The Road-RIPorter

Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. May/June 2000. Volume 5 # 2

Taku River:
Land of the
Wild and
the Tlingit
Will a mining road spoil the wildness of the Taku River? Ric Careless, BC Spaces for Nature photo.
By Alan Young
the area’s wild nature and the fact that it only is accessible
by float plane, river boat or foot. Salmon productivity is
unmatched on the southeast shore of Alaska and northwest
In this vast wilderness, British Columbia.
This spectacular area is threatened by a 160 kilometer
Native People and wildlife live (96 mile) access road to the Tulsequah Chief copper/gold/
zinc mine. This mine is located on the Tulsequah River just
free of roads and intrusions. upstream from BC’s border with southeast Alaska. Redfern
Resources Ltd. a small Vancouver-based junior mining
But there are those who company wants to rebuild the road to operate the small
mine for only 9 years.
would rather build a road The BC government approved the mine after a contro-
versial Environmental Assessment decision which was
to a mine and destroy opposed and challenged by the Alaska and the Tlingit, who
have lived in the valley for centuries. It also is opposed by a
all that is wild and good… broad range of local, provincial and national environmental
groups from Canada and the US.
The company’s revived development plan chose not to
The Taku River watershed is an 18,000 square kilome- pursue the barging option (no road) due to “technical
ter (4.5 million acre) unroaded expanse near Atlin in obstacles.” Critics point out that the company is wary of
northwestern British Columbia, Canada. This immense regulatory hurdles posed by US and Alaska authorities in
watershed, the size of Massachusetts, is the traditional charge of water quality and habitat on the Taku River. This
homeland of the Taku River Tlingit People. Its habitats is the main impetus for constructing the road through the
represent five biogeoclimatic zones ranging from high BC wilderness.
plateaus to lush coastal temperate rainforests. The technical obstacles stem from issues that are under
The Taku contains some of the richest wildlife habitat the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission (IJC).
on the west coast of North America and is home to grizzly The IJC was established in 1909 under the Boundary Water
bear, moose, caribou, black bear, mountain goat, salmon
and many species of migrating birds. Wildlife thrive due to — continued on page 14 —
 From the Wildlands CPR Office... Wildlands
C
Center for
P
Preventing
R
Roads
The Forest Service finally released their draft Environmental Analysis for their
long-term roads policy. While the comment period for the DEA will end just as this Main Office
issue of the RIPorter goes to print, the FS is expected to release their draft Environ- P.O. Box 7516
mental Impact Statement on the Roadless Initiative in mid-May. We’ve enclosed a Missoula, MT 59807
brief analysis of the two different policies on page 4. While they cover related issues, (406) 543-9551
they are separate analyses and both deserve our attention. For more information WildlandsCPR@WildlandsCPR.org
www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR
about how to get involved, please contact our office.
Colorado Office
DePaving the Way and Odes to Roads are a bit off the beaten path this month. P.O. Box 2353
Many thanks to William Kittredge for allowing us to reprint an essay of his about Boulder, CO 80306
wildness (no, it’s not specifically about roads). And we hope you take the opportu- (303) 247-0998
prebles@indra.net
nity to read DePaving the way and
reflect on how your own environmen- Wildlands Center for Preventing
tal work compares with the tenets of Roads works to protect and restore
environmental justice. We’d love your In this Issue wildland ecosystems by preventing
feedback on these or any other articles and removing roads and limiting
motorized recreation. We are a
from the RIPorter, as always. Taku River Mine p. 1, 14 national clearinghouse and network,
Alan Young providing citizens with tools and
Thanks strategies to fight road
construction, deter motorized
DePaving the Way, p. 3 recreation, and promote road
We owe a huge thank you to Bethanie Walder removal and revegetation.
Melanie Mayock of American Lands
Alliance for coordinating last month’s Director
Comparison of the FS’s Bethanie Walder
national ORV conference in Washing- Roads Policy and
ton DC. It was cosponsored by Development Director
Roadless Initiative, p. 4 Tom Youngblood-Petersen
American Lands, Wildlands CPR and
several other organizations and was a Office Manager
terrific success. Thanks to the Weeden Odes to Roads, p. 5 Cate Campbell
Foundation for funding the conference William Kittredge
Interim ORV Campaign
and other ORV activities. Many thanks Coordinator
also to Patagonia and W. Alton Jones Field Notes Jennifer Ferenstein
for generous grants for our ORV and ORV Impact Form, p. 6-7
roads work. As usual, we’d like to ORV Policy Coordinator
Jacob Smith
thank all of you who donated time or Bibliography Notes, p. 8-10
money to Wildlands CPR in the last few D. J. Schubert Roads Policy Coordinator
months. We appreciate your support. Marnie Criley
We even received one donation from Newsletter
Regional Reports & Alerts,
an organization that takes redirected Jim Coefield, Dan Funsch
tax money–wow!
p. 11-14
Interns & Volunteers
Noelle Brigham, Jennifer Browne,
Changes Sarah Harris, Ethan Mace, Katherine
Postelli, Scott Thomas
Jennifer Ferenstein is completing her term as interim ORV Campaign Coordina- Board of Directors
tor. We are changing her position and looking for someone to takeover as the Katie Alvord, Sidney Maddock,
Grassroots Coordinator for our ORV Campaign. If you are interested, please contact Rod Mondt, Cara Nelson,
our office ASAP for a job announcement/description. The position will be based out Mary O'Brien, Scott Stouder, Karen
Wood DiBari
of either Boulder or Missoula and will require significant travel.
Advisory Committee
Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,
Things to watch out for Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer,
Timothy Hermach,
In addition to the upcoming Forest Service hearings on the roadless initiative, Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,
the Bureau of Land Management is beginning a “listening process” on their ORV Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
management. They will be holding public meetings near their many different land Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
holdings. Though this isn’t an official process under the National Environmental Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Policy Act, it is critical that we turn out as many people as possible to support Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
restrictive off-road vehicle management policies. Check our website for
updated information on hearing dates/locations. © 2000 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000


Free and Wild
By Bethanie Walder
ow many people does it take to prevent and remove
H
wildland roads and limit motorized recreation? More
than just the white, middle class public we usually
talk to, says Dorceta Taylor. Dr. Taylor, a professor at
University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources,
has researched race, gender and class issues in the
environmental movement for years—improving our
understanding of, and ability to diversify the conser-
vation movement.
Taylor’s studies of “white” and “people of color”
(POC*) environmental groups in the US is enlighten-
ing. Less than 20% of mainstream environmental
organizations had women presidents or chairpersons,
while 50% of environmental justice organizations
were run by women. Membership statistics were
equally unbalanced. POC organization’s member-
ships were more balanced between middle and lower
“I looked at my hands to see if I was the same person
now I was free. Dere was such a glory trou de trees and
ober de fields, and I felt like I was in heaven.”
—Statement by Harriet “Moses” Tubman as it
appeared in the Sweetwater Reporter News, 4-5-1992
class people of different races, while white organiza-
tions mostly had middle and upper middle class
members. While many conservationists have
discussed issues like this for years, the discus-
sions have focused more on anecdotal rather than
statistical information. Taylor’s work clarifies this
reality, leading us to ask the question: Why?
Taylor deconstructs the history of the
environmental movement by discussing four
different branches of environmental history in the
US: white middle class conservation (wilderness,
wildlife and recreation); white middle class urban
environmentalism; working class environmentalism;
and POC environmentalism. The early history of
each is radically different, with the first being
informed by European-influenced male romanticists
and transcendentalists like Emerson, Muir and
Thoreau. These men had the means to spend
months and years communing with nature. The
urban branch was heavily influenced by the likes of
Frederick Law Olmsted, the creator of New York’s
Central Park. Working class environmentalism
focused on issues of worker safety, worker rights,
public health and access to parks—protests and
demonstrations were significant. POC groups mostly
were influenced by being dispossessed of their land,
* In the American context, the term generally applies
to Native Americans, African Americans, Asian
Americans, Latinos and other ethnic minority groups.
The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
having their territory annexed, or being slaves or
indentured servants. They didn’t have the freedom
to roam wild places to search for spiritual or philo-
sophical growth—that freedom had been taken from
them by slavery, indentured servitude or confine-
ment to reservations, for instance. The environmen-
tal focus of this last branch is similar to the working
class group: addressing worker safety and rights,
farmworker issues, pesticides, pollution and recre-
ation access, with a focus on autonomy and power
and rediscovery of cultural roots.
But they did roam wild places. Taylor points out
that Harriet Tubman not only slept under the stars,
but navigated by them along the underground
railroad as she worked to free slaves. Her knowledge
of the natural world was critical to the success of her
work, and books about her highlight her connections
with the natural world. By introducing people to
nature experiences like Tubman’s, we can build
deeper connections to the natural world.
While Taylor gives us an accurate historical
explanation for the split between the conservation
and urban branches of the environmental commu-
nity, she also offers hope for building connections
between them. Taylor found that while many POC
groups work on toxics, pollution, worker rights,
pesticides, mining and other issues—with conserva-
tion issues on the periphery, 35% of POC groups
work on wildlands and wildlife issues. On the other
hand, even though urban environmental issues
should be important to conservation organizations,
they often are not.
Taylor discusses the connections between
environmental justice and conservation. The sixteen
principles of environmental justice (see sidebar on
page 4) include and consider most conservation
issues. Conservation organizations, however, rarely
address all the tenets of environmental justice. For
example, like the traditional conservation movement,
environmental justice values nature and economic
protection over economic growth. It also promotes
compassion towards other species and future
generations and biocentrist ideas. On the other
hand, most of the conservation community provides
only limited support for environmental justice
principles such as honoring the cultural integrity of
all communities. It has no real emphasis on eliminat-
ing sexism, classism and patriarchy—some groups
exacerbate those traits.
While the histories of these four branches of
environmentalism are different, American environ-
mentalism as a whole is influenced by the male
writers of the first branch. And though Rachel
Carson also falls within this branch, her work didn’t
appear until the 1960s, opening the way for many
fine contemporary women writers.
In reality, white male experiences in nature
speak to only a limited number of people, underscor-
ing one reason why so many people are discon-
nected from the natural world. And the more people
who are disconnected from the natural world, the
harder it is to protect and restore it. Rebuilding these
— continued on next page —
3
connections means finding the old
stories and creating new ones that speak
to all of us.
Taylor’s theories on why the
environmental community is split along
such clear lines are illuminating and
thought-provoking. They offer a good
explanation for how we got to this point.
And if we pay attention to that history,
perhaps we can avoid making the same
mistakes now, as we redefine conserva-
tion in the future.
Restoration and recreation are two
of the key issues public land managers
are currently addressing. What stories
will we use to create a public dialogue
about restoration and recreation and
what types of people and issues will
those stories represent? How do we
create a history for things like road
removal and non-motorized recreation?
Perhaps, by using Taylor’s theories, we
can create a more diverse and protective
movement for restoration and recreation
in the future. On one hand, we should
do this, because it will help us protect
and restore our lands. On the other
hand, we must do it, simply because it is
the right thing to do.
For more information about Dr.
Taylor’s work or diversity within the
environmental movement please go to:
http://weact.org/ej_principles.htm
16 Principles of the
Environmental Justice
Movement:
1) Values Nature
2) Compassionate towards others
3) Environmental planning and risk
avoidance
4) Limits to growth
5) Desired Societal changes
6) Environmental politics
7) Spirituality
8) Biocentrism
9) Environmental justice
10) Environmental rights
11) Autonomy, self-determination
for people of color
12) Cultural diversity
13) Corporate-community relations
14) Workers rights, health and
safety
15) Militarization issues
16) Experimentation with human
subjects issues
4 The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
A Comparison of the
Forest Service’s Long-term
Roads Policy and Roadless Initiative
On March 3, 2000, the Forest Service released a Draft Environmental Analysis
(DEA) for their National Forest System Road Management Strategy. On May 9, 2000
the Forest Service released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to address
protection of the remaining Forest Service roadless areas. These are two distinct,
though related processes, and they both need our utmost attention.
The Long Term Road Policy
This policy deals with the 380,000 miles of Forest Service system roads plus
approximately 60,000 miles of unauthorized, unplanned, unclassified roads that
occur on all Forest Service lands. The focus of this policy determines how to manage
effectively the Forest Service’s crumbling road system. It will help the Forest Service
decide whether to keep, remove, or upgrade individual roads. The policy proposes
“the minimum transportation system necessary to meet the needs of forest users.”
The DEA is available for comment from March 2 to May 17. The Final EA and
decision are expected in September 2000. Wildlands CPR submitted extensive
comments which are available on our web page.
The Roadless Initiative:
The DEIS for the Roadless Initiative was just released, and comments are being
accepted until July 17.
The Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative in the Roadless Initiative DEIS is 2BT3.
This alternative would prohibit road construction and reconstruction, including
temporary road construction, within unroaded portions of inventoried roadless.
However, there are no prohibitions on logging, mining, gas and oil development,
grazing or ORVs, and no roads or trails will be closed.
This alternative provides no interim protection for unroaded portions of
inventoried roadless areas. All activities in these areas, except for road construction,
can continue until the Forest Plan for that Forest is revised, and even then the
decision about which uninventoried roadless areas to protect would be left to the
discretion of the local land manager. Unfortunately, the preferred alternative has no
prohibitions for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.
Our Preferred Alternative is a modified 4DT4 which would prohibit road
construction, reconstruction and all timber harvest within unroaded portions of
Inventoried Roadless areas. This alternative would prohibit road construction and
reconstruction in the Old Growth, Semi-Remote Recreation, and LUD II Designations
within Inventoried Roadless Areas of the Tongass.
Focus on the following for Comments:
1) ORV use and other destructive activities must be prohibited in roadless areas.
2) All commercial timber sales must be prohibited in Roadless areas.
3) The Forest Service must protect roadless areas down to 1000 acres in size, and
prioritize preserving roadless values and characteristics on a project-by-project basis
until Forest Plan Revision.
Open House information meetings on the Roadless DEIS are being held in late
May and hearings are being held in late June. Check the Forest Service web page for
more information and a meeting near you at www.roadless.fs.fed.us. Comments can
be mailed to:
USDA Forest Service - CAET
Attn: Roadless
PO Box 221090
-
Salt Lake City, UT 84122
or email to: roadlessdeis@fs.fed.us
 Odes to Roads
Sanity
By William Kittredge
T
he sun fell and left
us with a long time to
see the hills along the Big
Blackfoot River as simply a dark
and undulating subtext beneath a
sky that was both spectacular and
unsettling, close to frightening. We
are nothing if not mystified amid
glories.
Islands of cloud were silver to orange and
occasional red. The pale sky beyond was perfect with
infinities. In that moment I felt grief for the passing
of our lives and recognized the possibility that we
might come to find solace in the simple notion that
we have no choice but to be part of such energies.
This last spring, in twilight across the upper
meadow, thirty-seven thick-bodied elk were playing,
limber and quick as they forgot their grazing and
Without wilderness we start turning
into not much of anybody;
we lose track of our natural goodness,
our capacity for compassion and empathy;
we wander off in pursuit of unnatural
desires. All cruelties are possible.
danced around chasing one another.
Annick and I stood in the strawberry garden,
watching as a young mule came cantering toward
them, trying to herd them or join them. The elk
raised their heads and spooked away into the fringes
of old-growth forest. They turned smokey in the
twilight and then they were gone. The young mule
was left prancing there, alone like us.
We have no choice but to understand ourselves
and the movements of our lives in the run of
The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
evolving energies that is nature. The
animal we are evolved in such
connections, the need is built in
to our genetic makeup.
Without intimacy, with one
another and with nature, we
tend to slide off into insani-
ties.
We have nowhere to live
except in nature. Ruin that
which is natural and we will
soon lose entire track of
ourselves. Lose contact with that
which is wild and we fall out of
touch with all that this animal we are is
able to understand as actual.
We go dizzy trying to live inside a virtual, make-
believe world (like cities in space). As individuals and
as a society, when we are out of touch with that
which is natural, we go literally insane. We see such
craziness each day, reported in every newspaper we
read.
The only story we really know how to inhabit is
the ancient one about ourselves in the natural world.
As the setting for that story vanishes we begin to lose
contact with our animal selves and become increas-
ingly disoriented, disenfranchised.
Some of us are driven frantic and ultimately
savaged by our anxieties. We don’t know who we are;
we don’t know who we should want to be. Some of
us begin to become monstrous.
If we hope to live in sane ways, we have no
choice but to cherish and sustain those parts of the
world that remain at least partways natural and
intact. Without wilderness we start turning into not
much of anybody; we lose track of our natural
goodness, our capacity for compassion and empathy;
we wander off in pursuit of unnatural desires. All
cruelties are possible.
Like that young mule, we are alone, prancing
around and out of love, impoverished, desperate in
our isolations, driven to insanities of self-preoccupa-
tion and greed, literal indecencies. As we destroy that
which is natural we eat ourselves alive.
Reprinted from “Testimony”, with permission by
the author. ©1996 William Kittredge
—William Kittredge grew up on and then man-
aged his family’s cattle ranch in the Great Basin, in
southeast Oregon. He has taught in the English
department at the University of Montana for twenty-
five years and lives in Missoula. His books include the
short story collections The Van Gogh Field and We Are
Not In This Together; the essays, Owning It All, and
Who Owns the West?; and a memoir, Hole In the Sky.
In a 1994 White House ceremony, President Clinton
presented Kittredge with the Frankel Award for service
to the humanities.
5
 Off-Road Vehicle Environmental Impact Inventory Form
Instructions and Notes for Filling Out the Orv Environmental Impact Inventory Form:

1. Is this route officially recognized by the agency in its
formal travel system?
2. Precise and accurate location information is critical.
3. It is important this question be answered as consistently as
possible in a given inventory.
4. Self-explanatory.
5. It is important this question be answered as consistently as
possible in a given inventory.
6. To answer this you will probably need an official agency
travel map. In some cases the route designation on the
travel map is different from that in the Land Management
Plan; it is ideal to check both.
7. In addition to checking the appropriate box, the more detail
you can include the better.
8. In addition to checking the appropriate boxes, the more
detail you can include the better.
9. Gravel, sand, and clay should be self-explanatory. Loam is
basically a mixed soil of sand, clay, and silt (very fine
particles).
10. In addition to checking the appropriate box, the more
detail you can include the better.
11-13. In addition to checking the appropriate boxes, the more
detail you can include the better. It is important these
questions be answered as consistently as possible in a
given inventory. Supporting photographs or videos can be
extremely helpful, as can more detailed information about
the impacts.
14. This question is most useful if several inventories are
conducted in a given area over time.
15-16. It is very important to document instances where
motorized recreationists are creating new trails and
crossing waterways. The more information you can obtain
about the location and level of impacts the better.
17-18. The more detail you can include about wildlife
Please attach additional pages explaining your comments as
necessary. Please send to: Wildlands CPR, P.O. Box 2353,
Boulder, Colorado 80306-2353

Name: ________________________________ Date: ___________________ Day of Week/Time: _________________________________

1. Is this a system or non-system (e.g., user-created) route? _________________________________

2. Location: road/trail #s: ____________________________
site location on trail: ______________________________________________________________________________________
(and) Township/Range/Section (if non-system route): __________________________________________________________
(or) GPS coordinates (UPM preferred) ________________________________________________________________________
3. How intense is the motorized activity: light ____ moderate ____ heavy ____
4. Is there evidence of what specific types of ORVs are being used?
dirt bikes ____ tracked vehicles ____ ATVs ____ swamp buggies ____ 4wd vehicles ____ other _________________________
5. Is there non-motorized activity on the same route: light ____ moderate ____ heavy ____
6. Is the use consistent with the route designation? yes ____ no ____
If not, how is it inconsistent? __________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Ecosystem type:
grassland ____ desert ____ wetlands ____ swamp/bog ____ coastal/dune ____
woodland ____ old growth/late-successional forest ____ other forest ecosystems ____
other/additional description: ________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Terrain:
dry ____ wet ____ flat ____ rolling ____ stable ____ unstable ____ steep ____
additional: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Trail/road surface: gravel ____ sand ____ clay ____ loam ____
Is there fill? _____ Is the surface graded? _____ Is there a bank along the side? _____
Other: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. Travel route design: across the slope ____ up/down slope ____
Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

6 The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000

11. Proximity to notable habitat features: perimeter bisecting throughout photo #
wetlands ____ ____ ____ ____
old growth forest ____ ____ ____ ____
waterways/riparian areas ____ ____ ____ ____
meadows ____ ____ ____ ____
known wildlife migration corridors ____ ____ ____ ____
known wildlife foraging areas ____ ____ ____ ____
known wildlife denning/nesting areas ____ ____ ____ ____
sand dunes ____ ____ ____ ____
alpine areas ____ ____ ____ ____
otherwise sensitive habitat areas: ____ ____ ____ ____
archaeological/historical sites: ____ ____ ____ ____
Explain (include which wildlife species are present): ___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Soil impacts: photo # s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ light mod. heavy
Is there evidence of erosion from water? ____ ____ ____
Is there evidence of muddiness? ____ ____ ____
Is there standing water present? ____ ____ ____
Is there evidence of soil compaction? ____ ____ ____
Is there damage to soil crusts (arid areas) ? ____ ____ ____
Is rutting occurring? yes ___ no ___ How deep are the ruts?_________ photo # __________
<1" ____ 1"-6" ____ 7"-12" ____ 1-2’ ____ >2’____
Explain and describe soil impacts: ___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. Vegetation impacts: photo # s ____ ____ ____ ____ light mod. heavy
Is there visible damage to trees/large shrubs? ____ ____ ____
Is there visible damage to smaller vegetation? ____ ____ ____
Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Do exotic plant species appear to be invading? ____ ____ ____
Which species? __________________________________________________________________________________
14. Trail widening: photo # s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Does it appear that trail widening (travel off the route in question, often to avoid obstacles or muddy areas) is occurring?
light ____ moderate ____ heavy ____
total width of newly impacted ground _______________
15. Trail creation: photo # s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Are new trails forming? yes ___ no ___ Where and of what length? ____________________________________________
Other comments? _________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16. Stream crossings: photo # s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Is there evidence of illegal crossings or travel through streams? yes ____ no ____
If yes, describe impacts: ____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17. Wildlife impacts: photo # s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Is there any evidence of direct mortality (roadkill)? _____________________________________________________________
What species and how many individuals of each?_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you observed any harassment of wildlife? Describe:_______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you observed any effects of ORV noise on wildlife? ________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18. Describe any other impacts you observed (e.g., pollution; poaching; illegal firewood cutting; collecting of plants, animals,
artifacts, etc.): _____________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19. Additional comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000 7


Bibliography Notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific
literature in our 6,000 citation bibliography on the ecological effects of
roads. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important
biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most articles cited
in Bibliography Notes in our office library.
Impacts of Stress
on Wildlife
By D. J. Schubert
Stress is a consequence of disturbance which
can, if prolonged, cause substantial adverse impacts
on individual animals. Stress may be caused by both
physical and psychological factors, but, in either case
stress results in physiological changes to the animal.
ORV use may cause both physical and psychological
stress to a wide range of animals as a result of noise
impacts, pollution impacts, activity patterns, and
direct and indirect harassment or disturbance. The
effects of recreation-induced stress, including lower
reproductive output (Geist 1978), may not be evident
immediately, but may appear days to years after
disturbances (Gutzwiller 1991). Moreover, recreation-
induced stress exacerbates the effects of disease and
competition, leading to higher mortality well after
disturbances occur (Gutzwiller 1991).
Indeed, considering the noise, pollution,
mobility, speed, physical impacts, and general
disruptiveness of ORV use on the landscape,
it is quite probable that ORVs result in more,
not less, disturbance impacts to wildlife…
than impacts caused by motorboats, hikers,
fishers, or automobiles
The physiological impact of stress on animals
has been the subject of many studies which have
somewhat conflicting results. Selye (1950), sug-
gested that an exhaustion of the adrenal cortex
occurs during prolonged stress exposure while others
concluded that prolonged exposure to acute stress
results in a decline in adrenal sensitivity (McNutty
and Thurley 1973, Ader 1975). Alternatively,
Sapolsky (1983) suggested that chronic stress may
8 The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
cause a decline in cortisol production as a result of
impairment of pituitary ACTH production, while
others (Friend et al. 1977, 1979, Paul et al. 1971,
Barrett and Stockham 1963) provide data which
demonstrates that stress tends to increase adrenal
sensitivity to an acute stressor. If chronic exposure
to stressors causes sustained elevated
glucocorticosteroid levels, impairment of
immunodefensive mechanisms in affected animals
may occur making the animals more susceptible to
disease (Jensen and Rasmussen 1970, Paape et al.
1973, Hartman et al. 1976, Stein et al. 1976).
In their study of acute and chronic stressors in
domestic sheep, Harlow et al. (1987) determined that
mild, medium, and severe stress events resulted in
heart rate and plasma cortisol changes. Heart rate
during mild stress events returned to resting values
by 10 minutes post-stress event, while medium and
severe stress events resulted in elevated heart rates
for 20 and 60 minutes post stress event, respectively.
Plasma cortisol levels were significantly elevated
above resting values within minutes post-stress, with
cortisol levels returning to pre-stress levels 30
minutes after removal of the mild stressor; as
compared to continuously elevated cortisol levels
from 90 to 180 minutes for both the medium and
severe stressors. During chronic stress events,
cortisol levels in the sheep were significantly
elevated from day 5 through day 24 at which time
the random noise generator used to create the stress
event failed. Once the generator was repaired and
restarted, cortisol levels increased to previous
chronic stress values.
The results of Harlow et al. (1987) do not
support the concept of adrenal exhaustion or
hypersensitization nor suggest that habituation to
stressors occurred, perhaps because of the irregular,
unpredictable interval of the noise stimuli. As
indicated by Harlow et al. (1987), chronically
elevated blood cortisol may adversely impact the
efficiency of animal production by reducing weight
gain and otherwise affecting animals in captivity (Van
Mourik and Stelmasiak 1984, Van Mourik et al. 1985)
and decreasing antibody production, thereby
inhibiting or suppressing the body’s ability to resist
disease (Roth 1984, Jensen and Rasmussen 1970,
Huber and Douglas 1971, Revillard 1971, Paape et al.
1973, Hartman et al. 1976, Stein et al. 1976).
These impacts, particularly if chronic, can result
in: increased sickness, disease, and death; a decrease
in animal productivity (Knight and Cole 1991,
Anderson and Keith 1980); and ultimately result in
population declines (Anderson and Keith 1980).
Harassment of mule deer by all-terrain vehicles, for
example, resulted in reduced reproduction the
following year (Yarmaloy et al. 1988). Common
loons experienced reduced productivity with
increased human contacts (Titus and VanDruff 1981).
Many studies have been published documenting
the adverse impact of human disturbance on wildlife.
Several examples from the scientific literature
summarized in our Petition provide additional details
about the impacts of disturbance on wildlife. In
some cases, the summary references several studies
which document similar impacts in the same habitat type or
provides a brief explanation of a particular impact attributable
to recreational disturbance. Since there are relatively few
studies in the literature which directly evaluate the impacts of
ORV disturbance on wildlife, the majority of the studies
summarized in the Petition reflect the impact of other forms of
recreational disturbance on wildlife. There is no legitimate
evidence to suggest that the disturbance impacts caused by
motorboats, hikers, anglers, or automobiles are not similar to
those which are inherent to ORV activity. Indeed, considering
the noise, pollution, mobility, speed, physical impacts, and
general disruptiveness of ORV use on the landscape, it is quite
probable that ORVs result in more, not less, disturbance
impacts to wildlife.
Case Studies
In birds of prey, nesting failures (Boeker and Ray 1971),
lowered nesting success (Wiley 1975, White and Thurow
1985), displacement (Andersen et al. 1986), and changes in
Montana Department of Livestock hazing bison off of Horse Butte on the
Gallatin National Forest outside of Yellowstone National Park. Repeated
hazings like this have led to premature labor, excessive stress resulting in
death, and other impacts. Buffalo Field Campaign photo.
wintering distribution and behavior (Stalmaster and Newman
1978) were documented in response to human disturbance.
In their study of home-range changes in raptors exposed
to increased human activity levels, Andersen et al. (1990)
documented that increased military use in a site previously
subject to low human use resulted in a shift in home range and
activity areas for several raptorial species including red-tailed
hawks, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, and Swainson’s
hawks. In addition, the raptors increased the size of the area
used and increased movements outside of the previously used
areas, except during military use activities when several birds
remained in isolated areas within their home ranges. Two
birds, a ferruginous hawk and a Swainson’s hawk completely
abandoned the area not returning until the following spring
The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
(See also, White and Thurow 1985). Besides the obvious
impacts of habitat abandonment, the changes in home range
size, activity areas, and use of habitats subject to increased
human disturbance may adversely impact an individual
bird’s energy budget, and productivity might decrease with
subsequent impacts at the population level. If different
raptor species demonstrate different levels of tolerance of
human activities, in time continued human disturbance
could result in a shift in the species composition in the area
in favor of the more tolerant species (Voous 1977, Craighead
and Mindell 1981, Andersen et al. 1990).
Other scientists have determined that human distur-
bance also affects peregrine falcons (Fyfe 1969, Enderson
and Craig 1974, Dekker 1967), red-shouldered hawks
(Portnoy 1974), and osprey (Swenson 1975, 1979, Zarn 1974,
Dunstan 1968, 1973, Levenson and Koplin 1984).
For birds, Bury et al. (1977) documented a decrease in
bird abundance as ORV use increased. Of the birds seen
foraging on the ground, 62, 19, and 1 individuals were
observed in the control, moderately-used, and heavily-used
sites, respectively. At his Barstow study site, Bury et al. (1977)
found a reduction in the number of breeding species,
breeding pairs, and biomass of 50, 24, and 22 percent,
respectively, as a result of moderate ORV use compared to
the control site. The heavily used site had no breeding birds
and received essentially no foraging use. Not surprisingly, a
positive correlation was observed between shrub abundance
(primarily creosote) and faunal species diversity, abundance,
and biomass emphasizing that ORV damage to vegetation
adversely impacts local faunal assemblies. Similarly, in two
ironwood washes in California, Luckenbach (1978) reported
that breeding bird density and the number of breeding
species was 23 and 90 percent greater in the control wash
compared to the impacted wash
Clearly, ORV induced stress is a major factor in the
success of wildlife populations of all kinds. Stress can be
exacerbated by the time of the year, weather patterns, or
during reproductive and rearing times. As ORV and recre-
ational use increases, we must pay greater attention to how
this increased stress impacts wildlife populations.
—This was excerpted from the “Petition to Enhance and
Expand Regulations Governing the Administration of Recre-
ational Off-Road Vehicles on National Forests.” The 188 page
petition is available on our web site or from our office.
References
Ader, R. 1975. Early experience and hormones: emotional
behavior and adrenocortical formation. Pages 7-33 in B.E.
Eleftheriou and R.L. Sprott, editors. Hormonal Correlates
of Behavior. Vol. 1. A lifespan view. Plenum Press, NY.
Andersen, D.E., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1986. The
behavioral response of red-tailed hawk to military training
activity. Raptor Res. 20:65-68.
Andersen, D.E., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1990. Home-
range changes in raptors exposed to increased human
activity levels in southeastern Colorado. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 18:134-142.
Anderson, D.W., and J.O. Keith. 1980. The human influence
on seabird nesting success: Conservation implications.
Biological Conservation 18:65-80.
9
Barrett, A.M., and M.A. Stockham. 1963. The effect of housing
conditions and simple experimental procedures upon the
corticosterone level in the plasma of rabbits. J. Endocrinol.
26:97-105.
Boeker, E.L., and T.D. Ray. 1971. Golden eagle population
studies in the Southwest. Condor 73:463-467.
Bury, R.B., R.A. Luckenbach, and S.D. Busack. 1977. The
effects of off-road vehicles on vertebrates in the California
desert. Wildlife Res. Repts., No. 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Craighead, F.C., Jr., and D.P. Mindell. 1981. Nesting raptors in
western Wyoming, 1947 and 1975. J. Wildl. Manage.
45:865-872.
Dekker, D. 1967. Disappearance of the peregrine falcon as a
breeding bird in a river valley in AB. Blue Jay 25: 175-176.
Dunstan, T.C. 1968. Breeding success of osprey in Minnesota
from 1963 to 1968. Loon 40:109-112.
Enderson, J.H., and J. Craig. 1974. Status of the peregrine
falcon in the Rocky Mountains. Auk. 91: 727-736.
Friend, T.H., C.E. Polan, F.C. Gwazdauskas, and C.W. Heald.
1977. Adrenal glucocorticosteroid response to exogenous
adrenocorticotropin mediated by density and social
disruption in lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 60:1958-1963.
Friend, T.H., F.C. Gwazdauskas, and E. Polan. 1979. Change in
adrenal response from free-stall competition. J. Dairy Sci.
62:768-771.
Fyfe, R., 1969. The Peregrine Falcon in Northern Canada.
Pages 101-114 in J.J. Hickey, editor. Peregrine falcon
populations: their biology and decline. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Geist, V. 1978. Behavior. Pages 283-296 in J.L. Schmidt and
D.L. Gilbert, editors, Big Game of North America: Ecology
and Management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, USA.
Gutzwiller, K.J. 1991. Assessing recreational impacts on
wildlife: The value and design of experiments.
Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 248-255.
Hartman, H., P. Hielman, H. Meyer, and G. Steinbach. 1976.
General adaptive syndrome in calf. Effect of increased
glucocorticosteroid levels on phagosytosis activity of
leukocytes RES function, and morphology of lymphatic
organs. Arch. Exp. Veterinaermed. 30:59-73.
Harlow, H.J., E.T. Thorne, E.S. Williams, E.L. Belden, and W.A.
Gern. 1987. Adrenal responsiveness in domestic sheep
(Ovis aries) to acute and chronic stressors as predicted by
remote monitoring of cardiac frequency. Canadian Journal
of Zoology 65: 2021-2027.
Huber, H., and S.D. Douglas. 1971. Functional impairment of
lymphocytes and monocytes: assessment in vitro. Semin.
Hematol. 8:192-215.
Jensen, M.M., and A.F. Rasmussen. 1970. Adrenogenic stress
and susceptibility to infection. Pages 7-19 in B.L. Welch
and A.S. Welch, editors. Physiological Effect of Noise.
Plenum Press, New York.
Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational
activity on wildlife in wildlands. Trans. 56th North
American Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf.
Levenson, H., And J.R. Koplin. 1984. Effects of human activity
on production of nesting ospreys. Journal of Wildlife
Manage. 48(4):1374-1377.
Luckenbach, R.A. 1978. An Analysis of Off-road Vehicle Use
on Desert Avifaunas. In Transactions of the 43rd North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.
10
McNutty, K.P., and D.C. Thurley. 1973. The episodic nature of
changes in bovine plasma cortisol levels and their
response to adrenaline during adaptation to a new
environment. J. Endocrinol. 59:171-180.
Paape, M.J., W.D. Schultze, and R.M. Miller. 1973. Leukocytic
response to adrenocorticotrophic hormone as influenced
by the infectious history of the mammary gland. J. Dairy
Sci. 56:733-737.
Paul, M.E., R. Kvetnansky, H. Cramer, S. Silbergeld, and I.H.
Kopin. 1971. Immobilization stress induced changes for
adrenocortical and medullary cycle AMP content in the
rat. Endocrinology 88:338-344.
Portnoy, J.W. 1974. Some Ecological and Behavioral Aspects of
a Nesting Population of Red-shouldered Hawks. Thesis.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
Roth, J.A. 1984. Immunosuppression and immunomodulation
in bovine respiratory disease. Pages 143-192 in R.L. Loan,
editor. Bovine respiratory disease: a symposium, Amarillo,
TX, 1983. Texas A&M University Press, College Station,
TX.
Sapolsky, R.M. 1983. Individual differences in cortisol
secretory patterns in the wild baboon: role of negative
feedback sensitivity. Endocrinology 113:2263-2267.
Selye, H. 1950. The physiology and pathology of exposure to
stress. ACTA, Inc. Medical Publishers, Montreal.
Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses
of wintering bald eagles to human activity. J. Wildl.
Manage. 42:506-513.
Stein, M., R.C. Schiavi, and M. Camerino. 1976. Influence of
brain and behavior on the immune system. Science
191:435-440.
Swenson, J.E. 1975. Ecology of the Bald Eagle and Osprey in
Yellowstone National Park. Master’s Thesis. Montana
State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.
Titus, J.R. and L.W. VanDruff. 1981. Response of the common
loon to recreational pressure in the Boundary Waters Cano
Area, northeastern Minnesota. Wildl. Mongr. 79.
Van Mourik, S., and T. Stelmasiak. 1984. Adrenal response to
aCTH stimulation in Rusa deer (Cervus rusa timorensis).
Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A, 79A:581-584.
Van Mourik, S., T. Stemasiak, and K.H. Outch. 1985. Changes
in plasma levels of cortisol and coricosterone after acute
ACTH stimulation in Rusa deer (Cervus rusa timorensis).
Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A, 81A:545-549.
Voous, K.H. 1977. Three lines of thought for consideration and
eventual action. Pages 343-347 in R.D. Chancellor, editor.
World Conference on Birds of Prey: Report of Proceedings.
Int. Counc. For Bird Preserv., Cambridge, U.K.
White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of
ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance.
Condor 87:14-22.
Wiley, J.W. 1975. The nesting and reproductive success of red-
tailed hawks and red-shouldered hawks in Orange County,
California, 1973. Condor 77:133-139.
Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior responses
and reproduction of mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus,
does following experimental harassment with an all-
terrain vehicle. Canadian Field-Natur. 102:425-429.
Zarn, M. 1974. Habitat Management Series for Unique or
Endangered Species: Osprey. U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Tech. Not. 254.
The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000

Regional Reports & Alerts
Land Board OK’s Bulldozing
in Arizona Wilderness Area
In two decisions issued in November 1999, the Interior
Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) affirmed BLM decisions to
authorize a hobby rancher’s bulldozing to reconstruct long-
deserted jeep roads to abandoned livestock water develop-
ments in and around Peeples Canyon.
Peeples Canyon is the centerpiece of the Arrastra Moun-
tain Wilderness in western Arizona and arguably the single
most famous feature in any Arizona BLM Wilderness. The BLM
describes Peeples Canyon as a “rare and lush riparian habitat
in the midst of a rugged desert…” as having “exceptional
wilderness values…” and as an example of “the rarest and
most productive wildlife habitat” in western Arizona. Arizona
has classified the stream in Peeples Canyon as a “Unique
Water,” a designation reserved for water bodies that are of
“exceptional recreational or ecological significance because of
[their] unique attributes.”
The old jeep road into Peeples Canyon, now impassable, that would be
reopened by a bulldozer. Joseph Feller photo.
These approved road projects will devastate the wilder-
ness qualities of Peeples Canyon and the Arrastra Mountain
Wilderness. According to the BLM’s environmental assess-
ment, reconstruction of the abandoned road in Peeples
Canyon will require “major” and “extensive” earthmoving
work on a steep slope. According to the Range Improvement
Plan EA, this work and the subsequent motor vehicle use will
create a motor vehicle route within Peeples Canyon that:
• “would look maintained and appear to casual observers
as a road receiving regular and continuous use;”
• will create “long-term” and “permanent” visual impacts
in Peeples Canyon that will violate the BLM’s management
standards for Wilderness;
• may cause the raptors for which Peeples Canyon is
famous, including peregrine falcons, to be “forced off their
The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
nests during nesting season by the presence and disturbance
of humans and vehicles” and to “abandon the area as a nesting
site for tracts less exposed to human activity;” and
• may cause siltation of Unique Water of Peeples Canyon
Creek, despite the fact that this degradation of water quality is
forbidden by Arizona law and by the Clean Water Act.
By affirming the two BLM decisions, the IBLA summarily
rejected appeals and arguments by a coalition of conservation
organizations. Their appeals were based on the Wilderness
Act’s prohibition of roads and the Act’s command that the BLM
“preserve the wilderness character” of the area. They also
argued that the BLM had violated the NEPA by failing to
consider several alternatives that would have avoided bulldoz-
ing roads in the Wilderness. The appellants may petition
Secretary Babbitt to overturn the decisions.
These decisions are so offensive to the concept of wilder-
ness that Judge Terry of the IBLA could affirm them only by
disavowing the wording of the Wilderness Act. He incongru-
ously declared that “the Arrastra Wilderness is not a homog-
enous area ‘where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man.’” Instead of following the Act’s explicit
requirement to preserve wilderness character, he read into the
Act an intent to create a “balance of interests” between
wilderness protection and development.
At this point in time, the BLM decisions have been
affirmed by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), but the
BLM is reconsidering them. For the moment, the BLM is
holding back the bulldozer.
Letters to BLM Director Tom Fry, Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt, and Assistant Secretary Sylvia Baca would be helpful.
Babbitt has the authority to review decisions of the IBLA.
Points to include in your letters:
• Implementation of these decisions is contrary to
national BLM wilderness management policy and would cause
a tragic loss of wilderness values.
• The decision would set a terrible precedent for future
wilderness management by the BLM.
• Arizona was the first state to have large areas of
designated BLM wilderness, with the Arrastra Mountain
Wilderness the largest in the state. Peeples Canyon is the
centerpiece of this wilderness and arguably the single most
famous feature in any Arizona BLM wilderness. It is not
acceptable to bulldoze a road within any wilderness.
• The wilderness legacy of the Interior Department, and
the credibility of the BLM as a wilderness management agency,
are at stake.
• The BLM must consider alternatives that would avoid
bulldozing roads within the Wilderness.
• Ask the Secretary to vacate the decisions of the IBLA.
Send letters to:
Mr. Tom Fry, Acting Director
United States Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240 -
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt
Assistant Secretary of the Interior Sylvia Baca
US Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
email: bruce_babbitt@ios.doi.gov
11
NWEA Shuts Down Okanogan Roads
A recent legal ruling by a federal judge signifies a turning
point in the management of roads on our National Forests. In a
case interpreting Section 8(b) of National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) for the first time, Judge Barbara Rothstein, of the
Seattle Circuit Court, this March ruled in favor of the North-
west Ecosystem Alliance claims that the Okanogan National
Forest (ONF) was not keeping proper inventory or control of
old logging roads. The case, NWEA v. USFS, was initiated in
1996 after the agency failed to respond to concerns raised by
conservationists. See RIPorter 1:6.
The heart of the matter is that the ONF, like most National
Forests, is overridden with roads. Many of the roads are “ghost
roads,” existing on the ground but not on maps or inventories.
These roads deliver sediment to streams and provide ready
access for wildlife-disturbing vehicles, even though the
government fails to acknowledge their existence.
Two major arguments were presented, both favorably
resolved in NWEA’s favor. First, NWEA argued that the ONF
violated a requirement of NFMA, which directs the USFS to
have a comprehensive inventory of its road system to properly
manage both the roads and their impacts upon the land.
Section 8(b) requires the Forest Service to maintain an accurate
inventory of roads in its transportation system. Any temporary
roads (e.g., logging spurs), not intended to be part of the
permanent road system, are to be closed and revegetated
within ten years. The Court agreed and ordered the ONF to
develop an accurate road inventory and ensure that temporary
roads be closed and revegetated within ten years. While the
Judge left open the question of what mechanism would be
used (NWEA argued the Forest Service must pro-actively close
and obliterate these roads, rather than trusting fate to do so),
she reaffirmed that all temporary roads must be designed to
revegetate naturally within a decade.
Second, the ONF was failing to implement its own Land
and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) with respect to road
densities. Many designations within the LRMP (or so-called
Forest Plan) of a NF carry road density limitations needed to
protect habitat quality of wildlife ranging from deer to grizzly
bears. In other areas, road density standards are based on
different concerns, such as salmon habitat, water quality
Cartoon by Jacob Marcinek.
Reprinted from the Montana Kaimin, Apr 5, 2000.
12
needs, or recreational and aesthetic criteria. Where a manage-
ment area has a higher density of roads than the Plan allows,
the agency must close and revegetate the excess mileage.
NWEA illustrated to the Court that the ONF was in violation of
these standards for approximately 40% of its management
areas. The judge directed the agency to complete an inventory
of its roads and adopt a closure schedule (after securing
NWEA’s agreement) that meets Forest Plan commitments.
Judge Rothstein agreed that the government’s lackluster
approach that allows our forests to decline gradually and
haphazardly into parking lots is illegal and unacceptable. This
ruling can be applied to almost every forest in the nation—
these issues present in the ONF being endemic to the entire
forest system—to bring the road system back under control.
It also is worth noting that this ruling reinforces the need
for the Clinton Administration’s emerging National Forest
roads policy to be firm and aggressive.
Park Service Bans Snowmobiles
On April 27, 2000, the National Park Service (NPS) issued a
broad ban on recreational use of snowmobiles at most national
parks, recreational areas and monuments, parkways, historic
sites, and scenic trails. Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Donald Barry said the NPS would immedi-
ately enforce existing NPS national regulations regarding
snowmobile use. The net effect of this renewed enforcement
effort will be the significant reduction of recreational
snowmobiling in most units of the System. The snowmobiles
have had “significant adverse environmental effects” on the
park system, the agency said.
Only those units that had completed impact assessments
enabling use, or had ongoing assessments (like Yellowstone)
could allow snowmobiles. The ban doesn’t include parks in
Alaska and the Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, where
Congress specifically allows snowmobile use, or where they
are needed to access adjacent private lands or inholdings.
Yellowstone & Grand Teton NP, where snowmobiling has
been the focus of intense controversy, an ongoing Winter Use
EIS is studying the impacts of snowmobiles. The preferred
Alternative in the Yellowstone EIS would ban all snowmobile
use in the Park, opting instead to allow access by snowcoach.
Deputy Park Director Denis Galvin said, “this [growing]
concern about snowmobiles has been triggered in part by the
on-going winter use planning for Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks, which has focused on the significant adverse
environmental effects generated by heavy snowmobile activity
in those parks.”
More than 180,000 snowmobiles were used during winter
months in the national park system and critics complain that
they pollute the air, create excessive noise, damage wildlife
habitat, and interrupt wintering behavior, and generally
disrupt the Park environment.
The action came in response to a petition filed by the Blue
Water Network and more than 60 groups, including
WIldlandsCPR, claiming the NPS has not enforced its own
regulations. Those regulations, dating back to the 1970s,
require close monitoring of snowmobiles and other ORVs in
parks, and a ban if they harm the environment.
The Park Service acknowledged that in violation of its own
regulations, it has failed to monitor adequately the impact of
the popular recreational vehicles on the park environment.
This led to a lawsuit by The Ecology Center, Inc., the Fund for
Animals, and others against Yellowstone National Park. That
The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
lawsuit sparked off the current Winter Use EIS, and provided
the NPS with a wake up call that they were vulnerable to
lawsuits at many of its other units—hence the proactive ban.
“The time has come for the National Park Service to pull
in its welcome mat for recreational snowmobiling,” Assistant
Interior Secretary Donald J. Barry said. He called snowmobiles
“noisy, antiquated machines that are no longer welcome in our
national parks. The snowmobile industry has had many years
to clean up their act and they haven’t,” said Barry.
Backcountry Yurt Destroyed by Fire
The smoldering remains of a $20,000 14-person back-
country shelter were discovered April 3. The yurt, located on
Idaho’s Sawtooth National Forest, had been rented out by
skiers and snowshoers for 18 years. Fire investigators deter-
mined that the fire was deliberately set. Suspicions that
snowmobilers are responsible for the blaze are running high,
especially because the yurt belonged to Sun Valley Trekking
owner Bob Jonas, a local advocate for restricting snowmobile
use in parts of the Forest. The area around the yurt was heavily
tracked by snowmobiles when the remains were discovered.
Some are concerned the arson will derail efforts by the

Skid Marks… skiing and snowmobile communities to agree on a zoning

map—an effort which should be completed by October. “Of
the seven backcountry ski huts in the Sun Valley area, the
Boulder Hut was the most popular and a favorite with families.
Skid Marks, WCPR’s (usually) biweekly email newsletter,
I’m very upset about this action and the steady erosion of the
reports on activist efforts to challenge roads and motorized
hut skier experience by powder sledders. However, far more
recreation. Skid Marks shares instructive and precedent-setting
important than the material loss of a hut is the preservation of
successes and failures in the campaign to halt motorized abuse
a quality experience for both user groups, now and into the
of wildland ecosystems. Keep in touch with us about your ORV
future. We must act now to zone those experiences,” explained
and road work. Questions should be sent to Jacob Smith at
Jonas.
prebles@indra.com. Please send e-mail action alerts to
The Blaine County Sheriff’s Department has promised to
WildlandsCPR@wildrockies.org. To subscribe, send an email to
investigate the arson. The Nordic and Backcountry Skiers’
majordomo@indra.com with the following in the body of your
Alliance, the Idaho State Snowmobile Association, and others
email message: subscribe skidmarks [your email address]
have contributed to a $4,500 reward for information.
Farmer Crushes Snowmobile with Tractor BLM Sued for Violating ESA
The Edmonton Journal reported April 11 that a farmer
On March 16, a coalition of environmental groups,
from Stony Plain, Canada is on trial for destroying a snowmo-
including the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and
bile and damaging another with his 10-ton tractor. Seven
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed suit
snowmobilers entered the farm through a gate, claiming the
against the BLM. They claimed that the BLM violated the ESA
“no trespassing” sign was for the neighboring field. The farmer
by failing to analyze the effects of the 1980 California Desert
then drove his tractor onto one snowmobile while it was
Conservation Area Plan on protected species. Although issued
stalled at the bottom of a ravine and lowered the tractor’s
in 1980, the BLM has never fully implemented the Plan’s
plow-blade onto another parked nearby, causing minor
conservation section, nor have they properly considered the
damage. The remaining snowmobilers headed for the gate, but
Plan’s overall effects on threatened and endangered species.
the farmer’s brother locked it and called the Mounties. The
“BLM is using a 20-year old plan that allows high levels of ORV
farmer claims the tractor had a “quirky” clutch that caused the
use on sensitive, fragile desert habitats,” says Daniel Patterson,
machine to lurch forward unexpectedly. A repair shop esti-
desert ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The
mated it would take $6,170 to fix the “flattened” snowmobile,
BLM will have to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on
more than twice what it is worth.
the plan across the California desert to consider its overall
effects on 24 listed species. We anticipate BLM will be required
BLM Closes Part of San Rafael Swell to close and revegetate routes and reduce ORV use, especially
The BLM issued an emergency ORV closure order for six
on critical habitat.”
Wilderness Study Areas in southeastern Utah’s San Rafael
Swell, and closed all but four routes in a seventh potential
wilderness area. They justified the closures, issued March 21,
on the basis of significant damage to soils, vegetation, and
other natural resources. Hill climbing and other cross country
travel have been among the most significant problems here.
While applauding the closures, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance is concerned because the four ORV routes left open by
the BLM are among the most severely damaged in the area.
SUWA is the lead organization on a recent lawsuit to protect
millions of acres of potential wilderness from ORV use.
The closure order applies to all vehicles in the Muddy
Creek, Devil’s Canyon, Crack Canyon, San Rafael Reef, Horse-
shoe Canyon, and Mexican Mountain Wilderness Study Areas.
The four open routes are located in the Sid’s Mountain WSA.
For more information about the closures please visit the BLM
web site (www.ut.blm.gov) or view the Federal Register notice:
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a000321c.html.

El Mirage Dry Lake. BLM Open Area. Howard Wilshire photo.

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000 13

 Activists fear that if this project is not
brought under the auspices of the IJC, it
will make it difficult to mitigate the
serious, long-term negative environmental
impacts in this magnificent region. This
project has significant and precedent
setting implications for both terrestrial and
aquatic cross-boundary issues.
Treaty between the US and Canada. Its purpose is to
resolve transboundary environmental conflicts.
Activists fear that if this project is not brought
under the auspices of the IJC, it will make it difficult
to mitigate the serious, long-term negative environ-
mental impacts in this magnificent region. This
project has significant and precedent setting implica-
tions for both terrestrial and aquatic cross-boundary
ecosystem issues. It would create a precedent for
bypassing the IJC and ensuring other environmental
disasters in the future as BC presses on to industrial-
ize its northern region. A referral to the IJC would
bring sound science and impartial review of the
permitting process to the Redfern mine.
The company claims the road is needed to
transport ore to the shipping tidewaters of Skagway.
During the 1950s, the mine used barges to move its
ore down the Taku River to Juneau.
Redfern Resources estimates it will cost thirty
million dollars to build the road through the steep
coastal mountain terrain. Independent experts
estimated that the costs would be at least sixty
million dollars, and that maintaining the road would
be challenging due to terrain instability, avalanches
and winter maintenance problems. The viability of
the project has been questioned, raising concerns
about a road to nowhere and yet another abandoned
mine in the BC wilderness.
The road would threaten the survival of a
recovering woodland caribou population and would
degrade critical grizzly bear habitat. Wildlife popula-
tions and fisheries would be impacted by road-
related problems like habitat fragmentation, barriers
to movement, disruption of water flow patterns,
exposure to human overharvesting, traffic mortality
and toxic spills.
The cumulative effects of spur roads to new
mining claims and logging of the fragile boreal forest
would degrade this globally endangered temperate
rainforest. To assert that the only effect upon wildlife
will be a reduction in carrying capacity equivalent to
the area occupied by the road and the mine is
absurd.
The company will provide no guarantee that the
road would ever be de-commissioned. Most likely
the road would remain open to some vehicles, and
poorly controlled access. It even could be extended
to provide a land link to Juneau.
Overhunting is the next most significant impact
to wildlife after mining. Mitigation for overhunting
will rely on the company’s proposed controlled
access program, a monitored gate maintained in
14
Spawning salmon on Taku River - what we could lose....
Ric Careless, BC Spaces for Nature photo.
perpetuity. Closure effectiveness is questionable at best and would be
strengthened by appropriate government wildlife protection measures
in light of major government cutbacks in monitoring and enforcement
staff. However, there is no guarantee that would happen.
Other controlled access experiments have not mitigated long term
wildlife impacts. While BC has required gated roads with attendants in
the past, limited or nonexistent monitoring has resulted in a dearth of
information about closure effectiveness.
Redfern Resources is pushing ahead aggressively to build the road.
They have a conditional permit from BC, but must complete 19 studies
on road location and habitat impacts prior to final approval. In the 10
months since the company was issued the conditional permit, it hasn’t
completed the studies and could begin construction no sooner than
April 2001.
Several potential obstacles the project must overcome;
* The US requested that the serious threats affecting transboundary
waterways be investigated by the IJC. Talks between US and Canada
have reached the presidential level and are linked to the recently
completed West Coast Salmon Treaty.
* The Taku River Tlingit First Nation filed a legal challenge against the
BC government asking that the mine approval be quashed. The case
went to trial in late March and a judgment is pending. In the
meantime, the Tlingit continue to develop a long term land manage-
ment plan that would protect and promote a sustainable economy in
the region.
* Redfern Resources is a small company with minimal capital assets
and underperforming share prices. The company and its sharehold-
ers continue to be pressured from the mine’s opponents, and the
delays, along with weak metal prices, could force the project into
dormancy or bankruptcy.
To find out how you can assist in the international effort to prevent
this road from degrading the wildlands and rivers of Taku Valley please
contact:
South East Alaska Conservation Council - 907-586-6942
Environmental Mining Council of BC - 250-384-2686
Sierra Club of BC - 250-386-5255
—Alan Young is Executive Director of the Environmental Mining Council
of BC, a coalition of local, provincial and national conservation groups.
The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000
 Wildlands CPR Publications: Bibliographic Services:
Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members) —A Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Up-
comprehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides dated Feb. 1998) —Edited by Reed Noss. Compiled by Dave
listed below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gather- Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Humphrey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacquet
ing Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and & Susan Pierce. Contains approx. 6,000 citations — includ-
more! ing scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimen-
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-mem- tation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrologi-
bers) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting cal effects, and other information on the impacts of roads.
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmen- Use the ecological literature to understand and develop road
tal laws, road density standards & Forest Service road poli- density standards, priorities for road removal, and other
cies. road issues.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-mem- Database Searches —We will search the Bibliography on the
bers) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background subjects that interest you, and provide results in IBM or
on the National Park System and its use of roads, and out- Macintosh format (specify software), or on paper. We also
lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning. have prepared a 1-disk Bibliographic Summary with results
Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members) —By for commonly requested searches. Finally, we offer the full
Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and
bibliography. However, you must have Pro-Cite or a com-
resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in
patible database program in order to use it.
BLM decision-making processes.
Bibliography prices — Prices are based on a sliding scale. Call
Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem-
for details.
bers) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reduc-
ing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an
extensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4, $7 non-
members) —By Scott Bagley. Provides technical informa-
tion on road construction and removal, where and why
roads fail, and how you can effectively assess road removal
projects.
Trails of Destruction ($10) —By Friends of the Earth and Wild-
lands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This
report explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal fund-
ing for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV
industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

I want to join (or renew my membership with) Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:
Wildlands CPR:
Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
$250 $100 $50 business
/
$30 standard $15 low-income Other
/
Type of Membership: Individual Organization
/

Name Total of all items:

Affiliation Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.00 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.00 per item.
International Membership — $30 Minimum
Address All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

Please send this form and your check (payable to Wildlands CPR)
Phone/E-mail to the address below. Thank you!
Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2000 15

Visions...

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

“Take one trip overland here and you’ll know forever

that a road in the jungle is a sweet, flat, impossible
dream. The soil falls apart. The earth melts into red
gashes like the mouths of whales. Fungi and vines
throw a blanket over the face of the dead land. It’s
simple, really… when you clear off part of the plate,
the whole slides into ruin.”
—Barbara Kingsolver, The Poisonwood Bible.

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