road riporter 3.2

IThe Road-R PorterBimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. March/April 1998. Volume 3 # 2

Water, Wilderness and Roads:Creative Ways to Assert RS 2477 Claimsby Katherine Deuel

— continued on page 4 —

At a time when the federal government has publiclyacknowledged the importance of roadless area values with an(albeit temporary) moratorium on building new roads in theseotherwise unprotected areas, the Forest Service, in a remotecorner of southwestern Montana, seems determined to buildnew roads into just those areas that we have legislativelyprotected: designated Wilderness.

uly 24th, 1997. Ifind myself leadingwhat feels like asmall army up a trail

in the Selway-BitterrootWilderness of westernMontana.

The Bitterroot Range receives lightuse compared to other major ranges inthe Rockies, partly because thesemountains aren’t as high and spectacu-lar as others and partly because ofMontana’s sparse and well-dispersedpopulation. The Bitterroot Mountain’screst delineates the Idaho/Montanaborder for over 200 miles, but the 1.3million acre Wilderness actually coversmore of the former than the latter.From the crest, the mountains tumbledown into Idaho’s Selway river countryand beyond: the Selway-BitterrootWilderness is contiguous with vasttracts of still-undeveloped, unprotectedpublic land that bump into moredesignated Wilderness. This continu-ous stretch of wild country is the largest of its kind in thelower forty-eight states.

We are coming from the decidedly more civilizedeastern edge of the Wilderness. The party of seven that I amhiking with drove less than a half hour from the universitytown of Missoula to arrive at the trailhead. We traveledsouth through the flat bottomland of the Bitterroot River

Valley, past hay fields and cattle herds and ever-morecommon subdivisions. We chose not to stop at St. Mary’sMission, the earliest anglo settlement in Montana, though itwould be an appropriate starting point to understanding theissue at hand. There, in 1842, an enterprising Catholicmissionary showed that whites could survive in this inhospi-

table territory by irrigating its produc-tive soils through the dry part of latesummer. Agriculture has been themainstay of the Bitterroot’s economysince then, and irrigation is themainstay of agriculture. Father DeSmet’s “innovation” — irrigation — iswhat allowed considerable settlementin this valley, and today we are goinginto the Wilderness to view some ofthe physical consequences.

Usually when I lead trips inWilderness, I talk about how and whywe should minimize our impact on thelandscapes, wildlife and other peoplewe encounter. The conversation maystray from how to leave a clean campto the enabling legislation that madeall these considerations possible: the1964 Wilderness Act. But today ourconversation has been robbed of anyphilosophical discussion of how wecan use federal lands responsibly.Here in Bass Creek a decision hasalready been made. Our goal is toexamine the type and amount ofimpact the Bitterroot National Forest(NF) deems acceptable within thisWilderness, and to consider theimplications for Wilderness dams androads throughout the United States.

We leave the trailhead walkingwest along a road. It follows the narrow corridor of thecreek bottom, pushes over a small rise and enters a flatter,more open valley. We pass the sign: “You are now enteringthe Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.” We are still on a road, aroad that continues 5 miles further into the Wilderness and

Crib structure at the Tin Cup dam. The ForestService has built roads within designatedWilderness to repair old dams like this one,built earlier this century for irrigation. Photoby Jamie Lennox.

J

The Road-RIPorter March/April 19982

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

Wildlands Center for PreventingRoads is a national coalition of

grassroots groups and individualsworking to reverse the severe

ecological impacts of wildland roads.We seek to protect native ecosystems

and biodiversity by recreating aninterconnected network of roadless

public wildlands.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) [email protected]/WildCPR

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Youngblood-Petersen

Office AssistantDana Jensen

(anti) Motorized RecreationProgram

Jacob Smith

NewsletterDan Funsch

Interns & VolunteersBen Irey

Scott BagleyVivian Roland

Board of DirectorsKatie Alvord

Mary Byrd DavisKraig KlungnessSidney Maddock

Rod MondtCara Nelson

Mary O'BrienTom Skeele

Scott Stouder

Advisory CommitteeJasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,

Dave Foreman, KeithHammer, Timothy Hermach,

Marion Hourdequin, LorinLindner, Andy Mahler, RobertMcConnell, Stephanie Mills,Reed Noss, Michael Soulé,

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

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands C C C C Center for P P P P Preventing R R R R Roads

I Can See Clearly Now...The hubbub over the Clinton Administration’s new roads policy is beginning to

die down, but the confusion surrounding it continues to grow. In our efforts to findout what is happening with the policy, we continue to receive contradictory informa-tion from practically everyone we speak with. Just after our last RIPorter, the ForestService told us that the 60,000 miles of ghost roads recently discovered includedonly user-created, and not temporary roads, and that the 60,000 mile figure wasextrapolated from Region 4 data. Just before this issue went to press, however, theytold us that 60,000 is a known number, not an estimate. They also said it includestemporary and all other types of roads. Then the Forest Service acknowledged thatthe real number of ghost roads is “significantly more than 60,000” according toActing Director of the Engineering StaffSkip Coghlan. All of the data came fromthe Washington, DC office of the ForestService. Now if the media and engineer-ing departments would only start talkingto each other, we might get some usefulinformation. The comment period forthe interim roads policy was extendedanother 30 days to coincide with the 60day comment period on the long-termpolicy (deadline March 30). We hope youreceived either an e-mail or snail mailalert from us on this issue. If you lost itand still want to write comments, pleasecontact us ASAP.

Thanks...Many, many thanks to Patagonia,

especially the Reno and Dillon outlets.The Reno store recently donated a bunchof gear to use on field excursions, andthe Dillon store made a generous grant toour ORV program. We love ecologicallycorrect corporations - thanks Patagonia!!As always, thanks to all of you who havesent donations, joined or just supportedour work, it makes all the difference inthe world. Many thanks to our memberDeb Patla in Wyoming for sending thenewspaper column that we have re-printed on page 13.

New ArrivalsWildlands CPR welcomes our new student intern from the University of Mon-

tana this semester. Ben Irey, an undergraduate, finished hiking the Appalachian Traillast fall. He is back in school and will be doing some ground-based monitoring oftemporary road compliance on the Bitterroot or Lolo National Forest.

This issue of the RIPorter has a new section - DePaving the Way. We will use thiscolumn as a place to inform you about high-priority issues relating to roads andwildland ecosystems. We hope it offers you timely information that you can use inyour road challenges. We also have included our 1997 Annual Report in this issue,therefore you won’t find any regional reports. Look for them next time.

You also may notice a new look for The RIPorter. Since Unity DP unbleachedrecycled paper is no longer available, we have switched to Eureka 100. This paper is100% recycled, made from 100% post-consumer waste. And although it is white, itis non-chlorine bleached.

In this Issue

Water, Wilderness and Roads, p. 1Katherine Deuel

Odes to Roads, p. 3Tom Lyon

Legal Notes, p. 6-7Jacob Smith

Wildlands CPR Annual Report,p. 8-9

Bibliography Notes, p. 10-11Karen Wood

DePaving the Way, p. 12Bethanie Walder

Lost and Gone While DrivingGhost Roads, p. 13

Mark Huffman

Ask Dr. Roads, p. 14Dr. Roads, Master of what?

New Resources Available, p. 14

The Road-RIPorter March/April 1998 3

I’ve been thinking a lot about whyroad construction is innocent untilproven guilty — why we on the

minority side have to struggle so hardeven to get a hearing. We never got oneon the Final Environmental ImpactStatement that the Utah Department ofTransportation prepared for LoganCanyon, Utah. It was an unbelievablybad document, full of false assumptionsand misused or faulty statistics. It sailedthrough, as such things do. Then theForest Service dismissed our 187-pageappeal with a page and a half bureau-cratic slap, the back of the hand. Butwhy? Why is it so easy for them, and sohard for us? Why do the “Indians”always lose?

I remember sitting at the big tablewith Utah Department of Transportationand Forest Service representatives in theearly days of the Logan Canyon contro-versy. UDOT, the Forest Service and theFederal highway people had convenedan “Interdisciplinary Team” thatincluded a few environmentalists. Wewould all present our different viewsand arrive at a consensus. But no suchthing happened: we could not see whya faster, straighter road should be built,and they could not see why we preferreda winding, slower one. It was as if thetwo sides spoke absolutely unrelatedlanguages. The momentum, however,was theirs, and after a number ofmeetings they dissolved the ID team,sent us letters of thanks, and went aheadwith the project the way they wanted it.

You can see the same onrushingimpetus operating in other parts of ourstrange life. A woman in Iowa gives birthto seven babies, to general approval.(Hardly anyone sees population growthas the real, hurtful thing it is.) Theeconomy grows daily, to generalapproval (what gloomy faces we will see,if it should ever not grow). NAFTA goesthrough; GATT goes through. Full steamahead. You and I get a raise, and we notonly don’t refuse it, we think it couldhave been more. We know better,

rationally; weknow this can’t goon. What ifeverybody in theworld lived likethis? But we takethe money. We goahead and drivethe car — wonder-ing what all theseother people aredoing on the road,why the traffic isso dense.Shouldn’t they be at work, or in schoolor something? We’re streaming downthe highway, part of the momentum.

What we don’t often see is thatmomentum makes us stupid. It shuts offawareness of the real, related, interde-pendent world. Keeps us within ourmetallic shells. Keeps us going straightand fast on the road we have built. Thisis truly a massive mental and spiritualdisorder. We straighten, simplify, andspeed up — the classic linear mentality,the classic mistake. This is what theLogan Canyon project is: an accurateexpression of who we think we are andwhat we think the world is. What makesour situation so difficult now is that wehaven’t just made a technical mistake,we have become identified with ourconstruction. The straight, fast road, andthe salary increase, etc., become crucialto our always-accumulating identity. Weare dedicated to safeguarding andexpanding this identity above all, andour tight allegiance keeps us fromseeing, from knowing in any deep waywhat we’re doing. The new, fast, straightroad in Logan Canyon is like such roadsanywhere, a symptom of our not seeingthe world.

Speaking from the state of identity,we call our impacts “side effects,” arevealing phrase. In Logan Canyon, therewill be “side effects” on Logan River, onBeaver Creek, on trees, birds, flowers,snails, snakes, worms, deer, elk, and onand on. In reality, these are not “side”

Odes to Roads

Momentumby Tom Lyon

beings, however; the world doesn’t workin parts. What a strong and sad disease itis, that we don’t see this.

It’s fortunate that along with theego-mind, the identity-builder, evolutionprovided a capacity for wider, relationalawareness. This is where we touch theworld of source, where we see the treein its own right, feel its bark, feel intothe life that stands there flowing upwardand downward, feel compassion with it.This is where we don’t just leave the treealone, we honor it as a fellow vessel ofsacred life. In relational awareness, weget a bit of perspective on this fiercelittle identity thing. We see the good-ness of a winding, slow road, and thegreater beauty of a roadless canyon. Wedon’t feel in such a hurry. We havestepped aside from the clanking,whirring machinery for a time. This kindof seeing doesn’t translate well intobottom-line language — it doesn’t carryacross the big table very well. But whenwe are alive this way, aren’t we morelikely to do the right thing?

Tom Lyon is recently retired from theUniversity of Utah, where he has been aprofessor since 1964. He edited theclassic anthology This IncomparableLand: A Book of American NatureWriting, and he also edits the journalWestern American Literature. Mr. Lyonhas been honored with conservationawards from the Utah WildernessAssociation and the Bridgerland AudubonSociety.

Logan Canyon, Utah. Photo by George Nickas.


Water, Wilderness and Roads— continued from page 1 —

Forest managers have invoked “emergencies” to allow roadbuilding within designated Wilderness. Photo by DoyleGerrard.

stops at the Bass Creek Dam.There are 31 dams on the Bitterroot

National Forest, 18 of them within the Wilder-ness. Nationwide, over 200 dams lie in Wilder-ness areas. The earliest dams in the Bitterrootmountains were built in the 1890’s, beforeMontana was even a state. More were builtbefore the Bitterroot NF was established in 1905,and all 31 dams were long since completedwhen the Wilderness Act passed in 1964.

The dams hold the rush of water that poursout of the mountains with spring snowmelt andrelease it to irrigate crops in the late summer dryseason. The farmers who use this water holdlegal rights to this bounty — private propertyrights under western water law — and manyhave easement rights to physical dam structures.To maintain their rights, water users have tomonitor and maintain the structures, and use thewater they claim.

The Forest Service inherited the responsibility of ensuringthat water users uphold their obligations, and the agencyultimately makes decisions on the fate of the dams. Theymust protect public safety as well as the Wilderness valuesaround the dams — including solitude, quiet and keeping thearea “untrammeled by man.”

Although routine maintenance and monitoring is required,in 1996 the Forest Service and the Bass Creek water usersdeclared that emergency measures were needed to make thedam safe. Local conservationists requested that hand tools andhorses be used to make the repairs. After all, the dams in theBitterroot were built and maintained for over fifty years usingthis “primitive” technology. But the Bitterroot NF officialsdecided to fix this emergency by reconstructing a road. TheBass Creek road was not new. It was rebuilt in 1952 for amajor dam reconstruction and was used every year formaintenance until 1969 — 5 years after the Wilderness Actpassed.

Since then, the road had been slowly revegetating and thearea returning to a more natural state, until the Bitterroot NFbulldozed a roadeight miles up thecreek, in theWilderness, to thedam. But the roadreconstruction wasnever challenged incourt because theplan included abenefit: theexcavator thatreconstructed theroad would pullvegetation and debris back onto it when it left, speeding up theroad to trail conversion process.

We are hiking that road. It skirts the open valley, crossesthe creek, and climbs up a steep hillside to the next levelbench. The creek pours through this section with a spectacu-lar cascade. Out in the second hanging valley we pass two tan

(or filthy?) youngmen with shovelsand pick-axes inhand. They are hereto mitigate thedamage, buildingwater bars andreplanting nativevegetation, trying tomake the road looklike a trail again. Itdoesn’t.

Rather thanmaking me feelbetter about theForest Service’sdecision, thismitigation work justmakes it seemworse. In the end, it

was not worth the impact. The road to trail conversion did notinclude recontouring or obliterating the road, just movingsome vegetation around. How much are we, the public, payingfor a cosmetic job of reducing erosion and revegetating thescars? The gentle sections of the road have some tentativeregrowth, but less than a year after the bulldozers, the steepersections are completely denuded. How long before this valleylooks and feels like Wilderness again? And just how bad aprecedent did the Bitterroot National Forest set by making thisdecision?

The answer to the last question followed right on the heelsof the project’s implementation. In May of 1997, AlaskaSenator Ted Stevens tacked the now-infamous “Pave the Parksrider” (resurrecting RS 2477 road right-of-way claims — SeeThe RIPorter v2 #5) onto an emergency flood relief bill. Thereare 18 dams in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, all requiringmaintenance and repair. Does that mean 18 roads and 18 RS2477 claims in the Wilderness? It could. Especially if theForest Service continues to allow water users to ignore dammaintenance and repair until, suddenly, an “emergency”

demands more bulldozers, and moreroads.

But really now, how many “emer-gencies” can the Forest Service condonefor dams that ought to be regularlymonitored and maintained? I didn’tthink very many, but it turns out thatthe Bitterroot NF has allowed 4 motor-ized intrusions into the Selway-Bitter-root wilderness since 1991, all in thename of emergency dam maintenance.And they are still doing it.

In 1993, the Forest Service began anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze alternativesfor reconstructing the Tin Cup dam, another Bitterroot damapproximately 50 miles south of Bass Creek. But the Forestnever completed the EIS. Four years later, the public hadanother chance to comment. This time the project and theanalysis were divided into two components, (one planned for

They are here to mitigate the damage,building water bars and replantingnative vegetation, trying to make

the road look like a trail again.It doesn’t.


1997 and the second for1998) despite the obviousconnectedness of the twoactions. Although theBitterroot Forest officials’“preferred alternative” forphase I, including outlet piperepair and dam core testing,favored using primitive tools,the final decision did not.Forest Supervisor Steve Kelly chose the Tin Cup Water Users’preferred alternative, allowing 60 helicopter round-trips, abackhoe, a backhoe-mounted drill, a compressor, generator,water pumps, and building a helicopter landing pad in theWilderness.

Why did Supervisor Kelly make this decision despitestrong opposition (the decision was appealed and an unsuc-cessful lawsuit brought against the Forest Service) and feasible,legal alternatives? He explained that “patching [the outletpipe] as a temporary repair measure leaves a risk of failurethat I am not willing to make.” He invoked an emergency.

It was the emergency that never had to be. State engineershad warned that the dam needed repairs since 1990. Despitethis warning and federal regulations requiring yearly mainte-nance and monitoring, the water users and the Forest Serviceonly made two inspections (and norepairs) between that warning and lastyear’s proposal. It wasn’t until the waterusers mustered the money and theinternal cohesion that the Forest Servicedecided to act. Then, confronted with aself-proclaimed “emergency,” the ForestService rubber-stamped a proposalallowing motorized equipment inWilderness last year and setting the stageto implement phase II. And what doesphase II entail? Drive a D-9 dozer right tothe dam site, 11 miles from the trailhead,9 miles into the Selway-BitterrootWilderness. Another road.

Fortunately, the final decision onPhase II hasn’t been made. And though itmay be possible for an RS 2477 claim tobe made, Tin Cup does not have the samehistory of regular road use as Bass Creekdid. Though the first phase of Tin Cupdam repairs were done in a way that setsthe stage for more roads into this vastWilderness, we learned an unfortunatelesson about the Forest Service’s sense ofresponsibility. They have consistentlydecided NOT to require water users touphold their legal and ethical obligationsto regularly maintain dams, and consis-tently decided TO allow the mostdestructive impact possible — roads —into the only areas in the country whereroads are legislatively prohibited —designated Wilderness.

The road into Bass Creekbecomes more obvious asyou approach the dam.Where the trail once pickedthrough a boulder field, thereis now a bulldozer widebench for easy walking. It isimpossible to plant vegetationto camoflaugue this damage,so mitigation here means an

occasional large boulder rolled back onto the road. The damitself is visible from a distance — a flat, pale-grey face wherethe creekbed should be. It is conspicuous to me preciselybecause of its lack of bright colors — it is bulky, not delicate;too monotone; dead, not alive. There is nothing wild about it.

By the time we reach the dam we are hot and dehydrated,and have become so accustomed to the marks of humanimpact that the dam hardly seems out of place. Cajoling fromthe intrepids in our party eventually coaxes each of us into thechilling water of Bass Lake. I am one of the last in. Climbingout to dry myself in the warm summer sun, I face away fromthe dam, letting the real wilderness ahead inspire me toremind others of what the Wilderness behind me has lost.

As this goes to print, the Forest Service has not yetreceived the water users’ final proposal for phase II recon-

struction. But Tom Wagner, the DistrictRanger responsible for the decision, isalready making promises. The ForestService will analyze the project with anEnvironmental Impact Statement, andthe EIS will be available for public reviewin December. And he told the waterusers that he doesn’t want to see aproposal for a road up Tin Cup creek.

In the meantime, for the first time inalmost 50 years, water this summer willspill over and beyond the dam, filling TinCup’s banks in spring and diminishing toa trickle in late summer. Because thedam is a high-hazard dam at risk offailure (hence the emergency), when thewater company completed phase I lastfall they had to remove the “headgate”that traps the water behind the dam.Now, faced with the prospect of no late-season flows, they have already askedthe Forest Service for permission to fly ina temporary headgate to contain thisyear’s flows, and perhaps next year’s aswell. Apparently, the water users arewilling to risk the same dam failure thatForest Supervisor Kelly and FederalDistrict Judge Molloy refused to riskwhen they decided in favor of the watercompany on Phase I.

Katherine Deuel is Ecosystem Defensecoordinator for Alliance for the WildRockies.

Confronted with a self-proclaimed“emergency,” the Forest Service rubber-stamped a proposal allowing the use of

motorized equipment in Wilderness.

Dams like this one in Montana’s Bass Creekhave become a focal point in the debate overWilderness purity. Photo by Dana Jensen.


Legal Notes

The Biodiversity Legal Foundation(BLF) and the Fund for Animals(Fund) recently settled a lawsuit

they had filed against the National ParkService (NPS) over the management ofwinter recreation in YellowstoneNational Park (YNP). Their effortprovides one example of taking legalaction to force Federal land manage-ment agencies to manage motorizedrecreation responsibly.

After considerable research, the BLFand the Fund concluded that winterrecreation, especially motorized activity(primarily the use of snowmobiles andsnow coaches) was likely havingsignificant adverse environmentalimpacts on Yellowstone. They soughtfundamental changes in the ParkService’s winter recreation managementpolicies. The BLF and the Fund furtherdetermined the NPS was violatingnumerous Federal statutes, and theagency’s ongoing winter recreationplanning process was unlikely toremedy the legal deficiencies. Theseorganizations, along with PredatorProject, the Ecology Center, and anumber of individuals as additional co-plaintiffs, filed suit against the NPS (inthe District of Columbia, U.S. DistrictCourt) in May 1997 to force compliancewith legal and regulatory mandatesconcerning recreation management andenvironmental protection.

The LawsuitThe Fund et al. argued that the NPS

was violating four major environmentallaws:

* the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA);

* the Endangered Species Act (ESA);

* the National Park Service OrganicAct; and

* the Yellowstone National Park Act.

With respect to NEPA, the Fund, etal. contend that the Park Service failedto fulfill its legal obligations on two

counts. First, the NPS should haveprepared an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) concerning winterrecreation and its environmental effects.Second, the NPS should have supple-mented its 1990 Environmental Analysison winter use in YNP in light of signifi-cant new information and circumstances.

The lawsuit further contended thatwinter recreation in Yellowstone waslikely harming the grizzly bear and thegray wolf, two species listed under theESA. The ESA required the Park toconsult with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS), which it had not done,and the FWS was required to issue aBiological Opinion concerning theimpacts of winter use on the grizzly bearand gray wolf, which it had not doneeither.

Finally, the Fund et al. claimed theNPS violated the National Parks OrganicAct and Yellowstone National Park’senabling legislation by failing to “con-serve the wildlife” of the Park and to“leave them unimpaired for the enjoy-ment of future generations,” 16 U.S.C.§1, by failing to leave them “in theirnatural condition,” 16 U.S.C. §22, andseveral additional (and related) regula-tory violations. The lawsuit also in-cluded Administrative Procedures Actand Mandamus Act claims.

The SettlementAfter extensive negotiations, despite

concerted efforts by industry groups tointervene in the lawsuit, the parties tothe litigation agreed to a settlement.Signed by the Court in late October1997, the settlement agreement con-tained several key provisions:

The Park Service agreed to completea comprehensive EIS on winter visitoruse by September 2000 (with specificdeadlines for the initiation of scopingand the publication of a draft EIS).

During this interim period (until aRecord of Decision is signed regardingthis new winter visitor use plan), theNPS agreed not to begin construction onwinter use facilities (with several specificexceptions).

The Park Service agreed to preparea Biological Assessment and requestformal consultation with the FWSregarding impacts to species listed (orproposed for listing) under the ESA.

The Park Service committed itself toprepare an EA with the proposed actionof closing one or more road segments towinter visitor use in order to more fullystudy the impacts of snowmobilegrooming on YNP bison, one of theplaintiffs’ major concerns.

Lawsuit Dead End Road for Snowmobilersby Jacob Smith

Motorized recreation during the winter disturbs wildlife at a time whenthey are most vulnerable. File photo.


The NPS published its EA in mid-November concerning the proposedaction (a single road closure effectiveimmediately) and several alternativeproposals to close one of two roadsegments during the next several years.The NPS issued its Finding of NoSignificant Impact and Record ofDecision in mid-January 1998. Remark-ably, not only did the agency fail toadopt the proposed action (immediateclosure of a single road segment), itdecided that no road closures wouldoccur during the next three winterseasons for monitoring purposes(although it reserved the right to makeemergency closures to protect Parkresources or visitors).

Although the NPS has refused tocomply with the spirit, and probably theletter, of the settlement agreement, inmany respects the lawsuit still resultedin victory. The plaintiffs secured acourt-backed commitment to complywith NEPA regarding winter recreation,they secured a commitment for consul-tation between the NPS and the FWS,and they secured at least some level ofadditional research on the environmen-tal impacts of winter recreation (includ-ing the possibility of road closures whilethe EIS is being prepared). In short, theFund et al. prepared and pursued anaggressive (and well-constructed) lawsuitagainst the NPS for its failure to managewinter recreation adequately. Althoughadequate implementation of thesettlement is as yet unresolved, the casewas strong enough to produce a goodsettlement in the first place.

Legal PrecedentIt is important to note that because

the parties to the lawsuit settled thiscase out of court, there was no finalcourt ruling on the issues raised by theplaintiffs. Therefore, no legal precedentswere established by the lawsuit, limitingits application to other cases. The terms

of the settlement, while important to thedevelopment of more appropriate winterrecreation policies in Yellowstone, arenot standards that can be applied toother National Parks. However, themethods used to bring the lawsuit can.

What WorkedThe basic strategy employed by the

Fund et al. involved several steps. First,the groups undertook a thorough reviewof the scientific literature to learn whatimpacts might occur under whatcircumstances according to the bestavailable science. They also gatheredsite-specific information about environ-mental impacts in the Park. Combiningthese perspectives made the environ-mental arguments so compelling in the

lawsuit. The strength of the case,especially the ESA claims, also relied onspecies-specific information: theplaintiffs demonstrated that activities ina specific place were probably adverselyaffecting specific species in that place.

The Fund and the BLF then linkedthese impacts and the activities thought

to be causingthem to specificmanagementactions (andinaction) by thePark Service.Groomingsnowmobileroutes was anobvious one, whilefailing to conduct

an adequate NEPA analysis was moresubtle but equally important. NPSsystem-wide and specific mandatesregarding preservation and naturalregulation in Yellowstone furtherstrengthened the lawsuit.

ConclusionThe issue of uncontrolled winter

recreation in the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem is now a national issue in away that it had not been before. Al-though the interim road closure is as yetunresolved, the EIS and new manage-ment plan are likely to include somemeasures limiting the impact of winteruse in the Park. In the end, if conserva-tionists can prove that winter recreationcauses specific impacts in the Park, thenmore protective management measuresshould be implemented.

A key component of the strategyadopted by the Fund, et al. in thislawsuit was the focus on species andsite-specific impacts of specific activi-ties. Although clearly not the onlyapproach to environmental litigation, ifemployed carefully, it can provide apowerful foundation for administrativeand legal strategies intended to stem therising tide of recreational impacts onpublic lands.

Jacob Smith is halftime (anti) motorizedrecreation program director for WildlandsCPR and halftime Forest ConservationCoordinator for Biodiversity LegalFoundation.

The issue of uncontrolled winterrecreation in the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem is now a national issue…

Not all winter recreation is created equal, in terms of its impacts onwildlife. File photo.


Wildlands CPR 1997 Annual Report

IntroductionFrom the ground up — from

grassroots activists to the general publicto the halls of Congress — people turnedtheir attention to the issue of wildlandroads last year like never before. Wild-lands Center for Preventing Roads wasinstrumental in this process: providingresources to conservationists, definingthe emerging policy debate, and elevatingit to the national level. This 1997 AnnualReport outlines our accomplishments forthe past year and gives an overview ofour program activities. If you would likemore specific information, please contactus. As we look ahead to our ongoingchallenges, we will continue to stress theimportance of preventing roads and thegrowing need to remove them fromwildland ecosystems.

OrganizationIn February 1997, Wildlands CPR got

its non-profit [501(c)(3)] status from theIRS. (We had been a project of TheWildlands Project in Tucson, AZ.) Oursteering committee became our board ofdirectors, Keith Hammer and JasperCarlton stepped down to join our board of advisors, andshortly thereafter Scott Stouder and Mary Byrd Davis joinedthe board to fill the vacancies.

We began ‘97 with a small staff. Bethanie Walder servedas 3/4 time Director and Aaron Jones as 1/4 time officeassistant. Dave Havlick and Jim Coefield produced TheRoad-RIPorter, and we worked with over a dozen volunteersand interns. Scott Bagley authored The Road-Ripper’s Guide toWildland Road Removal and updated our bibliographic data-base with help from Alex Brooks and Catherine Shoemaker.John Dillon took our slideshow to Wyoming, Colorado andUtah. In April, Tom Youngblood-Petersen became our 1/2 timedevelopment director, responsible for fundraising, develop-

ment, and membership. In September, Dana Jensen took overAaron’s job — he moved to Portland. The beginning of ‘98 sawmore hours for our staff and a new program to fight motorizedrecreation. Jacob Smith will work 1/2 time through his officein Boulder, CO. In addition, Dan Funsch, former outreachdirector for Alliance for the Wild Rockies took over DaveHavlick’s portion of The Road-RIPorter.

Programs andProjectsOutreach and Membership

Outreach and member servicesinclude distributing our bi-monthlynewsletter The Road-RIPorter, handlinginformation requests, making public andconference presentations (slideshows,papers, etc., average two per month), andorganizing events. Over 500 requests forinformation came from small and largeorganizations, print and broadcast media,Congressional aides, and agency person-nel. We heard from as far away as NewZealand, Australia and Israel, in additionto numerous requests from Canada.

We distribute roughly 700 copies ofour newsletter every two months, andour mailing list grew from around 400 toover 550 groups and individuals in 1997.The Road-RIPorter is filled with informa-tion you can use to challenge roads andmotorized recreation, and articles havebeen reprinted in nearly a dozenenvironmental journals and newslettersin the past year.

PublicationsOur 1997 focus was strengthening our clearinghouse

resources, and that’s what we did. A key publication was TheRoad-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal, the fifth andlatest guide in the Road-Ripper’s Handbook. Available in March1998, this guide explains how roads are built, where and whythey fail, and how to assess and influence road removalprojects. It takes a complex process and gives you the techni-cal information needed to work on or simply understand thisissue. We also published several other reports in 1997,including “Understanding National Forest Road Economics,”and reports on ORVs, road removal and road impacts.

Our bibliographic database on the ecological effects ofroads now is current through late 1997. We conducted 53bibliography searches in 1997 (compared to 22 in 1996) andalso sold 6 complete bibliographies. The next update will becompleted in 1999.

Wildlands CPR seeks to recreate aninterconnected network of roadless publicwildlands. White sage in Casper’s Park,California. Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.

“Wildlands CPR has been the supremecatalyst in getting us this far.”

— Dave Willis, Director,Soda Mountain Wilderness Council

“Your 11th hour faxes were vital in ourlitigation effort to stop roadless area logging

on Kenai lake.” (they won!)— Jay Stange,

Alaska Center for the Environment


WorkshopsWe conducted three workshops as part of conferences in

the northwest and the Great Lakes region. Bethanie presentedhalf day workshops at the Western Ancient Forest ActivistsConference in Ashland, OR in February; the Oregon NaturalDesert Association Conference in Malheur, OR in April; andthe Forest Reform Rally in Ely, MN in September. All threewere well attended and spawned road assessment work in thedifferent regions. One attendee from the Minnesota work-shop, for example, has organized a group of college studentsto do a series of road surveys on the Chequamagon NationalForest in Wisconsin. We are planning to convene more roadremoval workshops in 1998, as well as a new workshop —fighting motorized recreation on public lands.

Fiscal Note: We received $45,000 in thefourth quarter of ‘97 for our ‘98 programs.Although this money will be spent in 1998, it isreported as 1997 revenue.

National Legislative/Management Issues

Roads made big news in Congress in 1997, and WildlandsCPR was in the thick of it. We assisted groups fighting the“Pave-the Parks” Rider to gain right-of-way access through RS2477 (Revised Statute 2477 of the 1866 Lode Mining Act). Wealso assisted with key lobbying efforts to support the Porter/Kennedy and Bryant amendments to cut congressionalappropriations for road construction on National Forest lands.Finally, in late 1997, the Administration began working on aninterim policy for roadless area protection, as well as changesto how they deal with roads on National Forest lands. Wecontinue to track this important issue, and will be active as itdevelops.

Thanks To Our SupportersIn 1997, Wildlands CPR was supported by the following

foundations: Cinnabar Foundation, Foundation for DeepEcology, Kongsgaard-Goldman Foundation, Patagonia, Inc.,Peradam Foundation, Turner Foundation, Brainerd Foundation(97/98), Harder Foundation (‘98), New-Land Foundation (‘98),and Wilburforce Foundation (‘98). We appreciate theirsupport. We also greatly appreciate the support of all ourmember organizations and individuals, and we’d like toacknowledge the hundreds of hours of volunteer and in-kindsupport donated to Wildlands CPR. Keep on Rippin’!!!

1997 Summary of Expenses & Revenue

1997 Expenses $ 51,752

1997 Revenue $106,177

Grants91%

Interest Earned

1%Membership

3%

Handbook1%contributions

2%Biblio

2%

1997 Wildland CPR Expenses

1997 Wildland CPR RevenueAdministration36%

Outreach/Member

39%

Workshops10%

Publications10%

Financial Report

“Wildlands CPR provides a specializedservice... you’ve been a great partner in

combating Overlook, the Rim Road Bill, andGumboot. We’re grateful for the relationship.”

— Ric Bailey, Executive Director,Hells Canyon Preservation Council

44%


Bibliography Notes

Roads introduce a variety of toxic pollutants to the surrounding soils,vegetation, air and waterways. Highways are a source of chronic,seasonal and accidental pollution (Balades et al. 1985, Reid 1993). Salts

from road de-icing agents (NaCl and CaCl) and lead from gasoline are commoncontaminants associated with roads, but pollutants also include nickel, copper (partof clutch lining), zinc (additive to tires), oils and greases, tire rubber, and cadmium(Isabelle et al. 1987, Bellinger et al. 1982, Nolte 1988). Pollutants are deposited ontoroads through vehicle emissions, dust fallout, wear on tires and traffic, and directapplication, as in the case of de-icing salts (Wada and Miura 1984, Bellinger et al.1982). Levels of zinc and lead are related to traffic level (Balades et al. 1985), whilede-icing salts are related to climate and the amount of snowfall and salts applied in aseason.

Transport of Pollutants Away From the RoadPollution from roads is introduced into the surrounding environment through a)

changes in the quantity of runoff due to the creation of large impervious areas, andb) changes in the quality of run-off from vehicular pollution (Bellinger et al. 1982).Transport of pollutants away from the road occurs by one or more of the followingmechanisms:

* Soluble contaminants dissolve in run-off water;

* Insoluble particulates act as sorbents for pollutant ions, which are thentransported by runoff water;

* Surface contaminants are transferred to the atmosphere either as dry particlesor dissolved in surface water (spray) (Bellinger et. al 1982); or

* Contaminants in snow are pushed off the sides of roads by snowplows orconcentrated in snow-dumping sites (Scott and Wylie 1980, Lockery et. a. 1982,Hofstra and Smith 1984).

Pollutants accumulate on the road surface and are flushed out in great quantitiesby rainfall. A few rain events can quickly introduce into the environment as much as30 percent of the annual pollution load of motorway runoff waters, especially if therains follow a long dry period (Balades et al. 1985, Wada et al. 1984). Road charac-teristics and climate play a more significant role in the removal of pollutants thanmean daily traffic (Balades et al. 1985, Grayson et al. 1993, Bellinger et al. 1982).

De-Icing SaltsSodium and calcium chlorides can impact vegetation through soil contamina-

tion, direct foliar contact, and water pollution. Sodium concentrations in soil can:

* lead to displacement of other cations such as calcium, magnesium andpotassium in soil, rendering these other cations unavailable for plant uptake (Fleck etal. 1988, Hofstra and Smith 1984);

* create osmotic concentration gradients and changes in soil structure and pH,leading to soil stress in plants; and

* result in toxicity, plant injury, and increased susceptibility to disease throughuptake into the vegetation (Fleck et al. 1988).

Snowmelt contamination has thepotential to alter both the speciescomposition and biomass of wetlandvegetation. For example, when wateredwith pure snowmelt, only two out of fivewetland species germinated, and thegermination rate of the two successfulspecies declined by 50 percent. Runofffrom roadside snowmelt could changespecies composition of wetland vegeta-tion by causing a decline in intolerantspecies, making more habitat availablefor tolerant plants (Isabelle et al. 1987).

Sodium and calcium chlorides werefound in high levels 10 meters from thehighway on a road in southern Ontario,but declined to background levels at adistance of 30 meters. Outside this areathere was little accumulation (Hofstraand Smith 1984). Another study ofmigration patterns of road de-icing saltsfound a significant correlation betweena vehicle’s velocity and the maximumdistance to which the salt migrates,affected by the variables of wind, roadgradient and geometrical features of theroad (McBean and Al-Nassri 1987).

Several regions of Canada ban snowdumping from within 150 feet of awaterway because of the consequencesof saline runoff (Lockery et al. 1982).Salt affects fresh water bodies becausethe more dense saline water tends tomove into the deeper part of the lakebasin. In a study of First Sister Lake inMichigan, saline water was found toremain separate from the lower densityfresh water, preventing mixing of thelake and causing a temporary stratifica-tion. Laboratory and field tests indicatethat the salt left the lake and entered theground water of the area (Judd 1970).

A study of streams receiving runofffrom a highway in the HuntingtonWildlife Forest in New York foundsignificant increases in chloride concen-

Roads and Toxic Pollutantsby Karen Wood

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientificliterature in our 6,000 Citation Bibliography on the ecological effects ofroads (see page 15). We offer bibliography searches to help activistsaccess important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copiesof most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Roadways introduce pollutants into aquatic systemsthrough a variety of ways. Photo by KraigKlungness.


trations at sampling stations 50 and 100 meters downstreamfrom the highway. Chloride concentrations in downstreamsamples were as much as 31 times higher than comparativeupstream samples. Elevated chloride levels continuedthroughout the six month period following the termination ofwinter salt applications, indicating the impact on streams wasnot a short term phenomena restricted to the period of saltapplication (Demers and Sage, Jr. 1989).

LeadLead content in soils and plants along heavily traveled

highways tends to increase with traffic volume and decreasewith distance from the highway. A study of crop plants grownalong a highway shows surface lead concentrations in theuppermost portion of the plant (carrot leaves, corn tassels,potato leaves, tomato leaves). The particle size of airbornelead, however, is small enough to pass through open stomatainto the leaf. Field and laboratory studies manifest that plantsalso may take in lead through the roots (Motto et al. 1970).Plants do not appear to translocate lead (Scott and Wylie 1980,Motto et al. 1970).

Lead can displace calcium, sodium and some other plantnutrients. Lead tends to be mobile only as a function of themobility of the particulate to which it is attached. Therefore,if lead is in sediments in an area of sudden melting or erosion,it could be transported into water bodies, but otherwise isfairly immobile (Scott and Wylie 1980). A study of lead levelsat snow dumping sites in dry, flood and submerged zones inManitoba, Canada found no change in lead levels in the dryzone after eight years. Reductions in lead levels in the floodand submerged zones, however, led the researchers to con-clude that algae, rather than erosion, was leaching the leadfrom the sediments (Lockery et al. 1983). Lockery et al. usetheir field evidence to suggest that the bond between lead andparticulate matter is not as permanent in the aquatic environ-ment as traditionally thought.

Lead in waterways has declined since lead was reduced inautomotive gasoline. A comprehensive study of dissolved leadlevels in major U.S. rivers found declines from 1974 to 1985,especially coincident for the 1979 to 1980 sampling period inmost locations, when federal regulation began impacting theavailability of leaded gasoline in the United States (Alexanderand Smith 1988).

ConclusionRoads and the toxic pollutants associated with them can

threaten the integrity of surrounding soils, water and vegeta-tion. Salts and lead, in particular, could be subtly changingsoil health, water quality and vegetative community structureover time, affecting other trophic levels. The domino effectsof these pollutants are not well understood. Although roadsare considered non-point sources of pollution, their capacityas collectors of pollutants and their role as a mechanism forreleasing contamination into the environment is well docu-mented.

Karen Wood is a volunteer activist currently working for theCity of Tucson in waste reduction and recycling.

BibliographyAlexander, R.B. and R.A. Smith. 1988. Trends in lead

concentrations in major U.S. rivers and their relation tohistorical changes in gasoline-lead consumption. WaterResources Bulletin. 24(3):557-569.

Balades, J.D., M. Cathelain, P. Marchandise, J. Peybernard andJ.C. Pilloy. 1985. Chronic pollution of intercity motorwayrunoff waters. Water Science and Technology. 17 (6/7):1165-1174.

Bellinger, E.G., A.D. Jones and J. Tinker. 1982. The characterand dispersal of motorway run-off water. Water PollutionControl. 81 (3):372-390.

Demers, C.L. and R.W. Sage, Jr. 1989. Effects of road de-icingsalt on chloride levels in four Adirondack streams. Water,Air and Soil Pollution. 49 (3/4):369-373.

Fleck, A.M., M.J. Lacki and J. Sutherland. 1988. Response bywhite birch (Betula papyrifera) to road salt applications atCascade Lakes, New York. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement. 27 (4):369-378.

Grayson, R.B, S.R. Haydon, M.D.A. Jayasuriya and B.L.Finlayson. 1993. Water quality in mountain ash forests—separating the impacts of roads from those of loggingoperations. Journal of Hydrology. 150 (2-4):459-480.

Hofstra, G. and D.W. Smith. 1984. The effects of road de-icingsalt on the levels of ions in roadside soils in southernOntario. Journal of Environmental Management. 19:261-271.

Isabelle, P.S., L.J. Fooks, P.A. Keddy and S.D. Wilson. 1987.Effects of roadside snowmelt on wetland vegetation: Anexperimental study. Journal of Environmental Management.25 (1):57-60.

Judd, J.H. 1970. Lake stratification caused by runoff fromstreet de-icing. Water Research. Great Britain. 4:521-532.

Lockery, A.R., T. Gavrailoff and D. Hatcher. 1982. Lead levelsin snow dumping sites along rivers in downtownWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement. 17(2):185-190.

McBean, E. and S. Al-Nassri. 1987. Migration pattern of de-icing salts from roads. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement. 25(3):231-238.

Motto, H.L, R.H. Daines, D.H. Chilko and C.K. Motto. 1970.Lead in soils and plants: its relationship to traffic volumeand proximity to highways. Environmental Science andTechnology. 4:231-238.

Nolte, J. 1988. Pollution source analysis of river water andsewage sludge. Environmental Technology Letters. 9(8):857-868.

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects.Forest Service General Technical Report. 127 p.

Scott, W.S. and N.P. Wylie. 1980. The environmental effects ofsnow dumping: a literature review. Journal ofEnvironmental Management. 10:219-240.

Wada, Y. and H Miura. 1984. Quantification of accumulatedleads on road surfaces and their runoff characteristics.Water Science and Technology. 16 (5-7):463-472.


DePaving the Way

The Problem with Temporary Roadsby Bethanie Walder

The Forest Service has no method for tracking temporaryroads, or assessing their ecological costs. Photo by KeithHammer.

In December 1997, the FS revised their estimate of the National Forest roadnetwork from 380,000 to 440,000 miles. The extra 60,000 miles comes fromunauthorized and unengineered roads — including the ubiquitous, stealthy,

temporary road. The Forest Service has no method for tracking temporary roads, nordoes it include public highways, state or county roads in its inventory. However,temporary roads cause lasting impacts to the National Forests, as explained below.

Temporary roads are not considered “system” roads (see “glossary,” RIPorter V3,#1, p11). Most often, they are constructed in conjunction with timber sales, andfinanced by the timber purchaser. Timber sale contracts typically require thattemporary roads be obliterated and revegetated, but they often remain on the groundafter the contract is closed, at which point they become the responsibility of theForest Service.

The Forest Service hasno design constraints fortemporary roads other thanclearing width and location(though location is decidedin conjunction with thetimber purchaser). Bestmanagement practices (instates having them) mayalso apply to temporaryroad construction. If atemporary road is proposedfor sensitive habitat, theForest Service can imposedesign parameters, but thatchanges the road designa-tion from “temporary” to“specified short-term,” andqualifies the road for federal

funding under purchaser road credit provisions. In addition to the lack of designconstraints, no length constraints exist; a temporary road could be 1/8th of a mile or18 miles. In addition to timber sale access, temporary roads often are used formineral and gas exploration.

Environmental analyses consider a maximum amount of temporary roads for aproject, and the contractor is limited to this amount. The FS sale administrator andthe timber sale contractor then jointly determine where they will be built.

According to Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7703.1, the agency is required to:“Reestablish vegetative cover on any unnecessary roadway or area disturbed by roadconstruction on National Forest System lands within 10 years after the termination ofthe activity that required its use and construction.”

Regardless of the FSM 10-year rule, temporary roads can remain for muchlonger. For example, timber sales typically last 3-5 years or more. If a temporaryroad is built in the first year of a 6 year timber sale, its intended use doesn’t end untilthe sale is complete — 6 years. The timber contract often requires the purchaser toclose, obliterate and revegetate the temporary road prior to closing the contract. Inother cases, however, the contract requires the purchaser to pay for the ForestService to close/obliterate the road a few years after the FS completes revegetationwork, slash burning, etc. So this temporary road could remain open through this 6years, plus another 2-3 years before the 10 year clock starts ticking on the FSMguidelines. According to several agency road specialists, FS contract administratorsalso have signed off on contracts even though closure/obliteration has not been done.Once the contract is closed, the timber purchaser is absolved of responsibility, and

the Forest Service absorbs the responsi-bility and cost of complying with theFSM.

Therefore, temporary roads canlegally remain on the ground for up to20 years or more, yet they are con-structed with few, if any, environmentalsafeguards. This leads to increasederosion and sedimentation, access forillegal off-road vehicles, and otherproblems. But because temporary roadsaren’t tracked, their total mileage andimpacts are unknown. Their status asnon-system roads often makes thempriorities for obliteration, though timbersale contracts require this anyway. Andas the agency obliterates these roads,total road mileage doesn’t changebecause they are not part of the system.Therefore, scarce obliteration funds arewasted fixing problems that timberpurchasers were supposed to pay for,while obliteration for system roadsproceeds at a snail’s pace and roadconstruction and reconstructioncontinue to scar the landscape.

In addition, the Forest Service hasbeen known to misapply the term“temporary” to allow road constructionin places it is prohibited. The FSM(2432.35b) states: “Use temporary roadsonly for short-term non-recurrentpurchaser use.” But when the SuperiorNational Forest, as part of a Forest PlanAmendment, implemented road densitystandards to comply with wolf habitatrequirements, the standards exemptedtemporary roads from density calcula-tions. Since the Amendment, theSuperior has built few forest develop-ment roads, but it has built and rebuilttemporary roads.

Temporary roads cause significantimpacts on the land, require littleenvironmental oversight and remainuntracked by the Forest Service. Theyoften remain on the land beyond theirallowable term and eat up limited roadobliteration money that might be betterspent on system roads. Wildlands CPRis continuing our research into how tounderstand and challenge temporaryroads. For more information, pleasecontact us.


My friend Kranston arrived inJackson last week and calledthe Forest Service to volunteer.

To help them look for their lostroads.

He showed me a newspaperclipping that explained the problem.

“Seems the Forest Service has a lotof roads it can’t find,” he said, wavingthe article at me. “Might be a millionmiles of road out there in the forest thatthey can’t remember are there.”

Seemed somewhat exaggerated tome.

“No,” he said, “It’s true — some-what, anyway. ‘Ghost roads’ they callthem, Forest Service roads that go fromnowhere to someplace without theForest Service being aware of them, justwandering around in the woods mysteri-ously.”

The article said the Forest Serviceplanned to spend $5 billion to repair373,000 miles of backcountry road.During its preparation, the Forest Service“found” another 60,000 miles of roads,that, according to the Associated Press,“had escaped the government’s inven-tory.”

“I lost my keys last week,” Kranstonsaid. “Left them stuck in the garage doorand thought I’d dropped them.” Lookedaround, after about 15 minutes I wentout and there they were, hanging there.”

I didn’t see what that had to do withanything.

“Just that I never lost 60,000 milesof road,” he said. “Just that I don’tunderstand how you can build 60,000miles of road — dirt road though itmight be — and have it slip your mind.”

I told him the national forests are abig place. You can’t expect Forest Serviceofficials — especially when they’realways being transferred and promotedand retiring and being replaced — tokeep track of every single mile of roadthey had. That would be unreasonable.

“Sixty thousand miles of roads isenough to go around the planet twiceand then some, enough road to get aquarter of the way to the moon, enoughroad to wear out a set of tires.

“And it’s not like it goes around theworld or off into space, so they don’thave that excuse for losing it,” Kranstonsaid. “It’s all in the United States, and

mostly the western part of the UnitedStates.”

Well, I said, so they lost 60,000miles of road. But why focus on thenegative? They found it, didn’t they?

“But it makes you wonder howmuch more is out there ‘escapinginventory,’ “ Kranston said. “If theyadmit they lost 60,000 miles of road thislong, might be another 60,000 miles outthere someplace, or more? Who knows?That’s the thing about things you don’tknow about — you don’t know aboutthem.”

Which is why Kranston decided tohelp. He’s offering to organize searchparties that will go out into the forestsand look around. They will keep theireyes open for roads. When they seethem they will drive along them,verifying they aren’t just small barepatches in the grass, but really roads,

and find where they go. They will thenreport to Forest Service officials.

“It’s all part of that volunteerismthing the Republicans are always talkingabout,” Kranston said. “About us takingresponsibility for ourselves, including

Lost and Gone while Driving “Ghost Roads”— by Mark Huffman

for the missing roads in our nationalforests, which have beenmisremembered by Forest Serviceofficials.

“Rather than whining about thegovernment losing roads and pointingfingers, citizens can help solve theproblem,” he said. “And it might be aninspiration to other people to volunteertheir efforts in other matters.”

Such as? I asked.“Well, if the Forest Service mis-

placed 60,000 miles of road, how muchhas the Park Service lost? Or the Bureauof Land Management?

“What about Teton County andJackson and the state of Wyoming? Whatabout the Federal Highway Administra-tion — I mean we might discover there’sthousands of miles of interstate highwaywe’ve forgotten,” Kranston said. “Maybethere’s people who drove onto thoseuncharted interstates and now they’reout there driving around lost, wonderinghow to get back onto highways that arestill within the knowledge of govern-ment officials.

“We might find tens of thousands ofAmericans who have been counted asmissing or dead,” he said. “Judge Crater,Jimmie Hoffa, Amelia Earhart, all thosesailors gone in the Bermuda Triangle,New Kids on the Block — maybe they’reout there driving around on ‘ghostroads’ waiting for rescue.”

That struck me as taking goodinformation — about the lost ForestService roads — and extrapolatingbeyond what was reasonable. ButKranston thought I was rejecting histheory too soon. Like I said, he hadcalled the Forest Service and volun-teered to start looking.

And?“They said I had to talk to the

district ranger,” he said. “But that hewent out on a road inventory last weekand they hadn’t heard from him since.”

Mark Huffman is a columnist with theJackson Hole News. His column is reprintedhere by permission.

Editor’s Note: If you want to look for ghostroads — get a copy of our Road Ripper’sGuide to the National Forests. It’s got step-by-step instructions to help you uncoverthose “misremembered” roads.

Photo by Jim Coefield


Ask Dr. Roads

Dear Dr. Roads,Should I pay more taxes to haveunderpasses built for the FloridaPanther or just run the endangeredcats over?— Kay Nine, Meowmi, FL

These are hard questions and I am in a contem-plative, relaxed and altered state. We all have issuesand we need to spend the time it takes to deconstructour lives and become one with our inner auto. I feelautos have souls. Don’t you? Have you asked yourgrill if this is an encounter it wants to have? Icommunicate with my car all the time. It tells mewhen I have splattered the worldly remains of anendangered species and I can only pretend tounderstand. My car is very deep, after all it is fromthe desert whence all philosophy flows. Cats on theother hand are anything but deep. Just little killers intawny trousers. Cats and their brethren are not hardto understand. They will eat anything that looks oracts like a fur ball attached to a pole by fishing line.People who play with cats should watch what toysthey use. Personally, I think cat lovers are strange. Ihave seen men turned to jelly by the mewingmelange of yowling kitties. It’s disgusting. This in noway should be taken as an invitation to run thesneaky little devils down. To make a long/shortanswer longer, I call for more Panthers and moreunderpasses (homeless habitat and wildlife corridorall in one, another win-win If I ever saw one). ForGod sakes how can you run down a mascot. Speak-ing of football, I say allow Panthers unfettered access(I really like that UN inspired term) to companionanimals and wing backs. VIVA LA GATO.

— D. Roads, DVS

Send questions to:Ask Dr. Roads, c/o Wildlands CPRPO Box 7516/Missoula, MT 59807or [email protected]

New Resources forRoad-Rippers

New Guide AvailableThe Forest Service now recognizes (with over 440,000 miles

of road on their land) that simply closing roads won’t fix theenvironmental problems associated with them. The roads have tobe removed and revegetated. Our new “Road-Ripper’s Guide toWildland Road Removal” will help you understand how roads arebuilt, where and why they fail, and how to influence roadremoval projects in your area. Assessing these projects is noteasy, but this guide will give you the technical information youneed to work on, or simply understand the issue.

If you already own a handbook (and remembered to registerit with us) then we will be sending your free copy. If you don’town a handbook and want one, with all five guides, or if you justwant to order the new guide, use the order form on page 15.

Updated BibliographyScott Bagely has been busy updating our bibliography. This

fall he and Alexandra Brooks combed the research to find outwhat has been published since 1995. (Catherine Shoemaker alsocompleted a few searches for us out in Washington.) Theydiscovered about 800 new citations on road impacts from the pasttwo years. Scott then put it all together, screened for duplicateentries and merged the new info into the old database. For thoseof you who already have a copy of the complete database, we willsend you the update (one update is included with purchase). Ifyou would like to purchase the entire database, or take advantageof the 10 free searches you get as a member, let us know via theorder form on page 15 or over the phone or e-mail. We are stillworking to clean up some of the duplicates and unusablecitations from the existing database, but that shouldn’t hinderyour ability to use it.

Forest Service Web SiteThe Forest Service has a new website on forest road issues

with a variety of scientific and media information. Check it out athttp://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/. If you don’t have access to theweb, contact the USFS in Portland, OR at 503/808-2137 (SherryRichardson) and ask for a copy of the roads information packet.

Roads Scholar Project DataPredator Project has released two reports summarizing

findings of their Roads Scholar Project. The first shows theresults of their surveys of 17 wildlife management units in thenorthern Rockies and two important bull trout watersheds inIdaho. The second is a close-up look at Road Scholar’s work inthe Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk ecosystems.

In addition, Predator Project will be releasing a full length,detailed report in April, with the working title of “The RoadsScholar Project 1994-1997: Findings and Implications.” Forcopies, please contact Predator Project at P.O. Box 6733,Bozeman, MT 59771, phone 406-587-3389, or email<[email protected]>.


Mail To:Wildlands CPRP.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

Use the handy order formbelow to join Wildlands

CPR or order publications!

Join Wildlands CPRToday!

Membership benefits both you andWildlands CPR. You lend your support toour efforts, giving us more leverage in sub-mitting comments, filing lawsuits, and cre-ating pressure to prevent and close roadson public lands. In addition, your finan-cial support helps us continue providinginformation and resources to activiststhroughout North America.

As a Wildlands CPR member, you'llhave better access to these resources, be-cause you’ll receive:

❇ Our bimonthly newsletter, The Road-RIPorter.

❇ 10 free bibliography searches per year.❇ National support for your campaign

through our newsletter and alerts.❇ Access to activist tools and public edu-

cation materials.❇ Connections with groups working on

similar issues, and networks with ex-perienced road-fighting activists, law-yers and scientists.

❇ Discounts on Wildlands CPR publica-tions.

Wildlands CPR Publications:Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members)) —A comprehensive activist

manual that includes the five Guides listed below, plus The Ecological Effects ofRoads, Gathering Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and more!

Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-members) —By Keith Ham-mer. How-to procedures for getting roads closed and revegetated, descriptions ofenvironmental laws, road density standards & Forest Service road policies.

Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-members) —By David Bahr& Aron Yarmo. Provides background on the National Park System and its use ofroads, and outlines how activists can get involved in NPS planning.

Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members) —By Dan Stotter. Providesan overview of road-related land and resource laws, and detailed discussions forparticipating in BLM decision-making processes.

Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-members) —By Dan Wright.A comprehensive guide to reducing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands.Includes an extensive bibliography.

Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4, $7 non-members) —By ScottBagely. Provides technical information on road construction and removal, whereand why roads fail, and how you can effectively assess road removal projects.

Bibliographic Services:Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database —Updated Feb. 1998 —

Edited by Reed Noss. Compiled by Dave Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Humphrey, ReedNoss, Paul Pacquet & Susan Pierce. Contains approx. 6,000 citations — includingscientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimentation, pollution, effectson wildlife, aquatic and hydrological effects, and other information on the im-pacts of roads. Use the ecological literature to understand and develop road den-sity standards, priorities for road removal, and other road issues.

Database Searches —We will search the Bibliography on the subjects that interestyou, and provide results in IBM or Macintosh format (specify software), or onpaper. We also have prepared a 1-disk Bibliographic Summary with results forcommonly requested searches. Finally, we offer the full bibliography. However,you must have Pro-Cite or a compatible database program in order to use it.

Bibliography prices— Sliding scale (all prices include shipping):1) Non-profits with budgets under $100,000/yr.2) Non-profits with budgets $100,000-$500,000/yr.3) Non-profits with budgets over $500,000//Universities4) Government Agencies5) For-profits and othersFull Bibliography: $45 (1) / $100 (2) / $200 (3) / $300 (4) / $1000 (5)Summary (one disk): $7 (1) / $10 (2) / $15 (3) / $25 (4) / $35 (5)Searches (add material costs of 15 cents/page, $3 minimum, and/or $3 per disk):$3 (1) / $5 (2) / $10 (3) / $15 (4) / $25 (5) (The first 10 searches/year are free formembers. )

I want to join Wildlands CPR____$30 Standard____$15 Low Income____$50 Friend____$200 Supporter____$500 Sponsor____Other: $____________

Publications total _________

Total enclosed $___________

Name/Affiliation:_______________________________________________________

Address:_______________________________________________________________

City/State/Zip:__________________________________________________________

Phone/Fax/e-mail:______________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Please send me these publication(s)/bibliography key word searches: __________

__________________________________________________________________

Join Wildlands CPR Today!

Prices include shipping (book-rate for Handbook, 1st Class for other items). If you need items shipped priority mail, add $3.00per item. For Canadian orders add $6.00 per item. We may be able to provide reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

-

Wildlands Center for Preventing RoadsP.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

Visions...

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAIDMISSOULA, MT 59801

PERMIT NO. 569

“The American really loves nothing buthis automobile”— William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust

File Photo.

road riporter 3.2

Documents