Hammer 1986 Road Closure Effectiveness

7/27/2019 Hammer 1986 Road Closure Effectiveness

1/19

AN ON-SITE STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OFTHE U. S. FOREST SERVICE ROAD CLOSURE PROGRAMIN MANAGEMENT SITUATION ONEGRIZZLY BEAR HABITAT, SWAN LAKE RANGER DISTRICT,FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA*********************************

Conducted and Preparedby

Keith J . Hammer*November 1986

*Project funded by and conducted for:

Swan View Coali t ion, Inc.P. O. Box 1901Kalispel l , Montana 59901Resources, Ltd.Whale Buttes RoadPolebridge, Montana 59928


2/19

AbstractOf the 62 road closure s t r u c t u r e s in ve nto rie d w ith in G riz zly

Bear Management S i t u a t i o n One a r e a s o f t h e Swan Lake RangerD i s t r i c t , 53 were s u c c e s s f u l l y ground t r u t h e d , photographedand o n - s i t e observat ions recorded t o enable each closure s t r u c t u r et o be e va lu ate d u sin g c r i t e r i a designed t o measure t h e degreet o which the U. S. Fores t Service has taken a l l reasonable measuresto insure the s t r u c t u r e r e s t r i c t s the type o f vehic les for whichit i s i n t e n d e d . 38% o f t h e c l o s u r e s t r u t h e d were found t o bei n e f f e c t i v e i n f u l l y r e s t r i c t i n g passenger type v e h i c l e s . Theroad m i l e s behind t h e s e i n e f f e c t i v e c l o s u r e s comprises 44%,o r 49 o f the I I I miles o f road r e p o r t e d by t h e USFS as b e i n gc l o s e d y e a r - l o n g t o a l l motor ized v e h i c l e s " and from Apri l 1t o November 30 t o snowmobiles , i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t w i l d l i f eresources .

50% o f t h e i n e f f e c t i v e c l o s u r e s was found t o be due tof a i l u r e o f the agency t o d i l i g e n t l y i n s u r e t h a t g a t e c l o s u r e sbe k e p t c l o s e d and l o c k e d . 25% o f t h e i n e f f e c t i v e c l o s u r e swas due t o two and four-wheel d r iv e v e h ic l e t r a i l s which circumventedt h e c l o s u r e s t r u c t u r e . 10% o f t h e i n e f f e c t i v e c l o s u r e s wasdue t o vandal ism. 15% o f t h e i n e ff e c t i v e c l o s u r e s was due t os t r u c t u r e s reported t o r e s t r i c t road miles but not y e t i n s t a l l e d .

Redundant use o f m u l t i p l e c l o s u r e s t r u c t u r e s t o s e c u r ea given area was found i n numerous a r e a s . S i t e s p e c i f ic examplesa r e n o t e d and b o t h s i t e s p c i f i c and g e n e r a l recommendationsare made toward achieving a more c o s t e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n troad closure program. The c u r r e n t average miles o f road securedper closure t r u t h e d was found t o be 2.14 miles . Summary discuss ionand recommendations a r e made concerning measures r e a d i ly a v a i la b leand l i k e l y t o increase the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the t r u t h e d closuresi n r e s t r i c t i n g o f f - r o a d - v e h i c l e and snow mobile t r a v e l . Sucha v a i l a b l e measures were not taken by the agency i n 92% o f t h eclosures which were ground t r u t h e d .

- 1 -


3/19

In t roduct ionThis s tudy was conducted fo r the Swan View Coal i t ion , Inc . ,

and Resources , L td . as a case s tudy o f U. S. Fo re s t Serviceprograms to secure i nc r ea sed wi ld l i f e u t i l i z a t i o n o f hab i t a tthrough a road c l o su r e program. The purpose o f the study wasto assess the degree to which on-the-ground Fores t Service roadc lo su re s tr u ct ur es met c r i t e r i a es tabl ished to r e f l e c t measureswhich must reasonably be taken to e f fec t ive ly r e s t r i c t veh icu la rt r a f f i c . While the s tudy focuses on the ef fec t iveness o f par t i cu la rc lo su re s in r e s t r i c t i n g veh i cu l a r t r a f f i c , obse rva t ions andrecommendat ions a re made r e l a t ive to the e ff ec tiv en es s o f theclosure in secur ing wi ld l i f e hab i t a t v ia the s t r a t eg i c loca t iono f the c losure device within the Fores t road system.The nega t ive e f f e c t s o f open fo res t roads on the ab i l i tyo f va r ious wi l d l i f e spec i e s to u t i l i z e ava i l ab le hab i t a t i sgenera l ly recognized within both the sc i en t i f i c and public landmanagement communities . Lyonl found t ha t primary and secondaryopen road dens i t i e s o f one mile / square mile reduced the effec t ivenesso f e lk hab i t a t to only 60% o f i t s potent ia l . As open road dens i t i e sincreased , hab i t a t e f fec t iveness continued to decrease , re su l t ingin le ss than 20% e f fec t iveness when open road dens i t i e s reacheds ix miles /square mile .

G riz zly b ea r s tud ies conducted on the Rocky Mountain f ron to f Montana demonstra ted t ha t gr izz ly bears genera l ly avoid areaso f 500 meters on each s ide o f an open road. 2 Similar f indingswere made during gr i z z ly s tud ies in Yel lowstone Nat iona l Parkwhere observed gr izz ly bear use of areas of 600 meters on e i the rs ide of pr imary roads was l e s s than expected. 3

That open f o r e s t roads a l so cont r ibute to th e de l ibe ra tepoaching and mistaken k i l l i ng o f g rizz ly bear s , espec ia l ly duringthe b lack bear hunt ing season, i s well documented and discussedby land managers and b io log i s t s such as Thomas Hol land o f theU. S. Fo re st S er vic e. 4

-2 -


4/19

Study A rea

The s tudy area i s genera l ly s i tua ted w ithin the Swan Valleyof northwest Montana and in clu de s p ortio ns o f both th e westerns lopes o f the Swan Range Mountains and the eastern slopes ofthe M ission Range Mountains . The s tudy a rea boundaries a redesc r ibed by th e h yd ro lo gic al divide of the Swan Mountains tothe eas t and the Mission Mountains to the west; th e F1athead/Lolo National Fores t boundary to the sou th , and the ext remi t ieso f Management Si tua t ion One (MS-l) Grizz ly Bear H abita t a reason th e Swan Lake Ranger Di s t r i c t (SLRD)5 as th e cen t ra l andnorthern boundar ies . See Study Area Map, Exhibi t 1 .

The Swan and Miss ion Mountains and th e va lley f loors a tthe i r base represent th e westernmost cen t r a l por t i ons of theNorthern Cont inen t a l Divide Gr izz ly Bear Ecosystem (NCDGBE)as descr ibed in th e G riz zly Bear Recovery Plan. 6

The s tudy a rea chosen r ep re sen t s a l l l ands "needed fo rthe surv ival and recovery o f the [g r izz ly bear ] or a segmento f i t s popula t ion ll7 , i . e . , MS-l areas , within a s in gle federa ladminis t ra t ive un i t , the Swan Lake Ranger Dis t r i c t . The mult i -seasona l impor tance and e s s en t i a l nature of the grizz ly bearhabi t a t found in the study area i s indicated by i t s interagencyc l a s s i f i c a t i on as MS-l v ia the Flathead Fores t Plan and formalSect ion 7 consul ta t ions undertaken with the U. S. Fish and Wildl i feSer vi ce pur su an t to the Endangered Species Act during developmento f the P lan . The importance of ma in ta in in g s ecur e gr izz ly bearmovement between the Mission and Swan Mountain por t ions o f theNCDGBE i s ind ica ted in par t by the es tab l i shment o f d i rec t ionin th e F la th ea d Fores t Plan to IImanage the Swan/Clearwater Divideas an area t h a t provides a secure gr izz ly bear t r a ve l rou t ebetween the Mission and Swan Mountain Ranges. 1I8

The s tudy area i s subjec t to both recrea t ional and t imberharves t re la ted dis turbances to gr izz ly bear hab i t a t secu r i tyand habi ta t a l t e r a t ions , as evidenced by both th e F la th ea d Fores tPlan Management Area Map (1985) and the Flathead F ores t T ravelPlan Map (1983) . The c en t r a l po r t io n s o f the study area are

-3 -


5/19

..

shown to con ta in a subs t an t i a l road system a cc essin g a re as ofpr imar i ly mixed land ownership. This area c on ta in s p r i v a t e andcommercial t imber lands adjacent to USFS lands al located pr imar i lyto management a r ~ a s where commercial t imber harves t i s scheduled.The ea s t e rn and western po r t io n s o f the s tudy area border orcontain port ions o f the Mission Mountains and Bob Marshal l Wildernessareas and conta in t imber harves t s i t e s as wel l as higher elevat ionroad end/ t ra i lhead access to high qua l i ty roadless and wildernessrec rea t ion .

MethodologyFor th e purposes of t h i s case study , the Swan Lake Ranger

Dis t r i c t 6/4/86 Road Closure Inventory was u t i l i zed as the mostcomplete and avai lab le inventory o f the cur ren t SLRD road closureprogram. 9 This I nv en to ry in clu de d c losu re s ind icated on theTravel P lan Map and closures planned and/or implemented s incethe 1983 Travel Plan Map was pr in ted .

Each road c losu re inc luded in th e 6 /4 /86 Inven to ry wasthen plo t ted on the 1983 Travel Plan Map us ing l o ca t ion descr ip t ion sfrom the Road Closure Inventory and the 6 /4 /8 6 F la th ea d Nat iona lFores t Road Inventory. Closure locat ions were then comparedto MS-l boundar i es shown in the Flathead Fores t Plan lO . Roadclosure loca t ions outs ide MS-l areas were omit ted from fu r the rassessment .

A con ce rte d a ttempt was made to v i s i t each of the 61 closuresloca ted in MS-l on SLRD, to record on - s i t e obse rva t ions andto pho tograph th e c lo su re s tr uc tu re and any other s ign i f i c an taspects o f the immediate surroundings re la ted to assess i ng th ee ff ec tiv en es s o f the closure device . Photos taken during on-s i t eobservat ions a re assembled as unbound Appendix A to t h i s repor t .

A s t anda rd "Ground Tru th ing Form" was developed and usedcons i s t en t l y to reco rd da ta from th e Road Closure Inven to ryand on-s i t e observa t ions . Detai led margin notes are added wheres tandard responses on the form may not accurate ly desc r ib e theon - s i t e s i t u a t i on . A complete record o f a l l completed "GroundTruthing Forms" i s assembled as a bound "Appendix B" to t h i s

-4-


6/19

repor t .Resu l t s from the "Ground Truthing Forms" were then subjected

to the a pp lic a ti on o f " ef fe ctiv en es s" c r i t e r i a and a re displayedin Spreadsheets 1-3. SLRD Geographic Units were used to a s s i s tin d ata p ro ce ss in g and the upper Swan Geographic Unit was fu r the rdivided in to lo gica l geographic sub-uni ts fo r the same purpose .

The c r i t e r i a used to assess the e ff ec tiv en e ss o f each closures t ruc ture in re s t r i c t ing the type o f v eh ic ula r t r a f f i c prohib i tedare as fol lows:111 Vehicles grea te r than 40" in width ( )40") .The closure i sDeemed EFFECTIVEi f :

A) An i nd i v i dua l would reasonab ly be expected to haveto r e so r t to use of winches or too ls to proceed pa s tth e c losu re s t ru c tu r e by a l t e r i ng the s t ru c tu r e o rsurrounding phys i c a l obs t r uc t i on s , such as boulde rso r t r e e s , which prevent detour ing around the device ,and . .

B) Although a r e l a t i v e l y unobs t ruc ted path wide enoughto allow passage o f a >40" veh i c l e may ex i s t , t he rei s no reasonable evidence ( t r acks , broken brush, e tc . ) ~ q a tthe po ten t i a l detour i s being used as a detour .

The closure i sdeemed INEFFECTIVEi f :A) By Vandalism

1) Sign to rn down o r defaced beyond recogni t ion2) Gate to rn down, lock pin (bar) broken, o r otherwise

damaged to allow >40" vehic le t r a f f i c to proceedon the road bed.3) Ear th bar r i e r leveled o ff or otherwise worn downand exh ib i t i ng )40" vehic le t racks over the topof the ba r r i e r .

B) By Detour1) Su f f i c i en t opening around o r near ba r r i e r with

-5-


7/19

evidence o f )40" vehic le passage around the ba r r i e r .2) Evidence o f )40" veh ic l e passage pa s t c losu re

s ign .C) By Fa i lure to Lock

1) Gate no t in c losed pos i t ion w ith c losed lockin pin .

D) By No Structure1) The l oca t ion o f c lo su re s truc tu re i s reasonably

cer t a in and t ru thed . The Road Closure Inventoryc r e d i t s c lo su re miles to th e c losu re number,ye t no closure s t ruc ture i s present .

1/2 Vehicles l ess than 40" in width ( ~ 4 0 " ) .A) Snowmobile closures .Closure s t ruc tures were ground t ru thed on 9/30, 10/1 ,

10/15 and 10/19 o f 1986. Therefore , on-s i t e inspect ionfo r snowmobile t r acks beyond the c losu re s t ruc tu reduring t imes of su i t ab l e snowpack was no t f e a s ib l e .Dur ing ground t r u th ing , however , s t ru c tu r e s whichcould reasonably make snowmobile passage phys i ca l lyimpossible were to be noted.

B) ORV closures . (Wheel driven off-road vehic le s ) .Closure s t ruc tures were evaluated , and any which couldreasonably make ORV passage in the immediate v ic in i typhys i c a l l y imposs ib le were to be no ted . Evidenceof reasonably i den t i f i ab le


8/19

..,

t ruthed data and t o t a l s unless otherwise indicated .Results

Of the 62 closures included in the Inventory, 53 were successfu l ly ground t ru thed and photographed. Two more closures wereground t ru thed and photographed outs ide the author ized c losu redates . Hence, fo r da ta analys is pu rposes, they were consideredunt ruthed. Three closure s i t e s could not be located with enoughaccuracy to rea so nab ly e nsu re t he re was no s t ru c tu r e a t thein tended s i t e , and were co ns id ere d no t ground t r u thed . Oneroad c losu re t r u th ing was attempted on 10/15/86 but could notbe reached l ega l ly by motor ized veh ic le due to temporary "greendo t" road r e s t r i c t ions in the a rea . Three c losures in the ElkCreek area could not be reasonably t ru thed due to a combinationo f inc lement weather , road condi t ions and pending darkness onthe day o f at tempted t r u th ing .

As a r e s u l t o f the above, 85% of the Inventory closureswere accurate ly ground t ru thed . Given th e h igh p erc en ta ge o fc lo su re s tr uth ed and the random procedure determining thoseclosures "untru thed" , it was determined t ha t an adequate samplegroup of closures was analyzed to accurate ly demonstrate t rendswithin the SLRD/MS-l road closure program as a whole.

Table 1 displays percentage r e su l t s (neares t whole percent) .in terms of E ffe ctiv en ess o r Ine f fec t iveness pe r th e t o t a l o fa l l t ru thed c losu res .

Table 1Total Road Closures Ground Truthed

By Mileage By CountIne f fec t ive due to - Vandalism 3% 4%Ineffec t ive due to - Detour 10% 9%Ineffec t ive due to - Not Locked 29% 19%Ine f fec t ive due to - No Structure 3% 6%Ineffec t ive Tota l 44% 38%Effec t ive Total 56% 62%

-7-


9/19

1

Table 2 displays percentage r e su l t s (neares t whole percent)in terms o f " In e ff ec ti ve " s ubca te gor ie s p e r t o t a l Ineffec t ivenessamong tr uth e d c lo su re s.

Table 2Ine f fec t ive Road ClosuresDue to VandalismDue to DetourDue to Not LockedDue to No St ruc tu re

Conclusions and Recommendations

Tota l Ine f fec t iveBy Mileage By Count

6% 10%22% 25%66% 50%6% 15%

Par t I - Vehicles Greate r than 40" in WidthOf the 53 road closures t ruthed and subjec ted to s t a t i s t i c a l

ana ly s i s , all bu t one (#5392) were l i s t ed on the Road ClosureInventory as being closed to )40" veh ic le s fo r the purpose o fpro tec t ing / secur ing wi ld li fe h ab it at . All were l i s t ed as year- longc losu res . As Table I demonstrates , 63% of the t ru thed c losureswere e f f e c t i v e in r e s t r i c t i ng )40" vehicular t r a f f i c . 38% ofth e t ru thed closures were c l a s s i f i ed as ine f fec t ive due to fa i lu reof the agency to proper ly i n s t a l l and maintain the closure s t ruc -tu res .

Of th e s t ruc tu re s c lass i f ied as inef fec t ive , 50% were dueto fa i lu re o f th e agency to ensure t h a t th e ga t e was c losedand l ocked . Of th e ten c losu res not locked, s ix were in thegeneral area of apparent ly ac t ive t imber sa les or road cons t ruct ioncon t r a c t s . Analys is ind ica tes t ha t the s ing l e , most importantway fo r the agency to in crease th e e f f e c t i v ene s s o f i t s ga tec l o su r e s i s to ensure t ha t gates a re locked. This may be doneby moni tor ing ga t e s t a t u s and key i s suance and by r equ i r i ngtha t gates be k ep t clo sed during a ct iv e c on tr ac t ac t i v i t i e s .

The second l ead ing cause o f c losu re i ne f fec t iveness , wasthe use o f a detour circumventing th e closure s t ruc ture . Detoursaccoun ted fo r 25% o f a l l i n e f f e c t i v e c l o su r e s . Of the f ives t ruc tures circumvented by a >40" de tour , four exhibi ted detours

-8 -


10/19

establ i shed around the s t ruc ture with minimal p rio r t re e cut t ingo r brush c lear ing evident . The f i f th s t ru c tu r e was a c losu res ign which was ignored to the degree tha t s ign i f i can t evidenceo f v ehi cl e passage beyond the s ign was apparent . These observa t ionsind ica te the need for more s t r a t eg i c placement of gates or verylarge ear then bar r ie rs combined with app rop ri at e physi ca l ba r r i e r s .Addi t i ona l phys i c a l ba r r i e r s may in clu de bou ld er s adjacent tothe gate /ear then ba r r i e r t to p rev en t d eto urs through the barrowp i t o r ne ighbor ing t e r r a i n . A good example of such a closurei s closure #10383 (Thicket a t Piper) where l a rge boulde rs a recombined with th e cutbank and d itche s to prevent de tour . Apoor example i s closure #10503 (N. Goat Cr . ) t a gate r ecen t lyi n s t a l l ed under a cu r r en t logging con t rac t . The uph i l l d i tchnext to the gate i s wide and gentle and l e f t unobstructed t offer inga ready de tour fo r two-wheel dr ive vehic les . The only "sign"closure (#10321) which appeared to be e f f e c t i v e was on a roadreclaimed by vegeta t ion to the degree it would tend to discouragevehicular t r ave l .

Vandal ism was a minor con t r ibu to r to in eff ec tiv en es s a t10% of t o t a l ine f fec t iveness . One ga te (#10319) had a brokenlocking pin and one ear th ba r r i e r (#9821) was worn down to allowveh ic les to pass over it. No gates were found to exhib i t majorvandal ism such as a t t empt s to pu l l a gate out of the ground.However t many gates exh ib i t ed bu l l e t ho le s and minor bendingo f the cross bar .

The absence o f any s t ruc ture accounted for 15% of c losurei n e f f e c t i v ene s s . Three inventor i ed c losu re s i t e s showed nos t ru c tu r e a t all. One was l i s t e d as "Planned" (1110527). Onewas l i s t ed as "Under Contract" (1/10593). A th i rd one was l i s t edas "Ex i s t i ng" (1/10574) in th e Inven to ry . A ll t h r ee were inareas of apparent c on tr ac t a ct iv itY t making admin i s t r a t i ve andcons t ruc t i on scheduling appear to be responsbible fo r the lackof closure s tr uc tu re r ath er than an ac t o f vandalism. The RoadClosure Inventory claimed closure miles fo r these non-exis tentclosures . Therefore t our analys is l i s ted c la imed c losu re milesas " ine f fec t ive" ra ther than as "untruthed". Similarly t s t ruc tures

-9-


11/19

l i s t ed as "under con t r ac t " and found to ex i s t were assignedroad miles in t he a pp ro pri at e category.

The 38% of the t ru thed closures c lass i f i ed as ine f fec t iveaccount fo r 44% of the ass igned road miles behind a l l t r u thedc lo su r e s . This in dic ate s th at almost ha l f of the road systeml i s t ed as closed in the Inventory i s subjec t to a higher degreeof veh i cu l a r use and wi ld l i f e dis tu rbance than if the agencyhad taken a l l reasonable measures to main ta in an e f f ec t i ve l yclosed s t ruc tu re .

While it i s beyond th e scope of t h i s analys i s to measureo r ca lcu la te the ne t ef fec t o f the clo su res on wi ld l i f e hab i ta t ,th e e xte ns iv e ground t ru thing enables th i s rep ort to make valuablerecommendations fo r use by the agency in mainta in ing, modifyingand expanding t h e i r road c losure program in an ef fec t ive andcos t e f f i c i en t manner. These recommendations are directed towardach iev ing more secure hab i t a t per c lo su r e , and in tu rn , perdo l l a r investment . Sta t i s t i ca l analys i s revea ls t ha t the averagemileage o f road "c lo sed" per t ru thed c lo su re i s 2.1 4 m iles .This r e l a t ive ly low mileage f igure can be a t t r ibu ted , in pa r t ,to on-s i t e examples such as the following:1 . Closures #9572 and #9552 are s i tua ted a t a t r a i lhead (#351)

above Lindbergh Lake and 50 yards from one another . Theyare s i tua ted 0.25 road miles up the road which forks adjacentto Closure #79. All th es e c lo su re s are within s igh t dis tanceof one another in th i s c learcu t area . Placement o f c losure#79 immedia te ly before th e road fork would el iminate theneed fo r ga te s #9572 and #9552. As a r e s u l t , only 0.25mile would be added to Tra i l #351. Signs o f horse - s tockunloading aga ins t the di tchbank pr io r to Closure #79 indicatet ha t some horse users a re cu r ren t ly not dr iv ing the l a s t0.25 mile .

2. C losures #5206 and #9821 are lo ca te d w ith in severa l hundredyards of each other on the two forks of the road up N.F. LostCreek (#5206) . Both c lo su re s a re s i t ua t ed in the centero f a l a rge , sou th facin g burned area , known as Fire Basin.The area exh ib i ts s ub s tan t ia l winter b ig game range charac te r i s -

-10-


12/19

t i c s . A s ingle closure fa r the r down N.F. Lost Creek wouldel iminate the need and expense of two closures . Also habi t a ts e cu r i t y in Fi re Basin would be improved by moving thedis turbances associated with road end ac t iv i t i e s downstreamto a more appropr ia te posi t ion .Agency implementation of such recommendations on a program

wide bas is would serve to increase the closed road mileage perc losu re s t r u c t u r e and hence lower cos t s while in cre as in g th eacreage o f secure habi ta t . Simi la r ly , sub s t an t i a l numbers o fu nin ve nto rie d sp ur roads ex i s t in the study area without thebenef i t o f any closure s t ruc ture . In numerous i n s t ance s , o t he run re s t r i c t ed spur roads appear to access the same "block" ofhabi t a t and could be res t r ic ted by a common c losu re s t ru c tu r es imply by p l ac ing it below the road fork . Examples includec losures #5381 and #9785A. Simi l a r ly , c lo su re o f a main o rsecondary road would of t en accomplish th e e f f ec t i ve c losu reof a mult i tude o f spur roads orig inat ing from the road closed.Pa r t I I - Vehic le s Less than 40" in Width 4 0 " ) . ORV's o rSnowmobiles

Of th e 53 c losu res t r u t h ed , a l l a re l i s t ed in th e RoadClosure Inventory as c losed year-round to " t r a i l veh ic le s " ,and as closed from 4/1 - 11/30 to snowmobiles. However, noneo f these closure s t ruc tures appeared to be capable of physical lyre s t r i c t ing snowmob ile s and (40" ORV's. Only four of the 53t ruthed closures were accompanied by signs ind ica t ing snowmobilesand ORV's were r e s t r i c t ed , two (#5398, #10319) were a t ga t e sand two were s igns only (#10320, #10321) .

While it i s beyond the scope of th i s study to accuratelydetermine the amount of i l l ega l snowmobil e and ORV use occurr ingbehind inventor i ed closures , it appears unreasonable to expectt ha t an ORV or snowmobile operator approaching a closure s t ruc tureno t designed to phys ica l ly r e s t r i c t snowmobiles or ORV's wi l lhave reviewed the Forest Travel Plan suf f i c i en t ly to know t h a tsuch t rave l beyond th e closures i s prohib i ted . Signs depic t ingthe type of vehic le r e s t r i c t ed should be placed a t a l l closures .

-11-


13/19

92% o f th e c lo su re s tru th ed had no such s i gn . Pa r t i c u l a r l ywith regard to snowmob iles an d ORVIs, i n s t a l l i ng a s ign i s ameasure w hich would s i gn i f i c an t l y i nc rease the e f fec t ivenessof the c losu re .

In conclus ion , fa i lu re of the agency to take a l l reasonablemeasures to insure th e maximum e f f ec t iveness o f its ex i s t i ngclosure s t ruc tures has resul ted in a s ign i f i c an t lo ss in ef fec t iveness of the c lo su re s t ru th e d. Of the I I I miles of road inventor iedas "c losed" by th e se c lo su re s t r u c t u r e s , 49 miles o r 44% a rea t r i sk o f compromising gr izz ly bear and o ther wild l i fe hab i t a tu t i l i z a t ion in the areas these roads access .

The Sunset-Beaver Creek area o f the Swan/Clearwater Dividecorresponds roughly w ith th e F la th ead Na ti onal Fores t ' s ManagementArea l l -C where management o f a secure gr izz ly bear t r ave l cor r ido rbetween the Mission and Swan Mountains i s to be a managementpr io r i ty . In the Sunset-Beaver a rea , of the e igh t gates inventoriedas being in cur ren t exis tence , four were not closed and lockedand one was no t in ex is te nce . Hence, 24.4 miles o f "c losed"road was found to not be e f f e c t i v e ly secured , as compared to3.95 miles which were secured. In addi t ion to schedul ing currentroad bui ld ing ac t i v i t i e s in the area , t h i s marks an 86% fa i lu reon th e pa r t o f th e agency to secure t he i r del ineated gr izz lybear t r ave l cor r idor from veh icu la r i n t rus ions by the gene ra lpubl ic .

The f in d ing s o f t h i s rep ort in dica te tha t marked problemsassocia ted with implement ing a sound road c losu re program onNational Fores t Lands a r i se not from the publ ic ' s unwil l ingnessto respect well designed c losu re s . This i s evidenced by th elow r a t e o f vanda l i sm. Ins t ead , c losu re problems a re shownto r e su l t from the agency's fa i lu re to design closure s t ruc turesto prevent "casual" circumvention of the s t ruc ture and th e a ge nc y'sfa i lu re to d i l igen t ly ensure tha t c l osu re s t ru c tu r e s a re kep tclosed and locked by Fores t Service personnel and pr iva te par t i e sunder cont rac t to the agency.

-12-


14/19

Footnotes :1 . Lyon, L. Jack; 1984: Field Tests o f Elk/Timber Coordinat ionCoordinat ion Guidel ines: U. S. Fores t Service ResearchPaper INT-325.2. Aune, Madel and Hunt; 1986.3. Mat t son , David J.; R. Knight & B. Blanchard; The Effec t so f Developments and Primary Roads on Grizz ly BearHab i t a t Use in Yel lowstone Nat iona l Park W omin ;as p re s en t e a t t e t nternat10na on erence onBear Research and Management, Williamsburg, VA;2 /21 - 26 /86 (Conference proceedings , pub l i ca t ionpending) .4 . Hol land , Thomas M.; Grizz ly Hab i t a t Improvement Pro jec t son the South and Middle Fork Flathead River ; fromProceedings - Grizzly Bear Habi ta t Symposium, Missoula,Montana. Apri l 30 - May 2, 1985; U. S. Fores t ServiceGeneral Technical Report INT-207.5. USDA Fores t Service; 1986, Flathead Fores t Plan , p . 11-24.6. U. S. Fish and Wildl i fe Service; 1982, Grizzly Bea r RecoveryPlan , p. 58.7. Flathead Fores t Plan , supra , p . 11-26.8. I d . , pps. 111-42 - 50.9. The coopera t ive "green dot" road cont ro l program under taken

dur ing the Fa l l b ig game hunting season by the USFSand Montana Department o f F ish , W i ld li f e and Parksin order to enhance hunte r oppo rtun it y was not includedin the SLRD Road Closure Inventory and was not consideredan i n t eg ra l pa r t of t h i s study.10. Flathead Fores t Plan , supra , p. 11-24.

-13-

- - - - - - - - - - ------------------


15/19


16/19

I,

'n _1_ I: --

' 1 : 5 i y r ' & t r 4 : n ~ " : ' . ~ _ . _ ~ , __+ __ ' ~ ~ _ - - - - i ' 1-, _n__'._ -- - I-- f - ~ ~ ~ Q V l ? P . ! ~ e ! \ ~ r - t k i ( . . ~ - ' { - ..J,"Z ~ . - - - t - - - - ~ - - - - -Xf---- _nun E ~ -- ~ , ' , ----.----+--e-' ! g !_ ~ : ~ _ c . o t . J J _ : ~ u _ _ ' - - - t - - c - ~ - 1 - ' l -.. ----- ~ X - - -'.----. -+i - '! ~ __ ~ b 2 L Q ; ~ J . Q ~ ' - . _n; '2'L2._. '.J ,un _n fy . ,_

, 4 g . 9 ~ U ~ ~ I l " M I ~ y t , \ k : t _ ~ ' / . j 1.. _ . n ~ _ ' _ I __ ---+__ ' I -;,i_ ,n ' nn_ _n X ~ ' t : _ . _._' .._,' . .l:' i8lY S ' I / f . 4 , } ~ l d e . , O w / 1 ~ . ' . l . . . cOY ~ . . J - " . S P t . ~ ~ J . v u . ' f " , \ c ; l t ..ub; , ToTAL:S '8f2__ n,7.!H_ --3L'I

)- :


17/19

~

)

p ~ 2.

i- m ~ lm__ +__ -- - - - - i - - - - - - -1- -- -

)i

-1--- - - ;

--

1- t -

--- - r-- -- - -1- i---


18/19

- )

LOt-vEi( S W A ~ I NO'So Y FAc.E

---- , ---.- -- - --- - -- - ---

----1-----. '--- --1-- - - - -----1-----

_.- ---- .1 -- - . - - - - - - - + - - - - i - f - - - - - - i - - - - I - - - - : ! - ~ - I - -- e--- - ~ -----

- - - - - ' - - - - - I - - - - - - - ~ - - - - -------- -- --.-- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - ---- -- I - - - - ! - ---------,------

------ ,-- - - - ---


19/19

6Eo6RAPtf 1c.. \.:IV I r ! sueD [SPR EAD .s1fEr ?l{J7b7AL5

.. i . IS W ~ A N u 0 & e : ( ( A I . I ~ ~ ~ H : 1D1tBf(TjltrS lTo.Ttfl sl. I. .. .1 ..._... ~ . _ ~ C O \ ) ~ f t H . 33.

t l ' l : f e ~ b 2 . ~

"r-- i- - -.i

- (7 ) I. mU ' _ L~ 5"" . .1.0 :5 .. l:Q.. $'".3 9

Z.Cf 10,7 ] Z . ~ " 2.fJ /8, '1 /JI.

Hammer 1986 Road Closure Effectiveness

Documents

Transcript of Hammer 1986 Road Closure Effectiveness