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 Great Grizzly Hike/Mimi Mather photo
Tourism and Public Lands, Undersecretary of Agriculture Jim
Lyons announced, “Recreation is going to be our business in
This shift actually began in the early eighties during the
the future. By the year 2000, recreation will amount for
Reagan Administration. On the one hand, Interior Secretary
$97.8 billion of the $130.7 billion generated by activities on
James Watt made a whirlwind effort to privatize public
national forests. Fish and wildlife (will) generate $12.9
resources. Meanwhile, Congress withheld maintenance
billion, minerals $10.1 billion, timber $3.5 billion and
funding to all federal land management agencies in what
grazing about $1 billion.”
seemed to be a deliberate attempt to support the
With recreation fueling the agency bureaucracy, forest
privatization agenda. Without adequate funding, the
activists may need to shift at least some of their attention
“maintenance crisis” we now face became inevitable. The
from timber to recreation, to keep in step with the Forest
“rescue” of a decaying public lands recreation system by
private/public joint ventures and partnerships then grew
equally inevitable.
If managed poorly...then a shift to Consider the following quote from the Chairman of the
‘Industrial Recreation’ is hardly an Senate Natural Resources Committee’s Frank Murkowski: “To
understand what is possible, we need only look to the Forest
improvement over the old Forest Service. In the first half of the 1980’s, budget cutbacks
Service ways. 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
Service’s changing focus. In this new paradigm, the Forest
1996, 70% of all camping in the Forests occurred at
Service emphasizes commercial and motor-sport based
concessioned campgrounds...” Congressionally-mandated
recreation. It will be particularly important to ensure that
budget cuts made this possible; Murkowski proudly points to
the USFS does not attempt to manage recreation in the
this achievement.
same manner they have managed timber.
Now consider another Murkowski quote: “If the Forest
Recreation, if managed well, is a far better use of our
Service policy won’t allow that, we’ll change the policy. If we
national forests than unsustainable timber production. If
have to cut off funds to get your attention, we’ll cut off the
managed poorly, or managed primarily as a cash generating
funds.” Senator Murkowski is now promoting a major,
tool, then a shift to “Industrial Recreation” is hardly an
industry-sponsored set of recreation initiatives.
improvement over the old Forest Service ways. Unfortu-
The shift to industrial recreation is well under way. The
nately, the USFS seems determined to commercialize,
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program that recently began
privatize and motorize recreational opportunities on federal
public lands. 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. Wildlands
Scott Silver, an activist in Bend, Oregon, has been following this transition C
Center for
closely for several years, paying special attention to the connections between the P
Preventing
recreation industry and the Forest Service. His cover story explores these connec- R
Roads
tions and raises concerns regarding not only the user fee program, but recreational
developments on the National Forests in general. P.O. Box 7516
Along with the cover story about recreation, this issue of the RIPorter includes a Missoula, MT 59807
thought-provoking essay by Stephanie Mills; legal notes about two significant ORV (406) 543-9551
cases in Washington, by Karl Forsgaard; and Willis Lambertson’s bibliography notes wildlandsCPR@wildrockies.org
that address the effects of roads on felines (and not just housecats!). www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR
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. Wildlands Center for Preventing
Roads is a national coalition of
grassroots groups and individuals
Renew Today! In this Issue working to reverse the severe
Red mark by your mailing label? ecological impacts of wildland roads.
BEWARE!! This is your last issue of The Chainsaws to Chassis, p. 1 We seek to protect native ecosystems
Scott Silver and biodiversity by recreating an
Road-RIPorter! We’d hate to see you turn interconnected network of roadless
to the Dark Side (ignorance may be bliss, Odes to Roads, p. 3 public wildlands.
but it also means you’re missing out) and Stephanie Mills
we know how important the bibliography, Director
legal and field notes, and other features Field Work, p. 5 Bethanie Walder
are for your work. So, don't miss an issue:
Development Director
please send in the survey and member- Bibliography Notes, p. 6 Tom Youngblood-Petersen
ship renewal form we sent you in October. Willis Lambertson
And if you didn't receive one, or you lost Office Assistant
it, don’t panic—just use the membership Regional Reports, pp. 8-9 Dana Jensen
form on page 11 to renew before the end Legal Notes, p. 10 Newsletter
of the year. Ahh, that’s better than bliss, Karl Forsgaard Dave Havlick
isn’t it?
Interns & Volunteers
Scott Bagley, Suzy Kitman
Thanks
Thanks to all of you who have already responded to our survey and membership Board of Directors
renewal letter. Your comments are critical to our work and help ensure that we Katie Alvord
provide you with the resources you need to fight roads. Mary Byrd Davis
We'd also like to thank the Brainerd Foundation for a generous grant for our Kraig Klungness
Sidney Maddock
work in the Pacific Northwest, and thanks to the Harder Foundation for a grant to Rod Mondt
bolster our ORV program. We’re also grateful to both Susanne Walder and Tim Cara Nelson
Hermach for donating computers in the last few months. We have a pretty eclectic Mary O'Brien
assortment of computers now, but we like to think of it as a form of technological Tom Skeele
diversity (we need to conjure diversity wherever we can here in Montana). Scott Stouder

Advisory Committee
New staff: Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,
Dave Foreman, Keith
Wildlands CPR welcomes Dana Jensen as our new office assistant. She has been Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
interning for the Alliance for the Wild Rockies’ forest watch program all summer and Marion Hourdequin, Lorin
apparently decided that enviro life is the life for her. She will be answering informa- Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert
tion requests, working the phonelines, and making sure our office runs like a Swiss McConnell, Stephanie Mills,
watch. We are justifiably thrilled to have her on board. Reed Noss, Michael Soulé,
Dan Stotter, Steve
Alex Brooks and Scott Bagley are working on our bibliographic database update. Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
We expect the entire bibliography will be updated and entered into our computer by Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
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 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997


Odes to Roads
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 encoun-
ter 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 rescind-
ing.
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 sensitiv-
ity 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
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-than-
human nature: the fateful shift from communion to
commodification. And it is not just the plants and animals that
are reduced by this change.
A. Jones
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 self-
infantilization 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 movie-
style 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 alterna-
tive 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, re-
minded 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 coali-
tion includes ski area associations, sporting equipment manu-
facturers, 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 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997
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 connec-
tions 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 ex-
panded 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 submit-
ting 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: ssilver@transport.com.
 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 poten-
tially in both states’ proposals.
Contact Scial (“shall”) or Jim Catlin at The Wildlands
Project at 801-328-3550 or e-mail scial@worldnet.att.net.
MONTANA: Yellowstone Bison
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.
P.O. Box 957
West Yellowstone, MT 59758
406-646-0070; buffalo@wildrockies.org
http://www.wildrockies.org/bison/
The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997
Southern Utah wildlands. WRFI photo.
De-Roaded, continued from page 3
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 orthope-
dics’ 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 some-
times 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 them-
selves 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, incanta-
tions, and vigils slew the metal hearted monsters, and who
with seedlings and hoedads did away with their spoor.
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.
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 popula-
tions (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 Depart-
ment of Fish, Wildlife & Parks documented forty-three lion
6 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997
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/Associ-
ated 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 develop-
ments 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 con-
sumes 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
Cooperrider 1994). Though felids use corridors and passage-
ways 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 construc-
tion 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 Depart-
ment of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration
Transportation-related Wildlife Mortality Seminar, April 30-
May 2, 1996, and Noss et al. 1996.
Bibliography
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 Transportation-
related Wildlife Mortality
Seminar, April 30-May 2,
1996. U.S. Department
of Transportation.
Federal Highway
The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997
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 30-
May 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.
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.
ry
a
Le
O’
h
et
ab
iz
El
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 alterna-
tive 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.
Minnesota’s BWCAW. Wildlands CPR photo.
8 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997
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, specifi-
cally 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 emer-
gency 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 impor-
tantly, 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.
Thanks to the National Parks and Conservation Association.
Contact NPCA at (202) 223-6722.
 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
peggy@seacc.org.

Thanks to Peggy Wilcox of SEACC.

Berners Bay, Alaska. SEACC photo.

ALASKA: Juneau to Skagway Excess WASHINGTON:

The Alaska Department of Transportation (DoT) recently Road Proposal Withdrawn!
released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a
Earlier this year, the Randle Ranger District on the Gifford
proposed road between Skagway and Juneau (RIPorter v2 #2).
Pinchot National Forest in southwest Washington proposed
The public now has until December 15, 1997, to register
building a four-wheel drive road through the Mineral Late-
comments on whether they prefer construction of a road up
Successional Reserve (LSR). LSRs are intended to protect and
East Lynn Canal, high-speed ferry service, or improved
enhance old-growth forests and their associated species. The
conventional ferry service.
proposal called for building 5.0 miles of new road, reconstruct-
The DoT is planning to choose an alternative from the
ing 7.4 miles of existing road (including 6.9 miles for off-road
DEIS based on the preference expressed through the public
vehicles with a wheel base of greater than 100", and 0.5 miles
comments, so your letters opposing the road are especially
for ORVs with 100" or less wheel base), and decommissioning
important.
3.2 miles of road.
The anticipated construction cost is $232.2 million for the
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and others responded by
65-mile Lynn Canal road which would cross five major rivers,
pointing out that the proposal failed to meet the biological
the Berners Bay roadless area, 58 avalanche chutes, and run
objectives for these Reserves. For example, a Late-Succes-
adjacent to Steller sea lion critical habitat.
sional Reserve Assessment had not been prepared (this
The proposed road route lies close to the water’s edge, and
document assesses LSR conditions and is intended to provide
crosses many avalanche chutes perpendicularly, leading the
information for the design of projects in the LSR). In addition,
avalanche technical report to conclude, “Therefore avalanches
the proposal did not demonstrate that the project is “neutral or
could push a vehicle into the water at most sites” (p.25).
beneficial” to late-successional and old-growth habitat and
According to an informal non-scientific Southeast Alaska
associated species (the primary objective for LSRs), demon-
Conservation Coalition (SEACC) survey, being pushed into the
strate that “benefits” of road construction outweigh “costs”, or
water by an avalanche while driving to Skagway is an unac-
evaluate numerous impacts of road development in the LSR
ceptable health risk.
(including increased risk of poaching, introduction of invasive
While the proposed road project is ludicrously expensive,
species, harassment of wildlife, and accidental fires). The
environmentally disastrous, and poorly conceived, the DEIS
proposal also did not show how the project would “maintain
also includes a disclaimer from the Environmental Protection
and restore” aquatic conditions (mainly peak flows and
Agency stating they believe the project analysis is slanted to
sediment regimes); or protect sensitive species, Riparian
“heavily bias alternative selection in favor of the highway
Reserves around wetlands less than one acre, and unstable and
alternative.” If correct, this claim would render the DEIS illegal
potentially unstable areas.
under the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Recently, the District withdrew its proposal—agreeing that
Whether or not the DEIS is illegal, there is another option
building roads and driving four-wheel drive trucks through
to building a road: the alternative form of transportation which
areas reserved for old-growth species is neither beneficial or
has served Southeast Alaska’s island communities from Dutch
neutral to these lands. In a rare acknowledgement, they stated
Harbor to Ketchikan since its inception in the early 1960’s—
that the noise, disturbance, and “garbage and other trash”
the ferries of the Alaska Marine Highway System.
associated with concentrated, motorized activity would attract
According to the DEIS, “Mainline ferry service between
nest predators and harass spotted owls and marbled murrelets.
Juneau and Haines/Skagway would end upon completion” of
the Juneau Access highway, except in the case of avalanches
Thanks to Dave Werntz, Staff Ecologist for NWEA.
closing the road for a period of days, which would prompt DoT

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997 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 perma-
nent 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 construc-
tion 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 demon-
strates 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.
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 Conser-
vation Council—intervened in the lawsuit to support the
Forest Service’s decision. The government appeared likely to
10
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. 8-
10). 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
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 signifi-
cant 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 “cat-
egorical exclusion” in the presence of “extraordinary circum-
stances,” 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
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:
karlforsgaard@juno.com.
Join Wildlands CPR Today!
____$30 Standard Name:__________________________________________________
____$15 Low Income
____$50 Friend
____$200 Supporter Organization:____________________________________________
____$500 Sponsor
____Other: $____________ Address:________________________________________________
____$15 ($25 non-members)
Handbook (includes all 4 guides)
City/State/Zip:___________________________________________
____$4/Guide ($7 non-members)
- circle your choices BLM, ORV, NF, NP Phone/Fax/e-mail:________________________________________
____Total enclosed $______________ ________________________________________________________
The Road-RIPorter November/December 1997
Join Wildlands CPR Today!
Membership benefits both you and Wildlands CPR. You
lend your support to our efforts, giving us more leverage in sub-
mitting comments, filing lawsuits, and creating pressure to pre-
vent and close roads on public lands. In addition, your financial
support helps us to continue providing information and re-
sources 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 net-
works 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, Gather-
ing Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and
more!
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-mem-
bers) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmen-
tal laws, road density standards & Forest Service road poli-
cies.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-mem-
bers) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background
on the National Park System and its use of roads, and out-
lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning.
Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem-
bers) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reducing
the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an ex-
tensive 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.
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.