Road Riporter 2.6

The Road-RIPorter Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. November/December 1997. Volume 2 # 6

From Chainsaws to Chassis: Motorizing the Public Lands by Scott Silver As I look to our day-to-day operations ...I am struck by the paralysis and financial and environmental costs we bear because of controversy and litigation... USDA Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, October 10,1997.

There’s a new menace emerging from the Byzantine halls of the US Forest Service. Unbeknownst to many conservationists, the USFS has largely shifted its focus from “timber issues” to other areas. The name of the new Forest Service game is recreation, and motorized recreation is where the money lurks. Last December, speaking at the Western Summit on Tourism and Public Lands, Undersecretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons announced, “Recreation is going to be our business in the future. By the year 2000, recreation will amount for $97.8 billion of the $130.7 billion generated by activities on national forests. Fish and wildlife (will) generate $12.9 billion, minerals $10.1 billion, timber $3.5 billion and grazing about $1 billion.” With recreation fueling the agency bureaucracy, forest activists may need to shift at least some of their attention from timber to recreation, to keep in step with the Forest

If managed poorly...then a shift to ‘Industrial Recreation’ is hardly an improvement over the old Forest Service ways. Service’s changing focus. In this new paradigm, the Forest Service emphasizes commercial and motor-sport based recreation. It will be particularly important to ensure that the USFS does not attempt to manage recreation in the same manner they have managed timber. Recreation, if managed well, is a far better use of our national forests than unsustainable timber production. If managed poorly, or managed primarily as a cash generating tool, then a shift to “Industrial Recreation” is hardly an improvement over the old Forest Service ways. Unfortunately, the USFS seems determined to commercialize, privatize and motorize recreational opportunities on federal public lands.

Great Grizzly Hike/Mimi Mather photo

This shift actually began in the early eighties during the Reagan Administration. On the one hand, Interior Secretary James Watt made a whirlwind effort to privatize public resources. Meanwhile, Congress withheld maintenance funding to all federal land management agencies in what seemed to be a deliberate attempt to support the privatization agenda. Without adequate funding, the “maintenance crisis” we now face became inevitable. The “rescue” of a decaying public lands recreation system by private/public joint ventures and partnerships then grew equally inevitable. Consider the following quote from the Chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee’s Frank Murkowski: “To understand what is possible, we need only look to the Forest Service. In the first half of the 1980’s, budget cutbacks forced the closure of many Forest campgrounds and reduced seasons of operation at virtually all others. Beginning in 1987, the agency initiated a program to replace its direct campground management with concessioned operations. In 1996, 70% of all camping in the Forests occurred at concessioned campgrounds...” Congressionally-mandated budget cuts made this possible; Murkowski proudly points to this achievement. Now consider another Murkowski quote: “If the Forest Service policy won’t allow that, we’ll change the policy. If we have to cut off funds to get your attention, we’ll cut off the funds.” Senator Murkowski is now promoting a major, industry-sponsored set of recreation initiatives. The shift to industrial recreation is well under way. The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program that recently began

see “Chassis” on page 4

From the Wildlands CPR Office... As National Forest management moves from a base of timber extraction to recreational development, new challenges will face activists working to protect public lands. “What shift?” some of you might say. But take a look—the ORV trails and jetboat launch ramps are out there already, and the Recreational User Fee Demonstration Project began this year. Scott Silver, an activist in Bend, Oregon, has been following this transition closely for several years, paying special attention to the connections between the recreation industry and the Forest Service. His cover story explores these connections and raises concerns regarding not only the user fee program, but recreational developments on the National Forests in general. Along with the cover story about recreation, this issue of the RIPorter includes a thought-provoking essay by Stephanie Mills; legal notes about two significant ORV cases in Washington, by Karl Forsgaard; and Willis Lambertson’s bibliography notes that address the effects of roads on felines (and not just housecats!). A hearty thanks to all of the authors who contributed to this issue of the RIPorter, and thanks as well to the talented and ever-reliable Aaron Jones for his artistry on page 4.

Renew Today! Red mark by your mailing label? BEWARE!! This is your last issue of The Road-RIPorter! We’d hate to see you turn to the Dark Side (ignorance may be bliss, but it also means you’re missing out) and we know how important the bibliography, legal and field notes, and other features are for your work. So, don't miss an issue: please send in the survey and membership renewal form we sent you in October. And if you didn't receive one, or you lost it, don’t panic—just use the membership form on page 11 to renew before the end of the year. Ahh, that’s better than bliss, isn’t it?

In this Issue Chainsaws to Chassis, p. 1 Scott Silver

Odes to Roads, p. 3 Stephanie Mills

P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 [email protected] www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads is a national coalition of grassroots groups and individuals working to reverse the severe ecological impacts of wildland roads. We seek to protect native ecosystems and biodiversity by recreating an interconnected network of roadless public wildlands.

Field Work, p. 5

Director Bethanie Walder

Bibliography Notes, p. 6

Development Director Tom Youngblood-Petersen

Willis Lambertson

Regional Reports, pp. 8-9 Legal Notes, p. 10 Karl Forsgaard

Office Assistant Dana Jensen Newsletter Dave Havlick Interns & Volunteers Scott Bagley, Suzy Kitman

Thanks Thanks to all of you who have already responded to our survey and membership renewal letter. Your comments are critical to our work and help ensure that we provide you with the resources you need to fight roads. We'd also like to thank the Brainerd Foundation for a generous grant for our work in the Pacific Northwest, and thanks to the Harder Foundation for a grant to bolster our ORV program. We’re also grateful to both Susanne Walder and Tim Hermach for donating computers in the last few months. We have a pretty eclectic assortment of computers now, but we like to think of it as a form of technological diversity (we need to conjure diversity wherever we can here in Montana).

New staff: Wildlands CPR welcomes Dana Jensen as our new office assistant. She has been interning for the Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ forest watch program all summer and apparently decided that enviro life is the life for her. She will be answering information requests, working the phonelines, and making sure our office runs like a Swiss watch. We are justifiably thrilled to have her on board. Alex Brooks and Scott Bagley are working on our bibliographic database update. We expect the entire bibliography will be updated and entered into our computer by the end of the year (right folks?!). Hooray! And finally, Erin Ebersberger and Bruce Threlkeld are completing projects for us through the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Montana. Thanks and welcome to all of you.

2

Wildlands C Center for P Preventing R Roads

Board of Directors Katie Alvord Mary Byrd Davis Kraig Klungness Sidney Maddock Rod Mondt Cara Nelson Mary O'Brien Tom Skeele Scott Stouder Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis, Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach, Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

It’s Delightful, It’s De-Lovely, It’s De-Roaded by Stephanie Mills Even though my conscious mind knows uncomfortably much about the sterilizing effects of fragmentation on the land, my eyes want to see animals. When I drive along the county roads and state highways, things trick my wishful eyes into seeing badgers or wolverines. Rain-darkened stumps in the fields are, for a tantalizing second, black bears. Black plastic garbage bags and white plastic grocery bags hung up in roadside shrubs or tree branches appear to be great birds—ravens, snowy owls, big fierce animals. Then manmade reality reasserts itself and the passing terrain viewed at fifty or sixty miles an hour resumes its aspect of ecological poverty. Foolish of me to expect to roam the countryside in my automobile and encounter a complete ecosystem, to mistake a flapping shred of refuse for a wild thing. When I do see animals from the road they’re either cows or corpses—bloated flyblown coons, possums, skunks and deer, suffering the indignity of public mutilation. These pathetic remains shout shame and reproach. All kinds of roads want rescinding. Long before the ubiquitous two-tracks and asphalt ribbons, railroads did plenty to slice and dice the wilderness. In my neck of the former woods, logging trains sizzled like lit fuses through doomed pineries. And across the prairies, iron horses served as shooting platforms for the bison massacre. My mind’s eye sees The Road as an immense circular saw cleaving a linear track across the land, chewing up any living thing that crosses its path. This image holds as true in rural areas and small towns as in old-growth forests. Just as a logging road leads to the exploitation of timber, the introduction of exotic plants and animals, and the wastage of soils and aquifers, so, for instance, paving the road over the Himalayan passes into Ladakh (“Little Tibet”) allowed strategic military installations, the prostitution of traditional culture, and the introduction of alien communities and values. In both instances, the road led to a wholesale disruption of a climax community’s equilibrium. In effect, all roads do lead to Rome. Like all megatechnology, the technology of the road tends to confer most of its advantages on the powerful. Roads allow human populations both to concentrate and to disperse in the most ecologically damaging ways. By accomodating wheels and permitting greater speed; by diminishing the need for sensitivity to the terrain and attention to the journey, a road serves the charioteer or legionary far better than the ambling pilgrim. Roads are the premier technology of empire, of centralization and homogenization (or, as they say in the World Trade

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

A. Jones

Odes to Roads

Organization, “harmonization”); they are the literal avenues of conquest and colonialism. The trade and transport of goods, and the enslavement of beasts of burden follow the military uses of roads as night follows day. While the Roman construction of roads was meant to facilitate the movement of governors and legions, commerce inevitably ensued. In our time, Old Ike, the military man, gave us the Interstate Highway system for national defense. For some reason, said defense came to involve a great deal of heavy truck traffic. These rumbling conveyances reverberate in the deep past. The archaic (and still used) bullock cart, integral to the emerging technology of roads, helped initiate a quantum shift in the relation of humanity to more-thanhuman nature: the fateful shift from communion to commodification. And it is not just the plants and animals that are reduced by this change.

Road-RIPorter readers don’t need persuading that roads in wildlands have ever and always been monstrously destructive of ecological integrity. However, the delusion that driving into a wildland in some gross sport utility vehicle or barging in on a stinking noisy ORV consititutes an experience of Nature is similarly destructive of human integrity. It’s a kind of selfinfantilization and self-diminution. We expropriate a power that wrecks the landscape and imagine that to be freedom: rendering ourselves blind, deaf, and numb to the richness of the natural world by the intoxications of internal combustion. I must confess to understanding the appeal. There are times when cruising down a county road in my leetle Toyota with the tape deck playing at top volume provides the moviestyle exhiliration of a magic carpet ride, miscellaneous engine and exhaust noises, lard butt notwithstanding. I don’t recall ever having been advised that seeing the USA in my Chevrolet was going to fracture the landscape, wreck the atmosphere, change the climate, and slaughter the four-footed multitudes. Which is not an excuse or plea of innocence. I, too, have croaked a few furry and feathered pedestrians in my driving career.

see “De-Roaded” on page 5 3

Chassis, continued from page 1 in 100 test sites around the country is only the visible leading edge of this effort. USFS literature states: “The purpose of this program is to test the effectiveness of collecting fees to help maintain federal recreation facilities and to enhance visitor services and wildlife habitat.” If this were the whole story, then there might be little cause for complaint. Unfortunately, there is a great deal more. The same document later reveals: “The Forest Service’s recreation fee demonstration program was developed in partnership with leading national recreation interests. Its implementation is occurring through a Challenge Cost Share partnership with the American Recreation Coalition (ARC).” All around the country, groups are forming to fight these fees. There is no ideology linking these groups, except the basic belief that, as Americans, we already own these lands and it is wrong to charge an access fee to walk in the woods. Several groups are particularly concerned that this fee is just another tax and they have latched onto the rather catchy phrase, “Can’t See the Forest for the Fees.” Unfortunately, this strictly monetary point of view fails to capture the real threat contained within the new Forest Service program. It’s not until you know something about the “Challenge Cost Share” partner in this public/private fee program, that you begin to understand what this program is really all about. Derrick Crandall, President of the American Recreation Coalition, gives an idea of who is actually behind the new program: “As we begin to look at the future we see no alternative but to embrace and build upon a tradition of partnerships, especially within our national parks and federal lands. Public/ private partnerships can and should be built on the traditions of concession in the national parks, ski areas in the national forests, outfitting services on publicly managed rivers, campsite reservation services and more... The American Recreation Coalition is a non-profit federation that provides a unified voice for recreation interests to insure full and active participation in government policy-making on issues such as public land management, energy and liability.” On July 11, 1997, Dan Glickman, speaking before the American Recreation Coalition’s Recreation Exchange, reminded his audience that, “Recreation is big, big business in America.” The American Recreation Coalition represents the interests of more than 100 industry organizations, including dozens of motor boat, jet-ski, RV, motorcycle, ORV and snowmobile manufacturers and associations. The remainder of the coalition includes ski area associations, sporting equipment manufacturers, tour associations, petroleum companies and the Walt Disney Company. Hiking, backpacking or environmental organizations do not appear on the list (though there are some pretenders). ARC is an active participant in the “wise-use” movement, and is closely linked to two other anti-environmen-

4

tal organizations: Coalition for Vehicle Choice and the Foundation for Clean Air Progress. For a period of twenty years, ARC has become perhaps the most influential force affecting governmental recreational policy in this country. Through its Recreation Roundtable and Recreation Exchange, ARC continues to nurture deep connections within the political system. ARC’s goals are to ensure continued and increased “access” for its many motor sports members, and to promote a climate ripe for new and expanded opportunities for public/private partnerships between federal land management agencies and ARC’s commercial development interests. In short, privatize, commercialize and motorize. During a USFS staff meeting on September 18, 1997, Michael Dombeck’s Chief of Staff, Francis Pandolfi, said: “The next step is to use the recreation fee pilot to pull together a first class business management plan... For the first time, we are selling a product.” (Pandolfi happens to have been Chairman of ARC’s Recreation Roundtable before Dombeck hand-picked him for this position.) This same message came from Undersecretary Jim Lyons on January 10, 1996: “As tourism grows and the public demands a wide range of goods and services, we have to put more of our forest management resources into programs that emphasis the non-timber products that come from the national forests. Of course, recreation is one of those products...” Just weeks before, Lyons fired up executives from the tourism and commercial recreation industries with the words: “So far, recreation and tourism have been silent partners in the political environment. We need people to stand up and speak up. SREP file photo Policy and politics is a contact sport. We hope you’ll get in and rough it up.” To everyone concerned about or opposed to increased motorization of the United States’ public lands, these same words ring true: We need to get in and rough it up! Senator Murkowski and ARC’s Derrick Crandall will soon be submitting their much-touted and highly destructive, “Recreation Super-bill.” They hope to pass this legislation before the close of the 105th Congress. Quiet recreationists need to unite to give the motorheads a resounding defeat. Scott Silver is the Executive Director of Wild Wilderness, a six year-old grassroots effort located in Bend, Oregon. Wild Wilderness is dedicated to maintaining and enhancing opportunities for the enjoyment of undeveloped recreation on public lands. For additional information, please visit their web site at http://www.wildwilderness.org, call (541) 385-5261, or e-mail: [email protected].

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

Field Work UTAH/NEVADA: Thanksgiving Weekend in the Mojave Join the Sierra Club and Utah Wilderness Coalition in Utah and Nevada during Thanksgiving weekend, Nov 26 - Nov 30, to do some field work on current and potential wildernesses. A traditional Thanksgiving dinner will be served on Thursday. Days will be in the field, checking roads, jeep tracks, and trails, cataloging human impacts and wilderness values. Evenings will be spent relaxing at the group campsite. If you’d like to pitch in, excellent dining (breakfast and dinner) will be provided by master outdoor chef, Vicky Hoover, for only $6 per day. Proposed wildernesses that need to be looked at in this region include Joshua Tree, Beaver Dam Mountains, Square Top Mountain, Cove Mountain and Cove Mountain (yes, there are two), Butcher Knife Canyon and Slaughter Creek (such lovely names), Antelope Range, Mount Escalante, Cougar Canyon/ Docs Pass (both partly in Nevada) and several units adjacent to Zion National Park. A small amount of final field work remains in Paradise Canyon—also over the border. Some of these areas are in the Utah Wilderness Coalition citizen’s wilderness proposal, while most are new areas that, if they qualify, will be added to future legislation, some potentially in both states’ proposals. Contact Scial (“shall”) or Jim Catlin at The Wildlands Project at 801-328-3550 or e-mail [email protected].

Southern Utah wildlands. WRFI photo.

De-Roaded, continued from page 3

Buffalo Nations is gearing up for the winter campaign to stop the slaughter of the last wild buffalo herd in the United States. They would like volunteers who can spend at least a week this winter monitoring the buffalo herds, hazing buffalo to safe areas, and monitoring and documenting the activities of the National Park Service and the Montana Department of Livestock. People volunteering need to be prepared for cold weather and bring their own gear. The Park Service recently announced plans to shoot male buffalo in Yellowstone National Park that do not respond to hazing. Last year state and federal agencies killed more than 1000 buffalo, ostensibly to protect domestic livestock from brucellosis—but bull bison cannot transmit the brucellosis virus. The Park Service recently announced that they will limit snowmobile use on one stretch of road in Yellowstone National Park as part of a lawsuit settlement concerning the effects of snowmobiles on bison (RIPorter v. 2 # 2). For local ranchers, Buffalo Nations will offer a “hot line” hazing service. Land owners can call the hotline, instead of the buffalo killers, when animals come onto their land or are heading for trouble. Please contact Buffalo Nations for more information.

Considering that I was almost roadkill myself, you’d think there’d be no love lost between me and motor vehicles. Even now I’m experiencing twinges in the right leg that got all smashed up in that head-on collision twelve years ago. Ordinarily I’m blissfully bipedal, thanks to modern orthopedics’ ability to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Unlike the smeared squirrels, smashed skunks, and eviscerated coons that come to woe on the pavement, we humans sometimes get second chances. And the mission of Wildlands CPR is for humans to give second chances to the land itself; to create the conditions that will allow the edges to knit themselves back together again. Perhaps roads are by now such a given of our experience that we can no more appraise them than fish can water. But try this thought-experiment: Imagine not just forests without roads, but a whole Earth without roads (which I will not refer to as “arteries” of transportation because that connotes a vital, organic means of circulation). A world without roads, mind you, but not without traces, tracks, pathways, trails, and water routes. At those scales we’re down to capillary gauge and the circulatory analogy begins to fit. These more delicate and dignified means of human travel are permeable to the body of the Earth and suitable to its unhurrying time. The wayfarer is enveloped by the world she moves through—both taxed and feasted. Freed from roads, life loathes straight lines, moves to efface them. Enshrined and revered in the Basilica of All Beings is the Primordial Pavement-Prying Pick-Axe, a symbol of the work that returned the world to flourishing. The trees grow back and overshadow the weeds. The odds are evened up between humans and the animals. Martian astronomers speculate wildly about the inexorable disappearance of Earth’s “canals” and its spreading mantle of green. Snowshoeing along a trail through a beech-maple forest, the wayfarer offers prayers of gratitude to ancestors who, with words, incantations, and vigils slew the metal hearted monsters, and who with seedlings and hoedads did away with their spoor.

P.O. Box 957 West Yellowstone, MT 59758 406-646-0070; [email protected] http://www.wildrockies.org/bison/

Stephanie Mills is author of “In Service of the Wild: Restoring and Reinhabiting Damaged Land” and editor of “Turning Away From Technology: A New Vision for the Twenty-first Century.” She has decided to stop telling people where she lives.

MONTANA: Yellowstone Bison

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

5

Bibliography Notes Carnivores and Roads: Driving Away Our Wild Cats by Willis Lambertson Despite a general lack of research on road-carnivore interactions (Ruediger 1996), enough studies have been done to get a rudimentary idea of the impact roads have on some major North American predators (Noss et al. 1996; Gibeau and Heuer 1996). This review highlights some of the effects of roads on members of the Felidae family—including mountain lion (Felis concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis) and bobcat (Lynx rufus). Keep in mind that this scientific review is only the tip of a very large informational iceberg. Roads and associated disturbances have noticeable and well-recorded impacts on felids (Van Dyke et al. 1986a; Beldon and Hagedorn 1993; Beier 1995; Lovallo and Anderson 1996). Most of these impacts are decidedly negative and, unless we place a more concentrated effort on understanding and mitigating these effects, Americans can expect a decline not

Lynx in motion. Alan and Sandy Carey photo.

only in rare cat populations, but in all rare carnivore populations (Ruediger 1996; Noss et al. 1996). Roads affect felids in the following five ways (adapted from Ruediger 1996): 1) Direct Mortality—Mountain lion, lynx and bobcat populations are just as adversely impacted by road mortality as other carnivore populations (Brocke et al. 1992; Gibeau and Heuer 1996). Since they have relatively large home ranges, low population densities and low reproductive rates, felids are not able to compensate, biologically, for additional significant sources of mortality (Ruediger 1996). In the 1996 final EIS for mountain lion management in Montana, the State’s Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks documented forty-three lion

6

fatalities due to vehicle/train collision from 1988 to 1994— second only to hunting as the primary cause of adult mortality. Along similar lines, fatalities due to vehicle collision have also been documented in studies (Mech 1980; Maehr et al. 1991; Beier 1995; Gibeau and Heuer 1996). 2) Indirect Mortality—Noss et al. (1996) identified legal and illegal hunting/trapping of carnivores as a major threat posed by roads. More roads allow for more public access to wildlands. Using open road densities to measure road access, researchers found that as road densities increase, carnivore habitat suitability decreases—partially due to hunting and trapping (McLellan and Shackleton 1988; Mech et al. 1988). Felid-specific studies have supported this statement (Van Dyke et al. 1986b; Lovallo and Anderson 1996) and revealed that hunting/trapping plays a significant role in creating rare populations of mountain lion (Beldon and Hagedorn 1993), bobcat (Lovallo 1993) and lynx (Mech 1980). 3) Displacement and Avoidance—Studies show that mountain lions and bobcats usually avoid crossing primary and secondary hard-surfaced highways and improved dirt roads, in favor of unimproved dirt roads and trails (Van Dyke et al 1986a; Beldon and Hagedorn 1993; Lovallo and Anderson 1996). Analysis of lion home ranges has found a similar avoidance of roads: "...85% of 26 [cougar] home ranges included unimproved dirt roads, 58% contained improved dirt roads, and 23% contained paved roads..." (Van Dyke et al 1986a:106). 4) Habitat Fragmentation/Associated Developments—Roadways, powerline corridors and other linear networks fragment habitats used by a variety of species (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Research on mountain lions and the issue of fragmentation found: 1) near human presence, lions shift their activity patterns (Van Dyke et al 1986b); 2) lions move through areas containing low density housing (1 unit/16 ha) but show an aversion to intermediate and high density areas (Beier 1995); and 3) roads and associated human developments effectively fragment local population of lions - leading Beier to say, "for cougars, any connection between two isolated patches is better than no connection." (Beier 1995). 5) Direct Habitat Loss - Very few studies attempt to quantify direct habitat losses from roads, nevertheless, some sources can be found in A. Andrewsí “Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: A review,” in Australian Zoologist 26(3&4):130-141. In addition, Ruediger (1996) found, "a 300 ft cleared right-of-way consumes 5.7% of each section it crosses.”

Solutions Research indicates that road mitigation techniques, including underpasses and overpasses (Foster and Humphrey 1995; Gibeau and Heuer 1996), and the habitat corridor model (Beier 1995), can help protect North American felids from some road impacts. Nevertheless, road construction and improvement projects should be deemed unavoidable before mitigation techniques are even considered (Noss and

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

Cooperrider 1994). Though felids use corridors and passageways across roads, (Beier 1995, Foster and Humphrey 1995; Gibeau and Heuer 1996) studies indicate that passageway construction is not enough. A few important elements that contribute to the use of passageways by felids include: the establishment of crossing zones in locations along stream scour beds, ridgelines and dirt roads/human trails (Beier 1995), the creation of underpasses with an unobstructed view of the other side (Foster and Humphrey 1995), fence construction along highways in order to "channel" species into crossing zones (Gibeau and Heuer 1996) and the removal of artificial lighting (Beier 1995). For readers who wish to explore this topic further, the following articles are especially relevant: Beier 1995, Lovallo and Anderson 1996, the Proceedings of the Florida Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Transportation-related Wildlife Mortality Seminar, April 30May 2, 1996, and Noss et al. 1996.

Bibliography

Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, H.G. Shaw, B.B. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and F.G. Lindzey. 1986b. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(1):95-102. Willis Lambertson is a graduate student in geography at the University of Montana.

El

iz ab

et

h

O’

Le a

ry

Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59(2):228-237. Beldon, B.C. and B.W. Hagedorn. 1993. Feasibility of translocating panthers into northern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:388-397. Brocke, R.H., K.A. Gustafson, and L.B. Fox. 1992. Restoration of large predators: potential and problems. In: Deck, D.J., M.E. Krasny, G.R. Goff, C.R. Smith, and D.W. Gross, eds. Challenges in the Conservation of Biological Resources, A Practitioner's Guide. Westcliff Press: Boulder, Colorado. Foster, M.L. and S.R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1):95-100. Gibeau, M.L. and K. Heuer. 1996. Effects of transportation corridors on large carnivores in the Bow River Valley, Alberta. Proceedings of the Florida Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Transportationrelated Wildlife Mortality Seminar, April 30-May 2, 1996. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway

Administration. FHWA-PD-96-041, Washington, DC. Lovallo, M.J. 1993. Bobcat Behavior and Home Range Use in Northwestern Wisconsin: In Reference to Censusing Populations. M.S. Thesis., University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 126 pp. Lovallo, M.J. and E.M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat movements and home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(1):71-76. Maehr, D.S., E.D. Land, and M.E. Roelke. 1991. Mortality patterns of panthers in southwest Florida. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 45:201-207. McLellan and Shackleton, 1988, Journal of Applied Ecology 25:451-460. Mech, L.D. 1980. Age, sex, reproduction, and spatial organization of lynxes colonizing northeastern Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy 61(2):261-267. Mech et al., 1988, Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87. Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy. Island Press: Washington, DC. 416 pp. Noss, R.F., H.B. Quigley, M.G. Hornocker, T. Merrill, and P.C. Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10(4):949-963. Ruediger, B. 1996. The relationship between rare carnivores and highways. Proceedings of the Florida Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Transportation-related Wildlife Mortality Seminar, April 30May 2, 1996. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-PD-96-041, Washington, DC. Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, and H.G. Shaw. 1986a. Use of road track counts as indices of mountain lion presence. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(1):102-109.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

7

Regional Reports MINNESOTA: Boundary Waters Wilderness Under Attack The United States Congress is poised to vote on a measure that will allow trucks to haul boats across three portages (Trout, Prairie, and Fourmile) in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The legislation, HR 1739 and S 783, has been reported out of committee in both the House and Senate, and could be voted on at any time. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Rod Grams (R-MN) and Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), is part of a larger agenda to significantly weaken wilderness protections for the BWCA Wilderness as well as wilderness areas nation wide. Congressman Bruce Vento (D-MN) has offered an alternative bill, HR 2149, that will increase the protections and size of the BWCAW. His bill eliminates the use of towboaåts in the wilderness, prohibits motorboats on Lac la Croix, Loon Lake, and adds 7,400 acres of land and water to the wilderness. Truck portages use a truck or jeep to drive boats across wilderness portages. This practice was to be phased-out by the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-495), but took until 1992 to finally remove trucks from three portages due to refusal by the Forest Service to implement the law. Under the same law, Congress chose to phase-out motorboats on wilderness portions of Seagull Lake in 1999. The Oberstar/ Grams legislation undoes both of these important provisions from the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act. The Oberstar/Grams legislation is the most serious threat to the Boundary Waters in decades. We need your help to block any chances of this anti-wilderness legislation from gaining Congressional approval. If passed, this legislation could set a precedent on the use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas nationwide.

What You Can Do 1) Ask that Representatives oppose Congressman Oberstar’s HR 1739, support the Vento bill, HR 2149, which increases protections for the BWCA Wilderness; and sign on to Representatives Ramstad and Minge’s “Dear Colleague” letter. Your Representative United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 2) Ask your Senators to oppose Senator Grams’ S 783, and work to defeat any legislation that increases motorized access to the BWCAW. State why you value the BWCAW, and share your knowledge and experiences about wilderness. Your Senator United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Switchboard for all Members of Congress: 202-224-3121 3) Contact President Clinton and ask him to support strong protection for the BWCAW by vetoing any legislation, specifically HR 1739 and S 783, that adds motors to the BWCAW. President Clinton The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20500 202-456-1111 (White House Comment Line) Thanks to Friends of the Boundary Waters. Check BWCA Wilderness news at: http://www.friends-bwca.org

NATIONAL: Park Service May Ban Personal Watercraft The National Park Service (NPS) plans to issue an emergency rule to prohibit personal watercrafts (PWCs) on park waters unless specifically authorized as an appropriate recreational use. This approach is consistent with current snowmobile management. The emergency rule would allow the NPS to regulate jet skis before the boating season next spring. Public comment would be available before the final rule went into effect. The PWC industry is pressuring the Park Service to issue only a proposed rule, or worse, to begin lengthy “working group” negotiations on how jet skis should be regulated. The NPS is already receiving letters from members of Congress who have been contacted by pro-jet ski lobbyists. If the NPS is successful, it will set an important precedent for other efforts to restrict and regulate PWCs. More importantly, PWCs will be properly singled out as a special type of high performance/sport boating activity that is inappropriate in sensitive ecological areas.

What You Can Do Please encourage the NPS and the Department of the Interior to issue this emergency rule so it can take effect by spring 1998. Write NPS Director Robert Stanton, DOI, PO Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127; and Deputy Secretary of the Interior John Garamendi, DOI, Room 5110, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Minnesota’s BWCAW. Wildlands CPR photo.

8

Thanks to the National Parks and Conservation Association. Contact NPCA at (202) 223-6722.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

to reschedule ferries servicing other Southeast communities in order to provide critical service to Juneau.

What You Can Do Help defeat the Juneau Access highway proposal! Send comments to: Bill Ballard Regional Env. Coordinator Environmental Section, Alaska DoT 6860 Glacier Hwy Juneau, AK 99801-7999 fax 907-465-4414. For more info contact SEACC at: (907) 586-6942 [email protected]. Thanks to Peggy Wilcox of SEACC. Berners Bay, Alaska. SEACC photo.

ALASKA: Juneau to Skagway Excess The Alaska Department of Transportation (DoT) recently released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a proposed road between Skagway and Juneau (RIPorter v2 #2). The public now has until December 15, 1997, to register comments on whether they prefer construction of a road up East Lynn Canal, high-speed ferry service, or improved conventional ferry service. The DoT is planning to choose an alternative from the DEIS based on the preference expressed through the public comments, so your letters opposing the road are especially important. The anticipated construction cost is $232.2 million for the 65-mile Lynn Canal road which would cross five major rivers, the Berners Bay roadless area, 58 avalanche chutes, and run adjacent to Steller sea lion critical habitat. The proposed road route lies close to the water’s edge, and crosses many avalanche chutes perpendicularly, leading the avalanche technical report to conclude, “Therefore avalanches could push a vehicle into the water at most sites” (p.25). According to an informal non-scientific Southeast Alaska Conservation Coalition (SEACC) survey, being pushed into the water by an avalanche while driving to Skagway is an unacceptable health risk. While the proposed road project is ludicrously expensive, environmentally disastrous, and poorly conceived, the DEIS also includes a disclaimer from the Environmental Protection Agency stating they believe the project analysis is slanted to “heavily bias alternative selection in favor of the highway alternative.” If correct, this claim would render the DEIS illegal under the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act. Whether or not the DEIS is illegal, there is another option to building a road: the alternative form of transportation which has served Southeast Alaska’s island communities from Dutch Harbor to Ketchikan since its inception in the early 1960’s— the ferries of the Alaska Marine Highway System. According to the DEIS, “Mainline ferry service between Juneau and Haines/Skagway would end upon completion” of the Juneau Access highway, except in the case of avalanches closing the road for a period of days, which would prompt DoT

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

WASHINGTON: Road Proposal Withdrawn! Earlier this year, the Randle Ranger District on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in southwest Washington proposed building a four-wheel drive road through the Mineral LateSuccessional Reserve (LSR). LSRs are intended to protect and enhance old-growth forests and their associated species. The proposal called for building 5.0 miles of new road, reconstructing 7.4 miles of existing road (including 6.9 miles for off-road vehicles with a wheel base of greater than 100", and 0.5 miles for ORVs with 100" or less wheel base), and decommissioning 3.2 miles of road. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and others responded by pointing out that the proposal failed to meet the biological objectives for these Reserves. For example, a Late-Successional Reserve Assessment had not been prepared (this document assesses LSR conditions and is intended to provide information for the design of projects in the LSR). In addition, the proposal did not demonstrate that the project is “neutral or beneficial” to late-successional and old-growth habitat and associated species (the primary objective for LSRs), demonstrate that “benefits” of road construction outweigh “costs”, or evaluate numerous impacts of road development in the LSR (including increased risk of poaching, introduction of invasive species, harassment of wildlife, and accidental fires). The proposal also did not show how the project would “maintain and restore” aquatic conditions (mainly peak flows and sediment regimes); or protect sensitive species, Riparian Reserves around wetlands less than one acre, and unstable and potentially unstable areas. Recently, the District withdrew its proposal—agreeing that building roads and driving four-wheel drive trucks through areas reserved for old-growth species is neither beneficial or neutral to these lands. In a rare acknowledgement, they stated that the noise, disturbance, and “garbage and other trash” associated with concentrated, motorized activity would attract nest predators and harass spotted owls and marbled murrelets. Thanks to Dave Werntz, Staff Ecologist for NWEA.

9

Legal Notes Protecting Public Lands from Motorized Recreation by Karl Forsgaard On some of our public lands, the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) may be a significant impediment to obtaining permanent protection for the land and its inhabitants. Because the Wilderness Act does not allow motorized recreation in federal Wilderness, it may be harder to obtain Wilderness status for an unprotected roadless area if the area has been designated or developed as an ORV recreation site, through the construction of ORV trails or other projects. A federal case in Washington State gives some guidance on how courts can overturn agency decisions approving such projects when they run afoul of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, another Washington case demonstrates that it is easier to defend a good agency decision than to oppose a bad one in court, so the first effort should be toward persuading the agency to make the correct decision.

defend the case on the narrow grounds that its conduct was not an abuse of discretion, but the nonmotorized intervenors raised additional defenses that helped win the case. For example, the intervenors found and cited the many comment letters in the record demonstrating user conflict, which the court agreed was a basis for closing the trails to ORVs under Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 (see RIPorter, v.2#4, pp. 810). This demonstrates the importance of submitting written comment letters documenting site-specific problems. The Northwest Motorcycle case also held that banning ORVs from a roadless area adjacent to Wilderness does not

Educate the Decision-makers Get to know the agency personnel who will make the decision on the proposed ORV project. Make sure the agency’s biologist knows about any resident wildlife species that would be adversely affected by the project and/or the increased ORV traffic. In Washington, the State government estimates that there are more than one million hikers, but there are only 41,000 licensed ORV users. See if your state has similar data, then use it to educate the agency decision-makers on ORV projects. Help them understand the demand for NON-motorized recreation, and the size of the NON-motorized constituency. They already hear from the well-organized ORV industry lobby, and we need to counteract that lobbying.

Build a Record Whether the decision-making is part of a large process such as a Forest Plan, or a site-specific project scoping process, you need to get your written objections into the agency’s administrative record. Letters in the record can be crucial in court, both to support good decisions and to overturn bad ones. Grassroots organizing is important to alert the threatened area’s constituency about the need for them to submit comment letters, and what issues to cover. Local advocates can provide invaluable evidence by documenting on-the-ground conditions, identifying wildlife, or taking photographs.

Defend a Good Decision In Northwest Motorcycle Association v. USDA, 18 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1994), the Wenatchee Forest Plan closed the North Entiat to motorized use and the Northwest Motorcycle Association sued the Forest Service. Several nonmotorized groups—Washington Trails Association, The Mountaineers, Washington Wilderness Coalition and North Cascades Conservation Council—intervened in the lawsuit to support the Forest Service’s decision. The government appeared likely to

10

View from the Dark Divide roadless area. Ira Spring photo.

violate the “buffer zone” clause of the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act. This aspect of the case may be relevant in other states, since Congress used similar “buffer zone” language in other state-wide Wilderness statutes such as in Colorado.

Oppose a Bad Decision In Washington Trails Association v. U.S. Forest Service, 935 F. Supp. 1117 (W.D. Wash. 1996), the agency approved an ORV trail project on Langille and Juniper Ridges, in an unprotected roadless area called Dark Divide. A coalition of 12 nonmotorized groups sued to overturn the Forest Service decision. The court held that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to conduct an EIS or EA despite evidence of significant impacts. The Forest Service had invoked a “categorical exclusion” to avoid preparing an EIS or EA, but the court noted that under its own regulations, the Forest Service could not use a “categorical exclusion” in the presence of “extraordinary circumstances,” the definition of which included the presence of inventoried roadless areas. The Forest Service had failed to consider the cumulative impacts of connected actions including other proposed ORV trail projects in the area which would all be linked into a large ORV network. The court held that the Langille/Juniper environmental analysis must consider the potential for increased use resulting from the proposed network of planned ORV trails. This shows the importance of documenting the

see “Legal Notes” on next page

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

Legal Notes Continued

Join Wildlands CPR Today!

existence of the other projects as well as documenting how they connect to the main project. The court also noted that the Forest Service had failed to explain how it calculated its estimate that the project would cause ORV use to increase 20% over a 10-year period. The coalition prompted this by supplying the court with data from ORV projects in California where the increase in use was much higher. The court criticized the Forest Service for relying on the prior Forest Plan to support the ORV project, since the Forest Plan was a programmatic document that promised a closer site-specific examination of projects in the future. The court said, “It is hardly fair to ward off objections to a proposed project by assuring future consideration, and then decline to revisit the issue later on the grounds that it has already been decided.” (935 F. Supp. at 1124.) The plaintiff coalition also cited documents where government biologists recommended excluding ORVs from mountain goat habitat such as the ridges in question, and even a Forest Plan provision banning ORVs from mountain goat summer range. The court directed the Forest Service to consider these issues under NEPA. This demonstrates the importance of having documentation in the administrative record regarding the presence of certain wildlife species, as well as the opinions of professional biologists regarding ORV impacts upon those species. In the lawsuit, the coalition had also contended that the Forest Service violated the Executive Orders requiring monitoring of ORVs and minimization of user conflict, but given the result reached on the NEPA claim, the court concluded it did not need to reach the coalition’s other claims. Nonetheless, one should raise claims under the Executive Orders (including claims of resource damage by ORVs) whenever the facts support such claims. After all, NEPA provides only a procedural remedy, not a substantive one. Karl Forsgaard is an attorney in Mercer Island, Washington. He was lead counsel for the non-motorized coalitions in the North Entiat and Juniper Ridge lawsuits. He is a past President of the Washington Trails Association, a statewide hikers’ advocacy group. He can be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].

Membership benefits both you and Wildlands CPR. You lend your support to our efforts, giving us more leverage in submitting comments, filing lawsuits, and creating pressure to prevent and close roads on public lands. In addition, your financial support helps us to continue providing information and resources to activists throughout North America. As a Wildlands CPR member, you'll have better access to these resources, because you’ll receive: ❇ Our bimonthly newsletter, The Road-RIPorter. ❇ 10 free bibliography searches per year. ❇ National support for your campaign through our newsletter and alerts. ❇ Access to activist tools and public education materials. ❇ Connections with groups working on similar issues, and networks with experienced road-fighting activists, lawyers and scientists. ❇ Discounts on Wildlands CPR publications.

Wildlands CPR Publications: Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members)) —A comprehensive activist manual that includes the four Guides listed below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gathering Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and more! Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-members) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmental laws, road density standards & Forest Service road policies. Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-members) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background on the National Park System and its use of roads, and outlines how activists can get involved in NPS planning. Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-members) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reducing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an extensive bibliography. Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members) —By Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in BLM decision-making processes.

Join Wildlands CPR Today! ____$30 Standard ____$15 Low Income ____$50 Friend ____$200 Supporter ____$500 Sponsor ____Other: $____________

Name:__________________________________________________

____$15 ($25 non-members) Handbook (includes all 4 guides) ____$4/Guide ($7 non-members) - circle your choices BLM, ORV, NF, NP

City/State/Zip:___________________________________________

____Total enclosed $______________

________________________________________________________

Organization:____________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________

Phone/Fax/e-mail:________________________________________

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997

11

Visions...

Culverts removed during road restoration—restoration crew included! Wildlands CPR photo.

Non-profit Organization US POSTAGE PAID MISSOULA, MT 59801 PERMIT NO. 569

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 “My mind’s eye sees The Road as an immense circular saw cleaving a linear track across the land, chewing up any living thing that crosses its path.” — Stephanie Mills

Red mark on your label? Your membership is in peril! See page two.