning process. And second, the new Rule introduces an entirely new definition of “over snow vehicle.” The rule-writers, “[i]n order to improve clarity and ensure equitable treatment of over snow vehicle use,” define over-snow vehicles to include not only snowmobiles but also snow-cats, snow groomers and treaded ATVs. While such clarity is warranted, the fact remains that these additional vehicles are now also excluded from the mandatory regulatory framework of the Rule.

Why travel managers should include winter users
While the Travel Management Rule simply “writes out” snowmobiles from its mandatory framework, Executive Order 11644 provides direction that would seem to compel forest managers to include winter travel in their forests’ travel planning, under certain circumstances.

Section 3(a) of the executive order requires that regulations be based on protecting the resource, promoting the safety of all users, and minimizing conflicts among various users. Specifically, the regulations shall further require that the location of areas and trails minimize—
• Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources;
• Harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats; and
• Conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands.

The occurrence of any of these problems during winter should compel forest managers to undertake winter travel planning. The difficulty lies in documenting damage, harassment or conflict. Evidence is largely anecdotal, giving forest managers what they may feel is a thin thread to order an unpopular action such as limiting where and how snowmobilers can go.
Wildlife harassment by snowmobile users has been known to occur, but also difficult to document by the agency or other forest users. And since it’s often considered a “one time” occurrence, it provides little incentive for conducting OSV travel planning.

The social conflict dimension is easiest to document and has been studied more by academicians, but can also be more subjective.5 The most telling characteristic of the conflict between motorized vs. quiet recreationists is that the impacts experienced fall disproportionately on one type of forest user. That is, the presence of a few skiers or snowshoers does not diminish the recreational experience of snowmobilers, while the noise, exhaust and speed of just one snowmobiler may significantly degrade the experience of many quiet recreationists. Winter Wildlands Alliance has encouraged its member and affiliated groups to provide documentation of user conflicts to forest managers in a systematic way, such as a standardized form with essential information.

Given that local discretion is the rule, a forest manager must be convinced to conduct winter travel planning — and politics plays a large role. Snowmobile clubs have been very successful at influencing land managers and elected officials to keep areas open to motorized use.

Also at play are the forest manager’s scarce resources. Agencies have been undergoing a “hollowing out” over the last two decades, with reduced personnel in the field, and more recently, reductions planned for regional offices. Thus, a manager must first perceive a significant need for winter travel planning, and devote scarce resources to that activity. If the need is not urgent, managers have no incentive to seek additional work and expend scarce resources by addressing winter use. Thus, the Rule itself seems biased against a local official undertaking winter travel planning.

Planning for “OSVs”
If the Forest Service manager decides not to include winter use during travel planning, OSVs are regulated under the existing regulations. That is, unless a road, trail or area is specifically closed to OSVs, the remainder of the non-wilderness forest is open to use. However, if the manager decides to embrace winter travel planning, the Rule requires a process that involves the public in designating roads, trails and areas where OSV use would be allowed, and generating a winter use map, which specifies the classes of vehicles and possibly the times of year when travel is allowed.6 Such a map would be the enforcement mechanism falling under the general prohibitions in 36 CFR 261 Subpart A to prohibit OSV use rather than the site specific prohibitions under Subpart B.

Conclusion
One of the most glaring shortcomings of the 2005 Rule regarding OSV use is that it grants local forest managers complete discretion with regard to winter travel planning without any direction of when to trigger Section 212.81(c). Barring a complete reversal by the agency on this point, a simple “fix” to this omission should be considered. One approach is to amend the Rule to add threshold questions that managers would have to address prior to making any decision. For example, “is there conflict between winter recreationists that significantly harms one or both types of user’s experiences? And, “is there measurable evidence of harm to forest resources by OSVs that requires protective actions be taken?”

Additionally there are enforcement problems. The 2005 Rule places a much greater burden on the Forest Service to monitor and enforce travel restrictions, year-round. Rather than monitor limited closures, the agency must patrol the entire forest if enforcement is to be meaningful. In many forests, motorized groups have made it clear that their members have no intention of obeying these new rules. This sets up a conflict between motorized users and the agency, with its field personnel continually shrinking and local law enforcement often sympathetic to motorized users. In the case of OSVs, the volunteerism that has led to documented abuses of public lands will likely need to be augmented, but ultimately the agency and local enforcement officials will be the ticket-writers.

— In addition to holding a PhD in Political Science/Environmental Politics and Policy from Colorado State University and working with The Nature Conservancy in Helena, Montana, Steve has spent the last ten years doing land protection work in Montana and Colorado.

Endnotes
1 Executive Order 11644, the foundation for administratively controlling motorized recreation on public lands, was signed by Richard Nixon in 1972, and strengthened by amendment in 1977 by Jimmy Carter.
2 E.O. 11644, Sec. 3(a)
3 Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 216, page 68273 (November 9, 2005).
4 Ibid., at page 68284.
5 Vitterso, J., R. Chipeniuk, M. Skar and O. Vistad. 2004. “Recreational conflict is affective: The case of cross-country skiers and snowmobiles.” Leisure Sciences 26(3): 227-243; Jackson, E. L. and R. A. G. Wong. 1982. “Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta.” Journal of Leisure Research 14(1): 47-62; Knopp, T. B. & J. B. Tyger (1973). A study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling versus ski-touring. Journal of Leisure Research, 5(3): 6-17.
6 Section 212.81(c).