Road Riporter 8.1

Transcript

Spring Equinox 2003. V olume 8 # 1 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads Cougar Corridors Photo courtesy of California State Parks. Restoring the Missing Link in California’s Chino Hills By Alexandra Koelle — See article on page 3 — Inside… Cougar Corridors, by Alexandra Koelle. Pages 3-5 Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 6-7 Odes to Roads: Roads and More Roads, by Rosalie Edge. Pages 8-9 Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 10-11 Wildlands CPR 2002 Annual Report. Pages 12-13 Get with the Program: ORV and Roads Program Updates. Pages 14-15 Biblio Notes: The Impacts of Snowmobiling and Cross Country Skiing on Ungulates, by Teresa Elise Welsh. Pages 16-18 Activist Spotlight: Lynda Bilbrough. Page 19 Policy Primer: Funding for Road Removal, by Beth Peluso. Pages 20-22 Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org Wildlands C Center for Preventing P Roads R By Bethanie Walder P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 [email protected] www.wildlandscpr.org t our annual board meeting last May, Wildlands CPR began a strategic planning process. After a second meeting in December, and a significant effort on the part of several board members and the staff, we have just about finalized a plan for 2003-2005. Through this process we’ve solidified the importance of our existing work and defined our priorities for the next three years — and we’re very excited about what the future holds. Our new plan affirms the trajectory we’d been moving on for the past year or so. It focuses our proactive transportation planning and restoration goals while maintaining and expanding our clearinghouse and activist assistance. Perhaps more importantly, we defined very specific arenas in which we want to expand our capacity - reaching out to new people and developing a more public persona for the organization. We set two programmatic goals for 2005. First, to see at least 50% of the National Forests adopt a designated route system for off-road vehicles, and second, to see road removal considered as a major component of restoration projects and policies. To help us reach these we adopted a series of commensurate organizational goals that focus on reaching out to new people and empowering our constituencies, updating our image and presentations and, of course, improving our clearinghouse. To this end you’ll start to see some changes at Wildlands CPR. First, we’ve changed some position titles and responsibilities. Marnie is now our Restoration Program Coordinator - and she will focus almost exclusively on that second goal regarding road removal. Bridget (our newest staffer, see page 23), is our Transportation Policy Coordinator. Get in touch with her for answers to your questions about off-road vehicles and road prevention. This change in titles reflects a longstanding desire of ours to integrate our roads and off-road vehicle work more effectively. We also think it will help us serve your road prevention, road removal and off-road vehicle needs more effectively. Second, we’re on a major quest to diversify our funding sources. Tommy has been doing an amazing job researching our options, and we’ll have lots of new things in the works as we look throughout and beyond the foundation community. As we implement additional changes, we’ll let you know. If you have any questions about our strategic planning, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us. A Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and promote road removal and revegetation. Director Bethanie Walder Development Director Tom Petersen Restoration Program Coordinator Marnie Criley Transportation Policy Coordinator Bridget Lyons Science Coordinator Adam Switalski NTWC Grassroots Coordinator Lisa Philipps Program Associate Jennifer Barry Newsletter Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield Interns & Volunteers Brooke Hughes, Shay O'Brien-Ugaldea, Beth Peluso, Teresa Welsh Board of Directors Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari, Dave Havlick, Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien, Ted Zukoski Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach, Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke © 2003 Wildlands CPR 2 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Photo by Phil Knight. Cougar Corridors Restoring the Missing Link in California’s Chino Hills By Alexandra Koelle O n the edge of the United States’ most notorious example of urban sprawl, a precedent-setting model of cooperation to save a critical biodiversity linkage has been set. The place — Coal Canyon — is a 681-acre parcel of land bisected by the Riverside Freeway (California Route 91). This small area of land within an hour’s drive of Los Angeles’s 15 million inhabitants currently is home to many species, including mountain lion, deer, bobcat, and the California gnatcatcher. As the only remaining viable link between the Puente-Chino Hills State Park in the north (40,000 acres) and the Santa Ana Mountains and Cleveland National Forest in the south (472,000 acres), the significance of Coal Canyon’s preservation is far larger than its relatively small size. The ecological value of the Coal Canyon area is not all that’s significant about this project. In an historic precedent, state agencies have already begun removing and revegetating a paved off-ramp and underpass of State Highway 91, a 10-12 lane freeway. The road removal will compliment the state’s earlier acquisition of neighboring lands to restore a functioning wildlife corridor in Coal Canyon. California State Parks and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) deserve recognition for their commitment to public wildlife and non-motorized recreation. An arial view of the Coal Canyon corridor area and the underpass under Highway 91 (circled). Also see close-up map on next page. Photo courtesty of California State Parks. acres host two federally listed species, the California gnatcatcher and Braunton’s Milk-vetch, and provides nesting habitat to prairie falcons and golden eagles (Hund 2002). Coal Canyon provides a link between the two larger protected areas, which together are home to an additional 55 sensitive or threatened plant and animal species. Other ecosystems and rare communities in the Santa Ana Mountains and Puente-Chino Hills include alluvial sage scrub, grasslands, vernal pools, southern California walnut woodland, tecate cypress forest, big cone Douglas-fir forest, Engelmann oak woodlands, the Santa Margarita River, and San Mateo Creek. The latter is the only perennial stream between Santa Barbara and the Mexican border that remains wild throughout the entire watershed (Noss et. al. 2002). The purchased parcel and the associated road removal will provide a safe crossing for indicator species such as cougar and bobcat that would otherwise be cut off into separate “islands” by the freeway. In turn, the mobility of these larger species will provide for genetic diversity in Puente-Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains, strengthening the chances for survival of smaller animal species and plants on both sides of the highway. Relegation to “island” status would have been an especially grim scenario for the Puente-Chino Hills State Park, which is too small to support its current species diversity over time. In this area, up to half of certain classes of species could be lost if the link to the south is not preserved. In the event of a localized destruction, the corridor may serve as a means for the repopulation of connected areas. In This Corner: Development Versus Diversity In 2000 California State Parks purchased 649 acres south of the freeway, which had been slated for development of 1,550 new houses (this land is currently undisturbed). Then, in 2001, they purchased an additional 32 acres north of the freeway, where an industrial park had been planned. Plans to restore native vegetation on the 32 acres are underway, and a BMX track and horse stables have already been removed. The area is a remnant of California coastal sage scrub ecosystem, widely recognized as one of the most biologically diverse and threatened ecosystems in the continental U.S. Seventy to ninety percent of California coastal sage scrub ecosystems have already been lost. Coal Canyon’s 681 — continued on next page — 3 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Cougar Corridors — continued from page 3 — Locator map Not Just For Cougars Mountain lions are considered the indicator species in this area: if the mountain lion disappears, a host of ecological changes are certain to follow. An issue paper on Coal Canyon predicts that “if larger predators became extinct, smaller omnivores and carnivores would undergo a population explosion known as a meso-predator release. They would likely become 4 to 10 times more abundant. Meso-predator release has been implicated in bird extinctions in the tropics and elsewhere, including birds (i.e. California gnatcatcher) in San Diego canyon fragments” (Hund 2002). Past wildlife crossing research indicates that crossing structures wide enough for cougars should also work for other species. Prior to rehabilitating this crossing, one radio-collared mountain lion was found to have established its territory on both sides of the freeway, crossing underneath the freeway over twenty times in a year (Beier 2002). To Make It Work — Remove the Road In their paper “Evaluation of Coal Canyon Corridor,” Noss et. al. mention that we do not know what corridor traits — including length, width, and adjacent land uses — are necessary for optimal use. However, they conclude that the issue “is not how wide an ideal corridor should be but whether the extremely limited options that remain are adequate to provide a functional biological linkage.” Fortunately for cougars, gnatcatchers, and others, the Coal Canyon corridor appears to do just that (Noss et. al. 2002). To maximize the likelihood of restoring a “functional biological linkage,” land managers considered the most obvious single impediment — the paved highway underpass — and sought to partner with Caltrans. After a public hearing in 2000 and consideration of the benefits of road removal, Caltrans joined the effort. By ripping the underpass road the agencies are well on their way to securing an effective corridor for wildlife and non-motorized recreationists. They also project that many more animals will use this route. Deer, for example, currently do not use the existing double box culvert corridor, because they cannot see to the other side. With the pavement gone and the underpass lighting removed, Caltrans is now enhancing the corridor’s viability by reconfiguring the fence line adjacent to the freeway in order to divert animals into the underpass. However, Noss et. al. emphasize that the Coal Canyon Biological Corridor should not be equated simply with its most constrictive element, the freeway underpass. The 681 acres of Coal Canyon themselves function as a crucial link, of which the improved underpass is only a part. For example, a pair of gnatcatchers is nesting in Coal Canyon, and other species of concern are found within the 681acre linkage zone. Biologists predict that species currently using culverts (mountain lion, coyote, skunk, raccoon) will be joined by those hesitant to use them (deer, Underpass Area Chino Hills State Park 4 Maps from California State Parks. The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Conclusion In an evaluation submitted to California State Parks in support of the proposed project, wildlife professionals from Oregon and Arizona urged that: “Restoring a natural linkage in what is now a roaded underpass would set a global precedent. We are aware of no other restored biological corridor of this type and scale. Conservationminded citizens throughout the world could look to Coal Canyon as an inspiring example of how an ecological error was corrected through thoughtful public action” (Noss et. al. 2002). California gnatcatcher. Photo by Mark Alan Wilson. rabbits, rodents, reptiles, and amphibians). California State Parks is currently removing pavement and restoring vegetation in the corridor, which will facilitate its use. The underpass will also serve as a recreational trail linkage, allowing bikers, equestrians, and hikers to travel under the freeway to access Puente-Chino Hills from the Santa Ana Mountains and vice versa. While conservationists are understandably scrambling to save the last percent of old growth temperate forest and roadless areas, the importance of looking at corridors within urban areas should give us hope as well. The American desire for single-family houses accessible only by car shows no signs of abating; in this context, perhaps a remarkable action of foresight is to maintain corridors within the sprawl. Of course additional private lands will be developed, and there will be edge effects from trails, roads, and inholdings. However, this makes preservation of the corridor all the more important, now and in the future. Many thanks to the State of California for setting this important and hopeful precedent for wildlife and wildlands. Funding for Corridor Restoration California State Parks purchased the lands on either side of the freeway for a total of $53.5 million, using monies earmarked for land acquisition and a fundraising campaign that included many public and private sources. And while the 650 acres south of the freeway is undisturbed, revegetating the 32 acre parcel (north of the freeway) is estimated to cost from $1 to $1.2 million. State officials hope to involve citizens in the effort through volunteering. Caltrans has generously taken on the underpass road removal and enhancements — investing roughly $400,000 in reconfiguring the fence line alone. As with the revegetation effort, creative funding tools such as tax credits and issuing bonds help to get the job done. Former coastal sage scrub habitat in California — and the type of development that renders it a biological desert. Photo by Mark Alan Wilson. Team Effort Scientists and engineers at Caltrans, the California State Parks and California Department of Fish and Game deserve the lion’s share of the credit for pursuing and implementing this project. Conservation organizations including Hills for Everyone, The Wildlands Conservancy, Friends of Tecate Cypress, Sierra Club, and the Mountain Lion Foundation also provided important assistance. Finally, two private companies, the St. Clair Company and the Pulte Home Corporation, helped make the project possible by reducing the sale price of the land and offering up development rights. — Alexandra Koelle is a graduate of the Environmental Studies program at the University of Montana, and is currently a writer and editor in Missoula. References Beier, P., and K. Penrod. 2002. Using cougars to design a wilderness network in California’s south coast ecoregion. In Proceedings of Defenders of Wildlife’s Carnivores 2002 Conference, Monterey, CA. Hund, G.W. 2002. Preserving the Coal Canyon Biological Corridor, Orange County, CA. An Issue Paper for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Los Lagos District. 6p. Krueper, R. 2003. Superintendent, Chino Hills State Park. Personal Communication. Noss, R., P. Beier, and W. Shaw. 2002. Evaluation of the Coal Canyon Biological Corridor. An unpublished report prepared for Hills for Everyone, Brea, CA. 15 p. Available online at: http:// www.hillsforeveryone.org/PDF_Files/ evaluation_of_the_coal_canyon_biological_corridor.pdf The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 5 So what’s the difference between forest restoration and sustainable forestry, anyway? rom the mid-1980’s until today, an untold number of books, journals, articles, and essays have been published regarding sustainable forestry and ecological restoration. What’s interesting, however, is that little of this work articulates a distinction between the two concepts. It’s not a purely academic point - this question is foremost in the minds of many conservation activists and forest workers as we work to build alliances with each other. Both groups are concerned with the health of forests and the health of communities, and both forest restoration and sustainable forestry address those issues at some level. But while these two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, the two practices are fundamentally different. F restoring the structure and function of a degraded forest. Both are defined in the context of goals that we, as humans, have set. For example, as Reed Noss points out in Defining Sustainable Forestry, “If our goal is only to maintain an approximately even flow of wood products, then we have a seemingly easier task than if we have to worry about sustaining the food webs and nutrient cycles that maintain soil productivity.” Forest restoration will always be sustainable. But sustainable forestry will not always restore a forest. Much of the debate between advocates of forest restoration and advocates of sustainable forestry is centered on maintaining the human communities situated near forests. But the short term debate may be unnecessary. In their implementation, both can provide jobs — through silvicultural manipulation, road removal, or invasive species eradication, for example. Neither approach excludes people. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration states: “Ecological restoration encourages and may indeed be dependent upon long-term participation of local people.” Perhaps the key to involving local people over the long term is to develop an economic system that adapts as the forest moves closer and closer to its natural trajectory. Such an economic system must recognize the value of producing a fully-functioning ecosystem, rather than merely the production of wood products. (Of course that begs the question of who is going to fund forest restoration, but we’ll leave that question for another time.) Whether we are producing a wood product or a functioning ecosystem, we are also producing jobs — so forest restoration presents an option for conservationists and forest practitioners to come together. They have already begun to do so through a series of meetings, field tours and restoration summits. Out of those, they have developed a set of Principles for Forest Restoration. These principles have defined three interrelated goals to set the context for restoration while emphasizing that the primary focus of restoration “is to enhance ecological integrity by restoring natural processes and resiliency” (DellaSalla et. al. 2003). The three interrelated goals are: • The Sustainable Forestry Initiative provides the following definition: “Sustainable forestry consists of management practices that ensure the health and growth of our forests for future generations.” (As an alternative, the Institute for Sustainable Forestry in California provides a comprehensive list of ten elements of sustainability (www.isf-sw.org).) • The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecological restoration as: “(T)he process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.” This definition can be easily applied to forests by substituting “forest” for “ecosystem.” It should be noted here that forest restoration is not about returning a forest to any given past condition, but restoring the forest ecosystem’s ability to proceed on its natural trajectory. Clearly the two have very different meanings. Sustainable forestry is about producing a product without damaging the forest’s capacity for future production, while forest restoration is about While sustainable forestry is a vast improvement over forest practices like clearcutting, it is not a synonym for ecosystem restoration. Photo by Mark Alan Wilson. 6 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 (1) ecological forest restoration; (2) ecological economics; and (3) communities and work force. When conservationists and forest workers came together to begin developing these principles (to be published in the March issue of Ecological Restoration), their purpose was to provide a tool for critiqueing forest restoration projects. But over time they recognized that to be successful on the ground, the principles must address economic, community and work force issues. The principles may not answer all our questions, and they certainly don’t say what will happen to a forest after it’s been restored, but they do provide an example of how conservationists and forest workers can work together. The restoration principles also emphasize that not all restoration is silviculturally based. A different document, the SER Ecological Restoration Primer, states that, “in the simplest circumstances, restoration consists of removing or modifying a specific disturbance, Wildland restoration provides on opportunity for thereby allowing ecological processes to bring about an independent forest workers and conservationists to work together. File photo. recovery.” This concept is fully embodied in the forest restoration principles. So forest restoration may provide jobs removing roads or controlling and eradicating weeds, but it may also provide silvicultural jobs. Either way, people will be put to work putting the Forest restoration will always be forest back together - even though it might not look sustainable. But sustainable forestry as it did before European settlement. Recognizing that the concept of forest restoration has been abused and often used as a pseudonym for commodity production, the restoration principles provide explicit language on commercialism as it relates to restoration. They describe merchantable products as by-products, which are secondary to the primary goal of producing functioning ecosystems. When people of divergent beliefs work together, they must decide which differences they will try to resolve and which they will leave for another day (or not at all). Forest restoration provides an opportunity for forest workers and conservationists to advocate for the same goal, will not always restore a forest. and to do so regardless of what the Forest Service, the forest products industry or the dominant political powers want to see in their wallets. It has taken us more than 100 years to degrade many of our forests — it may take just as long to nudge them back on their way to being self-sustaining. In the process we may redefine our relationship with the forests from one of exploitation to one of mutual support. And by the time we have re-created forest ecosystems that are self-supporting the debates over commodity production and sustainable forestry may have changed dramatically. So why argue about what we’ll do in the future if we can agree on what to do in the present? Since all forest restoration is sustainable, focusing our collective energy on ecologically-principled forest restoration leaves our future options open while improving our forests and communities today. References Noss, R. 1993. Sustainable forestry or sustainable forests. In: Aplet, G.H., N. Johnson, J.T. Olson, and V.A. Sample, eds. 1993. Defining Sustainable Forestry. The Wilderness Society and Island Press. Washington, DC. DellaSalla, D., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. van Daalen, J. Kreilick, R. Brown, and G. Aplet. March, 2003. A citizen's call for ecological forest restoration: Forest restoration principles and criteria. Ecological Restoration 21:1. Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy Working Group. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org/. A revegetated log haul road, one year after restoration. Photo by J. McCullah. The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 7 Roads and More Roads in the National Parks and National Forests By Rosalie Edge, 1936 Photo by Mark Alan Wilson. Editor’s Note: Rosalie Edge is described by environmental historian Stephen Fox as "the first woman to have a considerable impact on the conservation movement." As the chairman of the Emergency Conservation Committee, she was one of the foremost environmental advocates in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s. Her accomplishments include leadership in the successful efforts to create Olympic National Park and Pennsylvania's Hawk Mountain Sanctuary. Introduction “Build a road!” Apparently this is the first idea that occurs to those who formulate projects for the unemployed. In consequence, a superfluity of four-width boulevards, with the verdure cut back for many feet on either side, goes slashing into our countrysides, without regard for the destruction of vegetation, and, too often without consideration of whether the road is needed at all. The motoring public always travels by the new road, and those who dwell along such highways, and have chosen their homes from a preference for seclusion, find themselves parked beside arteries of ceaseless traffic. No provision is made for pedestrians; and a man takes his life in his hands if he ventures on foot to call on his next door neighbor. The city dweller is forced to go far afield if he is to see aught besides asphalt, or to breathe air not polluted with carbon monoxide gas... ...So it is with roads. Through the medium of road-building, money may be buttered evenly over the whole country. There is a fixed idea in the American mind, inherited from a pioneer ancestry which suffered from having no roads at all, that any additional road must be good and that one cannot have too much of a good thing. Consequently, there have already been built with federal funds more roads than can possibly be kept in repair by state and local communities-roads parallel, roads crisscross, roads elevated, roads depressed, roads circular and roads in the shape of four-leaf clovers; a madness of roads, too many of which will be left untended to fall into disrepair and disrepute. hundreds of men thus introduced into the wilderness. Can anyone suppose that a wilderness and a C.C.C. camp can exist side by side? And can a wilderness contain a highway?... ...The Park Service is eager to prevent repetition of the vandalism that has ruined Park areas in the past; but great pressure is brought to bear by commercial interests that press to have new areas opened in order to obtain new concessions. In addition, there is thrust upon the Park Superintendents the necessity to employ C.C.C. men, whether or not their services are needed; and the wilderness goes down before these conquerors. The support of the public at large must be added to the efforts of the Park Service in order to save the most beautiful of the wild places. The situation is well told in an editorial from Glacial Drift, the organ of Glacier National Park, as follows: “Let those who clamor for the opening of the last primitive valleys of the park . . . remember that the charm of many places rests in their solitude and inaccessibility. Let those who consider accessibility and ease alone, weigh carefully which gives more enduring recollection, the dash over Logan Pass or the horseback or foot trip over Indian Pass, and learn that one appreciates in more lasting measure those things which one must gain through the expenditure of effort. Let those who urge more roads bear in mind that the marring of countryside does not end with the construction of a broad, two-lane, highway, absolutely safe when driven at a sane speed commensurate with the full enjoyment of a National Park, but that even the gentlest curves must be eliminated, the width ever increased, each reopening a wound to leave a more gaping scar; with no more turns with delightful surprises beyond, for there are to be no turns; only greater speed and safety, though we may well note the irony of the latter in mountainous regions where improvement always has resulted in more fatalities. Let us recall the hundreds who dash daily over Logan Pass, without so much as a stop, or the great number who, like the camper from the Atlantic seaboard, boasted he had just been in three National Parks on that day and would be in Mt. Ranier on the morrow!” Last summer we stood at the top of Logan Pass and watched the cars come sweeping to the summit. They might pause for five minutes in the great parking place, decorated with landscaped beds of shrubs bordered with stone copings, which belittle what was once one of the most glorious points of the Rocky Mountains. Many people Roads In The National Parks Turning to government-owned lands, we find that work relief has entered our National Parks and Forests in force. Each one of these has its C.C.C. (Civilian Conservation Corps) camps; and roadbuilding is again the chief employment of the 8 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 did not leave their cars, others stepped down for a few minutes to look, and to wonder that such height could be reached without a heated engine. A ranger invited and even pleaded with the sightseers to go with him on a short walk to see the secluded wonder of Hidden Lake. “You can have no idea standing here,” he said, “what a wonderful thing it is to go there ... a very little way. . . .” While he spoke, his voice was drowned in the whirr of the self-starters. The little group of nature-lovers who followed him discovered the loveliness of the lake and saw, besides, Rosy Finches and White-tailed Ptarmigan. They did not miss the company of the motorists who were by that time far in the valley below, rushing on in their enjoyment of perpetual motion... Roads In The National Forests ...The Forest Service has fallen prey to two commercial groups, the lumbermen and the stockmen. Its policy is controlled by these two interests, each of which maintains a powerful lobby in Washington. By the skillful use of misleading terms, the nation is kept in ignorance of the shameful exploitation of the National Forests. The whole problem of management of the Forests, of which the construction of roads is only a part, is obscured by undue accent on the fact that, while the Parks are for recreation, the Forests are for “use.” But the Forest Service reserves to itself the interpretation of the word use, and narrows the usefulness of the Forests to the cutting of timber and the grazing of cattle, forgetting, or willfully subordinating, other uses of greater importance that are also the function of the National Forests.... ...CCC camps are established in hundreds in the National Forests and the Forests are being honeycombed with roads. Roads in the Forests, if not surfaced with asphalt, are called “truck trails.” The word trail presents to the mind a picture of a narrow woodland path wending its way beneath the trees. Actually, the so-called trail is a graded swath, usually following a stream up a narrow valley, over which may be transported machinery to cut huge trees, well described as “forest giants.” When the railway is reached, one section of such a tree makes a load for a flatcar. Surely trail is a misnomer for a road wide enough for the motor truck, or the teams of many horses, that are necessary to draw it from the depth of the forest to the highway... ...There would be no profit to the lumberman if the roads were not built at the expense of the nation. Until the public restrains the Forest Service from giving to a small group the forests that belong to all, every tax-payer contributes to the profit of the lumberman. The truck trails now being built, rapidly and secretly, up every exquisite valley in the Olympic National Forest in Washington testify to the unholy alliance between the timber interests and the Forest Service. The roads that are eating into the heart of valleys are often wrongly declared to be for “fire protection.” The only real fire protection is eternal vigilance, maintained from fire towers and other points of vantage, and from airplanes. Roads are, in themselves, the greatest of fire hazards, for man follows roads, and fire follows man. Tinder, leaves and dead wood dry out along the roads, and the moist groundcover of moss and small plants dies, and dries back from the open spaces that have admitted the sun and wind. Time is the important element in fighting a fire. Firefighters from concentration camps, who come with cumbersome equipment long distances by roads, often do not reach a fire as quickly, nor extinguish it as quickly, as can fewer men, stationed at short intervals, with the simple tools that they can carry along a good but narrow trail... Photo by Mark Alan Wilson. ...Above all, the Forests should be preserved for the recreation of those whose need impels them to withdraw from time to time from conventional life. A mechanized world has crowded its citizens into densely populated cities. The tempo of life is speeded beyond man’s capacity for endurance. The vital energy of man, whether of his body, his intellect, or his emotions, is consumed in his unceasing activity, and too close contact with the activity of others. When creative force is exhausted, some mode of re-creation must be found. Recreation is a first necessity for the cure of maladjustments resulting from over-stimulation. Some seek relief through a change in occupation, others in idleness; those who have few resources in themselves find diversion in crowds, others peace in solitude. The Psalmist said: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help,” -and we are sure that the hills of his vision were forested! Julian Huxley says: “there are many people to whom the sight of wild animals, living in untouched surroundings, is profoundly stirring, and indeed one of the most valuable things of life.” When the meaning of the peace and solitude of the forests, the meaning of the beauty and sane-living of wild creatures comes to be better understood, the National Forests may yet offer a higher service to the people. To all such benefits roads are inimical. A minimum of roads may be permitted in the National Forests for the use of travellers, for the taking of timber rightfully cut, and for honest-toGod fire protection. Only trails belong to the deep forests; a road in to a wild region is the prelude to its destruction, its forests, its scenery and its wild life. An increase of roads in the National Forests spells the doom of the last of the great timber. Notes Pamphlet No. 54, Emergency Conservation Committee. Library, Sequoia National Park, Ash Mountain. The Emergency Conservation Committee consisted of Ms. Rosalie Edge and a few of her friends. She wrote all the correspondence and bulletins. The pamphlet was published in March, 1936. The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 9 Disclaimer Rule May Revive R.S. 2477 Claims For years, state and county agencies have been asserting their rights to roads and trails on federal land by using an outdated statute called R.S. 2477 (see The RIPorter 6.4 pages10-11). R.S. 2477 is a section of the 1866 Mining Act allowing for rights-of-way to be granted to individuals or agencies without application to the government and without any environmental assessment. R.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976 with the passage of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); however, claims in existence prior to 1976 have continued to be honored. In the past ten years, states and counties in rural areas have used R.S. 2477 as a license to bulldoze, widen, and pave their asserted “rights-of-way” into roadless areas, and therefore remove these areas from consideration for Wilderness designation. Environmentalists have responded to these activities with a flurry of litigation, but just as we were making progress, Congress placed a moratorium on any further R.S. 2477 rulemaking by federal agencies. Then, on January 6, 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) increased the confusion over R.S. 2477 by announcing an amendment to its regulations for issuing “recordable disclaimers of interest.” While the BLM claims this amendment is not a “significant regulatory action,” conservationists are concerned about the effect this rule may have on state and local officials’ rights to create, modify, and upgrade roads on federal lands. So what do “recordable disclaimers of interest” have to do with R.S. 2477? A “recordable disclaimer of interest” is a document issued by the government that formally renounces its interest in a piece of land. Parties who claim ownership or access to parcels of federal land may apply for a disclaimer in order to clear their title to the land. The amendment passed in January made this application process easier by extending the time period for filing for a disclaimer Look like a road to you? Under RS 2477, it could be. Photo courtesy of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. RS 2477 claims bisect many of our nation’s National Parks and recreation areas. Photo courtesy of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. and by allowing “any entity” to apply for one. In the past, disclaimers could only be issued to landowners; this change will allow states and counties to file for and receive disclaimers as well. It appears that the recently declared disclaimer rule may be a deliberate attempt to circumvent the R.S. 2477 rulemaking moratorium and give federal agencies the opportunity to quickly and easily grant rights-of-way to states, counties, and others. The rule expressly states, “An existing owner of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way may apply for a recordable disclaimer under existing regulations or as amended in this final rule,” and we expect local governments to start testing this soon. Agencies in Utah, Alaska, and other western states may be barraged with requests for disclaimers in the upcoming months. Wildlands CPR is working with national organizations to address the impacts of this rule change. Activists on the ground can help immeasurably by staying in close touch with local BLM and Forest Service offices and keeping track of any new requests for disclaimers. The earlier you know about requests, the easier it will be to try to challenge them. Fieldchecking is an integral part of this process, so activists’ knowledge of and proximity to these claimed routes is crucial to the fight. How this rule is implemented on the ground in the next few months will determine its significance for road-free lands for years to come. For more information about the disclaimer rule and R.S. 2477, contact Bridget in our office: [email protected]. 10 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Chile’s Road to Nowhere Rerouted On January11, the government of Chile signed a landmark agreement to redefine the routing of the Coastal Range Road and establish mechanisms for creating protected areas along the country’s Coastal Range — home to the oldest and most diverse rainforest remaining in southern South America. (For background, see The Riporter 7.3.) The agreement was signed with the Coastal Range Coalition, a group of NGO’s, indigenous groups, and leading scientists. The Minister of Public Works, the Intendente of Region X (State Governor), and the Directors of CONAMA (National Environmental Commission) and CONAF (National Forestry Agency) signed the agreement on behalf of the Government of Chile, and Francisco Solas signed on behalf of the Coastal Range Coalition. The Coastal Range Road would have connected the cities of Valdivia and Puerto Montt by way of the Pacific Coast. The planned route passed along the western flanks of the Coastal Range, which contains the oldest and most diverse rainforest remaining in southern South America. The road would have further fragmented this ancient rainforest and facilitated its conversion to eucalypt and pine plantations. The agreement represents an outstanding conservation result. Twenty per cent of the 200-km road that is already under construction will be changed from a logging penetration road (speed limit of 70 km/h) to a minimal environmental impact road (speed limit of 40 km/h). Additionally, the remaining 80 per cent of the road will be routed outside forested areas (east of the range) and use existing minor roads. Significantly, each segment will undergo a full environmental assessment, which is not required by law. Finally, the plan also considers the establishment of protected areas, since less than five per cent of the Coastal Range is currently under protection. Only two years ago the project was moving at full speed and no communication channels existed between the environmental community and the regional or national governments. At the signing, the Chilean government recognized that the Coastal Range Coalition was a legitimate, scientifically and technically sound NGO, capable of engaging in this and other important environmental issues in the ecoregion. Roadless Area Conservation Rule Upheld On December 12, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Rule, issued on January 12, 2001, protects 58.5 million acres of unroaded national forest from most logging and road building. Even before recent attempts by the Bush Administration to increase commercial activity on our national forests, the vast majority of Americans supported the Roadless Rule. When the Rule was signed two years ago, the state of Idaho, Boise Cascade Corporation, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and various motorized recreational groups sued the Forest Service, arguing that the Forest Service didn’t allow for adequate public input and that the Rule would cause irreparable harm. On May 10, 2001, the U.S. District Court in Idaho granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the Rule. Environmentalists intervened on behalf of the government, and took the case to the 9th Circuit, which overturned the injunction. The case is now headed back to the U.S. District Court in Idaho for additional review. And while the recent decision is indeed a victory, many still feel unease about the fate of roadless areas. In fact, the 9th Circuit ruling came only one day after the White House announced intentions to hasten the environmental review process associated with fire-prevention thinning, and just two weeks after Bush promised greater leeway for logging and other commercial activities on national forests and grasslands. As such, the 9th Circuit’s decision, according to Niel Lawrence with the Natural Resources Defense Council, “is a ray of hope at a time when our national forests are under assault by the Bush administration and its timber industry allies.” More information about the Roadless Rule can be found on the web at http://roadless.fs.fed.us Follow up note: A Tongass rider attached to the Omnibus budget bill was passed on February 13, which would block agency proposals to designate any Tongass roadless areas for Wilderness. This is a blatant disregard for the law, as the federal district court in Alaska ordered the Forest Service to go back and review all Tongass roadless areas for possible wilderness protection. On a positive note, the rider to exempt Alaska’s forests from the roadless rule was dropped from the bill. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited a brief submitted by Montana’s Attorney General Mike McGrath, who argued that public involvement in the roadless rule process had been adequate. File photo. The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 11 2002 Annual Report n a year filled with economic and political instability, Wildlands CPR began developing new and exciting programs to increase our effectiveness. We moved to a new office, went through some challenging staff changes and just about finalized a new strategic plan. 2002 was a year of challenge and change, and we think we’re a stronger organization because of it. I Strategic Planning In May the board and staff began a strategic planning process. Thanks to a generous grant from the Wilburforce Foundation we were able to retain Shelli Bischoff of Conservation Impact and finish that process in December. The final language wasn’t approved until after the new year, so you’ll hear more about it in next year’s annual report. Importantly, however, we mapped out the new directions we had been exploring, expanding our work regarding road removal on-the-ground. We also solidified the role we want to play in affecting off-road vehicle management changes, both independently and through the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. Organizational Development In January Lisa Philipps joined us as the new Grassroots Coordinator for the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. A few months later we concluded a year long search for a Science Coordinator when Adam Switalksi joined our staff and began developing his new program. Both have been incredible additions to our organization. Replacing Jacob Smith, our long-time Motorized Recreation Policy Coordinator, proved challenging, but we were very excited to fill his position by hiring Bridget Lyons in early 2003. We had eight student interns who answered all sorts of questions for us, from the ecological effects of mountain bikes to the legal implications of the new Categorical Exclusion regulations. We also added one excellent new board member and old friend to the organization, Dave Havlick. For the first time since identifying our science program component, we have reached a full staffing level at Wildlands CPR. On the revenue side, our foundation funding remained stable, with generous grants awarded from the following foundations: 444S, Brainerd, Bullitt, Flintridge, Foundation for Deep Ecology, Harder, Lazar, New Land, Norcross, Page, Patagonia, Temper of the Times, W. Alton Jones, Weeden, and Wilburforce. Flintridge was a new funder for 2002 and we also began discussions with the LaSalle Adams Fund that led to new funding for 2003 and 2004. Late in the year we embarked on our first ever major donor campaign, which netted just over $15,000. We also expanded our work with the Combined Federal Campaigns and state workplace giving. Our membership grew significantly, and we will continue to expand both our membership and our donor base. Roads With the addition of Adam as Science Coordinator, Marnie has expanded the scope of her road removal work. In addition, thanks to a new grant from the Flintridge Foundation, Marnie is working more closely with the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment and other forest workers. To compliment this outreach, we hired the Center for Environmental Economic Development to conduct an economic assessment of creating a national road removal program on National Forests; this study will be completed in 2003. Marnie oversaw interns who assessed the implementation of the Roads Analysis Process, and we finalized a report comparing that process to existing methods for analyzing road systems on National Forest lands. Marnie has been a critical member of the Restoration Working Group, which completed the restoration principles at the end of 2002 and has submitted them for publication in Ecological Restoration. The working group also hosted the second annual Restoration Summit and several field trips to bring together conservation activists, practitioners and community forestry advocates. Adam’s focus is on increasing the breadth and depth of road removal research. He began with a comprehensive search for existing peer-reviewed literature on road removal; we are not surprised to say that there is an extreme paucity of such information. Adam is now working with scientists around the country to develop an article articulating the need for advanced road removal research, and identifying some key questions to ask. A portion of Adam’s time is dedicated to maintaining current files on the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles as well. Adam attended numerous scientific conferences in 2002 and will be presenting road removal research and research agendas at conferences throughout the country in 2003. Wildlands CPR’s road removal workshops are giving activists around the country the skills needed to advocate for effective wildland restoration. File photo. 12 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Off-road vehicles 2002 was a challenging year for Wildlands CPR on the off-road vehicle front. Jacob dropped down to halftime and we had trouble finding someone to job-share and then replace him; this limited our work. Nonetheless, we focused on litigation options and researched three important, but ultimately unsuccessful opportunities to bring critical litigation against off-road vehicle management. At the same time, two lawsuits we were involved in (with other conservation groups) were resolved in our favor - one on the Parks Yampa District of the Routt National Forest and one on Utah BLM lands regarding RS 2477! In addition, we completed two templates for activists to use when challenging off-road vehicle issues related to travel management planning. Both Jacob and Lisa continued our work with the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition, a significant portion of which was focused on highlighting egregious off-road vehicle violations to the media. Lisa provided continued assistance to grassroots activists around the country and also began connecting with hunters and ranchers who are opposed to indiscriminate off-road vehicle use. Conclusion In 2002, we reached out to new people, promoted more road removal on the ground, and broadened the economic and ecological understanding of the benefits (and drawbacks) of wildland restoration through road removal. 2002 saw off-road vehicle issues rise up high on the list of issues the media covers, with many stories detailing the significant concerns regarding off-road vehicle abuses to people and the environment. While the current political situation leaves little room for positive gain on environmental issues, we feel strongly that we are using approaches and messages that can break through some partisan barriers and result in stronger environmental protection and restoration. Thanks for your continued support — please don’t hesitate to tell your friends about us! Wildlands CPR is leading the way in citizen efforts to control inappropriate ATV use. Here, ATV riders head into the Colorado-San Isabel National Forest. File photo. 2002 Financial Report Income: $370,310.71 Contributions: 5% Membership: 1.5% Interest/Other: 1.5% Expenses: $342,560.25 Science: 7.4% Administration: 7.7% Clearinghouse: 13.7% Roads: 26.1% Fundraising: 2.7% Grants: 92% Organizational Development: 20.8% Motorized Recreation: 21.6% The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 13 Roads Program Update Spring 2003 By Marnie Criley, Roads Policy Coordinator Restoration Principles and Summit Wildlands CPR has been developing a set of restoration principles since 2001; they have currently been endorsed by over 80 organizations. A version of the Principles will be published in the March issue of the Society for Ecological Restoration’s journal Ecological Restoration. The next restoration summit will be held in Ashland, Oregon March 13-15, 2003. Marnie has been working on the agenda for the summit, which includes a day of field trips to various restoration projects in the area, both good ones and controversial ones. The goals of this summit are: Blue-Green Dialogue Marnie has been participating in monthly bluegreen dialogues in Missoula, Montana designed to bring environmental and union constituencies together to discuss issues of common interest, including forest restoration, energy, and resource extraction. Recently the group authored a resolution asking the Montana State Legislature to call on Congress to establish a trust fund to cover longterm health care needs of the citizens of Libby, Montana who suffer, or will suffer, from exposure to asbestos due to the W.R. Grace vermiculite mine. Similar to Marnie’s work with Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment, this is another excellent forum for Wildlands CPR to discuss road removal as a win-win solution for the environment and local communities. • Use the Restoration Principles to stimulate a discussion and look at restoration projects together on-the-ground (including controversial Federal land restoration projects); Help develop and improve methods for conservationists and practitioners to work together to support, reject, monitor, or otherwise influence restoration projects; Continue to build bridges and alliances between the conservation community and forest practitioners and community forestry groups; Delve more deeply into key issues around implementing ecological restoration; Share updates on efforts over the past year, discuss lessons learned, and identify projects that we can work on together within the following arenas (and potentially others): Appropriations/Legislative, Alliance Building, Multi-party Monitoring, Fire and Restoration, Experiential and Indigenous Knowledge, and the Forest Restoration Principles. • Clearwater NF Road Removal Thanks to a two-year grant from the LaSalle Adams Fund, Wildlands CPR is working to develop a national model for road removal. To get started we contracted with a local environmental researcher, Beth Peluso, to: 1. Conduct an in-depth assessment of the Clearwater National Forest’s road removal program, and a limited assessment of two to three other programs; write a report detailing the results; develop a template for a model road removal program; and, Research funding opportunities and sources for road removal on private, state and federal lands, and design a brochure to display this information. See our Policy Primer on pages 20-22 for a preview of funding opportunities. • • • 2. Science Program To restrict or restore, that is the question. . . File photos. Adam continues to improve Wildlands CPR’s visibility within the scientific community. He has added many road and off-road vehicle articles to our library and database, supervised two University of Montana environmental studies program science projects, and fulfilled several information requests for scientists and activists. He working with numerous scientists to promote road removal and define needed research and research sites. He is also coordinating a review and prospectus of road removal, which we hope to have published this year. Finally, Adam has submitted abstracts for presentations at the Conservation Biology conference and the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. 14 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 ORV Program Update Spring 2003 By Lisa Philipps ince our last issue of The Riporter, we’ve been in the midst of a hiring process to replace Jacob Smith. That process is now complete, and we welcome Bridget Lyons as our new Transportation Policy Coordinator. We also reworked our programs a bit, so in the future this update will incorporate both road prevention and off-road vehicle issues. Over the coming months, Bridget will tackle a number of new projects. One of the first will be developing a primer for local organizing related to transportation planning. Bridget also will reinvigorate our workshop program, so if you’re interested in inventories and challenges of roads and ORVs, don’t hesitate to contact her. In February Wildlands CPR co-sponsored a workshop with the East Kootenay Environmental Society to bring together southwestern Canadian activists working on off-road vehicle issues. The workshop, held in Banff, was a great beginning to coordinated off-road vehicle activism in that region. S While we have changed the name of our ORV program, we won’t change our emphasis: preventing ORV damage like this will still be one of our top priorities. File photo — BLM land north of Boise, ID. In the meantime, the biggest news on the transportation front is the RS 2477 changes implemented by the Bush Administration in early January. Please see page 10 for a complete update on that process. We’re also working to understand some of the changes proposed in the new transportation bill and how they will affect public lands. Keep an eye out for more information on transport funding in future issues of The Riporter. At the national level, here is a recap of some recent work with the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition (NTWC). Consumer Product Safety Commission Extends Comment Period on ATV Safety In December, 2002 the CPSC announced it was extending the comment period on a proposal to better protect children under 16 years old from the dangers associated with adult-size all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). The proposal was submitted by nine consumer, medical and conservation organizations, including the Consumer Federation of America, American Academy of Pediatrics and Bluewater Network. Major ATV manufacturers requested the extension; the comment period will now close on March 16, 2003. The CPSC will release new reports about ATVrelated injuries to update a 1998 study, which found that nearly 96% of injured children were injured by adult-size ATVs. The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition will analyze these reports; we will also submit comments using the new data. In August, Natural Trails and Waters, CFA and Bluewater released a report on the growing ATV safety issue in the U.S. We are continuing to push for increased regulation through this process. For more information about safety issues go to naturaltrails.org. For more information on the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition visit www.naturaltrails.org. California Commission Denies Funding to Support Offroad Vehicle Use in Algodones Dunes In January, the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission rejected a $1.1 million funding request from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to facilitate dirt bike, ATV and dune buggy use in the Algodones Dunes of southern California. The BLM has failed to effectively manage such use while at the same time proposing to open more critical habitat for threatened plants and wildlife to these vehicles. NTWC provided a mini-grant to expose the ORV problem at the Dunes. Andrew Harvey, a professional photographer, created a traveling photo exhibit documenting both the beauty and the destruction of the fragile Dunes’ environment. The exhibit is being shown throughout California and Arizona at museums, zoos, botanical gardens, etc. in an effort to reach out to a broader constituency. The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 15 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. The Impacts of Snowmobiling and Cross-Country Skiing on Ungulates By Teresa Elise Welsh Introduction Across the United States, outdoor recreation continues to rise in popularity while wildlife habitat continues to shrink. These converging trends increase the potential for negative human-wildlife interactions and make it imperative that society recognize how recreation affects wildlife (Knight and Temple 1995). This article reviews the literature concerning the impacts of snowmobiling and cross-country skiing on ungulates, and comments on the limitations of this research. Ungulates are hoofed mammals such as deer, elk, bison, and moose. Although it is important to know how humans affect these animals throughout the year, the harsh, limiting conditions of winter make this a particularly vulnerable season for ungulates. As a result, wildlife biologists commonly recognize that winter recreationists potentially have a greater impact than their warm season counterparts (McCool 1978). During the winter, ungulates may be more susceptible to disturbance, which causes an increase in energy expenditure. Disturbances can elevate heart rate, increase vigilance, displace animals from their habitat, and can be detrimental if prolonged or repeated (Canfield et al. 1999). Snowmobiling Several studies have examined the impacts of snowmobilers on ungulates. Bollinger et al. (1972) found that deer did not change their home range, or the area of land over which they moved, as a result of snowmobile activity. He did report though, that deer movements increased when snowmobiles were present. Dorrance et al. (1975) concluded that deer moved away from snowmobile trails during periods of snowmobile use, and that, at a test site with historically low snowmobile use, deer home ranges increased as a result of snowmobile activity. A 1978 study by Richens and Lavigne reported that while snowmobiles did not “cause [deer] to [permanently] abandon preferred bedding and feeding sights,” the deer did flee when snowmobiles approached. They even concluded that snowmobiles used in a judicious manner to create trails — by compacting snow — would benefit deer by facilitating movement to new sources of forage. Studying reindeer, Tyler (1991) found that flight response from snowmobiles consumed 0.4% of the reindeer’s daily energy expenditure. He concluded that, with one snowmobile disturbance per day, the reindeer were not adversely affected. However, Moen et al. (1982) found that deer heart rates increased in response to snowmobile provocation, raising energy expenditures without necessarily changing behavior. Creel et al. (2001) compared fecal glucocorticoid levels in elk and wolves with snowmobile activity. He and his colleagues found that elk stress hormone levels rose and fell daily corresponding to the amount of snowmobile traffic. They also found that these levels were higher during snowmobile season than during the off season. For wolves, they reported that fecal glucocorticoid levels were substantially higher in an area with diffuse snowmobile traffic compared to an area where snowmobiles were not permitted. Young-of-the-year moose feed with their mother in the Clearwater National Forest. Young animals are particularly susceptible to energy loss caused by disturbances. Photo by Jim Coefield. Literature Review Scientific studies find that both snowmobiling and cross-country skiing disturb ungulates, however, which form of recreation has a greater impact is still a source of controversy. Furthermore, most studies use different methods to measure the impacts of winter recreation, resulting in conflicting conclusions. Here is a brief review of the literature. 16 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Advances in snowmobile technology now make it possible to reach remote backcountry areas. Photo by Phil Knight. skiers and snowmobilers using the same predictable trails. Nor have any studies observed ungulate response to snowmobiles and crosscountry skiers both traveling in unpredictable locations. Additionally, no studies have considered the difference in noise produced by the two types of recreation, or the difference in distances travelled by motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Snowmobiles produce 73 decibels recorded from 50 feet, a level similar to a busy city street (WWA 2001; Smith 2002). A carefully controlled study is needed to establish the effects of noise. A major limitation of published research on the impacts of snowmobiles is a failure to consider changes in snowmobile technology over the last few years. Modern snowmobiles have more power and can exceed speeds of 100 mph, but the studies cited here restricted speeds to 15 mph (Freddy et al. 1986; Tyler 1991). In addition, the power of new snowmobiles allows them to traverse terrain not previously possible, and to enter wildlands that were once devoid of any human disturbance during the winter months. This combination of speed and range has revolutionized access to remote habitat, and with it the potential for disturbance to wildlife. Another gap in the research is in snowmobiles’ impacts to vegetation. Both vegetation trampling and mortality and have been well documented (e.g. Wanek and Potter 1974), but no study has measured if a decrease in forage could impact ungulate populations. Finally, the published studies lack data on the long-term impacts of recreation. While short-term studies measuring the immediate response of individual ungulates are easier to accomplish, they do not address how accumulated exposure affects a population over several seasons. Conclusion While the scientific literature is inconclusive, a snowmobile’s ability to cover large distances into remote areas, as well as the reach of its noise, may imply that snowmobiles have a greater impact on ungulates than previously understood. These concerns combined with snowmobiles’ other environmental impacts may be of more consequence than the finding that when cross-country skiers are in unpredictable locations, they can have a greater impact than snowmobiles in predictable locations. Research has shown, however, that both groups have the potential to negatively affect ungulates; therefore our primary concern should be on cumulative detrimental impacts. Although none of the published studies have proven that either type of recreation influences ungulates at the population level, Creel et al. (2002) and Hardy (2001) have presented evidence that individuals are feeling stress from wintertime recreation. The cumulative effects of this stress may someday lead to a reduction in ungulate populations. It would be wise to take steps now to manage recreation access and educate recreationists about the impacts of their behavior. A good management strategy would restrict recreation to established, and therefore, predictable trails. Limiting the extensive range of snowmobiles may also be a good mitigation strategy, and keeping trails out of critical ungulate habitat areas is essential. Educational measures should focus on teaching recreationists not to seek close encounters with wildlife, and how to act so as to decrease ungulate disturbance. Teresa Elise Welsh is a graduate student in Environmental Studies at the University of Montana. Skiing Literature on the impacts of cross country skiing is much more limited. Ferguson and Keith (1982) were the first to publish a study on the effects of cross-country skiing on the distribution of moose and elk. They found that both moose and elk moved away from ski trails when the trails were in use. Further, they concluded that cross-country skiing influenced moose distribution during the winter, with moose being less likely to reside in areas used by cross-country skiers. Cassirer et al. (1992) reported that when people walked or skied directly towards elk, the elk were temporarily displaced, but returned shortly after people left the area. Limitations of the Research A direct comparison of the impacts of snowmobiles and cross-country skiers has been addressed in only two published studies (Freddy et al. 1986; Hardy 2001). Both studies found that cross-country skiers have a greater immediate impact because they are less predictable, and therefore more startling. Other studies have also found predictability to be a major factor in animal response to disturbance (Vaske et al. 1995). However, no studies compare the impacts of cross-country References on next page. The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 17 — continued from last page — Bibliography Bollinger, J. G., O. J. Rongstad, A. Soom, and T. Larson. 1972. Snowmobile noise effects on wildlife. Final Report. University of WisconsinMadison. Canfield, J. E., L. J. Lyon, J. M. Hillis, and M. J. Thompson. 1999. Ungulates. Chapter 6 in Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana, coordinated by G. Joslin and H. Youmans. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. Cassirer, E. F., D. J. Freddy, and E. D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to disturbance by cross-country skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381. Creel, S., J. E. Fox, A. R. Hardy, J. Sands, B. Garrot, and R. O. Peterson. 2002. Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk. Conservation Biology 16(3):809-14. Dorrance, M. J., P. J. Savage, and D. E. Huff. 1975. Effects of snowmobiles on white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 39(3):563-69. Ferguson, M. A. D., and L. B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk in Elk Island National Park, Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 96(1):69-72. Freddy, D. J., W. M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:63-68. Hardy, A. R. 2001. Bison and elk responses to winter recreation in Yellowstone National Park. Master’s thesis, Montana State University. Knight, R. L., and S. A. Temple. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management. Chap 20 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research, edited by R. L. Knight, and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington D.C.: Island Press. In one study, cross country skiers were more likely than snowmobiles to surprise, and startle elk. Photo by Jim Coefield. When considering impacts such as noise pollution and trampling of vegetation, snowmobilers might well have a more profound impact than skiers on wildlife populations. File photo. McCool, S. F. 1978. Snowmobiles, animals, and man: Interactions and management issues. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 43:140-48. Moen, A. N., S. Whittemore, and B. Buxton. 1982. Effects of disturbance by snowmobiles on heart rate of captive white-tailed deer. New York Fish and Game Journal 29(2):176-83. Richens V. B., and G. R. Lavigne. 1987. Response of white-tailed deer to snowmobiles and snowmobile trails in Maine. Canadian FieldNaturalist 92(4):334-43. Smith, S. 2002. The snowmobile lobby’s snow job. Earth Island Journal. Summer: 13. Tyler, N. J. C. 1991. Short-term behavioural responses of svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus to direct provocation by a snowmobile. Biological Conservation 56: 179-94. Vaske, J. J., D. J. Decker, and M. J. Manfredo. 1995. Wildlife management: An integrated framework for coexistence. Chap 3 in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research, edited by R. L. Knight, and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Wanek, W. E. and D. Potter. 1974. A continuing study of the ecological impact of snowmobiling in northern Minnesota (final research report for 1973-1974). The Center for Environmental Studies, Bemidji State College, Bemidji, Minnesota. 53pp. Winter Wildlands Alliance. 2001. Losing ground: The fight to preserve winter solitude. 13 November. Available at http:// www.winterwildlands.org 18 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 The Activist Spotlight shares the stories of some of the awesome activists we work with, both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and lessons learned. Please email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight to [email protected]. Spotlight on Lynda Bilbrough n each of the places she’s called home, Lynda Bilbrough’s activism has focused on saving our precious water resources: Lake Erie, the Cuyahoga River, the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Barrier Reef, the China Sea. All these waters are better off due in part to Lynda’s work. Surprisingly, her background is in corporate public relations with Fortune 500 companies, and she’s also done public relations work with international charities. Lynda says her love of children is tied to her desire to protect natural beaches; a mother of three, she believes that our children deserve to inherit a healthy world. At present, the bulk of Lynda’s activism centers on saving North Carolina’s North End beach from the devastating effects of beach driving. Erosion, wetlands destruction, and wildlife displacement are just some of the results of this reckless recreation, not to mention the noise, pollution, litter, human and dog waste — even violent crime. (See The RIPorter 6.5 for background information.) The North End of Carolina Beach (known as Freeman Beach) is a nearly three mile stretch of one of the last undeveloped Atlantic Coast barrier islands. Its shore, sand dunes and wetlands were once teeming with wildlife — before beach driving exploded. On a typical weekend, hundreds of off-road vehicles (ORVs) crowd the beach; on a sunshine-filled holiday weekend that number can top 1,000. The Town of Carolina Beach manages the first 1000 feet of the beach and allows 24-hour motorized access. The rest is private, the majority owned by heirs to Robert Bruce Freeman, Sr. who purchased the land in 1886. Though the Freeman heirs oppose it, 4-wheel drive cars and ORVs continually drive on their property. The Town of Carolina Beach and New Hanover County do little to protect private property rights; indeed, when Lynda and the owners urged the Town Council to enforce a 1997 law prohibiting the practice, the council voted to reverse the “no beach driving” ordinance! The North End beach is habitat for shorebirds including American oystercatchers, willets, least terns, common terns, black skimmers, brown pelicans and the endangered piping plover. In fact, part of the beach was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as Critical Habitat for the plover. Loggerhead, green and leatherback sea turtles once used the inlet to nest. As beach driving increased, use of the area by wildlife and birds decreased: according to the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, in 1995, 475 nests of least terns, black skimmer’s and common terns were found on the North End. Today, zero nesting pairs remain. Most shorebirds’ nests are hollow indentations in the sand; when vehicles approach, the birds fly away, leaving their eggs or hatchlings vulnerable. Lynda points to clear evidence that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are being violated. When she and other citizens first made the Carolina Beach Town Council aware of this, they were ignored. When Lynda’s pleas went unheard, she tried other avenues. National Audubon Society agreed to monitor the area once there’s a ban on beach driving. Lynda also organized credible scientists and citizens to document damage and violations. She wrote politicians, officials, and federal agencies, and persuaded U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC) to get involved. She convinced local and national I Lynda Bilbrough. Photo by Jessica Nemeth. news reporters to cover the issue. She worked with property owners to request New Hanover County to close private property to vehicles. The largest property owner, Evelyn Williams, an attorney, recently presented evidence of violations of seven federal laws, nine state laws and two county ordinances. Lynda addressed the New Hanover County Commission on behalf of Ms. Williams and the other owners and in early 2003, she helped form Citizens for the Conservation of the North End (CCNE). Lynda’s hard work has reaped some positive change: ATVs, dune-buggies, campers, boats and jet skis were technically prohibited in May 2002. Speed limits were reduced to 15 mph and a “drivable corridor” was established. However, people frequently violate these regulations and there’s still very little enforcement. In addition, the beach is still open all night, there are no sanitation facilities, alcoholic beverages are prevalent, dogs are allowed to roam, and vehicle trespass on Freeman Beach continues. Lynda maintains her stamina by staying determined to fight for the beach. And a thick skin helps: At county commissioner’s meetings, Lynda has been booed and shouted at to, “go back to where she came from,” but she hasn’t been deterred. She’s also enlisted the support and advice of others who’ve worked on similar causes. In particular, inspiration from Shirley Reynolds has proven invaluable. Shirley sued Volusia County in Florida — over beach driving on behalf of sea turtles — and won! Now, miles of Florida beach are closed to off-road vehicles. Due to Lynda’s hard work, someday we may be able to say the same about North Carolina’s North End Beach. Thank you Lynda! The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 19 The Policy Primer is a column designed to highlight the ins & outs of a specific road or ORV policy. If you have a policy you’d like us to investigate, let us know! Funding Opportunities For Road Removal By Beth Peluso T his issue of the Policy Primer focuses on various funding opportunities available for road removal. As you will see, these opportunities exist for projects on federal, state and private lands. The growing preference for funders is projects that involve partnerships. From non-profits joining with Native American tribes to federal agencies working with private landowners and job creation programs, sometimes the most unlikely partner proves the most lucrative, tapping into funds that would otherwise be inaccessible. For more information on creating partnerships for road removal go to: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/reports/ PartnershipforFunding.htm Endangered Species Recovery Program’s Private Stewardship Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 • Arlington, VA 22203 • 703-358-2390 • http://endangered.fws.gov • See Web site for regional contact information. Background: Focuses on forming partnerships for projects that “reduce threats or otherwise benefit populations” of imperiled (not necessarily federally listed) species. Who qualifies: Federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; researchers; conservation organizations; businesses; landowners; and individuals Maximum/Average amount: Varies; program total of $10 million available in 2003 What activities/scale: The program is for individuals and groups doing “local, private, voluntary conservation efforts.” Term of funding: Varies Type of funding: Grants awarded through regional competition. Community-Based Restoration Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Restoration Center 1315 East-West Highway • Silver Spring, MD 20910 • 301713-0174 • www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration Background: This program funds coastal and riparian habitat restoration and some monitoring. It focuses on anadromous fish species, endangered and threatened marine species, and commercial and recreational fisheries. Projects should include community participation and education/outreach. Who qualifies: Community organizations, nonprofits, government agencies, businesses, commercial and recreation fishing groups, students and educational institutions, youth conservation corps, private land owners Maximum/Average amount: Ranges from $1,000 to $500,000; average is $5,000 to $50,000 What activities/scale: Projects are chosen for technical merit, community involvement, and ecological benefits to fish habitat, with an emphasis on partnerships and collaboration. Funding term: Multi-year partnerships up to 3 years Funding type: Grants Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) see http://www.usda.gov/farmbill Background: Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP): The Department of Agriculture provides “management expertise, financial assistance, and educational programs” to private landholders through state forest agencies. Program goals include restoration and enhancement of riparian zones, water and soil quality, and habitat for plants and animals. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP): Provides financial and technical aid to projects that create “high quality wildlife habitats that support wildlife populations of national, state, tribal, and local significance.” Special emphasis on aiding declining species. After the landowner completes this habitat component, WHIP also helps with monitoring and management. Resource Conservation and Development Program (RCDP): The Secretary of Agriculture designates up to 450 locally-sponsored areas. The four main goals of the program are land conservation, water management, economic development, and community sustainability. Who qualifies: FLEP: Tribes, private individuals, groups, associations and corporations who own nonindustrial, private forest lands. WHIP: Private landowners; conservation districts, Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. Projects can be on tribal, private, federal (if the main benefit is on tribal or private land), and a limited amount of state and local government land. RCDP: Tribal, state, or local governments; nonprofit organizations in rural areas. Road removal is the only sure way to prevent damage like this. Photo courtesy of Florida Biodiversity Project. 20 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Maximum/Average amount: Not specified What activities/scale: FLEP: Contact your state forest agency for a list of approved activities. Treatment areas must be under 1,000 acres (with possible wavers up to 5,000 acres). WHIP: Applies to projects dealing with upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitat RCDP: Fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, soil erosion control, water quantity and quality Funding Term: FLEP: Not less than 10 years, unless approved by the state forester. The Program has $100 million to use between 2002-07. WHIP: Usually 5 to 10 years, but can be shorter in “wildlife emergencies” and 15 years or more for “essential plant and animal habitat.” RCDP: Not specified Funding Type: FLEP: Cost share, not more than 75 percent of total cost. WHIP: Cost share RCDP: Technical and financial assistance National Fish and Wildlife Foundation National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • 1120 Connecticut Ave. NW, ste. 900 • Washington, DC 20036 • 202-857-0166 • www.nfwf.org • See Web site for regional office information. Background: Bring Back the Natives is for riparian restoration and supporting native species. Funding amount depends on which of the federal partners (the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Fish and Wildlife Service) provides funding. Trout Unlimited is also a partner. Challenge Grants are for partnership projects focusing on fish and wildlife conservation and habitat restoration. Grants range from $10,000 to $150,000 Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program is for local-level projects in Washington D.C., Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. Awarded 5 grants of $100,000 to restore fish and wildlife habitat in 2002. Also has smaller grants of up to $50,000 but averaging $25,000-$35,000, that groups meet with partnership funds, usually for multi-state projects. www.chesapeakebay.net Restore Our Southern Rivers is for partnership projects that benefit water quality and “living marine resources, including anadromous fish” in the Southeast. Projects must be on federal lands or lands that directly affect federal lands. Who qualifies: Federal, state, local governments; educational institutions; nonprofit organizations. Can be from the U.S. or its territories, Canada, Mexico, and international areas with migratory species Maximum/Average amount: Varies by program, from $10,000 to $150,000 What activities/scale: Varies by program, from local to watershed-wide projects Funding term: One year. Recipients may re-apply. Funding type: Challenge Grants: Matching funds ROSR: Matching funds BBN: Matching funds Chesapeake Bay: Matching funds Jobs in the Woods, US Fish and Wildlife Service www.fws.gov.Pacific region.Forest resources Background: The Northwest Forest Plan initiated this program nine years ago for Washington, California, and Oregon. Future funding is uncertain. Who qualifies: Watershed groups, local landowners, groups of multiple landowners Maximum/Average amount: Up to $100,000, average $75,000 What activities/scale: Watershed restoration projects on non-federal land, from assessment to implementation. Scale ranges from individual landowners to watersheds. Funding term: Varies by project Funding type: Grants; the FWS provides technical assistance and project administration Matching Awards Program, National Forest Foundation National Forest Foundation • Fort Missoula Road, Building 27, Suite #3 • Missoula, MT 59804 • 406-542-2805 • www.natlforests.org Background: Created in 1990 by Congress as the nonprofit partner to the Forest Service. Who qualifies: State, tribal, and local governments; nonprofits; educational institutions; non-federal partners; community-based organizations. The program emphasizes four geographic areas: Central Colorado Rockies, Oregon coast and central Cascades, Montana’s Selway-Bitterroot complex, and the southern Appalachians. In 2003 this will expand to include California’s central Sierra Nevada and the central Appalachians. There is also funding for projects in other areas. Maximum/Average amount: Awards range from $500 to $100,000. Available funds are $1.48 million for emphasized areas and $370,000 for other areas. What activities: Watershed health and restoration, wildlife habitat improvement, community-based forest stewardship Funding term: One year. Recipients can reapply. Funding type: Matching funds of at least 1:1; must be nonfederal money; in-kind contributions are ineligible. When planning to remove a road, include a line item for heavy equipment. Photo by J. McCullah. — continued on next page – 21 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Funding for Road Removal — continued from previous page — Northwest Power Planning Council 851 Southwest 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 • Portland, OR 97204 • 503-222-5161 • www.nwcouncil.org Background: The Council recommends projects to the Bonneville Power Administration that “protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River basin.” Who qualifies: The BPA Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife program covers portions of Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Maximum/Average amount: Ranges from $40,000 to $1 million, average $50,000 to $200,000. BPA may reduce the fish and wildlife fund in the near future. What activities/scale: On-the-ground activities have priority over assessment. Projects range from Columbia subbasins to state/tribe/province to regional levels. Funding term: One-year contracts, which can be renewed. Funding type: Matching and cost sharing viewed favorably. W ith the war drums beating louder every day, keeping our focus on roads and off-road vehicles has been challenging. Let’s hope that by the time this reaches you we’re still working on sanctions and inspections in Iraq and North Korea. But in the midst of world political turmoil, we’ve got some exciting news. We’ve hired someone to replace Jacob, and she started at the beginning of February. Bridget Lyons is our new Transportation Policy Coordinator (see page 2). She comes to us from the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), where she was a public policy coordinator and developed natural resource curricula for NOLS students. Turns out this meant a lot of research on things like snowmobiles and RS 2477, so Bridget brings quite a bit of issue knowledge to her new job as an activist. She’s working out of the Missoula office until March 31, after which she’ll be opening an office in Driggs, Idaho for us. We are absolutely delighted to have her with us, and we think you will be too. Don’t hesitate to call and introduce yourself, or drop her an email ([email protected]). In addition to Bridget, I’d like to introduce two other people who’ve been helping us out with our work. Beth Peluso is working on a contract research project to help us develop some road removal models. She’s also been researching road removal funding. You can see some of her initial results in this issue’s Policy Primer. Shay O’Brien-Ugaldea is our new intern, working on fundraising and development. She’s helping Tommy out in his quest for new foundations and new funding sources. Welcome to both Shay and Beth! We thought many of you might like a report on the completion of our first major donor campaign. We set a target of $20,000 for this first attempt, and while we didn’t quite reach it, we are thrilled that we raised $15,070. If you were one of the contributors to the campaign, thank you so much! We couldn’t have done it without you, or without the help of our house party hosts, our full board and staff, and our team of askers — Jen Barry, Karen DiBari, Julie Mae Muiderman, Mary O’Brien, Tommy Petersen, and Bethanie Walder. And finally, one correction. We failed to credit our back cover photo in our last issue. The photographer was Jennifer Nitz — thanks for the photo Jennifer! Other Useful Web sites Catalog of General Federal Assistance: www.cfda.gov This lists all federal funding sources. Although a little ponderous, it is a good resource. Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection: www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/fund.html The EPA published this helpful catalog of funding sources in 1999, so some of the information may be out of date. Beth Peluso is in the process of compiling all the funding information she has collected into a brochure which should be available later in the spring. For more information contact [email protected]. — Beth Peluso received a Master’s degree in environmental studies from the University of Montana last spring. She serves on a local board of the Sierra Club, and has a strong interest in wildlife conservation. Exploring the natural world through writing and painting are what keeps her going through long Montana winters. 22 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 Membership and Order Information Memberships I have enclosed my tax-deductible Wildlands CPR membership contribution of: $1,000 $500 $250 $100 $50 family $30 standard $15 living lightly Publications Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications: Qty: Title/Price Each: Total: / other / Or, please withdraw a monthly donation via automatic checking account debit. Day of month for debit Amount to withdraw Signature Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item; for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item. International Membership — $30 Minimum. All prices in U.S. Dollars Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk. Check here if you are interested in helping to distribute The Road-RIPorter in your area Check here to receive our ORV and road email newsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks. Check here for our Email Activist List. Please remember to include your email address! / Total of all items: Please include a voided check! All information will be kept confidential. Type of Membership: Individual Organization (put name below) Check here for our RIP-Web non-paper option. Get the RIPorter online before it gets printed! Please include your email address! Organization Name Name Address City, State, Zip Phone Email Refer a friend to Wildlands CPR! Send us the names and addresses of friends you think may be interested in receiving membership information from Wildlands CPR. Please send this form and your check payable to: Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 23 Photo by Dan Funsch. Non-profit Organization US POSTAGE PAID MISSOULA MT, 59801 PERMIT NO. 569 Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 Roads are, in themselves, the greatest of fire hazards, for man follows roads, and fire follows man. — Rosalie Edge, 1936 The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper with soy-based ink.