Road RIPorter 9.4

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 9.4

1/24

Winter Solstice 2004. Volume 9 # 4

Inside

Check out our website at:www.wildlandscpr.org

Compromise to the Heart ofWilderness, by Mike Medberry.Pages 3-5

Depaving the Way, by BethanieWalder. Pages 8-9

Field Notes: Guidelines for CitizenScientists, by Katherine Court.Pages 10-11

Odes to Roads: Points and Lines, byBeth Peluso. Pages 12-13

Regional Reports. Pages 14-15

Compromise to the Heartof Wilderness

Biblio Notes: Snowmobile Emissions,Air Quality & Human Health, byMonica Wright. Pages 16-18

Citizen Spotlight: Karen Schambach, byKiffin Hope. Page 19

Get with the Program: Restoration,

Transportation & Science ProgramUpdates. Pages 20-21

Around the Office, Membership info.Pages 22-23

By Mike Medberry

Background photo by Mark Alan Wilson; jeep by Trevor Graves, other inset photos Wildlands CPR file photos.


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 20042

2004 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restorewildland ecosystems by preventing andremoving roads and limiting motorized

recreation. We are a national clearinghouseand network, providing citizens with toolsand strategies to fight road construction,

deter motorized recreation, and promote roadremoval and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551

www.wildlandscpr.org

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

Restoration ProgramCoordinator

Marnie Criley

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

Transportation PolicyOrganizer

Jason Kiely

Program Assistant

Kiffin Hope

NewsletterDan Funsch

Interns & VolunteersAriel Bleth, Marcie & Michael Bremmer, Hartwell

Carson, Becky Cass, Allison Clark, KatherineCourt, Laura McKelvie, Rosemary Moore, CorinneMullowney, Jeff Reoch, Kaytee Smith, Chelsea

Wittmann, Monica Wright

Board of DirectorsAmy Atwood, Karen DiBari, Greg Fishbein,

Bill Geer, Dave Havlick, Cara Nelson, SonyaNewenhouse, Mary OBrien, Matt Skroch

Advisory CommitteeJasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,

Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lind-ner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie

Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soul, Steve Trombulak,Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

Many people are saying many things about the recent election what it meansfor America, what it means for the progressive movement, and what it means forthe conservation movement in relation to the progressives. While rumors and

internet stories abound about whether or not voting irregularities were significant enoughto turn the election from one candidate to another, the fact remains that Americans werenearly evenly split between people who supported Bush or Kerry.

The fact also remains that whether people supported one candidate or the other,they also generally support environmental protection and conservation. Poll after pollafter poll shows this. Somehow, however, that hasnt translated into votes on the ground.The environment just doesnt play high enough on peoples lists to make it the main issuethey will vote on. If it did, the Congress and White House would look a lot different thanthey do today.

So how do we get the environment to that level of consideration with the Americanpeople? It is clearly time to make environmental protection, and a fundamental ethic todo no environmental harm, an inherent and inviolable aspect of American life, but it isunclear just how. For starters, perhaps, we have to shift from our nearly exclusive focuson defensive efforts to include more offense, and more exciting approaches to reconnectwith the majority of the public.

In Wildlands CPRs eyes, at least for now, the best way to do this is to work extremelylocally. While national political changes will always affect what citizens can do on theground, what citizens do on the ground also will always affect what happens in ournations capitol. Grassroots conservation organizations have an opportunity to harnessthe energy that was developed around this election, and to re-engage their local commu-nities on questions regarding environmental protection. We have opportunities to buildsupport for new and daring approaches to wildland restoration, from road removal to

grazing reform to dam removal.

Wildlands CPRs approach during the next four years will be a continuation of ourcurrent efforts. Well be focusing on local action, in small places, to create models forhow to invest in and restore both communities and the land. Well be working to promoteroad removal as a key component of wildland restoration. Well also be working to helpinterested citizens build local campaigns to monitor and better manage transportationon their surrounding public lands. Well be working for real, ground-based success inpeoples backyards. And when theyre successful, well be trying to bring their examplesto others. Most importantly, we hope to be doing this work with you, your local conser-vation and recreation organizations, business partners, friends and family, and anyoneelse who wants to affect national politics by changing their backyard. Sometimes evensmall successes can translate into extraordinary opportunities for change!

Photo byEdgarvan der Grift.


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2004 3

Compromise to the Heart of WildernessBy Mike Medberry

continued on next page

There is a presumption that Wilderness shouldbe wild. Wilderness should avoid all of thetrappings of development. It should be

an uncontrolled, natural landscape; it should beuntrammeled: no four-wheeled, loud, smelly, motor-ized monstrosities climbing up behind you to plagueyour favorite fishing lake. No airplanes landing inthe meadow, no cows munching, no roads, no noth-ing, just the self-willed land. But with all of the ex-ceptions in the Wilderness Act there is no guaranteeof wildness, and it seems to be getting worse.

Howard Zahniser, the man who wrote most ofthe Wilderness Act, assumed that an informed andintelligent populace would grow to defend wilder-ness against developers and their hare-brained,one-dimensional ideas. However, the WildernessAct, as he was well aware, is a sieve of exceptionsthat an unfriendly President and Congress couldexploit. Today we have both of those conditions: anunfriendly President and a hostile majority in Con-gress, and we have a slew of proposed wildernessbills and wilderness packages on the table. How canwe define and understand what compromises areacceptable and what compromises arent? This is aquestion weve struggled with since the WildernessAct was first passed in 1964.

Consider this: Jetboats run up the Salmon Riverin Idahos 2.4 million acre River of No Return Wilder-ness, making plenty of noise and taking the choicecampsites before rafters that can only go downthe river. That isnt exactly in the Wilderness Act:motorized access is precluded. Deep in the samewilderness small airplanes land at the Indian Creeklanding strip right beside the famed Middle Fork ofthe Salmon River. Not only are people from NewYork or California flying into this vast wilderness butthey are flying into it in exorbitant numbers, to betaken on commercial raft trips. Commercial enter-prise within wilderness is also precluded.

In autumn, outfitters fly their customers intothe heart of this wild land and deposit them in out-fitter camps that are built too large, too developed,and are defended too much in Congress. There are,in fact, 25 landing strips that exist in the wildernessand the law defining the River of No Return Wilder-ness protects them all. Pilots schedule fly-ins to

practice touch-and-go landings and then they picnic in the wilderness.Are these things right? Do they belong in wilderness? Hell no!

But take a walk down Big Creek, one of the premier untouchedwilderness rivers, one of the unspoken beauties in the country in theRiver of No Return Wilderness, and you will see a one-time road andbridge abutments that have been obliterated. Elsewhere within thewilderness valuable forested places were never cut; islands of wilder-ness were designated, saving them. And there they remain, wild as thenight.

In short, there are plenty of compromises that flawed this enor-mous Wilderness in Idaho. Today we think it was worth all of thesetradeoffs. There were many compromises that conservationists wonbut it has always been a balance if you want Wilderness, theres a

Without an organic act to protect motorized recreation, motorizedusers are turning to wilderness legislation to advance their cause.Cinder Hills OHV area. Photo courtesy of Grand Canyon Trust.


4/24


price for it. But with this unfriendly Administrationand Congress, the price just got higher. As wilder-ness advocates we need to be damned careful shop-pers. We need to look not only at the immediate

needs we have on the ground, but at the integrityof the Wilderness Act itself and how local compro-mises might create dangerous precedents that otherconservationists, in other places, will have to dealwith.

Not only has the Wilderness Act been com-promised, so has the agencies management of it.More landing strip maintenance, more jetboat trips,more people, more impacts to the land impair thesolitude and natural beauty of the wilderness. Pieceby piece they have been weakened. Weakening lawsthat protect the land even administrative policies give the agency the option to protect less of it. It

seems to be in a spiraling descent.

Throughout the west, conservationists areworking on numerous wilderness bills, from theCentral Idaho Economic Development and Recre-ation Act (CIEDRA), to the proposed Owyhee Can-yonlands in Idaho, to the Wild Sky bill in Washingtonand the Mt. Hood bill in Oregon. A comprehensive

land management and wilderness package for Lincoln County, Nevadawas just signed into law in December. These bills are not the sameas those from the past. An article in High Country News by Ray Ringgives the CIEDRA bill the following description, and it would fit formany of the others currently on the table: There is no denying thatthis wilderness bill is one of a modern species, a Frankenstein crea-ture made of stitched-together pieces that cant live on their own. Tocritics, its ugly with compromises, giving too much to ranchers, localgovernments, dirt-bikers and snowmobilers.

Oh Well.

The Lincoln County, Nevada act gives an unprecedented right-of-way for water to be taken for use in Las Vegas. In addition, it createsabout 760,000 acres of wilderness, releases Wilderness Study Areas(WSAs) from ever being considered for designation as wilderness,sells 90,000 acres of federal land to the County, eliminates a right-of-way and virtually ensures construction of 50,000 new houses with 10golf courses, gives money for a groundwater study that may lead toadditional development, and defines a Silver State Off Highway VehicleTrail. The Lincoln County act congressionally mandates a right to off-road vehicle recreation along this trail, regardless of the damage.

Many people argue that you can no longer designate wildernesswithout also designating motorized recreation. This turns the concept

of wilderness designation on its head. Wilderness is supposed to beabout protecting areas from motorization and development. Withthese new Frankenstein bills, were seeing wilderness and motorizedrecreation designations consistently proposed hand-in-hand. The prec-edents have now been set, and the motorized recreationists preparefor battle and promise to stop any proposed wilderness designationif it doesnt include a motorized recreation designation as well. Thisis the current era of wilderness designation: an unfriendly Congress,an unfriendly Administration, and well-organized opposition to standalone wilderness designation. Should we be going after wilderness atall right now?

Its certainly difficult to answer this question. Look at past com-promises: the River of No Return is one of the largest wilderness areasin the lower 48 states. Yes its broken by airstrips, motorized use onthe river and developed outfitter camps. But its 2.4 million acres ofpractically unspoiled wilderness. If the River of No Return Wildernesshad never been designated what would it be today?

All of this talk about what is right and wrong is deceptive, ascompromise is a science of the possible, not of the certain, and eachcompromise boils down to the specifics of a particular case. A goodcompromise can only be defined in the context of the Wilderness Actby what conflicts and threats we prevail on and what we lose in getting

continued from page 3

Guaranteed access for motorized users is a high priceto pay for protecting wilderness. Photo by RichardCompton.

Many people argue that you can no longerdesignate wilderness without also designating

motorized recreation. This turns the concept ofwilderness designation on its head.


5/24


bill would literally overturn the two Executive Orders that regulateoff-road vehicles for the Boulder White Clouds area. This is a localprecedent with national implications. Its not okay.

The White Clouds bill addresses both Forest Service and BLMlands but treats them in much the same way. Issues involving BLM aredifferent but equally important to recognize when designating wilder-

ness. The law that created the modern BLM established WSAs to belegislatively protected until Congress designates or releases them forother development. Scott Groene, Executive Director of the SouthernUtah Wilderness Alliance has this to say about tradeoffs in BLM coun-try: Compromises are an inherent part of legislation, the question iswhether its a good compromise. SUWAs view is that WSAs currentlyhave legislative protection and it doesnt make sense to relinquish abig piece of a Wilderness Study Area for a smaller amount of designat-ed Wilderness. But the issue is different in forest lands, Groene has-tens to add, where there is no statutory protection for roadless land.

But there is yet another question: who should make deals overwilderness? Only the people of Utah, or Idaho, or Nevada? Only thenational Wilderness Society and its grassroots activists? Is a deal so

precious as to sacrifice ORV use, new subdivisions, wildlife, and water(the lifeblood of Death Valley National Park), in bone-dry Nevada toencourage development in water-wasting Las Vegas? Is this what wehave come to believe in? Well, we do get protected wilderness, butfrom what?

Compromise is a science of the

possible, not of the certain, andeach compromise boils down to the

specifics of a particular case.

them. We should acknowledge that in differentstates different legislation protecting wilderness ispossible. California is not Idaho and Nevada is notWest Virginia. Nowhere is Wyoming. But certainprinciples should not be violated.

Take the CIEDRA (or Boulder-White Clouds)

bill, for example. Lindsay Slater, Staff Director forRepresentative Mike Simpson (R-ID) who is spon-soring the bill, said in the June 23, 2003 Salt LakeTribune, We think stand alone wilderness is done.The trend seems to be towards legislation basedon compromise among the various interests. Soit appears. The proposed bill claims to designate294,000 acres of wilderness in the Boulder-WhiteCloud Mountains and would also legislate the abilityof the Forest Service to utilize mechanized equip-ment to fight fires and initiate a control programfor dying lodgepole pine trees, trade land to CusterCounty for economic development beside the Saw-tooth Mountains, allow an ORV corridor slicing the

wilderness into two pieces, and protect substantialacreage of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) landwhile releasing four large WSAs.

CIEDRA would close numerous off-road vehicletrails, but it would also guarantee a certain level ofoff-road vehicle recreation in perpetuity. As cur-rently written, routes could only be closed becauseof extraordinary damage, and if a route is closedequivalent mileage must be opened. The proposed

Some of the measures incorporated intocompromise legislation threaten to undermine theWilderness Act. Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.

Were afraid of compromise and were afraid of doing nothing.The threats are real, but the price of protecting wilderness seems toohigh. Frankenstein is alive and well and we need to figure out how todeal with him in a productive and non-divisive way, preferably beforedamage is inflicted to the concept of wilderness, the Wilderness Act,or to a particular place. It is time we start being coordinated to assurethat we are not again shooting ourselves in the foot. In this democracythe people who have a stake in wilderness protection should have theiropinions recognized. To lose effectiveness of the Wilderness Act piece-by-piece in a time when we should gather around a campfire to discussour anger and agreement would be unforgivable. We should celebratewhat we have accomplished so far and what we believe in as we defineacceptable compromises for the good of the Earth.

Mike Medberry has been a professional conservationist since 1985 andwill be working for the Hells Canyon Preservation Council as its Executive

Director starting in 2005.

See pages 6-7 for a Legislative Updateand Recommendations.


6/24


Photo by Ben Doon.

Legislative Roundup & RecommendationsBy Wildlands CPR staff

Wildlands CPR and the Natural Trails and Waters Coalitionhave just begun to grapple with the question of how con-servationists can effectively engage in processes that codifymotorized recreation opportunities through legislation.The bottom line is that we do not support or endorselegislative protection for motorized recreation. In someinstances the best position will be to fight such proposalswith everything weve got. However, people cant alwaysget their bottom line, so in the event that provisions to pro-

tect or enhance motorized recreation are being consideredin legislation, we offer the following suggestions on how tominimize damage.

We recognize that this list is far from comprehensive anddoes not address many important issues; we offer it as away to begin discussing how to approach such difficultchallenges. We would appreciate feedback on thesesuggestions and ideas for other provisions that could beincluded.

Provisions that could be includedin legislation

1. Legislation could set timelines for completingmotorized route designations (in compliance with allenvironmental laws), but should not establish a targetmileage for designating routes.

2. Legislation could include no net gain languageto guarantee there will be no additional motorizedrecreational routes.

3. Legislation could ensure that motorized recreationwill be regularly monitored and reviewed and thatdesignations under the legislation could sunset aftera certain number of years.

4. Legislation could provide appropriations for in-creased enforcement funding to monitor and controlmotorized recreation.

Recommendations for Legislative Provisions Addressing

Motorized Recreation

Bad provisions that should never

be included in legislation1. Legislation should never override the letter andspirit of the two Executive Orders (11644 and 11989)that regulate off-road vehicle use on public lands.

2. No legislation should hinder the authority of lo-cal land managers to close routes or suspend use toprotect against further impacts to natural resources,wildlife or other users of public lands.

3. No legislation should guarantee no net loss ofoff-road vehicle (or other motorized recreational)routes or areas.

4. No legislation should override or exempt off-roadvehicle recreation from environmental laws (e.g. TheWilderness Act, National Environmental Policy Act,Endangered Species Act).

5. No legislation should permit motorized cross-coun-try recreational travel.


7/24


Legislative Status UpdateBelow is a list of recently passed, pending and proposed legislation that could create permanent protection formotorized recreation, or otherwise contradict language in the Wilderness Act.

Passed Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation andDevelopment Act of 2004 (Nevada)

Introduced Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness

Act of 2004 Wild Sky Wilderness Act (Nethercutt

version HR 5803) Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage

Act

Proposed Central Idaho Economic Development and

Recreation Act Owyhee Initiative (ID)

A plethora of unauthorized routes on Freeman Beach, North Carolina. Photo byTracy Bilbrough.

Cumberland IslandCumberland Island National Seashore was established in1972, and ten years later Congress designated 8,800 acresof the heart of the Islands north end as the CumberlandIsland Wilderness. The appropriations rider fractures thecontiguous Wilderness into pieces, approves roads cuttingthrough the remaining Wilderness and authorizes motor-

ized tours by the National Park Service, Greyfield Inn (aprivate corporation), and up to three other concession-aires. The rider disregards an 11th Circuit Court of Appealsruling won earlier this year, which held that the motorizedtours violated both the Wilderness Act and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act.

River of No ReturnBefore Congress designated the Frank Church-River ofNo Return Wilderness, the Forest Service allowed sevencommercial outfitters to set up temporary hunting campsalong the Salmon River. Over time, the outfitters turned thecamps into permanent buildings (lodges with glass win-dows, doors, covered porches, septic systems, etc) despite

the Wilderness Acts prohibition of permanent structures.

Over a 15-year period, Wilderness Watch worked to havethe lodges removed, winning a district court ruling thatthe lodges were illegal and had to be removed by Spring2005. The appropriations rider authorizes them to remain.

Appropriations Riders Threaten WildernessAt press time, the following riders had been attached to the $388 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.They would strip legal protections from well-established designated Wilderness.

Special thanks for this report to Hilary Wood, Outreach and CommunicationsCoordinator for Wilderness Watch. See page 14 for news on yet another rider to the

Appropriations Bill.


8/24


Striking a Bargain With the Devil?By Bethanie Walder

Increasingly, motorized users are collaboratingthrough the legislative process to gain inroads into

protected areas. Photo by John Gatchell.

While collaboration and compromise with unlikelyallies may offer opportunities to advance our goals,

this trend represents a significant departure from pastwilderness designation strategies.

For 40 years, conservationists haveused wilderness legislation as atool to protect important habitat

and scenic landscapes. Weve usedthis tool with friendly and unfriendlyadministrations, resulting in difficultcompromises and incredible successes.And while legislative protection aswilderness has long been a critical goalfor many conservation activists, it nowappears that others have co-opted ourapproach. During the past few yearsweve seen more and more attempts

by the motorized recreation industryto legislatively mandate or protectoff-road vehicle access on or acrosspublic lands. At first it was a scatteredbill, here or there, sometimes attachedto wilderness proposals, sometimesstanding alone. But this haphazardlegislative agenda has turned into afull-fledged trend to legislate a rightto ride motorized recreational vehiclesin certain areas or along certain routes.This new legislative trend is completelychanging the playing field in terms ofwilderness legislation and conservation

its a threat that conservation activ-ists must address.

Motorized Recreationlegislation is threateningfor four main reasons:

1. Motorized users are using pro-posed wilderness legislation as a leverfor getting motorized recreation areasdesignated. Since they have no Motor-ized Recreation Act, they are trying topiggy-back motorized recreation desig-

nations onto proposed wilderness leg-islation. In the past, it was common forlands to be kept out of wilderness areas

(e.g. cherry-stemmed roads), butnot to mandate that roads remainopen in perpetuity for motorizedrecreational access.

2. Congressionally designatedmotorized recreation areas canonly be closed through another actof Congress.

3. Congressionally designatedmotorized recreation areas tie thehands of land managers and keepthem from addressing the impactsof motorized recreation. (Recog-

nize that motorized users can makethe same argument about wilder-ness designations.)

Manipulating theWilderness Act

When the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, it legally defined the concept ofwilderness and created specific protections for designated areas. The WildernessAct was so important because it protects an extremely threatened national re-source wild places free from noise, motors, development and resource extraction.It stated clearly that only Congress can designate an area as wilderness. There isno other type of land use that is congressionally protected on public lands (un-less perhaps you consider the implications of the 1872 Mining Act). Land manag-

ers have always had the authority to determine what lands to make available forresource extraction, what lands to make available for recreation, and what lands tomake available for multiple uses. Laws like the National Forest Management Act andthe Federal Lands Policy Management Act guide those decisions, but they do notcategorize the land and guarantee that you would pull timber from one acre andhave motorized recreation on another.

Our current legislative and management framework provides sufficient author-ity and opportunity for land managers to accommodate motorized recreation,as long as it can be accommodated by the land. To give motorized recreation astatutory foundation, or its own Motorized Recreation Act, would be a disasterfor public lands and ecosystem health. Moreover, motorized recreation is far fromthreatened you can drive a vehicle nearly anywhere.

Without that act, motorized recreationists are now partnering in collaborativeprocesses with conservationists and legislators to designate motorized recreationas part of packages that also wilderness designation. When such processes begin,

it is both difficult to stay out and dif-ficult to participate. The resultantlegislative proposals are a mixed bag some wilderness protection is gainedbut access for motorized recreation isusually guaranteed and land manag-ers are often limited in their ability torestrict motorized activity, even if itsimpacts are severe.


9/24


Designating an area for of f-road vehicle use is often tantamount to making it asacrifice area like this: Texas Canyon in the Angeles National Forest. Photo by

Howard Wilshire.

For example, the Central Idaho Economic Develop-ment and Recreation Act (CIEDRA) would give legis-lative protection to a popular motorized recreationroute ,in addition to designating nearly 300,00 acres ofwilderness in the Boulder-White Cloud mountains. Aswritten, CIEDRA would override the off-road vehicleExecutive Orders and make it incredibly difficult forland managers to deal with damage and impacts (thisprovision would only apply to the area covered by thebill, it would not override the EOs nationally). It doesallow some management changes in the event of unac-ceptable impacts, but the Forest Service could onlyclose motorized routes if it opened an equal mileagesomewhere else. For simplicitys sake, this is called ano net loss approach.

As an alternative, the James Peak Wilderness andProtection Area Act was passed by Congress in 2002and it included no net gain language. While it doesguarantee continued motorized recreation, it stipu-lates that use can be stopped if impacts are too severe.In effect, it also says that no additional motorized recreational opportunities canbe created in the area unless other routes are closed. In fact, it also says the samething about mechanized and non-motorized routes. In cases where activists might

be forced to negotiate over motorized recreation legislation, a no net gain policyis clearly the best option.

While collaboration and compromise with unlikely allies may offer opportuni-ties to advance our goals, this trend represents a significant departure from pastwilderness designation strategies. Wilderness advocates have always been willingto compromise to get wilderness designated, but not all compromises are createdequal. For example, most wilderness bills adopt boundaries that simply excluderoads from the actual wilderness, even if the road extends into the heart of thearea, leaving a cherry-stem. This is very different than guaranteeing that motor-ized recreation can occur on those roads in perpetuity.

In essence, motorized recreation advocates are now manipulating the spirit ofthe Wilderness Act as a mechanism to guarantee motorized recreational access.

This threatens to turn the entire concept of designated Wilderness on its head.

It Would Take Act of CongressIn addition to undermining the Wilderness Act, using legislation to guarantee

off-road vehicle recreation means that concerned citizens would have to go back toCongress to restrict off-road vehicle recreation in any protected area. Even in abest-case scenario, that would be a very difficult thing to do. Once the primacy ofmotorized recreation is established in an area through legislation, both lawmakersand motorized use advocates will likely defend it fiercely.

Tying the Hands of Land ManagersLegislation that allows off-road vehicle use in certain areas in perpetuity will

make land managers and conservationists jobs much harder in the long run. Big

Cypress National Preserve is an excellent case in point the enabling legislationthat established Big Cypress in 1974 guarantees motorized recreation access. Overtime, swamp and dune buggy riders carved 23,000 miles of routes into the Preserve,which is also critical habitat for the endangered Florida Panther. Now, after 10years of litigation, the Park Service has developed a new off-road vehicle manage-ment plan for the Preserve that would limit off-road vehicles to only 400 miles ofdesignated, hardened routes, while banning cross-country travel. (Some litigationis still ongoing, so the plan has not been implemented yet.) The fight will now beover the 400 miles of routes, where they should be located and how they shouldbe hardened, because of the significant impacts those new roads will have on thisenormous wetland. The Park Service cannot, however, exclude off-road vehicles

from the Preserve, no matter howsignificant the damage. As more andmore places become legislatively pro-

tected zones for motorized recreation,less and less land can be managed toprotect natural resources, natural quietand non-motorized recreation opportu-nities.

In ConclusionSo whats caused the game to

change so dramatically in the recentpast? Part of the answer is certainly be-cause motorized users have a relativelyfriendly administration and Congress.Perhaps motorized recreation users arealso determined to secure legislative

designations because they understandhow significant the impacts of theirrecreation are and they are fearful thatpublic concern will grow and restrictmotorized access. This, in and of itself,should be a warning to conservationiststo avoid engaging in collaborative pro-cesses that designate motorized areas.Motorized users have nothing signifi-cant to lose and everything to gain.

It is also possible that motorizedusers feel that conservationists are upagainst the wall, and that well have

no choice but to compromise. Butthe choice does remain ours. In somecases it might make sense to sit downat the table, while in others, we mustdo everything we can to stop these pro-posals and to avoid giving bad propos-als any credibility. If we dont, then itwill make it next to impossible for landmanagers and conservationists to dealwith the short and long-term impacts ofmotorized recreation.


10/24


These guidelines were developed to assist citizenscientists in monitoring aquatic habitat following roadremoval. Roads can have major impacts on water

quality and habitat value due to landslides and general ero-sion of the road bed over time. For fish, increased fine sedi-ment in streams has been linked to decreased fry emergence,decreased juvenile densities, loss of winter carrying capacity,and increased predation. Road removal has been shown toreduce erosion and sedimentation but its impact on aquaticsystems has not been well studied. Over time, data collectedby citizen scientists can be used to gain a better understand-ing of the effects of road removal on stream health, includingpotential benefits to fish habitat.

Water TemperatureIn general, aquatic species cannot tolerate wide tem-

perature fluctuations in their habitat. Trout and salmon, forexample, require cold water and can be adversely affectedwhen water temperatures increase due to loss of vegetativecover. Fortunately for citizen scientists, temperature mea-surements can be made with a normal thermometer. Manyroad segments you may wish to monitor will intersect streamgrade channels. Stream grade channels (SGCs) are live watercrossings (where water is actively flowing across a road) that

have been restored as closely as possible to natural condi-tions by returning the stream to its original grade and restor-ing the side slopes as nearly as possible to original contours(see photo on page 11). Monitoring these channels can beaccomplished with many methods, but temperature readingsare by far the simplest. Measurements should be made at thetop and bottom of the SGC and recorded on the data sheet.

SedimentationErosion of unpaved roads often sends fine sediment into

a stream, where it can reduce fish populations. One simpleway to measure sediment levels is with a pebble count.It can tell us about the relative texture of a stream andprovide insight into changes in sediment load carried by the

stream. Pebble counts can indicate if sedimentation is occur-ring, or conversely, if the streambed is returning to a morenatural state, as we might expect after road removal.

The first step in conducting a pebble count is to iden-tify three channel cross sections, near the top, middle, andbottom of the SGC, running roughly perpendicular to thestream bank. The selected cross sections should be rela-tively permanent to allow follow up measurements. Poundingrebar into the sides of the SGC serves this purpose, and alsoallows a measuring tape to be tied in a straight line across thechannel.

Guidelines for Citizen Scientists Monitoring AquaticHabitat on Removed Roads

By Katherine Court

Once the cross sections are determined, a monitor then

makes his or her way across the channel at that line, begin-ning at bank full height and measuring the size of particlesencountered at regular intervals across the stream channel tothe opposite bank. Depending on the size of the SGC you areworking in, you can make more or less picks (see below) percross section, but a good number for a relatively small chan-nel is 50. Larger streams may require 100 picks. You can alsoadjust the interval at which you pick, as long as it remainsregular as you cross the channel. Many people simply usethe width or length of their thumb, hand, foot, or some otherreadily available tool.

When making a pick, the monitor should look away fromthe streambed so as to randomize the sample. After a rock

or other substrate has been touched, it becomes a pick, andis then measured along its intermediate axis (in other words,not on its longest or shortest side see Figure 1). This pickshould be recorded by a second monitor who is observingfrom the stream bank. Alternately, the particles touched canbe brought back to the stream bank for measurement (unless,of course, they are too small or too large to be readily carried these particles should be measured in the stream). Particlesizes fall within different ranges, each describing a basic typeof sediment, from very fine silt to boulders. Be careful whensampling in a stream or river; rocks can be slippery and cur-rents can be flowing more swiftly than you might expect.

Citizen scientists can contribute much to our understanding of theeffectiveness of road removal. Photo by Adam Switalski.


11/24


Macroinvertebrate SamplingMacroinvertebrates are animals without backbones, such

as insects, worms, and mollusks, which live at the bottom ofstreams and are visible to the naked eye. Sampling inverte-brates tends to serve as a good indicator of stream healthand water quality, since there is such a great variety in undis-turbed streams. If only a few types of invertebrates are foundin the stream you sample, or if they are species that adaptwell to streams that are unnaturally warm, cloudy, unstable,or de-oxygenated, then you can assume there is a problem.

In general, for road removal, sampling for macroinverte-brates is another way of determining if streams provide goodhabitat for fish and other, larger animals that can be more dif-

ficult to sample. These small animals are just as sensitive tochanges in their environment as trout or salmon, even thoughwe tend to be more interested in fish. It is easier and lessintrusive to the environment to sample macroinvertebrates,and can also show a more direct correlation to watershedhealth than fish sampling might, since anadromous fish canbe affected by a variety of factors, including ocean conditionsand fishing pressures. Macroinvertebrates spend their entirelives in the streams in your watershed and are primarilyimpacted by activities within that watershed.

Macroinvertebrate sampling is usually done with a toolknown as a Surber sampler, a large net attached to a foldingbrass frame that catches invertebrates as they are washed

downstream (see photo on previous page). These samplerscan be a little pricey, but are well worth the investment ifyou are planning on measuring macroinvertebrates. Youshould collect three replicates, putting down the Surbersampler three times for each replicate (youll put the samplerdown for a total of nine times see Figure 2). You shouldsample in riffles (fast, turbulent water moving over gravel orcobble substrate) within the main flow and near the middleof the stream, from 4 to 16 inches deep. (Note: This type ofsampling is usually done in a fairly large stream, but can beadjusted to accommodate smaller streams with the help of anecologist.)

The best substrate to sample is one that has 2 to 4 inchrocks with smaller pebbles underneath. Avoid substrateswith rocks larger than 12 inches in diameter. Look for an areawith the best canopy cover and riparian vegetation that youcan find. Ideally, the riffle you sample should be large enoughto accommodate all nine placements of the Surber sampler(the three placements of the sampler for a given replicateshould be close together, but the different replicates shouldbe at least 6 feet apart). If no single riffle is large enough,sample from adjacent riffles with similar depth, flow and sub-strate type. If your sampling site seems less than ideal, makea note of it on your data sheet.

Begin sampling downstream and move upstream,avoiding disturbance of terrestrial vegetation overhead orupstream of your sampling site to avoid getting terrestrial in-sects in the sample. Place the Surber sampler on the selectedspot with the nets opening facing upstream and the collec-tion cup stretched out behind. The current should movedirectly into the net. Lift larger rocks resting beneath orwithin the frame and, holding them in the water in front of thenet, brush off any crawling or loosely attached organisms sothat they drift into the net. After cleaning the rocks, placethem in a dishpan. Once these rocks have been removed,

the frame of the sampler should be squarely on the streambottom. Note the water depth in inches. Once larger rockshave been removed, disturb the substrate vigorously with aweeding fork for 60 seconds, to a depth of about four inches.Organisms and detritus should wash into the net. This con-stitutes one dig of one replicate. Now, lift the sampler outof the water, keeping the open end pointing upstream. Tilt itup out of the water to help wash organisms into the collec-tion cup. Without emptying the cup, repeat the samplingprocedure twice more at nearby spots. These three digs,combined in the collection cup, constitute one replicate.

You must then collect the macroinvertebrates that youhave sampled and put them into labeled sample jars. Thisinvolves rinsing and sieving the samples several times. Alsohave one or more team members look over the rocks re-

moved from the stream bed with a hand lens, and put anyother organisms into the sample jar. Make sure everything islabeled accurately and have the samples analyzed for speciesdiversity.

Data sheets for this and other road removal monitoringwill be available soon on our website at www.wildlandscpr.org.

Katherine Court is an Environmental Studies graduatestudent who is developing a citizen science road removalmonitoring program on the Clearwater National Forest.

Source: Clallam County, WA Streamkeepers. Field Procedure, 6th ed.2004. http://www.clallam.net/streamkeepers/

Figure 1

Figure 2

Physically removing theroadbed is only the first stepin recovering a watershed.

Photo by Tim Brown.


12/24


Points and LinesBy Beth Peluso

Photo by Beth Peluso.

Afine web of dust and gravel roads crisscrosses the na-tional forests of northern California. Maps record mostof the roads; but black and green ink cant convey the

surprise of finding a forgotten road carved through a nearly im-penetrable manzanita thicket or hidden under six-foot-high de-erbrush. The roads remain long after the songs of fox sparrows

and dusky flycatchers replace the sound of machinery. Evenyears later, the roots of ponderosa pines and white firs cannotcompletely erase the flattening of a hillside. In the northernSierra Nevada, bushwhacking in search of birds became anexercise in the archaeology of transportation, and a lesson inthe extremely personal roots of geography.

The job sounded simple enough: counting songbirds bysound and sight in the Plumas and Lassen National Forests. The countsprovide a snapshot of the bird populations of an area, reveal what spe-cies breed there. The project protocol is simple. Each study site hastwelve stations, or points, each 250 meters apart. At every point, youstop for five minutes and write down every individual bird you hear orsee and how far away it is. You have just over three hours, starting at

sunrise, to cover all twelve points. When the site follows along a road,the points are short slides off the shoulder. When the site goes cross-country, however, the day turns into a pell-mell steeplechase punctu-ated by five minutes of trying to quiet your breath enough to strain forevery fragment of song, every tiny tseet.

Half the challenge of reaching the study sites was navigating themaze of seldom-used Forest Service roads. Some of the lines on themap were more relics of old logging operations than current thoroug-hfares. One morning, we saw the folded orange-and-white body of aconstruction horse twenty feet down a collapsed embankment. It readCaution: Unstable Road. On another road, we jounced over eight-inch runoff gullies crisscrossing the surface like the cracks on a gingersnap. One road looked solid until we crossed a stream and looked backat the bent and pummeled metal culvert. One torrential storm wouldfinish it off. The worst road, nearly impassable, was a crumpled stretchof humps and rivulets. Following the site directions that day startedout as a bad idea that rapidly turned worse. I aimed diagonally overthe high spots, wincing at the dreadful scraping as I bottomed out.Yet the road was still on the map. The cartographer obviously hadntdrawn that line while driving the same road I was.

All the hours spent negotiating bad roads did let me reach my truegoal: places to count birds. But I found a distinct difference betweenwhat I learned about the terrain on the roads and what I learned aboutthe terrain off the roads. Driving kept me focused on the machine, on

avoiding major damage. Once I left the truck, I wasfree to focus on the sights and sounds around me.The first mariposa lily of the season. The differencebetween the towering forest where Townsendssolitaires called and the wildflower-covered clea-rings where Annas hummingbirds darted. The

philosophical problem with roads, I slowly realized,is that like television, roads insidiously distractpeople from engaging in their surroundings. There isa disconnect between the paper map and the road,and another disconnect between driving the roadand walking the landscape. The true map is learningthe shape and feel of a landscape with your body,drawing the contours with bruised shins and twig-sliced arms and exhausted muscles. Wading throughcorn lilies up to your armpits, soaked to the skinwith dew from the corrugated leaves. What you gainin speed by traveling the road lines of the map, youlose in visceral knowledge.

I was behind schedule. My study site beganalong the flat bottom of a woodland stream. Soon,however, I scrambled upslope, kicking the edges ofmy boot soles into the steep hillside for traction.When the ground is closer to your head than yourfeet are, its steep. Up and over one ridge, and with asinking feeling, I looked at my topo map. There weredrainages between each point for the last half of thetransect. All just as steep as the last one. Could beworse, I could be sitting in front of a computer allday, I reminded myself. I took a deep breath, tallyho! and plunged downhill.


13/24


Photo by Beth Peluso.

The white fir ahead opened up enough fordeerbrush to grow. Suddenly I slid to a thumpingstop among shrubs over my head. It took a secondto recognize the tunnel of tangled branches aheadas an old road. It hugged the hillside, skimming overthe water-carved furrows. I felt a surge of guiltyrelief. The road would definitely make my job easierfor a short way. The shrubs seemed to thrive in theopen space. But it was a shock to find such a rem-nant, even a barely navigable one. While slitheringthrough discarded fir branches in my rush to finishthe count on time, I forgot how thickly exploited thePlumas and Lassen forests are. How many years agodid people carve this road out of the hillside? Ten?Twenty? Did they know how long their handiworkwould last? How much longer would it stay here?Was it solid enough to last next winter? By the endof the season, there wasnt a day I hiked more thana half mile without at least finding a flat, overgrownrunway of old tires. That day I first encountered anold road I pushed through the brush, skirting thegulches, wondering if the architects even remembe-red this place.

Almost all of the Plumas National Forest andmuch of Lassen are accessible by roads. Stayingon a road, traveling to the destinations it offers,means overlooking many things. It means travelingto the same places as everyone else. It means givingcontrol of where you go to the unknown engineersthat made the road, for reasons other than yours.It means giving up a small degree of freedom thatmany people never even realize theyve lost.

In cities where all destinations are human-cen-tered, roads take you everywhere. You never reallyhave to walk. You never have to learn geographywith your calves and quads or the soles of your

feet. Take one step off a road in the Plumas, and theworld unfolds. One morning my coworker droppedme off from a two-lane highway. I stepped into thebush. Just behind the first rank of trees, I crosseda downed log over a fast, clear creek. Pea-sizedyellow and white flowers bloomed on a bushy lotusalong the bank. A few paces later a blue grouseexploded into the air from nearly under my feet,a shot of adrenaline in the morning. The groundsquelched with nearly every step. I hitched myselfover downed logs, like a trick rider mounting anddismounting a horse. My first point was just short ofa wet meadow knee-deep with purple camas lilies.I could still hear the faint shooshing of occasional

cars on the highway. But in here, flocks of smalllives never even broke the surface tension of theminds whizzing past on the road. Lincolns sparrowsbuzzing away, warbling vireos lecturing chat-CHA-chada-CHA-chada-CHA, and the haunting spiral ofmy first Swainsons thrush of the season. Later thatmorning the sunflower yellow of a Wilsons warblerflickered through some willows. I felt gleefully likea co-conspirator. No one from the highway knewany of this existed, the wealth of green and flowersand sound. And not only was I wading through it,learning it for myself, but I was blending in, shelte-

red behind the trees, joining the world hidden away from the peopleflinging past in ignorance.

Its not always an easy method of cartography, drawing hills withyour feet. There were days when I discovered a creativity for cursingI didnt know I possessed. Setting up a new site one afternoon, I trieda shortcut between two well-maintained gravel roads to save time. Atfirst I threaded my way through logs downed by chainsaw and windt-hrow. Then I hit the wall. Wine-skinned manzanita branches thick asmy arm twisted overhead. I followed the edge of the thicket, hoping foran opening. Nothing. I had to crawl through. The live branches gave alittle, but the dead branches were as unforgiving as elk antlers. Often Icrept a foot off the ground, spread-eagled like a rock climber, strugglingfor purchase on the cool, smooth bark. I twisted and contorted, tryingto make progress yet protect my kidneys from puncture wounds. Dusksettled. I envied the fox sparrows flitting between the branches. Forthem, the manzanita contained wide, twisting hallways and colonna-des.

It took over an hour to fight my way a few hundred feet to openforest. Sore, tired, hungry, I slogged back to camp. I wouldnt wishthe journey on anyone. Yet...how else could I understand the fortresswhere sparrows and spotted towhees build their nests? I can no longerlook at the handfuls of feathers and bone singing in the red branches

without thinking of the scars on my shins from a place where I was thewrong scale. That so many birds nest in manzanita fields makes deeply-rooted sense nowwhat would want to chase them through there?Spotted towhees, fox sparrows, Wilsons warblers, yellow warblers,black-throated gray warblers, lazuli buntings. All hiding in the knotsleft behind between two roads. All living in a landscape you will neverunderstand until you shake the dust of the road off your feet.

Beth Peluso is the Media Coordinator for Southeast AlaskaConservation Council in Juneau. She earned an M.S. in Environmental

Studies from the University of Montana in 2002 and for five years workedin western Montana as an executive committee member for the SierraClubs Bitterroot-Mission Group. Her publications as a freelancer includewriting and illustrating a childrens book on fire ecology and writing thereport Road Decommissioning that Works: Communities, Cash, andCollaboration for Wildlands CPR. For the past two summers she workedas a field technician for bird research in Arizona and northern California.


14/24


Utah Drops RS 2477 Test Case,But Presses Another

On the very day that Utah conceded defeat on the legitimacy of its would-bepremiere RS2477 claim, the state placed claims on two additional roads that runacross federal land.

The Wilderness Society and Earthjustice proved in court that neither the statenor Juab County built the contested Weiss Highway, producing evidence that thefederal Civilian Conservation Corps constructed it. Furthermore, the county relin-quished any ownership on a major section of the 99-mile highway with a 1936 ease-ment granted to the Department of Interior. In the face of such evidence, the statethen claimed that it and the county have a claim to the road since they maintain it.Apparently, they recognized that this claim would not hold-up in court.

New claims in Daggett County represent the states continuing efforts to es-tablish a procedure for Utah to claim ownership of roads across federal land, per a2003 agreement between Interior Secretary Gale Norton and then Gov. Mike Leavitt.The state has asked the Bureau of Land Management to grant the state title to twoother roads crossing a total of four miles in the northeast corner of Daggett County,used primarily to access a natural gas storage facility.

While laying state and county claims to four miles of frequently used, func-tional roads may not be controversial on its face, conservationists are concernedthat Utah will use this Revised Statute 2477 road claim as a test case and eventuallydevelop overgrown paths into legally-sanctioned motorized routes on otherwiseprotected federal lands such as national parks, roadless areas, and potential wilder-ness areas.

For instance, the state of Utah and San Juan County have sued the InteriorDepartment over ownership of the Salt Creek Road, a dirt path that runs several

miles into Canyonlands National Park. The road, which had been used by off-roadvehicles, was closed June 14th by the park in order to prevent ecological damage topark resources.

Fee Demo ProgramAttached ToAppropriations Bill

An Ohio congressman with nofederal public lands in his district gothis pet Recreational Fee DemonstrationProgram attached to the giant Omni-bus Appropriations Bill. Ralph Regula(R-OH) was able to pull off the move byreportedly striking a deal with SenatorTed Stevens (R-AK), Chair of the Senate

Appropriations Committee. Accordingto congressional insiders, Regula appar-ently agreed to give Stevens funding fora road in a small community in Alaskain exchange for getting his own bill at-tached to the Omnibus Bill.

Regulas bill, HR 3283, allowsfederal land managers to charge accessfees to the general public using pub-lic lands for recreation. The bill hasbeen contested since its inception byhundreds of outdoor organizations andrural Americans, as well as state andcounty governments.

The Regula bill will go into effect atthe beginning of fiscal year 2005 unlessthe new congress is compelled to strikeit down. With its implementation thebill will establish recreation fee author-ity for all National Forests, the Bureauof Land Reclamation, the National ParkService, the Bureau of Land Manage-ment, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice. Failure to pay will be considereda criminal offense with punishments upto $5000 in fines and/or six months inprison. During last weeks lame ducksession, Regulas attempts to attach his

rider were met with strong oppositionfrom all four relevant Senate commit-tees.

For more information, visit http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/food_and_health/privatize_public_lands.htmlMany of the RS 2477 claims filed by western counties are

part of a broader strategy to increase motorized recreationalvehicle access on public lands. Wildlands CPR file photo.


15/24


Victory For Endangered SpeciesRecovery In California Desert

On August 3, the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California struck down biological opinions (per-mits, essentially) issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service(FWS) that authorized extensive cattle grazing and off-roadvehicle use within the 4.1 million acres of critical desert

tortoise habitat located in the California Desert ConservationArea (CDCA). FWS had issued its faulty opinion in response tomanagement plans issued by the Bureau of Land Managementfor the Virginia-sized Conservation Area.

The Court found it illegal that the FWS failed to considerthe negative affects of BLM plans on endangered speciesrecovery, instead looking only at survival. Recovery meansincreasing the size of key desert tortoise populations to thepoint that the species can eventually be removed from the en-dangered and threatened species list. In contrast, managingfor survival only does not necessarily include any improve-ment to the health of an endangered species.

This is a very important ruling which upholds the re-covery intent of the Endangered Species Act, Americas most

important wildlife conservation law, said Daniel R. Patterson,ecologist with the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity,who formerly worked with BLM in the CDCA. Critical habitatworks, and now FWS and BLM will have to follow the law andthe public-interest in protecting critical habitat for endan-gered species recovery, not just survival.

By invalidating the biological opinion issued for theCDCA management plans, the remaining question in the law-suit is what activities within desert tortoise critical habitatmust be stopped or drastically curtailed. For more informa-tion: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/tor-toise/index.html

Blue Ribbon Leader BustedThe Forest Service frequently calls on organized motor-

ists to police themselves, but the recent citation of the BlueRibbon Coalitions (BRC) director for illegal dirt bike guidingdemonstrates the failure of this strategy. Bill Dart was citedfor exemplifying bad apple behavior on August 20th whena Sawtooth National Forest officer encountered Dart provid-ing paid, backcountry motorcycle tours without an outfitterslicense. Forest Service spokesman Ed Waldapfel said the fineis $250 and could be paid by mail or contested in court.

Dart was temporarily placed on leave, then took a newjob as Land Use Director for the Off-Road Business Associa-tion (ORBA). Clark Collins, co-founder and former director of

the BRC, is now serving as acting director.The Associated Press reported that Jake Howard, direc-

tor of the state Outfitters and Guides Licensing Board, saidthat the board would likely prosecute Dart for illegal outfit-ting if the Forest Service citation stands up.

BRC and other off-road vehicle groups consistently statethat only a few bad apples violate the rules. You have toquestion this, however, when their director is cited for illegalrecreation activities. While BRC did the right thing by puttingDart on leave, ORBA clearly found no conflict with Darts al-leged illegal activities and rewarded his actions by hiring him.So much for practicing what you preach.

Minnesota Forests Adopt InconsistentORV Rules

This summer, two Minnesota national forests inchedcloser towards limiting off-road vehicles to designated routes.The Chippewa National Forest has never enforced its 1986ban on cross-country travel, and as a result, a network ofunauthorized routes has been carved across the landscape.

In his decision for the new Chippewa forest plan, RegionalForester Randy Moore allowed summer and winter off-roadvehicle use on low standard roads, while prohibiting the useof unauthorized routes and cross-country motorized travel.He allowed for designating up to an additional 90 miles of ATVroutes and an additional 100 miles of snowmobile routes.

The Superior National Forest has not been subject tothe same ban on cross-country motorized travel. In fact, thenew forest plan for the Superior will allow the continued useof unauthorized renegade routes throughout the designationprocess (except for those closed for resource protection).The Superior will also allow for the designation of up to anadditional 90 miles for ATVs. While the Superior plan prohib-its cross-country travel for off-road vehicles, snowmobiles

will be allowed to travel cross-country. Additionally, the for-est expects to add up to 130 miles of snowmobile routes.

Matt Norton of the Minnesota Center for EnvironmentalAdvocacy recognizes that the Chippewa plan would be an im-provement, but believes the forest is ill-equipped to enforcethe new rules. Off-road vehicles have a history of non-com-pliance on the Chippewa, reported Norton, who has docu-mented scores of violations over the past couple of years.

Nonetheless, Superior officials said they would relymostly on education instead of enforcing the cross-countryban. Chippewa officials said they might be more aggressiveby fining violators $75 to $100. Each forest employs two lawenforcement officers.

Desert tortoise crushed by an ORV. Photo by HowardWilshire.

While this isnt a desert tortoise, it is a turtle that hasnt beencrushed by an ORV. Photo by Jim Coefield.


16/24


Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of thescientific literature in our 10,000 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 copiesof most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

This paper reviews recent re-search on the impacts of roadson wildlife in Alaska. This

research has largely focused on caribouin relation to oil and gas infrastruc-ture, including roads, but some hasconsidered effects on other wildlife.The exemption of the Tongass andChugach National Forests from roadlessrule protection and the increase of RS2477 claims will also be explored, asthese two policy developments havethe potential to greatly increase roaddevelopment and its effects on wildlifein Alaska.

CaribouThe vast majority of road research

in Alaska deals with caribou. Moststudies measure caribou density, avoid-ance, habitat loss, and movement inrelation to the oil infrastructure of thePrudhoe Bay region. Females appear to

be especially influenced by roads anddevelopment.

Caribou density is highly affectedby the presence of roads. One studyfound caribou density decreased by63% with a road density of just 0.3km/km2 and further declined by 86%when road densities increased to 0.6-0.9km/km2. Although caribou density de-creased as road density increased, roadconstruction itself caused the greatestimpacts to caribou density. Impactswere especially apparent with femalecalf pairs (Nelleman and Cameron1998).

Whitten and Cameron (1983) foundthe Prudhoe Bay oil field, includingnearby roads, presented a barrierto caribou movement. This barrieris again more significant for femalecaribou. Cameron (1983) also foundcalving females are highly intolerant

to disturbance and will abandon areaswith development or disturbance fe-males were found to avoid areas within4 km of roads. Additionally, roads wereoften built in areas of optimal habitatand resulted in nutrient deficiency,habitat loss, and lower productivity forthe overall herd (Cameron 1983; Nelle-man and Cameron 1998).

The combination of roads andoil pipelines also had a major effecton caribou movement. When thesetwo structures were present, cariboucrossings were significantly less thanexpected. Avoiding these structurescould increase energy expenditure and

lower productivity for the herd. Again,female caribou were especially likely toavoid roads and oil pipelines (Murphyand Curatolo 1986; Curatolo and Mur-phy 1986).

A few studies contradict thosecited above (Cronin et al. 1998; Yostand Wright 2001; Burson et al. 2000). In

these studies, in Denali National Parkand Prudhoe Bay, development androads appeared unrelated to cariboudistribution or behavior. Althoughthere is no unanimous conclusion, themajority of the research suggests thatroads have a negative impact, specifi-cally on female caribou and overall cari-bou movements. Any negative effect onfemale movement is particularly impor-tant because it potentially reduces theherds reproductive capability.

Other WildlifeResearch on road impacts on Alas-

kan wildlife other than caribou is more

limited. Moose distribution in Denaliwas found to be less than expected inareas close to park roads (Yost andWright 2001; Burson et al. 2000). Dallsheep, however, were not found to beas impacted within the park (Dalle-Molle and Van Horn 1991; Burson et al.2000). Herds inside Denali were foundto have much less difficulty crossingroads than those outside the park

Down the Wrong Road: Roads and AlaskaBy Hartwell Carsen

Caribou herd and Isanotski Point. Photo by John Sarvis, courtesy ofU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


17/24


Literature Citations on next page

this may be due to habituation. Whilemost sheep eventually crossed roads,they were often delayed and exposed toincreased risks of both predation andvehicle collisions. Delays in travelingto summer habitat can place additionalstress on winter range to provide thefood needed by the herd, and can ulti-mately lead to decreased productivityof the herd (Dalle-Molle and Van Horn1991; Burson et al. 2000).

While the research on bears androads in Alaska is limited, a wide rangeof bear studies in other areas found anincreased mortality associated withroads, and an avoidance of roads withhuman activity (e.g. Robbins 2003;Gibeau et al. 2002; Benn and Herrero2002). These negative impacts are like-ly to extend to Alaskan grizzly bears.One study in Denali National Park didfind grizzly bears near roads more oftenthan in previous years (Burson et al.

2000), but this was again explained byhabituation.

Wolves were studied in south-cen-tral Alaska and were found to frequentroads with little human presence, butthey avoided areas that were used byhumans (Thurber et al. 1994). Lynxshowed little fear of roads in the sameregion, but by using roads they arethreatened by increased human causedmortality (Bailey and Winthrop 1999).

DustRoads in Alaska cause many other

ecological problems that affect wildlifeas well. Alaska maintains 2000 milesof gravel roads, 66% of its total. Driv-ing on these roads can release largeamounts of dust, especially on windydays. Although dust appears to be asmall, localized issue, the impacts canbe profound dust can affect veg-etation, soils, ground ice, and wildlife(Walker and Everett 1987).

Many of the impacts of dust inrelation to wildlife occur because of

increased snow melt adjacent to roads(Foreman et al. 2003, Auerbach et al.1997). Early snow melt leads to anincrease in the concentration of water-fowl, ptarmigan, and their predators

near roads. Some bird species returnearly from migration because of earlysnow melt. Caribou, grizzly bears, and

raptors also use roadsides for forag-ing and hunting. This concentration ofspecies near roads has led to increasedvehicle-caused mortality, lack of a suf-ficient food source, and other problemsmentioned above (Walker and Everett1987).

Off-Road VehiclesEstablished roads have been the

focus to this point, but it is importantto understand the role roads play asa staging site for off-road vehicles(ORVs; Sparrow et al. 1978). Much of

Alaskas road construction is relatedto oil and gas development, which isgenerally concentrated in the north-ern Alaska tundra. Tundra is such asensitive ecotype that ORV impacts canremain for decades and often increaseover time. ORV tracks can also assistthe spread of invasive species, changethe soil morphology, increase soilcompaction, and cause plant damage(Sparrow et al. 1978).

PoliciesDevelopments surrounding the

Roadless Rule and RS 2477 may in-crease the number of roads in Alaskaand hence increase their impacts onwildlife. The Roadless Rule, issuedby the Clinton Administration in 1999,

Photo by Jo Goldmann, courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

would have protected 58.5 millionacres of public land from road develop-ment (USDA Forest Service 1997). The

Bush administration, however, im-mediately took action against the ruleand exempted Alaskas Tongass andChugach National Forests. These areasare now threatened with increased roadconstruction.

The 1872 Mining Law allowed RS2477 right-of-way claims for the con-struction of roads on public lands.While new claims were prohibited after1976, there has been a resurgence ofcounty and state claims for roads builtbefore that date. These claims could

lead to increased access, developmentand ORV use on public lands.

ConclusionAlaska is one of the last great

refuges for wildlife, and while manypeople take for granted its abundance,wildlife still face the threats of devel-opment and roads. Exempting theTongass and Chugach National Forestsfrom the Roadless Rule, along with RS2477 claims, could lead to increasedroad building, ORV access, logging,poaching, fragmented habitat, vehicle

mortality, and other ecological prob-lems associated with roads. Based onthe conclusions of the research above,these policy developments are clearlygoing down the wrong road.


18/24


Caribou bull. Photo by John Nickles, courtesyof U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Reindeer moss, Cladina rangiferina. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish andWildlife Service.

Literature Cited

Auerbach, N.A., Walker, M.D., Walker, D.A. (1997). The Effectsof Roadside Disturbance on Substrate and VegetationProperties in Arctic Tundra.Ecological Applications.7(1): 218-235.

Bailey, T.N. and Wintrop, W.R. (1999). Lynx and developmenton the Kenai Pennisula, Alaska.Intermountain Journal of

Sciences. 5(1-4): 41-42.Benn, B., and Herrero, S. (2002). Grizzly bear mortality and

human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks, 1971-98.Urus. 13: 213-221.

Burson, S.L., Belant, J.L., Fortier, K.A., Tomkiewicz, W.C.(2000). The effect of vehicle on wildlife in DenaliNational Park.Arctic. 53(2). 146-151.

Cameron, R.D. (1983). Issue: Caribou and petroleumdevelopment in arctic Alaska.Arctic. 36(3): 227-231.

Cronin, M.A., Amstrup, S.C., Durner, G.M., Noel, L.E.,McDonald, T.L. and Ballard, W.B. (1998). Cariboudistribution during the post-calving period in relation toinfrastructure in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska.Arctic.52(2): 85-93.

Curalto, J.A. and Murphy, S.M. (1986). The effects of pipelines,roads, and traffic on the movements of caribou.Canadian Field-Naturalist. 100(2): 218-224.

Dalle-Molle, J., and Vanhorn, J. 1989. Bear-people conflictmanagement in Denali National Park, Alaska. In:Bromley, M., ed. Bear-people conflicts: Proceedings ofa Symposium on Management Strategies. Yellowknife,Northwest Territories: Department of RenewableResources. 121-128.

Forman, R.T. Sperling, D., Bissonette, J.A., Clevenger, A.P.,Cutshall, C.D., Dale, V.H., Fahrig, L. et al. 2003. RoadEcology: Science and Solutions. Washington: IslandPress.

Gibeau, M.L., Clevenger, A.P., Herrero, S., Wierzchowski,

Gibeau M.L., Clevenger A.P.; Herrero S.; Wierzchowski J.(2002)Biological Conservation. 103(2): 227-236.

Murphy, S.M., and Curatolo, J.A. (1986). Activity budgets andmovement rates of caribou encountering pipelines,roads, and traffic in northern Alaska. Canadian Journalof Zoology. 65: 2483-2490.

National Park Service Memo (1993) available at: http://www.highway-robbery.org/lands/alaska.htm.

Nelleman, C., and Cameron R.D. (1996). Effects ofdevelopment on terrain preference for calving caribou.

Arctic. 49(1): 23-28.Nie, M. (2004). Administrative rulemaking and public land

conflict: The Forest Services roadless rule. Unpublishedmanuscript in press.

Robbins, E. (2003). How did the grizzly cross the road?Sierra, 88(3); at http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200307/wildlifecrossing.asp

Sparrow, S.D., Wooding, F.J., and Whiting, E.H. (1978). Effectsof off-road vehicle traffic on soils and vegetation in theDenali Highway region of Alaska.Journal of Soil andWater Conservation. Jan-Feb. 20-27.

Thurber, J.M, Peterson, R.O., Drummer, T.D., Thomas, S.A.(1994). Gray wolf response to refuge boundaries androads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22: 61-68.

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest Land andResource Management Plan (1997).

Walker, D.A. and Everett, K.R. (1987). Road dust and itsEnvironmental Impact on Alaskan Taiga and Tundra.

Arctic and Alpine Research. 19 (4): 479-489.Whitten, K.R., Cameron, R.D (1983). Movement of collared

caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in relation to petroleumdevelopment on the Arctic slope of Alaska. TheCanadian Field-Naturalist. 97(2): 143-146.

Yost, A.C. and Wright, R.G. (2001). Moose, Caribou, andGrizzly Bear Distribution in relation to road traffic inDenali National Park, Alaska.Arctic. 54(1): 41-55.


19/24


Karen Schambach never expectedto become a leading activist inoff-highway vehicle and forestry

issues when she began building a cabinin Californias Sierra Nevada foothillsin 1984. Yet when the following springarrived, her destiny was set before her.

That spring was greeted not with thebuzzing of insects and beautiful bird-song, but with the tooth-rattling whineof dirt-bikes only yards away from herproperty. Hoping that the dirk-bikerscould be kept out of earshot, Karenappealed to local authorities, who senther to the states Off-Highway Vehicle(OHV) division.

Karen received little help orencouragement from the OHV divisionand set out to do something about therogue dirt-bike use herself. In 1986 shefounded the Center for Sierra Nevada

Conservation and spent the nextseveral years looking into the fundingand practices of the OHV division. Herresearch determined that the divisionwas not really in the business of listen-ing to public complaints, but cateringto the off-road community. After yearsof investigating and making enemieswith local off-roaders, Karen delivered areport to the state of California in June1999 documenting abuses by the OHVdivision.

The report, California Off-HighwayVehicles: In The Money And Out Of

Control, was a project of the Centerfor Sierra Nevada Conservation andseveral other groups, including theCalifornia Wilderness Coalition and theSierra Club California. Of the findingsrevealed in the report, particularlydamning was the fact that after 28 yearsof having an off-highway program inCalifornia, the OHV divisions policiesdid nothing to prevent and often ac-tually caused severe environmental

damage to the states watersheds,wildlife, forests, and deserts, allwhile commandeering a dispro-portionate share of recreationallands, the report reads.

Since the report was issued,California has done much to

overhaul its OHV policies. Bill AB2274 was passed and created anaccount within the OHV fund to beused solely for restoration of OHV-dam-aged areas. Karen told me, All fuel taxrevenue attributed to unregistered ve-hicles now goes into the Conservationand Enforcement Services Account ofthe OHV fund. Allowable decibel levelshave been reduced to 96 db from 101db for most motorcycles. Federal areasreceiving state grants must comply withthe requirements for Wildlife HabitatProtection Plans (WHPPs) and Soil Con-

servation standards.On a broader scale, I asked Karen

to share her thoughts about the ForestServices proposed changes to off-roadtravel policy nationwide. She says con-servation groups and the public mustconvince forest managers not to allowOHVs on every route currently in theirinventory, and to close user-createdroutes. Regardless of what the ForestService hands down, Karen feels that ul-timately any new rules will come downto the issue of enforcement. Enforce-ment is an enormous challenge. Until

we have meaningful penalties, violatorswill continue to thumb their noses atlaw enforcement. We need to get theoff-road community to work with us toincrease fines and consider forfeiturefor repeat offenders. The responsibleriders understand that they are all get-ting a black eye from the actions of theirresponsible ones. The OHV commu-nity needs to stop defending those whoviolate the law.

Since 1998, Karen has worked asCoordinator in the California field officeof Public Employees for EnvironmentalResponsibility (PEER). Her work thereis challenging and interesting, she says.I get to work with public employeeswith the highest integrity, which is anhonor. But its depressing how thesefolks are treated by their agencies, and

the limits on how much we can helpthem. More and more, however, I hearfrom people who are willing to blowthe whistle on their agency. They dontcare if they get fired for their actions,as they have lost faith in their agencyand believe the best way to serve theresource is to sacrifice their own jobs.

In wrapping up my conversationwith Karen, I asked her if she had anywords of wisdom given our current anti-environmental political landscape. Shereplied, I dont know who said them,but I live by two maxims: Question

Authority and The difficult just takes alittle longer.When not on the phone or in front

of a computer, Karen loves sailing andbackpacking. Karen can be reached viaemail at [email protected].

California Off-Highway Vehicles: InThe Money And Out Of Control can bedownloaded in pdf format at: http://www.sierraconservation.org/OHV%20Issues%20main%20page.htm.

The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of someof the awesome activists we work with, both asa tribute to them and as a way of highlighting

successful strategies and lessons learned. Pleaseemail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to

[email protected].

Off-Highway? No Way!Spotlight on Karen Schambach

By Kiffin Hope

Photo courtesy of Karen Schambach


20/24


The Restoration Program continues to move forward,elevating road removal as a key component of forest restora-tion.

Restoration PrinciplesIn October Marnie presented on the Restoration Prin-

ciples at the National Network of Forest Practitioners (NNFP)annual meeting, titled: Communities, Collaboration and Resto-ration, in Colorado. Panelists talked about how the Principles

are being used in different locales and how NNFP membersmight find them useful. The presentation inspired a thoughtprovoking Q & A session, with topics ranging from restora-tion in Wilderness areas to concern that the Principles woulddictate to local communities how restoration should be done.The discussion was civil and the group left feeling that thePrinciples could be a good tool for promoting restorationwork.

Hells CanyonAlso in October, Marnie attended a meeting of the Hells

Canyon Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) TrackingGroup, the group that was formed to develop a Native Eco-system Alternative. The new CMP came out last year with a

focus on restoration, including road closure, and the Track-ing Group met to talk about our priorities for restoration. Bythe end of the meeting they had decided to begin with roads,specifically with a full road/user created route inventory ofthe Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. This is a wonder-ful opportunity to utilize the road removal tools WildlandsCPR has been putting together over the last couple of years.Thanks to a grant from the Flintridge Foundation, Marnie willbe able to put time into this effort.

Restoration SummitFinally, Wildlands CPR co-hosted a Western Montana

Restoration Summit on November 15-16 in Missoula. Thepurpose of the meeting was for environmentalists, restora-

tion practitioners and the Forest Service to sit down togetherand find common ground on restoration projects, utilizing theRestoration Principles as the framework. Approximately 40people attended and we had some very constructive discus-sions. By the conclusion of the summit we agreed that thebest way to work on restoration issues and come up with ourown set of restoration principles for western Montana is tofind a restoration project that we can work on together. Mar-nie will continue to be a part of this process.

Citizen ScienceIn June Adam began working with a University of Mon-

tana Environmental Studies graduate student, KatherineCourt, to develop a citizen science program on the Clear-water National Forest. Once the program is established,citizen scientists will measure vegetation, stream health, andwildlife usage following road removal. This summer Adamand Katherine conducted a pilot study to develop methodsfor citizen scientists to monitor wildlife on removed roads.With the help of the Nez Perce Tribe, they set up remotecamera stations, tracking stations, and track plates. In justthe first summer, they have recorded tracks or photos ofwolf, cougar, black bear, fisher, elk, and deer using removedroads. They recently presented their study at Defendersof Wildlifes Carnivores 2004 in Santa Fe, NM. Check outtheir poster at www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/misc/carnivores2004poster.ppt.

Adam and Katherine have begun recruiting citizen scien-tist volunteers to help monitor next summer. They have metwith Trout Unlimited in Idaho and students from the Univer-sity of Montanas Wilderness and Civilization program. If youare interested in becoming a citizen scientist and collectingimportant information on local restoration projects, pleasecontact Adam at: [email protected].

PublicationsAdam has also been busy co-writing a book chapter with

John Davenport from Cook University, Ireland. The chapteris entitled, Environmental impacts of transportation relatedto tourism and leisure activities, and addresses the ecologi-cal consequences of motorized and non-motorized recreationacross the globe. The book is entitled Leisure Transportand goes to press mid-2005.

Restoration ProgramUpdate

Science Program Update

Wildlands CPR file photo.


21/24


The Transportation Program hasbeen actively working to shape the newoff-road vehicle rules on Forest Servicelands, and recently published a citizensguide to controlling motorized recre-ation.

Forest Service Off-RoadVehicle Regulations

The comment period for the off-road vehicle rule coincided with that ofthe gutted roadless rule, the height ofthe summer vacation season, and thesurge in national election campaign-ing. Needless to say, Wildlands CPRand allies in the Natural Trails andWaters Coalition (NTWC) had to workextra hard to focus attention on thisrule. In addition to crafting technical

comments supported by decades ofscientific research, we succeeded inmotivating detailed comments fromleading organizations in the conserva-tion, human-powered recreation, andhunting and angling communities. Byproviding 10 Regional Leaders of the na-tional campaign with outreach materi-als and support, we helped to generateapproximately 50,000 comments, whichaccounted for more than 60 percent ofthe total received by the Forest Service.The NTWC media strategy paid-off:

newspapers across the country printedover two dozen editorials supportingmany of our recommended reforms. Weexpect to hold one final meeting withthe Forest Service to support strongerregulations prior to their finalizing thenew rules in early 2005.

Wildlands CPR also had the oppor-tunity to frame and lead an online de-bate about how off-road vehicles shouldbe managed. HeadwatersNews.orgpublished a three-part series authoredby Transportation Policy Organizer Ja-son Kiely in the regional news sourcesWestern Perspectives.

Travel Planning GuideActivists have been using Wild-

lands CPRs draft transportation policyprimer for about a year now. As ofdecember, we have finalized and pub-lished Planning Pathways: A CitizensGuide to Controlling Off-Road VehicleUse on Public Lands. The guide isdesigned for grassroots organizationsand activists who want to organize forthe designation of motorized routes andfoot and hoof trails that protect land,water, wildlife, human-powered recre-ation, and other sustainable uses ofpublic lands. The publication is timely

Places Off-Road Vehicles Dont BelongPresently, the American public believes that there is a place for ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and other

off-road vehicles on public lands. The majority, however, believe that not everyplace is suitable for the high-impact machines. There are at least six types of public lands which should be off-limits to off-road vehicles:

1) Roadless areas, wilderness study areas, and other lands with wilderness potential;

2) Rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and beaches;

3) Critical habitat for endangered, threatened, sensitive and big game species;

4) Areas covered by highly erodible or otherwise fragile soils;

5) Trails, areas, and watersheds traditionally used by hikers, skiers, horseback riders, mountain bikers,hunters, or other quiet recreationists and sportsmen;

6) Areas containing archaeological finds, sacred sites and cultural artifacts.

Transportation Program Update

since many national forests and BLMresource areas have recently begun orsoon intend to initiate travel plan-ning processes. The guide providesecologically-oriented goals and objec-tives, analyzes the interests shared byvarious political constituencies whocould become organizing allies in a lo-cal push for manageable recreation, andcomes with a compact disk appendixof tools that can be used and modi-fied according to local needs. Pleasecontact Jason for a copy of this guide,[email protected].

Empowering aKnowledgeable, DiverseBase

Wildlands CPR shared the key

components of Planning Pathways(described above) in a presentation be-fore fifty organizations and individualsgathered at the October conference ofthe Winter Wildlands Alliance in Boise.In November, Jason led a session oncitizen monitoring at a weekend travelplanning workshop for twenty organiza-tions and individuals concerned withuncontrolled motorized recreation inthe West Mojave desert. Jason also ledthe group in a field workshop to givefolks first-hand monitoring experience.


22/24


I

ts been a tough couple of months, with an extraordinarypublic focus on the presidential election. We lost some

sleep in late October and early November as the electioncame and went, but weve got our feet back on the ground andwere moving forward with our goals: to revive and protectwild places by promoting road removal, preventing new roadconstruction, and limiting motorized recreation. We thankyou for supporting us in this effort.

Wed like to especially thank those of you who donated toour annual major gifts campaign. We must admit that holdinga major gifts campaign in the midst of such a controversialand polarized presidential election was not perhaps the besttiming. Many of you had donated to political causes andthere was less money left over for Wildlands CPR, but we ap-preciate those of you who were still able to contribute to us.

If you werent able to contribute then, but you can now, wewould be delighted to have your support.

While things have certainly been busy around here, itturns out theyve gotten even busier for our long-time news-letter editor and publisher, Dan Funsch. Dans either beensharing our publishing and editing duties or flying solo for atleast seven years. Its been a great ride. Hes been flexible

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wildlands-cpr
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Road RIPorter 9.4

Documents