road riporter 6.3

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 6.3

1/16

IThe Road-R PorterBimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. May/June 2001. Volume 6 # 3

continued on page 4

California Dreamin . . .

1976, Congress designated a 25 million acre swathof Sonoran, Mojave and Great Basin deserts stretching from the Mexican border north to Death

Valley and the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains as theCalifornia Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). The CDCAincludes some of the most scenic and biologically impor-tant areas in Imperial, San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside,San Bernardino, Kern, Inyo and Mono counties. ThisVirginia-sized expanse was entrusted to the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) to be forever protected forwildlife, open-space, and sustainable human enjoyment.

CBD Launches a Ground-Zero Revolution inORV Restrictions and Road Closures

Daniel Patterson

of a

futurefree of

ORVs

In

Photo courtesy of CBD.

Photo courtesy of CBD.


2/16

The Road-RIPorter May/June 20012

2001 Wildlands CPR

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands CCCCCenter for PPPPPreventing RRRRRoads

Wildlands Center for PreventingRoads works to protect and restorewildland ecosystems by preventingand removing roads and limitingmotorized recreation. We are a

national clearinghouse and network,providing citizens with tools and

strategies to fight roadconstruction, deter motorizedrecreation, and promote road

removal and revegetation.

Main OfficeP.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807(406) 543-9551

[email protected]

Colorado Office2260 Baseline Rd., Suite 205

Boulder, CO 80302(303) 247-0998

[email protected]

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

ORV Grassroots AdvocateRonni Flannery

ORV Policy CoordinatorJacob Smith

Roads Policy Coordinator

Marnie Criley

Program AssociateLeslie Hannay

NewsletterDan Funsch & Jim Coefield

Interns & VolunteersJohn Calsbeek, Jen Dacy, Gary

Hughes, Melanie Kay, NicoleOlmstead, Richarda Ruffle

Board of DirectorsKatie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari,

Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary

O'Brien, Ted Zukoski

Advisory CommitteeJasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,

Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,

Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,Michael Soul, Dan Stotter,

Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

California Dreamin, p. 1, 4-5Daniel Patterson

DePaving the Way, p. 3Bethanie Walder

Regional Reports, p. 6-7

Odes to Roads, p. 8-9Mary OBrien

Field Notes, p. 10-11

Bibliography Notes, p. 12-13Danielle Gardner

New Resources forRoad Rippers, p. 14

In this Issue

Amidst all the bad news thats been coming out of DC these days, werethrilled to be able to report on the excellent work of the Center for Biologi-cal Diversity, and their recent road and ORV closures in the California

Desert! Lets hope we have more victories like this one to report in the near future.

ThanksWed like to thank the Wilburforce Foundation for a grant from their Yellowstone

to Yukon science program. This grant will enable us to undertake an important studyof the road closure program on the Clearwater National Forest and to understandwhat that programs successes and failures mean for road removal elsewhere in thecountry. Well be working with Watershed Consulting Ltd. on this project. Wed alsolike to thank John Calsbeek for creating a beautiful limited edition print about roadremoval. Were still not sure how were going to use it, but well let you know.

Welcome

Wed like to welcome Kinza Cusikback to Wildlands CPR. Kinza did aresearch project on roads and wet-lands for us last fall, and starting thissummer shell be working part-timewith Ronni to collect informationabout your most important off-roadvehicle issues. Shell be plugging thatinformation into a database andgetting your stories out on the web aspart of our work with the Natural Trailsand Waters Coalition (formerly knownas the National ORV Coalition).Natural Trails and Waters is alsopleased to welcome Scott Kovarovics

as its new Campaign Director. Scottwill be working out of The WildernessSocietys office in Washington DC, butwere sure hell be introducing himselfto those of you who work on off-roadvehicles.

Wed also like to welcome a newboard member to Wildlands CPR. GregMunther joined the board in March, and also joined us at our annual board/staffretreat. Greg lives in Missoula, MT (our first-ever board member from Missoula). Hewas formerly the district ranger for the Ninemile Ranger District on the Lolo NationalForest. He retired about a year ago, and has been working with Wildlands CPR,Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Wilderness Association and others to promote

roadless area protection throughout Montana. He is an articulate and vociferousadvocate for limiting new road construction and off-road vehicles, both as a formerland manager, and as an avid outdoor guide and hunter. Were glad to have Greg onboard and are looking forward to working with him more closely.

Visions

Calling all photographers ... would you like to see your photo depicting naturesway of removing roads on the back cover ofThe Road-RIPorter? Then send usyour visions!


3/16

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001 3

Roads and ORVsin the new Forest Service Bethanie Walder

In late March 2001, Mike Dombeck resigned aschief of the Forest Service in protest overPresident Bushs forest policies. The Forest

Service then announced in mid-April that formerNorthern Regional Forester Dale Bosworth wouldtake over as Chief at the end of April.

In this era of political conservatism, DaleBosworth appears to be the absolute best FS Chief wecould have hoped for. But what, exactly, does thatmean? And in particular, what does that mean forroad and off-road vehicle issues? The FS Northern

Region has been at the center of the most significantforest road controversies in the nation. The courtsfound that excessive road densities here constitutedan illegal taking of grizzly bears under the endan-gered species act. Resource advisory councils to theBureau of Land Management have requested ORVrestrictions because they spread non-native weeds,and off-road vehicle use on Forest Service landremains the topic of numerous lawsuits. DaleBosworth has plenty of experience dealing withroads and off-road vehicles, but what can we learnfrom that experience?

On RoadsWhile Bosworth wasnt at the helm during the

grizzly bear litigation, he did oversee a potentiallymore significant issue: the development of the ForestServices long-term roads policy. This policy hasreceived much attention in The Road-RIPorter (see,most recently,RIPorter 6.1, 6.2) both for its potentialto help deal with roads, and for the problems itdoesnt address. Bosworth was the interdisciplinaryteam leader for developing the national policy.

In this case, the good is perhaps more significantthan the bad. The problem with the roads policy,aside from its troublesome definition of road, isthat it maintains the status quo. It does not, forexample, provide national road density standards. Itdoes not address user-created roads. It provides aterrible definition of a road. And most importantly, itdoes not require any particular forest to reduce theirroad densities by any particular amount itsentirely discretionary.

The benefits, however, are significant. Thepolicy provides managers with more flexibility toremove roads. It actually suggests that roadless areaacreage might increase by 5-10% if the policy is fullyimplemented. And thats not all. The Roads Policy

provides interim protection for roadless areas. It directs the agency tocomplete a comprehensive transportation atlas of ALL transportationfacilities on the ground, including those that were never authorized.The policy states that the road system is larger than needed to managethe national forests, and that it should be reduced. The policy willenable managers to remove roads without appearing to be mavericks orbucking the leadership. Dale Bosworth, after all, was the leader whooversaw development of the policy.

What can we learn from his work on the roads policy? That sinceBosworth led its development, theres at least some likelihood that it willbe implemented and the Forest Service will continue to move forward

on road management.

On Roadless AreasWhile Bosworth supported his former boss in protecting roadless

areas, his tune changed almost immediately after he was appointed FSChief. In an April 22 interview with the Missoulian, Bosworth said hethought Dombeck and the Forest Service had gone too far when theylimited commercial logging in the final roadless area policy. At the sametime, Bosworth says its important to protect roadless areas.

What can we learn from him about roadless areas? That hes likelyto offer only a limited defense of this important policy.

continued on page 14

Will federal forest and road policies stay on track, or end up in the

ditch, under the new Chief? Wildlands CPR file photo.


4/16


The 1994 California Desert Protection Act furtherincreased protection by designating 3.5 million acresof the CDCA as wilderness, turning Death Valley and

Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks, and

establishing the 1.6 million acre Mojave National Preserve.

Despite this strong public and congressional mandate forprotection, the BLM has not risen to the challenge of managingthe desert for all species and all people. Until recently itsupported the historic status quo of mining, grazing, roadbuilding, utility projects, and off-road vehicle mayhem for thebenefit of a few.

Citizen ActionTo meet this challenge the Center for Biological Diversity

(Center) and other groups have spurred a revolution inwildlife and ecosystem protection across the CDCA. Through a

series of administrative appeals, scientific petitions, andlawsuits, the Center has protected millions of acres, forced the

BLM to complete ecosystemmanagement plans, and restoredmanagement priorities of theCalifornia Desert to those in-tended by congress: wildlife,wilderness, open space, cleanwater and natural quiet.

Last spring, the Center, PublicEmployees for EnvironmentalResponsibility and Sierra Clubfiled suit in the name of 24

endangered species against the BLM over the impacts ofmining, grazing, damaging roads, off-road vehicles and exoticspecies on the BLMs 11 million acre share of the California

Desert Conservation Area. A series of far-reaching settlementsin 2000 and 2001 protected millions of acres from thesedestructive practices. This year BLM will designate and closean anticipated 4500 miles of roads in the west Mojave. Goingfurther, the BLM has agreed to complete a desert-wide routedesignation process on 11 million acres by 2004 a processthat will result in thousands of miles of additional roadclosures.

Algodones DunesIn a series of precedent-setting legal settlements between

the Center and the Bureau of Land Management, the courtsclosed 550,000 acres of the CDCA to off-road vehicles to

protect the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Peirsons Milk-vetch, desert tortoise and other imperiledspecies. Included were 49,310 acres of theAlgodones Dunes, a mecca for off-roadvehicle destruction in southern California.

The Algodones are an active dunesystem that harbors many rare, threatened,and endemic species such as the PeirsonsMilk-vetch, Sand Food, Algodones DunesSunflower, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard,Andrews Dune Scarab Beetle, ColoradoDesert Fringe-toed Lizard and at least 9endemic beetles.

The dunes are threatened by uncon-trolled and intense off-road vehicle use.Algodones is ground zero for motorizedrecreation, annually drawing up to onemillion dune buggies, motorcycles, jeeps,ATVs and monster trucks. They regularlyrun over plants and animals and tear up thedune ecosystem. Over the last few yearscrowds of off-roaders have also become aviolent threat to BLM staff at the dunes.

California Dreamin continued from page 1

The limited effectiveness of many closures remains a problem in the

Dunes. CBD photo.

locator map


5/16


Settling the first round of the lawsuit, the BLM agreed totemporarily ban off road vehicles from an additional 49,310acres of the Algodones Dunes on November of 2000 (32,000acres are already protected as the North Algodones DunesWilderness, although ORVs frequently violate the boundaries).The ban will remain in effect until a permanent solution isdeveloped to save the Peirsons Milk-vetch from extinction at thehands of rubber tires and flying sand. While the off-road lobbycries foul, five prominent intervening ORV groups includingthe Blue Ribbon Coalition signed the agreement to avoid a fulldunes shut down. Off-roaders still have 70,000 acres on whichto play, and approximately 80,000 acres (54%) of the dunes arenow closed.

Protecting the Algodones Dunes is one of the most signifi-cant recent victories by environmentalists working to reign inORVs, and the situation on the dunes is now settling. Thiswinters heavy rains have generated an impressive bloom. TheCenter, BLM and off-road groups are all monitoring recovery ofthe Peirsons Milk-vetch within both the closed, and still openareas. BLM conducts aerial monitoring of the dunes every weekend withplaintiffs representatives and an ORV representative on board.

Despite this progress, the dunes remain under threat. Notwith-

standing fair efforts by BLM to implement the closures, there are still asignificant amount of ORV incursions, even inwell-signed areas. US Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) last December pushed a rider to open thedunes back up by exempting them from the ESA.A grassroots effort shot the rider down butHunter has vowed to push it again.

Enforcing theSettlement

Elsewhere in the CDCA, BLM failed to meet the deadline for closingSurprise Canyon, an amazing riparian area in the Panamint Range near

Death Valley, where off-roaders are winching up waterfalls. They alsohave missed deadlines to close roads leading to Furnace and BirchCreeks in the White Mountains of Inyo county. California land manag-ers have reported intervention from Washington and Interior SecretaryNorton to delay all aspects of the settlement.

In response, the Center has already moved to askthat the court find BLM in contempt of a grazing

agreement from the same case due to misseddeadlines. Unless BLM moves quickly to fullyimplement the settlement, the Center will likelymove for contempt of court rulings for all othermissed deadlines as well.

What You Can DoAnti-ORV and road activists should

mobilize to push BLM to protect the CDCA. Itwill be very important for environmentalists toweigh in with comments at every step of theroute designation process. The off-road vehicle

industry is gearing up to try and minimize closures.

Contact BLM California Desert District ManagerTim Salt and request to be put on BLMs routedesignation & CDCA settlement action mailing list.Contact Mr. Salt at: 909.697.5204 tel, 909.697.5296fax, 6221 Box Springs Blvd., Riverside CA 92507-0715, [email protected]. BLMs lawsuit related pressreleases and federal register notices are regularlyposted at www.ca.blm.gov

For continuously updated information on theCDCA please check the Centers CDCA website:www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/goldenstate/cdca/index.html Or contact Daniel Patterson at520.623.5252 x 306 [email protected]

Daniel Patterson is a Desert Ecologist with theCenter for Biological Diversity in Tucson. He worked

formerly with BLM in Californias Mojave Desert for

wildlife restoration by reducing ORV damage usingeffective low-cost techniques to remove & revegetate

roads on critical habitat.

Peirsons Milk-vetch, one of several rare or endemic species

in the Algodones Dunes. CBD photo.

The dunes area harbors a rich diversity of wildlife, plant

species, and topographic features. CBD photo.

CBD photo.


6/16


Regional Reports

Alliance For The Wild Rockies And

Forest Service Settle Grizzly Lawsuit

Over Roads

Federal Judge Donald Molloy has approved an agreement reachedbetween the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR) and the U.S. ForestService, settling a lawsuit over road management in grizzly bear habitatin northwest Montana and northern Idaho. The suit was filed by AWR inFebruary 2000 claiming the Forest Service failed to comply with theEndangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and theNational Forest Management Act when it adopted a new set of rules formanaging roads in grizzly bear habitat in December 1998. Region 1 ofthe Forest Service, the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, and theKootenai National Forest were named as defendants in the suit.

The Forest Service has known for years that road density standards

are needed to protect and restore the grizzly bear, said Marc Fink of theWestern Environmental Law Center, the attorney on the case for theAlliance. Unfortunately, litigation was again necessary to force theagencies to incorporate their own best science.

The settlement stipulates that the Forest Service will remedy all theviolations alleged in the suit. The Idaho Panhandle and KootenaiNational Forests are now required to amend their Forest Plans to adoptnew rules for access management in grizzly bear recovery zones,including full public input on new environmental impact analyses.Formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is also required.The settlement stipulates that the environmental impact analyses will beissued no later than February 2002. In the interim, the Forests cannotallow any activities that might adversely affect grizzly bears or theirhabitat.

Environmentalists

Intervene In Big Cypress

Lawsuit

A federal court recently granted a coalition ofenvironmental and animal protection groups including Wildlands CPR and Florida BiodiversityProject, the right to intervene in a lawsuit brought byORV users and national hunting interests against theNational Park Service. The lawsuit is currentlypending in federal district court, and seeks tooverturn new restrictions on ORV use in Big CypressNational Preserve. The intervenors will support theORV restrictions to protect the fragile and biologi-cally rich Big Cypress National Preserve against

continued devastation from extensive ORV use.The new ORV rules are the result of a settlement

agreement reached in 1995 by the National ParkService and the Florida Biodiversity Project. Underthe 1995 agreement, the National Park Service agreedto establish a comprehensive system for ORVmanagement in Big Cypress to assure its natural andecological integrity. The new rules are the NationalPark Services attempt to meet its commitment underthat agreement.

After almost three decades of rampant, unre-strained ORV use, the Preserve, an expansive areaabout the size of Rhode Island and some of the lastundeveloped habitat for the critically endangered

Florida panther, has enough miles of ORV trails toencircle the planet. The National Park Service hascalled the area the worst example of overuse in theNational Park System.

These long-overdue restrictions are a majorearly test for how the Bush Administration willmanage the National Park System as a personalplayground for the few, or as public lands to beconserved for future generations, said EricGlitzenstein, attorney for the intervenors. Thecoalition of environmental intervenors also includesthe American Lands Alliance, the Biodiversity LegalFoundation, Bluewater Network, Defenders ofWildlife, the Fund for Animals, the Humane Society

of the United States, the National Parks ConservationAssociation, the Sierra Club, and the WildernessSociety.

In a related issue, Florida Biodiversity Project,BLF and others have filed a 60-day Notice of Intent tosue under the Endangered Species Act for impactsthe plan may have on Florida panthers.The scale of ORV damage in Big Cypress is difficult to appreciate from the ground.

Photo courtesy of Florida Biodiversity Project.


7/16


Groups Appeal Tri-State Orv Plan

Seven conservation organizations called on the Chief of the ForestService to reverse a decision that would reward unauthorized anddestructive use of publicly-owned lands. Wildlands CPR, Predator

Conservation Alliance, The Wilderness Society, and four other groupsare urging Chief Dale Bosworth to close all unauthorized routes createdand used by dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles and other off-road vehicles onnational forest lands in Montana and the Dakotas. In January, the ForestService announced plans to allow unauthorized routes created by ORVsand dirt bikes to remain open until some future analysis determineswhich, if any, will be closed. These unauthorized routes criss-crossmillions of acres of publicly-owned lands in Montana, North Dakota andSouth Dakota, the region affected by the Forest Service decision. Theagency has indicated that it may apply the same decision to nationalforest lands across the country, even though it admits that unauthorizedroutes are damaging the forests and that it does not know the full extent

Roadless Policy UpdateThe Roadless Area Conservation Rule has been under attack since

former President Clinton signed it on January 5 of this year. Following is

an overview of the steps leading up to President Bushs May 4th decision,and what that decision means.

The Forest Service worked for years to develop a roadless conserva-tion policy and a roads rule, and finalized them on January 12, 2001.

They would have gone into effect 60 days later, on March 12, but oninauguration day, President Bush ordered a 60 day postponement. Forthe roadless policy, this made the effective date May 12.

The Presidents actions were followed by lawsuits. The state ofIdaho and Boise Cascade timber company filed the first, and Utah andAlaska joined. Colorado also filed suit. There are now six lawsuitschallenging the rule, with several dozen plaintiffs ranging from indus-trial timber companies to state governments to off-road vehicle propo-nents. The lawsuits charge that, among other things, the Clintonadministration improperly followed National Environmental Policy Actprocedures. Plaintiffs claim there was no analysis of reasonablealternatives, inadequate notice to affected parties, and no cumulativeeffects analysis.

At the end of March, the Bush Administration failed to support the

Roadless Policy after Idaho and Boise Cascade requested a preliminaryinjunction to block its implementation. U.S. District Court Judge EdwardLodge denied the injunction request, but held his ruling in abeyanceuntil May 4, when the Justice Department was to file a brief on the newrule. The Bush Administration made no effort to challenge the plaintiffslegal claims or otherwise defend the rule. Indeed, if Judge Lodge strikesdown the rule it would provide convenient cover for Bush.

On April 23, the American Forest and Paper Industry filed a lawsuitagainst the Roadless Rule and also against the new National ForestManagement Act regulations and Roads Policy. They claim these policeswould adversely affect their economic, forest health, informational andprocedural interests. Only five days later it became public that WhiteHouse policy officials had instructed the Justice Department to researchways to set aside the Roadless regulation until the administration can

produce either a less restrictive proposal or eliminate the rule entirely.Finally, on May 4, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, accompa-

nied by new Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, presented the BushAdministrations roadless position. Clearly recognizing public supportfor the policy, Veneman said this administration is committed toproviding roadless protection for our national forests.

That protection, however, appears to be merelywhat roadless areas had before the roadless policywas developed. Individual Forest Supervisors willaddress roadless areas on a case-by-case basis. If thetimber industry challenges a denial to enter aroadless area, there wont be a policy to provideprotection, it will be up to the Forest Supervisor.

Even more egregious is the Secretarys positionon forest protection. Rather than protecting roadlessareas from roads, logging and off-road vehicle use(which was not covered in the policy), Veneman saysthat roadless areas need to be protected from fire,insects and disease. That, no doubt, means protect-ing roadless areas by roading and logging them.Bush and Veneman have essentially turned theroadless policy upside down and are still trying totake credit for protecting roadless areas.

The following three key components of Bushsidea of roadless protection are fairly illustrative:

Protecting forests - USDA will protectroadless areas from the negative effects ofsevere wildfire, insect and disease activity;

Protecting communities, homes, and

property - USDA will work to protectcommunities, homes, and property from therisk of severe wildfire and other risks thatmight exist on adjacent federal lands; and

Protecting access to property - USDA willensure that states, tribes, and privatecitizens who own property within roadlessareas have access to their property asrequired by existing law.

Bush is more interested in protecting industrialinterests than in protecting roadless areas. To givehim any credit for upholding this rule is not onlyembarassing, but flat out wrong.

More importantly, if Americans end up in thesame situation we were in prior to the developmentof the roadless policy, but with the false understand-ing that roadless areas are protected, it will be evenharder for us to keep the roads and chainsaws out ofthese areas.

of the environmental damage caused by the sprawl-ing network of unauthorized routes.

Our appeal is straightforward - we are sayingthat the Forest Service should live up to its steward-ship responsibility and protect our public lands,explained Shawn Regnerus of the Predator Conserva-tion Alliance. Dirt bikes and off-road vehiclesshould be allowed to drive only on designated routes,routes that the agency knows will not harm fish,wildlife and the lands they depend on, Regnerusadded. Joining in the appeal were the MontanaWilderness Association, Friends of the Bitterroot,Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and GreaterYellowstone Coalition.


8/16


Odes to Roads

Two Ways of Being Mary OBrien

August 3, 2000

Gravel is chattering against the underside ofour van, so we talk and laugh a little louder. Weoccasionally look out at the low vegetation andseemingly still, grey water as we pass by. Its cold,windy, and rainy out there, and its been that wayfor three days. We grind north on another roadfor three miles, where it comes to an inexplicableend at a pile of shoved-up gravel.

O.k., time to get out. We put on our hats and

rain jackets, pile out of the van, and are stunnedinto silence. A vast gravel plain surrounds us. Tothe north, Sheep Creek roars hard against acraggy, mist-shifting cliff. The wind is wild, therain is wild, and this precipice, stream, and graveloutwash could be part of a dream sequence:jagged, turbulent, and blurred in gray.

And this, I think to myself, is the profound difference between two waysof being human in North Americas still-wild places. Stunned into silence,awe, respect and precaution by their wind, light, sounds, and untamed lives;or digging mines and oil wells into them, clearcutting forests off them,building lodges and towns on top of them, and slamming roads, industrialrecreation machines, and vans full of hyper executives and social touriststhrough them until the tatters of wildness slide by grey, noticed, if at all, outa window.

The water and vegetation we had been passing at 50 mph is NorthAmericas largest remaining Pacific Coast wetland: the Copper River Delta inAlaska. On a map, you can trace our road, a 52-mile gravel berm constrict-ing the Deltas sheet flows into culverts and streams between bridge pilings.Start at Cordova, just south of Prince William Sound, where, on Good Friday1989, at least 11 million gallons of oil destined for machines like our vanhemorrhaged from the Exxon Valdez after having been piped 800 milesfrom Prudhoe Bay in the north. Head east across the outwash from ScottGlacier, a finger of the Chugach Mountains vast ice blanket. Cross AlagnikSlough and its fecund marsh at the base of McKinley Peak. Bridge-hop ontoand off Long Island, an oval chunk in Copper Rivers mouth. Start headingup the east bank of Copper River, toward Childs Glacier.

But dont go as far north as the Million Dollar Bridge, which twisted andbusted on another Good Friday, 25 years before the Exxon Valdez ranaground and tore apart. Instead, turn right on a road that doesnt show onthe map and hopefully never will: the road that comes to its shoved-upgravel end after just three miles. The plan had been to continue construct-ing the road across Copper River Delta for 50 miles, a linear barrier with 200bridges over salmon streams, to access a coal mine controlled by a Korean

entrepreneur, and hemlock trees controlled bythe Chugach Alaska Corporation. Motorizedrecreation and development would almostcertainly follow. The Chugach National Forestgave the go-ahead for the road. Bridges for itsconstruction were shipped to Cordova.

Enter the Eyak Preservation Council,founded by two traditional Eyak (a brother andsister, Dune Lankard and Pamela Smith) andothers who value subsistence living and wildnessover corporate extraction, industrial recreation,and extinction. Lankards focus had changedforever in 1989, when, as a commercial fisher-man, he heard the news that oil was pouring outof the Exxon Valdez into his life. He determinedto help save Copper River Delta. Its millions ofsockeye, kings, and coho salmon; shorebirds,trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. Its waterflows, islands, willows, seals, otters, beavers,brown bear, and wolves.

Eyak Preservation Council protested theconstruction of the 55-mile extraction road, (29of which are on National Forest land), contactedmedia, staged a lock-down to a bridge along theroad, and generally raised hell; the road-buildersquit for a while. The bridges stored in Cordovawere eventually shipped away, but bridges canalways return.

Glaciers line the shores of the wild Copper River. Bethanie Walder photo.


9/16


By this time Eyak Preservation Council and another local group withvision, the Coastal Coalition, had joined forces and sold National WildlifeFederation on the idea of gathering even more groups into a nationwidecampaign to protect the Delta as a whole. Thus the Copper River DeltaCoalition was formed, and by December 2000, when the public commentperiod for a new Chugach National Forest Plan had ended, over 33,000comments had been submitted. Of these, 30,956 addressed the question ofwhether Copper River Delta should be designated as wilderness: 93.4percent of the Alaskan commenters and 99.6 percent of all commentersfavored wilderness designation.

The ultimate fate of that fragile gravel pile at the end of the three-mileroad is still under the watchful, strategic eye of Eyak Preservation Council.

August 9, 2000

Its evening, and were back in Cordova afterfloating several days down Copper River from Chitinato the Delta. My husband OB, David Titcomb of EyakPreservation Council, and I are paddling three kayaksacross Eyak Lake. We enter an inlet where sockeyeare dead or quietly drifting, their dark red, muscularlives coming to a successful end. Young fish are

feeding on their elders who have finished. Silence.

Earlier in the day, Lankard had met us, excited, atour float trip take-out. He had heard reports that coho, the seasons nextspawners, were now entering Copper River Delta. I wonder how soon theyllarrive at this inlet, and this quiet drifting. We beach our kayaks and hike upa wet, faint track past several levels of a waterfall. Salmonberries andblueberries dangle beside us, and slide down our throats. We lie on ourbacks in the moss and wait. Dinner that night at Titcombs home is cohoand a deep green salad. Aurora borealis pulse silently in the sky at 1:30 a.m.

August 10, 2000

About to fly home to Eugene, Oregon, I pick up the August 2000 issue of

Alaska Business in the Cordova airport, and read one of its lead articlestitled, The Corporate Retreat: An Alaska Adventure. Its about the booming

market for adventure travel toplaces like Alaska, for corporateexecutives: lodges; personalfishing boats fitted with electronicfish-finders; cabins historicallyused by cannery workers, but nowretrofitted to a quiet luxury; andgroomed nature hike routes.

The article features ChuckBaird, an Alaskan marketer forthis industry. He recalls a trip for

Ford executives his companyhelped arrange at Yes Bay lodge onpristine Cleveland Peninsulanear Ketchikan in southeasternAlaska. To create a lastingimpression, the trip coordinatorsbarged a new Ford truck to theremote site and parked it on arocky, scenic point, 60 miles away

from the nearest road. For the three or fourdays they were having a Yes Bay experience,Baird recalls, that truck was like their Statue ofLiberty. Obviously for those guys...to stand onthe veranda, smoke a cigar, have some finecognac and to see their truck across the streamthere...thats special. Thats incentive.

I wonder whether coal executives might liketo see a crusher dangled tastefully from a cliff atthe end of some access road they had completed.Or maybe a necklace of chainsaws draping abluff, for timber corporation managers. Some-thing for incentive. Or as a small reward.

Late in the afternoon, were flying southabove the Willamette Valley, where I live. Darkgreen, sinuous lines can be seen in the agricul-tural fields: ghosts of creek meanders. Not toolong ago, Willamette Valley was thick withwetlands, braided creeks and rivers. Ninety-ninepercent of these wetlands are now gone. Thecoho I ate on Copper River and Eyak Lake arenow extinct throughout most of Oregon andWillamette Valley. Copper River Delta is how thisvalley once was: wild and mostly roadless, withwaterfowl, bears, and wolves.

Further south and almost home, we fly overFindley Wildlife Refuge, bought in the 1964 fromprivate landowners and farmers as a refuge fordusky Canada geese, a large, dark subspecies ofBranta canadensis. Three months from nowtheyll be arriving here, one of their few winterhomes, from their only summer home: the stillwild, still mostly roadless Copper River Delta.

Some connections remain. We are sus-tained. Holy world.

Mary OBrien, Ecosystem Projects Director forScience and Environmental Health Network, is a

founding and current member of Wildlands CPRsBoard of Directors. Eyak Preservation Council can

be reached at [email protected], 907/424-5890,

or P.O. Box 460; Cordova, AK 99574. The CopperRiver Delta Coalition can be reached through Scott

Anaya at [email protected], or 907/258-4808.

I wonder whether coal executives might liketo see a crusher dangled tastefully from

a cliff at the end of some accessroad they had completed.

Track of the great bear. Mary OBrien

photo.


10/16


Documenting the Environmental Impacts

of Motorized Vehicle Use Survey Protocol

The Road Impact Documentation ProcessThis protocol summary and the revised Photo Record Form reprinted here are designed to provide for the thorough, system-

atic, and replicable collection of data documenting the environmental impacts of motorized use. The photo form is one of threewe typically use for field data collection for copies of all three forms please go to our website.

We encourage you to modify our forms as needed to make them as useful for your circumstances as possible. Any feedbackon the forms will be much appreciated - we will continue to revise them so they are as useful as possible.

The survey process is straightforward. You follow an assigned route for its entire length, or a specified portion of the entirelength. You document every motorized route you find that starts at or crosses your assigned route (including all spur routes). Youfill out a Route Form for every route you find (contact Wildlands CPR for Route Forms). Additionally, you take photographs ofevery route you find, important features of that route (e.g., closure devices), and sites where motorized use has resulted inenvironmental impacts. The form attached here is a shortened version of the photo form.

Filling Out the Photo/Impact Form

Fill in one line of the Photo Record Form for every photograph you take, when you take it. Use as many Photo Record Formsas necessary to fully document every route you inventory. Fill out the top of the form each time you start a new form. TheArea is the name of the area (e.g., popular name for a proposed Wilderness area) you are documenting. The USGS quad is thename of the topographic field map you are using.

Column 1 (Photo #). Fill in the photo number. The number is made up of your complete initials, the film roll number,and the frame number. For example, GWB-36-4 represents the fourth frame of the 36th roll of film that George W. Bushtook. Also write this number on the field map in the location where it was taken with an arrow showing the direction itwas taken. Later, you will write this number on the back of each photograph you took. You will also put the roll in anenvelope labeled with your name, the date, and area name, and the enclosed photo numbers.

Column 2 (Photo Direction). Indicate which direction you faced when you took the photograph. Column 3 (Route #). Fill in the number from the field map that corresponds to the route you are documenting. This

number should be printed on the field map somewhere along the route. Column 4 (Width). Indicate the width (in feet) of the route at the point you took the photograph. Measure this distance

with a tape measure; do not simply guess.

Columns 5 (Erosion). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. Column 6 (Vegetation). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. Column 7 (Exotics). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. Column 8 (Water). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. Fill in the Additional Comments section with any additional information on your photographs or what you observed. Fill in the Surveyor Information at the bottom of the Photo Record Form on every form you fill out.

Taking Photos A picture is worth a thousand words, so if in doubt, take a photo. If your survey is intended, in part, to document all motorized routes in your area (e.g., a roadless area boundary survey),

then take photographs at the beginning, middle, and end of every motorized route, as well as at every junction. Take photographs where routes change from constructed or maintained to unconstructed or unmaintained. Take photos of every location where a motorized route travels through a waterway. Take photographs of all significant environmental damage caused by motorized vehicle use. Take photographs of sites

where damage is less significant but appears to be new or increasing. Environmental damage includes soil erosion,collapsing streambanks, high-marking or hill-climbing damage, crushed or trampled vegetation, significant rutting, mudholes or other altered hydrology, and the like.

Where appropriate, include an object in the photo to help indicate scale (e.g., a foot, a yardstick).

ConclusionWe cannot overemphasize the importance of conducting your field surveys in a manner that is systematic, thorough, and

precise. In some cases it will be crucial that people uninvolved with the original survey effort be able to precisely replicate yourfieldwork. Moreover, the strength of legal and other claims may rest on the data you collect. Thus your data must be as accurateas possible; fully document all of the impacts of motorized activity on the ground, but dont exaggerate or embellish. Thanks foryour help with this critical project. For a copy of our complete field inventory protocol or forms, please contact Wildlands CPR orgo to our website. And keep us posted on your results!


11/16


Motorized Vehicle Environmental Impact

Documentation Report

PHOTO RECORD FORM

Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________

Day of Week/Time: ______________________ Area: ______________________

USGS Quad: _______________________ Township/Range/Section: _____________________

National Forest/BLM area: _______________________ Ranger District:_________________________

width (in feet)

erosion (status of worst erosion): erosion negligible, surface is stable with no ruts (1)some surface flow on route, shallow wheel ruts (2)overland surface flow channeled down route (3)live stream channeled down route (4)significant soil loss and/or soil movement on route (5)

veg. (vegetation damage): none (1), yes (2), severe (3)exotics (presence of exotic plant species): no (1), yes (2), severe (3), uncertain (4)water (within 100' of a waterway): no (1), yes (2)

Additional Comments:

Surveryor Information

Name

Phone Number Date

Questions? Contact Wildlands CPR, P.O. Box 7516, Missoula, MT 59807, [email protected], (406) 543-9551

Photo # commentswaterexoticsveg.erosionwidthroute #photodirection


12/16


Bibliography Notes

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our6,000 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 ofmost articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Firelines as a Wildfire Suppression Tactic:What Are the Ecological Effects? Danielle Gardner

Wildfire is an essential ecological process. Yet whenfundamental components of an ecosystem are out of balance,the occurrence of wildfire may fall out of balance as well(though large, stand-replacing fires have always occurred). Thesummer of 2000 demonstrated this, as millions of acres ofpublic and private land in the western United States burned.Many are naturally concerned with the ecological, economic

and social impacts of these fires. Few question, however, theecological consequences of the aggressive tactics fire suppres-sion agencies use to control them. These agencies employ avariety of techniques, but one of the most ecologically scarringis the construction and continuing presence of fire lines.

Construction and FunctionEmployed in fire suppression since the 1950s, fire lines

are built to mimick natural breaks in flammable plant matterlike lakes and rivers (Green 1977). When no natural breakexists, firefighters construct one by removing all plant matter,as well as the top layer of organic soil, in a wide swath (Ward2000). This width can range from a few feet to 500 feet ormore; the length also ranges from a few feet to many miles.

Smaller fire lines are typically constructed by crews with handtools, while larger lines are made with bulldozers. And whilethese are general parameters, real fire situations includevariables that influence fire line construction, such as safety,topography, available suppression resources, fire behavior andconditions, and suppression goals (Karkenan 2000).

Ecological ImpactsThe National Environmental Policy Act does not apply to

fire suppression tactics since they are employed in emergencysituations, therefore, decisions made by fire managers deter-mine the extent of environmental impacts (Karkenan 2000).The severity of these impacts, then, depends upon the ap-proach of each fire suppression team (Stromaier 2000). In

general, however, the construction and presence of fire linescauses a myriad of ecological disturbance: erosion andsedimentation; micro-climate alteration; introduction of exoticspecies and disease; change in water flow; scarring; andincreased soil thawing in permafrost.

In the Banskia Woodlands of western Australia, research-ers found that fire lines were associated with 72 percent ofPhytophthora cinnamomi fungus infestations - an associationgreater than that of any other type of woodland disturbance(Shearer and Dillon 1996). In Big Cypress National Preserve inFlorida, researchers found that plant species similaritybetween areas containing fire lines and undisturbed regionswas only 59 percent (Taylor and Gibbons 1985). The fire linedisturbance introduced Mycorrhizae, a non-native fungus,

which in turn invited other exotic species that depend onMycorrhizae for nutrient absorption. The fire lines in thisregion, some constructed thirty years ago and still visible, alsowere found to disrupt water flow and marsh drainage, possi-bly reducing hydroperiods and aggravating dry seasondroughts. In a permafrost region of Alaska the soil beneathfire lines had thaw depths up to five times the thaw depths inundisturbed regions (Viereck 1981). This increased thaw layercaused erosion, siltation, subsidence, and gullying, andencouraged invasive wet-habitat species. These three ex-amples, from very different regions, show various waysecosystems can be disrupted by fire lines. However, furtherresearch is needed to illuminate the effects of fire lines on thegreat variety of regions in which they are constructed.

Two Montana Fires from Summer 2000The Upper Ninemile Fire burned in a roaded region of the

Lolo National Forest about 25 miles northwest of Missoula,Montana near the town of Superior. In efforts to contain this17,817 acre fire approximately 101 miles of fire line wereconstructed, including three miles of hand line, 55 miles ofbulldozer line, and 43 miles of existing unmaintained roadsthat were re-opened for fire suppression (Upper NinemileComplex Incident Management Team 2000). The lines variedin width from a few feet to four hundred feet, and all weretypically cleared down to mineral soil (Ward 2000).

Firefighters digging a hand line to create a fire break. USFS photo.


13/16


The Monture Fire burned in a roadless region of the LoloNational Forest, about 15 miles east of Seeley Lake, Montana.No human community was directly threatened, fire suppres-sion resources were scarce, and the fire was located in pro-posed wilderness, therefore, suppression was much less

aggressive. Only about three miles of fire line were constructedto contain this 23,800 acre fire: one and a half miles werehand lines a few feet wide, and one and a half miles werebulldozer lines approximately eight feet wide, both down tomineral soil (Monture-Spread Ridge Fire Incident ManagementTeam 2000; Olleg 2000). These two fires illustrate how variedfire suppression tactics can be. The ecological impacts fromthe fire lines constructed at the Monture Fire were relativelyminimal, while those from the Upper Ninemile Fire were moresevere. In fact, it may take many years for the Upper NinemileFire to recover ecologically, not only from the fire but alsofrom the disturbance of aggressive fire line construction.

MIST and RehabilitationThe U.S. Forest Service implemented Minimum Impact

Suppression Tactics (MIST) guidelines to encourage greatersensitivity to the potential ecological impacts of fire suppres-sion (USDA and Forest Service Northern Region 1993). MISTguidelines are suggested to fire personnel whenever suppres-sion tactics are implemented (Karkenan 2000). They arerequired only in Wilderness and even then they may besuperseded if the safety of communities or firefighters isthreatened (Ward 2000). Although inconsistently enforced andsubordinate to FS fire management objectives, MIST guidelinesare based on sound minimum-impact principles andrepresent a positive shift in Forest Service policy.

Another positive policy development is the practice ofrehabilitating fire lines after the danger of fire has passed. The

goal of rehabilitation is to mitigate or eliminate environmen-tal resource impacts caused by the fire suppression effort andrestore the area to as natural an appearance as possible(Christopher et al. 2000). Typically, the policy for fire linesincludes re-seeding with native seed mixes and covering withsome of the removed vegetation. Just as with the constructionof fire lines, the thoroughness and quality of the rehabilitationdepends on each fire crews technique (Stromaier 2000). Also,some rehabilitation may be postponed or even abandoned dueto inclement weather or lack of resources. Despite theseinconsistencies, the rehabilitation policy may be helpful inreducing some of the ecological impacts of fire lines.

ConclusionHumans have been suppressing wildfires for over a

hundred years, and while we have succeeded in part, we arenow dealing with the unintended consequences of thosepolicies. Ecosystems are suffering invasions of exotic speciesand forests are loaded with unburned fuel. These conditions,along with extreme weather, create severe fire seasons like thesummer of 2000. As the interface between humans and wildareas also increases, our response to fire grows more aggres-

sive. The cost of fire suppression, rising fifteen percentannually, illustrates the challenge fire suppression agenciesface in their responsibility to protect our resources andcommunities (Riley-Thron 2000). In this social and politicalclimate, it is difficult to question fire suppression; yet onequestion must be asked: is it acceptable to further degrade ourwild regions? We know fire lines provide a seedbed for exoticspecies and disease, alter micro-climates, and cause erosion,sedimentation, and gullying. But the research on these effectshas only just begun. As we see more fire seasons like those oflast year, our fire suppression efforts must match that severitywith sensitivity. Only then will we be doing our best tomaintain the ecological integrity of our already overburdenedpublic and private lands.

Danielle Gardner is a masters student in EnvironmentalStudies at the University of Montana.

Editors Note: In conjunction with Danielles research, Wildlands

CPR intern Jen Dacy investigated the effectiveness of fire lines. Herresearch raised many significant questions. If youre interested in aMasters or PhD research project on this topic, please contact ouroffice for more information.

Fire lines

can leave

lasting scars,

like this one

within the

Selway-BitterrotWilderness.

Glenn Marangelo

photo.

BibliographyChristopher, R. et al. Sept. 8, 2000. Upper Ninemile Complex

Suppression Rehabilitation Plan. Ninemile, Plains, andSuperior Ranger Districts, Lolo National Forest, Montana.

Green, L.R. April 1977. Fuelbreaks and other Fuel Modification forWildland Fire Control. Agricultural Handbook No. 499.Library of Congress.

Karkenan, S. Oct. 2000. Head of Fire Operations, Lolo NationalForest. Personal Communication.

Monture-Spread Ridge Fire Incident Management Team. Sept.2000. Monture-Spread Ridge Fire Update. http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/lolo/fire-info/ninemile/complex-status.htm.

Olleg, B. Dec. 2000. Monture Ranger District Fire ManagementOfficer. Personal Communication.

Riley-Thron, Karin. 2000. The Best Fire Season Ever. CascadiaTimes. Sept.-Oct. 5(3): 15-16.

Shearer, B.L. and Dillon, M. 1996. Impact and Disease CentreCharacteristics of Phytophthora cinnamomi Infestations ofBanksai Woodlands on the Swan Coastal Plain, WesternAustralia.Australian Journal of Botany. 44(1): 79-90.

Stomaier, D. Dec. 2000. United States Forest Service Content

Analyst. Personal Communication.Taylor, D.L. and Gibbons, R.R. 1985. Use of Fire Plows in a Marsh.

Fire Management Notes. 46(3): 3-6.Upper Ninemile Fire Incident Management Team. Sept. 2000.

Upper Ninemile Complex Fire Update. http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/lolo/fire-info/ninemile/complex-status.htm.

USDA and Forest Service Northern Region. 1993. Minimum ImpactSuppression Tactics Pamphlet.

Viereck, L. A. 1981. Effects of Fire and Fire Lines on Active LayerThickness and Soil Temperature in Interior Alaska. FourthCanadian Permafrost Conference, Calgary, Alberta: 123-135.

Ward, L. Dec. 2000. Ninemile Ranger District Fire ManagementOfficer. Personal Communication.


14/16


On Off-Road VehiclesWhile Bosworth was overseeing the development of the long-term Roads Policy,

he was simultaneously engaged in a three-state, two-agency planning process toaddress off-road vehicles. Simply abbreviated the tri-state process, the ForestService and BLM have been engaged in a massive environmental impact statement toanalyze the potential closing of 26 million acres (in Montana, North and SouthDakota) to cross-country travel by off-road vehicles. On January 5, 2001, the sameday the FS released both the final Roadless Policy and the final Roads Policy, the FSnorthern region also released a decision-notice on the tri-state policy. At first glanceit sounds exciting.

But much to the chagrin of Montana environmental activists, and to the detri-ment of the land, the policy would not stop cross-country travel because it allowsoff-road vehicle use to continue on all existing routes. The Forest Service, unlikethe BLM, has a system of roads and trails that they have theoretically analyzed forenvironmental impacts. Over the years, however, many routes that are not on that

system have sprung up on the ground. Montana activists have argued, since the firstday we found out about the tri-state process (in 1998), that any ORV plan needs toclose all non-system/unclassified routes until they are mapped and analyzed todetermine if they should be open. The tri-state process would legitimize theseroutes, making it virtually impossible to close them. This is antithetical to theconcept of forest planning and NEPA. For example, no one would argue that it waslegal to build a mine on National Forest lands without permission, and then expect tocontinue operating that mine since its already there. Yet this is exactly the argumentpeople make regarding user-created routes. Theyre already there, why cant wedrive on them?

Dale Bosworth decided that approach made sense. In fact, even before Bosworthwas tapped to become Chief, the FS had said they considered the tri-state process tobe a model for off-road vehicle planning nationwide. To bring that point home just afew weeks ago, five forests in Arizona announced they were starting a joint off-road

vehicle planning process.What can we learn from Bosworth on off-road vehicles? That, similar to theroads policy, he has some good ideas that are mired in his propensity to maintain thestatus quo.

ConclusionDale Bosworth led the development of a mostly good national transportation

policy; whether he will have the political capital to ensure its implementation isanother question. As road and off-road vehicle activists, Bosworth brings us certainopportunities but also presents challenges for improving forest management underthe Bush Administration. Former FS Chief Mike Dombeck created important mo-mentum towards conservation and restoration within the Forest Service. Bosworthseems partial to maintaining the status quo, so perhaps inertia would keep the ForestService moving in the right direction. But he also seems wary of rocking the boat,and as such, will probably act as an amenable employee to George Bush. ThoughBosworth may be the best Forest Service chief we can get under Bush, will that beremotely good enough to protect our national forests?

New Resourcesfor

Road-Rippers

In March, the California

Wilderness Coalition released areport, entitled Off-Road to Ruin,highlighting the effects of dirtbikes,snowmobiles and other off-roadvehicles on the California landscape.Hundreds of thousands of thesevehicles travel Californiasbackcountry each year. Whenirresponsibly used or improperlymanaged, they damage sensitivesoils, degrade critical wildlifehabitat, trespass onto privateproperty and closed areas, andshatter the quiet of the great

outdoors. The report contains aseries of case studies that documentan array of problems throughoutCalifornias backcountry.

Off-Road to Ruin also presentsa fifteen-point plan for creating amore balanced and fair off-roadvehicle policy in California. Therecommendations in the planinclude minimizing damage toCalifornias landscape, reducingconflicts between motorizedrecreationists and other public landusers, and reducing illegal riding andtrespass into wilderness areas. Theplan includes suggestions for federalreform as well as state legislativeand administrative reform. Amongthe suggestions are designating andmapping legal riding routes,monitoring the effects of off-roadvehicles, protecting undesignatedwilderness, creating uniform soiland habitat protection standards andincreasing funding for conservationand law enforcement.

For a copy of the report, pleasesend $15 to:

attn: Off-Road to RuinCalifornia Wilderness Coalition2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5Davis, CA 95616

continued from page 3

DePaving the Way


15/16


Printed MaterialsRoad-Ripper's Handbook ($20.00, $30 non-members)A com-

prehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides listedbelow, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gathering In-formation with the Freedom of Information Act, and more!

Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($5, $8 non-mem-bers) By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for gettingroads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmentallaws, road density standards & Forest Service road policies.

Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($5, $8 non-mem-bers) By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides backgroundon the National Park System and its use of roads, and outlineshow activists can get involved in NPS planning.

Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-members)ByDan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land andresource laws, and detailed discussions for participating inBLM decision-making processes.

Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8 non-mem-

bers) By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reducingthe use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an ex-tensive bibliography.

Road-Rippers Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($5, $8 non-members)By Scott Bagley. Provides technical informationon 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 re-port explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal fundingfor motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORVindustrys role in pushing the ORV agenda.

On-Line ResourcesVisit our Web Site: www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR. Youll find

educational materials, back issues ofThe Road-RIPorter (in-cluding all our bibliography, legal and field notes), and cur-rent action alerts.

Also at the site, weve got a link to an ORV Information Site withan interactive map-based database on each National ForestsORV Policy.

Now available on our site: Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bib-liographic Database (Updated Jan. 2001) Contains approx.6,000 citations including scientific literature on erosion,fragmentation, sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife,aquatic and hydrological effects, and other information onthe impacts of roads.

Subscribe to our on-line list-serves. Check the boxes below on

the member form and receive Skid Marks and/or our ActivistAlert over E-Mail.

Membership and Order Information

Refer a friend to

Wildlands CPR!Send us the names and addresses of friends

you think may be interested in receivingmembership information from Wildlands CPR.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;

for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.

International Membership $30 Minimum . All prices in U.S. Dollars

Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

I want to join (or renew my membership with)

Wildlands CPR:

Type of Membership: Individual Organization

Other$30 standard

$50 business

$15 low-income

$100$250

Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:

Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:

Total of all items:

/

/

/

Phone/E-mail

Affiliation

Address

Name

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

newsletter, Skid Marks, every few weeks.

Check here for our E-mail Activist List.

Please remember to include your e-mail address!

Please send this form and your check to:Wildlands CPR PO Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807


16/16

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

Visions...

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAID

MISSOULA, MT 59801PERMIT NO. 569

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

And I thought I woke and my motherwas standing there

And my heart broke as the ribbons in her hairTurned into highways surrounded and swirled

Like a crown come down around a

not so perfect world

Joan Baez, the dream song

The end of the road! Marnie Criley photo.

road riporter 6.3

Documents