Road RIPorter 3.4

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 3.4

1/16

IThe Road-R PorterBimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. July/August 1998. Volume 3 # 4

continued on page 4

For 600 million years, the Appalachian region was sh aped by seas an d glaciers

mo re recently, though , bulldozers and ch ainsaws have taken over. As

near ly all of this region h as been affected by roads and in dustrial extraction,

we need to do m ore than pro tect pristine areas to restore Appa lachian wilderness.We also need to protect land to p erm it recovery. As one a spect of restoration, wemu st recognize the effects of roads on local habitats as well as the effects of road

networks on regiona l habitats. In this article, we identify 10 Roadless Oppo rtun ity

Areas (ROAs) within West Virginias Monongahela National Forest (MNF) to enableprotection and restoration of these un ique areas1 .

The MonongahelaLocate d in the Ridge and Valley Province of east ern West Virginia, th e MNF

contains 90 0,000 acres of eastern hardwood forest, 9% of wh ich is protected asWildern ess. Diverse top ograph y and a long evolutionar y history have given r ise to

several guilds of endem ic species, often nam ed for the only region where th ey are

known to exist (ie. Cow kn ob salam ande r, Cheat Moun tain salaman der). To theeast, the Mono ngah ela has excellent conn ections with the George Washington and

Jefferson National Forests, forming par t of the largest block of pu blicly owne d landin the ea stern US. As the subject of several wildlands proposals, the MNF is a

critical area for regional con servation efforts (Mueller 19 85; Sayen 19 87; Lytwak

1991; Mueller 1992).In 1960, the Mon ongah ela NF contained an average road den sity of 0.4 m iles

of roads per squ are mile of land. Within thirty years, this road network m ore thandoubled (deHart and Sundequist 1993), prompting concern and action am ong

conser vationists. In 1979 , the USFS cond ucted a n ational Roadless Area Review

Evaluation (RARE II) which includ ed over 22 5,000 acres of ro adless h abitat on theMNF. Since th en , one-fifth of the RARE II acrea ge has be en d esignat ed as Wilder-

ness, some areas were administratively protected, and other areas were roaded andhe avily logged (eg., McGowan Mounta in).

Building Appalachian Restoration withRoadless Opportunity Areas in theMonongahela National Forest

by Than Hitt and David Hines

Appalachian Restoration Campaign, a project of Heartw ood

A gigant ic super-metropolis has grow n up along

the Atlantic seaboard. Great and small cities st ret ch in

almost unbroken succession along eight hundredmiles of coast. Already t he super-met ropolis has crept

to the edge of the Southern mountains, some

four hundred miles from the rim of t he plateau.

Harry Caudill, 1962, Night Comes to the Cumberlands

Looking u p the fork s of Peach Tree Creek

and Drew Creek, West Virginia. Photo by

Jenny Hager (1998). Published in

Appalachian Tragedy: Air Pollut ion and

Tree Death in t he Forests of Eastern North

Am erica. Sierra Club Books.


2/16

The Road-RIPorter July/August 19982

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

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

national clearinghouse and network,providing citizens w ith tools and

strategies to fight road construct ion,deter motorized recreation, and

promote road removal andrevegetation.

P.O. Box 7 516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) [email protected]/WildCPR

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Youn gblood-Petersen

Information SpecialistDana Jensen

(ant i) Motor ized RecreationProgram

Jacob Smith

NewsletterJim Coefield & Dan Funsch

Interns & Volunteer sBen Irey

Scott BagleyVivian Roland

Board of DirectorsKatie Alvord

Mary Byrd DavisKraig KlungnessSidney Maddock

Rod MondtCara Nelson

Mary O'Brien

Tom SkeeleScott Stouder

Advisory CommitteeJasper Carlton , Libby Ellis,

Dave Forem an, KeithHamm er, Timothy Hermach,

Marion Hourdequin, LorinLindne r, Andy Mahler, RobertMcConne ll, Stephan ie Mills,Reed Noss, Michae l Soul,

Dan Stotter, SteveTrombulak, Louisa Willcox,Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands CCCCCenter for

PPPPPreventing RRRRRoads

This m orn ings front p age head line in the Missoulian (6/23/98): Anoth er

hazard on U.S. 93: Grizzlies crossing. Often confined to the b ackcoun try,

non -natural grizzly bear deaths are usually associated with h uman /bearinteractions, not with highway road kill. But the State of Mon tana ha s proposed

widening Hwy 93 to four-lanes from Canad a to the Idaho b order, and this road is

already a source of mortality for the bear. Grizzlies inh abit land s aroun dthe northern part of Hwy 93 and are proposed for reintroduction in the Selway/

Bitterroot, to the south . This story highlights the po tential imp act of roads and theimportance of fighting both new road developments as well as road expansions. An

unfortunate reminder for all of us.While roads continue to impact

grizzly bears, the U.S. Congress plays

ever more dangerous games with roads.A lengthy discussion of current legisla-

tive issues is included on pages 6-7.Thanks to Than Hitt for the cover

story. Its great to know ac tivists are

focusing on roads and h abitat in th ecentral Appalachians. We hope those of

you in other regions will keep us postedon your road issues and contribute

articles for The RIPorter.

ThanksMany thanks to those of you who

have donated to o r joined WildlandsCPR in the past two mon ths. In addition,

wed like to than k Com mo n Counse l fora small grant to help with expenses for

our upcom ing road removal session at

the Society for Ecological RestorationMeeting. Tom my put in a lot of time

keeping things going while Bethan ie and

Dana were both gone for a significantportion o f the last mon th than ks!! In

addition, we rarely give enou gh thanksto The Ecology Center for th eir patient

assistance with our seemingly endlesscompu ter challenges, as well as access

to their printer and fax machine, and

other general help when we need it.And finally, than ks to Sue Roy for

pitching in at the last minute with ourlawsuit in Glacier National Park

(see page 13).

Wildlands CPR in the field

Weve got lots of exciting things on ou r schedu le over the next cou ple ofmo nth s. Jacob is developing our first worksh op to help activists challenge motorizedrecreational developments. We hop e to hold a tester workshop in late August, and

then a second, larger workshop in October. Bethanie will present a short workshopon ro ad inventories and road rem oval at the ann ual Forest Reform Rally in

New Hampsh ire, Septem ber 11-13. A few weeks later, we will ho st 2 sessions on road

rem oval at th e an nu al Society for Ecological Restoration mee ting in Austin, Texas.And while not a Wildlands CPR workshop, expert road remover John McCullah of

Salix Applied Earth care will hold a roa d removal training in North ern CaliforniaNovember 4-6. If you are interested in more information about an y of these activi-

ties, please contact ou r office.

In this Issue

Roadless Ap palachia, p. 1, 4-5Than Hitt & David Hine s

Odes to Roads, p. 3

Mary Sojourne r

Legislative Updat e, p. 6-7Wildland CPR staff

Bibliography Notes, p. 8-11Dave Havlick

Legal Not es, p . 10-11

Sidne y Maddock

DePaving the Way, p. 12

Bethanie Walder

Regional Reports, p. 13

Ask Dr. Roads, p. 14Dr. Roads, he kn ows more th an yo u!

Wildlands CPR Resour ces, p. 15


3/16

The Road-RIPorter July/August 1998 3

Iam in the th roat of the Turtle

Moun tain Wilderness, crouched a t

the b ase of a basalt cliff, studying adelicate braid of tracks in the san d at the

bottom of the n arrow wash below me.I will never m ake it into the h eart of

the Turtles. I am fifty-eight, a big

woman an d one of my lumbar spinaldiscs is flatter than it should be too

many switch-backs and midnight cityconcrete, too many rapids run, too

much , and never enough, boulder

hopping.

The truck is parked where the roadsend . If I stand up, Ill see the w indsh ieldcatchin g last Moh ave light. Lace agate

glitters and glows on the pale earth ,

white chalcedony roses, puddles ofmine ral cream. To the east, just beyond

a portal that ope ns like a deepbreath in th e black rock, lies the

uni-sex bath-room of a gang of

coyote s. At the edge of a tidydepo sit of scat is one scarlet

flower, blosso ms like bells, bellsholding light. I imagine how the

flower seem s to burn , as I imagine

wha t lies west, down-stream, in astream-bed thr ough wh ich water

must p ourI see the p ebblecurves that tell me eddies h ave

swirled he retwice a year, on ce,

seen on ly by what lives here. Iwould love to see that, flash floods

no wider than my arm, thunderchaos of brittle-brush, chalcedony

and scat.

And, I am grateful to see wha tlies arou nd me. Now. Here. A mile from

the truck, a mile that took me an h our tocross, down into little arroyos, picking

my way betwe en fire-rock boulders,stopping to p ick up a sha rd of crystal, anagate rose. I knew better than to ben d

over an d I did it anyway. Ill pay for itlater with fire in my back. How could I

not touch this lover, this fierce Moh ave

earth soften ed by winter light? Howcould I not, as I once lay in the perfect

arm s of the perfect lover who perfectly

would leave, breathe in the miracle of

being he re, being h ere, only n ow.

The Buddhists tell us joy lies inlimitation. We Amer icans are taught the

opposite. You dese rve it all. More isbette r. Go for it all. I move away from

the cliff and look up at th e ragged cobalt

mo un tains. I want to go up, into thehigh sadd le, into what leads in to

mystery, up wh ere I can look out an dsee forever. I wan t more. I wan t it all.

I cann ot have it. My back holds me

here. Some roads are closed to me

forever. I consider th at I have becom ethe person the road-greedy claim tofight for. But wha t about the h and i-

capp ed? What about the elderly?

On m y slow way to th is cliff, thiswash, wher e light seems to catch on

every facet of twig and ston e, and

shad ows pour like blue lava, I walkedacross roads th at went back to earth

ben eath my boots. Closed. Closed. Itouched the signs. I whispere d, Thankyou.

I leave nothing at th e base of thecliff except gratitude, and make my

careful way back to the truck. My

friend, my road-buddy who loves roadand roadless equally, emerges from the

shad ows. He is grinning. I look at his

face and kn ow I look in a m irror.

How was it? he asks.

Very very goo d.Yeah.

We walk in silence. Later h e will tellme h ow he traversed rock he m ight

more pr udently have avoided, and how

that led him, heart in his throat, to ahidden arch in a saddle and the sight of

the sou thern Moha ve rolling in waves ofmoun tains and desert, sunset and blue

mist to the far curve of the ear th. I will

tell him ab out coyote h ouse-keeping and

bells of light and how enough is enough,and n ever enou gh. But, for now, oursilence is sweet earth withou t roads.

We camp in an aban doned m ining

claim. There is the requisite rusting bedspring, coils of wire, shattered Colt 45

bottles glitterin g like fools agate.My friend cooks, linguine with

garlic and capers. I spread ou t my

sleeping bag and stretch. My backthrobs. Fire shoots down one leg.

Trying to sleep is going to belovely, I say.

He laugh s. Would you ha ve it

any other way?I turn on my back, pull my

legs up to my chest. Nothingreleases. I look up into moon less

sky, Orion striding eterna lly youn g

and stron g, across the ea stern sky.You me an ? I ask.

Doing it the easy way. I don tknow, maybe driving up to th e

arch.

I twist left, right. Slowly. Ikeep my eyes open . I look. The

mo un tain-tops I will never see up closelie like sum i brush -strokes against th e

stars.I don t answer m y friend. I don thave to. The way into th e answer isperfectly clear.

Not For Me by Mary Sojourner

Odes to Roads

Smoky Mountain road escarpment on the Kaiparowits

Plateau. Photo by Milt Hollander.

I am blessed to live within sight of the

San Francisco Peaks. I came here to write

and fight for the earth, I am doubly

blessed to do both. Mary Sojourner


4/16


It has been nearly 20 years since the

last syst ematic evaluation of the

opport unities for roadless area

designation in the Forest Services

East ern Region.

A Roadless Opport unityRoadless area s are vital for m aintaining forest health an d

biodiversity. On the con verse, roaded h abitat causes h abitat

fragmentation (Form an et. al. in press), leads to road kill(Langton 1989), introdu ces exotic organisms (Broth ers an d

Spingarn 1992), increases predation and parasitism on forest

interior sp ecies (Brocke et. al. 1988 ), and degrades waterquality and fish habitat (Beech ie et al 199 4). Addition ally, high

road d ensities m ay threaten timber productivity througherosion and soil

nutrient losses

(Douglass andSwift 1977 ;

Gasper 1998 ).

Although

some of the bestopportunities for

roadless areaprotection and

restoration in the

east are foundwithin the National Forests, it has bee n n early 20 years since

the last systematic evaluation o f the opp ortun ities forroadless area designation in the Forest Services Eastern

Region. During this time, the ecological impo rtance an d

econ omic value of roadless habitat has increased a s thesurrounding landscape has been further dissected by urban

sprawl and indu strial developm ent. The limited am oun t of

public land in the east increases the importance of protectingthese p laces. In contrast to the Forest Services convention al

definition of Opportu nity Areas as managem ent un its basedon the su itable timber base an d accessibility for logging, here

we identify 10 Roadless Oppo rtun ity Areas to help pr otectcurrently unrecognized roadless areas and restore futureroadless ha bitat on the Mono ngah ela National Forest.

Methods: Defining

Roadless Opportunity AreasTo iden tify ROAs, we first map ped all roads in th e

Monongahela National Forest purchase boundary from USGeological Survey data (1987 digital line graphs at 1:100,000),

including all primary, secondary, imp roved and un im-proved dirt roads, and excluding trails. Following the South -

ern Appa lachian Assessment (1996) and the Forest Service

Handboo k (1909 .12 chap ter 7, section 7.2), we then identified

poten tial roadless areas as 1000-acre blocks containing lessthan 0.5 miles of roads2 . To evaluate the op portu nities forroadless ha bitat within ea ch 1000-acre block, we calculated

road densities in 100-acre subregions, mapped contiguous low

road den sity habitat, and rank ed these areas for size andpercen t MNF ownersh ip. Following are th e 10 largest Roadless

Oppor tun ity Areas wh ich m eet USFS road den sity criteria forprotection as roadless areas. Maps an d analyses were

produced with ARCGRID v.7.1.2 and ArcView Spatial Analyst

v.1.1.

Results and Recommendat ions: 10

Roadless Opport unity Areas on t he MNFAppr oximately one-third of the land w ithin the MNF

purchase b oundary meets road density criteria for roadless

area des ignation (Figure 1). Evaluat ing 100-acr e blocks, weidentified n early 200,000 a cres of Roadless Oppor tun ity Areas

(Figure 2 ), over h alf of which is cur ren tly vulnerable to roa dbuilding and logging. As you read this, proposed r oad bu ild-

ing, timbe r sales, and erosion control

pr ojects threaten McGowan Moun tainArea a nd Dolly Sods Area, the third an d

four th largest ROAs, respectively. Thethree largest areas, Back Alleghany

Moun tain, Cheat Moun tain, and

McGowan Moun tain, comp rise 80,000acres of a single section of th e Ridge and

Valley Province an d offer a n un paralleledchance to restore landscape connectivity

in the MNF.Given th e regional significance o f

roadless habitat, the current opportun i-

ties for future roadless areas on theMono ngah ela National Forest, and th e up-com ing Land an d

Resource Managemen t Plan revision, we recomm end that the

MNF take the following actions:

continued from p age 1

Restoring Appalachian Wilderness

Figure 1. Road density w ithin 1000-acre blocks

in t he Monongahela National Forest purchase

boun dary. Data source: US Geological Survey

Maps, 1:100 000, 1987 digital line graphs. Class

1 blocks (in white) contain less t han .5 m iles of

roads per 1000 acres.


5/16


Figure 2. Roadless Opportunit y Areas (ROAs) on the Monongahela

National Forest. Each of these ROAs contains su ff icient contiguous

habitat for roadless area designation under USFS guidelines for size and

road density. Roads shown are primary roads only.

Initiate a Forest-wide roads in ventory an d road less

area evaluation wh ich up dates RARE II areas and considers the

Roadless Opp ortun ity Areas identified he re (Figure 2).

Enjoin all current or proposed projects which would

degrade th e ROAs listed h ere, including p roposed actions in

McGowan Mountains Lower Glady Opportunity Area and theDolly Sods North area.

AcknowledgementsFor review and presen tation of this pro ject, we would like

to thank Jim Sconyers, Rick Landenburger, Jason Halbert, Jim

Hardy, and Sara Huss. Addition ally, we would like to recogn izeThe George Gun d Foun dation an d Environ men tal Systems

Research Institute (ESRI) for their gen erous supp ort o f Appa la-

chian restoration.

Footnotes1 This information was presented to the USDA Forest Service on

June 29, 1998 at th e conclusion o f the Central Appalachian Ecological

Integrity Conferen ce, Elkins, WV.2 USFS criteria for roadless area de signation in th e western US

require 5000 acres of roadless habitat.

References

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, and L. Wasserman. 1994 . Estimating

coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt production

losses in a large river basin, and im plications for

habitat restoration. North American Journal of Fish

Management. 14: 797-811.

Brocke, R.H. et. al. 1988. A forest management schememitigating impact of road networks on sensitive

wildlife species. In: R.M. Degraaf, an d W.M. Healy,

(comps.). Is Forest Fragmentation a Management Issue

in the Northeast? GTR-NE-140. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.

Brothers, T.S., and A. Spingarn. 1 992. Forest fra gmen tation

and alien plant invasion of cent ral Indiana old-growth

forests. Conservation Biology 6: 91-100.

de Hart, A. and B. Sundquist, 19 93. Monongahela National

Forest Hiking Guide. 6 th e d. West Virginia Highland s

Conservancy, Char leston , WV.

Douglass, J.E.; Swift, L.W., Jr. 1977 . Forest Service studies of

soil and nutrient losses caused by roads, logging,mechan ical site prepa ration, an d prescribed burning

in the Southeast. In: Correll, D.L., ed . Watershed

Resea rch in Eastern North America: A Workshop to

Comp are Results; 1977 February 28 -March 3 ;

Edgewater, MD. Edgewate r, MD: Smithsonian

Institution: 489-502.

Forma n, R.T.T., D.S. Friedm an , D. Fitzhen ry, J.D. Mart in,

A.S. Chen and L.E. Alexand er. 1996. Ecological

effects of roads : Toward three sum ma ry indices and

an overview for North Ame rica. In press: Habitat

Fragmentation and Infrastructure. Cante rs, K., ed.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water

Management, Delft, Netherlands.

Gasper, D. 1998. Forest and trout nutr ients in a period ofacid rain. Proceedings from the 1996 Centra l

Appalachian Ecological Integrity Conference,

Massanetta Springs, VA. Appa lachian Restoration

Cam paign, a project of Heartwood. Athens, Ohio.

Langton, T.E. 1989. Amphibians and roads. Proceedings of

the Toad Tunnel Conference,

Rendsburg, Federal Republic Germ any, Janua ry 7-8, 1989.

ACO Polymer Products, Ltd., Hitchin Road, Shefford,

Bedfordshire, SG175Js England, 202 p.

Lytwak, E. 1991. The Monongahela National Forest, an

alternative vision. Preserve Appalachian Wildern ess.

1(1): 39-42,53.

Mueller, R. 1985. Ecological prese rves for the easte rn

mountains. Earth First! Journal. 5(8): 20-21.

Mueller, R. 1992. Central Appalachian wilderness in

perspective: the Monongahela National Forest. Wild

Earth. 2(2): 56-60.

Sayen, J. 1987. The Appalachian m ountains, vision, and

wilderness. Earth First! Journal. 7(5): 26-30.

Southern Appalachian Assessm ent 1996. Summ ary Report.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere

Cooperative.The Appalachian Restoration Campaign (ARC) is a project of

Heartwood, an eastern forest protection netw ork. ARC work s

for w ilderness restoration w ith ecological research, education,

and advocacy. You can contact ARC at 740-592-3968.


6/16


On June 25, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt wrot e an editorial exposing Congress effort s to legislate

roads through wildland ecosystem s. He highlighted t he Izembeck road (seeRIPorter V3#3), which would

be illegal wit hout a specific law aut horizing it. Even m ore distressing, many of t hese legislative assaults

are att ached as riders to im portant spending bills, such as the Interior Appropriations bill. This review,

thanks m ostly to Roger Featherstones On Top of the Hill, sum marizes a few of the road and m otorized

recreation issues being debated. It is now up to the President and environm ental leaders in Congress tostop these stand-alone bills and riders that are even worse than the anti-environment laws of the 104th

Congress. Our job is to make sure they do theirs.

Legislative Update

These road and recreation riders

were placed on the new national

tran spo rtation bill, (TEA-21) the reau tho -rization of the Interm odal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).

Presiden t Clinton s igned TEA-21 and itsriders into law on Jun e 9, 1998.

Road to Now hereSenator Frank Murkowski (R-AK)

placed another rider on ISTEA that gives$2.5 million for NW Alaska Road/Rail

Access. The North ern Alaska Environ -

mental Center notes this 100-500 milerou te wou ld bisect Kobu k Valley

National Park and the Selawik, Kanuits,and Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuges

in no rthwest Alaska on th e way to Nom e

or Cape Lisburn e. The cost may reach$1.2 billion an d the road may be u sed to

access coal deposits in northwestAlaska.

Forest Roads Moratorium By-passSenato r Larry Craig (R-ID) add ed to S.1768, the Emer -

gency Supplem ental spend ing bill, a rider sub verting the

Administrations proposed 18-month road buildingmo ratorium in National Forest road less areas. The rider

requ ires the Forest Service to offer sub stitute timber sales to

offset those susp end ed by the moratorium . It app lies to fiscalyears 1998 an d 1999 the likely duration of the m oratorium.

The rider also requires th e FS to pay any state 25 p ercent ofthe revenue lost from timber sales cancelled by the morato-

rium. (Although an other proposal would separate the 25%fund from timber sales.)

Petr oglyph National Monument

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) added to S.1768 a rider toadjust the bou nd ary of Petroglyph National Monu men t in New

Mexico to allow co nstru ction of a m ulti-lane h ighway forexpanding Albuquerque subu rbs.

Nat ional Trans por tat ion Bill Riders

Boundary Wat ers Canoe

Area W ildernessRepresen tatives Oberstar (D- MN)

an d Ven to (D-MN) atta che d a r ider to

ISTEA allowing trucks and jeeps to haul

boats across two portage road s whileeliminating motorboat use on the tinyCanoe (107 acres) and Alder (342 acres)

Lakes. This rider se ts a bad nation al

precedent and marks th e first timeCon gress has rolled back p rotection for

designated Wilderness.

Denali RoadSenator Frank Murkowski (R-AK)

placed a rider on ISTEA that a pprop ri-ates $1.5 Million for the Denali North

Access Route Con struction to build a 95mile road or railroad into Denali

National Park and Preserve. Estimatedtraffic is 500 vehicles per day, twice the

level curren tly allowed by the Park

Service. This route h as never had a

hearing in Congress and has n ever beenstudied.

Symms ActIn add ition to th ese r iders, TEA-21also reauth orized the Symm s Act (see

The RIPorterV2#3 ). The Symm s Actfunds trail developm ents and has been

used to moto rize public land s. Statesreceived a total of $37 .5 m illion in

Symm s funding from 1991-1997. Under

the Symms reauth orization in TEA-21,this will climb to $270 m illion for trail

developments over the next six years.With categorical exclusions th e nor m for

these projects, and money going to

mach inery such as the SWECOtraildozer, activists will be spending a lot

of time fighting bad Symms p rojects.

Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill Riders

Lawmak ers are busy attaching anti-environment riders to

spending bills. File photo .


7/16


House R ider sChu gach Road/Copper River Delta This rider, push ed by

House Reso ur ces Chairm an Don Young (R-AK), allows road

constru ction th rough Alaskas Chugach NF across the Copp erRiver Delta, perha ps the r ichest waterfowl feeding area on the

North American West Coast. It exempts the r oad from en vi-ron men tal review an d pub lic input. Contact Alaska Rainforest

Camp aign (907) 463-675 5 or http ://www.akrain.org, and see

RIPorterV3#3.

Senate Riders

King Cove Health a nd Safety Act Spon sored by DonYoun g (R-AK) in the Hou se an d ch amp ioned in the Senate by

Ted Stevens (R-AK), this b ill aut ho rizes a $30 m illion, 3 0-mile

gravel road thr ough Izemb ek National Wildlife Refuge andWildern ess, and waives environm ental laws. As stand-alone

bills, both HR 2559 an d Sen . Murkowskis (R-AK) version, S.1092, passed co mm ittee last fall. The Izembek Road would be

the first perma nen t road through designated Wilderness. It is

opp osed by con servationists, sportsm en, Alaskan n atives,taxpayer groups, and the Adm inistration . For mo re informa-

tion, contact Tom Uniack, Defenders of Wildlife (202) 682-9400 and see RIPorterV3#3.

Int erior App ropr iations Riders

Congress con tinues to d ebate an d affect the Forest Service

(FS) roads b udget, with mixed results.

First, Rep. Por ter (R-IN) agreed with Rep . You ng (R-AK) tocut th e Purch aser Road Credit (PRC) program (seeRIPorter

V2#3) from th e budget in exchan ge for limiting future debateon r oad fun ding. Since su ppo rting the PRC cut last year, Wild-

lands CPR has learn ed tha t its imp act would be qu ite limited,

as the FS has so m any oth er sources of road funds, from slushand emergency funds, to other ap propriated line items.

Second, to keep road fund ing alive, Congress com binedthe road maintenance, construction, and reconstruction line-

items in the FS bud get. This makes it near ly imp ossible to stop

bad, or suppor t good road fund ing. The new line-item alsoincludes decommissioning money, but the bill now prohibits

the FS from rem oving system road s until all non -system ro adshave either been decomm issioned or reconstructed to stan-

dard. While many Nationa l Forests are removing non -system

roads, it is often the system road s that cause the m ost dam age.This langua ge could force the FS to reconstruct r oads rath er

than remove them to reduce en vironm ental impacts. It alsopromotes th e construction of nonsystem roads, which were

never autho rized, engineered o r ana lyzed by the ForestService. This langua ge is a direct challenge to the lon g-termroads policy bein g developed by th e Forest Service.

There are also several poten tial rider an d bills un derconsideration , such as: 1) a rider to allow jet boat use in the

wild portion o f the Snake River; 2) a stron ger version of the

TEA 21 rider that wou ld require a nor thern access route inDenali National Park; 3) a bill to force Great Smoky Mountains

National Park to keep the Newfoun d Gap road o pen year-roun d; and 4 ) a rider to eliminate so litude a s a directive for

wilderness man agement.

What you can do:

1) Contact you r Congressional delegation a nd tell them :

No Riders, No Rollbacks! The Ame rican p ub lic will no t standfor legislating by rider a gain. Congressiona l Switchboard (202)

224-3121

2) Call President Clinton and urge him to veto any and all

bills that contain an ti-environm ental riders. Cite some that are

pen ding. White House comm ent line (202) 456-1111 or e m ailto: [email protected]

3) Write a letter to the editor of your local newsp aper. Call

GREEN for a sample.

4) Urge your delegation to su pp ort Waxman s HT 1404 toshine the light on riders weakening environmen tal and public

health standards.

Ant i-Rider Bill

Forest Service Roads Budget

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) attached an

ame ndm ent to HR 3534 , the Mand ates Inform ation Act, that

would h ave exten ded po ints of order to bills that wouldweaken environmental and public health standards. The

amen dmen t received 190 votes. This amendm ent is also a

stand alone b ill by Repr esentative Waxm an titled HR 1404 .This bill allows a separate vote on environm ental riders

attached to widely-supp orted bills.

-

Drawing by Gary Steele.


8/16


Bibliography Notes

Predators stand out am ong terrestrial fauna as the

group most susceptible to the adverse impacts ofroads. Positioned high in the food chain , pred ators

have evolved to live long n atural lives, rear th eir youn g overa protracted p eriod, and gene rally have low reproductive

rates. All of these factors combine to create an extrem elylow tolerance to increased m ortality.

Because of their exten sive hom e ranges, many

predator y species also stand out as um brella species formanagementthat is, if we protect predators and their

hab itats, then this p rotective um brella will be large

enough to include the habitat needs for other species thatcoexist with predators (Noss et al. 1996). Unfortun ately,

predators unique co mb ination of sensitivity to mo rtality

and broad habitat needs has led increasingly to theirimper ilmen t. Road and access man agemen t is crucial to

the lon g-term sur vival of pred ators (seeRIPorters V3#3 andV2#6 for Bibliography Notes on grizzly bear and wild cats).

Fend er Fodd erDirect mor tality from roadsin the form o f vehicle-

predator collisionscan devastate predator p opu lation s,

especially when th ey are isolated geograph ically or rare innu mbe r (Form an et al. 1996 ). In some cases, such as tha t of

the Florida pan ther, death by auto has been cited as on e of theprim ary causes of a species imper ilmen t. Before 1991, 47%

of known Florida panther deaths were from road kill, though

highway underpasses installed since that time appear to beredu cing direct mortality substantially (Foster an d Hump hr ey

1995 ; Smith et al. 1996 ). In Denm ark, roadkill accounted for3600 b adger death sor 10-15% of the species total pop ula-

tion in that n ationin a single year (Aaris-Soren sen 1995).

Roadkills represen t 46% of all hu ma n-related mo rtality for the

end angered American crocod ile (Smith e t al. 1996), and areconsidered th e major cause o f mortality for the ocelot, anend angered North Amer ican cat (Jenkins 1996).

Beyond Bump er sIndirect impacts from roadssuch as ha bitat fragmenta-

tion, direct habitat loss, increased human development,

increased m otorized access, and hab itat displacemen talsoaccount for substantial human -caused mortality of p redators

(Rued iger 1996). Addition ally, prey species su ch as elk (Lyon1983 ), moose (Crete et al. 1981; Timm erm an a nd Gallath

1982 ), and d eer (Sage et al. 1983) are sensitive to ro ad den si-

ties and as their popu lations decline th e accompan yingpredators drop in nu mber accordingly.

When roads slice throu gh formerly-unbroken habitatareas, the re sultant op enings affect species abilities to h un t,

find cover, or den . This fragmen tation also facilitates the

spread of noxious weeds and affects the native plant p opula-tions up on wh ich herbivores and subsequen tly predators

depen d. The degree of hab itat fragmen tation gener allycorrelates with roa d den sity, which is determ ined by calculat-

ing the miles of road per square mile of land area.

Road densities greater than 1 m ile/square mile have beenshown to reduce habitat security and increase mortality for a

range of pr edators, including grizzly and black bears, and lynx(Britell et al. 1989; Naney 1991; Noss 1996 citing Brody and

Pelton 1 989). A 1996 study of Montana grizzly bears found

that animals avoided areas of high road density even thoughroads we re closed to pu blic use (Mace et al. 1996). Studies in

southern Utah and the n orthern Great Lakes have shown th atmo un tain lions an d wo lves, respectively, fail to survive when

road den sity exceeds 0.9 m iles/square m ile (Thiel 1985 ; Van

Dyke et al. 1986 ; Jensen et al. 1986; Mech et a l. 1988). Mech(1989 ) later determ ined th at wolves could survive in areas with

higher roa d den sity only if they existed adjacent to roadlesslands populated by wolves.

Tooth and Claw:Ecological Effects of Roads on Predators

by David Havlick

Whos afraid of t he big bad road? Photo courtesy of Nation al Park Serv ice.

Bibliography Notes sum marizes and highlights som e of the scientific literature in

our 6,000 citation bibliography on the ecological effects of roads. We offer bibliographic

searches to help activist s access importan t biological research relevant to roads. We

keep copies of most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.


9/16


Swift fox presen t one o f the few exceptions to the ar ray of

predators that are known to avoid roads. Whether due to

easier hun ting in the sho rt grasses near roadsides, trying toavoid their own most common predator (coyotes), or for some

other yet-unkno wn re ason (like becom ing more visible toresearch ers), swift fox show a strong preferen ce for roads an d

typically den within 230 meters o f them (Hines an d Case

1991). Wha tever the motive, swift foxe s affinity for road sidesexacts a toll as th ey su ffer high levels of juvenile m ortality to

roa dkill (Sovada et al. 1998).Roads create an obvious source of mo rtality from trap-

ping, hun ting, or poach ing due to easy motorized access. A

Minneso ta study, for instan ce, foun d th at 91% of all black beardeath s were caused by legal and illegal hun ting (Rogers 1987),

and in r oaded areas of Maine trapping accounted for 90% ofall pine m arten de aths (Hodgma n et al. 1994 ). Not surpr is-

ingly, the dan ger and n oise associated with roads typ ically

create an avoidance respon se by preda tors. An ongoing studyin British Colum bia has found wolverine d en sites exclusively

in road less drainages (Krebs 199 8). Lynx generally will notcross op enings greater than 100 feet (Naney 19 91), bobcats

avoid roads an d h abitat within 100 m eters of ro adsides (Lovelloand Ande rson 19 96), grizzly bears are disrupted u p to adistance of 4 kilome ters by roads (Mattson et al. 1987), and in

Africa black-backed jackals avoid areas w ithin 60 0 m eters of aroadway (Newm ark et al. 1996 ). Spanish predators, including

the Iberian lynx , red fox, wild cat, and com mo n gen et avoid

road crossings by using culvert tunnels beneath roadways(Rodriguez et al. 1996).

ConclusionWhile highway un derp asses, wildlife culverts, and other

measures can som etimes m itigate the direct impacts ofroadkill, predators will continue to suffer world-wide declines

if presen t road-building trends continu e. With an estimated

10% o f the con tiguou s United States already directly impactedby roads (Form an et al. 1996), there are sim ply too man y roads

exerting too mu ch dam age in too man y places for predators torebou nd on the ir own. It remain s critically impo rtan t to

predators survival in North Amer ica and elsewhe re that

activists and land m anagers work to rem ove the most ecologi-cally destructive roads and p revent new road s from being built

into existing habitat.

David Havlick has an MS from the University of Montana and

coordinates the Roads Scholar Project for Predator Project, Box

6733, Bozeman, MT 59771; 406-543-8424.

References:Aaris-Sorensen , J. 1995. Road-kills of bad gers (Meles me les) in

Denmark. Annales Zoologici Fennici 32(1): 31-36.

Britell, J.D., R.J. Toelker, S.J. Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler. 1989.

Native Cats of Washington. Washington Departm ent of

Wildlife. Olympia, WA.

Brody, A.J. and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black

bear movemen ts in North Carolina. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 17: 5-10.

Crete, M., R.J. Taylor, and P.A. Jordan . 1981 . Optim ization of

moose harvest in southwestern Quebec. Journal of continued on page 11

Wildlife Management45: 598-611.

Forma n, R.T.T., D.S. Friedman , D. Fitzhenry, J.D. Mart in, A.S.

Chen and L.E. Alexander. 1996. Ecological effects of

roads: Toward three summ ary indices and an overview

for North America. In press: Habitat Fragmentation and

Infrastructure. Canters, K., ed. Ministry of Tran spor t,

Public Works an d Water Managem ent, Delft, Netherlands.

Foster, M.L. and S.R. Hum phrey. 199 5. Use of highway

underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 95-100.

Hines, T.D., and R.M. Case. 1991. Diet, hom e range,

movements and activity periods of swift fox in Nebraska.

Prairie Naturalist23: 131-138.

Hodgman, T.P., Har rison , D.J., Katn ik, D.D. and K.D. Elowe.

1994 . Survival in an inten sively trapped m arten

population in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management58

(4): 593-599.Jenkins, K. 1996. Texas Depa rtm ent of Transpor tat ion wildlife

act ivities. Florida DOT Report, FL-ER-58-96 , Tallaha ssee,

FL. Pp. 199 -231.

Jen sen, W.F., T.K. Fuller and W.L. Robinson . 1986. Wolf (Canis

lupus) distribution on the Onta rio-Michigan borde r near

Sault Ste. Marie. Canadian Field-Naturalist100: 363-366.

Krebs, J. 1998. Senior Wildlife Biologist. Person al

comm unication with David Gaillard , Preda tor Project staff

June 16, 1998. British Columbia, Canada, Ministry of

Environm ent Study, in progress.

Lovello, M.J. and E.M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat m ovem ent an d

home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 24(1): 71-76.

Lyon, L.J. 1983 . Road density models describing habitateffectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry 81: 592-595,

613.

Mace, R.D., J. Waller, T. Manley, L.J. Lyon a nd H. Zuuring. 1996.

Relationships am ong grizzly bears, roads, and h abitat in

the Swan Mountains, Montan a. Journal of Applied Ecology,

33: 1395-1404.

Mattson, D.J., R. Knight and B. Blanchard . 198 7. The effects of

developme nts an d primary road systems on grizzly bear

Can you find t he secretive pine marten in this photo?

File photo.


10/16


Motorized Issues Ripe For Review by Sidney Maddock, Biodiversity Legal Foundation

Road activists involved withlitigation kn ow th at

technical legal doctrines candeterm ine whe ther p laintiffs are able to

sue a federal agency. For example,courts r equire a plaintiff to have

standing before the court will hear

their case. In the wake of an en viron -mental setback from a unanimous U.S.

Supreme Court decision in Ohio ForestryAssociation v. Sierr a Club, 1998 WL

244192 (May 18 , 1998), activists also

will have to consider th e doctrine o fripen ess before suing over certain

Forest Service actions. While this rulinglimits challenges of timbe r h arvest

provisions of Land and

Resource Management Plans (Manage-ment Plans) pursuant to the National

Fore st Man agem en t Act (NFMA), thedecision still allows activists

to challenge road bu ilding

provisions.

The DecisionSierra Club an d othe rs

(Club) sue d th e Forest Service,

claiming the Management

Plan for the Wayne Nationa lForest (Plan) perm itted below-

cost timber sales byclearcutting, in violation o f

NFMA. The Plan per mittedlogging on 126,000 acres of

the 17 8,000 acre forest.

However, it set a ceiling on theamoun t that could be cut,

allowing logging on abou t8,000 acres during the decade,

including about 5,000 acres of

clearcuts or other even-agedcuts. While the District Court

decided th at the Forest Service had actedlawfully, the Cour t of Appe als for th e

Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the

Plan improperly favored clearcuttingand violated NFMA. However, the U.S.

Supreme Court (Court) ruled that the suitwas no njusticiable because it was

not ripe for court review, and vacated

the Court of App eals decision.

Judicial RipenessIn its ruling, the Court initiallydiscussed the pu rpose of the ripenessrequireme nt. It is designed to avoid

premature adjudication and prevent the

courts from entangling them selves inabstract disagreements over

adm inistrative policies. It also protectsagencies from judicial interferen ce un til

an administrative decision has been

form alized a nd its effects felt in aconcrete way by the challenging parties.

In th e Cour ts view, several factors ledto the conclusion that the NFMA

challenge to the Mana gemen t Plan wasnot ripe.

The Court first reasoned th at to

withhold court consideration at thepresent would not cause the parties

significant hardship. While the Plan

makes logging m ore likely in th at it is aprecon dition to logging, the Plan does

not give an yone a legal right to cut trees,

nor does it abolish anyon es legalauth ority to object to trees being cut.

The Plans timb er provisions did not, inthe Courts view, inflict

significant practical harm on the

environm ental interests the Club hadargued in the case, because before the

Forest Service can p erm it logging, itmust focus on a particular site, propose

a specific harvest method, prep are anenvironm enta l review, permit the p ublic

an opportun ity to be heard, and (ifchallenged), justify the p ropo sal in

court. Thus, the Court did not find a

strong reason why the Club mu st bringits challenge against the Plans timber

provisions. The Club will have oppor tu-nity to file a lawsuit challenging

clearcutting whe never the Forest

Service proposes a p articular clearcut.At that time, the Court believes, the

harm will be more imm inent andcertain.

The Court also reasoned that from

the a gencys persp ective, imme diatejudicial review directed at the lawfulness

of clearcutting could hinde r agencyefforts to refine its policies

through revisions to the plan

or to application of the Plan inpractice (e.g., in the for m of

site-specific prop osals, whichare subject to review). The

Court stated the real possibil-

ity that the Forest Servicecould further consider the

Plans con tents, eitherthrough plan amendments or

successful appeals. Judicial

review of th e Clubsclaims regarding clearcutting

would require time-consum -ing consideration of

the details of an elaborate,

technically based plan whichpredicts consequences that

may affect many differentparcels of land in a variety of

ways, and which effects

themselves may change over

time. The Court felt tha t judicialreview of the Plan would take placewithout the benefit of the focus that

a particular logging proposal could

provide.

While Forest Plan prescriptions for clearcuts were found to be not ripe

for review, the court did not preclude challenges t o road building.

File photo.

continued on next page


11/16


hab itat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. In:

International Conference on Bear Research and

Management. 7: 259-273.

Mech, L.D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high

road density. American Midland Naturalist121: 387-389.Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde an d W.J. Paule. 1988. Wolf

distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 16: 85-87.

Naney, R. 1991. USDA Forest Service Region One. Lynx,

Fisher, and Wolverine Coordination Meeting.

Newm ark, W.D., J.I. Boshe, H.I. Sariko, and G.K. Makum bule.

1996 . Effects of a highway on large mamm als in Mikumi

National Park, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology , 34(1):

15-31.

Noss, R. August 1996. The Ecological Effects of Roads, Road -

Rippers Handbook, ROAD-RIP, Missoula, MT.

Noss, R.F., Quigley, H.B. Hornocker, M.G., Merrill, T. and P.C.

Paquet . 1996. Conse rvation biology and carnivore

conservation in the Rocky Mountains. ConservationBiology 10(4): 949-963.

Rodriguez, A., G. Crema and M. Delibes . 1996. Use of non -

wildlife passages across a high speed railway by terrestr ial

vertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1527-1540.

Rogers, L.L. 1987. Effects of food supp ly and kinship of social

behavior, movements and population growth of black

bears in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs

97. 73 pp.

Ruediger, Bill. 1996. The relationship between rare ca rnivores

and highways. In: Trend s in Address ing Transpor tat ion

Related Wildlife Mortality, proceedings from the

Tran spor tation Related Wildlife Morta lity Seminar, edited

by G. Evink, D. Ziegler, P. Garre tt an d J. Berry. Florida

DOT, Tallahassee, FL. Pp. 24-38 .Sage, R.W., W.C. Tierson , G.F. Mattfield, and D.F. Behre nd .

1983 . White-tailed de er visibility and behavior along

forest roads. Journal of Wildlife Management47: 940-962.

Smith, D.J., L.D. Harr is and F.J. Mazzotti. 1996. A landscape

approach to examining the impacts of roads on the

ecological function associated with wildlife movem ent and

movem ent corridors: problems and solutions. Florida

DOT Report FL-ER-58-96, Tallahassee, Florida . Pp. 301 -

315.

Sovada, M.A., C.C. Roy and R.O. Woodward. 1998. Swift fox

mortality in grassland and cropland landscapes of western

Kansas. Unpublished report presented at Swift Fox

Symposium, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road den sities and wolf

habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland

Naturalist113: 404-407.

Timm erm an, H.R. and R. Gollath. 1982 . Age and sex structure

of harvested m oose related to season m anipulation and

access. Alces 18: 301-328.

Van Dyke, F.B., R.H. Brocke. H.G. Shaw., B.B. Acke rm an ., T.P.

Hemker and F.G. Lindzey. 1986. Reactions of mountain

lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife

Managment50: 95-102.

References continued from page 9

Finding Opport unit iesOhio Forestry Association is a setback to th ose wh o wo uld

like to challenge Mana gemen t Plan provisions regarding

timber h arvests pursua nt to NFMA. Neverthe less, the decision

also has important language suggesting that portions of theseplans involving road bu ilding still may be sub ject to judicial

review. When the Club was before the Suprem e Cour t, itargued that the Plan also would hu rt the Club in m any other

ways, such as opening trails to mo torcycles. The

Court responded th at this argumen t, contesting the Plansfailure to close roads or to p rovide for th e bu ilding of trails,

had n ot been raised in the lower courts. If the Club hadpreviously raised these other kinds of harm, the ripeness

analysis would be significantly different. The Solicitor

Gener al stated tha t if the Clubs claim was that the Planwas allowing mo torcycles into a bird-watching area, that

claim wou ld be imm ediately justiciable. However, as theseclaims were not raised in the lower courts, the Supreme Court

would not consider them .In order to avoid dismissal of a challenge to a Manage-

men t Plan on ripeness grounds, it must be clear how the Plan

causes imm inent injury. Ohio Forestry Association suggeststhat Management Plans that open a particular area to off-road

vehicles still are subject to legal challenge. In addition, when

activists subm it com men ts to the Forest Service on a draftManagem ent Plan, the activists shou ld clearly point ou t how

the dr afts provisions regarding off-road vehicle trail or r oadconstru ction will cause imm inen t, concrete injuries. It is well

known th at roads adversely affect wildlife and reduce th e

value of hiking areas, but activists shou ld clearly discuss theseinjuries and, if possible, include studies or data tha t

support the discussion.

Sidney Maddock is a lawy er for t he Biodiversity Legal

Foundation, and also serves on the Wildlands CPR Board of

Directors. When hes not f ighting bad land m anagement

projects, he spends his tim e wind sur fing off the coast of North

Carolina.

Caspers Park, California. Photo by Mark A lan Wilson.


12/16


It seems no matter what th e ForestService does, some one is always

mad at them . While conser vation-

ists successfully ch allenge th e agency toreduce timber sales on our National

Forests, we are also helping create aman agement vacuum within the Agency.

Congress, the recreation indu stry and

the tim ber ind ustry are all working to fillthis vacuum while environm entalists sit

on the sidelines. The recent threat fromconser vative Republicans (including

Murkowski, Chenowith and Craig) to

turn the agency over to custodialman agement is a great example. The

threat of custodial management issimply an effort to force the Agency to

get the cut ou t, but it also plays right

into the h ands of those who want toprivatize an d comm ercialize the

National Fores ts. Similarly, the recre-ation industry is working to create the

type of relationship w ith the Forest

Service that the timber industry hasenjoyed for so many years. No one,

however, is offering an ecologically

soun d alternative for filling this void:wildland restoration.

Managers need a reason to man age.1

With recreation generating nearly

thirty times the revenue as timber from

our National Forests, it is on ly natu ral

for the Forest Service to embrace it (seeThe RIPorterV2 #6). The Forest Service

can justify their existence by calling the

Amer ican public custom ers, discussingways to improve customer service, and

selling the ir produ ct: indu strial recre-

ation within the bound aries of theNational Fores ts. And while all recre-

ation n eeds some man agement, bigrecreation needs the biggest manage-

men t. And big recreation br ings in big

bucks. In 1997, for example, the ForestService spen t approxima tely $2.5

million on Challenge Cost-ShareAgreemen ts (public/private par tnersh ips)

with recreation industries and organiza-

tions. In return, these organizationscontr ibuted $6.2 m illion in ben efits to

the Forest Service, and these pu blic/private partnerships are on the rise.

Chief Dom beck is orchestrating a

man agerial shift from industrial re-source extraction to indu strial recre-

ation. Now is the time to head off thisshift and offer an environm ental vision

for th e Forest Service that pu ts the

ecological needs of the land, an dspecifically wildland re storation, at th e

heart of continued forest man agement.

If environm ental activists do n otweigh in on this issue now, we mu st

prepare for the hard times we will faceworking to protect public lands from th e

ecological degradation caused byrecreation. Whileit may seem

difficult tochallenge logging

and mining, it is

considerablyeasier than

challengingrecreation. Only a

small part of the

pub lic iden tifieswith those

employed in

resource extrac-tion, and an even

smaller portionidentifies with th e

multinationalcompan ies that

profit from

resource extrac-tion. Recreation, on the other han d,

is something all Americans do, andsomething we might misinterpret as

Increased recreation poses a different type of environmental threat.

Photo by Sidney Maddock.

ben ign. After all, wha ts the prob lemwith hiking, fishing and h un ting? While

all recreation causes impacts, motorized

recreational impacts are severe. TheForest Service is using increased

recreation to justify more roa ds, mo reparking lots and more motorized access

to public lands. In addition, motorized

recreation brings the largest revenuesfor gateway comm un ities. It is only

natu ral for th e Forest Service to em ph a-size the form of recreation that w ill

generate the most revenue, either

through fees or through increased cost-share agreemen ts with industry. But it

will be n early impossible to run acamp aign against recreation. Stop

Lawless Recreation just does not have

the same ring to it as Stop LawlessLogging. Silence is deadly in this

instance. The Forest Service and ChiefDombeck n eed to know that we want

our Forests man aged for their ecological

values first and forem ost.The National Forest System was

created to ensure the American people

would have healthy and plentiful forests,clean wa ter, clean a ir and wildlife. It is

time for the Forest Service to embody avision of restoring land d egraded by

industrial logging, mining an d grazingfor the last centu ry. Wildland restora-tion through road removal provides

high-skill, high-paying jobs an d reh abili-tates hab itat for the salm on, grizzly and

wolf. The Forest Service has been

known as the largest road building entityin the United States, probably even the

world, for long enough. Let them nowbecome kn own for their expertise in

land and watershed restoration, not as

a recreation machine. We need a longterm approach to man aging our

National Forests one wh ich protects

the wildlife and water resou rces theNational Forests p rovide, a vision wh ich

allows the Forest Service to employpeople restoring degraded land rather

than degrading productive land.

1 While some conservationists may

argue that we need no management on our

National Forests, it is un likely the Forest

Service will cease to exist. It is therefore

critical that en vironmen talists weigh in as the

agency redefines itself.

What Will Fill Forest Service Vacuum? by Bethanie W alder


13/16


The North Carolina Depar tmen t of

Transportation (DOT) is proposing

to widen US 64, the main access fromthe west to the Outer Banks, a group of

barrier islands. Citing pro jected in-creases in traffic, DOT propo ses widen -

ing the road from two to four lanesbetween Plymouth and Columb ia, NC.

While DOT justifies the wider road

with references to increased tourism andits econom ic benefit, their draft

environm ental impact statem ent (DEIS)

comp letely fails to address the pro jectsindirect and cum ulative impacts.

Increased traffic will have signifi-cant adverse impacts on th e sensitive

coastal ecosystem. In one county alone,

the Natural Heritage Program lists five

sites of nation al significance, and the

Pea Island Nationa l Wildlife Refuge

(NWR), Currituck NWR and CapeHatteras National Seashore (CHNS) also

are foun d on these islands. In additionto ESA-listed sea tur tles, over 3 50 spe cies

of birds u tilize th e CHNS, including th eESA-listed pipin g plover an d th e statelisted gull-billed tern and roseate tern .

Widening the ro ad will increasedevelopment in rare maritime forest

areas, and impact rou ghly 100 acres of

wetlands. Increased powerboat and jetski use will impact sensitive rooker ies

and other important wildlife habitat.Finally, DOT plans to expand the

road through the Alligator River NWR,

where a non -essential population of red

wolves lives. The cur re nt DEIS, however,

doesnt address the impacts of these

two, connected actions.

Ask th e U.S. Arm y Corp s of Engi-neers to den y DOTs request for a p erm it

to fill the wetlands for th e road project.Addr ess c om me nts to: Mr. Michae l F.

Bell, Wash ington Regulatory Field Office,

U.S. Arm y Corps of Enginee rs, PostOffice Box 1000, Washington , NC 27889,

by August 15, 19 98. For more informa-tion, contact Sidney Maddock,

Biodiversity Legal Foun dation (252) 995-

3312.

Outer Banks Road Widening

Cedar-Hemlock forest types are extremely rare in the

ecosystem surroun ding Glacier National Park. Photo by Jim

Coefield.

Pave Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot?

Wildlands CPR joined Hells Canyon Preservation Coun cil,

Native Fish Society and Northwest Environm ental Defense

Center in a r ecent lawsuit to challenge the reco nstru ctionof the Gumboot Creek road in Hells Canyon National Recre-

ation Area. The lawsuit challenged the Federal HighwayAdm inistration and the Forest Service for u sing a categorical

exclusion to r econstr uct a road w ith ERFO (Emer gency Relief

for Federally Owned) road s funding. (see The RIPort erV # )

Gumb oot Creek provides habitat for Chinook Salmon and

Steelhead trou t, both of which are listed as threatened under

the Enda ngered Species Act. Unfortunately, the court uph eldthe agencys decision, but because that decision was unpu b-

lished, the court ruling has no precedent and should notpre clude future ERFO project challenges. While the plaintiffs

decided n ot to app eal the ru ling, we will continue to look for

ways to challenge environm entally dam aging ERFO projects.

Gumboot Creek Lawsuit

Regional Reports

Wildlands CPR and The Coalition for Canyon Preservation h ave won

a Tem porar y Restrainin g Order (TRO) preven ting Glacier National Park

(in Montana ) from expand ing the Avalanch e Creek par king lot andhistoric picnic area. Both group s are challenging the parks find ing that

a 71-space par king lot will have no significant impa ct on an o ld-growthcedar forest at the site. A hea ring for a pr eliminary injunction was

schedu led for July 13, wh ile this issue of th eRIPorterwas being printed.Glacier National Park released a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) that called for cutting 42 tre es. When the co ntract was co m-

pleted, however, it called for cutting over 9 0 trees, more than doub le theamo un t analyzed in the Environm ental Analysis. In addition to appro v-

ing an action th at is significantly differen t than the ch osen alternative,the Park Service ignored several other substan tive comm ents du ring the

process. The chose n altern ative will significantly alter the rare o ld

growth cedar h abitat in the area, with mitigation ex pected to occurwithin 4-500 years wh en th e early successional trees in th e area finally

mature into old growth.

-


14/16


Ask Dr. Roads

Send questions to:

Ask Dr. Roads, c/o Wildlands CPR

PO Box 7516/Missou la, MT 59807

or [email protected]

New Resources forRoad-Rippers

Join Wildlands CPRToday!

Mem bersh ip benefits both you and Wildlands CPR. You lend

your support to our efforts, giving us more leverage in submit-

ting comm ents, filing lawsuits, and crea ting pressure to preven t

and close roads on p ublic lands. In addition, your finan cial sup-port h elps us continue p roviding information and resources to

activists throughou t North America.

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

these resources, because you ll receive:

f Our bimonthly newsletter, The Road-RIPorter.

f 10 free bibliography search es per year.

f National support for your camp aign through ou r n ewsletter

and alerts.

f Access to activist tools an d pu blic education ma terials.

f

Connections with groups working on similar issues, and n et-works with expe rienced road-fighting activists, lawyers an d

scientists.

f Discoun ts on Wildlands CPR publications.

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads an d Friends o f

the Earth ann oun ce the publication of Trails of Destruc-

tion, a report that expo ses a fast-growing threat to our

public lands: off-road vehicles. Beginn ing with a con cise

explan ation o f the e cological im pacts of ORVs, Trails

of Destruction also explains federal fun ding mechan isms

for ORV developmen ts and how motorized recreationists

have gained access to once no n-moto rized pu blic lands.

This 30 page report is a primer on current ORV issues and astarter for activists intereste d in cha llenging ORVs. It

also includes policy recomme ndations that might begin to

remedy some of the problems caused by ORV develop-

me nts. Wildlan ds CPR is also working on a new guide/

toolbox focused on grassroots an d legal action you can use

to challenge mot orized recreation in wildland ecosystem s.

Dear Dr. Roa ds,I live in a coastal community in Florida. To get

to work, I drive around a 50,000 acre swamp thatis full of mosquitoes, snakes and panthers. The

swamp has only a few houses and a couple of lime

rock roads that have been washed out for years.

During the summer the swamp floods, and the road

has giant potholes that are two or three feet deep.

People who take this short cut always stall out

and get stuck. My town council thinks this would

be a good hurricane evacuation route, as it cuts the

driving distance to town in half. Should I take the

initiative and help their idea work by dumping sand

in the holes?

Back Phill, Sand County, FL

The mosquitoes, snakes and pan thers may be

able to survive a hu rricane, but why b uild an evacua-tion road through a swam p that floods every summ er

durin g hurr icane season ? This sounds like a ploy to

develop the area: pave a road an d peo ple will come,even to a ho t, buggy swamp . I can see th e advertise-

men ts now: Own your own piece of heaven bypur chasing water-front prop erty. These adds usu ally

forget to mention that the land is under a foot of

water most of the year, and the invertebrate popula-tion doe snt get prom inent billing either.

This situation illustr ates Dr. Road s Third Rule ofRoads: never re pair po t holes by filling th em w ith

sand or other m aterials deep pot holes do a greatjob of keeping the critters from getting ru n over byspeeding cars. Also, not getting involved will keep

you from having to pay a big fine for violating theClean Water Act when your sa nd fills mo re than the

road and en ds up in wetlands.

Dr. R oad s, PhD.


15/16


Wildlands CPR Publications: Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members) A comp rehen sive activist manu al that in cludes th e five 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 Hamm er. How-to proced ures for getting roads

closed an d revegetated, descriptions of en vironm ental laws, road den sity standards & Forest Service road p olicies.Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-members) By David Bah r & Aron Yarm o. Provides backgrou nd o n th e

National Park System and its use of road s, and outlines h ow activists can get involved in NPS planning.Road-Ripper 's Guide to t he BLM ($4, $7 non-members ) By Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and resour ce

laws, and detailed d iscussions for p articipating in BLM decision-m aking pr ocesses.Road-Ripper 's Guide t o Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem bers ) By Dan Wright. A com preh ensive guide to redu cing the use

and a buse o f ORVs on p ublic land s. Includes an ex tensive bibliography.Road-Rippers Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4, $7 non-members)By Scott Bagley. Provides tech nical inform ation on

road con struction an d removal, whe re and w hy roads fail, and h ow you can effectively assess road removal projects.

Bibliographic Services:Ecological Imp acts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database Updated Feb. 19 98 Edited by Reed Noss. Com piled by Dave Auger i,

Mike Eley, Steve Hum ph rey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacqu et & Susan Pierce. Contain s app rox. 6,000 c itation s includ ing scient ificliterature on erosion , fragmen tation, sedimen tation, p ollution , effects on w ildlife, aquatic and h ydrological effects, and oth er

informa tion on th e impacts of roads. Use the ecological literature to un derstand an d develop road den sity standard s, prioritiesfor road rem oval, and o ther road issues.

Database Searches We will search the Bibliograph y on the subjects that in terest you, an d pr ovide resu lts in IBM or Macintosh

format (specify software), or on pap er. We also have prepared a 1-disk Bibliograph ic Summ ary with results for comm onlyreque sted searche s. Finally, we offer th e full bibliography. However, you m ust h ave Pro-Cite or a com patible database pro-

gram in order to use it.Bibliography prices Sliding scale (all prices include shipping):

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

2) Non-pr ofits with bu dgets $100,000-$50 0,000/yr.3) Non-pr ofits with bud gets over $5 00,000//Universities

4) Government Agencies5) For-profits and othe rs

Full Bibliograph y: $45 (1) / $100 (2) / $20 0 (3) / $300 (4) / $1000 (5)

Summ ary (one d isk): $7 (1) / $10 (2) / $15 (3) / $25 (4) / $35 (5)Searches (add material costs of 15 cents/page, $3 minim um , and/or $3 p er disk):

$3 (1) / $5 (2) / $10 (3) / $15 (4) / $25 (5) (The first 10 search es/year a re free for mem ber s. )

WILDLA N DS CPR MEMBERSH IP/ORD ER FORM

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

Wildlands CPR PO Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807

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

Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

Please send me the following publications/resources:

Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:

Total of all items:

/

/

/

Phone/E-mail

Affiliation

Other

I want to join Wildlands CPR:

$30 standard

$50 business

$15 low-income

$100$250

Address

Name


16/16

Visions...

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAIDMISSOULA, MT 59801

PERMIT NO. 569

The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, non-chlorine bleached paper.

So mechanical man in t riumph seated

upon t he seat of his machine will be driven

mad from w ithin himself, and sight less.

DH Lawrence,

The Triumph of the Machine

Road-ripping in the Fremont Valley, Mojave desert, California. Photo courtesy of Sou thw est Center for Biological Diversity.

Wildlands Center forPreventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807

Documents

Road RIPorter 3.4