The Road-RIPorter
Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. November/December 2001. Volume 6 # 6
The Truth, the
Whole Truth,
and Nothing
but the
Ground Truth
HCCA’s Quest to Map the
Gunnison National Forest
By Mark Heller and Sandy Shea
HCCA documents motorized incursion into the West Elk Wilderness. Photo by Joe Keshmer.
H
igh Country Citizen’s Alliance (HCCA)
has been dispatching teams of trackers
into the backcountry of the 1.2 million-
acre Gunnison National Forest for the last six
summers. They are hunters of sorts — of
roads, not animals. We know why people hunt
animals, but why bother with roads? The
answer is also the motivation for all of HCCA’s
public lands work: forest health.
HCCA formed in 1977 to battle a proposed molybdenum
mine sited for the Red Lady Bowl of Mt. Emmons, which is
right next to picturesque Crested Butte, CO. While the mine
fight still continues, HCCA has evolved into a multi-purpose
grassroots environmental group with 25 projects falling
within its four general program areas: Save Red Lady, Public
Lands, Water, and Community. Due to HCCA’s affiliation
with the Southern Rockies Forest Network (SRFN — an
alliance of more than 20 conservation groups in Colorado
and southern Wyoming), our Public Lands Program is
focused on documenting roads and mapping the boundaries
of remaining roadless areas on our local national forest.
The Gunnison Basin covers about 3 million acres, with
the Gunnison National Forest forming a ring around its
eastern edge. The Forest is ecologically diverse, ranging
from 6500’ to 14,000’ in elevation. Vegetative communities
run the gamut from shrubland-sagebrush steppe to alpine
tundra, with a lot of aspen and dense spruce-fir forests in
between. Species of concern include the boreal toad and
Gunnison sage grouse (both candidates for protections under
the Endangered Species Act), northern goshawk, pine
marten, southwestern willow flycatcher, boreal owl (Forest
Service Management Indicator Species), and Colorado River
cutthroat trout (federal listing pending). Additionally, the
area is home to 12 Forest Service sensitive plant species
including the roundleaf sundew, a carnivorous plant with
only two known populations in Colorado.
In the past two decades motorized recreational use has
exploded, creating a vast network of user-created roads on
the Gunnison. Whether in open areas with few topographic
barriers, or in remote forests near treeline, many motorized
routes have been pioneered in previously roadless areas. The
cumulative effects of user-created routes combined with
“official” Forest system motorized routes poses a grave threat
to individual species from habitat loss and fragmentation (see
map, page 3).
The sheer number of routes requires a careful study of
their location and impacts so that they will be properly
addressed in the upcoming Gunnison Travel Plan revision.
The first step to address this problem is finding out exactly
where these illegal roads are. Enter HCCA and its Road RIP
program (Road Rehabilitation and Inventory Project). Over
the past six years and with the cooperation of the Forest
Service, HCCA (and its sister group in Paonia, The Western
Slope Environmental Resource Council) has mapped nearly
— continued on page 3 —
 From the Wildlands CPR Office... Wildlands
C
Center for
The sun has finally hidden itself from view and we are experiencing an end to P
Preventing
the extreme drought this year in western Montana. Any day now, we’re sure the snow R
Roads
will start to fall. And with it, activists are hunkering down for a winter of snowmo-
bile monitoring, data analysis from the summer field season, and conferences,
meetings and brainstorming sessions to plan our strategies for 2002. In this issue, Main Office
we’ve got an eclectic mix of information, from an essay about roads in Alaska, to an P.O. Box 7516
article about the ecological effects of railroads, to the cover story about road invento- Missoula, MT 59807
ries and mapping in the Colorado high country. We hope you find it thought provok- (406) 543-9551
ing and filled with good information for your road and ORV-fighting activities. WildlandsCPR@wildlandscpr.org
www.wildlandscpr.org

We Want You... Colorado Office

2260 Baseline Rd., Suite 205
...to be a Wildlands CPR “representa- Boulder, CO 80302
tive.” Starting with the next issue of our
newsletter, we’d like to find at least one
In this Issue (303) 247-0998
prebles@indra.net
person in every state, if not more, to start Ground-Truthing, p. 1, 3
distributing the Road-RIPorter to coffee Mark Heller and Sandy Shea Wildlands Center for Preventing
Roads works to protect and restore
shops, bakeries, doctor’s offices and wildland ecosystems by preventing
other such places where people might DePaving the Way, p. 4-5 and removing roads and limiting
come upon it and read it. We’ve long Bethanie Walder motorized recreation. We are a
thought about how to increase exposure national clearinghouse and network,
for the RIPorter, and more importantly providing citizens with tools and
Odes to Roads, p. 6-7 strategies to fight road
for road removal and off-road vehicle
Guy Hand construction, deter motorized
issues. If you’d be willing to distribute recreation, and promote road
10-15 copies of each issue when it’s removal and revegetation.
printed, we’d be willing to offer you a Bibliography Notes, p. 8-10
Edgar A. van der Grift Director
free membership in return. If you’re Bethanie Walder
interested, get in touch with Jen Barry,
our Program Associate by calling our Field Notes, p. 11 Development Director
Jake Herrero Tom Petersen
office or emailing:
jenbarry@wildlandscpr.org. Thanks, and ORV Policy Coordinator
we hope to hear from you soon. Regional & Updates, p. 12-13 Jacob Smith
Roads Policy Coordinator
Thanks New Resources, p. 14 Marnie Criley
We’d like to thank the New-Land, Program Associate
444S, Lazar, and Harder Foundations for Jennifer Barry
generous grants supporting our roads and off-road vehicle work. We’d also like to
thank all of you who have been responding to our renewal requests. And a warning, Newsletter
Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield
we’re about to send out our annual appeal — please consider making a year-end
contribution to Wildlands CPR above and beyond your annual dues. We certainly Interns & Volunteers
appreciate and count on your continued financial support of our work. Benjamin Hart, Maureen Hartmann,
Emily Yeomans, Roiann Matt,
Erich Zimmerman, Brian Crawford,
New Resources for Road Rippers! Amy Barry
This issue of the RIPorter is filled with new resources, from the new technology
for trail monitoring that’s explained in field notes to several new reports and research
on off-road vehicles and roads. Please check them out on Page 14 to learn more Board of Directors
Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari,
about all the new stuff out there you can use to fight roads and ORVs! Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,
Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary
Times are Changing O'Brien, Ted Zukoski
Beginning with our next issue, The Road-RIPorter’s getting a make-over. We’ll be
updating the layout and graphic design, adding several new sections, increasing the Advisory Committee
length of the newsletter, and, perhaps most significantly, changing publication dates. Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
Yes, we’re finally dropping back to a quarterly publication. Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
Marion Hourdequin,
To ensure an easy transition, we will actually publish 5 issues next year: January; Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lindner,
Spring Equinox; Summer Solstice; Fall Equinox; and Winter Solstice. The January Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
issue will include some of our new look, but the Spring issue will complete the Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
transition. We look forward to your feedback on the changes. And don’t worry — the Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
RIPorter will continue to bring you the high quality road/ORV-fighting resources Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
you’ve come to expect from us!
© 2001 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001

 — continued from page 1 — and Wade Thompson, and Crew Members Tracy Racek, Joe
Keshmer, Tom Hall, Ann-Marie Zanowick, and Zach Heuscher.
half of the Gunnison, and we hope to complete the second half Even though the GPS/GIS technology is fairly new, many of
by the end of next summer. HCCA’s Road Rippers have already worked with it, either for
In the first years of the Road RIP program, the road other road inventory efforts or for wildlife tracking. The
location technique consisted of a USGS map, a sheet of mylar rookies are learning daily and love it. “I would take it over the
and some red pens. The Road Rippers would hike or bike usual job, that’s definite,” says Heuscher, who treasures seeing
around a designated quadrangle and make their best guess as the area from so many different perspectives, even though July
to the location of a road on the map and mark it in. They snow and mud sometimes interfere with his reverie.
would then take a few photos and fill out a form to document Our work thus far indicates that at least 200 miles of ghost
the characteristics of the road. In recent years, HCCA and roads receive regular use on the Gunnison National Forest
SRFN have added an in-depth form with more than 40 ques- alone; in some areas the road density is over 10 miles per
tions, digital cameras and global positioning system (GPS) units square mile! No, unfortunately, that’s not a typo. Our goal is
that talk to each other allowing for the placement of the exact to document all routes as accurately as technology allows, and
latitude and longitude on each picture. Also in the works is a to press the Forest Service to close routes that are plainly
wireless system that will allow all of this information to be duplicative, that are causing unacceptable environmental
beamed from the field directly to the HCCA office. damage, or routes that simply end up going nowhere.
Field information is transferred to a geographic informa- As on all National Forests, the Forest Service has let this
tion system (GIS) database and overlaid onto a digitized version situation grow while turning a blind eye to the problem. If you
of the USGS map to show the user-created roads along with talk with agency staffers, they’ll tell you they know there’s a
Forest Service system roads. Sometimes this process takes just huge problem out there, but slim budgets and other agency
as long as the field work, and is in many ways more compli- priorities have prevented them from confronting the problem
cated. Once finished, these results will be combined with data head on. Because of our high quality data (much more compre-
from other SRFN conservation groups to form an integrated GIS hensive and accurate than the agency’s own information), our
database showing roads and remaining roadless areas on work on the Gunnison will compel the agency to get a grip on
National Forests in the Southern Rockies region. the problem, and force long overdue changes on the ground.
But just to make the technology work, you need bodies to If you are concerned with the “over-motorization” of your
drive, bike or walk every foot of terrain, and carefully and local national Forest, we encourage you to take the bull by the
accurately enter each bit of data. It’s not a job for the casual horns. A basic GPS unit costs a little over $100, and if you
day hiker. It takes strong legs, attention to detail, and lately, can’t afford a digital camera, a regular point-and-shoot camera
good rain gear. Assisting HCCA with this monumental task this will do nicely. There are lots of folks out there who are doing
year were Coordinator Alex Zendel, Crew Leaders Jill Norton this kind of work who will gladly offer advice, and help you get
started (for this we owe the folks at
Wildlands CPR a debt of gratitude —
that’s how we got started!). All
Shrinking Roadless Zones in Colorado’s that’s required is a desire to do
Gunnison National Forest accurate work, and a commitment
to stick with it. You’ll often find
there even are agency staffers who
will support you, and sometimes
actually encourage you! These are
our public lands. The more we
know about them, the better able
we’ll be to fight to close inappropri-
ate routes, and to preserve the
diminishing roadless places out
there that are special to us, and
essential to all the critters who call
the forest home.

— For more information on the

Road RIP project and HCCA in
general, readers can call HCCA at:
970-349-7104 or visit their website
at: http://www.hccaonline.org.
The Southern Rockies Forest Network
This map shows impacts to roadless areas
can be contacted at:
over the past 24 years. Notice how the 303-444-1188 x 216 or:
roadless (light grey) areas are substantially http://www.southernrockies.org.
Denver
Crested Butte more fragmented in the right-hand view,
in some cases totally — WCPR, the group formerly known
eliminating habitat connectivity. as RoadRIP, thanks HCCA for
carrying on the name Road RIP
and its spirit!

The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001 3

House of Cards
By Bethanie Walder
What do we need to do, as
conservationists and as a society,
to re-create a global ethic
of conservation?
I
t has been a time of many transitions, from one
millennium to the next. The boom market of the
‘90’s has turned to uncertainty in the new
century. And the conservation community was
already feeling the pinch from the faltering economy
even before the terrorist attacks began. But now, we
may be forced to face, directly, an economic paradox
long ignored.
The ecological impacts of our affluence
are profound, yet it is only with this new
crisis that we are forced to examine our
choices, and more significantly,
forced to decide whether or not we will
continue to destroy both our own lands and
those of other peoples and countries,
to maintain our affluence.
The unprecedented economic boom of the
1990’s did several things for conservation as a whole:
1) it poured money into non-profits — from founda-
tions, corporations and individual donors; 2) it
prompted us to export even more of our environmen-
tal degradation to less affluent, less restrictive
countries - so we could accommodate our increased
consumption in conjunction with our increased
concern for the environment; and 3) it increased the
dollars people spent on luxuries, including low and
high-impact recreation.
This column explores how the
interconnectedness between these three issues
directly affects the very foundation of the conserva-
tion movement. A foundation which appears to have
significant cracks.
4 The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
It’s the Economy, Stupid
According to a recent report from the Chronicle
of Philanthropy, charitable giving has increased
almost every year since 1940. It went up despite
Pearl Harbor and World War II; despite the Cuban
Missile Crisis; and despite the assassination of
President Kennedy. The only year since 1940 when
charitable giving did not increase was 1987, when the
stock market crashed, triggering a recession. It
appears, then, that economics drive charitable giving,
not politics.
Even so, the September 11th attacks, and the
ongoing terrorism threats raise an uncertain political
and economic paradigm that may limit the applicabil-
ity of this historical perspective on charitable giving.
We have assumed that as long as we have a func-
tional economy (even if it’s not growing), funding for
conservation work should continue. But is un-
checked, nonstop economic growth really such a
good thing for conservation?
Herein lies the paradox. As the prosperity of the
American people has increased, so too has our
consumption. As a society we could choose to be
prosperous and productive without increasing our
environmentally destructive behavior. We could
choose to use our affluence to invest in alternative
energy development or conservation at an industrial
level, in the home, or on the road. We could choose
to use our affluence to invest in education and social
justice.
But many prosperous Americans have spent their
money on conspicuous consumption, from gas
guzzling cars and sport utility vehicles, to motorized
tools and toys, like leaf blowers, off-road vehicles and
recreational vehicles. The same economic boom that
increased conservation funding also promoted
wasteful and consumptive lifestyles, causing further
environmental degradation both in the US and
abroad. The constant push for increased globaliza-
tion has compounded labor and environmental
problems, both here and abroad.
Environmental Imports/Exports
Poor states and countries tend to have the most
trouble protecting their environments, while rich
states and countries are the most progressive.
Montana, Maine and Mexico are examples of the
former, while Colorado and California, or the US as a
whole, are examples of the latter.
While the depth and duration of economic
recession or even depression is unpredictable at the
confluence of this global crisis, most likely we will be
re-importing some of our environmental problems
(not that we had exported all of them). We will be
forced to do so not just because of economics, but
also because corporations and Congress will demand
so under the guise of national security. We now find
ourselves facing more pressing ecological decisions
not just for security, but also for economic expedi-
ency. Will the environmental safeguards that we
could previously afford seem far too expensive in the
immediacy of propping up a failing economy? They
will, but only if Americans continue to promote our
“rights” to indiscriminate and inexpensive consump-
tion of any and all things. Our addiction to prosperity
and cheap energy that permeated the end of the last
millennium is already resulting in a re-importation of
resource extraction and environmental degradation.
For example, natural gas has long been touted as
one of the cleanest of the non-renewable energy
sources. But natural gas production itself is incred-
ibly destructive. And after spending years destroying
the Rocky Mountain Front of Canada, we’re now in
the process of opening up America’s public lands to
nearly unlimited natural gas extraction, regardless of
the ecological cost. All this, for cheap energy.
On the contrary, we have historical examples of
significant conservation in times of financial diffi-
culty. The Great Depression was one of the most
significant personal conservation and recycling eras
in U.S. history. People didn’t waste anything, not
even the foil in gum wrappers, or so the legends go.
The Great Depression was also the time when many
of the eastern National Forests and the National
Grasslands of the Great Plains were set aside. Why?
Because land and timber values were so low that
there was more economic value in conserving these
places than there was in exploiting them. Conserving
in this time of crisis should be equally valuable.
Nonetheless, George W. Bush is promoting more
waste and consumption, through corporate tax
breaks and individual spending to prop up the
economy during this recession. It’s the antithesis of
the approach during WW II — “Support the war
effort, BUY MORE!” What do we need to do, as
conservationists and as a society, to re-create a global
ethic of conservation?
Profligate Recreation
For starters, at Wildlands CPR, this national crisis
of both economy and security offers us an opportu-
nity to re-assess the appropriateness of motorized
recreation on public lands. For many, the importance
of recreating in a natural setting is vital to maintain-
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
ing our personal sanity. For example, numerous news
articles stated that visits to parks and natural places
increased dramatically in the days following Septem-
ber 11. Large numbers of visitors were seeking solace
in the quiet and beauty of nature. But motorized
recreation destroys the benefits of wildland recre-
ation for most users and is a profligate waste of
resources. And those resources dictate our foreign
policy — particularly oil. The use of motorized
recreational vehicles also destroys and wastes the
natural places in which they’re driven — National
Parks, National Forests, BLM lands, Wildlife Refuges
and other national heritage treasures.
Maybe, just maybe, now is the time to ask
ourselves, each other and our elected
officials why we are such a wasteful and
selfish society. And maybe now is also the
time to redefine prosperity to include
conservation at home and abroad.
The ecological impacts of our affluence are
profound, yet it is only with this new crisis that we
are forced to examine our choices, and more signifi-
cantly, forced to decide whether or not we will
continue to destroy both our own lands and those of
other peoples, to maintain our affluence. Maybe, just
maybe, now is the time to ask ourselves, each other
and our elected officials why we are such a wasteful
and selfish society. And maybe now is also the time
to redefine prosperity to include conservation at
home and abroad.
Does it makes sense to exploit and destroy our
wild places so we can continue to drive off-road
vehicles in destructive recreational activities? Does it
make sense to send American youths to war just to
secure an ever-dwindling oil supply? Have our
policies of economic globalization, so overgrown by
our extravagances, led others to disrupt our nation?
If we are to protect America’s values in this new
millennium, then we need to hold dear the notion
that natural landscapes and wild places are the heart
of America’s vitality. Actions and activities that
destroy these places in the name of recreation,
national security or economics can only destroy the
fabric of American life. Similarly, those actions that
attempt to globalize our prosperity can also globalize
our poverty of respect for the natural world and the
peoples that live within it.
If economic downturns lead us to destroy wild
places instead of moving towards greater conserva-
tion, and if economic prosperity fueled the growth of
conservation organizations, then our entire conserva-
tion movement may be built on a house of cards. If
we don’t fundamentally rebuild that foundation, then
the house may come a tumblin’ down.
5
 Odes to Roads
The Singing Wolves
By Guy Hand
D
ave Person has a knack for this sort of thing.
Everyone I’ve talked to says so. He shuffles
his boots until he finds a flat patch of
ground. Then he clears his throat, tilts his head
back, and lets loose a long, euphonious howl. It’s a
bluesy, barroom howl. And nearly as loud. Dave
bends the tone up and down, finally sliding to a
single note, which he pulls a half step higher at the
end, punctuating his little backwoods aria with what
sounds like a question mark.
As silence settles back into this chunk of
Southeast Alaska, the three of us turn ears to the tree
line and wait, hoping for an answer. Amy Russell
leans forward, as if that four-inch tilt will make it
easier to hear the wolves respond (if they choose to).
If there was a place in history where people
needed roads less than any other,
Southeast Alaska was once it.
Water provided an elegantly extensive
highway system that for thousands of years
lead Alaskans to everything that mattered.
Roads were as essential — in this
land of glacial ice, torrential rains,
and towering mountains — as central air
or sporty convertibles.
Focusing on the forest of shadows that looms a half-
mile away, her eyes narrow, but I can still see a
boundless enthusiasm gleaming there. Dave’s got
the same look. As wildlife biologists for Alaska Fish
and Game, this is what they live for.
Dave pulls up his binoculars, scans the tree line,
but sees no movement. “It could take awhile,” he
whispers. We settle in, crouching behind a large
stump, trying to get comfortable amid the sharp
angles and tangled chaos of a recent clear-cut. It’s
not easy. This patch of once lush temperate
rainforest looks as if some beast has turned the
world inside out. Slash, stumps, and broken trunks
are scattered like skeletons across acres of churned
up earth. They bleach in this March sun to a
haunting, cadaverous gray.
6 The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
g
It’s hard to find a spot anywhere on Prince of
Wales Island where a clear-cut doesn’t define the
view. Logging has uprooted both nature and human
culture on this, the third largest island in America,
and Dave and Amy are here to find out how that
cataclysmic cutting has impacted the wolf popula-
tion.
“I think she’s over here,” Dave says as he waves
a handheld antennae in the air and its receiver starts
beeping like a hyperactive geiger counter. A radio-
collared female wolf is moving our way. “She’s very
close,” he says.
Prince of Wales Island rests at the southern end
of Alaska’s panhandle, a region dominated by the
Tongass National Forest. Water has shattered the
place into thousands of islands and edged its rugged
mainland mountains with the labyrinthian channel
known as the Inside Passage. A mosaic of forest,
muskeg, and glacial ice blankets all that rises above
the sea. It’s wild country, part of the largest temper-
ate rain forest in the world.
But apparently not wild enough.
In the fifties, the timber industry turned on the
Tongass and the private lands around it. For the next
half century it logged voraciously. Prince of Wales
was hit particularly hard.
Prince of Wales logging echoed the frenetic
chaos of a California Gold Rush. The island’s 2,231
square miles of mountainous land harbored the
largest trees in Southeast Alaska, but few regulations
to protect them. Loggers scrambled north from the
depleted forests of Oregon and Washington, living in
floating camps and slapped-together cabins. Engi-
neers barged in heavy equipment, carving roads
across vast tracts of virgin forest. Where those roads
crossed, towns appeared (within a year of its
founding, the village of Thorne Bay was the largest
lumber camp in the world).
Two thousand miles of logging roads are the
legacy of that era. The majority are unpaved and
often so riddled with potholes they look like artillery
targets. Some connect communities. Most connect
nothing more heartening than other clear-cuts.
These tough realities temper Dave and Amy’s
enthusiasm. “Prince of Wales probably has more
roading than any other island in southern southeast
Alaska,” Dave says with a sigh. “This is the worst
case scenario with respect to balancing logging and
development with wildlife concerns.”
Yet wolves are adaptable creatures. Earlier in
the day we passed a spot where pups had been playing along
the shoulder of a wide dirt track. The two biologists believe
the real problem isn’t how roads have changed wolves, but
how roads have changed southeast Alaska’s human culture.
If there was a place in history where people needed roads
less than any other, Southeast Alaska was once it. Water
provided an elegantly extensive highway system that for
thousands of years led Alaskans to everything that mattered.
Roads were as essential — in this land of glacial ice, torrential
rains, and towering mountains — as central air or sporty
convertibles. To this day, the major towns of the Tongass —
Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka — reflect that fact, their road systems
fading to forest a few miles from the city limits. But on those
lands targeted for logging, all that changed.
Photo by D. Poszig.
“It’s so much different than it was in the past.” Frank
Wright said when I visited him on Chichagof Island, north of
Prince of Wales. He’s a native Alaskan, of the Tlingit tribe,
and sees his people’s relationship to the land crumbling
because roads have changed the way his people hunt for food.
“We used to go out in a boat. Now it’s just riding in a car,
driving full speed up and down the highway to see if you can
find a deer to shoot. Where’s the sport in that? Where’s the
hunting ability?” Frank thinks his tribe is losing more than
hunting ability; he thinks the Tlingit are losing their very
identity.
That human loss, Dave believes, also translates to a loss
for animals. “The center parts of these islands were essen-
tially refugia for wildlife species,” he says as he sweeps a hand
across bare hills, “because the areas just weren’t accessible to
people. But with the advent of roads, those areas are largely
open and accessible.”
Amy has noticed an increase in illegal hunting: “I recently
caught and radio collared nine wolves. And before the season
opened to legally take wolves, two of those nine were killed.”
A rare weariness seeps into her voice. “It’s largely from
people driving the roads, encountering the animals, and
shooting them.”
Dave predicts such illegal shooting of wolves will only
increase as clearcuts fill with young trees. As part of their
research, Dave and Amy have watched the food sources for
deer dwindle as second growth rises into a uniform, closed
canopy, choking out the sun and killing the forage deer need
to survive.
“It’s a place where deer would have to pack a lunch to
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
find anything to eat,” Dave says. “When we see declines in
deer in these areas in twenty-five to thirty years, most people
aren’t going to say ‘Oh my gosh, look what we did with the
habitat; what can we do to fix it?’ — they’re going to blame
wolves.”
Dave stares into the sky, as if lost to the cascade of
consequences that visit a forest when too many trees are cut.
Then his eyes refocus. “The only way to protect wolves will
be to have areas where people can’t easily get at them. And
that means areas that don’t have roads.”
Yet he and Amy have seen how difficult it is to control
access once roads are reality and people accustomed to using
them: The locked gates Alaska Fish and Game have placed
across some roads are often cut open or pulled down within
days.
Dave stuffs his hands into his pockets. Amy zips her coat
to her chin. For several minutes they say nothing. “There.”
Dave suddenly turns his head to the right. “Did you hear
that?”
Amy sits straight up, then nods. I strain, but hear only the
low hiss of wind through spruce needles. Amy points to a
spot buried in the trees. And then I hear it too: a little chorus
of howls, nearly inaudible at first, but building. I shift toward
the sound and soon the woods are full of wolf howls. It’s
nothing like I’d expected, certainly not the chilling, predatory
scream I’d imagined. This is pure song, melodious, and — if I
could be forgiven a moment of anthropomorphism —
downright joyful.
The three of us sit amidst the rubble and smile.
Six months from now, on a blustery September morning,
I’ll be reminded of this small moment — when the radio plays
not music, but cries of despair; when the world suddenly
shrinks to a hard stone and words no longer hold room for
things as quaint, as inconsequential as woods and wolves. Yet
I won’t be able to get their howling out of my head. They’ll
sound sweeter. And they’ll answer a question I don’t yet know
to ask: Is there hope for the world?
They’ll say yes.
Because out here, in this other ravaged landscape, in this
chaotic tangle of Alaskan gray and green, the wolves are
singing.
— Guy Hand is a writer and radio producer based in Boise,
Idaho. His work has appeared in Audubon, Sierra, and Northern
Lights magazines and been broadcast on NPR’s Living On Earth
and Radio High Country News.
Sea kayaking the Inside Passage. File photo.
7
 Bibliography Notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 6,000 citation bibliography on the
ecological effects of roads. We offer bibliographic searches to
help activists access important biological research relevant to
roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in Bibliography
Notes in our office library.
The Impacts of
Railroads on Wildlife
By Edgar A. van der Grift
The impacts of railroads on wildlife and wildlife habitats
are not much different from those caused by roads. Loss of
habitat, mortality due to collisions, barrier effect and reduction
in habitat quality are the main impacts of habitat fragmenta-
tion by railroads. This may cause reduced population viability
or threaten a species’ survival. On a local scale, trains affect
wildlife habitats through the introduction of exotic plant
species (e.g. seeds), emission of toxic contaminants like heavy
metals, or management (e.g. herbicides).
Death between the tracks
Wildlife mortality due to collisions with trains can be
significant. Mammals and birds seem particularly vulnerable,
as shown by studies in Spain, The Netherlands and Czech
Republic (Havlín 1986; SCV 1996; Van der Grift 1999; Brandjes
& Smit 1999; Van der Grift & Graafland, unpublished data).
Differences in mortality between species groups are well
portrayed by a survey of animal carcasses at the railroad
Madrid-Sevilla (Spain). Along this railroad the annual kill was
estimated at 36.5 kills/km (SCV 1996). About 57% of the
casualties were birds, 40% were mammals while only 3% were
reptiles and amphibians.
European and North American studies indicate that many
wildlife species are victims of collisions with trains. Mamma-
lian victims range from small rodents to large ungulates and
carnivores (Van Tighem 1981; Child & Stuart 1987; Havlín
1987; Belant 1995; Gibeau & Heuer 1996; Groot Bruinderink &
Hazebroek 1996; Paquet & Callaghan 1996; SCV 1996; Wells
1996; Serrouya 1997; Gibeau & Herrero 1998; see also review
Van der Grift 1999). Size of avian victims varies (Havlín 1987;
SCV 1996; Brandjes & Smit 1999), though owls and birds of
prey seem especially vulnerable (Spencer 1965; Lösekrug
1982). Snakes (SCV 1996; Wieman et al. 2000) and amphibians,
mainly toads and frogs, also are victims (Barandun 1991).
Railroad fatalities can have a severe impact on animal
populations. Moose fatalities in the lower Susitna Valley
(Alaska) revealed an astonishing annual mortality of 5.5/km
(Modafferi 1991). Train-moose collisions were largely respon-
sible for population reduction in this area. In some years the
reduction was as high as 35% (Becker & Grauvogel 1991).
Studies in Canada and Norway indicate similar losses (Child et
al. 1991; Muzzi & Bisset 1990; Anderson et al. 1991; Jaren et al.
1991; Groot Bruinderink & Hazebroek 1996).
Small numbers of victims also may cause negative impacts
on population levels and have severe implications for popula-
8 The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
Black bear on tracks Banff National Park, CP Rail line West of Lake
Louise, Alberta, Canada. Photo by Reno Sommerhalder.
tion survival probability if a species is endangered, has a large
home range, low population density or low reproduction rate.
Between 1994 and 1996 13 black bears were killed along 15
kilometer of railroad in Glacier National Park in British
Columbia, Canada (Wells 1996; Munro 1997), while four more
bear-kills occurred on a nearby highway. Although black bear
population numbers are not well known, the railroad (and
highway) is a “population sink.” Similar conclusions can be
drawn in the Bow Valley of Banff National Park. Between 1985
and 1995 an average of 9-11% of the black bear population
was killed by trains and cars each year (Gibeau & Heuer 1996).
In 1996 one animal was hit by a train and four by cars, while
the total population in the valley was estimated at no more
than 20 adults (Serrouya 1997).
Why so many collisions?
High mortality rates are primarily found at the intersection
of railroads with important wildlife habitats and migration
routes. Animal behaviour, snow depth, temperature, railroad
characteristics, and railroad use (e.g. train speed) are important
factors that affect the number of train-kills (Lösekrug 1982;
Child 1983; Child & Stuart 1987; Child et al. 1991; Andersen et
al. 1991; Jaren et al. 1991; Modafferi 1991; Modafferi & Becker
1997). Animals are also killed because they are attracted to
railroads. Ungulates and carnivores use plowed rail beds as
substitute travel corridors during winter (Child 1983; Andersen
et al. 1991; Paquet & Callaghen 1996; Wells 1996). For many
reptiles the sun-exposed, sandy embankments form suitable
habitat and corridors for seasonal migrations or the coloniza-
tion of new habitats (Kornacker 1993; Hedeen & Hedeen 1999).
Railroad kills attract predators or carrion eaters (SCV
1996). On average, two grizzly bears per year are killed along
the railroad that separates Glacier National Park to the north
from the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex to the south
(Montana, US). Main reasons for grizzly bear mortality along
this railroad segment are grain spills during derailments and
during normal operations (Waller & Servheen 1999). In
Canada, most collisions with wolves and coyotes took place
near train-killed ungulates (Wells 1996; Gibeau & Heuer 1996).
Birds are affected in a similar way (Havlín 1987; Wells
1996). Other food attractants are: anthropogenic-induced
alterations of the vegetation (Gibeau & Herrero 1998; Jaren et
al. 1991; Wells 1996; Woods & Munro 1996; Munro 1997); food
spills (Wells 1996; Gibeau & Herrero 1998); and abundance of
prey in railroad verges (Wells 1996). Possible den sites (e.g. red
fox and badger dens in railroad embankments) or dormitories
(e.g. bats and bears in railroad tunnels) (Boscagli 1985; SCV
1996; Trewhella & Harris 1990) or suitable places for wintering
or maintaining (high) body temperature (e.g. reptiles), also
attract wildlife to railroads (Van de Bund 1991).
Railroads as barriers
Railroads are barriers that may decrease survival probabil-
ity of wildlife populations when the animals can’t cross them.
In Arizona, fenced railroads fragmented pronghorn habitat,
isolated populations and prevented seasonal migration
(Ockenfels et al. 1997). High-speed railroads in Europe usually
have high fences, which if unmitigated, fragment habitat. In
Spain red deer were observed trying to jump over a fence along
a high-speed railroad. No wildlife crossings had been created
when the fences were constructed, and non-wildlife passages
across the railroad were not used by wild ungulates (Rodríguez
et al. 1996). Toads and salamanders are often not able to climb
over railroad tracks (Igelmann 1994) and usually follow them
for hundreds of meters to find an opening (Barandun 1991;
Wolf 1993), making them more susceptible to predation and
bad weather conditions. This can result in a reduced genetic
kinship between amphibian populations on both sides of the
railroad (Reh & Seitz 1990; Vos 1999). Railroads may also form
linear barriers to arthropods such as carabid beetles and
lycosid spiders (Mader et al. 1990).
A more indirect barrier effect occurs when animals are
unwilling to cross or avoid the railroad, even if wildlife
passages are present. This avoidance is often related to
disturbance factors (e.g. noise, light, and pollution) caused by
railroad traffic, and other human activities (e.g. construction,
maintenance, and management of the right-of-ways). Flight
reactions to trains have been recorded for moose, deer, bears,
caribou and hedgehogs (Muzzi & Bisset 1990; Bontadina et al.
1993). While roe deer and red fox seem to cross railroads
easily, observations suggest that badgers tend to see the railway
line as a border of its home range (Müri & Stammbach 1991) as
do hedgehogs (Huijser et al. 2000).
What to do?
Constructing new railroads within important wildlife
habitats should always be avoided, while railroads within
important wildlife habitats could be closed or rerouted.
Various measures to reduce wildlife mortality on railroads
include audible or ultrasonic wildlife warning devices (Child
1983; Boscagli 1985; Muzzi & Bisset 1990), train speed reduc-
tion (Child 1983; Becker & Grauvogel 1991), snow management
that includes plowed escape routes (Child 1983; Child et al.
1991), habitat management (Child 1983; Jaren et al. 1991;
Modafferi 1991; Schwartz & Bartley 1991), population manage-
ment with harvest quotas for game species determined relative
to the number of train-kills (Child 1983; Modafferi 1991),
removal of carcasses (Gibeau & Heuer 1996), clean-up of
spilled grains and other human related food sources (Gibeau &
Heuer 1996), and constructing fences (Boscagli 1985; Müri &
Stammbach 1991; SCV 1996).
Wildlife passages such as wildlife overpasses and under-
passes, and adaptations in non-wildlife passages can reduce
collisions and barrier effect (Hunt et al. 1987; Yanes et al. 1995;
Keller & Pfister 1997; Van der Grift & Kuijsters 1998; Van der
Grift 1999). Passage effectiveness depends primarily on its
proximity to suitable habitat and migration routes, passage
dimensions, sufficient cover/vegetation at the entrances,
human co-use and the animal species concerned (e.g., Groot
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
Bruinderink & Hazebroek 1996; Rodríquez et al. 1997;
Clevenger & Waltho 2000). Wildlife passages and collision
mitigation tactics should be monitored to help guage how
effective adaptations of existing passages and development of
new measures are. Measures to reduce habitat fragmentation
should be an integral part of any construction plan, and
monitoring should be an integral part of railroad management.
— Edgar A. van der Grift is a wildlife ecologist, engaged in
research on biodiversity and habitat fragmentation at Alterra,
Department of Landscape Ecology, Wageningen University and
Research Centre. You can reach him at P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
His email address is: e.a.vandergrift@alterra.wag-ur.nl.
Traverse strips in culverts facilitate wildlife crossing under railroads
without risking getting killed. Photo by Edgar van der Grift.
Bibliography
Andersen, R., B. Wiseth, P.H. Pedersen and V. Jaren. 1991. Moose-
train collisions: effects of env. conditions. Alces 27: 79-84.
Barandun, J. 1991. Amphibienschutz an Bahnlinien. Natur und
Landschaft 66: 305.
Becker, E.F. and C.A. Grauvogel. 1991. Relationship of reduced train
speed on moose-train collisions in Alaska. Alces 27: 161-168.
Belant, J.L. 1995. Moose collisions with vehicles and trains in
Northwestern Minnesota. Alces 27: 31-45.
Bontadina, F., S. Gloor and T. Hotz. 1993. Igel. Grundlagen zur
Förderung der Igel in Zürich. Rapport Gartenbauamt Zürich,
Zürich / Kantonal Züricher Tierschutzverein, Zürich.
Boscagli, G. 1985. Wolves, bears and highways in Italy: a short
communication: 237-239. In: J.M. Bernard et al. (eds). Proceed-
ings Highways and Wildlife Relationships. Ministère de
l’Équipement, du Logement, de l’Aménagement du Territoire et
des Transports, Colmar, France.
Brandjes, G.J. and G.F.J. Smit. 1999. Aangereden dieren langs
spoorwegen. Report 99.74. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg.
Child, K.N. 1983. Railways and moose in the central interior of BC:
A recurrent management problem. Alces 19: 118-135.
Child, K.N. and K.M. Stuart. 1987. Vehicle and train collision
fatalities of moose: some management and socio-economic
considerations. Swedish Wildlife Research, Supp. 1: 699-703.
Child, K.N., S.P. Barry and D.A. Aitken. 1991. Moose mortality on
highways and railways in British Columbia. Alces 27: 41-49.
Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the
effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park,
Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14: 47-56.
Gibeau, M.L. and K. Heuer. 1996. Effects of transportation corridors
on large carnivores in the Bow River Valley, Alberta. In: G.L.
Evink et al. (eds). Proceedings of the Transportation related
Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Florida Department of Transporta-
tion, Tallahassee, Florida.
9
Gibeau, M.L. and S. Herrero. 1998. Roads, rails and grizzly bears in
the Bow River Valley, Alberta: 104-108. In: G.L. Evink et al.
(eds). Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife
Ecology and Transportation. Florida Department of Transporta-
tion, Tallahassee, Florida.
Groot Bruinderink, G.W.T.A. and E. Hazebroek. 1996. Ungulate
traffic collisions in Europe. Conservation Biology 10: 1059-1067.
Havlín, J. 1987. On the importance of railway lines for the life of
avifauna in agrocoenoses. Folia Zoologica 36: 345-358.
Hedeen, S.E. and D.L. Hedeen. 1999. Railway-aided dispersal of an
introduced Podarcis muralis population. Herpetological Review
30: 57-58.
Huijser, M.P., P.J.M. Bergers and C.J.F. Ter Braak. 2000. Road, traffic
and landscape characteristics of hedgehog traffic victim sites.
In: M.P. Huijser (ed). Life on the edge. Hedgehog traffic victims
and mitigation strategies in an anthropogenic landscape: 107-
126. Ph.D. thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Hunt, A., H.J. Dickens and R.J. Whelan. 1987. Movement of
mammals through tunnels under railway lines. Australian
Zoologist 24: 89-93.
Igelmann, E. 1994. Zum Einfluß von Bahndämmen auf das
Wanderverhalten von Erdkröten Bufo bufo L.: 22. In: A. Mendt
(ed). Zusammenfassungen Jahrestagung der Deutschen
Gesellschaft für Herpetologie und Terrarienkunde e.V. in
Frankfurt/Main. Deutschen Gesellschaft für Herpetologie und
Terrarienkunde e.V., Rheinbach.
Jaren, V., R. Andersen, M. Ulleberg, P.H. Pedersen and B. Wiseth.
1991. Moose-train collisions: the effects of vegetation removal
with a cost-benefit analysis. Alces 27: 93-99.
Keller, V. and H.P. Pfister. 1997. Wildlife passages as a means of
mitigating effects of habitat fragmentation by roads and railway
lines: 70-80. In: K. Canters et al. (eds). Proceedings Habitat
Fragmentation & Infrastructure. Ministry of Transport, Public
Works and Water Management, Delft, Netherlands.
Kornacker, M. 1993. Populationsökologische Untersuchungen an
einer Bahndam-Population von Lacerta vivipara im Rheinland.
Salamandra 29: 97-118.
Lösekrug, R.G. 1982. Vogelverluste durch die Eisenbahn im Raum
Göttingen. Angew. Ornithologie 5: 263-274.
Mader, H.J., C. Schell and P. Kornacker. 1990. Linear barriers to
arthropod movements in the landscape. Biological Conservation
54: 209-222.
Modafferi, R.D. 1991. Train moose-kill in Alaska: characteristics
and relationship with snowpack depth and moose distribution
in lower Susitna Valley. Alces 27: 193-207.
Modafferi, R.D. and E.F. Becker. 1997. Survival of radio collared
adult moose in lower Susitna River Valley, Southcentral Alaska.
Journal of Wildlife Management 61:540-549.
Munro, R. 1997. Assessing the impact of the Trans-Canada
Highway and the Canadian Pacific Railway on bear movements
and habitat use patterns in the Beaver Valley, British Columbia:
8-13. In: A.P. Clevenger & K. Wells (eds). Proceedings of the
Second Roads, Rails and the Environment Workshop. Parks
Canada, Banff National Park, Alberta & Columbia Mountains
Institute of Applied Ecology, Revelstoke, BC, Canada.
Müri, H. and K. Stammbach. 1991. Bahn 2000 will Rücksicht
nehmen auf Wildtiere. Empfehlungen zur Gestaltung von
Brücken und Lärmschutzwänden. Wildtiere 1: 12.1-12.11.
Muzzi, P.D. and A.R. Bisset. 1990. Effectiveness of ultrasonic
wildlife warning devices to reduce moose fatalities along
railway corridors. Alces 26: 37-43.
Ockenfels, R.A., W.K. Carrel and C. van Riper III. 1997. Home
ranges and movements of pronghorn in northern Arizona.
Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference of Research on
the Colorado Plateau 3: 45-61.
Paquet, P. and C. Callaghan. 1996. Effects of linear developments
on winter movements of gray wolves in the Bow River Valley of
Banff National Park, Alberta. In: G.L. Evink et al. (eds). Proceed-
10
ings of the Transportation related Wildlife Mortality Seminar.
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Reh, W. and A. Seitz. 1990. The influence of land use on the
genetic structure of populations of the common frog Rana
temporaria. Biological Conservation 54: 239-249.
Rodríguez, A., G. Crema and M. Delibes. 1996. Use of non-wildlife
passages across a high-speed railway by terrestrial vertebrates.
Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1527-1540.
Rodríguez, A., G. Crema and M. Delibes. 1997. Factors affecting
crossing of red foxes and wildcats through non-wildlife
passages across a high-speed railway. Ecography 20: 287-294.
Schwartz, C.C. and B. Bartley. 1991. Reducing incidental moose
mortality: considerations for management. Alces 27: 227-231.
SCV. 1996. Mortalidad de vertebrados en líneas de ferrocarril: 1-23.
Documentos Técnicos de Conservación SCV 1, Sociedad
Conservación Vertebrados, Madrid.
Serrouya, R. 1997. Black bear movements and survival in the Bow
Valley of Banff National Park, Alberta: 14-18. In: A.P. Clevenger
& K. Wells (eds). Proceedings of the Second Roads, Rails and
the Environment Workshop. Parks Canada, Banff National
Park, Alberta & Columbia Mountains Institute of Applied
Ecology, Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada.
Spencer, K.G. 1965. Avian casualties on railways. Bird Study 12: 257.
Trewhella, W.J. and S. Harris. 1990. The effect of railway lines on
urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) numbers and dispersal movements.
Journal of Zoology 221: 321-326.
Van de Bund, C.F. 1991. Herpetofauna in weg- en
spoorwegbermen. In: Natuurbeheer voor reptielen en
amfibieën. WARN-publicatie 7, Amsterdam.
Van der Grift, E.A. and H.M.J. Kuijsters. 1998. Mitigation measures
to reduce habitat fragmentation by railway lines in the
Netherlands: 166-170. In: G.L. Evink et al. (eds). Proceedings of
the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transpor-
tation. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL.
Van der Grift, E.A. 1999. Mammals and railroads: impacts and
management implications. Lutra 42: 77-98.
Van Tighem, K. 1981. Mortality of bighorn sheep on a railroad and
highway in Jasper National Park, Canada. Unpublished report.
Vos, C.C. 1999. A frog’s-eye view of the landscape; quantifying
connectivity for fragmented amphibian populations. Ph.D.-
thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Waller, J.S. & C. Servheen 1999. Documenting grizzly bear
highway crossing patterns using GPS technology. In: Evink,
G.L., P. Garrett & D. Zeigler (eds.). Proceedings of the third
International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transporta-
tion: 21-23. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transporta-
tion, Tallahassee, Florida.
Wells, P. 1996. Wildlife mortality on the Canadian Pacific Railway
between Field and Revelstoke, BC. Unpublished report.
Wieman, E.A.P., R.J.F. Bugter, E.A. van der Grift, A.G.M. Schotman,
C.C. Vos and S.S.H. Ligthart. 2000. Beoordeling ecologische
effecten reactivering ‘IJzeren Rijn’ op het gebied de Meinweg.
Report 081. Alterra, Wageningen.
Wolf, K.R. 1993. Zur Biologie der Erdkröte Bufo bufo L. unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bedeutung von
Migrationshindernissen auf das Wanderverhalten und die
Entwicklung von vier Erdkrötenpopulationen im Stadtgebiet
von Osnabrück. Ph.D.-thesis Universität Osnabrück. Mellen
University Press, Lewiston, New York.
Woods, J.G. and R.H. Munro. 1996. Roads, rails and the environ-
ment: wildlife at the intersection in Canada’s western moun-
tains. In: G.L. Evink et al. (eds). Proceedings of the Transporta-
tion related Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Yanes, M., J.M. Velasco and F. Suárez. 1995. Permeability of roads
and railways to vertebrates: the importance of culverts.
Biological Conservation 71: 217-222.
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
 TRAFx Off-Highway Vehicle Counter
By Jake Herrero
What is the distribution and intensity of OHV use on the
landscape, and what are the impacts? The fact is, no one
really knows. Yet many government agencies, scientists,
conservationists and recreationists need to answer this critical
question in order to manage lands well.
Part of the reason so little is known about the intensity
and distribution of OHV use is that an effective tool for
monitoring OHV use has not been available. Last month, a
lawyer for a Montana-based organization told me that the U.S.
Forest Service has a legal obligation to monitor OHV use levels,
but has not done so, claiming that the tool to do so did not
exist. Such a tool is now available. The TRAFx Off-Highway
Vehicle Counter combines tiny precision magnetic sensors,
advanced digital signal processing, and sophisticated embed-
ded software systems to create a technology for counting OHVs
of various shapes and sizes.
Back in the mid-1990s I was involved in one of the first
Canadian applications of the U.S. Forest Service’s cumulative
effects model for grizzly bears. To determine how useful an
area is to grizzly bears, both habitat quality and levels of
human use must be quantified accurately. While it was
relatively straightforward to quantify habitat quality through
hundreds of field plots, it was very difficult to accurately
quantify levels of human use on the landscape. This substan-
tially limited the efficacy of the model.
In the area where I was, the dominant type of human use
was motorized recreational use — mainly ATVs and dirt bikes.
In the study area, forestry, oil and gas activities, and coal
mining had collectively created a dense network of trails and
roads used by OHVs in grizzly bear habitat. These spatially
abundant linear features used by motorized recreational
vehicles in fact “drive” the cumulative effects model and
strongly influence how useful an area is to grizzly bears.
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
Because the proper tool to inventory OHV use was
unavailable, I became determined to create such a tool. Five
years after my initial crude prototype, I am pleased to say that
a sophisticated, flexible, micro-computer based OHV detection,
counting and monitoring tool has arrived. The TRAFx Off-
Highway Vehicle Counter has the following key features:
* quick to deploy, and easy to hide (bury in the road or place
it beside the road under a rock)
* long battery life (three AA batteries last four months; three
C batteries last a year)
* small size (including AA batteries and waterproof field
case, it is the size of a bar of soap)
* user configurable settings (auto-start time, adjustable
sensitivity, time stamps, variable-length period counts)
* low maintenance (no moving parts, or wire loops or
rubber tubes to damage)
* large memory capacity (can store over 10 million counts if
necessary)
* designed for outdoor environments (the precision sensor
is rated to -40 C)
* data easily transfers into spreadsheet programs (works
great with Microsoft Excel)
* connects to a handheld, laptop or desktop PC (the small
Compaq iPAQ is excellent for the field)
To date, the TRAFx Off-Highway Vehicle Counter has
mainly been used in the Canadian Rockies in Alberta and
British Columbia in environmental cumulative effects assess-
ments. The Biological Division of the U.S. Geological Survey
recently ordered some of the counters for a research project
near Yellowstone National Park.
While the U.S. Forest Service cumulative effects model for
grizzly bears (which I used in the 1990s) has gradually been
replaced with resource selection function (RSF) models, the
need to gather accurate data on intensity and spatial and
temporal distribution of ORV use remains critical. In RSF
models, it must be determined what “resources” wildlife are
selecting or avoiding. Are they avoiding motorized roads and
trails used by OHVs? What is the level of OHV use that results
in avoidance? These questions remain unanswered in regards
to grizzly bears and other wildlife species. Because OHVs can
move quickly over the landscape, can readily access remote
and sensitive wildlife habitat, and are much louder than
normal vehicles, they have considerable impacts on wildlife.
If you are interested in learning more about the TRAFx
Off-Highway Vehicle Counter, please go to http://www.trafx.net.
For more information, you can email me at:
jake@trafx.net.
— Jake Herrero is an environmental scientist who lives in
Canmore, Alberta. In his free time, he shuns technology and
hikes and skis in the mountains around his home.
11

Regional Reports & Updates
Personal Watercraft Ban
Passed for Farallones
New federal rules were finalized in early Septem-
ber that will prohibit the use of personal watercraft
(PWC) such as Jet Skis, WaveRunners and Ski Doos
across nearly 950 square miles in the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary in the San
Francisco Bay area. The ban, which took effect on
October 10, will create the largest jet ski-free zone in
America. Jet Skis and other PWCs already have been
prohibited in many areas in the Bay Area through a
California law that permits local governments to set
boating ordinances.
Tests have shown that PWC engines often are
among the worst polluters of water and air, according
to the California Air Resources Control Board, and
their riders have the highest accident rate of all
boaters, according to the Dept. of Boating and
Waterways. Their presence can also disturb nesting
birds and wildlife, according to the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
“We urge NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration) to take similar action at other
marine sanctuaries to protect the public, sanctuary
resources and wildlife from these noisy, dirty and
dangerous machines,” said Sean Smith of Bluewater
Network of San Francisco, the key player in support-
ing the ban. The ruling was first proposed by the
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
Off-Road Vehicles
Restricted in Grizzly Habitat
As part of a legal settlement with several conser-
vation groups, Montana’s Gallatin National Forest
agreed to regulate off-road vehicle use in grizzly bear
habitat. According to the conservation groups, the
Photo by
Gallatin has traditionally managed grizzly bear
Jay Ericson.
12
habitat by limiting the number and density of roads
and motorized trails, but has made no effort to
address off-road use or “non-system” trails created by
repeated motorized use. Last October a federal court
ruled that such off-road use could have an adverse
impact on grizzly bears, and that the Forest Service
had not addressed that impact as required by the
Endangered Species Act. As a result, the Gallatin has
promised to limit user-created trails under the same
rules it applies to roads and designated motorized
trails.
“Grizzlies need large expanses of roadless habitat
in order to survive,” said Louisa Willcox, Project
Coordinator for the Sierra Club’s Bear Ecosystems
Project. “ATVs can be as bad as bulldozers in the
backcountry. They increase human-bear conflicts,
fragment already disappearing habitat and chase
away bears from natural food sources.” Willcox said
ORVs are violating Forest Service rules by creating
their own trails, some of which are in secure grizzly
bear habitat, and by not limiting travel to existing
roads and trails. The lawsuit was dismissed.
Between 1990 and 1998, ORV use in the U.S. has
increased more than 150%, the groups said. In the
Gallatin, the growth has been particularly visible.
According to Forest Service reports, 75% of all
Gallatin trails and 91% of forest trails outside of
wilderness boundaries are open to ORVs. Many
Gallatin lands at issue lie within the grizzly bear
recovery zone designated by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Gallatin contains 14 percent of all
occupied grizzly bear habitat in the Greater Yellow-
stone Ecosystem.
The organizations said they are eager to see what
the agency will do. “Until they take active steps on
the ground, this commitment doesn’t do that much
for bears,” said Shawn Regnerus, of Predator Conser-
vation Alliance. The groups bringing the lawsuit were
the Sierra Club, Predator Conservation Alliance, Park
County Environmental Council and Biodiversity Legal
Foundation.
Comments Support
Yellowstone Snowmobile Ban
According to the National Park Service, 82% of
those who submitted comments on banning snow-
mobiles in Yellowstone National Park supported the
Clinton administration’s decision to phase them out
and opposed the current Supplemental Environmen-
tal Impact Statement reviewing the earlier decision.
The Ecology Center, Inc. and others note that even
with quieter and cleaner snowmobiles, other impacts
on wildlife are significant. Snowmobile routes and
groomed trails create unnatural migration routes for
wintering bison and congregation zones for other
wildlife, causing conflicts and collisions. Snowmo-
biles also can adversely impact lynx habitat and
predator food sources by unnaturally compacting the
snow and removing tunnels through which snow-
shoe hares and other small rodents travel and hide.
The Park Service settlement with the Interna-
tional Snowmobile Manufacturers Association
requires that a new decision be made by November
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
2002, just before the phase-out goes into effect.
Environmentalists question plans to spend an
estimated $2.4 million on the new study. The
proposed snowmobile study will look at three
options, two of which would keep Yellowstone
National Park trails open to snowmobiles. The three
alternatives that will be studied include:
1. A no-change alternative, meaning January’s federal
ban on snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks would stand.
2. Patterned after legislation proposed by Wyoming’s
U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, park trails would be limited
to “clean and quiet” snowmobiles with no caps on
numbers of snowmobilers or requirement that they
follow guides.
3. “Clean and quiet” snowmobiles would still be
required, but there would be limits on numbers of
snowmobiles allowed in the parks at any one time,
plus requirements for groups to follow National
Park Service guides.
Meanwhile, the snowmobile industry so far has
failed to provide substantive new information on
cleaner and quieter machines that could change the
outcome of earlier modeling. A draft version of the
new study must be available to the public by January.
The National Park Service is still planning for a final
decision by November 2002.
Threat of New Road Forces
Protestors from Trees to Jail
Members of the Buckeye Forest Council blocked
a timber sale on Ohio’s Zaleski State Forest for eight
days in September, the first action of its kind in Ohio.
On Friday, August 31, loggers were surprised to
arrive at a “soft blockade” of about 20 people
blocking the road that accesses the 292 acre timber
sale. Division of Forest law enforcement and Ohio
State Highway Patrol agents arrived and scattered the
soft blockade. The logging trucks continued down
the road a few feet only to be met by a ditch and a
hanging basket which was suspended from a traverse
line and held in place by a log lashed across the road,
making it impossible for trucks to continue without
harming the activist suspended in the basket.
Susan Heitker, State Forest Campaign Coordina-
tor for the Athens-based Buckeye Forest Council, was
in the basket while two other activists, Mr. B. and Matt
Glass, were sitting in tree platforms on either side of
the traverse line.
“We took to the trees because we’ve been trying
for eight years to express our concerns with the
timber sale program to no avail,” said Heitker, adding,
“The Division of Forestry was just giving us lip
service.”
The Ohio Department of Natural Resource’s
Division of Forestry has no formal public input period
and does not require an Environment Impact Assess-
ment. Heitker addressed these concerns to the many
well-wishers and reporters who stopped by during
the eight day action. “The Division of Forestry has
violated its own mandate to manage state forests for
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
wildlife, recreation, timber harvesting and soil and
water quality. They have neglected to follow their
own department’s Indiana bat strategy by not
surveying for the Indiana bat and cutting during its
summer roosting season. Also, their logging haul
road crosses one of only two backpack trails in the
state forest system. The Division of Forestry has
shown a bias for timber harvesting. This is only one
example.”
The Indiana bat is a federally endangered species
and the Zaleski State Forest may be home to the bat
as well as the state endangered timber rattlesnake.
The interactions between the tree sitters, their
fluid support crew, the loggers and Division of
Forestry employees remained courteous overall
during the action. The sit ended on September
seventh when the DOF and loggers showed up ready
to cut a new access road to the timber sale, bypassing
the blockade.
“Three miles of access road is bad enough, we
couldn’t stand to see additional road cut through this
small state forest,” said BFC attorney Joe Hazelbaker.
On Monday, October 22, Matt and Susan were
arraigned in Vinton County Court on charges of
criminal trespass. Because Susan refused to reveal
the identities of other alleged protestors, and under
the threat of contempt of court, she and Matt were
forced to plead guilty. Susan was sentenced to the
maximum penalty of 30 days in jail, a $250 fine, and
is being forced to pay $50 a day, up to $1500, for
each day she serves. Matt was also found guilty and
is serving 7 days along with paying a $125 fine.
For more information, or to contribute to the
Susan Heitker and Matt Glass legal fund, please
contact:
Buckeye Forest Council
11315 Jackson Drive
The Plains, OH 45780
740-797-7200
http://www.buckeyeforestcouncil.org
info@buckeyeforestcouncil.org
Voice your opinion:
Ron Abraham
Chief of Division of Forestry
1855 Fountain Square, Building H-1
Columbus, OH 43224
ph. 614-265-6694
Samuel W. Speck, Director
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Photo courtesy BFC website.
1930 Belcher Drive, Building 3
Columbus, OH 43224
ph. 614-265-6694
Governor Bob Taft
77 South High Street, 30th fl.
Columbus, OH
ph. 614-466-3555
— Contributed by Mary Reed and
Diano Circo
13
New Resources for
Road-Rippers
This issue finds us with several new reports to tell you about.
From ATV impacts in Alaska, to a petroleum company
publication about linear barrier impacts, there’s lots of new (and
new to us) information out there that can improve your advocacy
efforts. Please don’t forget to tell us about your new reports
so we can get the word out.
Shredded Wildlands
ATV Management in Alaska
All-terrain vehicles are tearing up Alaska’s public lands,
and state and federal land managers rarely use their authority
to stop them, according to a new Sierra Club report. The report,
written by former Katmai National Park superintendent G. Ray
Banes with principal funding from the Sierra Club and the
Alaska Conservation Foundation, says off-road vehicle drivers
have blazed trails through Wrangell-St. Elias National Park
despite prohibitions there against cutting new trails. In other
places, narrow ATV trails have widened to several hundred feet
where drivers detour around streams and bogs. The report
includes compelling photos of ATV damage and strong recom-
mendations to both land managers and Alaska environmental
activists to address this problem more forthrightly.
Wildlands CPR has free copies available at our office.
The Effects of Linear Developments on
Wildlife: a Review of Scientific Literature
This report, from 1998, was completed by none other than
the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. We found it
while trying to find an intern to complete a study on the
relative effects of different types of linear disturbances. While
this report doesn’t answer all our questions about different
types of linear barriers, it is a good starting point. According to
the CAPP website: “This report reviews the scientific literature
describing the effects of linear developments on wildlife —
especially large mammals. Of particular interest were the types
of roads and linear developments created by the oil and
pipeline industries in western Canada. This review should be
considered a reference to be used when information is
required regarding the effects of linear developments on
wildlife: it is not meant to be read from cover to cover. In
addition, the review should be a starting point for those
interested in understanding the effects of linear developments
on wildlife.”
It’s available for free download from their website at:
http://www.capp.ca/
Once you get to the website, go to the bookstore, then to
the “Health, Safety, and WCB” section and you will see the
report listed there. It’s about 350 pages long and intended to
be a web reference, not a printed report, though we printed it
out anyway, because we’ve found it easier to use that way. It
includes almost 200 pages of citations.
14
Defenders to Release New ORV Report:
Off-Road Vehicle And Road Density Ecological
Impacts on Florida’s National Forests
Over the past several decades, both road and trail density
and off-road vehicle (ORV) use have increased dramatically on
the three Florida national forests, the Apalachicola (ANF), the
Ocala (OcNF), and the Osceola (OsNF).
Road densities are appallingly high on OcNF and OsNF,
and excessive on parts of ANF. The densities on OcNF are great
enough to critically imperil the ecosystem. ORVs have had
dramatic and highly visible impacts on the Florida National
Forests. Illegal mud-bogging and vehicular play activities have
torn up numerous ecologically valuable sinkholes, wet prairies,
isolated wetlands, and ephemeral ponds, particularly on OcNF
and along the eastern edge of ANF.
Perhaps the most distressing fact is that the United States
Forest Service has known how destructive ORVs are and
understood the basics of how they should be managed for
decades, while the problem has been allowed to grow to
critical levels of ecological and fiscal irresponsibility.
Aldo Leopold described the challenge that informed land
managers must meet in situations like this: “One of the
penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a
world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is
quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his
shell and make believe that the consequences of science are
none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the
marks of death in a community that believes itself well and
does not want to be told otherwise.” The USFS has been taking
the “make believe” approach for too long. Now it is time to
heal the landscape.
This report was prepared to provide decision-makers with
the best available information on the existing and potential
ecological impacts of off-road vehicles and road networks on
the Florida national forests.
For more information, contact:
Christine Small, Defenders of Wildlife
863-467-6343
pcsmall@prodigy.net
Want to Work for Wildlands CPR?!?
This summer and fall we conducted a search for a
staff scientist. Unfortunately, we came up empty. We’re
looking for a masters or Ph.D. level person to be our
staff scientist. The position will not be a strong research
position, but will entail working with other scientists to
develop the field of road removal research. It will also
involve a limited amount of work on off-road vehicle and
road impacts issues.
If you’re interested in more information, check out
the job announcement on our website at
http://www.wildlandscpr.org, or give us a call.
The job search closes December 21.
The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001
 Membership and Order Information
Printed Materials On-Line Resources
Road-Ripper's Handbook ($20.00, $30 non-members) —A com- Visit our Web Site: www.WildlandsCPR.org. You’ll find educa-
prehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides listed tional materials, back issues of The Road-RIPorter (including
below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gathering In- all our bibliography, legal and field notes), and current action
formation with the Freedom of Information Act, and more! alerts.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($5, $8 non-mem-
bers) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting Also at the site, we’ve got a link to an ORV Information Site with
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmental an interactive map-based database on each National Forest’s
laws, road density standards & Forest Service road policies. ORV Policy.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($5, $8 non-mem-
bers) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background Now available on our site: Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bib-
on the National Park System and its use of roads, and outlines liographic Database (Updated Jan. 2001) — Contains approx.
how activists can get involved in NPS planning. 6,000 citations — including scientific literature on erosion,
Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-members) —By fragmentation, sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife,
Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and aquatic and hydrological effects, and other information on
resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in the impacts of roads.
BLM decision-making processes.
Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8 non-mem-
Subscribe to our online list-serves. Check the boxes below on
bers) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reducing
the member form and receive Skid Marks and/or our Activist
the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an ex-
Alert over E-Mail.
tensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($5, $8 non-
members) —By Scott Bagley. Provides technical information
on road construction and removal, where and why roads fail,
and how you can effectively assess road removal projects.
Refer a friend to
Trails of Destruction ($10) —By Friends of the Earth and Wild-
lands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This re-
Wildlands CPR!
Send us the names and addresses of friends
port explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal funding
you think may be interested in receiving
for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV
membership information from Wildlands CPR.
industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

I want to join (or renew my membership with) Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:
Wildlands CPR:
Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
$250 $100 $50 business
/
$30 standard $15 low-income Other
/
Type of Membership: Individual Organization
/
Name
Total of all items:
Affiliation
Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.
Address
International Membership — $30 Minimum. All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

Check here to receive our new ORV and road E-mail

Phone/E-mail newsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks.

Check here for our E-mail Activist List.

Please send this form and your check to:
Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 Please remember to include your e-mail address!

The Road-RIPorter November/December 2001 15

 Visions…

Photo by Edgar van der Grift.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

“On public lands, off-road vehicles will

be the issue of the decade.”
— Former Forest Service Chief
Mike Dombeck

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