road riporter 3.3

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 3.3

1/16

The Road-RIPorter May/June 1998 1

IThe Road-R PorterBimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. May/June 1998. Volume 3 # 3

Like many o f the wild and scenic places once foundin the co ntinen tal United States, the incessant

deman d to construct an infrastructure of roadways

threaten s Alaska.Alaska, un like most states, has an abun dan ce of

biodiversity and rem ote wilderness areas untouched by

hu man developmen t. In fact, the United States has on lytwo wilderness area s outside of Alaska where on e can

venture further than ten miles from a road. From thetemp erate rainforest of th e Ton gass National Forest to th e

arctic tun dra su rro un ding th e Dalton Highway, Alaskas

ecosystems are threaten ed by road -building. The ecologicalimpacts associated with road construction and increased

access will accumulate long into the future. Some disguisethese impacts with noble ideas of progress, employment, or

impr oving com mu nity he alth an d safety, but to Alaskas

wildlife and wilderness they m ean n o m ore than ultimatedemise.

Alaska Under Siege

Each year Congress fun nels several hund red million

taxpayer do llars into Alaska for the p urp ose of constru ctingand u pgrading roads. These roads may be constructed in

nation al parks, n ational forests, national wildlife refuges,roadless areas, wildern ess areas, and d esignated criticalhab itat areas. Per cap ita, Alaska receives more federal

assistance for road building than an y other state. This yearAlaska will receive over $ 300 million in federal a ssistance

for transp ortation projects, roughly $100 m illion m ore than

an average year. Current con gressiona l legislation wouldexten d this allocation for six years, encoura ging the waste of

tax dollars to build ne w roads to n owh ere. The five roadshighlighted below illustrate the enormity of the problem.

Whit t ier RoadWhile the rest of the country realizes the importance of

mass tran sit, Alaska remains in th e Dark Ages, rou tinelydismantling h igh occupancy pu blic transpo rtation and

replacing it with roads. Last year construction began on th eWhittier Road, effectively en ding pa ssenger rail service to

western Prin ce William Sound. For several years conser va-

tion group s have fought this road, which will bring upwa rdsof 1.4 m illion visitors to th e soun d by 2015 (seeRIPorters

V1#3 an d V2#4). The road will increase tox ic and n oisepollution, recreationa l boat traffic (by 600% ), and sub se-

quent pr essure on the surroun ding terrestrial and m arine

ecosystems.

Last fall, environm ental group s filed a p etition with theU.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting them torecon sider their earlier decision to lift an injunction h alting

road construction. That petition was denied, and the groups

app ealed to th e U.S. Supre me Cour t. However, it is unlikelythat this app eal will be h eard, and road construction

continu ed throu gh the winter. Chan ces to stop it are slim.

Roads to Nowhere Imperil Alaskas Wildness by Anthon y Crupi

continued on page 4

Petroleum insanity

Manipulate reality

If its got a right to be

It s got to have ut ility.

Alaska Highway Song,

Velcro Sheep

Looking South on t he Dalton Highway. Paving this road and increasing

visitor serv ices will bring unprecedented impacts to the ecological values

of the Arctic. Photo by Douglas Yates.


2/16

The Road-RIPorter May/June 19982

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

Wildlands Center for PreventingRoads works t o protect 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 construction,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

Office Ass istantDana 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

In this Issue

Spring wildflowers are bloom ing all over the place, as are non -native plants

along the road sides. Its a great remind er to get out of the office and into th e

field to mo nitor ro ad closures, find illegal roads an d travelways, and m on itorsum me r motorized recreationa l use. This issues Field Notes focuses on app rop riate

revegetation tech nique swe h ope it will give you som e additional expertise fordealing with revegetation, which is rarely adequately addre ssed by agency ro ad

rem oval (or ro ad m itigation) plans.

ThisRIPorterraises some little-discussed issues related to wildland roads a ndthe Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEApronounced ice tea).

Though we typically think of it as a highway bill, ISTEA authorizes over $1 billion forroad projects through federal lands.

Sum mertime seems to be the time of bad

road legislation, so we will keep youposted as things heat up. Thanks to all

the people who contributed articles forthis issue, and to ar tist extraordin aire

Aaron Jones for h is splendiferous

drawings for a few of our columnhea dings. We m iss you Aaron !

Finally, don t forget th e Fore stService is developing a long-term

tran sportation policy for all Nationa l

Forest lan ds. DePaving t he Wayaddresses some of our con cerns about

this and points out th at the long-termtran sportation policy is likely to be far

more significant than th e prop osed

roadless area moratorium.Questions or com men ts, drop us a

line an d let us know what you think!

ThanksIts been a fantastic two mon ths in

term s of finan cial supp ort. In addition to

those of you who have made personaldon ations, wed like to tha nk th e

following foun dations for their generou ssup port: Lazar, Weeden , Bullitt, Turne r

an d Kon gsgaard-Goldman . We also

received a small grant for techn icalassistance from the Environmental

Suppor t Center, and a gran t for assistingwith Cana dian ro ad issues from the Yellowstone to Yukon Conse rvation Initiative. Its

great to know that su ppo rt continu es to grow for fighting roads!

Wildlands CPR on the roadIn late April Scott Bagley an d Bethanie led a road r emoval worksho p at the

Western Washin gton Forest Conferen ce, on the Gifford Pinch ot Nationa l Forest ne ar

Randle, Washington . Sorryit all came together between RIPorters, so we were ntable to ann oun ce it. Thanks to th e Gifford Pincho t Task Force for inviting us. We

used the n ew road removal guide as the basis for the w orkshop, and would be h appy

to com e out an d lead a similar worksho p in you r neck of the wood s. Call us if youreinterested. Bethan ie also will be heading to western Canada to meet with interested

groups ab out fighting roads. Shell proba bly be there d uring July, so get in tou ch ifyoud like to set up a meetin g.

Roads t o Nowher e, p. 1, 4-5Anthony Crupi

DePaving t he Way, p. 3Bethanie Walder

Odes to Roads, p. 6-7

Steph en J. Lyon s

Bibliography Notes, p. 8-10

Louisa Willcox

Regional Repor ts, p. 11

Field Notes, p. 12Mark Van derMeer

Legislative Upd ate, p. 13

Ask Dr. Roads, p. 14

Dr. Roads, he knows m ore tha n you !

Wildlands CPR Resources, p. 15


3/16


Forest Service Chief Mike Dombecks pr oposa l to stop r oad building in roadless

areas is receiving widespre ad coverage in th e med iafrom en viron men taladvocates and from the indu stries opposed to the idea. In the midst of this

attention , a separate, but m ore significant, policy prop osal to recreate fundam entallythe tran sportation policy of the US Forest Service ha s received barely a men tion.

While the morator ium wou ld tempo rarily protect road less areas, ChiefDombecks prop osal to chan ge the transpo rtation pro gram on the Nationa l Forests

will have a per man ent imp act on all roads on a ll National Forest lands. Never before

has the agency truly considered wh ether it might be inapp ropriate to build roads incertain places. While the industry opp oses the moratorium , environ men talists

end orse it and ask for it to be strength ened . This fuss over roadless areas, however, iscreating a sm oke screen for th e Forest Services ne w long-term transp ortation p olicy.

According to the Federal Register ann oun cemen t of the Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulema king, (u)ntil new and improved an alytical tools can be d evelopedand im pleme nted to evaluate the positive benefits and ad verse imp acts of roads, the

adoption of an interim rule to tempo rarily suspend road con struction or reconstruc-tion w ithin Nation al Forest System ro adless areas is viewed as cr itical to pr eserve

land and resource man agement options.

To th is end, th e Forest Service recen tly pub lished a draft rep ort Forest ServiceRoads : A Synth esis of Scientific Inform ation (1-9-98). The first half of this report

focuses on the econom ic benefits of roads, with n o discussion of the econo micdrawbacks. The second h alf focuses on th e ecological imp acts of roads, with no

discussion of th e ecological benefits.

The absen ce of data on th e ecological benefits of roads is understan dable giventhere are few, if any, actual ecological bene fits, while thou sand s of scientific, peer-

reviewed studies explain th e negative impacts. But the ab sence of info on th eeconomic drawbacks is inexcusable, especially considering how much money road

failures cost taxpayers through continued

construction an d maintenan ce, emer-

gency fund ing for repairs, and clean-upof degraded w ater su pp lies. As the basisfor developing their n ew policy, the

Forest Service ha s set up a system in

which they comp are economic benefits(app les) with ecological imp acts (or-

anges). And if they prefer app les, theoran ges just wont matter.

The long-term p olicy has four

prim ary ob jectives according to ForestService Chief Domb eck: First, more

carefully consider decisions to build newroads. Second, elimin ate old un need ed

roads. Third, upgrad e and main tain

roads that are important to public access.Fourth, develop n ew and d ependable

funding for forest road m anagement.Lets con sider th e four th objective -

new an d depend able funding for road

man agemen t. One of Dom becks ideasfor fund ing is to transfer certain forest

roads in to the Forest Highways programso that the y qualify for funding throu gh

the Highway Trust Fund . Forest high-

ways are typically fun ded by th e Federal

Highw ay Adm inistration . But fore st

highways are constructed, reconstructedand maintained to different standards

than regular forest roads. Additionalnon-Forest Service funding mechanisms

are explained on page 11.Some small, dirt forest roadslike

the Loop road in Wyom inghave

proposals through th e forest highwaysprogram to reconstruct and pave them.

If successful, the Loop Road will becomea wide asphalt slab meandering throu gh

the mountains, tight curves straightened

out, wide rights-of-way and m uch fastertravel. Dombecks prop osed po licy shift

is about money, not about p roperman agement of the forest roads system.

The Forest Service said they will

develop criteria for determ ining whereand wh en to b uild an d rem ove roads. An

effective long-term p olicy should:continue to protect roadless areas;

develop e cologically-based criteria for

road con struction an d rem oval; utilizeground-based data on the impacts of

existing roads to determine road

man agement; and acknowledge thatsome places are sim ply too fragile for

road construction and its associated

resource extraction. The new regula-tions shou ld be about roads and

ecological systems, no t po litics as usu al.If the lon g-term policy is abou t the

real decision making, then why all thefuss over the proposed roadless area

mo ratorium ? Roadless areas are sexy.

People care about ro adless areas, eitherbecause they wan t to protect or exploit

them. But people are not quite asinterested in roads them selves. Roads

arent so sexy.

While a generou s thought, amo ratorium in roadless areas o ffers little

substantive change to business as usual.The long-term roads/transportation

policy, on th e other han d, may recreate

the forest landscape. It is the long-termpolicy that will imp act resource man age-

men t, transportation, and road con struc-tion, recon struction and obliteration. It

is the lon g-term policy that sh ould be

receiving all the atten tion. The real issueis the long-term ro ad policy, not the

roadless area m oratorium.

Smoke and Mirrors by Bethanie W alder

Camas Meadows, in the headwaters of the

Middle Fork Salmon River. Photo by Bruce

Garicke.


4/16


com men ts tallied, roughly 55% favor

improving the ferry system an d 45%

favor road construction . If form lettersand petitions are excluded, however,

76% are pro-ferry and 24% are pro-

road. It remains to be seen whether

ADoT will actually aba ndo n their roa d

proposal based on this input.

Paving the Dalton HighwayAlaskas wildlife also h as been

adversely affected by the op ening of the

Dalton h ighway (pipeline h aul road ) topub lic traffic in 1 992 (for ba ckground on

th is road, one of the Terr ible Twelve, see

RIPorters V2#1 and V3#1). Up until now,traffic has been limited by p oor gravel

road conditions and minimal servicefacilities, however, the future is predict-

able. More peo ple want to drive through

the Brooks Range to the Beaufort Sea, soADoT now prop oses

spending $15 millionfederal dollars to pave

the Dalton Highway an d

create service facilities

for arctic boun dtourists. How manyRVs north of the Arctic

Circle will it take to

reverse the earth smagn etic field? Num er-

ous groups are workingtogether to fight Dalton

developments.

Izem bek Road through

Designate d Wilder ness

AreaHundreds of m iles to th e southwest,

at the beginn ing of the Aleutian ch ain,

another road th reatens wild existence.

Congressiona l represen tatives DonYou ng (R-AK) an d Fran k Murkowski (R-

AK) have sp on sore d a bill, H.R. 2259, topave a 30 mile road through the

Izembe k Nationa l Wildlife Refuge,

including seven miles through adesignated wildern ess area. A com pan -

ion bill, S. 1092, has b een introdu ced inthe Senate. Two bush com mu nities,

King Cove an d Cold Bay, wou ld be

connected by the road un der the guise

of health and safety, though it isun likely this road w ill make travel anysafer, especially in the winter. Izem bek

Refuge is compr ised of vital lagoons an d

wetlands critical to several species ofmigratory birds. The worlds entire

pop ulation of Pacific black brant an demperor geese migrate through Izembek

and feed on its abun dan t forage. Several

other species including tundra swans,the threatened Stellers eider, wolf,

brown bear, and h arbor seal also depen dupon this region, and would be th reat-

ened b y the road. These bills would

waive existing environm ental laws andestablish a perm anent road within a

Congressiona lly de signated Wildern ess.

Juneau AccessThe Alaska Depar tmen t of Transp or-

tation (ADoT) has proposed blasting a

road to Alaskas capital throu gh th eCoast Mountain Range a nd the Tongass

National Forest (forbackground see

RIPorters V2#2 an dV2#6). Juneau is

presently accessed

by a reliable masstransit ferry system,

which ultimatelywould be sunk if the

road were ap proved.

Given th e are asrugged topograph y,

avalanche hazardsand abundance of

critical w ildlife

hab itat, studiessince the 1 920s

have concluded thata road to the capital

city is incon ceiv-

able. If built, the road often wo uld beclosed to winter travel because the

avalanche h azard index wo uld make itthe m ost dangerous road in the United

States. Despite logic and com mo n

sense, the current dr aft environm entalimpact statement is biased towards the

$232 million road alternative. It wou ldlargely be footed by federal funds.

Environmental impacts to the

Ton gass wou ld be astoun ding. Wildlifein the region is already limited by

topography, bound between Lynn Canalon th e west side and the steep, ice

covered m oun tains of the Coast Range to

the east. The road would intersectancien t forest an d crucial habitat for

several sp ecies including Stellar sealions, hum pback wh ales, bald eagles,

peregrine falcons, northern goshawks,

mo ose, brown bear, black bear, and th e

Alexander archipe lago wolf. Bisectingexisting wildlife corr idors and hab itatwith a road would further fragment and

imperil these populations. Humpback

wha les, Stellar sea lions a nd peregrinefalcons are protected und er the Endan-

gered Species Act.Early in the process, ADoT stated

that they would base th eir decision on

public comment. With over 3600

Alaskas Roads to Nowhere continued from page 1

The Elliot highway, Alaska. Photo by Douglas Yates.

continued on next page

The Izembeck bills would waive

existing environmental laws and

establish a permanent roadwithin a Congressionally

designated W ilderness.


5/16


Looking t owards Sukupak Mtn . as a tru ck carries oil along the Dalton

Highway. Photo by Douglas Yates.

Copper River DeltaThe Copper River Delta rema ins

vulnerab le to logging, mining, off-road

vehicle use, and other activities perm it-ted on national forest land. The m ost

immediate threat is posed by theChugach Alaska

Corp ora tion (CAC),which has

proposed to build

a road directlyacross the heart of

the Delta in or derto clearcut its in-

holdings 30 m iles

east of the Copp erRiver. CAC is a

for-pr ofit Nativecorporation

created pursu ant to th e Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act.The proposed road wou ld sever as

man y as 250 salmon streams that feedinto the Coppe r River, and degrade

thousands of acres of tidal marshes an d

other wetlands. A raised dirt and gravelroadway across the Delta and h undreds

of its tributaries would severely impairthe environmental and aesthetic values

of the area , and would likely be the

largest single wetlands developmen tpro ject in the na tion . Neverth eless, CAC

is currently negotiating with the ForestService for project app roval withou t the

full Environm ental Imp act Statemen t

usu ally required by law. Moreover, no tcontent with the p ace of the negotia-

tions, CAC has pe rsuade d Rep. DonYou ng (R-AK) to in troduc e a b ill, HR

308 7, to gran t CAC a 50 0-foot-wide

easem ent w ithin 90 d ays of the billspas sage. CAC ha s already ob taine d its

first Fish Habitat perm it from theAlaska Departm ent of Fish a nd Gam e,

allowing it to build a bridge over th e first

stream in the proposed road corridor

(which is on private land). They willneed an other 200-250 of these permits,but th ey are claiming that the p roject is

exempt from section 404 permits under

the Clean Water Act because of thatlaws silviculture and logging road

exemptions.

ConclusionThe th reats to Alaskas wildlife and

wildland s are frightening, and by n o

mean s are they subsiding. The cumula-tive imp acts of road bu ilding are

crippling to all species, and extend

throu ghou t an entire ecosystem . By

fragmen ting an d developing the expan -sive wilderness which allows wildlife to

thrive in Alaska, it will not be longbefore Alaskas b iological diversity is

also depleted. With the help of Wild-

lands CPR, several regions ou tside ofAlaska are in the process of restoring

disrupted ecosystems by closing andrevegetating roads which fragmen ted

impo rtant wildlife habitats and corri-

dors. To prevent the n ecessity ofwildland restoration in Alaska, irrespon-

sible road and access developmentsmu st be stopped. The idea of building

bridges to the twenty-first century must

not be taken t oo literally if we care toenvision any futu re for wildlife and

wilderness as it exists in Alaska today.

Anthony Crupi is an activist from

Haines, Alaska. Heserves on t he Board

of Directors of theAlaska Wildlife

Alliance,

coordinating

opposition topredator controland road access

development.

What You Can Do:

Write to Presiden t Clinton an dyour congressional representatives

asking them to limit fundin g for newroad construction in Alaska. Impacts

caused by roads pose one of the

largest th reats to Alaskas wildlife andwildlands. Senate Bill 3181 and

HR2400EAS will increase fun ding forroad constr uction in Alaska by n early

$1 billion over th e next six years. Ask

your legislators to am end these b ills toreduce th e total allocation an d restrict

the m oney from constructing newroads.

Izem bek National Wildlife Refugeneeds greater protection than either

H.R. 2259 o r S. 1092 pr ovide. Askyour representatives to oppose these

bills, disguised as th e King Cove

Health and Safety Act.

Write to Alaska govern or Tony

Knowles urging him to protectAlaskas wildland s an d wildlife from

continu ed road construction . He waselected for h is environm ental respon-

sibility and has since promoted the

construction of even the m ostdestru ctive roads. Write to him at:

Governor Ton y KnowlesPO Box 110001

Juneau, AK 99811-0001

fax # 907-465-35 32

-

The proposed Copper River Delta road

would sever as many as 250 salmon

streams t hat feed into the Copper River,

and degrade thousands of acres of t idal

marshes and other wetlands.


6/16


Blue falcons. Thats wh at Mitch

says weve been hear ing all

afternoon out on the beat-uplogging roads above the northern Idaho

town of Clarkia.They say th eyre ex tinct, but

theyre all over this cou ntry. I hear wh at

soun ds like a flicker, but then I see acontradictory flash of blue. Im n ot sure

what to believe.This country is a giant bowl of

clear-cuts, second growth, and soon-to-

be third growththe old growth cedarand wh ite pine replaced by nursery-

grown seedlings and a bo tanical stew ofnative plants an d exotic forest invaders,

like meadow an d oran ge hawkweed, a

species that can produce 3,200 plantsper sq uare yard. Messy doesn t begin to

describe th is land o f multiple use. Thisis Idah o, where in just a decad e the state

has lost on e million acres of road less

land, or 11.4 acres per h our.At sixty-eight, Mitch sh ou ld by all

rights be dead from all the dangerouswoods w ork h es don e. Or at least

retiredand I guess h e isfrom logging,

road bu ilding, and all othe r forms of

body-breaking labor that are comm onup h ere in th e Idaho mou ntains. Skinnyas a sn ow po le, Mitch d oesnt have a

tooth in his mouth . Breathes from an

inhaler. Has colitis, a congestive heartcondition, twenty percent heart effi-

ciency, which alm ost led to h is deaththis past spring when he got pneum o-

nia. Mitch h as worked in the wood s all

of his life, except for a stint in th eMerchan t Marines an d four years in the

Korean War after lying abo ut h is agefifteen at the tim e.

This trip was Mitchs ideaa

birthday p resen t to my w ife Janto

show her how the roads

connect up here and how

this country was opened u pthrough the efforts of men

like Mitch. Under th e tru ckseat, I can feel all kinds of

stuff rolling underneath my

butt every time he hits oneof those forest service-dug

kelly h um ps: pu t in, Mitchcom plains, to keep the

pub lic out. This comp laint

leads to a lecture on thedifferent philosophies of

two Forest Service DistrictRangers: the Ranger in th e

St. Joe Nation al Fores t keep s

the roads maintainedbecause he wan ts people to

enjoy the forest; the Rangerin th e Clearwater National

Forest is a me an so -and-so

who wants to keep the taxpayers downbelow on th e paved roads. For som e

un justifiable reason, I have com pletefaith in Mitch s ability to n avigate u s

safely through th is maze of new an d

abandon ed skid roads. Maybe because

hes so well prepared . Jacks, therm oses,com e-alongs, chains, rop es, a shovel, acooler, spare bu llets, stand ard an d

metr ic wrench es. All jostle aroun d in

the bed of thepick-up.

Story-tellingkeeps Mitch s

mind in motion,

and drivingaround this

country ensuresthat his emotions

stay sharp. When

it com es to discussing the Forest Service,those emotions tend to erupt. I was

riding my three-wheeler down a roadjust the other day when here comes a

Forest Service truck. This ranger, a

youn g guy, said, Cant you read? I saidyes. Then why are you driving on this

road? I said, Because my taxes helpedpay for th is gravel and Im just using up

my sh are. He said, Don t get sm art w ith

me. Ill have you arrested. And what

gives you the auth ority to drive on this

road? I reach down a nd pu ll out my

.357 an d an swer, This gives me theauth ority. Well the guy drives off real

fast and I figure the sh eriff is going to bewaiting for me at my h ouse when I get

back to tow n. But he isnt. Three d ayslater Mitch is on the sam e closed roadand he m eets the same guy in the truck.

This time h e didnt even slow down orlook at m e.

I brought a Clearwater National

Forest an d Palouse Ranger District of th eSt. Joe National Forest map to keep up

with Mitch, but one h our into the trip wehave driven off the m ap. The map is

confusing an yway, with thirteen colors,

many in earth shades o f red and clayand b rown. Each color represents a land

owne r. One color will run into ano ther,and sometimes a square-mile square will

have three or four colors com peting for

ownership.Five of the owners on th is map are

timber compan ies: Cham pion Interna-tiona l, SAW Forest Products, Potlatch

Corpo ration, Plum Creek Timber Co.,

Inc., and Ben ne tt Tree Farms Inc. Evenwhen th e dominant color of the squares

is dark greensignifying LandsAdm inistered by Clearwater National

Odes to Roads

Driving the Checkerboard with Mitch by Stephen J. Lyons

Checkerboard forest clearcut by Plum Creek Timber Company,

Colville National Forest in northeastern Washington. Photo

courtesy of The Lands Council c 1995.

This is Idaho, where in just a decade thestat e has lost one million acres of

roadless land, or 11.4 acres per hour.


7/16


Foresta p atchwork of Plum Creek

Timb er Co. Inc., pink, intrude s.

The reason for the ch eckerboardpattern of this map is the 1864 Northern

Pacific Railroad Land Grantperhapsthe one d ocumen t most responsible for

the presence of pr ivate timber com pany

holdings in our p ublic land s. In th e1995 bookRailroads and Clearcuts* by

Derrick Jensen and George Draffan, th eauth ors write, In 186 4, during the

Civil War, the United States Con gress

created the North ern Pacific RailroadComp any an d emp owered it to

constru ct a rail line from Lake Supe-rior to Pu get Soun d. To aid in the

construction and m aintenance of the

railroad, Congress cond itiona llygranted Norther n Pacific nearly 40

million acres of land. At the time, thiswas 2 percen t of the en tire forty-eight

states, almo st the equ ivalent in area o fpresen t-day Washington State.

As we drive along, Mitch seems

confused by all the new ro ads that hesays werent here a few weeks ago. I

look down at my useless map an d notice

it was created in 1986, an d revised in1992 , five yea rs ago. Those five years

add up to miles and miles of new roads,dozens of road closures, power line

rights-of-way, and lan d exchan ges

redistributing the colors aroun d like

pieces on a Monopo ly game bo ard. Youhave to come ou t here every couple of

mon ths because everything changes all

the time, is how Mitch p uts it.Little won der Mitch is con fused.

The Clearwater Nation al Forest h as

4,558 m iles of roads within its borders.

To the n orth , in th e Idah o Panh and le

National Forest, are 8,312 m iles of ro ads,or ten miles of roads for every squ are

mile of land , the highest den sity ofroads of a ny National Forest. If on e

factored in jamm er roa ds,

unm aintained skid roads bu ilt in th e

1950 s and 19 60s, the original figuresmight dou ble. More than 4 40,000 m ilesof roads jigsaw thr ough ou r pub lic

forests, or roughly ten times th e entireU.S. Interstate syste m. You cou ld dr ive

the qu arter of a million m iles to the

mo on an d still have plenty of road leftover.

With a wetter than n ormal 1995-96winter, the ro ads, which rem ove soil-

holding vegetation and open the area to

logging, have taken a toll on th e steepland scap e. A Fore st

Service stu dy

released in the fallof 1998 revealed

that 58 percent ofthe 9 05 landslides

recorded in theClearwater were a

result of logging

roads, and an other12 percent w ere

attributed tologging activity.

Half of the 40 0,000

cubic yards of mudand debris from

the landslidesended up in

streams an d rivers.

We end ou reight-hour day of

driving in Fernwood. Over coffee, I tellMitch th at I once d rove all the way to

Montan a without h itting pavem ent. He

laughs. Heck, I can drive to Canadawithou t touching pavem ent. Have to

cross a couple of highways though .

Did You Know...

According to the Forest Service

Handboo k (FSH 190 9.12 , S 7.11) aroadless area s is literally an area

without any improved roads main-tained for travel by standard p assen-ger typ e veh icles.

This is significant since user-created roads would n ot disqualify

an area from roadless consideration

un der this definition. This definitionwas developed a s part of the

Roadles s Area Review and EvaluationII (RARE II) survey. The RARE I

survey included many two-tracks and

user created travelways as roads an dthus eliminated areas from consider-

ation a s roadless. The RARE II

criteria specifically includes the wordconstru cted and imp roved in its

definition of travelways tha t wouldcount as roads and th us disqualify an

area from roadless consideration.

Thanks to t he Wild Utah Forest

Campaign for sending us a report thatincluded this information.

Then he tells me h ow he wou ld do it.

Avoid the lakes, stay to th e eas t of

Sandpoint, d rop down into Libby, followthe Yaak River n orth , and you can cro ss

the border at any n umber of places. Nocheckp oints, too, he says with a sm ile,

like hes don e this a hu ndred times. And

I believe him, everyword.

Stephen J. Lyons is

the author of

Landscape of t heHeart, Wr itings on

Daughters andJourneys (Washington

State University

Press). He lives inPullman, Washington .

* Railroads and Clearcut s is available

from The Lands Coun cil for $15.00. Call509-838-4912.

Clearcut on checkerboard land in the Mallard Larkins region of central

Idaho. Photo courtesy of The Lands Council c 1995.

To t he north, in the Idaho Panhandle

National Forest , are 8,312 miles of

roads, or t en miles of roads for every

square mile of land, the highest densit y

of roads of any National Forest .


8/16


Bibliography Notes

Down to one percent of their former numbers, grizzly bears are victims

of our societys road building obsession. Photo courtesy of Wild Forever.

Twenty-th ree years after the Endan gered Species Act

(ESA) listing of the grizzly, inte nsive r esearch con veys

one comp elling message: roads kill grizzlies. Themech anisms include: 1) direct mortality; 2) displacemen t; 3)

hab ituation; and 4) fragmentation of habitat. The effects ofaccess and roads on bears are similar to impacts on oth er

sensitive spe cies such as elk an d w olves; but grizzlies are the

mo st vulnerable of all wildlife in the n orth ern Rockies.

Direct MortalityThe risk of grizzly m ortality is significantly increa sed by

roads (collision s), and increased en coun ters between bears

and p eople (potentially lethal for the b ear). This relationshipis more pron ounced on public lands ou tside Glacier and

Yellowstone National Parks, partly due to m any hu nters

travelling th e back roads.On th e Rocky Moun tain Front in Montan a, Keith Aun e

and Wayne Kasworm (1989) reported that 63% of known

hum an-caused grizzly deaths occurred within 1 kilometer of

roads. Anoth er study (Dood et al. 1986 ) foun d that from 1967and 19 86, 48% of all known non -hunting mortalities had

occurred within 1 m ile of roads. The South Fork of theFlathea d study (Manley an d Mace, 1993) found th at in areas of

high hu man use an d roaded access, mortality risk for grizzly

bears was significant (death s equa led births). Similarly, onAdm iralty an d Chichagof Islands, the Alaska Depar tmen t of

Fish an d Game (Titus, K., and L.R. Beier, 1992) foun d signifi-cant positive associations between the autumn brown bear kill

and th e sum o f roads built per year.

DisplacementRoads an d related hu man activities displace grizzlies from

preferred habitat. Under-use of areas near roads h as beendocu me nte d in th e Grea ter Yellowston e Ecosystem (GYE) 4-5

kilom eters from town sites, and within 2 kilometers of roads

(Mattson et al. 1992). Mace and Manley found in the Norther nContinental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) that when total road

densities reached 2 miles per square m ile, or open roadden sities exceede d 1 m ile per square m ile, use by grizzly bears

declined significantly. 22% of their study area had road

den sities greater than 2 miles per squa re mile, and this hab itatwas used by rad io-collared bears far less than exp ected.

Bears learn to avoid roads as a re sult of associated noise,hu man scent, and h un ting or shooting. In the GYE and NCDE,

bear s consistently avoid areas with h igh road den sities, even

after roads are closed. Fema le bear cubs generally establishhom e ranges that overlap their moth ers. Lon g-term displace-

men t of a female from part of her h ome range due to highroad densities and h uman access could cause that area to be

effectively lost to female bea rs, with th eir offspring h aving no

opportunity to learn feeding opportunities there (Aune andKasworm 1989, McLellan 1989).

HabituationAddiction to garba ge and the loss of fear by be ars to

peop le leads to habituation . In Yellowstone, habituatedgrizzlies often are found near r oads and hum an developments,

while wary grizzlies search elsewhere for h igh quality foods.

Mortality risk amon g habituated bear s is doub le that of non -hab ituated or wary bears. Habituation increases encoun ters

that can lead to the bea rs death or rem oval (Mattson an dPease, in press). During years w hen key food so urces fail, sub-

adult males and adu lt females with cubs are much more likely

to be found n ear roads. This could be due in part to thosebear s being displaced into roaded m arginal habitats by male

bears dominating quality backcountry habitat.

Habitat Fragment ationAs roads are punched into bear habitat, their populations

and habitat fragmenta major mechanism by which grizzlybear pop ulations have been severely reduced. Fragmentation

causes populations to become m ore isolated an d vulnerable toextinctionespecially when human-caused mortality contin-

ues. This is particularly troub lesome to large carnivores suchas grizzlies, which requ ire large ho me ran ges (up to 90 0 squa re

miles for Yellowstone males) and wide vegetative and topo-

graphic h abitat diversity (Servheen 1986 ).

Roads Kill:Grizzly Bears and the Effects of Human Access

by Louisa Willcox



9/16


Met hods for Evaluati ng

Road Densit yRick Mace a nd Tim Man leys South

Fork stu dy app lies on e of two recognizedmethodologies that arrive at road density

limits for grizzly bea rs. They pred icted

that when total road densities reach 2miles per square m ile, or open road

den sities exceed 1 m ile per sq uar e mile,use by grizzlies would decline signifi-

cantly. Their study was based ondocumen tation of displacement, re-

spon ses of ind ividuals and family groups

to roads, and m ortality. Researchers con cluded from earlierrepo rts (Mace an d Manley, 1993) that 68 % core areas (roadless

hab itat) was impor tan t to protect grizzlies; however, recen treports conclude th at only 60% core (roadless) habitat may be

need ed (Mace et al. 1996). This metho d is used widely in

grizzly bear h abitat, esp ecially the NCDE.Dave Mattson and Mark Haroldson (1985 ) arrived at

somewhat similar road density recomm endations using amo re complicated meth od. They used a grizzly bear foraging

radius during a 24-48 hour period, surrounded by a buffer

zone. This represen ts a micro -security area of app roximately7,000 acres tha t grizzly bears can u tilize un imped ed by

hum ans. Expanding this micro security concept, the authorsrecommen ded that 7,000 acre areas should be arranged across

the landscap e, app roxima tely 1.8 kilometers apart. If an en tire

hom e ran ge of 884 squ are kilometers for a grizzly in th e GYEwas arranged in micro security areas, then approximately 57%

of the landscap e would be secure. Ideally, these areas wouldhave little or n o ro ad access d uring th e grizzlys time o f use.

Mattson (1993 ) added to th is approach with a n ew

methodo logy that accounted for th e variable influence thatroads in cover and closed road s have on grizzly bear beh avior

and mo rtality risk. The weighted co efficients are as follows:open roads in cover (.7); open road s in n on -cover (1.9); trails or

closed road s in cover (.3); trails or closed road s in n on-cover

(.6). Within cover mea ns the road m ust travel throu gh aforested stand of trees th at is

dense enou gh to make agrizzly bear un detectable from

a roadside view.

An exam ple of anapplication of the m ethod

follows. If 1 mile of roadexists per square m ile and the

road is located in a forested

stand with roadside cover, the

equivalent weighted roadden sity would be .7 miles ofroad per square mile. Con-

versely, if 1 mile of open road

in 1 squ are mile has n o cover,the weighted road density

would be 1.9 miles per squaremile.

Using this approach and a system of

pr otecting secur ity hab itat, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) arrived atthe need for road density limitations as

low as .26 miles per square m ile on partsof the Targhee Plateau Bear Managem ent

Unit. When loss of cover, flat topo graphy

and absen ce of secure habitat from pastclearcutting and roadbu ilding were

factored in, the road densities droppedfar below Mace/Manleys more generally

app licable 1 mile per square m ile

benchm ark. This analysis requires morelandscape-specific information than does

the Mace/Manley app roach .For either of these m etho ds to be used, motor ized vehicle

use m ust be limited to trails or roads. It is imp ossible to

calculate road d ensities if vehicle use occurs off designatedroutes; in such cases th e road de nsities essentially would be

infinite.The Biological Opinion written by the USFWS on the

Targhee NFs Plateau area, and its compan ion p iece by th eForest Service (Targhee National Forest, 1993) are some of thebest documents on the impacts of roads on bears, and the b est

analyses for a land scape-level restoration p lan for bear h abitat.The Inte ragen cy Grizzly Bear Comm ittee (IGBC) issued a

docum ent (1994 ) The Interagen cy Grizzly Bear Committee

Task Force Repor t on Grizzly Bears/Motorized Access Manage-men t. This gave preliminary de finitions of road s and trails, as

well as procedu res for evaluating road de nsities and iden tify-ing existing and poten tial core security ha bitat for bear s.

While it didnt go far eno ugh in ad dressing grizzly sen sitivity

to low levels of access or th e ineffectivene ss of m any ForestService road closures, it did begin to set con sistent term s for

discussing management of roads and hum an access.

This access documen t was first of a two-part series; thesecond docum ent would h ave set road limitations and stan-

dar ds for Northern Rockies grizzly bear ecosystems. Unfortu-nately, the agen cies have delayed the seco nd step .

This process of setting roads standa rds has since beenfolded into a larger analysis

called the Conser vation

Strategy for Grizzly Bears.The Conservation Strategy is

slated for release and pub liccom men t later this year, along

with the revision o f the 1993

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan .This revision was p rom pted

by su ccessul litigation o f thePlan brought by thirty eight

conservation groups an d

ind ividuals. A cen tral issuefor both do cumen ts will be

roads and access manage-ment.


Ineffective gate closures lead to decreased grizzly bear habitat

effectiveness. Roads Scholar Project photo.

Photo and graphic by Mark Alan Wilson.


10/16


ReferencesAune, K., and W. Kasworm. 1989. Final Report East Front

Grizzly Bear Study. Monta na Department of Fish, Wildlife

and Parks. Helena , MT.

Dood, A., R.D. Brannon , R.D. Mace. 1986. Final Program matic

Environm ental Impact Stat em ent, the Grizzly Bear in

Northwest Montana. Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT.

Haroldson, M. and David J. Mattson. 1985. Response of Grizzly

Bears t o Backcount ry Human Use in Yellowstone Nationa l

Park. U.S. National Park Service, Interagen cy Grizzly Bear

Study Team, Bozem an , MT.

Kasworm W., and T. Manley. 19 88. Grizzly Bear and Black Bear

Ecology in the Cabinet Mountains of Northwest Montana .

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT.

Kasworm , W., and T. Man ley. 1989. Road and trail influences

on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana.

International Conference on Bear Research and

Management. 8:79-84

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road den sity models describing habitat

effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry. 81:592-595.

Mace, R.K., and T. Manley. 1993. The Effects of Roads on

Grizzly Bears: Scientific Supplem ent. South Fork Flathead

River Grizzly Bear Project: Project Report for 1992,

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT.

Mace, R.K. and T. Manley. 1993. South Fork Flathead River

Grizzly Bear Project: Progress Report for 1992. Montana

Depar tm ent of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT.

Mace, R.K. and J. Waller. 1997 . Fina l Repo rt: Grizzly Bear

Ecology in the Swan Mountains, Monta na . Montana

Depar tm ent of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT.

Mace, R.K., J. Waller, T. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuring. 1996.Relationships am ong grizzly bears, roads, and h abitat in

the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology.

Mattson, D.J., R. Knight, and D.M. Blanchard. 1987. The Effects

of development and primary roads on grizzly bears in

Yellowstone National Park, Wyom ing. International

Conference on Bear Research and Managem ent. 7:259-273.

Mattson, D.J., and R. Knight. 1991. Effects of Access on Human-

Cause d Morta lity of Yellowston e Grizzly Bears. USDI

National Park Service, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study

Team Report, Bozem an , MT.

Mattson , David J. 1992. Conversion Factors for Standa rdized

Calculations of Roads and Trail Densities: Yellowstone

Grizzly Bears. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team,

Forest Sciences Labs, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Mattson, David J. 1992. Microscale Security Areas for

Yellowstone Grizzly Bears. Interagen cy Grizzly Bear Study

Team , Forest Sciences Labs, Montan a State University,

Bozem an , MT.

Mattson , David J. 199 3. Grizzly Bear Responses to Huma n

Activities: A Review and Summ ary. Interagency Grizzly

Bear Study Team , Forest Sciences Labs, Monta na State

University, Bozeman, MT.

Mattson , David J. 1993. Background and Pr oposed Standards

for Managing Grizzly Bear Habitat Security in the

Yellowstone Ecosystem . Coopera tive Parks Studies Unit,

College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Science s,

University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Mattson , David J. 1993. Use of Road Density Standards forManagem ent of Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Habitat.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Forest Sciences

Labs, Monta na State Univers ity, Bozeman, Montan a.

McLellan, B.N., and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and

resource extraction industries: effects of roads on

behavior, habitat use, and demography. Journal of Applied

Ecology. 25: 451-460.

Meagher, M. and S. Fowler. 1989. The conseq uences of

protecting problem grizzly bea rs. In M. Brom ley, ed.

Bear-People Conflicts: Proceedings of a Symposium on

Management Strategies. Pp. 141-144. Northwest

Territories Departm ent of Renewable Resources.

Yellowknife, Northwest Terr itories, Canad a.

Titus, K., and L.R. Beier. 1992. Population and Habitat Ecologyof Brown Bears on Admiralty and Chichagof Islands.

Alaska Departm ent of Fish and Game. Division of Wildlife

Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration.

Research Progress Report.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Biological

Assessm ent o f the Westline Timb er Sale and Plateau Bear

Managem ent Unit. Targhee Nationa l Forest.

Zager, P., and C. Jonkel. 1983. Managing grizzly bear habitat in

the n orthern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Forestry.

81:524-526.

ConclusionGrizzly bears are m ore sen sitive to road s and h um an

access than other species. Scientists and man agers use themas an indicator of ecosystem h ealth. If the Great Bear is doing

well, so are other wide-ranging species sensitive to hu man

disturbances. The future of the bear relies on redoublingcurrent efforts, and expanding habitat protections to include

recent information on roads impacts and the importance ofpro tecting secu re (road less) ha bitat. The grizzlys survival

today is testamen t to the stren gth of the ESA, the integrity of

its watchdo gs both within an d outside of state and federalagencies, and sp ecific actions based in soun d science that

reduce hu man -caused mortality and protect habitat.

Louisa Willcox is the coordinator of the Sierra Club Grizzly

Bear Ecosyst em Project, based in Bozem an Montana, and on t heBoard of Advisors of Wildlands CPR. You can contact her at 234

E. Mendenhall, Bozeman, MT. 406-582-8365.

continued from previous page

Grizzly survival is dependent on human

behavior. Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.


11/16


File photo.

O

n May 5, the Access Manage

me nt Task Force of th e Northern

Continental Divide Ecosystem(NCDE) Manager s Subco mmitte e of the

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee(IGBC) presen ted som e n um bers

regarding its latest reworking of th e

South Fork Grizzly Bear Study dat a an dits implications. The new guidelines

would rely less on r oad reclamation andmore o n season al closures such as gates,

would require less security habitat, and

would allow mo re of a grizzly bearmanagement subunit to have excessive

road d ensities.

W hat You Can Do:Please obtain a copy of th e NCDE

Access Management Rule Set Draft

Proposed Direction, d ated 5/1/98, from

Tom Wittinger at th e Flathead NationalForest (406 -755-5401, 193 5 3rd Ave.

East, Kalispell, 59901). In orde r tocompare the proposal to the research

findings, you will need a copy o f the

Final Repor t: Grizzly Bear Ecology InThe Swan Mountains Montana by Mace

an d Waller (MDFWP PO Box 20 0701,Helena, 59620-0701).

Regional Reports

In an im portan t case for activists

challenging motorized recreation on

Nation al Fores ts, a Circu it Court inIllinois h as issued a ruling reaffirming

the Forest Services obligation to closearea s wh ere ATVs are causing adverse

ecological effects. The March 20th

ru ling in Hanso n e t al v. FS isgroun dbrea king, and will be detailed in a

futu re issu e of Legal Notes in TheRIPorter.

Amo ng oth er thin gs, the ruling find s

tha t th e ORV Executive Order s (EOs) areenforceab le on National Forests (See The

RIPorter V2#4). In this case, the ord erwas ap plied to ATV use o n roa ds wh ich

are n ot de signate d for ATV use - th us

classifying such use as off road evenwhen it was on road s!

The ruling also affirms that th e EOsrequire the r espective agency (to)

New Grizzly Road Management Proposal Looks Bad!

If the com parison estimates for

Glacier View are any indication, adop-

tion of the new p roposal will reduceroad reclamation/obliteration under the

old objectives/Ame ndm ent 19 of theFlathea d Nationa l Forest Plan by ab out

40% , will require a bit more ro ad

closures during the sp ring and m aybefall, but will generally sh ift em ph asis

from perm anent road closures andobliteration towards m ore gate-type

closures. This has appar ently been

justified, in part, by erring against/adding a standard deviation to bear data

taken from a pop ulation Mace acknowl-edges is precariously stable at best.

Send your comments by July 1,199 8 to Tom Wittinger in Kalispell and

Rich Clough in Helena at th e addresseslisted above. For mo re inform ation

about comm enting on the report, please

con tact Swan View Coalition (3165Footh ill Road , Kalispell, MT 599 01; 406 /

755-137 9; redraven@d igisys.net) orWildlands CPR.

Thanks to Keith Hamm er for this alert.

mo nitor the effects that off road vehicle

use has u pon lands under their jurisdic-

tion. The co urt th en quoted the FSsown regulations imp lemen ting the EOs,

foun d at 36 CFR 295, which pr ovide thatThe effects of use by sp ecific types of

vehicles off roads on National Forest

System Land s will be mon itored. If theresults of mon itoring, including p ublic

input, indicate that the use of on e ormo re vehicle types off roads is causing

or will cause con siderable adverse

effects...the area o r trail sufferingadverse effects will be imm ediately

closed to the respon sible vehicle type ortypes...

This mean s that the p ublic can do

mo nitoring if the FS wont do it. And wedon t have to wait until considerable

adverse effects occur to take action, onlyun til it appears th at they will occur.

The Cour t goes on to state tha t the

FS has a n o bligation to close th e forest

wher e off road vehicle use is causing orwill cause consider able dam age. This is

perhaps the best part of the op inion. Bystating that it is an ob ligation, the Court

is severely restr icting the FSs discretion

in making such a decision.Put ting all this togeth er, if ATVs are

causing or will cause con siderableadverse effects to soil, water, vegetation,

fish and wildlife, forest visitors, and

cultural and historical resour ces; and ifthe pu blic (or their own internal

mo nitoring) brings this to the agencysattention, the n th e FS has an obligation

to close the ATV area imm ediate ly by

issuing a closure order.

Thanks to Mark Donham for thisupdate.

Court Sets Precedent With ATV Ruling


12/16


Road obliteration is mor e than

pushing dirt into a semblance

of the original terrain an dcamo uflaging the scar with grass.

It shouldmean restoring thestructure and function of all natural

processes, especially hydrologic func-

tions, and establishing a plant comm u-nity. In my exp erience, the revegetation

elemen t of a road obliteration pro jectoften su ffers incon ceivable neglect. This

short guide should help you u ncover

inept plans before they have a chan ce tobe implemented.

When critiquing th e revegetation

portion of a road obliteration proposal,

five main concerns can be examined todetermine if the proposal is competent.

Number OneThe qu alifications of the

plann er. A qualified p lanne r willbe m ore likely to subm it a

competent and workable plan. Is

the planner experienced inecological restoration? Does th e

planner h ave any background indisturban ce ecology? How long

has the plann er been working in

the area? Do you tru st them todo th e job correctly?

Number TwoThe percen t of the total

bud get allotted towards reveg-etation. Between 15% and 25%

is reason able. As a rou gh guide,

this will give you an idea of ho w

impo rtant revegetation is to theplann ers. Often the revegetationbud get is overlooked an d too

much o f the mo ney goes

towards m achine ry costs. Rejectany proposal that asks for

volunteers.

Number ThreeA solid goal stateme nt. Does such a

statemen t exist within the docu men t? Ifnot, there is a problem. What is the

goal? Erosion control? Weed control?

Aesth etics? Cam ouflage? Wildlife forage?Ecological restorat ion? Will the plan

meet the goal?

Numb er FourAn analysis of soil characteristics.

Does such an ana lysis exist within theplan? Does it address soil texture?

Substrate stability? Water holdingcapacity? Available nutr ients? Topo-

graphic and micro-topographic influ-ences? Is there an y men tion of soil/plant

relationsh ips? There sh ould be.

Blowing Smoke and Throwing Seeds:A Road Rippers Guide to Spotting Pathetic Revegetation Plans by Mark VanderMeer

Number FivePlanting concer ns. Every restoration

project proposal should have a descrip-tion of the existing native plant commu-

nity. Will native plant species be used

for revegetation? How were the speciesselected? Will a diversity of plants be

used? For exam ple, does th e seed m ixinclude grasses, legume s, herbs, and

woody p lant seeds? The m ore species,

and th e greater the diversity between

plant types, the better the p lan. Wheredid the seeds or seedlings come from?Do the p roposed plantings match the

species in the surroun ding natural plant

comm un ity? Will a variety of revegeta-tion techn iques be em ployed? For

exam ple, will seedlings be plan ted orwill seed traps b e constr ucted? Often a

blanket approach to revegetation can be

a sign of laziness or inco mp e-tence.

ConclusionA good revegetation effort is

the binder that holds a roadobliteration p roject together.

Witho ut it, a project will often en d

in failure. A good plan will preventthe u se of exotic species, control

weeds, thwart erosion and m asswasting, and prom ote a comp lex

plant comm unity that will

eventually truly obliterate alltraces of the road.

Try to be kind to our bro thersand sisters in the p lann ing office.

Give em hell when they n eed it,

but back it up with con structive

and realistic suggestions. Ifchastised app rop riately, you mayfind agency planners kn ocking on

the door foryouradvice.

Mark VanderMeer is a restoration

ecologist living and w orking inMontan as Swan Valley.

For more informat ion on revegetation, order the new Road Rippers Guide to Wildland Road Removal (see page 15).

3. Plant seeds at

revegetation site3. Plant seeds at nursery

to increase amount of

seed (sometimes called

commercial grow out)

5. Plant seeds at

revegetation site

1. Collect seed from local sources.

Collecting seed from local sources

Increased seeding

(requires 2 to 5 years)

Direct see ding

(requires 1 to 11/2

years)

2. Send seed to nursery for

cleaning, test ing, and storage.

4. Harvest seeds

(plant again foradditional increase)


13/16


Few wildland activists have paid atten tion to recent

Congressiona l debates over reauth orizing the nation s

transp ortation bill, the Interm odal Surface Transp orta-tion Efficien cy Act (ISTEA). But ISTEA has seve re an d dram atic

implications for wildland ecosystems th rough two existing andtwo proposed programs:

Public Lands Highways (includes Forest Highways) National Recreational Trails Funds Act

Coop erative Federal Land s Tran sportation Program(proposed)

Forest Developm ent Roads Program (proposed )

The Public Lands Highways fund au thor ized $1 billionfrom 1991-97 for highways on or through public lands. $660million of this w as spe nt on the Forest Services Forest High-

ways program. $340 million went to highways on other public

lands. Under these p rograms, the Federal Highway Adm inistra-tion (FHWA) remains th e respon sible party for th ose roads, an d

they fund developm ent or imp rovement.Any road u pgraded through th e pr ogram has to be built to

FHWA, not a gency stan dard s. FHWA standards , however, are

based on safety and ease of travel, regardless of environm entalimpact. The Forest Highways program , therefore, creates

bigger, wider and h igher grade roads than if the road re main edun der the Forest Services jurisdiction . The Pu blic Land s

Highways program creates numerous problems, like mainte-

nan ce funding. The mo ney cannot be used for maintenance,which becom es the respon sibility of the local cooperator. The

Public Land s Highways program is likely to receive anoth er $1billion in fun ding for the n ext 6 years und er the n ew ISTEA

proposal.

The National Recreational Trails Funds Act, also kno wnas the Symms Act, (see RIPorter V2#3. ) was pa ssed as p art B of

ISTEA and auth orized up to $ 30 m illion per yea r for recre-ational trail developmen t on pu blic lands. Symms Act fun ds

are split as follows: 30% to motor ized trail developm ents; 30%

to no nm otorized trail developments; and 40% to m ultiple use

trail developmen ts. This split mea ns that 70% of the trails

accomodate m otorized use.

Under th e original Symms Act, Con gress did not providecontract authority for the funding, so appropriations h ad to be

issued each year. No more th an $15 m illion was ever auth o-rized under th e Symm s act. Under the prop osed reauthoriza-

tion, ho wever, the House wo uld fund the Symm s act starting at

$30 m illion in 19 98 an d moving to $50 m illion for the years2000 -2003. The Sena te would fund it on an increa sing scale

from $17 to $25 million from 199 8-2003. Both would providecontract authority for the funding, making it guaranteed for

the n ext six years.

The Cooperative Fede ral Lands Transportation Programhas b een prop osed b y Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). It would

allow federal transportation fun ds to be used both for con-struction an d maintenan ce of roads on or through federal

lands. Not only would this assist coun ties seeking main tenan ce

fund ing for roads imp roved unde r the Pu blic Land s Highwaysprograms, but it does not include language on what can or

cann ot be funded . It could be used for all sorts of roadfund ing that curren tly is difficult to acquire. The curren t

pro posal is for $100 m illion/year.

Finally, the Departm ent o f Agriculture has p ropo sed aForest Developmen t Roads program as p art of ISTEA. This

program would provide $100 million/year for maintenance,bridge repairs and upgrades on arterial and collector roads on

National Forest landsabout 87,000 m iles of roads. The

language for this propo sal isnt final and am oun ts to the ForestService going outside of its regular fundin g to get mon ey for its

roads pr ogram. Con gress is threatening to cut roads fund ing inthe Agencys regular appro priations. It is a duplicitous an d

wasteful proposal for work that shou ld be funded out of the

Fore st Services budget.

Legislative Update

Why did the sheep cross Montanas HWY 93? Because it w as soon to be

reconstructed under the ISTEA legislation. Photo by Dana Jensen.

What you can do

Contact your Congression al represen tatives and letthem know h ow you feel about funding federal lands

roads th rough th e FHWA rather th an th rough th e agency

that sho uld be man aging the roads. The bill was inConferen ce Com mittee wh en th is article went to press,

and its likely to be out o f Com mittee wh en you receiveth eRIPorter. You m ay also want to co ntact President

Clinton r egarding excessive spen ding on h ighways and

transpo rtation developmen t with little attention p aid tomaintaining a crumbling transportation infrastructure, and

too much attention on improving and developing a roadinfrastructure within fede ral wildlands.

Write to :Your Represe nt ative

U.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20010

You r Sena torU.S. Senate

Washington, D.C. 20015

-


14/16


Ask Dr. Roads

Send questions to:

Ask Dr. Roads, c/o W ildlands CPR

PO Box 7516/Missou la, MT 59807

or [email protected]

New Resources forRoad-Rippers

Dear Dr. Roa ds,

I live on a sm all barr ier island in

the southeast , accessed by twonarr ow roads. Our s tat e Dept . of

Transportat ion wants to expand

these r oads to four lane freeways,

saying t his wil l benefi t the

economy. Should I write a thank-

you let t er to t he DOT for i ts help?

Miss Guided, Key Lime, FL

Help the U.S. Postal Services bu dget b y bu ying a

postcard so you can ask DOT to reject the false

prop het of econ omic ben efits. Barrier island s androads are a bad m ix on any ground. The islands areconstan tly changing in shape, due to the effects of

storms, rising sea level, wind, curren ts, and oth er

factors. In con trast, Dr. Roads First Rule o f Roads isthat the only change that usually occurs to a road is

that the DOT makes it bigger.Dr. Road s Second Rule of Roads is that on

barrier island s, DOT keeps h aving to reb uild the roa d

further back from th e ocean as the road is washedaway. People wan t to drive their cars along th e ocean

road, but the ocean has this habit of dump ing tons ofsand an d water on th e road d uring a storm. Usually,

this happen s just about the time th at everyone tries

to evacuate the island. The b igger road will onlymake th is situation worse by allowing more p eople to

get to the island before th e big one hits. Dr. Roadsisnt usu ally a gamb ling m an, bu t he bets tha t DOT

didnt men tion this downside when the increased

capacity was p roposed.

Dr. Roads, Island Hopp er

Join Wildlands CPRToday!

Memb ersh ip bene fits both you and Wildlands CPR. You lend your

suppo rt to ou r efforts, giving us m ore leverage in sub mitting com men ts,filing lawsuits, and creating pressure to prevent and close roads on

pub lic lands . In addition, your financial supp ort helps us continu eproviding information and resources to activists throughout North

America.

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

resou rces, because youll receive:

f Our bimonthly newsletter, The Road-RIPorter.

f 10 free bibliography se arches per year.f National support for your campaign through our newsletter and

alerts.f Access to activist tools and pub lic edu cation m aterials.

f Connections with groups working on similar issues, and networks

with ex perien ced r oad-fighting a ctivists, lawyers and scientists.

f Discoun ts on Wildlands CPR publications.

In Febru ary, the Forest Service pu blished a n ew series en titled:

Water /Road Inte raction Tech no logy Series. The series comes in afour-inch thick binder and was published out of the San Dimas

Techn ology and Developm ent Center. It is an am azing resource of allsorts of techn ical informa tion on h ow road s affect hydrology,

including sections on : surface drainage, subsu rface drainage,

drainage crossings, and an ann otated bibliography. In addition, it hasinformation on the historical and legal context for water road

interactions, field data sheets, information a bout d iversion po tentialand m onitoring.

The San Dimas Techn ology Center has o nly a few copies

available, conta ct th em at 444 E. Bon ita Ave, San Dimas, CA 9177 3;909/599-1267 x24 6.

The inform ation from th e series is also available on the we b at:http://fsweb.sdtdc.wo.fs.fed.us/programs/eng/index.htm

The Forest Service expects to update th e series, both in har d

cop y and o n th e web. Every Forest Service district has received twocopies of this binder, on e each for the un it enginee r and hy drologist.

If you can not get a copy o f the full binder and d ont have access tothe w eb, you can ask to see the cop y at your local district rangers

office.

Wildlands CPR also h as a co py a vailable in o ur office. Pleasefeel free to contact us for more inform ation.

At t ent ion Handbook Owners!!!We will be m ailing ou t your copy of th e new Road-Rippers Guide

to Wildland Road Removal within the next few weeks. If you do not

receive a copy and you are a h and book owner, please let us know. Ifyou don t own a han dbook and want to get one, or if you just want to

order the new guide, see page 15.


15/16


Wildlands CPR Publications:Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members)) A com preh ensive activist m anu al that include s the five Guides listed

below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads , Gathering Informat ion w ith t he Freedom o f Informat ion Act , and more!Road-Ripper 's Guide to t he National Forest s ($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 t he 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-mem bers ) 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 to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-members) 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-Ripper s 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 Impacts 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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807

Visions...

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAIDMISSOULA, MT 59801

PERMIT NO. 569

Redwood National Park road 5 years after removal. Photo by Scott Bagley.

The road is now like

television,

violent and taudry. James Howard Kunst ler

road riporter 3.3

Documents