Odes to Roads: Roads and the Mystique of Freedom, by Tom Petersen. Pages 12-13
DePaving the Way: Stealing is a Crime, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 14-15
Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 16-17
Citizen Spotlight: Q & A with William Geer, by Cathy Adams. Pages 18-19
Legal Notes, by Karl Forsgaard. Pages 20-21
Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 20072
Enforcement, Safety and Thinking Out of the Box
A few years ago the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition (NTWC) issued a series of reports about the safety threats posed by off-road vehicles. At the time, lots of conservationists asked us why we would focus on rider safety, when, after all, we
were mostly a coalition of conservationists. They had a point. It can seem odd to start talking about the dangers of these vehicles to humans, when our missions are focused on the threats these vehicles pose to nature. That said, a lot of conservationists, myself included, work on protecting and restoring nature precisely because we want to live on a clean and healthy planet. Perhaps the desire to keep the planet nice for humans is not so far off from keeping the woods safe for humans, as well.
Over the last few months, there’s been increasing attention paid to off-road vehicle safety issues, specifically by a new group, Concerned Families for ATV Safety. They hope to establish a minimum age under which children would not be allowed to drive ATVs. (Tens of thousands of kids are injured or killed on ATVs annually.) They recommend that anyone driving an ATV should have a driver’s license – e.g. 16 years old (though licens-ing age varies from state to state). We agree that children under 16 should not be driving ATVs, even ATVs that are smaller and lighter than full-sized adult vehicles.
But even if we did limit ATVs to people aged 16 and older, we’d still have to enforce that regulation. After all, it’s not just riders themselves who are at risk, but also pedestri-ans/equestrians they encounter on mixed-use trails, or nonmotorized users they encoun-ter when driving illegally. Numerous hikers, bikers, equestrians and hunters have been injured by careless and/or illegal off-road vehicle use. So what’s a land manager to do?
Enforcement is one of the most problematic things about off-road vehicle manage-ment on public lands. While the agencies always seem to be able to find the money to designate off-road vehicle routes, they never seem to be able to find the money to enforce off-road vehicle regulations and designations (nor do they ever seem to have money to conduct monitoring efforts).
But enforcement is possible, and that’s what Wildlands CPR and NTWC’s new report, “Six Strategies for Success” is all about (see our cover story). If agencies are going to al-low off-road vehicle recreation, they need to have real regulations to control it (e.g. mini-mum age, use on specific roads/routes only), and they have to enforce those regulations. This begins with effective route designations, not just allowing off-road vehicles to travel helter-skelter across the landscape. Unfortunately, enforcement is rarely a priority for the agencies, but perhaps it could be a higher priority if it didn’t seem so daunting.
The Six Strategies report doesn’t focus on problems with off-road vehicle enforce-ment. Instead, we focused on creative enforcement ideas, and changing the attitude of lawlessness that pervades this sport to one of lawfulness and respect. In addition to this report, we’re also completing a set of Best Management Practices, which should be avail-able this fall. While working on our long-term wish-list, we think it’s simultaneously our responsibility to point agency staff in the right direction regarding management.
Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and
promote road removal and revegetation.
P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551www.wildlandscpr.org
DirectorBethanie Walder
Development DirectorTom Petersen
Communications Coordinator
Jason Kiely
Restoration Program Coordinator
Marnie Criley
Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski
Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator
Sarah Peters
Montana State ORV Coordinator
Adam Rissien
Program & Membership AssistantAndrea Manes
Membership/Web Marketing Associate
Josh Hurd
Utah State ORV Coordinator
Laurel Hagan
Journal EditorDan Funsch
Interns & VolunteersCarla Abrams, Mike Fiebig, Ginny Porter
Board of DirectorsAmy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd,
Cara Nelson, Patrick Parenteau
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 3
— story continued on next page —
Motorized vehicle abuse has been called one of the biggest problems facing public lands – but many solutions are within reach, says a new report by
Wildlands CPR and the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition.
Over the past two decades, advances in off-road vehicle technology have enabled riders to drive on nearly any type of terrain, up steep slopes, and onto lands that once were accessible only on foot. At the same time, the popularity of off-road vehicle recreation has soared.
Together, these forces have overwhelmed the regu-latory and enforcement efforts of public lands agen-cies. The result: An extensive network of unauthorized, user-created routes that criss-cross the landscape and a legacy of damage to environmental and cultural resources. Safety concerns for humans and wildlife and conflicts among motorized and non-motorized recreationists have escalated.
Public land management agencies are facing these challenges with inadequate enforcement funding and staff. This leaves them unable to protect the lands under their stewardship, and at a loss to turn around the attitude of lawless-ness that is alarmingly common among off-road riders. The common perception among off-road riders is that breaking the rules some of the time is all right, especially if someone else has ridden off-route before and cut a visible trail. This has become a significant public problem because of the destructive capabilities of off-road vehicles.
Wildlands CPR released the report in late May on successful strategies for enforcing the law on public lands to stop off-road vehicle abuse. Five case studies illustrate how authorities have combined six strategies to protect safety, recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, water quality, and private property. (See the side bar on Enforcement Strategies, next page.)
“Everyone has a right to access our public lands, but no one has the right to abuse these lands or ruin the experience of others,” said Bob Clark, Associate Representative for the Sierra Club in western Montana. “Fair and effective law enforcement helps everyone who values public land, whether you ride a machine, a horse or rely on your own two feet. And enforcement helps protect wildlife and clean water from unjustifiable damage and pollution.”
Clark has felt the effects of off-road lawlessness first hand. Last sum-
mer, he was the victim of a vehicular assualt by a dirt biker who was riding
Six Strategies for SuccessNew Report Reveals Solutions to
Off-Road Vehicle Abuse of Public LandBy Jason Kiely
illegally through the Great Burn proposed wil-derness on Idaho’s Clearwater National Forest. Identifying the rider has been difficult as he was wearing full body armor and his machine had no state license plate.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Man-
agement have struggled to prevent environmen-tal damage, conflicts, and even violence some-times associated with the abuse of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), dirt bikes, and other powerful off-road vehicles. Former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth called unmanaged motorized recreation one of the greatest threats to public land.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 20074
—Strategies for Success, continued from page 3 — Six Enforcement Strategies
Summarized
1) Make a commitment—Engage in serious enforcement ef-forts
• Expand enforcement capacity;• Target and intensify patrol efforts;• Look for new funding sources; and• Do not tolerate damage from off-road vehicles.
2) Lay the groundwork—Create enforceable routes and regu-lations.
• Create off-road vehicle route systems with an eye toward enforceability;
• Make the route systems clear on maps and on the ground; and
• Implement a system that identifies off-road vehicles or limits their numbers.
3) See and be seen—Engage in visible action and meaningful collaboration.• Organize and publicize volunteer labor;• Form broad coalitions for public support;• Formalize law enforcement collaborations;• Create opportunities for citizen reporting;• Use nonprofit status to gather money; and• Publicize progress.
4) Make riders responsible—Promote a culture shift among peers.
• Use mass media campaigns to educate riders and cultivate support;
• Work with off-road community leadership;• Focus on common values; and• Promote rider responsibility.
5) Use the force—Incorporate technologies that work.• Use remote electronic monitoring;• Track noise violations; and• Track recurring problems and repeat offenders.
6) Fit the punishment to the crime—Make penalties meaning-ful.
• Toughen penalties;• Consider natural resource damage in determining
fines;• Add community service as a penalty; and• Link off-road violations with other recreational privi-
leges; and• Impound vehicles.
The report, “Six Strategies for Success: Effective Enforce-ment of Off-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands,” explores what can be done to solve this problem, in these times of limited resources and tight budgets.
The report is based on more than 50 interviews with pub-lic land managers, law enforcement officials, and community leaders, landowners and volunteers. Joe Gallagher, Acting OHV Program Manager for the Forest Service called the re-port “thoughtful and insightful” and is concerned that funding is not adequately prioritized to enable the use of many of the strategies detailed in the report.
Nonetheless, the report highlights case studies where officials and citizen groups have succeeded after making en-forcement a priority. Rick Lint, a District Ranger on the Ocala National Forest in Florida requested additional officers and trained 15 existing field staff to make contact with riders. He said, “What you permit, you promote. We’ve permitted largely uninhibited access to public lands for so long that it’s come to be seen as a right. We’re putting in a structure to manage motorized use to sustain the quality of the land over time.”
In most cases, however, public lands agencies are over-whelmed by enforcement challenges. Lawbreakers too often scar the land, muddy streams and wetlands, damage habitat and create conflicts with law-abiding forest visitors. In the worst cases, these conflicts have erupted into violence and injury. (See attached case study of off-road vehicle abuse in western Montana.)
Jim Furnish, former deputy chief of the Forest Service and Wildlands CPR board member, tackled the issue in the early 1990s when he developed the management plan for the Oregon Dunes. Furnish recently said, “What’s been lacking is tough enforcement and the backbone needed to bring the runaway problem under control. Folks visiting our public lands expect enforcement that protects natural resources, ensures visitor safety, and reclaims a family-friendly atmo-sphere.”
Access the report and related materials, or purchase a copy with a credit card by visiting www.wildlandscpr.org. Cost is $5 for members, $10 for non-members.
Snowmobile damage to whitebark pines in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada. This area is closed to motorized travel. The slow-growing whitbark pines are an important food source for wildlife in this high-elevation area. Photo by Jeff Erdoes.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 5
Western Montana Case StudiesIllegal off-roading damages land and people
Photo courtesy of Bitterroot National Forest.
Hit-and-Run Injures Retired Officer
Bitterroot NF, spring 2007
Bill Burgund, a retired police officer, was injured in March when an ATV rider ran him over on a road that the Bitterroot National Forest had closed to all vehicles.
“Everyday folks like me deserve to
go on a walk in the woods without fear of being run over by a renegade on an ATV,” said Burgund. Burgund, who walks with crutches and uses a prosthetic leg because of earlier injuries, will likely face surgery because of the run in with the ATV.
“As a retired police officer, I know that a law is worthless without fair, effective enforcement. Unfortunately, we need to see more of that on our national forests.”
Citizen Documents Illegal Off-Roading
Lolo NF, fall 2006
Guy Leibenguth, of Lolo, loves to hike, ride his mule and take pictures on Petty Mountain. Last Thanksgiving, he took a hike with camera in hand and followed the tracks left by a Jeep and an all-terrain ve-hicle which had been riding illegally in the area designated by the Lolo National Forest as non-motorized. The tracks led him to three parked off-roaders on the closed Printer’s Creek Road.
Guy snapped a few identifying photos,
informed them that they were breaking the law and followed up persistently with Forest Service authorities. As a result, the riders were cited and fined.
Repair of “Mudding” Damage to Cost $2000Bitterroot NF, spring 2007
This spring illegal off-roading trashed the headwaters of Arasta Creek on the Bitter-
root National Forest, sticking taxpayers with a $2,000 bill to repair the damage. The Forest Service will likely have to close an access road to vehicle traffic in an effort to protect the area after this and previous damaging incidents.
“Mudding” usually occurs in the spring when off-roaders “challenge” their machines in wet meadows and small streams. As the vehicles spin their tires to pass through the mud, they dirty the water and damage stream sides. “Mudding” is particularly damaging since it trashes fish habitat and water sources that people and wildlife depend on in the arid West.
Forest Service personnel on the scene snapped the photo at right.
Dirt biker riding illegally in the Great Burn proposed Wilderness, moments before assaulting the photographer, Bob Clark.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 20076
Restoration Program Update
Program Updates, Summer 2007By Jason Kiely
A Community Approach to Restoration
On May 23-24, Marnie and grassroots partner Northwest Connections co-hosted a very successful restoration work-shop in the Swan Valley of Montana. On the first evening, over 60 folks joined our community cookout and enjoyed fare from a local restaurant. A majority stuck around to listen to two guest speakers, both experts in road removal: Rebecca Lloyd works for the Nez Perce Tribe and serves on the board of Wildlands CPR; Sungnome Madrone is a watershed restora-tion professional from Humboldt County, California. Re-becca talked about the long-running, successful partnership between the Tribe and the Clearwater National Forest that has leveraged restoration funds to remove damaging roads that have been seeping and sliding into the Tribe’s traditional salmon fisheries. Sungnome talked briefly about his home county’s restoration economy before facilitating a community discussion about the potential for watershed restoration work in the Swan. Sungnome did a great job of engaging diverse viewpoints and looking for areas of agreement.
The next day, 15 participants took a field trip to learn from three different restoration sites. The group started at the Clearwater Stewardship Project on the Lolo National Forest, where proceeds from forest thinning were used to pay for road restoration and mitigation measures, including road removal and bridge installation. The group then visited two sections in the Swan Valley, both of which were formerly Plum Creek timber lands. One section was purchased by the Flathead National Forest and the other by the Salish-Koote-nai Tribe and a local non-profit, the Swan Ecosystem Center. These sections have many restoration needs but no timber to help defray costs; we discussed restoration treatments and how to fund the work.
Wildlands CPR and Northwest Connections have been inventorying the roads in the section bought by the Forest Service. Restoration practitioners on the field trip provided suggestions for dealing with the road impacts, particularly noxious weeds. Wildlands CPR hopes to bring Sungnome back to the Swan Valley in the fall to help the partnership as-sess restoration opportunities and plan specific projects.
This project is generously funded by the LaSalle-Adams Foundation.
Citizen Science Finding a First
Science Coordinator Adam Switalski advanced unique re-search this quarter with an analysis of wildlife data collected from habitat being actively restored by removing damaging roads on the Clearwater National Forest. This citizen science project has found that bears used decommissioned roads significantly more than open roads. Our findings are the first to show with statistical significance that road removal is improving habitat for bears. In late May, Adam presented these findings at the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET) with a paper and poster co-authored by environmental studies graduate student-intern Anna Holden and Len Broberg, her program chair at the University of Montana.
More folks are involved in the Clearwater citizen science project than ever before. Intern Mike Fiebig has picked up where Anna left off and will lead a high school class trip to monitor removed roads. Mike is also developing a curriculum to help teachers bring citizen science into their high school classrooms. Friends of the Clearwater, based in Moscow, Idaho, is helping us develop new study sites on the Palouse Ranger District and intern Gini Porter is recruiting additional volunteers for the summer field season. Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) recently re-invested in this research, granting Wildlands CPR $5,000 for additional work.
New Collaborative Research Opportunities
Wildlands CPR continues to uncover new opportunities to collaborate with the Forest Service and universities to bet-ter understand the impacts of road decommissioning and re-moval. Recently, we received a $63,000 grant from the Forest Service to research different seeding techniques on decom-missioned roads on the Kootenai and Clearwater National Forests. The majority of this grant will fund research by a graduate student and field technician. University of Montana professor and Wildlands CPR board member Cara Nelson will lead this project and work closely with forestry graduate stu-dent Ashley Grant, Forest Service liaison Susan Rinehart and Robyn King from the Yaak Valley Forest Council.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 7
Confronting Off-Road Abuse
Adam Rissien began working as Wildlands CPR’s Montana ORV State Coordinator in April. His charge is to work with grassroots organizations, agencies, and allies to ensure the best possible travel plans as the Forest Service implements its 2005 travel management rule. Adam is prioritizing forests according to the level of threat posed by motorized recre-ation, existing capacity, and the potential to leverage existing alliances and develop new relationships. It appears most likely that our priority forests in Montana will be the Beaver-head-Deerlodge and Bitterroot National Forests.
Using the Forest Service’s data on motorized recreational opportunities, excluding the Gallatin National Forest, over 3.3 million acres or 58% of Montana’s roadless and wilderness quality lands could allow off-road vehicle use. The Beaver-head-Deerlodge National Forest alone subjects over one mil-lion acres of unprotected roadless areas to possible motor-ization—more than 55% of the forest’s unprotected roadless lands. Almost 320,000 acres, or 79%, of unprotected roadless lands on the Bitterroot National Forest risk being fragmented by the designation of motorized routes.
The conservation community is discovering common ground with traditional recreation organizations in Montana as Adam explores how we can best contribute to travel plan-ning on the Bitterroot and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests. The Montana Back Country Horsemen embraced a statewide resolution that commits to protecting hiking and stock trails from off-road vehicle abuse. This strong state-ment reflects many of Wildlands CPR’s values. The formal resolution echoes the response from a growing number of tra-ditional recreationists who find that their favorite places are being over-run with the noise, exhaust and damage caused by unmanaged off-road vehicle use. Another example of this growing chorus of support for conservation and traditional recreation is the group Montanans for Quiet Recreation, comprised of equestrians, hunters, skiers, hikers and others working together on the Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests.
Transportation Program Update
Protecting Legal Victories
Sarah Peters, Wildlands CPR’s new Legal Liaison, has been busy coordinating legal action to safeguard hard-fought victories. Wildlands CPR, in coordination with other conser-vation groups, is considering legal action against the National Park Service to keep intact ground-breaking protections won over the last 12 years through previous lawsuits. On Febru-ary 21 of this year, in a press release and with no prior public discussion, Big Cypress National Preserve announced that off-road vehicles would be allowed on nearly twenty miles of routes on Bear Island, an important unit in the preserve.
Big Cypress is both ecologically vital to Florida’s unique wildlife, and symbolically important to Wildlands CPR. The first National Preserve to be established, Big Cypress pro-vides a buffer to Florida’s expanding population growth and development, natural filtration for clean water, and critical habitat for the Florida panther.
The Florida panther is highly endangered, and Big Cy-press comprises a significant part of its last suitable habi-tat. Studies show that the panther alters its home range in response to the presence of hunters driving swampbuggies. Upon establishing the preserve, the Park Service allowed virtually unrestricted cross-country swampbuggy use, dev-astating Big Cypress’s wetlands for decades. By 1999 there were enough miles of swampbuggy scars to circumnavigate the Earth.
As a result of a lawsuit led by the Florida Biodiversity Project and supported by Wildlands CPR, the Clinton Admin-istration decided that it was finally time to restrict swamp-buggies to designated routes. Big Cypress was required to reduce the mileage of ORV routes in the Bear Island Unit. We returned to court to protect this win from a lenient Bush administration. Watch for updates on this developing issue in future editions of The Riporter.
Following-Through on Travel Management
Sarah also worked closely with coalition partners to craft comments on draft agency directives for the Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule. Once finalized, these directives will serve as the manual and handbook for agency staff as they determine which routes and areas will be designated for off-road vehicle use. This was the conservation community’s last opportunity to attempt to influence the policy that will guide the day-to-day implementation of the Travel Manage-ment Rule.
Sandhill crane seen along the Rocky Mountain Front, Montana. Photos by Dan Funsch.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 20078
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 15,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most
articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.
Effects of Artificial Lighting on WildlifeBy Tiffany Saleh
The U.S. is home to 3,981,512 miles of public roads (US Dept. of Transportation 2004). Unfortunately, the number of these roads that are currently lighted or will be lighted is not recorded by either
the Department of Transportation nor the Federal Highway Administra-tion, and therefore is unknown. We can infer that the majority of these roads are at least illuminated over specific portions. Ritters and Wickham (2003) report that 20% of the coterminous United States lies within 127 m of a road. In addition, U.S. Homeland Security is developing plans to illuminate vast portions of the border with Mexico, bisecting major wildlife corridors and flyways. Therefore, the road system potentially constitutes a serious problem for wildlife, as the number of species unaffected by light pollution is fast diminishing.
“Ecological light pollution” affects wildlife at the individual, commu-nity, and ecosystem level through “direct glare, chronically increased il-lumination, and temporary, unexpected fluctuations in lighting” (Longcore and Rich 2004; 191). A form of this pollution is known as “sky glow,” and results from the accumulation of various artificial lighting sources, creat-ing a glow that is reflected back to earth (Longcore and Rich 2004). The glow is naturally more pronounced near urban and other well-lit areas, but can also affect wildlife outside the city. Ecological light pollution stems from a wide variety of lighting systems, each of which is in use worldwide throughout the day and night.
Effects on WildlifeThe effects of ecological light pollution are widespread. They include
disorientation from and attraction to artificial light, structural-related mortality due to disorientation, and effects on the light-sensitive cycles of many species.
DisorientationExposure to artificial light can create problems for species adapted
to using light- or the absence of light- to aid in orientation. In these cases, ecological light pollution may interrupt natural behaviors, expose individu-als to higher predation levels, or disrupt navigational abilities.
Nocturnal frogs are especially vulnerable to the effects of artificial lighting. A study conducted by Buchanan (1993) suggests that any expo-sure to artificial light impedes the ability of nocturnal frogs to locate and capture prey. This is probably due to their inability to adjust their eyes to new light levels quickly, a process that can take anywhere from minutes to hours (Cornell and Hailman 1984).
Many predatory birds and reptiles, usually active only during the day, will forage at night under artificial lights (Longcore and Rich 2004). While this appears to be beneficial to these predators, prey species may suffer over time.
Light pollution also modified the behavior of prey species such as sockeye salmon fry (On-corhynchus nerka). Exposure to any light above 0.1 lux causes the fry to stop swimming down-stream and seek cover in low-velocity waters near the shore. Unfortunately, this brings them into increased contact with predatory cottids along the shoreline (Tabor et al. 2004). These results help explain the recent sockeye salmon decline in the Cedar River, Washington, which is exposed to both direct light and sky glow.
The most well-known example of disorienta-tion occurs among hatchling sea turtles. Hatch-lings find their way to the sea by differentiating between dark, elevated areas, and the bright, flat sea surface (Salmon 2003). Artificial lights, especially roadway lights, severely disrupt this ability. However, the use of embedded instead of overhead street lighting allowed hatchlings to orient normally to the sea (Bertolotti and Salmon 2005).
Wildlife are watching to see how we’ll handle this problem. Photo by Dan Funsch.
Photo by Dan Funsch.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 9
— references on next page —
Structure-related MortalityLighting produced and compounded by human structures can result
in high mortality rates of wildlife living around them. This effect is related to disorientation, but specific to structures such as lighthouses, skyscrap-ers and streetlamps.
The Long Point lighthouse on Lake Erie, Ontario, Canada has been the site of high mortality rates in the past. Previously, the lighthouse used a constant, rotating beam of light which appears to have been highly attrac-tive to birds. However, in 1989, the Long Point lighthouse was automated, and its beam replaced with a lower intensity, flashing system. This change brought a dramatic drop in the mortality rate at the lighthouse (Jones and Francis 2003).
Skyscrapers and other buildings are also hazardous, as they form a “light maze” that entraps and disorients wildlife. “Within the sphere of lights, birds may collide with each other or a structure, become exhausted, or be taken by predators” (Longcore and Rich 2004; 194).
Petrel and shearwater fledglings undertaking their first flight to sea are attracted to any type of light in the attempt to secure their first meal of bioluminescent squid (Imber 1975). Individuals will circle the lights until exhaustion sets in, grounding the birds on shore and exposing them to starvation and predation. Of problematic lighting structures on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, streetlights and stadium lights were the most detrimental, resulting in 78% of groundings. Between 20 and 40% of the island’s population is lost to ecological light pollution each year, greatly affecting the population’s viability (Le Corre et al. 2002).
Light-sensitive CyclesMany species of wildlife operate specific internal cycles or rhythms
that help them determine when to initiate foraging, migratory or reproduc-tive behavior. The addition of artificial light to the nighttime environment disrupts the precision of these cycles, thus modifying behavior.
American robins exposed to high levels of artificial light will initiate their morning songs significantly earlier (in relation to the onset of dawn) than those exposed to less light, sometimes up to 100 minutes earlier (Mill-er 2006). Prolonged singing could result in higher energy demands, greater predation risk, or earlier yearly feeding times. Threatened and vulnerable species especially may not be able to cope with these changes.
When days were extended to 16 hours by artificial lighting, White-tailed bucks began rutting 2 weeks earlier and weighed 20 lbs more at winter’s end (French et al. 1960). Unfortunately, this study did not record how these changes affected reproductive rates, but the lack of winter weight loss could potentially reduce mortality among mothers and fawns.
Nesting sea turtles selectively choose beach areas shaded by dark buildings over lighted areas. As a result, artificial lighting causes higher nest concentrations on rapidly decreasing shaded stretches of beach, resulting in higher mortality and predation rates among hatchlings.
Types of LightingThe standard of measurement for all light-
ing systems is the Lux, or footcandles, unit. Lux expresses brightness and intensity of light as perceived by the human eye (Longcore and Rich 2004). However, this system ignores some bio-logically important aspects of light. Researchers must focus not only on light intensity, but on radiation and spectrum as relevant to the organ-isms being studied.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Alternatives to the current lighting systems are often surprisingly simple. (1) Eliminate all bare bulbs and any lighting pointing upward. This is especially true for decorative lighting, and would reduce contributions to overall light pollution. (2) All new developments should use the latest management technologies so that continued growth and expansion leads to no increase in the impact of light pollution (Salmon 2003). (3) Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety. The Long Point lighthouse garnered great success by changing its beam to a less intense, flashing system. This is the minimum amount of light required to ensure the safety of ships at sea, while dramatically reducing avian mortality rates. (4) Use narrow spectrum bulbs as often as possible to lower the range of species affected by lighting. (5) Shield, canter or cut lighting to ensure that light reaches only areas needing illumination. This will significantly reduce sky glow. (6) Light only high-risk stretches of roads, such as crossings and merges, allowing headlights to take up the slack at other times. If that is not possible, then, (7) use embedded road lights to illuminate the roadway. By enacting these alternatives, we can reduce the impact of ecological as well as astro-nomical light pollution, while still maintaining an optimal level of lighting for humans.
Much future research is required to enhance our understanding of the effects of roadway lighting and general light pollution on wildlife. Research should focus on the amount and types of current lighting, intensities and spectrums used, and any possible road-specific effects. It is true that light is essential to life. Yet we would do well to remember that darkness can be just as indispensable.
— Tiffany Saleh is an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Montana.
Artificial lighting disorients wildlife and disrupts biological cycles. Photo courtesy of www.freeimages.co.uk
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 200710
References— continued from previous page —
Bertolotti, L., and M. Salmon. 2005. “Do embedded roadway lights protect sea turtles?” Environmental Management. 36(5): 702-710.
Buchanan, B. W. 1993. “Effects of enhanced lighting on the behavior of nocturnal frogs.” Animal Behavior. 45: 893-899.
Cornell, E.A., and J.P. Hailman. 1984. “Pupillary responses to two Rana Pipiens - complex anuran species.” Herpetologica. 40: 356-366.
French, C.E., L.C. McEwen, N.D. Magruder, T. Rader, T.A. Long, R.W. Swift. 1960. “Responses of White-Tailed bucks to artificial light.” Journal of Mammology. 41(1): 23-29.
Imber, M.J. 1975. “Behavior of petrels in relation to the moon and artificial lights.” Notornis. 22: 302-306.
Jones, J., and C.M. Francis. 2003. “The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses.” Journal of Avian Biology. 34: 328-333.
Le Corre, M., A. Ollivier, S. Ribes, P. Jouventin. 2002. “Light-induced mortality of petrels: a 4-year study from Reunion Island (Indian Ocean).” Biological Conservation. 105: 93-102.
Longcore, Travis and Catherine Rich. 2004. “Ecological Light Pollution.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2(4): 191-198.
Ritters, K.H., and J.D. Wickham. 2003. “How far to the nearest road?” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1(3): 125-129.
Miller, Mark W. 2006. “Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins.” The Condor. 108: 130-139.
Salmon, M. 2003. “Artificial night lighting and sea turtles.” Biologist. 50(4): 163-168.
Tabor, R.A., G.S. Brown, V.T. Luiting. 2004. “The effect of light intensity on sockeye salmon fry migratory behavior and predation by cottids in the Cedar River, Washington.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 24: 128-145.
United States of America Department of Transportation. 2004. “System mileage within the United States.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved December 6, 2006 http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_01.html)
Wildlands CPR’s Special Collector’s Edition of our anthology, A Road Runs Through It: Reviving Wild Places, is
now available. This unique Edition features a rich leather cover with a beautiful green-gold embossed title. It is signed by every book contributor, and also includes the six original wood engraving prints from the book, suitable for framing, by Montana artist Claire Emery.
You can see a sample of this Edition on our website, in the Library pages (scroll to the bottom of the page, to “Limited Collector’s Edition Avail-able.” The blue covers are just samples.)
The entire Special Collector’s Edition is $1,000, and we are only creating 50 complete sets. There are also a limited number of signed, leather-bound books only, for $500, and a limited number of sets of (6) wood engravings only, for $725.
If you would like to place your advance order contact Tom Petersen at [email protected] or 406.543.9551. This Special Edition will be ready by August 1, 2007.
Special Collector’s Edition Now Available!
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 11
Wildlands CPR continues to maintain and update a bibliographic database of more than 15,000 cita-tions documenting the physical and ecological
effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We compiled this bib-liography to help people access relevant scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrologic effects, and various other up-to-date information on the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles. In the U.S. alone, there are 6 million kilometers of public roads and 36 million registered off-road vehicles.
The database was originally completed in May 1995 and the latest update was completed in April 2007. Numerous electronic databases were searched and the records were imported into Reference Manager. A list of databases and keywords searched is available upon request. The searches resulted in a variety of scientific and “grey” literature includ-ing journal articles, conference proceedings, books, lawsuits, and agency reports most with accompanying abstracts. The database can be searched online at: www.wildlandscpr.org
Physical and Ecological Impacts of Roads and Off-Road Vehicles: A Bibliographic Database
The database is also available for purchase; however, it requires Reference Manager software. The purchase price is based on a sliding scale (all prices include shipping):
$45 for non-profits with budgets under $100,000/yr$100 for non-profits with budgets $100,000-$500,000/yr$200 for non-profits over $500,000/yr$300 for government agencies$750 for for-profits and others
The Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP) is pleased to announce the launching of the Safe Passage website and user’s manual. Safe Passage was written
for engineers, biologists, and conservationists in the Western United States and Canada who are working in the field on wildlife crossings on a day-to-day basis. Safe Passage address-es the technical aspects of creating the most ecologically ef-fective and economically efficient wildlife crossing structures. You will find practical information on tools for connectivity planning, types of wildlife crossings, and design guidelines for carnivores and other wildlife.
If you would like additional copies, please contact [email protected]. SREP is also maintaining a website that will provide updated information. The website is in its infancy, so any suggestions to the “Resources” section are gladly welcome.
You can also download the full pdf version of the docu-ment at http://www.carnivoresafepassage.org.
Safe Passage Site Announced
Photo courtesy of Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 200712
Roads and the Mystique of FreedomBy Tom Petersen
Monument Valley Utah. Photo courtesy of Jose J. Perez, http://www.pbase.com/posfale/profile.
Road builders do an amazing thing. They pulverize rock and turn it into opportunity and a chance to live the American dream. We must suppress this elitist urge to limit mobility, because roads are freedom.
— John Caldara, President of the Independence Institute
And it made most people nervous. They just didn’t want to know what I was seeing in the refuge of the roads
— Joni Mitchell
Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads…
— From Wildlands CPR’s mission statement
Roads have always been a part of my life. My childhood family, like many others, took summer vacations by car. Sometimes we’d drive in our ’57 Mercury north from St. Louis on U.S. 55 to Chicago, car
wheels clicking a steady rhythm over the cement-sectioned road. Other times my parents would take my two brothers and me to the beaches of Florida, always packing our meals and stopping at small shady roadside parks with solid stone picnic tables. Occasionally we would drive north past Chicago to the Michigan beaches, swimming in the great lake, but also bouncing in dune buggies over the 200-foot high dunes.
To many Americans, roads mean “freedom,” and it sure seemed that way to me, rolling along the road with my family. But where does this “roads = freedom” equation come from? It appears it is deeply imbedded in our collective psyche. Shedding some light on its origins, then, may help us understand why those of us who are concerned about roads (albeit a much different kind than paved ones) find some resistance, or at least confusion, when we talk about “preventing and removing” them.
This sense of freedom associated with roads developed in the U.S. over the past half-century. It’s the idea that you can (with enough gas money) jump in your car and go anywhere you please, at any time, and leave your cares and life behind. Jack Kerouac’s On the Road jump-started this mystique of freedom with the wild adventures of Sal and Dean and women and wheels. Then the idea gained speed, this time traveling a particular road, the famous Route 66. “Get your kicks on Route 66” became a catch phrase for countless motorists who moved back and forth between Chicago and the Pacific Coast, reinforcing the idea of driving and roads as vehicles of pleasure and adventure. A “Route 66” television series motored into living rooms in the 1960’s, a popular series with this free-traveling ‘50’s and ‘60’s culture, vicariously bringing viewers back to their free life on the road.
Ironically, the public’s demand for speed and improved highways that gained Route 66 its enormous popularity also signaled its demise in the mid-1950’s. Mass federal sponsorship for an interstate system of divided highways greatly increased with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s second term in the White House, and provided the financial umbrella to underwrite the cost of Ike’s national interstate and defense highway sys-tem—what has become our modern day, 43,000 miles of Interstate highways that replaced the iconic 66.
Singer-songwriter John Gorka summarizes our culture’s inextricable ties to roads and free-dom in his song, “Oh Abraham:”
I was born by a Kerouac streamUnder Eisenhower skiesThey saw freedom as a big ideaNow it was right before my eyesThey say Jack helped to build the PentagonAnd Ike built the interstate that we are off and onOff and on
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 13
Moose and calf on removed road in Clearwater NF. Wildlands CPR file photo.
Photo courtesy of Cindy Bublitz.
And who doesn’t have a road story of his or her own as personal wit-ness to this mystique?
I got my driver’s license at 8 a.m. the morning of my sixteenth birth-day. I was giddy with excitement, on the edge of my seat and possibility as I sat in the car alone for the first time, free to drive anywhere—at least, according to my Mother, within a certain radius of my home. When I left St. Louis at age twenty in my VW Beetle, roads took me over the Kansas prairie—a soft full moon rising one evening on the flat Midwest horizon like a huge creamy pearl—on to the Colorado Rockies, then further west to the southern California coast and the end of the road at the Pacific Ocean. Eventually I wound back through New Mexico—my Shepherd-mix dog sitting in the passenger seat, nose pressing the windshield marking her desire as strong as mine to look and move forward and onward—and on to Kansas City, then the southern Appalachians. I settled in North Carolina and raised a family. But I didn’t stop driving.
When I moved out west fifteen years ago, and at times got off the paved main roads and onto other roads—roads on public lands—my road-trip sense of freedom began to crumble like worn-out asphalt. All roads, I began to realize, aren’t created equal. And it is in this fact that the road-freedom mystique takes a sharp turn.
Roads on public lands—the kind of roads Wildlands CPR deals with—are very different than “normal” roads. A post World War II boom in timber production was carving thousands of miles of roads across our public lands and through wildlife habitat. As a result, more than 550,000 miles were created—more than enough to drive to the moon and back. Many of these roads, not built for transportation but solely for timber harvest and never removed after the cut, lead to dead-ends in the forest, literal roads to nowhere.
As much as roads are opportunities for humans, I began to see that they are missed opportunities for wildlife. While even some public land roads are paved or graveled and like their urban counterparts serve as needed throughways, many other public land roads—tens of thousands of miles—are not only old, eroding and dangerous, but split wildlife habitat into smaller and smaller pieces. This creates a twisting turning maze of roads through the land, making it difficult for some species that require large expanses of natural areas—like elk and wolves and grizzly bears—to thrive. Besides splitting habitat, public land roads also allow off-road vehicles ways to get from the frontcountry to the backcountry, leaving wildlife vulnerable to increased stress, overhunting and poaching.
To reduce these impacts, a mere thirty years ago in 1978 some of the first road removal started in the U.S., in Redwood National Park. Wildlands CPR was created sixteen years later in part “…to protect and restore wild-land ecosystems by preventing and removing roads…”
Do we imagine, maybe unconsciously when we think of roads, that removing them somehow removes our freedoms too? Could the idea of road removal symbolize downsiz-ing our culture of growth, dismantling such a defining part of our heritage and thereby “diminishing” our opportunities? (“…a chance to live the American dream,” according to the Independence Institute.) Is it hard for us to admit that we may have too much of something (like public land roads) and do something (like remove some of them) to have less?
As T. H. Watkins wrote as he witnessed a road removal project in the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho,
This [road removal] is not an activity for which Uncle Sam is noted. Quite the opposite, in fact—a truth that had come through with particu-lar force earlier that day when I drove through portions of the Clearwater. The brow of just about every mountain I saw was scarred by tier upon tier of roads.
Eight years ago a few of us were invited by the Forest Service to revegetate an old road they had removed in southwest Montana. Two years later when the new plantings had taken hold and the road was effectively closed to motor-ized traffic, grizzly bears, moose, elk and other animals were once again free to make their way through that land, unhindered by the problems the road used to bring.
Did we replace our freedom to move across the landscape on roads with the grizzly’s free-dom to move without them?
No. It’s win-win. We still have our freedom to travel on plenty of other roads, and grizzlies and other species now have a little more freedom too.
Many questions remain. Although there is a certain undeniable freedom we associate with roads, are we smart enough and creative enough to flip this freedom on its head, by claiming the freedom of taking roads out? Can we expand our freedom, by freeing the natural world from the confines and impacts of a road running through its habitat? Are we big enough to say we erred in our road-building binge? Can we just say “no” to more road building and “yes” to removing roads and bringing back clean streams, healthy forests, and fully-functioning watersheds?
It is clear that we now have enough roads to go around, and around and around. The next step in our evolution may be to self-correct, re-balance the scales, and get back on course with the natural world.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 200714
Stealing is a CrimeBy Bethanie Walder
Ever since I was a little kid, I was taught that stealing is a crime: that it’s not okay to break the law, and that laws are enacted for a reason – usually to protect the common good. I was NOT
taught that it IS alright to break the law as long as you don’t get caught. And so even now, knowing that only some laws are really sacred, it still always surprises me when I learn how many off-road vehicle users break the law, and how often.
Our new off-road vehicle report focuses on the effective enforce-ment of regulations and restrictions (see our cover story). But while the report details strategies for success, these strategies are neces-sitated by a larger pattern of illegal behavior — we wouldn’t need improved enforcement if off-road vehicle users weren’t routinely breaking the law.
Of course off-road vehicle advocates would like to have us think that illegal behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Nearly ev-ery news article about off-road vehicle trespass, damage or violence, quotes an off-road vehicle representative: “it’s just a few bad apples ruining it for everyone.” They usually add that most off-road vehicle users are conscientious -- “families recreating together in nature.” Unfortunately, this is most often not true. Most off-road vehicle us-ers admit to breaking the law at least some of the time (according to studies from CO and UT1). Just take a look at any ORV enthusiasts’ magazine and you’ll see what types of activities they prefer – mud-ding, riding through streams, tearing up the land, pioneering their own routes, highmarking, etc.
Not only do they think it’s okay to break the law, they publicly promote such behavior, at least among themselves. For instance, the National Off-Highway Conservation Council has been holding a series of trainings for agency staff on implementing the travel planning rule. Our staff attended the Missoula meeting. We were disturbed, but not surprised, by their main message, which basically translates to: “Let us help you designate a sustainable system of designated routes, or else.” The barely veiled threat was: Or else riders will create satisfying riding opportunities by cutting new routes themselves and hijacking foot and hoof trails.
Clearly it’s not just a few bad apples they’re talking about, it’s the majority of off-road vehicle riders. More importantly, these threats are not idle – they represent the status quo. As it stands, the agency doesn’t provide much management, and little to no enforce-ment, so the riders make their own routes, regardless of the impacts. The last thing they expect is enforcement, tickets and prosecution. Now, they’re asking the agency to legalize (ie. reward) their bad behavior, and everyone knows that behavior that’s rewarded will be repeated.
This all-too-common status-quo scenario was recently played out on the Fishlake National Forest. The Fishlake completed their travel planning process, and found 1200 miles of user-created, renegade routes. (I hate to keep harping on this, but, hmmm… 1200 miles, a few bad apples?) After conducting a cursory analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Fishlake decided to legalize approximately half of those illegal routes, and close the other half. This concept of post-facto analysis goes against every-thing that NEPA stands for. It rewarded the illegal use that created the routes, and it fuels the atmosphere of lawlessness that pervades the sport. Wildlands CPR and several other organizations appealed the Fishlake decision and, unfortunately, lost – we’re still consider-ing legal options.
Just imagine if the Forest Service managed forests in the same way. Let’s say a timber company clear-cut an entire watershed without first meeting with the Forest Service to discuss where to go or what practices to use, or conducting any NEPA analysis. If the Forest Service managed this the same way as illegal route creation, then here’s what would happen
Dirt bike riders on an eroded trail. Photo by Dan Schroeder, Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 15
Footnotes1. These studies include:
Fisher, Andrea L., Dale J. Blahna, and Rosalind Bahr, 2001. Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.
Monaghan & Associates, 2001. Status and Summary Report: OHV Responsible Riding Campaign. Colorado. (Report to the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding, November 15, 2001.)
Source: Fisher, Andrea L., et al., 2001. Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner Preferences in Utah. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.
Off-Route Riding
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
ATV riders
Motorcycle riders
4x4 drivers
Prefer to ride off-route
Rode off-route on last outing
n=335
next. The agency would conduct an after-the-fact analysis after the logging. The analysis would find “no significant impact” from the unauthorized clearcut, perhaps just a few site-specific problem spots that could be mitigated. The Forest Service would be unlikely to prosecute the timber company, but even if they did, the court would likely issue a slap on the wrist, with essentially no effect on future violations.
Why is it that land managers and the public tolerate such wantonly destructive and illegal behavior when it comes to off-road vehicles? We wouldn’t accept it in the context of logging. How did we get to this point, where an acceptance of lawlessness pervades motorized recreation on public lands? What does this say about how we, the public, value our lands? Why do we allow a form of rec-reation on public lands that has such significant ecological impacts, and such significant costs to taxpayers?
Over and over again the people we interviewed for our new report decried the lack of funding for enforcement. To me, that raises an even more important question. Why are the agencies continuing their off-road vehicle programs at all, let alone expanding them (which is what seems to be happening as part of the current Forest Service travel planning process)? The entire off-road vehicle program of the public land agencies makes no sense. It’s danger-ous, expensive, and causes significant impacts both to the natural environment and to nonmotorized recreationists. The majority of public lands recreationists are not motorized users — off-road vehicle use hovers around ten percent when you combine winter and summer motorized recreation together. And let’s be clear, it’s not like there’s an enforcement crisis for backpacking and hiking. It’s not like the agency is pulling its hair out trying to figure out how to keep those renegade backpackers under control and how to restore the
millions of dollars of damage hikers and birders have caused to the public lands, though hikers, backpack-ers and equestrians do cause damage too. All forms of recreation need to be managed, especially as use grows (not to mention that there are some serious en-forcement issues for mountain biking in many places), but the damage caused by off-road vehicle use is far greater than any other recreational use of the public lands.
Off-road vehicle use is out of control. Enforce-ment is one way to get it under control, but enforce-ment has to be based on strong regulations and effec-tive, geographically limited route designations, not a blanket endorsement of all user-created, renegade routes. In addition, there have to be real penalties for illegal trespass and illegal use. Such behavior cannot be tolerated. Responsibility should be inextricably tied to access. If the riders cannot take responsibility for their actions, and the actions of their companions, then these damaging machines should not be allowed on the public lands. The agencies must institute real, lasting enforcement reform that results in significant penalties for illegal use. And then the agencies (and the court systems) must enforce those penalties.
We don’t live in the wild west anymore, though some off-road vehicle riders would like to think we do. Even the wild west was eventually tamed as communi-ties authorized and enforced more and more laws to protect the common good. It’s time for public land managers to take the same approach to unmanaged recreation — to protect our nation’s natural heritage. It’s time for riders to take responsibility for their ac-tions, and to penalize their own members for violat-ing regulations. Education won’t solve this problem — only restrictions, enforcement and consequences will. Stealing is still a crime, and it’s time public land managers treated it that way.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 200716
BLM Closes Popular ORV AreaIn late May, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) temporarily
closed more than 1,700 acres to off-highway vehicle use near Jacksonville, Oregon. The protective closures include 1,524 acres of the northeastern portion of the Timbered Mountain OHV area (because of excessive ero-sion), and the Bunny Meadows site. Both sites are part of what is com-monly referred to as the Timbered Mountain/Johns Peak OHV area, which includes more than 16,000 acres of the BLM’s Medford District.
The emergency closure is to protect soils, water and fisheries resourc-es that are being damaged by off-road vehicle use and to protect public safety on Forest Creek Road, officials said. Off-road use around Bunny Meadows has caused erosion problems along Poorman Creek and noise issues with neighbors. “The use isn’t consistent with the area,” said Den-nis Byrd, an outdoor recreation planner with the BLM’s Ashland Resource Area.
The Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center has been documenting dam-age in the OHV area and submitting photos to the BLM. In the next few months, the BLM is expected to release a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Johns Peak OHV area.
Oregonian Reports on ATV Safety
The Oregonian, beginning on May 11, ran an investigative series by Jeff Manning, Brent Walth and Susan Goldsmith titled “Deceptively Danger-ous: Why ATVs keep killing.” This hard-hitting expose detailed the current trend in ATV-caused injuries and the lack of federal oversight.
Summing up the situation, the paper report-ed that, “Over the past decade, the machines have soared in popularity, with 7.6 million in use. The result: Record numbers of riders end up in emergency rooms and morgues as acci-dents kill about 800 people a year and injure an estimated 136,700.” The authors quoted safety expert Stuart M. Statler, a former U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission member, who said: “This is one of the worst examples ever of a government agency failing in its fundamental mission to protect the American public.”
The article also highlighted the impact of these dangerous machines on Oregonian’s wal-lets, noting that: “Taxpayers picked up nearly a quarter of the $50 million in hospital costs for 1,795 Oregon ATV trauma cases from 2000 through 2005.”
Responding in the article, ATV companies asserted that the injury rates are due primar-ily to riders not properly following the warn-ings displayed on the vehicles. However, the reporters, using the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s crash data, found that, “Riders who followed the warnings overturned in about two out of five cases, a rate comparable to the frequency of rollovers in the group that ignored one or more warnings.”
Dr. Richard Mullins, chief of trauma/criti-cal care at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), shared his perspective: “I have a prob-lem with making these things look fun,” he said. “There’s nothing fun about a brain injury, or a ruptured eyeball, or broken ribs.”
Use Restrictions Imposed on Nevada’s Sand Mountain
The BLM decided to restrict travel on Sand Mountain Recreation Area to designated routes in an effort to protect dwindling habitat of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. The Sand Mountain Recreation Area consists of a series of wind blown sand dunes that are the remnants of an ancient lake. The butterfly, found only at this over-run Nevada off-road vehicle recre-ation site, makes its home in the shrubs growing in the dunes.
Conservation groups, including Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Nevada Outdoor Recreation Coalition, petitioned the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2004 to declare the butterfly an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act. Successful listing as endangered would likely have resulted in the closure of the entire area to ORV use.
However, after the agency determination to restrict cross country travel to protect the butterfly’s habitat, agency officials said federal listing under the Endangered Species Act is unwarranted. Unfortunately, federal land managers have already allowed off-roaders to destroy more than half of the butterfly’s habitat, and conservationists are concerned that lack of enforcement of the new restrictions will allow the destruction to continue.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is installing fences and signs to confine off-roaders to designated routes in the 4,795-acre recreation area. The restrictions apply to about 60 percent of the area, but the vast major-ity of off-road use takes place in areas that will remain open to travel. It remains to be seen whether these measures will be sufficient to protect the butterfly and its habitat from off-road vehicle damage.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 17
Successes Based in part upon public support from Re-
store Montana and the network’s unique range of leaders, the Montana legislature in its recent session established a new Restoration Office. The office will be staffed by a coordinator and provided with funding for database development and project coordination.
Last summer, the Western Governors’ As-sociation put forth a policy resolution entitled “The Restoration Economy.” This resolution acknowledges the importance of restoration efforts across the West and calls on Congress to improve funding for restoration projects, includ-ing the establishment of a multi-year appropria-tion formula similar to the Highway Bill.
VisionRestore Montana’s vision for building a res-
toration economy focuses on new approaches to economic development that aim to create financial, social, and environmental returns on investment. To achieve the vision, restorative development projects require cross-disciplinary collaboration at an unprecedented scale.
Our vision includes:• An integrated approach to restore the
natural environment and revitalize the built envi-ronment, creating high-skill, high-wage jobs in rural areas and in towns and cities;
• State-level coordination to identify and implement needed policy changes that create incentives for private and public investment in restoration;
• Common interests that bring together the industry, labor, conservation and education communities; and
• Investment at the university level both to train a new, local workforce, and to create a na-tional intellectual center for restoration research and technology.
GoalsRestore Montana will create and develop the network of interests that
can act effectively to realize this vision.
Our goals include:1) Spurring coordinated public and private investment in restoration
and community revitalization. Sustained funding is the biggest obstacle to realizing the economic potential of restoration work. Restore Montana is exploring different public and private investment opportunities and policy changes that could jumpstart this economic revolution.
2) Working with Montana universities and technical colleges to train a restoration workforce and to develop and assess new restoration technolo-gies. Montana’s state universities and technical colleges can contribute innovative research, restoration technologies and training programs that can be exported across the nation and even internationally.
3) Building a dynamic, multi-faceted online knowledge management system that will serve as an ongoing repository for Montana’s restoration economy. Restore Montana’s online network strategy uses the power of information technology to accelerate the new relationships and knowledge transfer necessary to realize the vision for Montana’s restoration economy.
Restore Montana is working to turn the idea of a restoration economy into reality. With investment and coordination, Montana can create a lo-cally-based, sustainable sector of the economy, creating a model that can benefit efforts across the Rocky Mountain West.
Restore Montana: Building a Restoration Economy
The restoration of damaged lands and waters and the revitalization of deteriorating com-munity assets across Montana present multiple opportunities to benefit businesses, work-ers, communities, wildlife, and water quality. Montana is in a position to lead the West in
developing a restoration economy that attracts investment and creates “green-collar” jobs with local employers while enhancing our land, water and communities. Combining restoration of the natural environment in the same effort as revitalization of the built environment provides an in-novative and holistic model that incorporates diverse interests.
These interests are coming together as the Restore Montana network. To date, the network includes Wildlands CPR along with 30 other community leaders representing business and indus-try, labor, state universities, government, sportsmen and conservation interests.
Phot
o by
Dan
Fun
sch.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 200718
The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the awesome citizens and organizations we work with,
both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to [email protected].
Q & A with William Geer, Wildlands CPR Board Member By Cathy Adams
The following interview highlights the important work of a current board member of Wildlands CPR, William Geer. William joined the board
in February 2004 and serves as secretary/treasurer. Originally from Salinas, CA he now resides in Lolo, MT with Judy, his wife of over 40 years. He is an avid elk hunter and works as Policy Initiatives Manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in Missoula, MT.
William earned a B.S. in Resource Conservation from the University of Montana and then an M.S. in Botany from Montana State University. His thirty-four years in conservation includes professional wildlife management with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. In the non-government sector, William’s resume includes positions with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Outdoor Writers Asso-ciation of America, and now, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). He was inter-viewed by Cathy Adams. CA: Can you describe TRCP and why it is such a good fit for you now?
WG: TRCP is an advocacy-based, not-for-profit wildlife conservation organization that serves the interests of hunters and anglers throughout the U.S. I have served hunters and anglers, among others interested in wildlife, my entire career, and I now spend full-time advocating for science-based wildlife conservation and perpetuation of hunting and fishing as traditional uses of the resource. TRCP allows me to bring all my experience to bear in conservation out-reach in virtually every state. I am able to utilize my professional network built over more than 30 years on a daily basis.
CA: What are the most significant accomplish-ments of your work with TRCP since you started in February 2005? What policy initiatives have been successful for conservation related to ORVs/resto-ration/roadless?
WG: I have provided accurate, scientifically-credible information (maps, fact sheets, etc.) on the impacts of roads and vehicles on fish and wildlife habitat and populations, and consequently on hunt-ing and fishing, on National Forest System invento-ried roadless areas to more than 10,000 hunters and anglers in seven western states (CA, ID, MT, AZ, NM, UT, WY). As a result, most of the hunters and anglers
Photo courtesy of William H. Geer.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 19
contacted formed an opinion favorable to continued roadless area protection. Many hunters and anglers subsequently provided their comments to their gover-nor in support of roadless area protection. However, the status of roadless area protection throughout the National Forest System remains unclear due to an upcoming court decision in the 10th Circuit Court in Wyoming.
I have also conveyed the impacts of roads and ve-hicles as among the most significant national threats to species survival, and elevating the likelihood of listing as an endangered species under the ESA, to ap-proximately 100,000 hunters and anglers in every state and the District of Columbia through the State Wildlife Action Plans.
CA: TRCP advocates “access,” but a different type of access than the ORV community promotes. How do you promote your campaign for hunting/fishing access? Do you find you are up against the ORV community and their demand for access to trails in National Forests?
WG: TRCP has largely promoted walk-in access to hunting and fishing areas, but has made no offi-cial statement against motor vehicles in areas where they are viewed as appropriate or non-damaging by state and federal fish and wildlife managers. TRCP advocates for expanding public access to high quality hunting and fishing areas. We also recognize that maintaining a quality hunting experience may call for less motorized and more muscle-powered access.
CA: Are you pleased with results of your cam-paign?
WG: I am pleased to have gotten so much informa-tion out over the past two years, but I am frustrated that the Roadless Rule itself has not been locked in. There is simply too much uncertainty in roadless area management, and the vacillation between protected/not protected confounds a lot of on-the-ground fish and wildlife managers trying to implement the best wildlife management plans for the benefit of the pub-lic. CA: What’s in the future for your work with TRCP? What’s on the agenda for 2007?
WG: An endless string of conservation initiatives affecting the interests of hunters and anglers that require intense and extensive national outreach. The issues are likely to be development that adversely impacts habitat, loss of public access to hunting and fishing areas, and declining funding to state and federal wildlife agencies. The hot topics for the next two to three years will include energy development,
especially for oil and gas, climate change, and preven-tion of species endangerment by more comprehensive fish and wildlife habitat management across large landscapes. Personally, I see my life as endless travel throughout the U.S., endless presentations to groups and meetings, and endless design, scripting and pre-sentations of displays, brochures, videos, fact sheet, letters, Action Grams, Info Grams and talks.
CA: What can our readers and member groups do to support your efforts? How best can someone contact you?
WG: Go to www.trcp.org and click on Issues to see the current initiatives needing action. You can join TRCP for free, and take action through our Action Grams and direct mail campaigns. My contact infor-mation is:
William H. GeerPolicy Initiatives ManagerTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipPO Box 16868Missoula, MT 59808(406) [email protected]
CA: Finally, what brought you to the board of Wild-lands CPR?
WG: I was invited by a Wildlands CPR staff mem-ber that I had worked with in earlier days of TRCP (back when it was TRCA, or Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance). Because I was developing a telephone tree system of rapid response for hunt-ers and anglers, Wildlands CPR thought I might be useful in bringing hunter/angler interests to the issue of transportation management on public lands, and decommissioning and restoring roads to habitat. Per-sonally, I was receptive because I firmly believe in the WCPR mission and way of doing business. The staff are competent. The other board members are widely regarded conservation professionals and advocates who really strive to do the best for habitat.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 200720
EIS Required for National Forest Motorcycle ProjectBy Karl Forsgaard
Court to Forest Service:If you call it “World Class,” you’d better do an EIS.
The proposed motorcycle trail would contribute to user conflicts. Photo by Karl Forsgaard.
In May 2007, conservation groups and the U.S. Forest Service settled a lawsuit involving an enjoined motorcycle project in proposed Wilder-ness in Washington State. The settlement and final judgment leaves
in place the federal court’s June 2006 published decision and permanent injunction that requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), not a mere EA, before construction of the full Mad River off-road vehicle (ORV) project [The Mountaineers v. U.S. Forest Service, 445 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006)].
The litigated project is in a roadless area of the Wenatchee National Forest, and the court’s reasoning could be useful to activists and litigators in other National Forests (and BLM lands) throughout the U.S.
The lawsuit was brought by four conservation and recreation groups: The Mountaineers, North Cascades Conservation Council, Sierra Club and Washington Wilderness Coalition.
BackgroundThe Mad River Trail is in the Entiat-Chelan roadless area, a proposed
addition to the Glacier Peak Wilderness in the Cascade mountains of Wash-ington State. Glacier Peak Wilderness is the site of the first third of John McPhee’s book about Dave Brower, Encounters with the Archdruid. Most of the Mad River country is relatively gentle terrain, a subalpine pine-fir forest interspersed with meadows and lakes, ideal for family camping. Several of its trails are featured in the popular hiking guidebooks 100 Hikes in Washington’s Glacier Peak Region and 100 Classic Hikes in Washington by Ira Spring and Harvey Manning, published by The Mountaineers.
At present, off road vehicles cannot easily cross the Mad River at the Maverick Saddle ford in early June due to high water in most years. As a result, the area is more accessible to hikers who wade across the river, or climb across downed logs that may span it. The proposed Maverick Saddle Bridge would change this, and allow ORVs to cross the Mad River as soon as the snow melts, if not before. The proposed bridge would also create a hub in the network of ORV routes, causing an overall increase in ORV traf-fic throughout the Forest, with consequent impacts.
The Mad River Trail Project is the latest in a long line of small ORV projects that have together created the Wenatchee National Forest’s En-tiat-Mad River ORV route system, stretching from the Chiwawa River near Lake Wenatchee to the Entiat River and Lake Chelan. One of these projects was the subject of earlier litigation: a 1999 federal court ruling by U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein stopped construction of the adjacent Goose-Maverick off-road motorcycle project [North Cascades Conserva-tion Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 98 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (W.D. Wash. 1999)]. In that case, the court ruled that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by giving inadequate review to its mo-torcycle construction/expansion plans throughout the whole Entiat-Mad River system, including user conflicts and the impacts of off-road motor-cycles on wildlife.
Plaintiffs’ Claims in District Court
In the District Court in 2006, the conserva-tion groups argued that the Forest Service had violated NEPA in three ways. First, they said the Mad River EA failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, as NEPA requires. Sec-ond, they argued that the two 2004 EAs for the Mad River and Goose-Maverick projects were impermissibly segmented and failed to examine the cumulative environmental impacts that the projects would have on the whole Chiwawa-En-tiat-Mad River ORV route system. Finally, they argued that the agency did not properly consid-er the effects that ORVs have on wildlife across the greater trail system.
At the National ORV Collaboration Summit in April 2005 in San Diego, the Forest Service had described the Entiat-Chiwawa-Mad River off-road motorcycle system as “World Class.” In the lawsuit, plaintiffs asked “does NEPA allow the Forest Service to construct a ‘World Class single track motorcycle trail system’ within a proposed Wilderness, without preparing an EIS?” The court answered no, because an EIS is required.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 21
Sensitive wetlands like Pond Meadow (shown here) would be threatened by increased motorcycle traffic. Photo by Karl Forsgaard.
District Court Decision In June 2006, U.S. District Judge Ricardo S.
Martinez issued a permanent injunction prohib-iting the Forest Service from constructing the Mad River project until they complete an EIS. The Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to thoroughly analyze the cumulative impacts of these interconnected projects. Although Judge Rothstein’s 1999 decision was no longer binding and thus was not “violated” by the agency, Judge Martinez said “the Forest Service failed to heed the warning” of the 1999 decision. He ruled that the Forest Service consideration of impacts on wildlife is “inadequate,” and that NEPA does not contemplate a “‘build-first, study later’ approach to resource management.” In other words, the precautionary principle is implicit in NEPA.
The June 2006 injunction decision found that this “controversial” project, “the latest in a long line of small projects,” would “result in the continued increase of motorized traffic throughout ... the Mad River system.” The mo-torcycle route system in the Mad River country grew piece-by-piece for 30 years, and the court agreed: “The proper reference point for a cu-mulative impacts inquiry is the entire ORV trail system.” There were many interconnected sys-tem components the Forest Service didn’t even mention in its NEPA work, let alone analyze.
On the other NEPA count (adequacy of the EA’s range of alternatives), the judge ruled in favor of the Forest Service.
Settlement DetailsIn the settlement, the Forest Service agreed
not to appeal the District Court decision, to refrain from constructing the parts of the project that are still enjoined, and to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees at 82 percent of the inflation-ad-justed statutory maximum rate.
The settlement also states: “The Forest Ser-vice will develop an adequate range of alterna-tives in the [ORV] Travel Management Planning process to address seasons of use and trail closures to motorized uses,” and that “all trails in the Chiwawa and Mad River areas will be analyzed.” The current ORV Travel Management process is the long-delayed implementation of the Nixon-Carter Executive Orders on ORVs.
In the settlement, based on recommenda-tions of Forest Service fish biologists, plaintiffs agreed to modify the injunction to allow parts of the Mad River project designed to protect the bull trout, a threatened species protected by the Endangered Species Act. This would reduce sedimentation by moving the trail out of the riv-erbed or further from it, while keeping in place the injunction against the overtly ORV-facilitat-ing parts of the project such as cinderblocks embedded in the trail and the proposed Maver-ick Saddle bridge.
Coalition Builds Track RecordSince 1992, this coalition of conservation and recreation groups
has prevailed in five consecutive lawsuits regarding off-road motorcycle recreation on public lands in Washington State. In the other four lawsuits the coalition has also included American Hiking Society, The Cascadians, Columbia Gorge Audubon Society, Emergency Trails Committee, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Issaquah Alps Trails Club, Kittitas Audubon Society, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (now known as Conservation Northwest), The Ptarmigans, Washington Trails Association, The Wilderness Society and Willapa Hills Audubon Society. The coalition has been represented by attorney Karl Forsgaard since 1992, Andrew Salter since 1999, and other attorneys. Besides The Mountaineers v. USFS and NCCC v. USFS, the coalition’s other ORV cases are:
Northwest Motorcycle Association v. USDA, 18 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1994), upholding exclusion of ORVs from Pyramid Mountain and North Fork Entiat area of proposed addition to Glacier Peak Wilderness in Wenatchee National Forest; judicial guidance on use conflict caused by ORVs;
Washington Trails Association v. U.S. Forest Service, 935 F. Supp. 1117 (W.D. Wash. 1996), enjoining ORV construction project on Juniper Ridge and Langille Ridge in proposed Dark Divide Wilderness in Gifford Pinchot National Forest, based on NEPA; and
Northwest Motorcycle Association v. State of Washington, 127 Wash.App. 408, 110 P.3d 1196 (2005), upholding constitutionality of recreation grant program (NOVA) funded by State gas tax and administered by the State’s Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC).
The Washington State coalition has also campaigned for legislative reform, including a Fuel Use Study that led to statutory re-allocation of rec-reation funding, increasing the percentage to nonmotorized recreation and decreasing the percentage to motorized recreation. See Road-RIPorter, Vol. 9, #2 (Summer Solstice 2004). Coalition members also serve as govern-ment-appointed representatives in numerous federal and State administra-tive processes.
— Karl Forsgaard is a Staff Attorney at the Washington Forest Law Center, a public interest environmental law firm in Seattle. He can be reached at 206-223-4088 ext 7 or [email protected] or [email protected].
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 200722
Change is in the air this spring, with lots going on with staffing and board positions, so read on for the comings and goings both inside and outside of our Missoula office!
Thanks and keep up the amazing work!This spring, Wildlands CPR Board member Sonya Newenhouse took on
a new business venture to produce and sell “kits” for people to build their own green homes. This new project was in addition to all of Sonya’s other ventures at the Madison Environmental Group in Wisconsin. With so many things on her plate, unfortunately Sonya had to step down from Wildlands CPR’s board. Sonya’s been an extraordinary asset to Wildlands CPR, bring-ing an amazing entrepreneurial spirit to our organization, and acting as board president for the past two years. We’ll miss you Sonya, but we wish you all the best in all the adventures yet to come!
We are also disappointed to have to say goodbye to Cathy Adams, our fearless Program Assistant for the past two years. Cathy has been a stellar member of Wildlands CPR’s staff, doing everything from updating our website, to handling membership renewals, to scheduling meetings and fundraising efforts. While we’ll miss her cheery presence in our office, Cathy is leaving to test her wings as a professional photographer. Having seen some of her photos already, we’re pretty sure she’s going to be quite a success in her new venture. Perhaps you’ll see some of her photos grac-ing the pages of future issues of The RIPorter – we hope so anyway!
WelcomeWith Cathy’s departure, we did a little critical thinking and decided
to change things around a bit with her position. As a result, we’ve hired two new people to accomplish the many tasks that Cathy was responsible for. Andrea Manes will be our new Office Assistant, working 15 hours a week, handling office tasks with an emphasis on membership and database management. Andrea just completed her sophomore year at University of Montana, and she spent the last semester as an intern for us, cataloging and digitizing our slide library. We were so delighted with her work that we decided to hire her. She’ll be making that photo library available online on Flickr this summer. Speaking of online activities, the second person we hired to replace Cathy is Josh Hurd, who interned for us last year, while taking a quarter off from his studies at Dartmouth College. Josh is a com-puter and web genius and he’ll be responsible for web marketing and mem-bership development. He’s going to be working 20 hours a week through the summer, and then continuing at 10 hours a week from New Hampshire while he finishes his senior year.
In May we hired Laurel Hagen as our Utah State ORV Coordinator. Lau-rel was already working on a contract project for us, assessing the develop-ment of the Paiute ORV Trail in Utah, and trying to identify how we can pre-vent such damaging designations in the future. Laurel is going to largely finish that project up by the end of May (pending some FOIA responses), and then she’ll start fulltime with us on June 4. Laurel is an accomplished photographer and graphic designer, in addition to having spent lots of time working in advocacy and outreach on ORV issues in Utah, including work-ing for Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Redrock Forests. She’ll be opening a field office for Wildlands CPR in Moab, UT in early June, where she will work with grassroots activists and interested citizens throughout the state to improve travel planning on Utah’s national forests.
In late April we were delighted to add Chris Kassar as our newest board member. Chris coordinates off-road vehicle reform efforts for the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona. She has a Master’s degree in wildlife biology from Utah State University, and she has spent several years working on ORV issues on the ground in a number of different capacities, including several conservation nonprofits, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. She’s going to be a great addition to the board, especially with her expert background in both science and advocacy.
Welcome to Andrea, Josh, Laurel and Chris — we’re delighted to have you all on board!
ThanksWildlands CPR would like to thank the Giles
and Elise Mead Foundation, and the Y2Y Partner Grants program for generous contributions to our restoration program. In addition, the Forest Service has awarded a grant for $63,000 to the University of Montana and Wildlands CPR for re-search on revegetation effectiveness on removed roads. Thanks, too, to all of you who have sent in individual contributions during the last quarter. Keep an eye out for our annual gifts campaign, which starts in August this year!
Blue grouse. Photo by Dan Funsch.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2007 23
Join Wildlands CPR Today!We’ve made joining Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!
Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program
• Reducing Overhead
Monthly giving puts your contribution directly into action and reduces our administrative costs. The savings go to restoring wildlands and building a more effective network.
• Making Your Gift Easier
Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your credit card or bank statement will con-tain a record of each gift; we will also send a year-end tax receipt for your records.
• Our Promise To You
You maintain complete control over your donation. To change or cancel your gift at any time, just write or give us a call.
Name
Street
City, State, Zip
Email
Phone
Organization/Business Name (if applicable)
Type of Membership: Organization Individual/Family Business
Please send this form and your payment option to:Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807
Thank you for your support!
Payment Option #2: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account
Payment Option #1: Credit Card Pledge
I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated above from my checking account once per month.
$5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other
Signature
$10/Month (minimum) $20/Month other
Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express
* The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a credit card (usually in the signature field).
Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confiden-tial. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership donation ($30 standard membership, or more), please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the address below.
The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper with soy-based ink.
Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE
PAIDMISSOULA MT, 59801
PERMIT NO. 569
When your $3,000 or $4,000 or $6,000 machine turns up missing and you come to the National Forest Service looking for it, we’ll be happy to see that you get it back. But not until
you’ve gotten your ticket.
— Woody Lipps, U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officer, commenting on
