Motorized Mixed Use Analysis on Forest Service Roads in Idaho
How did we get here and where do we go from here?
It will probably come as little surprise to know that the roots of the ‘mixed use analysis’ go all the way back to Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth’s 2005 OHV Rule. Included in the rule was a requirement that each National Forest analyze safety issues resulting from mixed uses on their roads.
The Regional Foresters from Region 1 and 4 determined that since Idaho had a law requiring all OHV riders to be licensed, safety wasn’t an issue here and no analysis was needed. In 2009, however, Idaho law was changed and unlicensed OHV riders were allowed to ride on Forest Service roads if they were supervised.
This change immediately caught the attention of the Regional Foresters, convinced that motorized mixed use in Idaho was now a safety concern. After many conversations, a compromise was reached under which the recreation community would support legislation requiring ‘all unlicensed riders to be trained using a state (Idaho, Oregon, Utah, etc) approved program’. That legislation was introduced in the 2010 session of the Idaho Legislature, but went nowhere. The lack of support was derived, not from a lack of involvement or support from the recreation community, but from resistance by many members of the legislature to ‘mandatory education’ provisions and resentment from being pushed into passing legislation by federal officials.
Needless to say, this news was not well received by the Forest Service. However, Governor Otter and Senator John McGee sent letters to the Regional Foresters asking for one more year to pass the legislation. Officials from the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, at the request of the Idaho Recreation Council, sent letters to every registered OHV owner urging them to have every unlicensed rider take the free on-line safety course.
The Forest Service relented, sort of, agreeing not to make ‘any decisions’ until after the 2011 legislative session. However, they did require every forest to begin to identify ‘roads of concerns’, roads where there have been accidents or where circumstances exist that make accidents more likely.
This year’s bill requiring mandatory education for unlicensed riders, identified as S. 1001, is sponsored by Senator John McGee and scheduled for a hearing on February 15th at 1:30 p.m. in room WW53. If S. 1001 passes, the issue does not go away, but it does eliminate many of the Forest Service’s concerns. One forest determined their roads of concern based on the legislation passing. If that doesn’t happen, I would imagine that more roads will be considered. If the legislation fails, the forests will still be considering opportunities to improve safety by putting up signs, brushing the right of way, or providing a parallel trail. On roads considered unsafe, such as paved two-way routes with mixed uses, they could restrict OHV use.
The process being used is certainly not a full-fledged NEPA process but it does allow for public comment. Each forest has prepared a list with an accompanying map that identifies all the roads of concern. It is not every road, in fact, it is a small percentage of the total roads in each forest. It is absolutely critical, however, that folks comment on the process and also on each segment of road with which you are familiar. Links to each forest are included on this website. All comments are due on February 22nd.
Not only is it important to comment, it is also important to attend the hearing in the Idaho Senate on February 15. This is an important issue that needs your attention. The Idaho Recreation Council hasbeen involved from the start. Last year, we made a commitment to the Forest Service that we would re-introduce the bill. We believe that the bill makes sense for the following reasons:
- Youth training will emphasize responsible use of OHVs and will reduce irresponsible activities and associated impacts.
- When youth are trained, they will be able to communicate responsible use messages to adults and parents.
- Adoption of a training requirement will reduce the concerns of many Forest Service officials and will reduce the need to close FS roads to OHV use.
- Training on road signing and other on-road issues will make young riders safer.
- Training will not be required for youth who just use trails, thereby reducing the impact of the mandate.
Members of the Senate Transportation Committee:
Senator Jim Hammond, Chairman, jhammond@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Bert Brackett, Vice Chairman, bbrackett@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Shawn Keough, skeough@senate.idaho.gov
Senator John McGee, jmcgee@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Tim Corder, tcorder@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Chuck Winder, cwinder@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Elliot Werk, ewerk@senate.idaho.gov
Senator Diane Bilyeu, dbilyeu@senate.idaho.gov
It is important to be involved and to understand that there are two processes going on at the same time; the forest service and the legislative process. If you cannot attend the hearing, please send your comments about S. 1001 to the Senators listed above. It will make a difference, don’t believe me, think about the gas tax!
Thank you
Sandra Mitchell
Tom Crimmins
No discussion about the mixed use analysis would be complete without providing some information about a study that was done by DJ&A, P.C. Engineers, Planners, Surveyors entitled, Engineering Anyalyses of Motorized Mixed Use, Sawtooth national Forest System Roads, November 2010. The work was contracted by the USDA Forest Service Regions 1 and 4. Roads in three national forests were evaluated. Some of the interesting findings in the study were:
- There were no mixed-used crashes in the 10-year data set
- There were no OHV crashes with highway legal vehicles
- There are 243 total crash records (of 750 crashes) involving OHV use by operators under 16 years old. This represents 3.8% of the total raw data set, and 32.4% of the OHV related crash data set.
- They conclude that requiring education on unlicensed OHV operators, “should have a benefit to all prudent road users”.
The entire study can be found at ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/r4/Sawtooth/95%25%20Mixed%20Use%20Study/
Read and Comment at links below
Sawtooth National Forest
Salmon-Challis National Forest
Loading ...
Comments from Jeff Nofsinger on the possible restriction of some roads from use by OHV’s.
A general comment:
The Forest Service (FS) has been engaged for some time now in the closing of trails that from their point of view are deemed “Not Necessary”. This usually stems from the view that if a trail parallels a road then the trail can be shut down and OHV riders can just go down the road. This was considered “good” by the FS as this eliminates any maintenance on, signing of, and cataloging of the trails.
Now, the FS has decided that OHV’s going down roads are “Bad”. When the latest MVUM was being created, I, along with many others, commented on the how unsafe it was to purposely put OHV’s onto roads. These concerns were obviously deemed not very important as many miles of trails paralleling roads were closed. In this current issue the focus is on Level 3, 4, and 5 roads, but the danger to OHV operators is just as high or higher on Class 1 and 2 roads. Most Class 3, 4, and 5 roads are significantly wider than a single vehicle. This leaves room for an OHV to pass if there is an oncoming vehicle. On a class 1 or 2, there is usually NO room to pass as they are barely a single vehicle width wide. There were many miles approved in the recent MVUM that consist of these types of roads.
If the FS is serious about safety on their roads, there needs to be a complete review of where the FS has forced OHV’s onto roads and not just on so called “Roads of Concern”, and the trails opened back up.
In general, and in my experience on these specific roads, the heavy commercial traffic is during the week when most recreational riders are not out. The times when I have had close calls, (Road 327, twice in same day, same truck), it was commercial truck traffic that was using both lanes of the road and excessive speed that caused a problem. A standard private vehicle on these roads leave plenty of space for OHV’s as long as they are on their side of the road.
In order to justify closing these roads to OHV’s, does the FS have any statistics to show that the roads that are of concern are any more dangerous than regular roads. How many fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles occur on the BNF? The average in the state is 1.8 (US Census Bureau). In 2009, there were 14 helmeted motorcyclist fatalities in Idaho and 34 total motorcycle fatalities (NHTSA). How many of these occurred on the BNF?
Specific comments on road sections:
Road 474, the south, Stole Meadows side.
This road section connects many single track trails together, at least 7, and thus is essential to a good riding experience in this area. As can be seen from the map, there are various places where you would need to ride down this road to get to the next trail section and then back from where you started. This is a dead end road so the amount of traffic that is on this road is minimal below the hot springs, which is where most of the single track trails intersect with it. If the traffic to the hot springs was used as a basis to call this a Road of Concern, it is a misleading indicator.
Roads 678,698, 671 and 555/556.
These roads form a path to get from the Silver Creek area to the East Mountain ATV trail and then through the Stole Meadows area over to the Deadwood River road and back to the Silver Creek area. The southern part of road 671 up to the resort could have a lot of traffic but once past there I cannot see how there would be enough traffic to have a concern about. Road 678 doesn’t do anything but go between single track trails, so there is not much thru traffic. Roads 555 and 556 allow a loop to be made from trails 027 to 028.
Roads 568 and 579.
These roads allow a loop to be made between 3 different trails. The Bench Creek trail is not shown as it is in the Sawtooth NF (SNF). This road is a very wide 2 lane road with very few blind corners or much of anything else to cause people not to see each other. It does have a lot of traffic from the floaters going to Dagger Falls but this road has to be one of the safest roads due to the width and visibility on it. The trails going to these roads are difficult trails so the traffic from off road motorcycles is minimal. I have never seen any other OHV’s types on these roads.
Road 520, road to Bull trout lake.
This road connects several different single track trails including two in the SNF not shown. It is a dead end so the traffic is just campers going into the lakes which tend to be low speed traffic. As it is the only way to connect these trails it is essential that motorcycles be able to use it. The terrain in this area would allow the FS to make trails to connect the single track trails if it wanted to keep them off the road. I have been on this road numerous times and have never seen a problem with OHV’s and other vehicles. It is straight for most of its way between trail heads and is 2 lanes wide which makes it a fairly safe road.
Road 524, road to Grandjean.
This road allows motorcycles to make a loop back out of trails 149, 157, and 160. It is a 2 lane wide road that has high visibility along it. I have ridden this numerous times and never seen or had any conflicts with other vehicles. I cannot see why it would be unsafe to have OHV’s on this road.
Road 555, Scott Mountain LO road.
This road provides a loop opportunity from Garden Valley and the Deadwood River/Julie Creek trailheads. It connects trails 038/003 with 022. There is also traffic on this road from 4-wheelers going from the highway to the different lookouts. The road is over one lane wide with turnouts so the danger to OHV’s is minimal and a lot of the road is on the side of a mountain so speeds for all vehicles are fairly slow. Since this FS road ends in a county road that does allow OHV use, it would make sense to have this road the same designation.
Roads 384, 312, and 348.
There are various OHV trails that go between these roads, see 286 and 288. If you do not have the roads then it chops up the trails and you cannot make loops out of them such as where 288 and 286 hit road 348. You have to hit the road for a little bit to get between the trails. Who said 348 was high traffic? It is a single lane road that has grass growing on it in places. 384 is the Crooked River road. It is a wide 2 lane road so there is plenty of room to be safe.
Road 327, Rabbit Creek to North Fork Boise road.
This road has multiple places where trails dead end on the road, Short Creek (168) and Hungarian Ridge (166) to name a few. Without the road these trails cannot be connected to other trails like 049. There are many trails that intersect this road in the Rabbit Creek drainage where you go down the road to the next trail. This road is a main road with traffic but it is also a very wide road in most places. There used to be a trail that went from trail 593 to trail 598 and would allow you to bypass the road but this trail was not in the MVUM plan. At the trail head park at HWY 21, if OHV’s could not use the road to get to the trails it would make this of limited use as many people park there to get on their OHV’s on the trails.
Road 304
This road is a main road but, except for OHV’s, is basically a dead end road for large vehicles as the connector roads are not in the best of shape. Where did they look at vehicle traffic to come up with this road being a well used road? If they put it at the HWY 21 intersection it would show all the traffic that goes a mile to Steamboat or Cycle Park (off road 305) and then stop there to get their OHV’s out. I have sat at a check on this road about half way up, where road 664 comes in, for 6 hours and have had 2 full size vehicles go past on a Saturday. Sunday was even slower as I don’t remember one. There is no reason why OHV’s should not be allowed to use this road.
Roads 129, 172, and 183.
This road has multiple places where trails dead end on the road and the road is used to make a loop around the Trinity mountains, 123 to 176, 045 to 173 to 183. Many of these trails just go between the roads. Several of these trails become worthless if you cannot go down the road. Do you expect someone to park on the road, as many of these trails have no trail head parking, get their bike out, ride a couple miles of trail back and forth, put the bike back in the truck and then drive down the next trail and do it again?? These are main roads and are wide enough for two full size vehicles to pass so there is a minimal safety concern if OHV’s are on the road. When I have seen OHV’s other than motorcycles on these roads, they were going slow and enjoying the scenery.
Roads 374, 297, and 275.
Road 275 is the only access point to trail 155. There are no trail heads at that trail. Most people come up from the parking areas on 8th street via road 275 to ride that trail and then go down trail 211 and then come back up 275K. This is not an easy road and very few full size vehicles are seen on it and if they are, they are going slow because it is rough. Not sure why there is a concern about this road as most of it is barely fit for a 4 wheeler to go on. 297 and 373 were just Kelly humped and bush hogged to make this a very scenic ride for any vehicle. In a full size vehicle you are going to be slow because the Kelly humps are very big. There is a lot of visibility so the chance of collisions is minimal. This is another road that I cannot see why it is on this list. To Shafer Butte (374E) you have a good amount of traffic but that part of the road is over 2 lanes wide. A freeway by mountain standards. Road 374 after it has hardly any traffic. Went up there on a week day last year in July and ran 374 from Harris Creek Summit to Bogus Basin and down. Did not see another vehicle until road 374E on the way towards Bogus Basin. That is a great ride on a OHV since the brush is all cut so the views are really nice.
That is all my comment for now.
Jeff Nofsinger
PO Box 8332
Boise, ID 83707
Comments from: Haden D. Claiborne, President Boise ATV Trail Riders Association
Dear Sirs and Madams:
I write to provide comments regarding the USFS “Roads of Concern” in Idaho. I the current President of the Boise ATV Trail Riders Association. We have over 100 club members in our organization. We pride ourselves in responsible trail riding and we have worked hand in hand with the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and private landowners in the development and maintenance of many ATV trails throughout southwestern and central Idaho for many years.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide general comments as to the “Roads of Concern”. I provide my comments not only individually, but also as the President of our local ATV club.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The safety concern just simply is NOT present. The concern with the mixed use of the identified roads is overstated and not supported by any recent study. I have been operating an ATV on forest system roads and trails for the past 30 years and have not been involved in or witnessed any collision involving my ATV with any other vehicles. As an independent insurance adjuster I have handled claims involving several accidents with full-size automobiles, pickup trucks and logging trucks over the past 35 years. I have never been presented with any insurance claims involving ATV accidents with other ATVs or vehicles. This is likely due to the fact that many roads are narrow and rugged, and ATVs are more narrow and maneuverable in tight situations and therefore they can dodge out of the way of other vehicles. I have witnessed some near accidents, but they all involved the full-size vehicle operating on the wrong size of the road. My children or grand children, as youth riders, have also never been involved in any accident with other vehicles while operating their ATVs on forest service roads. The only recent study of which I am aware is the Engineering Analyses of Motorized Mixed Use Sawtooth National Forest System Roads (November 2010). This study notes that there were no mixed use crashes over a 10 year period, there were no OHV crashes with full-size automobiles, that OHV accidents involving youth operators were only 3.8% of the total accidents over the study period, and that OHV accidents involving youth operators were 32.4% of all OHV crashes. The data, together with my personal experience, exemplifies that the mixed use concern is grossly overstated and exaggerated. In short, it appears that the current analysis of “Roads of Concern” is an effort to locate a problem which just simply does NOT exist..
2. To the extent there is a problem, it is agency created. Over the past several decades the USFS has engaged in a systematic effort to reduce ATV opportunities by closing trails and roads. This has the natural consequence of congregating ATV use to the limited number of trails and roads that are kept open. While some areas offer great trail experiences, the unfortunate trend over the past several decades has been to close trails, close roads, and to particularly close trails that parallel roads. All of this time, ATV riding as a means of recreation has been expanding rapidly. The USFS has basically forced ATV riders to the roads in a more congested manner and it would be fundamentally unfair to now restrict ATV use of the roads that remain open. Most of us ATV riders would rather ride the trails than the roads. We primarily use the roads as a means to get to the trails. If we had our way we wouldn’t have to use any roads, we could just go from trail to trail without having roads in the way. But since more and more trails are closed we have no choice, but to resort to riding the roads.
3. The comment period ought to be extended until July 1, 2011. The current deadline for all comments is February 22, 2011. The comment period ought to be extended until July 1, 2011 for two reasons. First, the “roads of concern” are presently covered with snow and access is limited. Users and user groups ought to be afforded sufficient time during the snow-free season to examine the roads so that comments can be more meaningful. Second, the Idaho Legislature is currently considering SB1001, which would require OHV safety training for youth operators. If that law passes, it would likely go in to effect on July 1, 2011. The USFS ought to appropriately consider the adoption of mandatory youth OHV training before acting on the identified roads because youth training mitigates many of the stated reasons for concern.
4. A proposed plan of action ought to be published for comment before implementation. In addition to extending the public comment period, after the public comment period is closed the USFS ought to publish its proposed action with respect to the identified roads and offer an additional comment period of 60 days on the proposed action. At this point, the exact intentions of the USFS with respect to each identified road is unknown. The public ought to be afforded an opportunity to comment on the specific action with respect to each identified road once a preliminary determination is made. This will provide the USFS with more detailed site-specific and plan-specific comments.
5. Any USFS action ought to assume youth OHV operators are trained or supervised. Current Idaho law required youth OHV operators to be supervised by a licensed adult. Proposed Idaho law is to require youth OHV operator safety training, while still requiring supervision. Based on the status of the law, any action by USFS ought to be made upon the assumption that youth OHV operators are either trained or under the direct supervision of a licensed adult operator. This assumption established that the youth OHV operators will follow general rules of the road. Our club is currently supporting the passage of Senate Bill 1001. To close the roads down on us now, after supporting legislation that requires youth safety training would be a slap in the face to the citizens of Idaho and our legislature.
6. NONE of the identified roads should be closed to OHVs. With respect to the identified roads, the mixed use concerns ought not be addressed by total closure of the roads to OHV use. Alternative mitigation measures ought to be employed instead. In circumstances where the identified road is paved or a is a high use unpaved road, a parallel trail ought to be established, as well as other mitigation measures discussed below. With respect to unpaved roads where high traffic volume is not a concern, the mitigation measures discussed below ought to be employed as appropriate.
7. Proposed mitigation measures. For the USFS to establish a manner of controlling undocumented vehicle safety hazards, mitigation measures to address mixed use on the road segment ought to be employed rather than road closures. Appropriate mitigation measures, in order of priority, include the following –
(a) Signage. Signage serves to educate motorized and non-motorized users of the road of hazards and use. Appropriate signage would relate to speed limit, keeping to the right side of the road, warning of reduced visibility areas and other road hazards, warning to share the road, and warning in areas where OHV trails cross the road. If roads are not being closed to OHV use, then I am certain user groups, including those I represent, will support all USFS requests for grant funding to implement such signage measures, and will provide volunteer labor to assist with their installation.
(b) Right-of-Way Maintenance. Maintaining the right-of-way by keeping brush cleared and pruned, erosion corrected, and the roadway clear of debris will improve lines of sight and remove road hazards. Again, if roads are not being closed to OHV use, then I am certain user groups, including those I represent, will support all USFS requests for grant funding to maintain roads of concern, and will provide volunteer labor to assist with brush removal and roadway maintenance.
(c) Education. Education of the public users as to the mixed use nature of the roads will certainly increase awareness and reduce risk. Appropriate education measures could be implemented in forest travel maps, motor vehicle use maps, other USFS literature, mixed use specific brochures, safety training courses, and particularly at informational signs located throughout the forest system. Again, if roads are not being closed to OHV use, then I am certain user groups, including those I represent, will support all USFS requests for grant funding to implement education measures, and will provide volunteer labor to assist with distribution and dissemination of educational materials.
(d) Provide New Trails. A practical way to eliminate mixed use concerns is to establish trail opportunities in lieu of road travel for OHVs. With respect to significant roads of concern due to traffic volume, the most logical corrective measure is establishment of an OHV trail that parallels the road. Again, if roads are not being closed to OHV use, then I am certain user groups, including those I represent, will support all USFS requests for grant funding to establish new trails, and will provide volunteer labor to assist with their construction.
(e) Law Enforcement. Increased enforcement of existing law regarding general rules of the road, OHV licensing and registration, youth helmet requirements, youth supervision, and travel management restrictions will serve to mitigate mixed use roads concerns. It also provides the additional benefit of education.
8. Any action should not interfere with travel on roads and trails not identified as a concern. The most significant concern with any restriction of the identified roads of concern is the interference with or the loss of opportunity to enjoy the roads and trails not identified as a concern. In this regard, the USFS should be sensitive to crossings, or areas where a road or trail not identified as a concern crosses paths with a road of concern. Sometimes these crossing are directly perpendicular to a road of concern, but other times one must travel several miles on a road of concern for purposes of trail/road interconnectivity. OHV enthusiasts particularly enjoy loop riding opportunities, so it is essential that OHVs be able to travel on roads of concern for purposes of connecting with other trails and roads.
BOISE NATIONAL FOREST
FR402 (Gold Fork Loop). My children’s families and I travel this road extensively during the snow-free season. It is a rare occasion that during a day’s ride we encounter more than 1-2 full-size automobiles. We have never encountered a non-motorized user. We frequently encounter other OHVs. The road is sufficiently wide that OHVs and full-size automobiles can pass one another without incident. It is unclear why this route is a “road of concern.”
FR678 / FR671 (Silver Creek / Boiling Springs area). My children’s families and I also travel this route with great frequency during the snow-free season. Traffic volume is usually high in this area, but I have never encountered any difficulties with other users. Use of these roads is particularly important so OHVs can connect with roads and trails not identified as a concern.
FR562 (Park Creek Road). My children’s families and I travel this route regularly. Also our local ATV clubs assist the USFS in maintenance of the Kirkham Trail, Long Creek Trail and Miller Mountain Trail each year in this area. Traffic volume is not particularly high in this area. I have never encountered any difficulties with other users. Use of this road is essential for campers to gain access to the Kirkham Ridge trail system and the Long Creek trail.
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST
FR517 (Seven Devils Road) / FR 487 (Squaw Creek Road). My children’s families and I travel these routes frequently during the summer and fall months. Although not reflected on the map of roads of concern, FR487 actually connects to FR 517 during the summer months (there is a use restriction in the fall to protect big game habitat). These roads do have frequent multiple use. It is not uncommon to encounter other OHVs, full-size automobiles and bicycles. This is due to the fact that the route leads to significant scenic views of Hells Canyon, and provides access to popular recreation areas such as Heaven’s Gate and Windy Saddle. These roads are well-maintained, have a gravel surface and good width. While encountering other users is frequent, everyone knows it, sticks to the right, and I have never had a conflict, accident or close call in this area, nor have I ever heard of one happening. This area is a prime candidate for signage, but use restriction would be totally inappropriate since it is the ONLY vehicular navigable roadway to get from Riggins to Heaven’s Gate.
PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST
No Business Lookout / Middle Fork Weiser River. The roads in this area should not be of particular concern. The roads are wide, graveled and have decent lines of sight. I ride in this area quite a bit. The typical user you encounter is another OHV. In a typical day you will encounter several other OHV groups, and you might encounter 3-4 full-size automobiles. On one occasion over riding in this area for 23 years I encountered a solo bicycle. This is an area where I think there is no need for use restriction. Moreover, maintenance is pretty good in this area. I don’t see why this area is a concern. At most, signage would be appropriate.
CONCLUSION
I appreciate the opportunity provide these comments and hope they are well-considered and well-received. I wish I could provide more comments because I did identify several other roads upon which I travel, but it is with such infrequency that I would need to visit the road before commenting, which is not presently possible given weather conditions.
Please keep me advised of further developments regarding the “Roads of Concern.” I think workshops with stakeholders would be appropriate to address these issues and hope OHV user groups are contacted in that regard. Should you desire any further information or assistance from me, the Idaho State ATV Association or the Boise ATV Trail Riders, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Haden D. Claiborne, President Boise ATV Trail Riders Association