Road RIPorter 3.6

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 3.6

1/16

IThe Road-R PorterBimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. November/December 1998. Volume 3 # 6

For many the words GrandCanyon evoke an image of athundering river surrounded

by a great abyss, but the landscape

and biological diversity of thisnational treasure are oftenoverlooked.

While the Canyon s enor mity includes 300 miles of

river and pr istine tribu tary streams, Grand Canyon

National Park also contains life zone re presen tatives

ranging from the Mojave Desert to boreal forests.

Park Service WildernessThe p assage of th e 19 64 Wildern ess Act, Public Law 88-57 7, Section 3(c),

instructed the Secretary o f the Interior to inventory National Park Service (NPS)

lands for wilderness su itability and re port th ese findings to Con gress. One reasonfor this exp licit directive was the tend ency of th e NPS to accom odate visitors with

buildings and p avement. In 1980 , after a lengthy, contentious p ublic review

process, the NPS recomm end ed 1.1 m illion acre s (app roximately 94% ) of Grand

Canyon National Park for wilderne ss designation.

NPS policies allow restored land to qualify for wilderness (USDI 1988, Chapter

6:2), and on e of the key elemen ts of their wilderness recomm endation required

the Park Service to eliminate 150 miles of p rimitive, two-track dirt roads. Since

that time th e Park Service has restored to forest and m eadow ab out 20 m iles of

road, an d in its recently released Draft Wilderness Managem ent Plan, the agen cy

proposes to remove another 130 miles of primitive roads to restore wilderness

suitability. Proposed actions include actively restoring to a n atural con dition over

50 m iles of primitive roads, and converting ano ther 8 0 miles to hiking or ho rse

trails. Not on ly will the road removal and restoration qu alify the land for wilder-

ness designation, it will significantly ben efit the regions wildlife an d water shed s.Grand Canyon National Park provides an exam ple of how innovative efforts to

remove road s can lead to the p rotection of this ecologically imp ortant, beloved

place.

The Canyon in ContextGrand Canyon National Park alone constitutes a significant, bu t ecologically

incom plete island . The Park simply is not big enou gh to sustain viable pop ulations

of all its native wild life wh ile the vast, surro un ding plateaus lack adeq uate

protection from development and resource extraction. An emerging habitat

Restoring Wilderness at Grand Canyon by Kim Crum bo and Bethanie Walder

continued on page 4

This vision looksbeyond designatingroadless areas aswilderness and

advocates the re-creation, or rewilding,

of lands connectingGrand Canyon National

Park with other criticalcore areas.

Obliterating 130 m iles of road on t he Kaibab Plateau is cent ral to the plan

for rewilding the Greater Grand Canyon. Kim Crum bo photo.


2/16

The Road-RIPorter November/December 19982

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

Wildlands Center for PreventingRoads works to protect and restorewildland ecosystems by preventingand removing roads and limitingmotorized recreation. We are a

national clearinghouse and network,providing citizens with tools and

strategies to fight roadconstruction, deter motorizedrecreation, and promote road

removal and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) [email protected]/WildCPR

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Youn gblood-Pete rsen

Information Specialist

Dana Jensen(anti) Motorized Recreation

ProgramJacob Smith

NewsletterDan Funsch

Interns & VolunteersThan Hitt, Vivian Roland ,

Mary Ann e Peine,Kare n Vermilye

Board of DirectorsKat ie Alvord, Mary Byrd Davis

Kraig Klungness, SidneyMaddock, Rod Mondt

Cara Nelson , Mary O'BrienTom Skeele, Scott Stouder

Advisory CommitteeJasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,

Dave Forem an , KeithHammer, Timothy Hermach,

Marion Hourdequin, LorinLindn er, Andy Mahler, RobertMcConne ll, Stephan ie Mills,

Reed Noss, Michael Soul, DanStotter, Steve Trombulak,

Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers,Howie Wolke

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands CCCCCenter for PPPPPreventing RRRRRoads

The sn ows about to fly, which me ans th e snowm obiles are about to rev up

and claim th eir territory for the winter. With the ad vent of more versatile and

powerful machines, the am ount of land they impact is growing exponen -

tially. (This months Odes to Roads looks at ORV trespass on private lands.) Wildlands

CPR is ho sting a November mee ting to discuss the th reat of mo torized recreation in

wildland ecosystems. Well pass along a repor t in the next issue ofThe RIPorter.

In this issue, we focus on wilderness de signation . Our cover story looks at aninnovative p lan at Grand Canyon National Park to restore wilderness su itability, both

ecologically and politically, by removing 130 miles of roads, while DePaving the Way

suggests expand ing the pu rview of the wildern ess movem ent. Give us a call, or sen d

an e-m ail or letter, with your co mm ents.

ThanksMany th anks to The New-Land and

Harder Foundations for their generous

supp ort, and to The Wildern ess Society

for suppo rting our off-road vehicle work.

Thank you also to Kinkos of Missoula,

MT for donating pap er and e nvelopes.

An e no rm ou s THANK YOU to Michae l

Donnelly from th e Wildlands CPR board,

for using his cabin in Oregon old growth

for our an nu al board meetin g. It was

gorgeous in the wo ods, and we got a lot

of work don e, too. If on ly we could have

gone to the h ot springs...

Annual SurveyIts th at tim e of yea r again well

be sending a new survey and mem ber-

ship ren ewal letter soon . Please take a

few minutes to respond your feedback

helps us determine how to help you be

most effective. Along with the survey isour req uest for supp ort. We only ask

once a year, and wed like to keep it tha t

way, but we n eed you r respo nse. We

think we provide a darn good se rvice

youve told us so and we h ope youll

continue to supp ort us. Most impor-

tantly, we h ope youll keep fighting roads

and motorized recreation!

WelcomeWildlands CPR welcomes a host o f new inter ns an d volunteers. Mary Ann e Peine

recently arrived from North Carolina and the South ern Appa lachian Biodiversity

Project. Shes helping out on a big ORV project in our Missoula office. Than Hitt,

formerly of App alachian Restoration Camp aign, also arrived and is working on ourdatabase transfer. Than put together this months bibliography notes on road density

and aquatic h abitat. Jack Wade and Dan Brister, two gradu ate stud ents in Environ-

men tal Studies at th e University of Mon tana, are com pleting a project for the lon g-

term roads p olicy. Were thr illed to have these folks on board an d we also than k our

con tinu ing volunte ers, Vivian Roland an d Karen Verm ilye.

Changes A-BrewingOur n ext newsletter wont be out un til Janu ary, so we thou ght wed let you know

that we will have a coup le of job op enings soo n. We plan to hire a h alf-time office

man ager, and a new ou treach/issues coordinator, both in ea rly 1999. Both p osition s

will be in Missoula. For co mp lete job description s, contact ou r office.

In this Issue

Restoring Wilderness atGrand Canyon, p. 1, 4-5

Kim Crumb o an d Bethanie Walder

Depaving the Way, p. 3Bethanie Walder

Legal Notes, p. 6-7Heidi McIntosh

Odes to Roads, p. 8-9Katie Alvord

Regional Reports, Alerts p. 9-10

Legislative Update, p. 11

Bibliography Notes, p. 12-13Than Hitt

Ask Dr. Roads, p. 14Dr. Roads, he kn ows mo re than you!

Wildlands CPR Resources, p. 15

Colorado OfficeP.O. Box 2353

Boulder, CO 80306(303) 247-0998

[email protected]


3/16

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1998 3

The wildern ess movemen t began in the 19 30s with Aldo Leopo ld and oth ersworking to keep m otors out of wild places (see RIPorter2:1). Decades of h ard

work led to passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Over the n ext three

decades, million s of acres were designated by Congress for pro tection, but in the last

several years the res been a growing struggle over th e fate of this coun trys remain ing

roadless areas.

Protecting roadless areas from futu re developm ent including logging, road-

building, motorized recreation, m ining and grazing is a critical focus for man y

wildland activists. Some propose protection through wilderness designation, others

throu gh limits on extractive activities. But p rotecting roadless areas isnt en ough to

ensu re the viability of native ecosystems. While roadless areas have becom e ecologi-

cal refugia for m any sp ecies from bu ll trout to grizzly bears man y roadless

areas are simply fragments of remaining habitat, rather than the best possible

hab itat. Land s typically rem ain roadless becau se they are rem ote, steep, or h ave

un stable soils, and o ften becau se the tree s aren t econ om ically valuable. Roadlessareas d o h ave significant eco logical value regardless, but we cann ot discoun t the

som etimes greater ecological value of areas that h ave been lightly roaded.

Land m anagers h ave spent too man y years roading low elevation land s to extract

trees an d m inerals. Still, some e cologically vital areas h ave been only lightly de-

graded. Restoring them may be m ore important, in som e cases, than protecting a

specific num ber of acres as wildern ess.

Wildern ess advocates must em brace a vision of wilderness th at goes beyond

roadless lands, beyond w ildern ess for beautys sake and toward w ildern ess for earths

sake. We mu st re-create wildern ess by re-wilding degraded land s and reco nn ecting

wild ecosystems. The m odels are out there, though it may take even mo re work to

designate restored land as w ildern ess than to designate road less areas. Weve

pro tected mu ch of the e asy stuff, its time to start working on th e hard stuff, too.

The Wildlands Project provides on e ph ilosop hical vision for activists and land

man agers to embrace. Numerous projects around the coun try are drafting plans toprotect core roadless areas and connect them with other impo rtant habitat. Road

rem oval is a key part of these plan s.

The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, propo sed by the Alliance for

the Wild Rockies, goes beyond p hilosophy and outlines a man agement p lan to

pro tect and en han ce not on ly roadless lands, but degraded areas as well. It would

establish wildland recovery areas, removing over 3,000 m iles of road from core a reas

and wildlife corridors to restore ecosystem integrity.

In the south west,the Grand Canyon p lan (see cover story) is another exam ple of

turn ing wildland ph ilosoph ies into reality. Grand Canyon National Park has p roposed

(in a July 1998 dr aft environ men tal imp act statement) to restore tho usan ds of acres

to wilderness con dition by removing 130 m iles of old road. In ad dition to this

prop osal, the Grand Canyon WildlandsCouncil, a nonprofit environmental

group, has mapp ed out lands that could

connect the Grand Canyon ecosystem

with the newly protected (not as

wilderness) Grand Staircase/Escalante

National Monument.

The Grand Canyon and Northern

Rockies proposals may not answer all

our q uestions or p rotect all critical

hab itat, especially on private land, but

they are steps toward a m ore ecologi-

cally soun d system of wildland p rotec-

tion.

Removing roads is only one way wecan restore wildland ecosystem s to a

cond ition su itable for wilderness

designation un der the Wilderness Act of

1964. We have the opportunity to re-

create wilderness, to turn a past of

ecological devastation into a futu re of

ecological restoration. By learn ing from

the last three decades of the wilderness

mo vement, using po litical and ecologi-

cal hindsight, we can create a m odern

movement with enough foresight both

to protect roadless areas and restore

ecologically critical roaded areas to a

wilderness condition. The wildernessmovement of the 21st century should be

one that combines p reservation with

restoration.

Wilderness, in the 21st century.A place not on ly for pe ople to exper i-

ence wild nature an d all that comes with

it, but a dyn amic place th at is ecologi-

cally viable for all species and p rovides

the backbone for planetary survival now

and into future m illennia.

Wilderness in the 21st Century by Bethanie Walder

Wilderness. The word evokes a sen se of solitude, wonder, silence,beau ty, timelessness, enorm ity, wildness, danger, truth and power.

Wilderness. Environm entalists love it, resource ex traction peo plehate it, many others just dont know anything about it.

Wilderness. The movem ent to p rotect it is being reinvigorated bydedicated activists and organizations throughout the country.

Wilderness. The num ber of acres designated is often looked upon asthe m ost clear way to measure success within th e movement.

Winters arrival provides time for reflecting on our movements

scope and st rategy. File photo.


4/16


5/16


The Parks North Rim is th e last remn ant (approx imately

20% ) of the Kaibab Plateau s an cient forest (USDI 199 3:6). At

least 57 mam mals and 1 28 bird species live or migrate through

here, although one quarter of the bird populations are declin-

ing (Reynolds, et al. 1993 ). Gone is much of the n atural

diversity of vegetation a nd th e abu ndan t wildlife it supp orted.

Gone is the san ctuary for big game, predators, and oth er

sensitive sp ecies.

Politics and the PlanRestoring wildness requires the be st

science, practical application , and

conviction. It is also politically formi-

dable, and Grand Canyon National Parks

restoration plan offers an interesting

persp ective on this pro cess. Most of the

Park was proposed for wilderness in the

original 1980 Recommendation, and NPS

policies require maintain ing its wilder-ness suitability un til Congress p asses

wilderness legislation specific to the Park (USDI 1988).

This past spr ing the Park Service released its Draft

Wilderness Management Plan, based up on the 1980 Recom-

men dation, proposing measures n ecessary to protect and

restore Grand Canyon s wilderness ch aracter. The plan would

remove 130 m iles of roads, and retain 65 m iles as no n-

wilderness corridor s, including mech anized access to 12overlooks and trailheads. Not un expectedly, these p ropose d

closures drew th e ire of bicycle and four-wheel drive enth usi-

asts, who discoun ted both th e ecological benefits of restora-

tion and th e availability of mo re than 7 ,500 miles of road on

adjacent Bureau of Land Mana gemen t and Forest Service land s.

These roads p rovide mecha nized access to at least 19 Grand

Canyon overlooks located outside the park bo un dary. With 31

access points left intact, mech anized recreation continu es to

engulf the Gran d Canyon region at significant ecological

cost.

Nonetheless, the m otorized recreation comm unity

convinced some members of Congress to conduct oversight

hear ings on th e Draft Wildern ess Managem ent Plan, specifi-

cally focusing on th e road closures, loss of mech anized

access, and m atters pertaining to recreational use on th e

Colorado River. [At th e time of this w riting, the ou tcome and

conseq uen ces of the Septem ber 24 h earings by Rep. Jim

Hansens (R-UT) subcomm ittee on Parks an d Pub lic Land s are

unknown].

ConclusionWildern ess advocates recognize the motor ized recreation

commu nity as a powerful threat, not only to the designation of

new wilderness areas, but to the maintenance of our existing

wilderness system . The National Park Service has com mitted

to the h ighest level of protection for th e Grand Canyon , and for

what rem ains of the on ce vast Kaibab forest. That com mitme ntis wildern ess. The American p eople m ust similarly decide

wheth er to supp ort the Park Service in this effort or to let a

loud, politically and financially well-conn ected m inority of

motor ized users dictate the future of the Grand Canyon .

As decision-makers, wildern ess advocates, the p ublic and

politicians p ush to expand th e wilderness system, we cann ot

discount th e ecological poten tial of already roaded lan ds.

Roads can be rem oved, critical ecological linkages ma intained,

hab itat protected, and ecosystem s restored. To create tru ly

functionin g ecosystems within th e Wildern ess System, it is

necessar y to look beyond lan ds wh ich are still roadless. The

Grand Canyon Wildlands Coun cil and Wildlands CPR envision

just su ch a futu re wildern ess. Grand Canyon National Parks

prop osal to remove roads and restore wildland systems, if

implem ented , will be a giant step toward the ecological

recovery of the Kaibab Plateau as creatures find san ctuary in

the Game Preserve and wildness return s to the Grand Canyon .

The Grand Canyon proposal, if implemented, brings hope that

ecological integrity can play as impo rtant a ro le in Wildern ess

designation as the bea uty, majesty and m agic that already

emb ody th e Nation al Wilderness System. The Grand Canyonplan is a new mo del for wilderness recovery an d designation

for the 21st Century.

Kim Crumbo is president of Grand Canyon Wildlands Council,

and an avid river rat. For m ore information about GCWC,

contact them at PO Box 1594, Flagstaff, AZ 86002. Phone 520-

556-9306; E-Mail: [email protected].

Current road closures on t he Kaibab Plateau have proved

ineffective. Kim Crumbo photo.

References on page 7

The American people must decide whether to supportthe Park Service in this effort or to let a loud, well-connected minority of motorized users dictate the

future of the Grand Canyon.


6/16


Salt Creek is the on ly perenn ial stream (other th an th e Green an d

Colorado rivers) in Canyon lands National Park, one o f the largest

expanses of rough, scenic, redrock country in th e southwestern

United States. The creek is a ribbon of lush green vegetation slicing

throu gh an o therw ise arid desert. For th is reason, it is critically impo r-

tant to desert wildlife, and is the on ly place where certain sp ecies of

birds and am phibians can survive in the redrock cou ntry.

Despite its incredible n atural value an d irrep laceable wildlife

hab itat, the Park Service has always treated Salt Creek as a h ighway by

which jeeps can a ccess the remote ba ckcoun try. (Canyonlands, unique

amo un g national parks, has essentially become an ORV park with 19 4

miles of four -wheel-drive roa ds.) Veh icle access to Salt Creek wa s evencause for dissention am ong th e Parks staff. As one emp loyee put it, this

beautiful beat up riparian area sh ould be closed to 4X4 traffic and

accessible only by foot. This would help prote ct not only the stream

plant an d anim al life, but also the p recious archa eological resources.

In Jun e 1998, The South ern Utah Wildern ess Alliance (SUWA) won a

critical lawsuit bar ring th e use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) in Salt Creek. The dec ision

was pred icated on th e fact that using ORVs in this can yon was directly opp osed to

the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (Amen ded in 19 78). This de cision has

far-reachin g implications for activists challenging illegal or excessive u se o f off-road

vehicles in National Parks.

Park Service StudyIn the m id-1990s, the Park Service com missioned a stu dy to investigate the

possibility that the th ousan ds of vehicles a year which used th e stream as a roadwere damaging the riparian system. The study con cluded th at one of the the primary

effects of vehicle use in Salt Creek is to favor com mo n, deser t species at the expen se

of locally rare, mesic species. In other words, the roa d h as dram atically reduced, or

eliminated, less common desert species which would norm ally pop ulate the riparian

area. The road also fragmen ted hab itat, polluted the water, and caused drastic

reduction s in na tive plant a nd anim al species. The Park Service, however, ignor ed th e

study an d con tinued to allow jeeps to ru n th e Creek, sparking the lawsuit by SUWA.

The Park Services action ignored its own po licy that th e primary p urp oses [of

Parks], as established by Congress, do no t include outdoo r recreation, 52 Fed. Reg.

10673 (1987 ).

The Courts DecisionIn a Jun e 19 , 1998 d ecision [7 F. Sup p. 2d 1 205 (D. Utah 1 998 )], Judge Kimball of

the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City ruled in favor of the Southern Utah Wilder-ness Alliance. In a strongly worded opinion, Judge Kimball rejected the Park Services

argument that it could sacrifice some natural resources and p ermit the h armful use

of jeeps in deferen ce to dema nds by four-whe el drive groups. Noting that amp le

recreational opp ortun ities are available on BLM and Forest Service lands, the cou rt

held that national parks must bepreservedfor future generation s. Thu s, an activity

which causes perm anent impairment of a national parks natural resources is

proh ibited by law.

The Organic ActThe cour ts ruling was consisten t

with decisions in other jurisdictions. In

Wilkins v. Secretary of Inte rior, 995 F.2d

850 (8th Cir. 1993) the cou rts up held a

Park decision to d estroy no n-na tive wild

horses that had caused damage. [See

also Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v.

Babb itt 82 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir 19 96).]Congress could not h ave been more

clear whe n it en acted th e Organic Act:

the p urp ose of the par ks is to conse rve

the scenery an d the n atural and historic

objects and th e wildlife therein an d

provide for the en joyment of th e same

(16 USC Sec. 1 et seq). The re ason for

upholding this decision was based on

the parks purpose to maintain,

rehabilitate and perpetuate the parks

natu ral resources inhe rent integrity

Michigan United Conservation Clubs v.

Lujan , 949 F.2d 2 02, 2 07 (6th Cir. 1991).

What Is a Road, Anyway?In addition to challenging the cour t

to up hold the Park Service Organic Act,

SUWA reque sted th at the court deter-

mine whether or n ot the wash bottoms

of Salt, Horse and Lavendar Canyon s

constituted roads. This ch allenge was

Court Agrees With SUWA: Canyonlands NationalPark Must Close Salt Creek To Jeeps

by Heidi McIntosh

Though never constructed, this was defined by t he court as a

road. Photo courtesy of SUWA.


7/16


based on the fact that the routes in question are un engineered

and un constructed and therefore should not be considered

roads. In the e nd, th e cour t deferred to th e Park Services

determination that the rough trails were roads within the

mea ning of Park Service regulations, despite the fact that th ey

were never actually constructed.

While closing Salt Creek to vehicles will mean mu ch-

need ed recovery for the sen sitive riparian area, it will notaffect the vast majority of Park visitors less than 1 % of

Canyon lands visitors use four-wh eel drive vehicles to access

Salt Creek. Additionally, there are n early 200 miles of roads

open to four-whee l drive vehicles in the rem ainder of the Park,

most of wh ich never saw the bu siness end of a road grader.

What MatteredThe District Court de cision did n ot turn on wh ether th e

roads were constructed, but on the dam age their use was

causing: Congress has issued a clear answer to the qu estion of

whe ther the Park Service is auth orized to perm it activities

within n ational parks that perman ently imp air unique park

resou rces. The answer is no. In ad dition, the judge overturned

the a gencys substan tive findings and rejected th e ParkServices argum ent that it could sacrifice natu ral values for

recreation d ema nds: ...visitor enjoyme nt do es no t refer to

visitor en joyment of outdo or recrea tional activities.

ConclusionOn other legal issues, the cou rt expressed concern but

ultimately uph eld the Parks refusal to consider closing more

of the backcoun try four-wh eel-drive road system. They also

ru led in favor of th e Park Service on SUWAs argum en t tha t the

environmental analysis of other aspects of the Backcountry

Managem ent Plan was flawed.

Despite these co nstraints (which are limited in their

applicability to Canyonlands NP itself), this case clearly

reaffirms the p rimacy of ecological and n atural values withinour National Park System, an d th e NPS obligation to provide

for their end uring protection . Wildland activists and o thers

concer ned a bout ORVs, roads an d developm ent within Parks

can and should utilize this important ruling.

Heidi McIntosh has been a lawyer w ith t he Sout hern Utah

Wilderness Alliance since 1993. She was recently named SUWAs

Conservation Director and she lives in Salt Lake City.

continued from page 5

Grand Canyon References

Amor, R.L. and P.L. Stevens. 1976. Spread of Weeds from a

Roadside Into Scierophyll Forests at Dartmouth, Australia.

Weed Research. 16:111-118.

Dutton, C.E. 1882. Tertiary History of the Grand CanyonDistrict; with atlas. U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 2,

264 pp.; Atlas, 23 sheets.

Huffman J. 1993. Between River and Rim: A Comparative Viewof Subsistence Systems in Grand Canyon, Arizona.

Unpublished Thesis. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona

University. Pages 14-36.

Lyon, J., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edge,J.D. Jones, D.W. McCleerey, and L.L. Hicks. 1985.

Coordinating Elk and Timber Management: Final Report

of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study 1970-

1985. Bozeman, MT: Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife, and Parks. 53 Pages.

Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L Raddle, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf

Distribution and Road Density in Minnesota. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 16:85-87.Moll, J.E. 1996. A Guide for Road Closures and Obliteration in

the Forest Service. San Dimas, California: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas

Technology and Development Center. 49 pages.Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Natures Legacy.

Covelo, California: Island Press. 465 pages.

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered

Ecosystems of the United States: A PreliminaryAssessment of Loss and Degradation. Biological Report

28, NBS, Washington D.C. 69 pages.

Noss, R.F., and R.L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems: A

Status Report on Americas Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife.Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife. 132 pages.

Rasmussen, D.I. 1941. Biotic Communities of Kaibab Plateau,Arizona.Ecological Monographs. 11(3):229-276.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L.Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L.

Fisher. 1993. Managem ent Recomm endations for the

Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States.

General Technical Report RM-217. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pages.

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship Between Road Densities and Wolf

Habitat Suitability in Wisconsin.American MidlandNaturalist113:404-407.

USDI, National Park Service. 1988. NPS Managem ent Policies.

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

USDI, National Park Service. 1993. Final Wilderness

Recommendation, 1993 Update. 14 pages plusappendices and map. On file, Grand Canyon National

Park Science Center.

Ward , L.Z., D.K. Ward , and T.J. Tibbits. 1992. Density Analysisat Goshawk Nesting Territories on the North Kaibab

Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. Final Report,

April 1992, Purchase Order #43-8156-0-0487. Phoenix,

AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Nongame and

Endangered Wildlife Program. 61 pages.

Willey, D.W. 1984. Spotted Owl Survey, North Kaibab District,

Kaibab National Forest: Final Report. Purchase Order 43-

8156-9-0273. 10 pages.

Toyota demonstrates the predominant use of Salt Creek. Photo

courtesy of SUWA .


8/16


The beach is quiet now. Waves

lap up onto the shore, shifting

the sand s that tickle Lake

Super iors edge. I look ou t to a liquid

blue horizon from m y low perch on a

water-smoothed trunk of driftwood

ceda r. To my back a bre eze riffles

through birch and aspen, spruce and

white pine. The only soun ds, other than

wind and waves, come from the o cca-

sional call of a circling gull, the chirping

of chickadees and r ustling of red

squirrels in the leafy trees near th e

house in the woods behind me.This is a bea utiful place ; I feel lucky,

mo st of the time, to live here. But

un fortunately its also a place wh ere off-

road vehicle drivers like to trespass.

This same qu iet place, not lon g ago,

suffered one of the worst intrusions yet

of growling ORVs: they came in the

middle of the night, shattering dark

silence; their drivers were drun k and

had an I-can-go-anywhere attitude.

They refused to leave when asked. They

crush ed vegetation, even sm all trees,

and ripped down No Trespassing signs.

We managed to apprehen d them an dhoped to prosecute, but were advised

that th e local judge would likely let them

off with on ly a warn ing.

I can still see the evidence theyve

been h ere, they and others like them.

Looking out across th e broad stretch of

beach between

woods an d water, I

can still see tracks

in the sand. They

are tracks that

create a d e facto

road across the

beach: once oneset of them h as

been laid, other

vehicles have followed.

I wonder a few things as I look at

these tracks. I won der: how long will

they be ther e? I wond er: how can we

keep the machines that created them off

this beach , which is part of a pr ivate

nature preserve that proh ibits motor

vehicles? I won der : if its this much

trouble keeping them off private land,

how can anyone

hope to control

them on land thats

public?

In the four

years Ive lived in

this spo t, Ive

watched tracks on

the beach appear

and th en stay for a

surprisingly long

time, longer than I

would have

thought possibleon a weather-

beaten stretch of

shifting sand. Near

the waters edge, the lake quickly

washes them away. But farthe r back

they stay. Sometimes I try to hasten

their departure, raking branches over

them and kicking my feet through them

to make the beach look natural again,

un tramm eled. But this beach is too big,

the tracks too nu merous, to do that

everywh ere. In places, tracks a few

season s old can still be seen, remaining

visible even after rain and w ind an dsnow and ice have all had a chance to

rearrange them .

It reminds me of the way that roads

in the forest, too, rema in if theyre no t

ripped. Most of the rest of this preserve

is wooded; some o f it was logged and

farmed and roaded decad es ago. In its

presen t and futu re as a preserve, it is

mea nt to be road-free. At this point,

there is on ly one road left, slowly

diminishing since it is used only as a

trail; nature h as don e a gradual job of

reclaiming th e rest. Still, even th ough

the woods have been untouched for

years now, we can find por tions of

Odes to Roads

Tracks in the Sand by Katie Alvord

decades-old roadbeds in them, linear

span s of smaller, sparser trees on

packed-flat ground, and under the

bru sh, drainage ditches still discernible

on eithe r side.

I won der wh at similar signs of

roaded ness will be left on th e beach

years hen ce, signs n ot obvious to those

no t looking but there no neth eless. Part

of the b each its inner edge, closest to

the trees is a revegetation zone, aplace whe re were helping the forest to

reclaim an d stabilize the sand. Weve

planted seedling trees, weve let dr ift-

wood collect and add to the organ ic

matter, we find h ardy colonizing plants

sprouting from the sand in p laces where

the driftwood has decayed. In other

places, we find broken plant stems and

sand rem aining bare. Those places are

ORV tracks, and years hence, they will

probably be the places where the

vegetation is still smaller an d sp arser, if

it grows at all.

How can we keep this dama ge fromhap pen ing in the first place? How can

we keep these m achines from driving on

this beach? State laws proh ibit this; the

rules of this private preserve proh ibit

this; there are No Trespassing signs;

there is even a fence, because on ly

insurmountable physical barriers seem

to guarantee a certain level of success at

keeping four-wh eelers out. But we have

a problem : along the waters edge,

whe re the p ower of this big lake can

ORVs leave their mark on the fragile coastal environment. Katie Alvord

photo.

How can ORVs possibly be controlledon public land, if its this much trouble

to keep them off land thats private?


9/16


man ifest in 10 to 20 foot crashing waves and a

constantly changing shoreline, wed need the

Army Corp s of Engineers to bu ild a barrier

that wou ld stay. For a small unfenceab le area

right nex t to the water, we have to rely on

signs.

And so we get leaks: vehicles leak in pa st

our best defenses, run over the seedlingsregenerating on their own, smash down the

tiny trees weve planted, shatter th e seren ity

of the lake and th e forest and violate our

values. Sometimes just seeing a new set of

tracks on the beach is enough to leave me

feeling violated . Maybe its because I know

too much about the real damage those tracks

represent, not just the broken plants, but also

the erosion and particulate dust the spinning

tires kick up, the p lumes of toxic exhaust that

foul the air, settle on th e soil, and ultimately

pollute the water. Maybe its becau se this is an

activity so contrary to m y values, and to th e

values I had hop ed to see man ifested on thisland by restoring it as motor-free and

unroaded.

I dont know if more can b e done to

pro tect this preserve from off-road vehicles.

That leads me back to my third question: How

can th ey possibly be controlled on public

land, if its this mu ch troub le to keep them off

land th ats private? I now have a definite

empath y for the peop le confronting this task,

the p ublic lands m anagers charged with

en forcing ORV laws. The cha llenge they face

becomes abundan tly clear.

No one group of low num bers and h igh

impact should be allowed to overrun thepub lic land s. No specific inter est group h as

the right to degrade or destroy them , for any

purpose. It becomes even more egregious

when the destruction is done in the course of

recreation. And in answer to my third

question , all I can co nclude is this: those of us

who care about the con tinued existence of

quietude and the future o f wild n ature have

some m ore questions to ask. We need to

question the idea of allowing any off-road

vehicle recreation on pub lic lands at all. We

need to question wheth er these activities and

the equipmen t designed to pursue them

shou ld even be legal. We need to let public

lands agencies know that we h ave these

question s, that were moving toward answers.

I move toward answe rs myself as I sit by the

water and watch yet another wave crash and

flow not qu ite far enou gh up the sand to wash

off all the tracks, the de facto set of roads laid

lawlessly on the b each.

Katie Alvord, co-founder of Wildlands CPR, is

currently working on a book about our troubled

love affair with the car.

Regional Reports & Alerts

Hells Canyon: Keep the Good NewsComing With Your Scoping Letter

Good news:A rider to chan ge the Hells Canyon Wildern ess bou nda ryon the western rim of Hells Canyon in order to pun ch a road into the last

12 unroaded miles of the 50-mile rim was pu lled off the Interior Appropria-

tions bill.

More good news:The Native Ecosystem Alternative for the new Hells

Canyon National Recreation Area Compreh ensive Managemen t Plan (CMP),

which Wildlands CPR has h elped write, will be an alyzed fully in th e 1999

Draft EIS for th e n ew Hells Canyon CMP. This alternative was p repared in 19 95

by represen tatives from local, regional, and n ational organizations an d two

Tribes. It emp hasizes restoration of Hells Canyon ecosystems an d less mo tor-

ized use.

In 199 6, a first Draft EIS was pu blished, bu t it illegally ignored the Native

Ecosystem Alternative. The Washington Office of the Forest Service warne d

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (W-WNF) that under National Environ-

men tal Policy Act regulations, all reasonable alternatives need to be con sid-

ered, an d th e Native Ecosystem Alterna tive is reason able. So th e W-WNF isstarting over.

Which m eans: (1) a n ew Draft EIS in 199 9; (2) a new scoping p eriod (until

Janu ary 8, 1999 ); and (3) a scoping letter from you w ill be importan t: The W-

WNF is und er intense local pressure, particularly from coun ty comm issione rs

and th e jetboat/snowmo bile/ORV regulars to not limit mo torized access in any

way.

Please send a letter by Jan. 8th to:Kurt Wiedenmann

Wallowa-Whitman NF

P.O. Box 908 /Bake r City, OR 97814

Some possibilities for your scoping letter:

1. The bioregional and n ational nature of these p ublic lands should be

established as a significant issue (that ph rase is impor tant) in the up comin g

Draft EIS.

2. The needs of wildlife and the h igh deman d of people for relief from

motorized dom ination of public lands require significant reductions in roads

in this remote area.

3. Have you ever visited Hells Canyon ? Tell them abou t your exp erience

in relation to protection of this incred ible place.

4. Supp ort the Native Ecosyste m Altern ative.

5. Propose establishing a Hells Canyon Rim Trail (non - motorized; abou t

half of the western r im).

6. Motorized vehicles spread noxious weeds (which are a horren dou s

problem here).

To ob tain a copy of th e 80-page Native Ecosyst em Alterna tive: Contact

Kurt at: Wiedenm ann _Kurt/r6pn w_wallowawhitma [email protected] or 541/523-

1296.

To o btain a copy o f the access and recreation sections of th e Native

Ecosystem Alterna tive (only a few pages), or for a br ief summ ary of th e Native

Ecosystem Alternative, contact: Mary OBrien: m ob@dar kwing.uoregon.edu or

541/485-6886.


10/16


The Colorado Mounta in Club (CMC) Board of Directo rsrecently end orsed the May 1998 prop osal of the Quiet Use

Coalition to create zones of qu ietude in th e Collegiate Peaks

area. These quiet use zones would be established as p art of

the Pike-San Isabel Forest Plan to protect certain areas exclu-

sively for h uman -powered recreation, such as hiking, skiing,

camping, and biking.

Motorized recreation in National Forests and th e resu lting

conflicts with non -motorized user groups has become a h eated

issue in man y backcoun try areas of Colorado such as Vail Pass,

Grand Mesa, and m ost recently the Collegiate Peaks area.

Recently the Quiet Use Coalition form ed in Salida to addr ess

the loss of oppor tun ities for quiet recreation in th eir area.

The product of their efforts is a proposal to the Forest

Service to designate approx imately 20 areas from Leadville to

Salida as quiet use zones. The Colorado Mountain Club felt it

was impor tant to endorse the concept behind this proposal.

As recreation continues to grow as a predominant u se of our

federal land s, it is importan t to lay out the blueprin t for its

growth an d m anagem ent, says Heide Andersen , Public Policy

Director for th e CMC. The opp ortun ities for solitude are

diminishing at an alarming rate. Access to our Nationa l Forests

through motorized means has reached the point where

individuals have difficulty finding areas that are mo re than a

few miles at most from a ro ad.

The Quiet Use prop osal is a good examp le of a local

citizen group taking the initiative in makin g responsible land

use decisions for their region. As the largest conser vation an d

outdoor recreation organization in th e Rocky Mountain region,

the 10,000 CMC mem bers are actively involved in h iking,backpacking, climb ing, boating, and biking on pu blic land s

across the state of Colorado. The CMC has a vested interest in

conserving the n atural character and wilderness values that

are a crucial element of the remarkable backcountry recre-

ational experiences of these area s.

Contact: Heide Ande rsen Public Land s Policy

Director Colorado Mountain Club (303) 279-3080, ext. 106;

[email protected]

Colorado Mountain Club Endorses QuietUse Coalition Plan For Collegiate Peaks

For the last 40 years, commu nity residents have beenopp osing the Re-route of Minneso ta State Highway 55. On

August 10th of this year, the day that 5 hom es were scheduled

for dem olition, Earth First!, the Mend ota Mdewakanton

Dakota Comm unity, the American Indian Movement an d oth er

organizations and individuals began a n on-violent occupation

to prevent road construction.

Utilizing direct action tactics from Europ ean and Austra-

lian an ti-road struggles, the cam paign has successfully held off

the bulldozers for over two mon ths. More than 1,000 comm u-

nity mem bers have signed a Beat the Bulldozer Pledge

comm itting them selves to non -violent civil disobedience to

prevent th e destruction of hom es, park land an d sacred sites,

all threatened if the

Minnesota Department

of Transp ortation

(MnDoT) procee ds with

the project.

On October 14th,

hun dreds of people

attende d a rally at the

State Capitol Building

in St. Paul, MN calling

for a halt to the road

project. Simultaneou sly,

dozens of Law

Enforcement Officers

invaded th e peaceful

occupa tion in full riot

gear, random lyarresting people,

including a comm unity

resident. Police

brutality was well

documen ted by the

media and independent

videographers.

During the raid, 2 women and 2 m en from the occupation

began h un ger striking. They han d-delivered a letter to MnDoT

informing James Denn and other officials that th ey will not eat

until the re-route is canceled in writing and the park land and

sacred sites of the Mend ota Mdewakanton Dakota Commu nity

are permanently protected.

One h un ger striker, a young Dakotah m an n am ed Sky,began h is fast with a four day Hamb aleca, a tradition al

Native Ame rican Vision Qu est in the four sacred oaks nea r the

encampm ent. Two other hun ger strikers maintained vows of

silence for that time in solidarity with Sky. The h un ger strikers

are reaching out to all spiritual and faith-based comm unities to

join them in prayer and direct action to stop this re-route.

For m ore in formation contact: Solstice (612) 701-8327 ;

< < [email protected]>

Minnesotans Carry On Hunger StrikeAgainst Road

Regional Reports & Alerts, Continued

Photos by Mark Alan Wilson.


11/16


Legislative Update

Riders on the FY 99 Omnibus Appropr iations Bil l

Snow Basin Road - This rider passed unchanged, authorizing a $15 million

subsidy for a th ree-mile road up to Snow Basin Ski Area in n orth ern Utah. A 1996

parks bill rider gave Nationa l Forest land to a developer for a ski resor t, for th e winter

Olympics. Private condo s will help the developer realize m illion s in p rofits. This rider

increases th e developers windfall by allocating federal fun ds to pay for an access

road (First attached to the FY 99 Senate Interior Appropriations Bill).

Great Smo ky Mountains National Park Road - This rider passed un changed,

directing the Nationa l Park Service to keep th e Newfound Gap road o pen year-roun d,

24-ho urs/day in Great Smoky Mountain s NP. The 32 m ile road crosse s the p ark via a

5,000 foot pass, wh ere severe winter weathe r can m ake it unsafe to travel. It may

cost the Park Service more than $300,000 to keep the road op en, at the expen se ofother park p rojects.

Califo rnia Toll Road - Final negotiations on the Om nibus Bill added language

that n ullified a Memo rand um of Unde rstanding signed by 9 federal and state agen-

cies, makin g this rider even worse. It waives environm ental review to expedite

building a toll road thr ough p ark land in South ern Californ ia (Camp Pend leton

Marine Base). One of Wildlands CPRs Terr ible Twelve roads (See RIPorter2:1 for

backgroun d), its imp act on native flora an d fauna will be staggering. The n eed for

this road is questionable, and its precedent will be dan gerous.

Montana Highway 93, Flathead Indian Reservation - This rider overturned

the 1996 decision by the Federal Highway Adm inistration (FHWA) to defer widening

Highway 93 u ntil an agreement could be reached by the State Department of

Transp ortation an d the Confederated Salish an d Kooten ai Tribes of the Flathead

Nation. The Tribes opp ose th e road, an d so do conser vationists. It will impact th e

Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge an d a strategically im portan t p otential linkagezone for two grizzly bear p opu lations.

Denali National Park Development - In final Om nibus n egotiation s, this

rider was am end ed but still overrides a completed Environ men tal Impact Study

which called for removing the McKinley airstrip in Denali National Park. The EIS had

won the su ppo rt of the NPS, the State of Alaska, and th e tourist indu stry. The

language directs the NPS to main tain the airstrip for general aviation an d com mercial

uses, and also directs the NPS to study option s for constr ucting a jet-capable

runway near the park en trance.

Riders That Were Deleted

Or Amended

Izembek Road - In final Omn ibus

negotiations, this p rovision (SeeRIPorter

3:3) was ame nde d to allocate $17.5

million to th e East Aleutians Borough for

impr oving the King Cove airport an d

me dical clinic, and $20 million for

constructing an access road and a

ma rine link to Cold Bay. The langua ge

now excludes a road from the Izembek

Wildern ess but cou ld allow a road

through environmentally sensitive lands

and key brown bear habitat within the

Izembek Refuge.Chugach Road - An amendment

offered by Rep. Hinchey (D-NY) to strike

this rider was rejected on the House

floor, but in final negotiations o n th e

Omn ibus Bill the p rovision was deleted.

It would h ave granted a road easement

(exempt from environmental review and

public inpu t) through th e northern

section o f the Chu gach NF, across th e

Coppe r River Delta in Alaska. For

background, seeRIPorter3:3.

Logging Road Mainte nance and

Reconstruction - In final Omn ibus

negotiations, this rider was amended torequ ire the Forest Service to take pub lic

comm ent on decomm issioning logging

roads. It would have prohibited decom-

missioning an y system roads u ntil all

unauthorized roads were decomm is-

sioned o r fixed (For backgrou nd see

RIPorter3:4). Since man y un auth orized

roads are not even recorded, inventory-

ing them could take years and would

have delayed important restoration work

on system roads.

Members of Congress recently adjourned to their home districts

for some last minute campaigning before the November 3rd

election s. Before leaving Washin gton, h owever, they passed an

Omn ibus Appro priations Bill (HR 4328) of epic propo rtions, containing

an un precedented num ber of anti-environm ent riders.

While a few of these nasty p rovisions were deleted or am end ed in

last minute n egotiations (than ks to the h eroic efforts of conse rvationists

nation wide), the Om nibus Bill emerged with 31 d ama ging riders. Other

Appr opriations Bills, such a s those for Housing and Urban Developm ent

and Defense Auth orization, con tained over a dozen m ore. Promises of a

veto, made b y President Clinton and Vice Presiden t Gore, proved h ollow

in the end.

Here is a recap o f some of the worst riders p ertaining to road related

issues, and a few victories as well. Limited space prevents a mo re

exh austive summ ary we didn t cover highway pr ojects in New York

and Alabama, to say n othin g of riders on global warm ing, toxics,

wilderness, forest management or other environmental issues. Special

than ks to Roger Feathe rstone a nd the GrassRoots Environ men tal Effectiveness

Network (GREEN) for the information containe d in this rep ort.

Federal legislators enacted dozens of horrendou s ant i-

environment riders as part of A ppropriations measures this

fall. File photo.


12/16


Bibliography Notes

W

ere losing. While the en vironme ntal movemen t

struggles through the bureaucracy of natural

resour ce agencies, while we argue abou t thisclearcut, that road, and the n ext-thing-down-the-pike, roadless

hab itat is und er th e final assault. In th e Appa lachians, in

Montan a, in Canada, we literally are losing ground.

One of the pr incipal roots of this predicame nt is not just

whatwe were taught in school, but how we were taught. Think

back to your four th grade teach er. If your im age resembles

mine, youre staring into th e eyes of an amicable, straight-

laced, gray-haired woman who is hell-bent on making surethat you know the product of seven times seven an d when

the bell rings the capital city of Nebraska. This is not to

suggest that the American educational system has been a

failure at teaching. On the contrar y: the system h as taught us

extraordinar ily well how to m echan ically subdivide ou r

knowledge b etween bell-blasts so as to m ake even Pavlovsmo uth wa ter. And rem emb er tha t its not just you an d I that

were programmed by Baconian public schools those timber

sale and road planners were too.

The industrial status-quo h as a vested interest in keeping

us squ abbling over the local imp acts of road X or culvert Y.

This distracts us from addressing the ch ron ic imp acts of road

building and timber ing on a landscap e level and from asking

the larger questions abo ut the cum ulative, mu lti-faceted causes

of ecosystem degradation. While consideration of the local and

immediate is essential, we must expan d the terms of the

debate to address cum ulative impacts in order to ach ieve

strategic hab itat protection. This article, addresses h ow road

netwo rks can affect aquatic system s and offers several

examples of how cumulative impacts are being assessed and

applied to North American con servation.

Cumulative ImpactsIn addition to th e site-specific effects of roads on aquatic

systems (for reviews see RIPorters 1:1 and 2 :5), one of the

least-known and most compelling examples of the cumulative

impacts of a road n etwork is found w ithin Montanas Bitterroot

National Forest. In 1991 and 1992, U.S. Forest Service re-searchers examined watersheds within west-draining slopes of

the Sapph ire Range an d foun d a highly significant correlation

between low road den sities and h ealthy watershed s. Addition-

ally, bull trou t (Salvelinus confluentus) pop ulations were

directly associated with low road den sity watersheds (BNF

1991, 1992). Subsequent research supported these findings by

attributing the d ecline o f fish p resence (Eaglin an d Hubert1993) and aquatic biointegrity (Roth et al. 199 6; Rothro ck et al.

1998) to increasing road den sities. Even th e aqu atic assess-

men t for the Interior Columb ia Basin

Ecosystem Managem ent Project

(ICBEMP), con clud ed th at ...increa sing

road den sity is correlated with declining

aquatic habitat conditions and aquatic

integrity (Lee et al. 1997 , p. 1347). The

implication is that n ot only do roads

impact local areas, but their cu mu lative

effects can fundamentally alter landscape

processes (e.g. seasonal m igrations of

anad rom ous fish) which result in a series

of cascading ecological effects.

Impact AssessmentThrough legal and public pressure, many natural resource

agencies have begun to address the cumulative impacts of

roads in th eir prop osed action s. Since the early 1980 s, the U.S.

Fore st Service has u tilized th e Equivalent Road Area (ERA)

technique to assess potential cumulative impacts on watershed

cond ition by m app ing and rating road den sity, land u se, soil

disturban ce, and vegetation cover (see Seidelman 1981).

McGurk a nd Fong (1995) refined this techn ique an d were ab le

to correlate aqu atic macroin vertebrate richn ess with ERA-

Bibliography Notes sum marizes and highlights som e of the

scientific literature in our 6,000 citation bibliography on t he

ecological effects of roads. 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.

Think Like a River: theCumulative Effects ofRoads on AquaticSystems by Than Hitt

Nowhere is the fragmentation of our thinkingand institutions and the arrogance of our

management more pronounced than in ourstewardship of aquatic ecosystems.

Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider. Saving Natures Legacy, 1994


13/16


determined watershed condition. Using the concepts behind this tech-

nique, Presiden t Clintons Forest Ecosystem Managem ent Assessmen t

Team (FEMAT 1993) and th e Inter ior Colum bia Basin Ecosystem Man age-

ment Project (Lee et al. 1997) explicitly recognized the imp ortan ce of

largely un roaded key watersheds for aq uatic ecosystem in tegrity.

However, despite th e em ergence o f valid technique s to evaluate th e

cumula tive effects of roa ds, curre nt agen cy effor ts (e.g., FEMAT, PACFISH,

INFISH) have systematically failed to protect the land refugia on whichaquatic systems depend .

In contr ast, several progressive research efforts have directly applied

an understanding of the cumulative effects of road networks towards

protecting and restoring aquatic integrity. Following British Columbias

Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure (IWAP), Haskins and Mayhood

(1997 ) used stream crossing den sities to predict the imp acts of roads in

south western Alberta, focusing on p eak flow changes and su rface erosion

hazards. Their results were used in a cum ulative effects assessment wh ich

concluded that areas with current road densities of less than 0.5 km /km 2

should not be subject to additional roading.

Riem an an d McIntyre (1995 ) considered ro ad ne tworks in their

observations of bu ll trout h abitat preferences, findin g a direct correlation

with low road den sity blocks of 5000 h ectares or m ore. Applying this

inform ation, research ers at th e Flathead Lake Biological Station used roaddensities as a proxy for hu man -caused disturbances to recommen d

aqua tic watershed reserves in Mon tanas Swan Basin (Frissell et al. 1995)

and western Montan a as a wh ole (Frissell et al. 1996). In similar efforts,

non-profit environmental organizations are considering road densities and

cum ulative impa cts to identify core hab itat for bioregional reserve

pro posals a cross North Amer ica, including th e Sky Islands/Greater Gila

region of New Mexico and Arizona, the South ern Rockies, and the Centra l

Appalach ians. The local impacts of roads notwithstan ding, these recent

applications acknowledge the complex impacts of road networks on

aqua tic and ter restrial systems an d mo ve the debate past individual battles

over specific roads an d towards strategic land scape pro tection.

Conclusion

Despite the seadvances, our

understanding of

the cumulative

impacts of roads

on aqu atic

systems is in its

infancy. Future

research should

address the

threshold road

density for

aquatic impacts

and the effects of

road networks onmigration

corridors of

anad rom ous salmo n as well as habitats of less charisma tic species.

Land scape ecologists Forman et al. (1996 ) stated th at ...a qu antu m leap in

focus on the ecological effects of roads is warran ted. To accom plish th is,

and to w in, we mu st further define th e terms of the debate according to

potential cumulative impacts.

Than Hitt, form erly with t he Appalachian Restoration Campaign, is

conducting aquatic research in Western Montana and volunteering with

Wildlands CPR in Missoula.

References

Bitterroot Nationa l Forest. 1991. Validation of

aquat ic habitat quality and fish population to

pred ict effects of activities. In: Fores t Plan

Monitoring and Evaluation Report. US

Depar tm en t of Agriculture, USFS. p. 48-55.Bitterroot National Forest. 1992. Validation of

aquat ic habitat quality and fish population to

pred ict effects of activities. In: Fores t Plan

Monitoring and Evaluation Report. US

Depar tm en t of Agriculture, USFS. p. 67-80.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT). 1993. Forest Ecosystem

Management: an Ecological, Economic, and

Social Asse ssmen t. Repor t of the FEMAT. July

1993. US Dept. of Agriculture, US Dept . of

Commerce, US Dept. of the Interior, EPA.

Form an, R.T.T. and S.K. Collinge. 1996. The

spatial solution to conserving biodiversity in

landscape regions. In: R.M DeGraaf and R.I.Miller, eds. Conservation of faunal diversity in

forested landscapes. Chapm an & Hall,

London. p. 537-568.

Frissell, C.A., J. Doskocil, J.T. Gangemi, and J.A.

Stanford. 1995. Identifying priority areas for

protection and restoration of aquatic

biodiversity: a case study in t he Swan River

Basin, Montana, USA. Biological Stat ion

Open File Report Number 136-95. Flathea d

Lake Biological Station, University of

Montana.

Frissell, C.A., J.T. Gangemi, G.C. Poole, and S.

Beckwit. 1996 . Prioritization of aquatic

diversity areas for design of a conservationreserve network in western Montana . Draft

report to the Pacific Rivers Council. Flathead

Lake Biological Station, University of

Montana.

Haskins, W. an d D. Mayhood. 1997 . Stream

crossing density as a predictor of watershed

impacts. Proceedings of the Seventeen th

Annual ESRI User Conference Paper 457.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurence

of bull trout in naturally fragmen ted habitat

patches of varied size. Transactions of t he

American Fisheries Society 124(3):285-296.

Roth, N.E., J.D. Allan, and D.L. Erickson. 1996.

Landscape influences on stream biotic

integrity assessed at m ultiple spatial scales.

Landscape Ecology 11(3):141-156.

Rothrock, J.A., P.K. Barten, and G.L. Ingman. 1998.

Land use and aquatic biointegrity in the

Blackfoot River Watershed, Montana. Journal

of the American Water Resources Association

34(3):565-581.

Seidelman, P.J. 1981. Methodology for evaluating

cumulative watershed impacts. Region 5

unpublished report, Regional Office, USDA

Forest Service, San Francisco, 64 pp.

Road washouts like this are dramatic events; the long term

effects of roads are m ore subtle and ins idious. Jim Coefield

photo.


14/16


Ask Dr. Roads Join Wildlands CPR Today!Mem bersh ip benefits both you and Wildlands CPR. You lend

your su ppo rt to our efforts, giving us m ore leverage in su bm it-

ting comm ents, filing lawsuits, and crea ting pressure to p revent

and close roads on pu blic lands. In addition, your finan cial sup-

port h elps us continue providing information an d resources to

activists throu ghout North America.

As a Wildlands CPR member, you'll have better access to

these resources, because youll receive:

f Our bimonthly newsletter, The Road-RIPorter.

f 10 free bibliography search es per year.

f National support for your cam paign through our n ewsletter

and alerts.

f Access to activist tools and public education ma terials.

f Connection s with group s working on similar issues, and net-

works with exper ienced road-fighting activists, lawyers an d

scientists.f Discoun ts on Wildlands CPR publications.

Dear Dr. Roads,The other day I was out on som e land that I own

an d wh en I left I forgo t to close th e gate. Okay, okay, I

messed up. But, its pr ivate forest land, w ith a creekacross it, and lots of secon d growth red woods, just

off the coast. So I went back th e next m orn ing and

there were ORV tracks crisscrossing h alf my p roperty.

They had clearly found th e open gate, come on in

and h ad their way with the land. I think they prob-

ably headed out to tear across some dun es after they

were don e with the forest. Any su ggestions o n h ow to

get the sand from the beach into their crankcaseswithout them noticing?

Gae Ted Land

Dear Gae,Well it just goes to sh ow th e efficacy of them

gates when you happ en to leave the key han gingfrom the lock, the comb ination on a note n ext to the

gate, or you don t lock it at all. Then theres those

gates that you can dr ive right around if you have the

right size rig. Those are my favorite. But as to your

question, the first thing to remember is that they

were trespassing on private land. If you were, for

examp le, to leave the gate unlocked and p retend you

left, perhaps you could photograph the varmints

once they get on your land. Then you can charge

them with trespa ssing if you h ave a No Trespass-

ing sign on your, land , that is. But h eres a be tter

thought, how bout asking your congressperson to

pass a bill requiring all ORVs to have a serial number

embedded in their tires. Then when their machine upand d oes som ething illegal (because th e owners

never brea k the law, do th ey), all we have to do is

read the tread mark serial num ber and slap on th e

cuffs. Oh, and about the beach sand in the crankcase

youll have to figure th at on e ou t yourself seeing

as h ow its illegal an d all.

Dr. Roads

Send questions to:

Ask Dr. Roads, c/o Wildlands CPR

PO Box 7516, Missoula, MT 59807

or [email protected]

Job Opportunity: Roads ScholarProject Coordinator

Predator Project invites qu alified app licants for a full-time

position as coordina tor of their Roads Scholar Project camp aign. The

Project addresses th e negative impacts of roads an d mo torized access

on hab itat security and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, and it has two

compon ents: 1) reducing the num ber of roads on five national forests

in the n orth ern Rockies; and 2) reducing the impa cts of Off-RoadVehicle use on wildlife and h abitat security on road less land s.

They also work at the na tional level to secure adm inistrative or legal

changes to inappropriate management p olicies or practices.

The coordin ators respo nsibilities include mo nitoring mo torized

access, collecting scientific inform ation, developing an d wr iting

information al materials, organizing field programs, and wor king with

other conservation organizations to affect management changes.

The successful ap plicant will be well-versed in pu blic land s

issues and laws; have strong comm un ication skills and be familiar

with northern Rockies geography and culture; be competent with

com puters; and work well with others. A graduate degree in a related

field, experience with a con servation organization, and experience

with GIS techn ology are very ben eficial.

Based in Bozeman , Montan a, Predator Project is a growing,effective, no np rofit grassroots conservation organization whose

mission is to conserve and restore ecosystem integrity by protecting

preda tors and th eir hab itats saving a place for Amer icas predators.

To ap ply, please sen d a resum e, cover letter, sample of w riting

skills, and references to:

Tom Skeele, Executive Director

Predator Project

PO Box 6733 /Bozem an , MT 5 9771

406-587-3389

mail to: pred [email protected] et


15/16


Wildlands CPR Publications:Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members) A

compreh ensive activist man ual that includes th e five Guideslisted below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gather-ing Information with the Freedom of Information Act, andmore!

Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-mem-

bers)By Keith Hamm er. How-to proced ures for gettingroads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environm en-tal laws, road den sity standards & Forest Service road p oli-cies.

Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-mem-bers)By David Bahr & Aron Yarm o. Provides ba ckgroun don th e National Park System an d its use of roads, and out-lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning.

Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members)ByDan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land andresource laws, and d etailed discussions for p articipating inBLM decision-making processes.

Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem-bers)By Dan Wright. A com preh ensive guide to reduc-ing the use an d abuse o f ORVs on pu blic lands. Includes an

extensive bibliography.Road-Rippers Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4, $7 non-

members)By Scott Bagley. Provides techn ical infor ma -tion on road construction and removal, where and why

roads fail, and how you can effectively assess road rem oval

projects.

Trails of Destruction ($10)By Friends o f the Earth and Wild-lands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This

report explains the ecological imp acts of ORVs, federal fun d-

ing for motorized recreation on p ublic land s, and the ORV

industrys role in pu shing th e ORV agenda.

WILDLA N DS CPR MEMBERSH IP/ORDER FORM

Please send this form and your check (payable to Wildlands CPR)to the address below. Thank you!

Wildlands CPR PO Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807

Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.00 per item;for Canadian orders, add $6.00 per item.

Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

Please send me the following publications/resources:

Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:

Total of all items:

/

/

/

Phone/E-mail

Affiliation

Other

I want to join Wildlands CPR:

$30 standard

$50 business

$15 low-income

$100$250

Address

Name

Bibliographic Services:Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Up-

date d Feb. 1998) Edited by Reed Noss. Compiled by Dave

Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Hum ph rey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacquet

& Susan Pierce. Contain s app rox. 6,000 citations includ-

ing scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimen -

tation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic an d h ydrologi-

cal effects, and other information on the impacts of roads.Use the ecological literature to un derstand an d develop road

density standards, priorities for road removal, and other

road issues.

Database SearchesWe will search th e Bibliography o n thesubjects that interest you, and provide results in IBM or

Macintosh forma t (specify software), or on pap er. We also

have prepa red a 1-disk Bibliographic Summ ary with resu lts

for comm on ly requested searches. Finally, we offer the full

bibliography. However, you m ust h ave Pro-Cite or a com -

patible database program in o rder to use it.

Bibliography prices Sliding scale (all prices include ship-ping):

1) Non-pr ofits with bu dgets un der $ 100,000/yr.

2) Non-pr ofits with budgets $ 100,000-$500,000 /yr.3) Non-pr ofits with budgets over $50 0,000//Universities

4) Government Agencies

5) For-profits and other s

Full Bibliograph y: $45 (1) / $100 (2) / $20 0 (3) / $300 (4) /

$1000 (5)

Summary (one disk): $7 (1) / $10 (2) / $15 (3) / $25 (4) /

$35 (5)

Searches (add m aterial costs of 15 cen ts/page, $3 minimum ,

and /or $3 per disk):

$3 (1) / $5 (2) / $10 (3) / $15 (4) / $25 (5) (The first 10 sea rch es/

year are free for m emb ers. )


16/16

Visions...

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAIDMISSOULA, MT 59801

PERMIT NO. 569

The Road-RIPort er is printed on 100% pos t-consum er recycled, non-chlorine bleached paper.

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807

Exactly how roads affect biodiversity inany particular place is a matter of the

devil being in the details.

From Forest Service Roads: A Synthesis ofScientific Information (Draft)

Filephotos.

Mark VanderMeer, of Watershed Consulting, un covers a veritable gold min e while revegetating a form er road near the

Ninemile Valley, Montana: black bear scat litt ered with serv iceberry seeds. Good fert ilizer and seed all in one!

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wildlands-cpr
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Road RIPorter 3.6

Documents