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 location. This summer, the Lost River and Pahsimeroi Valleys were spared from becoming home to the nation’s largest off-road vehicle trail and the first such trail to propose state management of federal lands.

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

Opponents succeeded in defeating this ill-conceived mega-route by working together. When brought to light by The Wilderness Society and its Idaho allies, information from the state proposal revealed unacceptable 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; and
2. The unfunded maintenance and enforcement costs to municipalities and counties as well as to federal agencies would greatly outweigh the cheery forecast of the benefits to struggling rural economies that a mega-route would bring.

The IDPR abandoned the trail proposal as a direct result of our efforts to decrease support for the trail within local communities and within the federal agencies. Over the last three years, we have concentrated our efforts on educating people most directly affected by the proposed trail. We developed 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 worked with a coalition of other conservation, hunting, wildlife, and recreation interests. Many people shared our concerns, but did not understand the federal planning process and agency regulations that govern off-road vehicle use. As a result, some people felt it would be a waste of time to oppose the trail since it appeared to be moving forward without significant opposition and with the support of several vocal community leaders.

Our concerns over the ORV trail, included impacts to the environment, wildlife, Wilderness Study Areas, noise, erosion, habitat fragmentation, weeds, fire, water, trail proliferation, enforcement, maintenance, monitoring, rehabilitation, and general trail management including state control. We also knew there would likely be increased demands placed on the federal agencies and local government services, conflicts with private property owners and recreation; and impacts to the local economy.

In Idaho, The Wilderness Society has a reputation for working with people in the local communities that are directly affected by federal policies. By meeting with small groups of ranchers and other concerned community leaders, we discovered ways to work together to oppose the Lost River Trail. One of the first things we provided was maps of the proposed ORV route. This resulted in a wide variety of very specific on the ground information as to the potential impacts of the trail. In return, we were able to share our knowledge and expertise on federal land policy, agency planning requirements, and opportunities for public involvement. (Sample of public comment send to the IDPR.)

For example, the Custer County Commissioners were in favor of the trail and had been convinced it would be an economic savior to their struggling communities. Federal agency staff opinion was mixed, with hope that a designated trail would help solve the conflict over increasing motorized recreation and that money from the IDPR would provide resources to make up for decreasing federal budgets. And, since IDPR was proposing the trail, they would face criticism and public scrutiny. Plus, no one else had developed any alternative ideas to the large trail concept. It was the only game in town.

The IDPR was convinced that if given the opportunity, they could manage ORV use better than the federal agencies. Yet they proposed no new ideas and even called the proposal 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 Lost River Trail as the first of several such demonstration projects around the state. 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 and in a poor position to expand their management portfolio with the addition of a large ORV trail.

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation compared the Lost River Trail to the Paiute Trail in Utah in order to gain the support of business leaders. The Paiute Trail hosts an estimated 47,000 ORV riders and consists of 275 miles of designated routes. However, local promoters of the Paiute Trail recommend riders take advantage of an additional 2500 miles located on the surrounding public lands, tying 16 local communities into the “unofficial” trail system. Similarly, IDPR plans called for the Lost River Trail to link the communities of, Arco, Mackay, and Challis, envisioning trail expansion to reach 12 more communities. The Lost River Trail was also to contribute millions of dollars to the local economies by attracting riders from across the country, like the Paiute Trail. But these comparisons were based on anecdotal opinions obtained from Utah businesses located along the Paiute Trail, not on any economic data or analysis.

Click here to see what TWS requested of the IDPR under Idaho’s public records law.

The IDPR proposal called for only two law enforcement officers to be hired to patrol the entire 460 mile trail. 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. Federal agencies, the BLM and Forest Service, would receive no additional resources to manage thousands of new riders expected to use the trail. And, human nature being what it is, those riders would also use the over 3,000 miles of routes accessible from the official Lost River Trail.

The start-up budget for the project was $172,500, to be used for parking, restrooms, 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 and estimated $200/install for backhoe time. Add costs for the foundation material and moving the material to the install site, another $200/install. Add the costs of hand labor to set the foundations/guard and tie in the existing fence/make a new wire gate next to the cattle guard – another $200/install. So figuring $1200 per install, 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.”

The effects of a trail of this large go far beyond the immediate corridor and actual route designated. The cumulative impacts to resources and other forms of recreation enjoyed on the public lands surrounding the trail would be significant and irreversible. Any community faced with this type of proposal should undertake an analysis to understand the costs and benefits. Federal planning regulations call for an in-depth analysis of the environmental, social, and economics consequences of any major federal action. Alternatives to the proposed action are also required to be given consideration and analysis. Since the IDPR is a state agency, they are not required to undertake this type of extensive analysis. Any decision by the BLM and Forest Service to designate trails as part of this proposal would be subject to a more extensive analysis, an Environmental Impact Statement. Despite these obvious requirements, the federal agencies would not commit to an extensive analysis of the proposed action. As a result, we made it very clear that should the proposal move forward, we would seek immediate legal recourse to force the agencies to undertake a comprehensive analysis.

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 ORV use needs better management. Designating a 460 mile route through the heart of this remote landscape will not necessarily result in better management. Nor will it necessarily result in overall economic benefits to the local communities.

The BLM and Forest Service should complete a comprehensive route designation process for all lands under their jurisdiction in the Lost River Valley. We expect the communities will be looking at a variety of options to promote recreation and boost the local economies. Our recommendation is for the IDPR to work with local communities 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 their resources to establish a mandatory state-wide ORV safety and environmental education program.

Working together we can find solutions that are good for the landscape and the local communities.

Article written by Lahsha Johnston, who 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.

In their own words – public comments sent to IDPR

“I’m a cattle rancher using the range in which this trail will be placed. We have to have an average of five years’ study to simply place a water trough or move a bit of fence. If this trail is allowed with the minimal amount of study, I would seriously recommend that grazing permittees file suit against the BLM and Forest Service for harassment and discrimination between multiple use users.”

Under Idaho’s public records law, we requested of the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation the following:

• All baseline data concerning wildlife habitat, noxious weeds, dispersed use, current use, and economic data referred to in the Adaptive Management Plan.
• All documents pertaining to ground “truthing” routes and the baseline data from the Plan.
• All documents resulting from IDPR ground “truthing”, surveys, AND the methodology used for the surveys conducted in 2002 on potential trail routes.
• IDPR’s analysis and inventory of existing roads and trails of the proposed route AND the GPS database of all roads and trails that branch off of the proposed designated trail within a one-mile corridor of either side of the trail.
• IDPR’s draft charter for the proposed Citizen’s Advisory Committee (consistent with FACA)
• All documents gathered or created relating to the budget of expected costs associated with the trail, including advertising, signage, enforcement, resource restoration, search and rescue, noxious weed control, education, trail maintenance, construction, and reconstruction, monitoring of ecological impacts, restroom facilities, parking, kiosks, and maps. And, a projected annual budget and funding sources, as well as the initial start-up budget.
• A copy of the IDPR 2002 budget, including sources of funding, which delineates expenditures on motorized versus non-motorized recreation.
• Cost estimates for county and local government services that IDPR expects these entities will absorb within their respective budgets.
• All letters of support gathered from the Lost River Highway Department, Butte and Custer County Commissioners, and the cities of Arco, Mackay and Challis.
• Minutes, records, presentation materials and handouts from ALL meetings held with the inter-agency steering committee that address the public comments received by IDPR.
• All information gathered about the Paiute Trail ORV route.