The Road-RIPorter

Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. September/October 2000. Volume 5 # 5

The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative:

Preserving the Wild Heart of North America
By Katie Deuel

“Only those able to see the pageant

of evolution can be expected to value
its theatre, the wilderness, or its
outstanding achievement, the grizzly.”
—Aldo Leopold

F
orest Service biologist Aldo Leopold wrote these
words half a century ago. Today, we are hard-pressed
to find places where we can truly observe the pageant
of evolution and glimpses of grizzlies. Yet Leopold’s words
resonate with many of us who sense the tamed and tilled
landscapes of the modern world lack a certain energy,
complexity, and sense of connection.
The Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y)
has a bold vision for the heart of North America that seeks
to protect a landscape where we can observe evolution, in
all its complexity and vigor — where the grizzlies still roam,
salmon fill the rivers and people live in the region recogniz-
ing and reveling in the value of wild creatures to their
quality of life.
The Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative’s
mission is “People working together to maintain and restore
the unique natural heritage of the Yellowstone to Yukon
region.” Combining science and stewardship, we seek to
ensure that the world-renowned wilderness, wildlife, native
plants and natural processes of the region continue to
function as an interconnected web of life, capable of
supporting all of its natural and human communities for
now and for future generations.
Our mission begins with “people working together”
because we recognize that we cannot accomplish our
mission and vision alone! Y2Y is, first and foremost, a
network. Now including more than 270 organizations and
individuals from all walks of life, from land trusts and lobby
groups to hunters and anglers, economists and ecologists to
potato farmers and loggers, the Y2Y network represents a
powerful, growing effort to protect the native biodiversity
and high quality of life in our region.
The bold scope of Y2Y’s vision for the northern Rocky
Mountain ecoregion of America was partly inspired by a
wolf named Pluie. Pluie was first radio-collared near Banff,
Prints: human; bear; wolf. — Photo by Harvey Locke
Alberta in the late 1980’s. Biologists monitored her move-
ments as she traveled from her home province of Alberta
through Montana, Idaho, Washington, and British Columbia.
In the two years she was tracked, Pluie covered an area of
100,000 km2 (38,600 mi2) and crossed 35 different political
jurisdictions. Pluie was eventually shot and killed, legally,
back in Canada near where her radio collar was originally
put on.
It turns out that what Pluies’s movements suggested
about the region — that it is, in fact, a relatively cohesive
one, at least from a wolf’s point of view — was scientifically
true: the mountain ecoregion of the Y2Y study area’s
geologic, hydrologic, vegetative and climatic attributes are
cohesive. Equally important — as the birthplace of the
National Park system in both the United States and Canada
and home to the greatest diversity of carnivores in the world
— it captures people’s imaginations as a subjective region,
and remains one of the world’s best loved mountain regions.
But the other lesson from Pluie’s story is that the region,
one of the last strongholds for the “pageant of evolution”
and the native species in that parade, is divided. The Y2Y
region includes 2 countries, parts of 8 states and provinces,
and an endless number of smaller political and administra-
tive boundaries. Within each unit are different laws, policies
and attitudes that govern something we are calling a
cohesive whole, and an endangered whole at that.
— continued on page 6 —
 From the Wildlands CPR Office... Wildlands
C
Center for
The smoke is so thick we can taste it here in our offices, as it reminds us to help
P
Preventing
our friends and neighbors in the Bitterroot valley as they try to save their homes (and R
Roads
let the forests burn!). In the midst of this fire crisis, our “illustrious” Governor Mark
Racicot blames the flames on environmental advocates and the roadless policies of
the Clinton administration. For more thoughts about fires and forest policy, see Main Office
P.O. Box 7516
DePaving the Way (page 3). Prior to the fire crises, we had 20,000 rainbow people in Missoula, MT 59807
the region for the annual rainbow family gathering, followed by a Hells Angels (406) 543-9551
summer gathering right here in Missoula. With police from all over the country in WildlandsCPR@WildlandsCPR.org
full riot gear to deal with the “angels,” of course we ended up with riots — only the www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR
angels weren’t even around by the time it happened, and the rioters were the police.
Colorado Office
To put it mildly, it’s been more than an interesting summer in Missoula this year! As P.O. Box 2353
we try to maintain some sense of normalcy amidst the chaos, read on. Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 247-0998
prebles@indra.net
Thanks
We have lots of foundations to Wildlands Center for Preventing
thank for providing us with generous Roads works to protect and restore
and much-needed funding this summer.
Our hats are off with gratitude to the
In this Issue wildland ecosystems by preventing
and removing roads and limiting
motorized recreation. We are a
Turner, Wilburforce, Town Creek, Lazar, national clearinghouse and network,
The Y2Y Initiative, p. 1, 6
and Jacob and Terese Hershey Founda- providing citizens with tools and
Katie Deuel
tions for supporting the road and ORV strategies to fight road
work of Wildlands CPR. And thanks, in construction, deter motorized
advance, to all of you who respond to DePaving the Way, p. 3-4 recreation, and promote road
Bethanie Walder removal and revegetation.
our recent membership inquiry looking
for people to bring into the Wildlands Director
CPR fold. Odes to Roads, p. 5 Bethanie Walder
Many, many thanks to the Eyak Colin Chisholm Development Director
Preservation Council (EPC), including Tom Petersen
Carol Hoover, Dune Lankard and David Field Notes, p. 8-10 Program Assistant
Grimes, for all of the work they are Howard Wilshire Leslie Hannay
doing to protect the Copper River Delta
(see RIPorter 4.4) in Alaska. In early ORV Grassroots Advocate
Regional Reports Ronni Flannery
August, Wildlands CPR board members p. 11, 14
Mary O’Brien, Cara Nelson and Karen ORV Policy Coordinator
DiBari, and Wildlands CPR Director Jacob Smith
Bethanie Walder, had the extreme New Resources for
Road Rippers, p. 7 Roads Policy Coordinator
pleasure of spending 7 days in the Marnie Criley
Copper River region. We spent 5 days
Bibliography Notes, p. 12-14 Newsletter
on the river, learning all about the Jim Coefield
threats to this incredible place, and the Marnie Criley
efforts of EPC and many other environ- Interns & Volunteers
mental organizations and activists to Jennifer Browne, Carla Abrams,
protect it. There’s nothing like a week’s vacation in a wild, roadless place to rein- Alma Abrams, Nicole Olmstead
vigorate us to protect areas from roads and related development. Look for more Board of Directors
information about Copper River protection efforts in the future. Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari,
Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,
Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,
Welcome Ted Zukoski
It looks like we’ll be able to say that Cate left the office in good hands. Starting Advisory Committee
this month, Leslie Hannay is taking over as our Program Assistant. Unlike Cate, she Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,
won’t be handling our bookkeeping, but she will be dealing with membership and Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer,
information requests, updating our bibliographic database and developing specific Timothy Hermach,
research projects. Leslie recently graduated with honors from the University of Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,
Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
Texas, Austin, and spent the summer learning about the ecosystems of the inter- Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
mountain west. In addition, beginning in October, Alicia de Martin will be joining us Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
as a full-time intern. Alicia’s work will focus on the Forest Highways program and Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
related issues. Alicia comes to us from the northeast, where she worked with native Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
plant restoration. Welcome aboard to both Alicia and Leslie— we’re psyched to have
you with us! And a big thanks again to Cate!
© 2000 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000

When the Smoke Clears
By Bethanie Walder
H
undreds more people are evacuated every
day. Over 65 homes and hundreds of other
buildings have burned, and as of this
writing, 6 firefighters have lost their lives. In early
August the local news reported that conditions were
so bad in southwestern Montana that a fire could be
started by sunlight off refracted glass. And yet
neighbors help neighbors clear brush from around
their houses, wrap them in fire retardant materials,
dig fire lines, and water the immediate surroundings.
But in the midst of this, as if only a political puppet
for the Republican Party, Montana’s Governor Marc
Racicot declares that the fires are the fault of
President Clinton’s forest policies and his roadless
initiative introduced a mere eight months ago.
It will take a long time to restore
integrity to the ecosystems managed by the
U.S. Forest Service. In the meantime,
mother nature will continue trying to right
that which we have wronged.
She will do this through insect infestations,
diseases, and fire.
Neither 8 months, nor 8 years of forest policy
caused this summer’s fires, though 80 years of forest
policy would be in the right ballpark. While Euro-
pean Americans began having a signifo cant impact on
forest structure in the west at the turn of the 19th
century (and perhaps a few decades before), logging
practices, in association with a new fire policy that
was implemented in 1910, combined to change forest
structure dramatically throughout the 20th century. It
turns out, however, that the fires of 1910 (the same
fires that precipitated the new fire policy) were
caused by similar conditions that have caused this
summer’s fires: significant drought, high heat, low
humidity, and lots of dry lightning ignitions.
Regardless of how the forests were managed
before 1910, or before 2000, many were bound to
burn this summer. However, between 1910 and 2000
the Forest Service, sometimes directed by Congress,
made decisions on fire and logging policies that
made this summer’s fires even worse.
A look at fire policy
After more than 3 million acres of forests in the
intermountain region burned in three days in 1910,
the Forest Service implemented an intensive fire
The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000
suppression policy which revolved around putting
out all fires by 10:00 am the day after they started. A
few decades later, as part of this fire suppression
policy, and as part of the long crawl out of the Great
Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps put
thousands of people to work building Forest Service
roads for fire suppression. Theoretically, the roads
could act both as fire breaks and as access points for
fighting fires. As we saw with a fire near Missoula
this summer, however, neither roads nor rivers
always are effective fire breaks. The Ryan Gulch fire
crossed the four lanes of Interstate-90, including a
wide median strip between each direction of traffic;
the Clark Fork river; a frontage road and a rail line in
one fell swoop. But when conditions are very hot
and very dry, fires tend to react like that.
Interestingly, lots of fires that were suppressed
for the past century were important for maintaining
natural forest structures. While some forest ecosys-
tems, like lodgepole pine, evolved with infrequent,
high intensity, stand-replacing fires, others, like
ponderosa pine, evolved with frequent, low intensity,
understory fires. Putting out all fires was one of
many broad management schemes that may have
saved some trees in the short term, but caused big
problems in the long-term.
Now let’s consider logging policy
At the turn of the century, the most common
logging scheme was high-grading — “cut the best
and leave the rest.” The ‘best’ were the old, large
ponderosa pine and larch — sun-loving, fire resistant
trees that depend on understory burning. The ‘rest’
were usually species like douglas and grand fir, trees
that require shade to establish and lots of moisture to
stay healthy. The ponderosa pine ecosystems didn’t
cover the entire intermountain region, but they were
common at mid-level elevations, and on south- and
west-facing slopes. They burned every five to twenty
years, cleaning out the douglas and grand fir that
were encroaching underneath, and maintaining open
stands. On many mid-elevation north and east
slopes, lodgepole pine and douglas and grand fir
flourished. Generally speaking, different species
dominate the landscape at different elevations and
aspects. Both stand-replacing and understory fires
were important parts of the ecosystem.
For most of the 20th century, we continued to log
the best and leave the rest, until we discovered
clearcutting. In the meantime, we created ideal
conditions for wholesale conversions of areas away
from fire and drought-resistant species. Even now,
there is little economic value in thinning the under-
story trees from under the remaining old ponderosa
— continued on next page —
3
 — continued from previous page —
pine and larch, which makes it very difficult to restore former
conditions to the forests, and we don’t know if current soils
would support a reversal back to previous forest structures.
In the midst of this chaos, at least two other things had a
significant impact on fire susceptibility: roads and grazing. On
some intensively grazed open forests, there no longer is
enough grass to support understory burns. And roads are
perhaps the most significant. Several studies have found that
nearly 90% of wildfires are caused by humans, and of those,
nearly 75% are started within 265 feet of a road. The more
road access, the more fires. Granted, in the intermountain
region, lightning accounts for a lot of fire starts, too — it varies
year by year, but still averages less than 50%. Some of the
worst fires burning in the intermountain region this year were
started by humans: a campfire resulted in at least 10,000 acres
burning and hundreds of people evacuated for over a week; an
ORV is the likely culprit of 20,000 acres burning and many
buildings lost; carelessly disposed charcoal briquettes started a
20,000 acre fire; a logging operation is responsible for another
17,000 acre fire; and the list goes on.
It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the Forest Service began an
active program of prescribed understory fire to start bringing
fire back into the forests. Unfortunately, in many instances,
they are trying to bring understory fire into areas that evolved
with stand-replacing fire. At the same time, the Forest Service
This pyrocumulus cloud in the Skalkaho Complex (MT) fire demonstrates
how smoke from an intense fire can create its own weather pattern. This
smoke column resembles and behaves like a cumulonimbus cloud — first
sucking air in and up from all sides as it builds and intensifies the fire,
then following with large downdraft winds in all directions, pushing the
fire out. — Photo by Aaron Coffin, Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers.
4 The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000
This fire season is bringing us
long-overdue lessons. The question
remains as to whether we will
continue to repeat the mistakes of
the past… [or] can we start to pay
attention to the lessons taught to
us by ecological history?
has proposed understory thinning via logging, though the
commercial values of the trees is usually so low that it’s hard
to design sales without including the big trees, too. It is yet
another example of broad-brush solutions to difficult, site-
specific problems. In addition, forest changes that evolved over
nearly 100 years, if not more, cannot be solved in one year or
even a decade. It will take a long time to restore integrity to
the ecosystems managed by the U.S. Forest Service. In the
meantime, mother nature will continue trying to right that
which we have wronged. She will do this through insect
infestations, diseases, and fire. We can try to improve the
situation, but we can’t easily fix it. In the long run, if our
decision-makers stopped considering the trees in the forest
solely as potential lumber, then perhaps they wouldn’t be so
disturbed when they burn.
Nonetheless, the Forest Service has already requested $12
billion from Congress for a multi-year understory thinning and
prescribed burning on 40 million acres of land across the west.
It is highly suspect that 40 million acres were open-growing
ponderosa pine — in the northern Rockies it is only about 9
million acres. Understory thinning in habitats with stand-
replacing fire is a complete waste of time and money. Their
track record is not strong enough to suggest they can do this
without further compromising the integrity of the forests even
more. And prescribed burning runs into air quality and
political problems. Remember Los Alamos?
So do we just let them burn naturally? In addition to the
ever-increasing calls for “managing” the roadless areas that
President Clinton and the public want to protect, this could
lead to a difficult road problem. In many areas of the inter-
mountain west, people live high up in drainages on dead-end
roads. If a fire starts at the bottom of a drainage, the people at
the top are at risk. Many people will call for exit roads from
their idyllic forest retreats, and those roads bring with them
more construction in, and devastation of, the forests. It’s not
just a matter of managing forests, but of managing people and
where they live.
This fire season is teaching us long-overdue lessons. The
question remains if we’ll continue to repeat the mistakes of the
past, as is likely with the Forest Service’s $12 billion proposal.
We can’t fireproof the forests — it’s impossible. Perhaps we
can start to pay attention to the lessons taught to us by
ecological history. The only certainty is that the timber beasts
will do everything in their power to gain financially from this
summer’s fires. They’re not even waiting for the smoke to
clear to get started. Understanding what makes fire happen
and the limits of our own abilities to affect it; welcoming fire
as a necessary, integral and even beautiful part of our ecosys-
tem; and wholly transforming the perception of the American
public and our decision-makers along these lines is where our
focus must be; right now.

Odes to Roads
One Inch Tall and Lost
in the Wilderness of Home
By Colin Chisholm
I lay awake much of last night listening to
rain thrumming on the metal roof of our
house. It’s been a dry, hot summer; the pink
honey locust flowers blew away like dust
after only a few days of blooming. In my
dreams I smelled the rain. When I woke it
had stopped but I can feel it still, inside of
me.
I don’t want to go anywhere. I sit
here in this attic room overlooking the garden, and wonder
where my home is. I’ve been moving for most of my adult life:
from school to school, job to job, state to state, mountain to
mountain, river to river. I’m from the adventure set, one of
those guys with the aerodynamic sunglasses you’ve seen
driving the western highways with our bumper stickers and
our outdoor gear piled three feet high on our four-wheel
drives. Going to places like Moab, Boulder, Telluride. I’ve lived
in five states, six mountain ranges, two countries, and too
many houses and cars to count. I’ve flitted about the world
like a nestless bird, swilling the myth of manifest destiny well
beyond its expiration.
Three years ago I settled here. In this fading house,
this cloistered garden, beneath these gentle weedy hills and
the crushing gray of winter six months a year. I’ve vilified the
pulp mill for our eggy air, and I’ve cursed the noisy neighbors.
I loathe the unmuffled trucks and the beer bottles thrown at
me from passing cars. The place ain’t perfect.
That’s been my problem: perfection. I’ve lived with
the dream of a utopia glowing just over the horizon. I’ve
traveled in search of it, sure that if I just keep looking I’m
bound to stumble across it somewhere. Colorado, New
Mexico, Montana. I’m one of thousands. If I lie still in my bed
at night I can almost feel the earth shaking from the weight of
us all, like an immeasurable herd of bison roaring across the
land. We’re drawn to the open roads, wind in our hair, not a
worry in the world except getting there.
There. The promised land. Home.
We all dream of home, I think, and roads are how we
get there. We drive these roads over vast tracks of land
believing - or wanting to believe - that freedom and safety wait
at the end. Only there is no end. Only we keep on driving,
driving, driving because each vista lures us on to the next,
because we’ve never learned how to really, finally, stay home.
Yet how is it that I’ve come to love this fetid town with
its Wal-Mart and pulp mill and fast food strips? I live two
blocks from Dairy Queen, crammed between dilapidated
apartments and a street as wide and stark as an airport
runway. It’s not quiet, it’s not pretty, it’s definitely not para-
dise.
But it’s home. It’s home because I make it so.
Because I say no to the xenophobes and dig my hands into the
soil. I rise in the morning shadow of the mountain, and I
water the earth and plant until my knuckles are numb and my
nails clogged with dirt. I’m a poor gardener but persistent.
Gradually I get to know this stamp-sized, strangled piece of
land, this island in an asphalt sea.
I have loved many places, but I have never known a
place like I know this one. I know the ants that live along the
fence, the sweetness of honeysuckle, the wasps’ nests in the
eaves. I know the brief lives of honey locust blooms, of
columbine, of clematis. I know the bare wounds on the maple
tree, and the squirrels that raid the birdfeeder. I know where a
headless Buddha leans against the stems of roses, and where
The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000
once, a long time ago, little boys played with their tiny
soldiers in the dirt. From the soil I glean the passing of time;
from the air I breathe the light.
I can climb the highest mountain above town
and look down on the speck of our house and in my mind’s
eye see the violet clematis creeping over the greenhouse
glass, the moss growing in clumps between the shaded bricks,
the rock mobiles hanging from trees. I know which weeds to
pick and which to leave, the way they render seeds. When I
fall asleep at night I close my eyes and guess which scent the
breeze brings through the open window.
But what of wilderness? My travels have often been
in search of that elusive term. Tom Lyon once spoke to me
about the human need for wilderness. “Wild to the bone,” he
called it, explaining that each of us is inherently a wild
creature, drawn back to our elemental roots. We can no more
escape that need than we can escape our need for air. As we
breathe, so do our bones yearn for reconnection.
I don’t dispute this. Yet I wonder what wild means.
Surely my garden is no more wild than my dog, Nuna. Both
have elements of nature but are tamed by the human hand.
Yet somehow my need to go in search of wilderness is
satiated by this tiny rectangle of land. When I feel restless I
lie under the bonzai branches of the honey locust. I stare up
through the umbrella of oval leaves, and I feel my back
sinking into the contour of the earth.
I’m learning to say no to the road.
To going. All the time. Everywhere.
I don’t want to go everywhere.
There are no grizzlies on this land, no wolves, no
eagles, no elk. The wildest life we encounter are a few deer
traipsing through the garden eating tulip leaves; or every few
years the odd cougar slinking down the alley. But we have
earthworms and bugs and butterflies, and when the honey
locust blooms we have hummingbirds and bees. I can’t name
most of what’s in the garden, nor the whole mysterious world
that lives within the soil. If I were one inch tall, surely I’d call
it wilderness. I imagine my wonder sitting beneath the shade
of an old growth fern, or the threat of squirrels lurking in the
bushes, their beady brown eyes trained on me.
But now it’s my garden and I’m six foot three. I
don’t want to leave. The car sits out front, waiting, with its
promise of wild places just around the next bend in the
highway. Friends call, inviting me to snow-capped peaks half
a world away. I can’t say I’m not tempted. My bones do ache
at times for the thrill of it, and sometimes I get in my car with
an ice axe and a rope, and I wander into the mountains not
too far from here. It’s good to remind myself they are there,
those mountains and the wild things within, just over the
horizon from this smaller, gentler place, with its people
scurrying about as purposeful as ants but not nearly so true.
I’m learning to say no to the road. To going. All the
time. Everywhere. I don’t want to go everywhere. I want to
stay here and learn the names of the flowers just beneath my
window and the songs of the gray-blue birds perched in the
pagoda dogwood. I want to nourish the soil so that the
raspberries will grow healthy again and the honey locust will
not shed its leaves too soon. I want to know why the wild
yellow roses bloomed this year but not the last, and why the
lupine die so young. To know this place in every angle of
light. The road beckons, but I stand still, one inch high and
lost in the wilderness of home.
— Colin Chisholm lives in Missoula, MT. His new book,
“Through Yup’ik Eyes,” will be released in October.
5
 — continued from front page —
These ecologically arbitrary political divisions play out on Yellowstone to Yukon
the physical landscape as well. Severed by roads, human Linear Disturbance Density
developments and seismic lines, the rich tapestry of biodiver-
sity that exists is unraveling. Lessons from conservation Yukon
science, like the study of wide-ranging Pluie, teach us that we Territory
Northwest Territories
have inadequate ways of keeping ecosystems intact. What
have been left out of the web are the connections – at every
scale, for every habitat type – that allow species and natural
processes to move across the landscape.
The ubiquitous factor that breaks those connections is
roads and the human developments they support. Y2Y’s linear Alberta
disturbance (roads and seismic lines) density map of the
region supports this assertion, as does a comment from noted
conservation biologist Michael Soule: “[In the Y2Y region],
roads are the greatest threats to wilderness and biodiversity.” British
Road density in the entire Y2Y region in 1997 was .54 km/ Columbia
km2. When you consider that averaged into that figure is the
relatively uninhabited far north, it quickly becomes apparent
that road densities are alarmingly high in much of our region
— especially in the U.S. and southern Canadian portion. All Yellowstone to Yukon
along the Rocky Mountain front oil and gas development is Conservation Initiative
rampant. And the total kilometers of roads and seismic lines Montana
Legend
is expected to nearly triple in the next twenty years. Protected Areas
In the northern third of the Y2Y region, conservation Study Areas
Washington
Linear Disturbance Density
efforts need to focus on identifying and protecting key core 0 km/sq km
>0 - 1
habitat areas and connecting corridors before roads, develop- >1-2
>2-5
ment and extractive industry dissect them. Y2Y was involved >5
in one such effort in the Muskwa-Kuchika region of northern Oregon
B.C. Diverse groups of industry, First Nation and conservation Map by
Idaho
interests created a plan that protected almost 12 million acres The Ecology Center, GIS WY
of connected lands with transition areas that allow for differ-
ent levels of industrial activity.
The middle portion of the Y2Y region still retains some
from the roadway by fences — as they crossed. The jury’s still
connectivity between protected areas, especially along the
out on effectiveness of those structures for specific species,
spine of the Rocky Mountains, but reconnecting areas divided
but acknowledging the problem and working to fix it is an
by major transportation corridors remains a critical need. For
important step to better connected landscapes and healthier
example, the Trans-Canada highway — the major East-West
wildlife populations. Just south of there, a section of the Bow
road in Canada — runs right through Alberta’s Banff National
Valley parkway — unfenced, and with no overpasses — has
Park. Recently, the Canadian government invested millions of
one of the highest wildlife road mortality rates in the country.
dollars in wildlife overpasses to protect animals — blocked
In the southern third of the region, the linear disturbance
map reveals visually the “islandization” of protected areas —
again, especially in the United States — that restricts the
migration and dispersal of wildlife so critical to their long-term
survival. In this part of the region, Y2Y is working with
network groups to protect remaining habitat — identifying and
restoring key connecting corridors between healthy ecosys-
tems to maintain viable wildlife populations.
At a fundamental level, Y2Y seeks to reinvigorate connec-
tions both at the landscape level – with habitat connections for
species – and at the individual level – with human connections
to the natural world that support much of the economy in this
region, our quality of life and our sense of place. Wildlands
CPR is a key part of our network, offering expertise and ideas
for how to retain and restore some of those connections.
Together, we are working to improve the flow of vital informa-
tion on protecting biodiversity and the role of roads that
hinder that effort throughout the Y2Y region and beyond.

— Katie Deuel is the U.S. education and outreach director for

Y2Y. To learn more, visit the Y2Y website at www.rockies.ca/y2y,
Grizzly bear on the highway. — Photo by Chuck Bartlebaugh, write Katie at 114 W. Pine, Missoula, MT, 59802, call her at
Center for Wildlife Information. 406-327-8512 or email: y2ykatie@wildrockies.org.

6 The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000

 “Drowning in Noise” is a landmark in the annals of noise
New Resources for Road-Rippers pollution, and a milestone in environmental costing in general.
The Noise Pollution Clearinghouse is confident you will find it
a powerful tool in combating the scourge of jet ski noise.
Resources from The Noise
Pollution Clearinghouse For more info, contact:
The Noise Pollution Clearinghouse (NPC) is a national Les Blomberg, NPC
environmental and social nonprofit providing resources and npc@nonoise.org
information to citizen activists to quiet noise at the source. 888-200-8332
NPC targets all sources of noise, among them noise caused by www.nonoise.org
recreation (ORV’s, jet skis, guns), transportation noise (high-
ways, airplanes, trains), and community noise (industry, city- Divorce Your Car!
sponsored, and neighbor noise). NPC’s focus is to create more Wildlands CPR co-founder Katie Alvord has recently
civil cities and more natural rural and wilderness areas by published her first book, “Divorce Your Car!” It’s the ultimate
helping people enhance the quality of their environment. guide to liberating ourselves from our addiction to cars and the
NPC’s primary resource is their website, which is organized as automobile culture. Full of inspiring examples and realistic
an Online Library. The three main features include the Library instructions, Alvord explains many different ways to reduce
(studies and articles), Noise News (a summary of thousands of our dependence on cars, from using them less, to developing
news stories), and the Law Library (federal, state, and local car co-ops and finally to not owning a car at all. Each day
laws). Secondary features include the Hearing Loss and there are countless ways for people to re-meet their feet, board
Occupational Noise Library (guidelines for industrial noise a bike, take a train, or hop on a bus. This practical guide
control), Quietnet (webpages for local noise groups), and shows how divorcing a car can be fun, healthy, money-saving,
Resources (activist info, specific noise sources, and related and helpful to the planet in the process.*
sites). All features and a website search engine may be reached “Divorce Your Car!” is available from Wildlands CPR for
from NPC’s homepage at http://www.nonoise.org/. $17.95. Alvord graciously donated numerous copies to us and
several other transportation non-profits as a fundraiser. Not
“Drowning in Noise: only can you learn how to divorce your car, but you can help
Wildlands CPR in the process. For copies, contact the Wild-
Noise Costs of Jet Skis In America” lands CPR office, or use our general order form on page 15.
Of all the sources of noise in modern-day America, none *Mostly quoted from the “Divorce Your Car!” book jacket.
is more jarring, invasive and downright unnecessary than jet
skis - the so-called “personal watercraft” that now are heard
seemingly on every lake, bay and shoreline. Activists, perhaps
you among them, have been battling jet skis’ noise as well as
their noxious fumes and ever-present danger, and have won
bans or operating restrictions on dozens of waterways. To this
fight, the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse now adds a potent
contribution: a comprehensive and devastating portrait of the
noise annoyance costs of jet skis.
“Drowning in Noise,” by Les Blomberg and Charles
Komanoff is the product of two years of research and analysis
by an innovative public policy economist and an accomplished
applied mathematician. Drawing on a wide array of scientific
disciplines, Charles Komanoff and Howard Shaw have quanti-
fied, in dollars, the extent to which noise from jet skis de-
grades a quintessential American experience: a day at the
beach.
“Drowning in Noise” finds that jet skis will wreak an
estimated $900 million in noise annoyance costs on
beachgoers this year, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars
of additional noise costs to water recreationists and shoreline
property owners. The report also documents that “minimum-
distance” rules are only modestly effective, while supposedly
quieter new models won’t put much of a dent in the noise
burden. The only way to slash the noise costs of jet skis, the
authors find, is to ban them from as many waters as possible.
In clear and understandable prose, “Drowning in Noise”
skewers the industry canard that jet skis are no more disturb-
ing than conventional watercraft. The authors explain, and
quantify, how the varying noise output due to jet skis leaving
and re-entering the water is far more intrusive than the
relatively constant noise from motorboats. You’ve probably
suspected that jet ski noise is different. “Drowning in Noise”
shows precisely how and why.

The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000 7

Cheap and Easy Methods for Collecting Data on Soil Loss,
Erosion Rate, Compaction and Displacement By Howard Wilshire

How to Collect the Data and Make the Calculations

The methods explained below will easily help you collect substantive data about ORV impacts, including: (a) total volume of
soil loss; (b) total mass of soil loss; and (c) erosion rate (if age of trail is known, or if repeated measurements of the same trail are
made over time); and (d) degree of soil compaction (this may or may not be easy to get).

I. Measuring Amount of Erosion in ORV Trails.

(a) Volume of Soil Lost from Trail
1. Carefully examine the trail you want to measure. Then lay out a series of transects 10 to 25 feet apart along the trail. Mark
the transect locations with a temporary marking (e.g., ribbon). Transects should be selected at regular intervals from a randomly
chosen starting point so as not to bias the sample. It doesn’t matter if some transects cross deep gullies and others don’t — what
you are after is total volume of soil lost from a particular trail segment.

2. Measure and record the distance from your start point to each of the transect markers along the trail.

3. Drive a nail (or spike) into the natural surface on one side of the trail — put it in far enough that it is firmly held by the
soil. Wind the transect cord around the nail until you have one of the interval marks at the nail, and slide the cord down until it is
flush with the ground surface. Do the same with the other nail on opposite side of the trail, first winding the cord around the nail
to draw the cord taut between the two nails. In general, the cord connecting the two nails will NOT be horizontal. The only thing
that matters is that the cord is at the original ground surface on both sides.

4. With your 10 foot tape, measure the distance from the cord to the surface of the trail (if the trail slopes steeply,
make the measurements as nearly as you can at right angles to the ground surface). It is helpful to have someone record
the measurements as you make them. Measure the distance between cord and trail surface at each of the intervals marked
on the cord.
5. At home, plot the measurements on graph paper to a
convenient scale (chosen to fit the entire profile on one 8.5X11
sheet of graph paper). You will have a straight line representing
the cord at the top of each profile, and an irregular line (made by
smoothly connecting the points representing the distance
between cord and trail surface) at the bottom. Connect the two
points closest to the nails to the ground surface levels at each
nail. If you are lucky and have a planimeter, the area of the
profile is easily measured. If not, count the graph squares within
the area of the profile — since the profile has an irregular shape
and crosses some of the graph squares, this is not completely
accurate, but it suffices. Count the squares in each profile at least
twice, and average the results. Using the scale of your diagram,
this gives you the area of the profile in square inches or feet or
meters depending on the units of measurement you have
chosen.
6. To obtain the volume of soil loss from the trail
segment measured, allocate the area of profile #1 to half
the distance between transects #1 and #2; multiply the
profile area by this distance, using the same units (if the
profile area is in square feet, use feet for the distance,
giving a volume in cubic feet). Then obtain the volume for
profile #2 by multiplying the area of profile #2 by half the
distance between transects #1 and #2 plus half the
distance between transects #2 and #3. And so on. The
sum of these volumes is the volume of soil loss from the
trail segment measured. Depending on how representative
the erosion levels of the measured segment are, you can
estimate total soil losses for the full length of a trail, and
extrapolate to other trails on similar slopes.
Tools Needed
* Two 12-inch (30 cm) nails (good hardware stores sell
these)
* 20 feet or so of nylon cord (you want something that
doesn’t stretch). Mark the cord with a magic marker
at convenient regular intervals of 4-6 inches (10-15
cm); it makes it easier to keep track of where you are
by marking 5-foot (or 1 meter) intervals with a
different color. Tie ends of cord to the nails.
* 10-foot (3 m) locking tape measure
* 100-300-foot tape measure (100 m). You can use the
10-foot tape, but it’s not as accurate
* Ordinary 303 (15-16 oz) tin can with one end removed
(have several spares on hand)
* Rubber mallet
* Trowel
* Broad (4 inch) putty knife
* Ziplock bags sufficient to hold volume of 303 can
* A container (beaker for example) marked for volume
measurement. If you make the linear measurements
in English units (e.g., inches), use a volume measure-
ment in the same units (e.g. pounds), or convert a
metric measurement of cubic centimeters to cubic
inches
* A scale to measure weight of soil samples. You might
use the local grocery store’s scale — test it with a known
weight— and if you don’t mind multiple trips to the store,
and if the grocer doesn’t mind — tell him/her it’s their
civic duty.

8 The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000

(b) Mass of Soil Loss From Trail
Generally you will find volumes of soil lost to be pretty impressive. It can be even A Word of Advice
more impressive to express this loss, say in tons of soil per trail, or tons per acre. To
do this, you need to find the density of the soil (mass per unit volume). Be conservative, always
round numbers downward.
7. Take your 303 can to an undamaged area adjacent to the trail, and clean any
This is not a super-accurate
vegetation or plant litter off the surface, exposing bare soil. Carefully tap the can into
the ground with the rubber mallet until the closed end is flush with the ground
survey, so never try to make it
surface—try to avoid bending the can; it helps to have a flat 1-inch board to place look like it is by using unreal-
over the can to drive the can into the ground. Then dig with the trowel down one side istic significant figures (e.g.,
of the can to a little below the “bottom” (open end) of the can. Clear out a hole big 231.4 Yards). It is much better
enough to slip the putty knife under the can to hold the soil in it. Holding putty knife to say to a sceptical listener
firmly in place dislodge the can, now filled with soil. Clean off any soil clinging to the that, yes, I actually measured
outside of the can, and put the contents of the can into a ziplock bag. x tons of soil loss, but wanted
to be conservative and so
8. Take the soil sample home and weigh it (weigh an empty ziplock bag reported only y cubic yards.
and subtract that from the weight of the bagged soil sample). Weigh an
empty pie pan, then put the soil sample into the pan. Dry in oven for 2-3
hours at a temperature of about 200 degrees Fahrenheit. Reweigh soil
sample and subtract weight of empty pan (or, sample can be transferred back to ziplock bag and then weighed).

9. To get the mass per unit volume, fill the empty 303 can (if you bent it in obtaining the sample, use that can; otherwise you
can use any 303 can) with water. Determine the volume of water with a graduated beaker or other measuring container. The
weight of the sample divided by the volume of the 303 can (using consistent units—either English or metric) is the density of the
soil, for example ounces per cubic inch or grams per cubic centimeter.

10. To get the mass of soil lost from a trail segment, multiply the volume of soil lost by the mass per unit volume
(density), making sure you use consistent units. For example, if your measured volume of soil lost is in cubic inches,
then the density should be expressed in ounces (or pounds) per cubic inch. In typical cases, this will give you a large
number, which can be converted to tons.

(c) Rate of Soil Loss

11. If you know when the trail was created, you can determine the rate of soil loss by dividing the volume or mass of lost soil
by the time elapsed between creation of the trail and your measurements. Another way is to repeat your measurements after a
period of time (e.g., after a few rain events have happened).

(d) Soil Compaction

12. If the soil in the trail is not so severely compacted that you cannot drive a
303 can into it, repeat in the trail the same sampling procedure followed in items
7-9 above. The higher density that will be found for the in-trail sample is a
measure of soil compaction. Another technique requires a soil penetrometer
(pocket devices can be obtained from Soiltest or other distributors, but I have no
idea of the current cost). This device measures the resistance of the soil to
penetration by a steel penetration rod. To obtain useful numbers, it is necessary to
do a number of measurements on transects that start outside of the trail (to assess
normal soil conditions) and cross the trail.

This photo shows an eroded trail in the

Hollister Hills State Vehicular Recreation Area;
a B/W of this same trail is marked for 3
profiles, A,B,C. The sketch demonstrates what
the profiles might look like when measured
using these methods.
— Photo by Howard Wilshire

— Continued on Page 10 —

The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000 9


II. Measuring Amount of Soil Compaction
in Single ORV Trails
Soil “compaction” is not the same as soil “erosion.” Soil
erosion means that soil is transported away from its place of
origin, by water, wind, or gravity. When soil is compacted, the
air spaces between soil particles are squeezed out by the
pressure of vehicles, but the soil isn’t transported to any new
location. The depression resulting from a single pass of an
ORV that you observe in the field is generally the result of
compression of the soil and elimination or reduction of pore
spaces between soil particles. This is soil displacement, not
erosion. [Note, however, that it is quite possible for the track of
a single ORV pass to channel rain water runoff and be enlarged
by erosion]. Usually, from the freshness of a track and the
presence of tread-marks in it, it is possible to ascertain that the
dimensions of the track result from soil compaction, not
erosion. I am sure that the numbers will startle you, when you
make the measurements, of just how sensitive most soils are to
the passage of vehicles.
And, the measurements are easy to make! Measure the
width of a single track and depth at the center of the track
(easily done by placing something rigid and flat (e.g., a
notebook) across the track and measuring the distance to the
bottom of the track. Inspect the track and record its shape as
you see it (is it flat on the bottom, U-shaped, or what?). Then
plot the dimensions on graph paper to a convenient scale, and
outline the form of the track as you observed it. Join the lowest
point of the track measured to the ends according to the shape
you observed. Determine the cross-sectional area, either with a
planimeter or by counting squares on the graph paper. The
area, in square inches usually, is converted to square feet and
multiplied by 5,280 to get cubic feet of soil displaced per mile.
If the density of the undisturbed soil is measured or otherwise
known, the volume displaced can be converted to tons per
mile.
I took some measurements on my last trip to Utah, and, by
assuming a soil density of 1 gm/cc (this is the density of water
at standard conditions, and I made the fairly safe assumption
that a chunk of the soil would not float), and I came up with
the following displacements for those soft soils: mountain
bike: 8 tons/mi.; motorcycle: 15 tons/mi; 4-wheel ATV: 48 tons/
mi; 4WD: 56 tons/mi.
10
Ray Bloxham of the Southwest Utah Wilderness Association standing in
a trail in the Coral Pink Sand Dunes WSA, SW Utah. Notice the transect
line behind him (digitally enhanced). — Photo by Howard Wilshire
How Can You Use
These Measurements?
I have made many thousands of measurements of the sort
described above. Through time I managed to get progressively
more sophisticated equipment, but these techniques probably
provide numbers that are just as good, considering the
variability of natural soils. The amount of soil being sacrificed
in ORV areas is an impressive number, especially expressed as
tons per acre. It is impressive to editorial boards, to decision-
makers such as County Supervisors, to the courts, and to the
public. For regulatory agencies, the numbers are a hammer.
An example of applications are measurements I made of a
hillslope in the northwestern Mojave Desert that had been
severely damaged by ORVs and then hit by a thunderstorm.
Transects across a single heavily-used trail indicated loss of
165 tons of soil, or more than 4 tons per square foot. Two
other sets of transects indicated loss of more than 2 tons per
square foot. For the hillside as a whole, a loss of 12,000 tons
was conservatively estimated. For lay audiences such a
number can be converted to number of dump trucks the soil
would fill (2,400), or train cars (133), how long a train that
would make (a mile long), or some other comparison [see note
below]. The results, published in a professional geology
newsletter, helped secure transfer of these lands from the
Bureau of Land Management to the Red Rock Canyon State
Park, which closed the area to ORV use in 1977.
Note: a standard dump truck holds about 500 cubic
feet, or 5 tons of typical “soil” material; a train car holds
about 9,000 cubic feet, or 90 tons; and a railroad car is
about 48 feet long, so 660 cars makes a train 6 miles
long
Another example using these measurements to
quantify erosion is an ORV play area in Ballinger Canyon,
Los Padres National Forest, in So. California. The results
indicated soil losses of 8,000 tons per square mile per
year, over an 8-year period. These results, published in
the science journal Geology, helped secure closure of the
hillclimbs in this area.
Howard Wilshire is a geologist with a PhD from UC Berkeley. He worked
for the USGS for 35 years as a research geologist and retired in 1997.
For the last 25 years he has worked on human impacts in arid lands. He
currently is working on a book about land abuses in the western U.S.
The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000

Regional Reports & Updates
Jarbidge Road to be Reclosed
The FS announced that is planning on “reclosing” the
Jarbidge River road, parts of which were illegally reopened by
sage-brush vigilantes in early July, says the AP (8-18-00). The
washed-out road (see RIPorter 4.6) had been closed because it
couldn’t be “rebuilt without harming bull trout, a threatened
species.” The Justice Dept. is also asking that a settlement in a
court ordered mediation be “shelved” because Elko County,
Nevada officials have failed to sign the agreement and con-
tinue to condone illegal actions to reopen the road.
This ongoing controversy promises to reveal many more
surprises in the future, as the local community and the Forest
Service are at loggerheads over the issue. Stay tuned for the
next installment of “As the Shovel Turns.”
Governor Davis Vetoes 125 Toll Road
In response to overwhelming opposition, California
governor Gray Davis has vetoed $8.6 million in funding to
construct the 125 toll road. The ten mile highway from San
Miguel Road to Otay Mesa road would have created even more
sprawl in Southern California while fragmenting open space
and wildlife habitat. Thanks to everyone who wrote letters and
made phone calls!
—From the Center for Biodiversity
Gallatin NF ORV Lawsuit: Just the Facts
History
A lawsuit filed in February 2000 against the Gallatin NF by
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund on behalf of 4 conservation
organizations (Sierra Club, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Park
County Environmental Council, and Predator Conservation
Alliance) aims to restore balance on a forest overrun by ORVs.
Problems associated with motorized access — impacts on
grizzly, other wildlife species, as well as the public users of the
forest — have spiraled out of control on the Gallatin. It is time
to restore balance.
While a million acres of occupied grizzly bear habitat lies
within the Gallatin National Forest, the forest continues to
manage the most heavily motorized trail system of any
National Forest in Montana, with more than 95 percent of
roads and trails outside of Wilderness open to dirtbikes, 4-
wheelers, snowmobilers and other motorized uses. While
other forests, such as the Targhee, have long since instituted a
program to decrease roadbuilding and restore wildness, the
Gallatin has languished behind.
Solution
This lawsuit is not about eliminating ORV use on the
Gallatin. The solution to this lawsuit lies in the Gallatin
obtaining an analysis of off-road and off-trail motorized travel
and its impacts on grizzlies - an act they can perform voluntar-
ily, or non-voluntarily. Through such a detailed scientific
analysis, a resolution for current conflicts can be found.
Additionally, the conservation organizations ask that until
the Gallatin obtains such an analysis, motorized vehicles be
limited to the existing 3600 miles of roads and motorized trails
in occupied grizzly habitat during the non-denning season
(April 15 - December 15).
The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000
This lawsuit was filed as a last resort, to prompt recogni-
tion of the importance of roadless/non-motorized areas to
sensitive wildlife such as grizzly bears, elk, and trout. This
lawsuit is not about closing businesses in Cooke City, or
putting people out of jobs. It is about prompting a long
overdue look at the effects of motorized travel on sensitive
wildlife species.
For more info, contact:
David J. Ellenberger, Media and Outreach Coordinator
Sierra Club Grizzly Bear Ecosystems Project
P.O. Box 1290
Bozeman, MT 59771-1290
tel: (406) 582-8365 x3004
email: david.ellenberger@sierraclub.org
please visit our website: www.sierraclub.org/grizzly/
Canadian Report Criticizes
Logging Industry
A new report strongly criticizes the inadequacies of the
forest industry’s environmental protection efforts, reported
Canada Trade on July 14. The report was released by the
federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and published in
the peer-reviewed Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences. It cites repeated industry violations of
Canada’s Forest Practices Code in constructing stream cross-
ings on logging roads and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans for failing to monitor and enforce the Forest Practices
Code and the Fisheries Act. The Report supports charges made
by a coalition of Canadian and American conservation groups,
including Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, that the Canadian
government was failing to enforce its own Fisheries Act. These
charges were filed in an international submission to the NAFTA
Commission on Environmental Cooperation. The coalition also
contends that Canada is failing to protect salmon habitat, as
required under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Joe Scott, Conservation Director with Northwest Ecosys-
tem Alliance, states that “the much ballyhooed BC Forest
Practices Code, enacted in 1995 is very weak in terms of
riparian protections for fish-bearing streams on public
provincial lands compared to US federal standards for salmon
streams in the Pacific Northwest. Logging companies are still
allowed to cut right up to the banks of smaller salmon streams.
Moreover, the Code is poorly enforced. For example, post code
stream surveys conducted by Sierra Legal Defense Fund found
repeated violations in forestry related operations. “
Numerous studies from the Pacific Northwest point to
forestry roads as the biggest single threat to fish habitat. The
Technical Report found that BC is losing up to 324,000 meters
of salmon habitat per year due to logging road construction.
SLDF biologist John Werring points out “One of the most
alarming aspects of this report is that these inadequate stream
crossings were all made after the introduction of the Forest
Practices Code (FPC) in 1995. The code was supposed to
prevent this kind of wanton destruction.” Ironically, the
provincial government made 550 changes to the FPC after
Canada signed the Softwood Lumber Agreement with the U.S.
The changes which severely weakened the Code were engi-
neered by the Canadian timber industry.
— continued on page 14 —
11
 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.
Road Impacts on the
Weasel Family, Mustelidae
Illustrations and article by Marnie Criley
The weasel family Mustelidae is the most diverse family of
all carnivores — almost 70 species — and is found on every
continent except Antarctica and Australia.
Mustelids cover the gamut of habitat types: from terres-
trial to aquatic; from underground to treetop; and from fresh
water to salt water. While species like the skunk have been
relatively unaffected by increased human presence and
development, others like black-footed ferrets and marten have
taken a hard hit. The impacts of roads can be broken down
into direct (roadkill) and indirect (increased hunting pressure
and habitat fragmentation).
Eurasian Badger Meles meles
Eurasian badgers live in clans, which are small social
groups with relatively little dispersal, although there is some
interchange between clans. Mortality and reproduction within
each clan and the exchange of individuals between clans
determine the dynamics of the entire metapopulation of
badgers (Lankester et al. 1991). To increase badger
metapopulation viability, the most effective measures involve a
decrease in the adult mortality rate (decreasing local extinction
rate) and an increase in the dispersal rate (increasing
recolonization rate), both of which are affected by roads.
According to Clarke et al. (1998), “roads have two major
impacts on the landscape with respect to badger populations:
(1) the imposition of barriers that reduce or prevent dispersal,
and (2) the increased mortality caused by road traffic.”
Direct Impacts
One of the most likely causes of badger mortality and
population decline in Europe is road and railway traffic
accidents (Gallagher & Nelson 1979; Wiertz & Vink 1986). In
Britain, road traffic is the largest cause of recorded badgers
deaths, with an estimated 50,000 killed each year. Road deaths
peak from February through April during the main mating
season and when territorial behavior (fighting and scent
marking) is at a maximum (Davies et al. 1987).
According to Bauduin et al. (1999), forestry and road
traffic are the main threats to badgers in the Belgian Ardenne
region. A study in Denmark in 1991 found that 10-15% of the
total badger population had been killed by traffic (Aaris 1995).
In the Netherlands, it was 12% annually — endangering the
badger population’s survival. Despite the construction of more
than two hundred wildlife passages in the Netherlands, the
number of road killed badgers increased annually by more
than 12% during the first half of the 1990’s. However, during
12
the same period the badger population increased, so whether
or not passages and fencing reduced the percentage of badgers
killed by vehicles is unknown. These passages are also used
by mink and weasels, with unknown results (Broekhuizen &
Derckx 1996).
Indirect Impacts
Below a certain traffic level threshold, the main impact to
badger populations is through direct mortality. However,
above this threshold, badgers may not attempt to cross a road
at all, thereby creating an effective movement barrier (Clarke
et al. 1998). Major roads may therefore reduce dispersal and
colonization movements (Lankester et al. 1991). An increase
in developed areas and roads results in greater fragmentation
of the landscape, and makes potentially suitable areas much
less readily available for badger population expansion (Clarke
et al. 1998). Lankester et al. (1991) notes that an increase in
both the number of roads and the density of traffic is leading
to greater isolation of badger populations.
The badger is a rare and threatened species in The
Netherlands. A study of badger den use from 1960 to 1980
found that deteriorated badger dens were situated in areas
with the highest number of roads by 1980. High numbers of
roads in 1980 also coincided with unoccupied dens while low
numbers of roads coincided with occupied dens. The number
of roads is the only significant variable accounting for changes
in den occupation (van der Zee et al. 1992), leading to the
conclusion that road density is the most important variable
related to decline in badger dens.
Possible Solutions
Clarke et al. (1998) and Lankester et al. (1991) conclude
that road construction should include fences to deter badgers
from crossing roads and tunnels and underpasses to increase
their survival probability. Lankester recommends reduced
speeds, use of road signs, nightly road closures (badgers are
nocturnal) and limiting public access to improve badger
survival and habitat.
European Otter Lutra lutra
In Britain, the collapse of the otter population in the
1960’s has been attributed to the introduction of organo-
chlorine pesticides. The pesticides contaminated aquatic food
chains and left the country with low densities of otters in areas
with high road densities (Philcox et al. 1999). Consequently,
the number of deaths attributable to road traffic accidents is
increasing (Green 1991; Green & Green 1997). The recent
expansion of otter populations in Britain and other parts of
Europe — combined with developing economies in eastern
Europe, and continued road building and increasing traffic
flows throughout Europe — has raised concerns about
increased mortality of otters on roads (Green & Green 1997).
The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000
Mason and Macdonald (1996) note that otters are extremely
sensitive to water quality and human disturbance. Deteriora-
tion of either of these factors by logging or increased access
resulting in human use of lakes and rivers will reduce otter
numbers (Thompson 1988). Lafontaine (1991) suggests that
5% of France’s total otter population may be killed by traffic
each year. Kubasch (1992) suggested that 10% of the otter
population in Saxony has been lost to road accidents.
Madsen (1996) examined data from 115 European otters
killed by cars during 1980-1995, at the scenes of accidents,
and also examined tests of ten fauna passages of various types
constructed at existing road bridges. He found that nearly half
of the otters were killed at bridges/culverts or dams and
concluded that the most dangerous kinds of roads for otters
are highways/primary roads and secondary roads wider than
6m with a relatively high traffic density and speed. Madsen
Mustelids cover the gamut of habitat
types: from terrestrial to aquatic;
from underground to treetop; and
from fresh water to salt water. While
species like the skunk have been
relatively unaffected by increased
human presence and development,
others like black-footed ferrets and
marten have taken a hard hit.
suggests appropriately sited fauna passages would effectively
reduce the number of traffic-killed otters. Madsen (1990)
noted that otters were killed at places without banks under
bridges or at dams between two wetlands. His observations
indicated that otters are not able to estimate the risk of
crossing roads. Road construction projects should lure otters
under road systems on stones and banks or use fences to guide
them away from roads.
An extensive study by Philcox et al. (1999) examined otter
road casualties in Britain between 1971 and 1996 and found
that an increase in the number of road traffic accidents
recorded nationally began in about 1983 and has been more
rapid than any other known cause of otter mortality. His study
indicated that 67.1% of road traffic accidents occurred within
100m of fresh or sea water and that there was no significant
difference in number of casualties between culverts, bridges or
where no road crossing occurred.
Philcox found that more males than females were killed
on roads, probably due to males’ home range expansion,
greater dispersal distances, higher energy requirements and
less cautious behavior. He determined the majority of deaths
coincide with high river flows which implicates the way water
is channeled through these crossings as a factor involved in
road traffic accidents. Further, there were significantly fewer
casualties when a road ran along a stream than when it
crossed a stream by culvert or bridge, but roads that are
located very close to rivers over long distances also are
hazardous to otters. Major roads made a disproportionately
higher contribution to road traffic accidents, except for
The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000
motorways (comparable to our U.S. interstates), where “large
embankments and greater use of fencing may provide a more
effective barrier, and continuous traffic noise may act as a
deterrent.”
Philcox concluded that high risk zones are those where
roads are present within 100m of a watercourse or the coast
and that mitigation efforts should focus on these areas to
improve the design of river crossings, utilizing wide span
bridges which permit retention of the river bank under the
bridge.
American Marten Martes americana
Robitaille & Aubry (2000) found that while marten tracks
were located near roads, the track density was significantly
lower near roads than away from roads. He concluded that
marten activity was higher away from roads.
Thompson (1998) determined that access provided by
logging roads (including tertiary roads) contributes to in-
creased trapping pressure by reducing the unexploited
portions of a trapline. In the area of his study, boreal Ontario,
this especially seemed to affect martens. However, many
mustelids are hunted and over-hunted for their fur, so in-
creased access to formerly roadless areas could greatly impact
trapping of mustelid species.
Conclusion
Roads and road traffic have negatively impacted these
three mustelid species. The two European species are faced
with such large road and human development densities that
perhaps the only practical solution is improved road designs
with fences and underpasses. And North American species are
facing similar problems in the United States with 6.2 million
km of public roads (National Research Council 1997). While
Clevenger and Waltho (1999) found that weasels and martens
utilized drainage culverts fairly frequently to cross under the
Trans Canada Highway, such crossing structures have not yet
proven sufficient to minimize the negative impacts of various
types of roads on mustelids. Other solutions are needed such
as reconnecting fragmented habitat by removing certain roads
(for the otter, those that cross or are adjacent to watercourses;
for the marten, those roads that expand trapping into previ-
ously untrapped areas) and thus increasing the amount of wild
land free of human development.
— Bibliography on next page —
13
Bibliography — Regional Reports, continued —
Aaris, S.J. 1995. Road-kills of badgers (Meles meles) in Denmark.
Annales Zoologici Fennici 32(1): 31-36. Culverts are Inadequate Fish Passages
Bauduin, B., P.P. Pastoret, and B. Brochier. 1999. Evolution of the
badger (Meles meles) population density in the Ardenne for Most Streams on the Tongass NF
region (Belgium). Cahiers d’Ethologie 19(1): 75-82.
Broekhuizen, S. and H. Derckx. 1996. Passages for badgers and The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) just
their efficacy. Zeitschrift Fuer Jagdwissenschaft 42(2):134-142. released a report indicating that 66 percent of the culverts
Clarke, G. Philip, P.C.L. White, and S.Harris. 1998. Effects of roads across salmon streams on the Tongass National Forest may be
on badger (Meles meles) populations in south-west England. inadequate for fish passage. Eighty-five percent of the culverts
Biological Conservation 86: 117-124. across trout streams may also be inadequate.
Clevenger, A.P., and N. Waltho. 1999. Dry drainage culvert use and Adequate fish passage requires that the weakest swim-
design considerations for small- and medium-sized mammal ming fish present can pass both ways through the culvert at all
movement across a major transportation corridor. flow levels. While some culverts may be complete barriers to
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on both adults and juveniles, many may only restrict movement
Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Evink, Garrett and of juvenile fish during periods of high stream flow.
Zeigler, eds. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Culverts may be restricting habitat use and therefore
Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida: 263-277. production of salmon and other fish. The Forest Service needs
Davies, J.M., T.J. Roper and D.J. Shepherdson. 1987. Seasonal to take action to address these problems and should expand
distribution of road kills in the European badger (Meles this effort to state and private roads in order to increase fish
meles). Journal of Zoology (London) 211(3): 525-529. populations in Southeast Alaska.
Fehlberg, U. 1994. Ecological barrier effects of motorways on
The report represents a 3-year cooperative effort between
mammalian wildlife. Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift
several state and federal agencies. Alaska’s Fish and Game and
101(3): 125-129.
Environmental Conservation Departments have been working
Green, R. 1991. The impact of hunting, poaching and accidents on
otter survival and measures to protect individual animals. with EPA and the Forest Service to identify and correct fish
Proceedings of the V International Otter Colloquium (eds. C. passage problems on the Tongass. Most of the roads in the
Reuther & R. Rochert). Habitat 6: 171-190. Tongass Forest were evaluated during the multi-agency study,
Green, R. & J. Green. 1997. Otter survey of Scotland 1991-94. The and evaluation of all roads will be completed next year.
Vincent Wildlife Trust, London. While the 1997 Tongass National Forest Plan raised fish
Hodgman, T.P., D.J. Harrison, D.D. Katnik, and K.D. Elowe. 1994. passage standards for culverts and other crossing structures,
Survival in an intensively trapped marten population in many of the culverts were installed under the old Tongass
Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 58(4): 593-600. Forest Plan standards that did not include adequate provisions
Kubasch, H. 1992. Otterschutz in Sachsen. Otterschutz in for juvenile fish.
Deutschland (ed. C. Reuther). Habitat 7: 109-112. Copies of the “Tongass Road Condition Survey Report” are
Lafontaine, H. 1992. La loutre et la route. Groupe Mammalogique available at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional
Breton, DRAE-Bretagne, PNR d’Armorique, Societe Francaise Office in Douglas. Reports will soon be available at state and
pour l’Etude et la Protection des Mammiferes. Southeast community libraries and on the ADF&G website
Lankester, K., R. van Apeldoorn, E. Meelis and J. Verboom. 1991. http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/adfghome.htm
Management perspectives for populations of the Eurasian
badger (Meles meles) in a fragmented landscape. Journal of For more information contact:
Applied Ecology 28: 561-573. Lana Flanders, ADF&G, (907) 465-4287
Madsen, A.B. 1990. Otters (Lutra lutra) and traffic. Flora Og Fauna Larry Meshew, Tongass NF, (907 228-6269
96(2): 39- 46. Chris Meade, EPA, (907) 586-7622
Madsen, A.B. 1996. Otter (Lutra lutra) mortality in relation to
traffic, and experience with newly established fauna
passages at existing road bridges. Lutra 39(2): 76-88.
Mason, C.F. and S.M. Macdonald. 1986. Otters: Ecology and
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
National Research Council. 1997. Toward a Sustainable Future:
Addressing the Long-term Effects of Motor Vehicle
Transportation on Climate and Ecology. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
Philcox, C.K., A.L. Grogan and D.W. MacDonald. 1999. Patterns of
otter (Lutra lutra) road mortality in Britain. Journal of Applied
Ecology 36: 748-762.
Robitaille, J. F., K. Aubry. 2000. Occurrence and activity of
American martens (Martes americana) in relation to roads
and other routes. Acta-Theriologica. 45(1): 137-143.
Thompson, I.D. 1988. Habitat needs of furbearers in relation to
logging in boreal Ontario. The Forestry Chronicle 64(3): 251-
261.
van der Zee, F.F., J. Wiertz, C.J.F. Ter Braak, and R.C. van
Another ugly, poorly built, silted out, fish-killing culvert. What else can
Apeldoorn. 1992. Landscape change as a possible cause of
you say? — Photo by Kraig Klugness.
the badger (Meles meles) decline in The Netherlands.
Biological Conservation 61: 17-22.

14 The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000

 Wildlands CPR Publications: Bibliographic Services:
Road-Ripper's Handbook ($20.00, $30 non-members) —A Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Up-
comprehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides dated Feb. 1998) —Edited by Reed Noss. Compiled by Dave
listed below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gather- Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Humphrey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacquet
ing Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and & Susan Pierce. Contains approx. 6,000 citations — includ-
more! ing scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimen-
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($5, $8 non-mem- tation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrologi-
bers) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting cal effects, and other information on the impacts of roads.
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmen- Use the ecological literature to understand and develop road
tal laws, road density standards & Forest Service road poli- density standards, priorities for road removal, and other
cies. road issues.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($5, $8 non-mem- Database Searches —We will search the Bibliography on the
bers) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background subjects that interest you, and provide results in IBM or
on the National Park System and its use of roads, and out- Macintosh format (specify software), or on paper. We also
lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning. have prepared a 1-disk Bibliographic Summary with results
Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-members) —By for commonly requested searches. Finally, we offer the full
Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and
bibliography. However, you must have Pro-Cite or a com-
resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in
patible database program in order to use it.
BLM decision-making processes.
Bibliography prices — Prices are based on a sliding scale. Call
Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8 non-mem-
for details.
bers) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reduc-
ing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an
extensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($5, $8 non-
members) —By Scott Bagley. Provides technical informa-
tion on road construction and removal, where and why
roads fail, and how you can effectively assess road removal
projects.
Trails of Destruction ($10) —By Friends of the Earth and Wild-
lands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This
report explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal fund-
ing for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV
industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

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

Name Total of all items:

Affiliation Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.20 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.
International Membership — $30 Minimum
Address All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

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

The Road-RIPorter September/October 2000 15

Visions...

This abandoned vehicle was inadvertently torched during an intentional burnout — a technique used by a Forest Service Hotshot crew. They
conducted this controlled, low-intensity fire to thin out the underbrush and prevent an encroaching fire from crowning into the overstory. Might
similar methods prove effective at reducing car density elsewhere? — Photo by Rachel Simons.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

“I drive a truck lady… and the only

reason I drive one is because the damn
government built roads all over the
countryside. I never wanted the roads in
the first place. If it weren’t for all the
roads, I wouldn’t need a truck.”
— Howie Wolke, from “Wilderness on the Rocks”

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