road riporter 8.3

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 8.3

1/24


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 20032

20 03 W ildlands CPR

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works toprotect and restore wildland ecosystems by

preventing and removing roads and limit ingmotorized recreation. We are a national

clearinghouse and network, providing citizens

with tools and strategies to fight roadconstruction, deter motorized recreation, and

promote road removal and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) [email protected]

www.wildlandscpr.org

Director

Bethanie Walder

Development Director

Tom Petersen

Restoration ProgramCoordinator

Marnie Criley

Science Coordinator

Adam Switalski

N TW C Gra ssroots

CoordinatorLisa Philipps

Program Assistant

Kiffin Hope

N ew sletter

Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield

Interns & Volunteers

Maureen Hartmann, Jason Kiely,Beth Peluso, Ryan Shaffer

Board of Directors

Karen Wood DiBari, Greg Fishbein, Dave Havlick,

Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Sonia Newenhouse,Mary O' Brien, Matt Skroch, Ted Zukoski

Advisory Committee

Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,

Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, LorinLindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,

Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,Michael Soul, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,

Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands CCCCCenter for PPPPPreventing RRRRRoads

By Bethanie Walder

Grea t Ha pp enings!

Here at Wildlands CPR weve had a pret ty exciting and sur pr ising coup le of

month s, with s everal impor tant legal and agency victories coming through.

Thereve been tough sp ots, too, but its nice to h ave someth ing to crow

about for a ch ange, so h ere we go

First, an eno rmou s th ank you to Wildlands CPR board m emb er Mary OBrien for

her tenac ious effor ts to p rote ct Hells Canyon National Recreat ion Area (on t he

Idah o/Oregon b ord er). In 1994, Mary put to gether a co alition of folks to develop a

citizens alternative to the Comp rehe nsive Manageme nt Planning proc ess . For the

next nine year s, Mary d ogged th e Fores t Service, the Council of Environmen talQuality, and even the m embers of the coalition (including me), to ensu re that our

alterna tive was fully cons idered in the plann ing proc ess . On July 23, we foun d out

tha t more t han 50% of what we as ked for was included in the final decision for the

mana gement p lan. Now lets be clear, the plans no t per fect, but Hells Canyon is

going to close 33% of its roa d sys tem (with p oss ible decomm issioning, too) , restrict

off-road vehicle use to d esignated o pen ro utes o nly, and limit grazing. See page 14

for details.

Secon d, a huge than k you to Brian Sche rf and Amy Atwood . Brian ha s been

working with t he Florida Biodivers ity Project to p rotec t Big Cypres s National

Preser ve from ORVs for at least as long as Marys b een wor king to p rote ct Hells

Canyon . Amy is a lawyer with Meyer a nd Glitzenst ein law firm in DC, wor king with

Brian and oth ers to protect th e preser ve. On August 1, the district magistrate in

Florida u ph eld th e Par k Services o ff-road vehicle plan limiting off-road vehicle useto 400 miles of designated routes. (One more judge still has to approve th e

magistrates repo rt.) We also intervened with Brian and several other group s on

beh alf of the Park Service plan. See page 6 for d etails.

And t he th ird th anks goes to Paul Spitler and others whove been wor king on

ORV issu es in California. While Wildlands CPR ha sn t be en at a ll involved in the ir

pro ject, the work the y have done is commen dab le. The state of California recen tly

entered into a Memorandum of Intent with t he Forest Service to inventory and

analyze all ORV rout es o n th e Californ ia National Forests, and then det ermine wh ich

ones to designate as open, and which on es to close, by December 2007. This is a

first-of-its kind model for changing USFS ORV management and could provide a

mod el for ot her s tates . (The sta te of California is fund ing the wor k, not th e Fores t

Ser vice). Well have man y more details about th e pros and c ons of the agreement in

the nextRIPorter.

In th is era of negative environmen tal po licy-making were all routinely bo m-

barded with bad news from th e rescission of the ro adless po licy by a Wyoming

jud ge with a con flict of interest, to the expon ential growth in RS 2477 claims a nd

settlements by itinerant co unties and stat es. We hop e youll take as much p leasure

as we have in these th ree stories of good news. And of course, dont forget the

cover stor y a stunning success by a small group of private propert y owners in

Nevada. If we work togeth er, its ama zing ho w much of a differenc e we can m ake!


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003 3

continued on nex t page

F

olks who dr ive through Wilson Canyon do nt

soo n forget it. Its a m ile of unexp ected rock

and river drama along the other wise sedatelyscenic deser t Highway 208 between the towns of

Yerington and Smith, so uth east of Cars on City,

Nevada. Nature mad e the canyon, it could be said,

by slowly and stea dily pitting a mount ain against a

river.

The moun tain is th e mod est Singatze range,

which s ep ar ate s Yer ington s Mason Valley from

Smith Valley. The r iver is the wes t br anch of the

Walker River, which flows ea st o ut o f the no rth ern

Sierra Nevada. Inst ead o f chan ging cour se to go

around the n ascent Singatzes, or backing up an d

ma king a lake o f Smith Valley, the Walker River

stuck to its course and carved the canyon as themountains grew around it. The result is a rare and

beautiful stretch of lush river cut through a d esert

mountain. Native Americans cherished the area,

miners valued it as a railroad ro ute for hau ling

copp er ore, and today it is still a major th orough-

fare for travelers an d vacationers in nor thern

Nevada, a popu lar place to fish , camp, foss il hun t,

hike and p icnic. Its also in th e pro cess of being

rap idly torn a par t by off-road veh icles.

The p ers istence of that little West Walker River

ser ves as a mod el for t he Wilson Canyon Alliance,

which has recently managed to p ressure the

Bureau of Land Manageme nt (BLM) to order theclosure of the so me of the heavily damaged

riparian zon e at Wilson Canyon t o camp ing and

motor vehicles. Despite co ntinuing roadb locks and

back room d eals being put to gether by a local

good -old-boy (a nd girl) political system , and an

ongoing misinformation c ampa ign by ORVers in the

local pap er, the Wilson Canyon Alliance h as

mana ged to r aise the issue of ORV abu se at Wilson

Canyon.

Allied & Angr yThe Wilso n Canyo n Allianc e is a tr uly

grassroots group th at represents a wide range of

concerned citizens, nearby private propertyowner s (like myself), and even s ome d irt bike

riders who th ink things have gone to o far at Wilson

Canyon . Unlike the Friends of Wilson Canyo n,

which is merely the local front for t he Blue Ribbon

Coalition, we ar e a loos e-knit group of peop le with

no bud get and meager resources. Our members

include peo ple from widely divergent po ints on th e

political and s ocial spectr um, but we all agree on

one th ing: Wilson Canyon d esperat ely needs to be

The Little Alliance That CouldBy Larry OHanlon

protected and man aged with a visionary and inclusive plan that

doesn t just sweep the prob lem under the rug.

When peo ple refer to Wilson Canyon t od ay they are u sually

talking abo ut a wider area, including a coup le of miles of river west o f

the canyon that is the o nly area open to th e pub lic, on what is a

mos tly privately-owned river. This narr ow pub lic stret ch of river and

the federal lands on either s ide of it have b een the object of contro-

vers y and con tent ion in recent m onth s, culminating in a new BLM

decision to close the h eavily abused r iparian zone to camping and

vehicles.

Wilson Canyon Locator Map


4/24


The Wilson Canyon Alliances existenc e and the curre nt p ublic

controversy started earlier th is year when a locally-raised natu re

photographer decided he could no longer stomach the h ideous scars

that were multiplying on either side of the h ighway west o f the mouth

of Wilson Canyon. Large, frequent encam pme nts of off-road vehicle(ORV) user s along the river caused the s cars. To the south of the

highway an d the river, the US Fores t Service (USFS) was seeing r apid

deterioration of hillsides that had virtually no tracks or trails ten

years ago. To th e nor th o f the h ighway and river, the BLM had

inform ally allowed ORV use for years , but h ad failed t o p ay atte ntion

as damages increased at a cancerous r ate, spreading to every hill and

ridge in th e oth erwise scenic area, spilling onto private proper ty and

fouling the lush, rare d eser t riverside ripar ian zone.

In late 2002 th at p ho togr ap he r, Ron Walter o f Gard ner ville, NV,

complained enough that a meeting was arr anged b etween Walter, his

father, representatives from USFS, BLM, a local county commissioner,

the Nevada Departmen t of Transp ortation, and a group that called

the mselves Friends of Wilson Canyon (FWC). At t hat meeting t he

Friends leader Chuc k Worley explained th at h is group was wo rking

on th e matter with th e USFS, and were hop ing to post s igns and erect

bar ricades to block so me tra ils to ORVs.

In the mo nth s tha t followed, local residen t

Lauri Christine and I (both p ropert y owners near

Wilson Canyon ) learned of the meet ing and s tart ed

asking Worley que stions abo ut his group s goals,

plans an d affiliations . What s kimpy res pon ses wegot did not answer our q uestions and mad e it clear

that we were no t invited to participate in their

process , other than in a minimally respo nsive

suggestion bo x sor t o f way. We tr ied to get

arou nd t his by co ntac ting Worleys p olitical

advoc ate, Lyon Count y Commissioner Ph yllis

Hunewill, but sh e stu ck to Worley as th e only voice

on the matte r and was op enly hostile to what she

called outsiders (translation: anyone not born in

the area or a residing there cont inuously for mo re

than 30 years).

We were not satisfied with tru sting th e ORVers ,

nor were we con tent to stand by while the BLM andcoun ty officials made d eals witho ut pu blic inpu t or

notice to local property owners . So, we started

making noise, broad cast ing e-mails to all sor t of

folks we didn t kno w. We h it payd irt when a

symp ath etic insider (b y Hunewills definition)

contacted us: Ron Walter. After talking it over with

Ron, we realized th at for our vision of a restored ,

planned , intelligently m anaged , multiple-use Wilson

Canyon to b ecom e a reality, we could not leave it in

the h and s of the ORV folks whose s ole motiva-

tion app ears to b e fear of losing ORV acces s.

Holler ing the Trut hThe up shot was the formation of the Wilson

Canyon Alliance. We crea ted a p etition for eme r-

gency closu re o f the BLM land s n ear Wilson

Canyon to ORVs and other vehicles (b ut not to non -

motorized use). We then developed th e website

http://www.wilsoncanyon.org to broad cast the

issues at Wilson Canyon and addres s th e ORV

misinform ation peo ple were reading in the Mason

Valley News, th e weekly family-run news pa pe r in

Yerington, NV. Every time so meon e ap proa che d u s

with a claim like dirtb ikers are good for b usines s,

we mulled the matter over and did some research.

Those claims and our respons es no w fill the

websites Trut h ab out ORVs section so peo ple

can find t heir way thro ugh th e Blue Ribb onCoalitions smo kescreen . On tha t par ticular issue

we concluded it was unfounded , and that d irtbike

destr uction is bad for bu siness in the long-run

since it drives away visitor s looking for n atur al

beauty an d r iver access . What we were beginning

to bu ild was a wate rtight cas e for p rotec ting Wilson

Canyon.

continued from page 3

The Little Alliance That Could

A canyon once quiet . . . Wilson Mountain (top) and a beav er dam

on the West Walker River (lower left). Photos courtesy of the

Wilson Canyon Alliance.

. . . w e w ere not content to sta nd b y

w hile the BLM a nd cou nty o fficialsma de dea ls w i thout publ ic input or

not ice to local p roperty ow ners .


5/24


At the s ame time, we started documen ting the

damage. In other words: pictures, pictures, pic-

tures. Images are far more powerful than words,

esp ecially on an emot ional matter like protec ting

the land . So we start ed gath ering a baseline image

bank to sh ow the stat e of things. That image bank

also will documen t future improvement or degrada-

tion, by simple compar ison. The p ictures cover the

gamut: multiplying tr ails an d s carr ing hillside

trac ks; illegal fires; unlicens ed vehicles on pub lic

roads; unburied human waste and to ilet paper

along the r iverbank; piles of garbage; toxic waste;

illegal wood cutting an d fires; ORV tracks in t he

riverbe d; and tres pas sing and vand alism b y ORVers

on pr ivate lands.

While we were docu ment ing the p rob lems, we

began searching for others locally and nationally

who might b e facing similar issue s. We found

friend s in the Lahont an Audu bo n Society in Reno,

Nevada. They had already published a p osition

statement on p rotecting the watershed of the

Walker River an d its ter minu s, Walker Lake. We also

were contacted by Bonnie Rannald of the br and-

new Walker Lake Interp retive Association, whosh ares o ur d ream o f creating a Walker River

Inter pret ive Cente r a t Wilson Canyon. We also

discover ed Wildland s CPR and th e National Trails

and Wate rs Coalition ( NTWC). Lisa Ph ilipp s an d

oth er NTWC folks have p rovided us with invaluable

knowledge on ho w to file a Freedo m of Information

Act requ est, what th e app licable laws are, and who

else is out the re fighting similar ORV abu ses on

pub lic lands.

In June we pu blished a 27-page rep or t entitled

Crisis at Wilson Canyon. In it we d ocum ente d t he

stat e of affairs with minimal text and maximum

color phot ography. The report also includes mapsand a sketch of a visionary regional park plan that

we believe is th e wisest and mos t ben eficial use o f

the Wilson Canyon area. We even include d a clos ed,

use r-fee ORV cour se. We sent t he rep ort t o ever y-

one we thought had a stake or a part in the man-

agement of Wilson Canyon from Carson City to

Wash ington, D.C. We also pos ted it online an d

alerted everyone to the ongoing destruction. The

response has b een phenomenal.

In July th e NTWCs Lisa Ph ilipp s p etition ed t he

BLM for the immed iate emergency clos ure of the

Wilson Canyon area to ORVs. That, p lus ou r

Alliances report, made the truth unavoidable:Wilson Canyon was in trou ble an d BLMs manage-

ment of the are a was s ham eful. A few weeks later

BLM announced the decision to begin the long

process of closing the riparian zone to camp ing and

vehicles. The ORVers immediately prot este d

desp ite the fact that prot ecting the riparian zone is

the very least the BLM could p ropose.

Inst ead o f rest ing on the laurels

of our small victory, the Wilson

Canyon Alliance ha s taken t he

matter an un usual step further. We

recognize that no good is going to

come of shoving court d ecisions o r

bureaucr atic edicts down the

thr oats of either side. We also

recognize that there is no ch ance

that we will change the minds of

ORVers or t hat the y will make us s ee

the wisdom o f their d estructive

pastime. So we have prop osed a

ser ies of meetings to iden tify the

things t he Friends of Wilson Canyon

and the Wilson Canyon Alliance can

agree on (e .g. a managed, user fee

campground along the river) and the

things we agree to disagree on (e.g.

op en ra nge for ORVs). Our ho pe is

tha t by focusing our co llective effor ts on things we agree on, more

local citizens will get involved and more c an b e acco mplished . As for

our differences, we have to learn to respect these and find solutions

much like th e one we already propos ed in ou r rep ort (i .e., includ-

ing an ORV area in th e regional par k plan).

So far the ORVers h ave not s ho wn much willingness to co ope rate .Eventu ally they will have t o, however. The law and comm on s ens e is

on o ur s ide, as well as th at great s ilent m ajority of folks who we are

trying to wake up to this issue.

Larry OHanlon is an indepe ndent science journalist as well as a

private p roperty own er in Wilson Canyon.

As the song goes, take me to the

river, but NOT in an off-road

vehicle, please. Photo courtesy of

the Wilson Canyon Alliance.

We recogniz e tha t no good is going to

come of shoving court decisions or

burea ucrat ic edic ts dow n the

throa ts of ei ther side.

This BLM sign (on left) recommends using firepans and porta-potties.

Unfortunately, ORV users hav e ignored both these recomme ndations, leaving fire

scars, trash and refuse alongside the river. Photos courtesy of Wilson Canyon

Alliance.


6/24


Big Cyp ress ORV Limits Upheld

In a Report and Recomm end ation issue d on August 1, Florida

Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier up held re str ictions in a National

Park Service (NPS) man agement plan on the use of off-road vehicles

(ORVs) in Big Cypres s National Preser ve. Accord ing to Jud ge Frazier,

Big Cypre sss o ff-road vehicle plan implements the managem ent

ph iloso ph y for ORVs th at was ident ified by Congress when it created

the Big Cypres s NP. Big Cypres s is home t o th e Florida pan ther and

Cape Sable Seaside spar row, two critically enda ngered s pecies.

The NPS plan will de signat e a 400-mile tra il sys tem for off-roa d

vehicles, along with acces s p oints and n ighttime and s easonal

closures. Prior to the plan, the Preserve had wracked up mo re than23,000 miles of user -create d ro utes , as swamp buggies were allowed

to d rive anywhere. This resulted in extreme d amage to th e pres erves

fragile biodiversity and wetlands ecosystem.

ORV groups ch allenged th e management plan, and th e Park

Service was engaged in intense b ackdoor n egotiations with these

group s for a long time. Fort unat ely, howeve r, the se negotiations

failed. Meanwh ile, a coalition o f environme ntal and animal welfare

organizations intervened in the lawsuit to d efend t he man agement

plan on behalf of the federal government.

Wildland s CPR has been working with Brian Scher f and th e

Florida Biodiversity Project for years to pro tect the Prese rve , and

was joined in the litigation b y the National Parks Conser vationAssociation, The Fund for Animals, The Wilderness Society, American

Land s, Biod iversity Legal Foun dat ion, Bluewater Network, Defenders

of Wildlife, Humane Society o f the United States and the Sierra Club.

While we are extremely pleased with th e

Judges rep or t, the NPS mus t still ass ure th at the

managem ent p lan is fully implemente d. This will

require adequate funding from th e Department of

Inter ior and congress . Along with implemen ting

the p lans tr ail system an d p rotections, the NPS

must fund research, monitor impacts, educate th e

public and enforce the terms of the p lan.

Judge Fraziers Report an d Recommen dation

also must be ap proved by Justice John Steele, Chief

Judge o f the Ft. Myers Division. The coalition ofintervenors were rep resented by Amy Atwood and

Eric Glitzen ste in of the Wash ington , D.C. pub lic

inter est law firm of Meyer & Glitzens tein.

A thousand poin ts of light? Or, runawa y ORV traffic

bisecting the fragile wetlands of Big Cypress. Photo by Karl

Forsgaard.

Jarbidge Disp ute Revisited

After several years of relative quiet in Elko City, Nevada, the

dispute over th e South Canyon Road on the Jarbidge river has

resurfaced. In mid-August the Forest Service repor ted th at it appear s

unauth orized work is being done on th e road to reop en it. It is now

pas sab le by ATVs an d s mall SUVs, which h ave be en d riving acros s th e

river in at least th ree places.

The dispute dates b ack to 1995 when the road was washed out

du ring a flood. Then , in 1998, th e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) issue d an emergenc y listing und er t he Endan gered Species

Act to pr otect a d istinct pop ulation of bull trout. Two years later, a

shovel brigade was organized for th e July 4th weekend to reb uild

the road , despite a judges ruling that the ro ad was to remain closed.

Then in 2001, the Forest Service and th e coun ty came to a settlement

regarding owners hip of the right-of-way to the road. But conser va-

tionists intervened and a judge set aside th at settlement agreement

this June.

That appears t o have triggered a return to the

July 4th tradition. Though this reconstruction

effort wasnt as organized or as large, a visit to th e

road in mid-July found bo ulders mo ved, young

cottonwood s r un-over, and clear evidence of

attempts to op en the entire 1.5 mile stretch of road.Accord ing to th e USFWS the n ew re-op ened road

cros ses th e river sever al times. Vehicles have been

driving directly through th e riverbed, tr ashing this

south ernmost h abitat for bu lltrout.

Well keep you posted on furth er d evelopments

regarding Jarbidge and the South Canyon Road.

For mo re informa tion, see RIPorter4:6.


7/24


New Resources

Check o ut t he Sierra Club s web site for a little Hummerhumor: www.hummerdinger.com or http://sierrac lubmed ia.net/ Here youll find out wheth er youre

compatible with your hummer, wheth er youre a h ummer

hun k, or h ow you, too, can live the h umm er lifestyle!On a more seriou s note , a new childrens boo k was

recently published looking at the impacts of cars o n our

lifestyles...

The Little Driver

By Martin Wagne r, 2003, 56 pages.

Joe always drea mt of driving his own car. When his wish

comes tru e and he takes h is brand-new sports car for a sp in

through town and cou ntry, his adventures soon take a turn

for the un expect ed. A childrens bo ok for you ng and o ld, The

Little Driver takes a fresh look at ou r ob ses sion with carsthrough t he eyes of a boy still young enough to take no thing

for grant ed. Available from h ttp ://www.thelittledr iver.com

New Coa lition Repor t on ATVSafety Crisis

On August 20, the Natural Trails a nd Water s Coalition

joined together once again with the Consumer Federation of

America, Bluewater Network, and do ctor s to release a n ew

repo rt d ocum enting the on going ATV safety crisis. This

report expan ds on o ne issued last year. The Coalition took

the lead in research ing and dr afting this rep ort, which

doc umen ts th e failure of the ATV indus trys volunta ry

approach to safety using previously unpub lished data which

the Coalition and Consumer Federation ob tained through a

Freed om of Information Act (FOIA) req uest . This repo rt a lso

describes and challenges industr ys p ropos al (floated in

June) to abolish voluntary recommendations against the us e

of adult-size ATVs b y children u nde r 16 and put som e

children on the bigger, faster mach ines made for adu lts. The

full repo rt and a pres s release are available at

www.naturaltrails.org.

Effects o f Roa ds on Wild life

The Wilderness Society has recently issued a com pre-

hen sive repo rt e ntitled Ecological Effects of a Trans por ta-

tion Network on Wildlife. It ut ilizes s pat ial analysis to a sse ssthe potential impacts of transpor tation networks on wildlife

within the Upp er Missour i River Breaks National Monu ment .

Acces s th e full repor t at: http ://www.wilderne ss.org/Libr ary/

Documents/MissouriBreaksTransportationEffects.

Imp act s o f Motor iz ed Uses on Wildlife in

Mont a na s Rocky Mounta in Fron t

The Coalition for the Protect ion of the Rocky Moun tain

Front has recen tly issu ed a n ew analysis of scientific

literature assess ing the impacts of motor ized veh icles onwildlife commo n to th is area. This new repor t also offers a

series of recommendations about specific measures that

shou ld be included in travel management plans in order to

avoid such impacts. In addition to general recommenda-

tions, more s pec ific recommen dat ions are offered for lynx,

wolves, grizzly bears , wolverines, cougar, elk, bighorn s heep

and mou ntain goats. Access the full report at:

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents

New Studies On Roa ds a nd Motor ized Use

Wildlands CPR file photo.


8/24


Bosworth Diverting Our AttentionBy Bethanie Walder

In th is era of great po litical diversions, it was

with so me humo r that I read the title of the

Eart h Day speech given b y Fores t Service Chief

Dale Boswort h: Great Issu es and Great Diver-

sions. Bosworth used th is speech and cont inues

to use this language to argue that cons ervationists

are focusing on issues tha t arent a prob lem, while

missing whats really impo rtan t in this ch anging

environment.

For s tarters , Bosworth claims th at th e timber

wars are over and th at roads are no longer a

relevant issue; in his opinion, we should mo ve on

to more impo rt ant matter s. In reality, however,

congres s is about to p ass legislation tha t will re-ignite the co nflict over logging. Bosworth s sp eech

is itself a great d iversion from the iss ues t hat lay in

front of us.

While he d oes not paint the picture as b lack

and white, Bosworth defines t he four great issues

and four great d iversions as follows:

1. Fire and fuel is a great iss ue, while the

bogu s deb ate over logging is a great diversion.

2. The sp read of invasive sp ecies is a great

issue, while the p ublicity sur roun ding individua l

endangered species and the efficacy of the regula-

tory system is a great diversion.3. Habitat fragmentation through land con ver-

sion (ru ral developme nt) is a great issu e, while

grazing on pu blic land s is a great d iversion.

4. Unmanaged o utdoo r recreation is a great

issue, while all the road s th e Forest Service is

supp osedly building to get out th e cut is a great

diversion.

Inte res tingly, 50% of Wildlan ds CPRs wor k

(roads) made it into the great diversion category,

while the ot her 50% (off-road vehicles) mad e it into

the great issue category. From our p erspe ctive,

howeve r, road s and off-road veh icle issues c ant be

neat ly sep arat ed ou t we wouldnt have off-roadvehicle prob lems if we didnt have ro ads .

Bosworth doesn t say categorically that roads

arent a problem. Instead, he says new road

constru ction is no longer an issue and backs it up

by stat ing tha t the Forest Service is remo ving

fourtee n miles of road for ever y one mile they build

(Ill explain the p rob lem with this s tatistic later).

Ironically, new road construction had become less

of a prob lem until the Bush Administration over -

turned th e roadless protection rule. Bosworth s

own opp osition to prot ecting roadless areas ensures that new road

constr uction is indeed a m ajor issue.

Bosworth s dismissal of the p roblems caused by roads is prob-

lematic to h is entire thes is: roads are critical to each an d every o ne of

the great issu es he ou tlines . The majority of wildfires star t in close

proximity to roads. Roads are a primary cause of the spread of

invasive species, both p lant and animal. Roads are a major cause of

hab itat fragmen tation on pub lic and private land s. Bosworth s final

distinction b etween roads an d unman aged recreation takes the cake,

ho wever. Though its a long excerpt , its wor th rep rinting in itsentirety. Bosworth s tated in his speech:

At on e time, we d idnt ma nage th e us e of off-highway

veh icles, either. OHVs [off-highwa y vehicles] ar e a great way

to experience the outdo ors, and only a tiny fraction of the

user s leave lasting trac es by going cross-coun tr y. But the

number of people who own OHVs h as just exploded in recent

years . In 2000, it reach ed almos t 36 million. Even a tiny

perce ntage o f impact from all those m illions of users is still a

lot of impact. Each yea r, we get hund reds of miles of what we

euphem istically refer to as unplanned road s an d trails.

For example, th e Lewis a nd Clark National Forest in

Montana has m ore than a thous and unp lanned roads and trailsreach ing for almos t 650 miles. Thats pret ty typical for a lot of

Ironica l ly, Bosw orths ow n op pos i t ion

to pro tecting road less a reas ensures

that new roa d construct ion i s

indeed a ma jor i ssue.

Mass failures like this one on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest are a reminderthat the problems caused by roads wont simply go away w ith the passage of

time . Wildlands CPR file photo.


9/24


While Bosworth clearly understand s som e of the issues s ur-

rounding motorized recreation, his arguments regarding roads and

off-road vehicles don t hold wate r for a hos t of reasons . First, lets be

clear: most of the 380,000 miles of planned ro ads o n th e national

forests were built for resou rce extraction (to get cut out), and mo st

new road constru ction continues to ser ve resource extraction

(though th e agency does b uild some roads for recreation). Second,

the Forest Service itself adds many miles of unp lanned roads , obscur-

ing their constru ction under t he moniker of tempor ary roads.

Temporar y roads are n ot tracked b y the agency, so there is no way to

determine ho w many miles are b uilt each year nor are th ere

adequ ate standard s for their construction. The Forest Service also

hides new road b uilding behind reconstr uction projects, many of

which could easily be considered new cons truction based o n the

stat us of the existing road b ed. Third, off-road ve hicle users clearly

recognize the connection bet ween roads and motorized recreation

the y are one o f the m ost vo cal and inflexible cons tituencies fighting

against road removal. Fourth , concerned citizens, conservationists,

and land managers have b een push ing the Forest Service to address

the problems cau sed by unlimited off-road vehicle use for years and

the agency has b asically refused. Is Bosworth ready to back up h is

words and d evelop effective, enforceab le and mean ingful regulations

for off-road vehicles?

Bosworth downplays road issues by explaining that the Forest

Ser vice is de comm issioning four teen m iles of road for ever y one mile

the y build. But recent res earch by Wildlands CPR intern Ryan Shafferfound that th e Forest Service does not track their road decommis-

sioning program (rep or t will be available on th e web shor tly). Only

the Siuslaw National Fores t has a dat abas e sh owing what kind o f workis being don e where from gating to culvert rem oval to full

recon tour ing. Because of the pauc ity of dat a, Wildland s CPR intend s

to condu ct some ground-truth ing and deter mine whether road s are

being decommissioned by throwing up gates or b lockades, or b y

actually moving some dirt and removing some culverts on th e

ground . With costs r anging from less th an $1,000 per m ile to more

tha n $10,000 per mile, it seem s clear th at man y different levels of

work are going on. Equa lly impo rta nt in und ers tand ing Chief

Bosworth s s tatement is recognizing that in the p ast few years near ly

40% of road decommissioning has focused on user-created/no n-

system roads.

So we com e full circle, back to th e con nection

betwee n off-road veh icles and ro ads . While

Bosworth claims that road con struction is no

longer a prob lem, the Forest Service is ded icating

near ly half of the ir road dec ommiss ioning mon ey todealing with unau thorized roads cons tructed b y

off-road veh icle user s. In the

mean time, the official road

system continues to erod e along

with falling b udgets .

Any way yo u s lice it, road s

remain one of the biggest th reats

to th e integrity of the nat ional

forests, by increasing the impacts

of every one of the great issues

Bosworth highlighted. If

Bosworth really wants the great issues of the past

to remain in the p ast, then h e sh ould follow in thefootstep s of his predecesso r and guarantee the

protection of roadless areas from road s and

reso urce extr action, while moving away from th e

uneconomical logging and resource extraction of

the p ast. His immediate predeces sor also prom oted

road removal as a means to restore th e health of

national forests. Inst ead, roadless protect ion is

being erode d, new logging prop osals are be ing

promoted , and Bosworth m ay shor tly find himself

back at the center of the timber wars that h ad all

but end ed a few shor t years ago.

Is Bosw or th ready to ba ck up h i s w ords a nd

de velop effective, enforcea ble a nd mea ningful

regula tions for off-roa d v ehicles?

nationa l fores ts, and its on ly going to get wors e. Were see ing

more and mo re erosion, water degradation, and habitat

des tru ction. Were seeing more and mo re conflicts between

use rs. Were seeing more da mage to cultural sites and more

violation of sites sacre d to American Indians. And th ose are

just s ome of the impacts . Were going to have to m anage th at

by res tricting OHV use to d esignated ro ads , trails, and areas .

So th e great issue is unmanaged recreation and th e

great diversion is all the road s th e Forest Service is supp osedly

building to get out the cu t.

A slurry bomber drops a load of retardant on a

fire outside of Missoula, Montana. The majority of

this summ ers fires in the northern Rockies started

in roaded landscapes. Photo by Bethanie Walder.


10/24


Restoration Program Update

By Marnie Criley

With the econom ic study complete (check out our website forthe Summary Report and full study) and two interns hard atwork, the restor ation program has been quite busy this summer. Beth

Peluso, our contract researcher assessing the Clearwater National

Fores ts ro ad re moval pro gram, will return from fieldwork in Septem-

ber to finish her p roject. Her goal is to develop a temp late for a

model road removal program. Maureen Hartmann, one of our s ummer

interns , is already us ing Beth s work to st rate gize a road rem oval

workshop/tr aining curricula geared toward Forest Service per sonnel

and Tribal members. Maureen has already collected training materi-

als, researched training opp ortun ities within the Forest Service and

Tribes, and researched po tential workshop pres enters and sp onsor s.Many agency person nel in th is region have expressed interest in such

a workshop, which would focus on the step s needed to create a

successful road removal program.

Our oth er inter n, Jason Kiely, is d oing outrea ch a nd o rganizing

around the eco nomic study. Jason is working with th ree key groups:

the Mineral County Commu nity Founda tion (MCCF) in west ern

Monta na; th e Gifford Pinch ot Collabo ra tive Wor king Grou p (GPWG) in

Wash ington st ate; and folks in Wallowa co unty in ea ster n Oregon

(wher e a new Management Plan for t he Hells Canyon National

Recreation Area was just released see upd ates ). Mineral Coun tys

landb ase is 84% public land s Pat Hayes, a former u nion organ izer,

hea ds u p MCCF and is organ izing local resident s and environmen tal-

ists to prop ose resto ration projects to br ing high q uality jobs toMinera l Coun ty. Jason an d Marnie have st arte d wor king with Pat to

see h ow road removal projects might fit into th e mix.

Jason is also re aching out to th e Gifford Pinchot Collabo rative

Working Group . This group of local residen ts, comm unity leaders and

environme ntalists in comm unities sur roun ding the Gifford Pinchot NF,

Wildlands CPRs road remov al workshops have educated

and inspired huundreds of activists and concerned citizens

nationwide. Wildlands CPR file photo.

has already come up with a cou ple of projects to

propo se t o th e local Resource Advisory Council.

Again, Jason an d Marnie are hop ing to us e theeconomic study to star t a road removal discussion.

To dat e, it isnt som eth ing the comm unities have

been ready to work on. Perhaps the economics

data will open some do ors.

In o the r n ews, Wildlands CPR joined with Swan

View Coalition, Frien ds of th e Wild Swan, an d

Alliance for t he Wild Rockies in filing a lawsu it in

U.S. District Cour t in Missoula a gainst th e Forest

Service an d Fish and Wildlife Service over p arts of

the Moose Post-Fire Project (Flathead NF, Mon-

tana) . It is our con tent ion that th e project flies in

the face of existing standards for watershed

restoration throu gh road removal. See page 16 ofthe s umme r solstice issue ( Volume 8 #2) ofThe

RIPorterfor mo re inform ation.

Upco ming Events : Marnie will atten d t he

National Network of Fores t Prac titioners annual

meeting in South Carolina in Octob er. Following the

meeting, the Restoration Steering Committee hopes

to have a regional restoration meeting to discuss

rest orat ion on sou the rn pu blic lands. If youre

interested in attending a sout heast regional

restoration meeting, contact our office.

Reseeding helps establish new vegetative cover

quickly. Wildlands CPR file photo.


11/24


Transportation ProgramUpdate

By Bridget Lyons

The b ig news from the Transp ortation Policy

progr am at Wildlands CPR is th e un veiling of

several new tools for conser vation-minded p ublic

lands advocates. In the lastRIPorter, we mentioned

tha t Bridget was working on a Travel Planning

Primer; this resou rce is now available electron i-

cally and s hou ld be available in pr int within th e

next month. In addition to examining the purp oses

and proced ures b ehind Forest Service and BLM

travel planning, this b ooklet sh ows ho w you can

get involved in the political and on-the-ground

process es to s upp ort wildland integrity and q uiet

use . App end ices include legal reso urces , scop ing

and com ment letter templates, sample fact sheets

and p ress releases, and a host of other tools. Wehop e this resou rce will be us eful to thos e just

getting involved in tra vel planning, as well as

seas oned ac tivists se eking new tips. Please get in

touch with us to receive a copy!

In ad dition to th e Travel Planning Primer we

also have an u pdated off-road vehicle p resentation,

available as b oth a slide s how and a Power Point

presentat ion. This resource introduces the public

to th e myriad eco logical and so cial effects o f

motorized recreation. We hop e that th e collection

of disturb ing impact phot ographs coupled with an

explanato ry text and up-to-dat e statistics will

inspire more peop le to get involved with moto rizedrecrea tion issues . To this en d, a What You Can

Do sect ion concludes th e presen tation. If you are

interest ed in h aving a Wildlands CPR staff memb er

pres ent th is show, or if you wou ld like to pr esen t it

on you r own, please give us a call.

Unfortu nately for us , Wildland s CPR also has to

bid Bridget farewell shes d ecided t o retu rn t o

teach ing. Well miss h er te rrific work, but we th ank

her for h er extremely productive stay with us .

Good luck Bridget!

Adam continues to promote road removal

research; he recently presented a pap er at the

Society for Cons ervat ion Biologys a nnu al meeting

in Duluth, MN and at th e Internat ional Conference

on Ecology and Tran sp ort ation in New York.

Between the two conferences he address ed several

hund red research ers summarizing what we

know abou t road rem oval and identifying what

furth er research is needed. Adam is also coordinat-

ing a project on the impacts of road removal on

grizzly bea rs in the nor the rn Rockies. He met with

a group of intere sted university, fede ral, and

private researchers and will continue to explore

research and funding oppor tunities with this group.

Ryan Schafer h as co mpleted an internship with

Wildland s CPR examining where roa d re moval

(decommissioning) is occurring on Forest Service

lands. Ryan called Forest Service offices acros s the

U.S., cond ucted interviews with the ir road sp ecial-

ists, and attained data on co sts and miles of roads

removed. He found t hat some form of road

deco mmissioning is occu rring in mos t of the 155

national forests across the co untr y, however, he

also found great variety in costs an d treatmen ts

between forests. There was no universal treatment

being employed ; road d ecom missioning activities

ranged from b locking road entr ances to full road

obliteration. We hop e to have anoth er intern thisfall who ca n follow this p roject up with ground -

truthing.

Perhap s Ryans mos t impor tant finding is that

more t han 50% of Fores t Service road re moval/

decommissioning work occurs on u ser-created

routes.

Science Program Update

By Adam Switalski

ORV tracks cross an alpine me adow

in the Flathead National Forest,

Montana. Wildland s CPRs

transportation program is giving

citizens the tools neede d to confront

the dam age to public lands caused by

unrestricted ORV use. Photo by Keith

Hammer.


12/24


A Southern RadicalBy Tom Petersen

Dave Petr ig is a sevent y-one ye ar old ret ired lawyer from

Atlanta who b ought 460 acres in western Montana with his

dau ghter. After a few minutes walking with him o n an old

logging road, Petrig paus ed, leaned o n h is walking stick, and care-

fully surveyed th eir purchase. His grey beret sat cocked at an angle

on h is head, and his red and black checked flannel shirt was

crisscrossed with camera and b inocular strap s. He looked part

pionee r, par t p irate. We were in Monta na, Big Sky Coun tr y, the land

of open sp aces, but also th e land of Gold and Silver (th e state motto

is oro y p lata), the land of mining and logging and road s, and n ow,

in some des ired p laces like the mountains of western Montana, the

land of second -ho mes. But Petrig didnt buy th e land to develop it.He bought his Montana d reamland to restore it .

Nope, not going to bu ild o n it, he firmly stat ed, sh aking his

head as we con tinued walking his land. Just going to take th ese old

roads o ut, get a check on the knapweed, and b ring back some of the

streams. I just want to make it a better place.

I turned my ear to wards him to m ake sure I heard him right. Buy

land in Montana and not d evelop it , not subd ivide for a good p rofit,

or pu t in a house and a road and a th ree-car garage?

More o f your kind n eed t o mo ve to Montan a, I told Petr ig, and h e

broke into an easy Southern smile and motioned me to follow him up the

hill.

We walked up and over the peak of the hill and do wn into the d rainage.Take a look at th ese o ld roads and small stream s, he s aid. This stream is

full of silt from the ro ad er osion, so I hired th ese guys to get r id of this road

and clean up the stream . I cant wait to s ee it when t heyre done. He smiled

again, obviously pleased at the th ought, and pu shed up h is beret with th e

tip o f his finger.

Thes e guys were Waters hed Consulting, Inc., a restora tion comp any

based out of Whitefish, Montana. Petrig had hired them to take out some o f

the roads , bring back the st ream, and revegetate the land with native plants.

The land had b een premier elk habitat, but the roads Petrig inherited h ad

fract ured it, as if the land h ad o nce b een like a single plate of glass a

smooth , clean su rface and th en as road after road was built, the glass

sh attered , with jagged lines brea king in every direction.

Later th at same week I saw Watershed Consulting and their b ackhoe

operato rs at work on one o f Petrigs old roads. But after watching them oneafternoon it seem ed th e more tr aditional names for them like Heavy

Equipm ent Ope rato r just d idnt fit. Road Removal Artist came to mind.

But I didnt realize the ir work was a rtful until I saw an op erat or c arefully

transp lanting vegetation onto a road he had just removed. The dirt road

surface had b een ripped with long, three-foot claws set o n the rear of his

backhoe, the culverts removed, and th e slopes pu t back to th eir original

contour.

He gingerly lifted a sno wberr y bus h from a near by hillside and placed it

gently on th e former roadb ed. Its creamy white berr ies clung to th e dark

green stem s. With his small front-end s coop like a thumb ed-hand exten sion

of his own, he du g a two-foot d eep h ole for the s nowberry bush , carefully

David Petrig. Photo by Tom Petersen.

Restore:

To recover to bringback to its originalstate by repairing orrebuilding; to bringback to good health orvigor; to put back in itsformer position; toreinstate or stabilize.

(Websters Dictionary)


13/24


picked up the bu sh with his scoop and lowered it into its new home

on th e forme r road . The han d-like scoo p filled th e hole, nudged s oil

under and aro und the newly transp lanted bush, and tamped it down

almost reve rently with th e back of the bu cket, as if tucking it into bed .

The operator moved to a red willow and du plicated the t rans-

planting from h illside to former r oad bed , and t hen again with a small

Ponderosa Pine, and th en again with a second snowberr y. After ab out

an hour s work, the forme r road looked like a nat ura l hillside again.

On anoth er se ction of the road , streamside , Mark Vand erMeer,

anot her o f the Waters hed c rew, was also tran sp lanting willows and

snowberr y bush es, but Mark was placing them b y hand in the stream

ban k to ho ld the s oil. After he finished planting the willows, he

walked downstream about twenty yards from me and started placing

small logs and branch es in th e stream to b uild s mall fish poo ls-but

then he st opped sudd enly and stared at th e ground, eyes wide-open.

I wondered if someone had b een hur t, or if he d seen b ear sign.

Mark turned toward s me and I saw him bea ming, like one of thos e old

Montana miners must have when they d iscovered gold. Obviously

there was no d anger, but th e bear part I still wasnt sure about; I had

heard abo ut Marks fascination with animals. Mark tur ned and I saw

that he h ad his hands to gether and extended, palms up in an almost

sup plicant mann er, and full of a dar k material.

Its b ear alright, Mark exclaimed , seeing the con cern ed look on

my face. Look at th is old bear s cat, and re ally look at what s in it ! You

couldnt ask for b etter reseed ing than th is!As I walked closer to Marks out stretched hand s, I saw china-red

berries an d cream-colored seeds mixed in what looked like a rich

garden humus, but was really decompos ed bear d roppings.

Seed s an d fertilizer all togeth er, Mark said. I cant believe my

luck. It just can t happ en any better than th is, bears sp reading their

chewed u p seed s on the ground along with their rich fertilizer to get

the seed s going. I love it.

This discovery made Marks d ay. He ha d d iscovered gold. Simple

pleasu res for a rest ora tionist, but th inking more ab out it, I realized

Marks enth usiasm was for a natur al process th at strongly affirms his

own work as an artist, as one who resto res the land.

A few month s later I went again to Petrigs land . I walked back

abo ut a mile, uphill from wher e Mark discovere d th e bear s cat. Thebackhoe op erator h ad worked his way down most of the road, ripping

and tr ansplanting as he went. Some of the native grass s eeds h ad

sprou ted a luminescent light green. With the s lopes recontou red and

dozens o f snowberries and willows tran splanted to look so natural on

the former road , I had to look carefully to see where the road h ad

bee n. He had don e his job well, and the d efinition of resto ration was

being fulfilled: Water she d a nd Petrig were br inging the land b ack to

good h ealth, to vigor.

I laugh to myself realizing that most of these b ackhoe op erators ,

many of whom were former road builders using similar equipment,

would not define th emselves as ar tists, or, as rad icals. But th ey are.

Road remo val is a rad ical act. Radical is sometimes defined as

sh ifting from acce pted or tr aditional forms , and removing roads is

sur ely a shift from trad ition. And wh at cou ld be more r adical in aneconomy b ased on growth, development, and quick profit than to bu y

land solely to resto re it , as witnessed by the south ern gentleman

Dave Petrig?

Tom Petersen is Wildlands CPRs Development Director. He lives in

Missoula, Montana and his essay about the spirit of that town, The

Mountains Rise, The Rivers Sing, The People Dance, will be published

in the August 2003 issue of ISLE, the journal of the Association for the

Study of Literature and the Environm ent.

Mark VanderMeer, of Watershed Consulting, inspects a

clump of old bea r scat, rich in se eds and berries.

Healthy wildlife populations not only benefit from

restoring wildlands, they help facilitate the process.

Photo by Tom Petersen.

Paying attention to details mak es all the difference in

road restoration. Photo by Tom Petersen.


14/24


15/24


In an earlier issue ofThe RIPorter(8.1), we report ed on the Bureau o f Land

Management s (BLM) amen ded regulations for issuing recordable dis-claimers of interest . Their amendment, also called th e disclaimer rule,

made it easier for states an d cou nties to ap ply for d isclaimers docu-

ments in which the federal government formally renounces its interest in a

parc el of land. Along with th eir amend ment , BLM ann oun ced th at An

existing owner of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way may apply for a recordable

disclaimer und er existing regulations or as am end ed in this final rule.

At th e time th e d isclaimer rule was released, cons ervationists were

wondering how it would affect th e p rocessing of numerous co ntentious

R.S. 2477 claims through out th e count ry. A Memorand um of Unde rst and -

ing (MOU) bet ween th e stat e of Utah a nd th e Depar tmen t of the Inter ior

released in April has begun to answer th is question in a way that may

threaten public lands nationwide.

For years, state and county agencies have asserted their rights t o

roads and t rails on federal land by us ing an outdated statute called R.S.2477 (see The RIPorter6.4). R.S. 2477 is a s ect ion o f the 1866 Mining Act

allowing for r ights -of-way to b e gran ted to ind ividu als or a gencies withou t

applying to the government and without any environmental assessment.

R.S. 2477 was r epea led in 1976 by t he Feder al Land Policy Management Act

(FLPMA), however, claims p reda ting 1976 continued t o be h ono red. In th e

past ten years, many ru ral states and counties have us ed R.S. 2477 as a

license to b ulldoze, widen, and pave th eir asserted rights-of-way an d

thereby remove areas from co nsideration for Wildernes s d esignation.

Environmentalists respon ded with litigation, but as progress was being

mad e, Congres s placed a mora tor ium on any furth er R.S. 2477 rulemaking by

federal agencies.

The Memoran du m of Unde rst and ing signed b y Govern or Mike Leavitt of Utah

and Secretar y of the Interior Gail Norton is an at temp t to bring resolution to this

issue. It purpor ts to implement an acknowledgment p rocess to acknowledge

cer tain R.S. 2477 rights -of-way on BLM land within th e st ate o f Utah. The MOU

will use t he disclaimer ru le to ac knowledge R.S. 2477 claims tha t:

Were in existence prior to the 1976 pa ssage of FLPMA;

Are curr ently in use, as proven by ph otos , affidavits, sur veys, etc, for

four wheeled automo biles and trucks;

Have had some p eriodic maintenance; and

Are no t in Wilder nes s Areas, WSAs, Nationa l Parks , or Nationa l Wildlife

Refuges.

The MOU stat es th at t he BLM will only ackno wledge R.S. 2477 rights-of-way

that are unques tionably part o f the state s transpo rtation infrastru cture. Th e

state of Utah h as sub mitted a list of roads t o the Departm ent of Interior for

consideration u nder this MOU.Conser vationists are very concern ed ab out th is MOU both because of the

effects it may have on wild places in Utah an d b ecause o f the precedent it may set

for oth er states . The negotiations leading up to th e MOU were not disclosed to

the p ublic, nor was th ere any op portu nity for p ublic involvement. The disclaimer

pro cess itse lf doe s not allow for any p ublic inp ut. No environme ntal analysis will

accompany the issuance of disclaimers of interest, and it is p ossible for s tates an d

counties to upgrade their rights-of-way once a disclaimer has been issued.

In resp ons e to the se con cern s, Repre sen tative Mark Udall (D-CO) prop osed

an amend ment to th e Departmen t of Interiors App ropr iations bill tha t would have

pro hibited agencies from spen ding tax dollars on proces sing disclaimers. During

discussion on th e House floor, the amendmen t was altered by anoth er amend -

ment, called the Taylor amendmen t,

which th en pas sed o n a 226-194 vote.

The Taylor amen dment prohibits the

pro cess ing of disclaimers on National

Park, National Monum ent, Wildernes sArea, Wilderne ss Stud y Area, and

Nationa l Wildlife Refuge lands . In

do ing so, it pro tects a n add itional 200

million ac res o f land from po tent ial

dam age. The Taylor Amend ment does

not protect as much land as the

original Udall Amend ment would h ave

protected , however, and a variety of

lands including Wild and Scenic

River cor ridor s, National Cons ervat ion

Areas, and b road tr acts of wilderness-

quality BLM and Forest Service land

may still be vulnerable to road expan-

sion and improvement through thepro cess ing of r ight-of-way c laims.

As we await dec isions on ind i-

vidual roads a nd t rails in Utah a nd in

other s tates, it is impor tant that

concerned citizens continue to monitor

th eir loca l agencies for R.S. 2477 claims

and keep in touch with organizations

working on this issue. For more

informa tion ab out the MOU and R.S.

2477, plea se s ee t he R.S. 2477

coalitions webs ite at www.rs2477.org.

Department of Interior and UtahResolve R.S. 2477 Claims

By Bridget Lyons

Future resolution of R.S. 2477 claims is sure to muddy

up the wate r. Photo by Dan Funsch.


16/24


Bibliography Notes sum ma riz es a nd h ighlights

some of the scientific literature in our 6,000 citation

bibliography o n the ecological effects of roads.

We offer bibliographic searches to help activists

access im portant biological research relevant to

roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in

Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Where Have All the Songbirds Gone? Roads, Fragmentation,and the Decline of Neotropical Migratory SongbirdsBy Adam Switalski

IntroductionThere are approximately 250 species of neotropical

migrator y birds, most of which are songbirds. They breed in

North American forests d uring our summer and spend

winters in Central and South America in search of insects,

nect ar, and fruits. These s ongbirds play a major role in

maintaining the h ealth and stability of forested ecosystems

by dispersing seeds, pollinating flowers, and consumingmassive amounts of insects that if unchecked could lead to

defoliating outbre aks. They are also enjoyed by millions of

people.

Although songbirds are arguably the most watched and

beloved of wildlife, the y have exper ienced a significant

dec line in recen t yea rs (Terb orgh 1989, 1992; Finch 1991;

Hagan and John son 1992). This decline is conc erning

because bird pop ulations are indicators of ecological

integrity and are h ighly sensitive to adverse environmental

cha nge (Maurer 1993). This article reviews two impo rtan t

factors roads and h abitat fragmentation in the de cline

of neotropical migratory s ongbirds.

Why are neotropical migrator y songbirds

declining?Songbirds requ ire large amounts of continuous forested

habitat for sur vival and successful reproduction in both

the ir winter ing groun ds in Central and South America

and th eir summer breeding grounds in

North America (Robb ins

1979; Whitcomb et al.

1981; Robbins et al.

1989).

Although much of the birds tropical habitat has b een

degraded, stud ies suggest th at conversion of large tracts of

North American fores t is the leading cause o f the ir decline

(Terborgh 1989; Bhn ing-Gaese 1993). Much of North

Americas forested area has been logged, converted to

agriculture or s uburb an landscap es, and left inhosp itable for

songbirds.

More sub tle causes of habitat loss include the con struc-

tion of roads an d p ower lines. These linear barr iers also

have bee n correlated with a decline in neo tropical migrant

son gbirds (Berkey 1993; Boren et al. 1999; Ortega an d Capen

2002). Whether by forest conversion or th e constru ction of

roads and p ower lines, fragmentation subd ivides hab itat

into smaller and sma ller parce ls. The result is an increas e of

edge habitat, or the bound ary between intact forest and

sur roun ding impa cted area s. Small forests with large

amounts of edge habitat are a ho stile landscape for n esting

neotropical migratory son gbirds. In these areas , songbirds

face two great th reats : 1) the loss o f eggs and ne stlings to

predato rs and , 2) parasitism by cowbirds.

Nest PredationNest pred ation is tho ught to b e a leading cause of

declines in neot rop ical migrator y songb irds (Wilcove 1985;

Andrn and Angelstam 1988; Yahn er an d Scott 1988). Fores t

edges compr ise ideal habitat for many p redators that would

not typically invade a forest ecos ystem, and many oppo rtu-

nistic pred ators concentrate their feeding efforts along

these ed ges. When road s, power lines, or pipelines are

constr ucted t hrough forests, small mammalian preda-

tors s uch as r accoons, oposs ums, skunks, and feral cats

use thes e linear avenues to acces s songbird breeding

grounds and p rey upon their eggs and young. Addition-

ally, egg-eating birds such as American cro ws or bluejays also focus th eir hun ting along forest edges .

Brood Par as itismThe Brown-head ed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) also

thrives along forest ed ges and may po se an even

greater hazard to songbirds than th at posed by preda-

tion (Brittingham an d Temple 1983; Temp le and Cary

1988). Cowbirds are an obligate brood p aras ite, which

means th ey lay their eggs in the nests of other birds and

rely on the host p arents to rear their young. This can

Sedge Wa rbler.


17/24


greatly reduce th e reprod uctive success of paras itized

songbirds because th e host parents dedicate much of their

time feeding the fast-growing cowbird ne stling while ne glect-

ing the ir own young.

Cowbirds are native to th e nort hern Great Plains an d

evolved in close as sociation with b ison; they expanded their

range as European s ettlement brought domes tic cows andgrain thro ugho ut Nor th America. Songbirds d id not evolve

with cowbirds and have only recently been expose d to n est

par asitism. With hund reds of millions of cowbird s now

living throughout the su mmer b reeding range of songbirds,

they will continue to be a great threat.

Other FactorsIn add ition to fragmenta tion and ed ge effects , roads and

other linear b arriers contribute t o the d ecline of songbirds

in others ways. Songbirds are very sens itive to noise and

will avoid ro ads with a large volume o f traffic (Reijnen et al.

1995, 1996). With million s of miles of roa ds in Nor th

America, this rend ers ineffective a huge amo unt o f pot ential

summer b reeding habitat. Songbirds also can be attractedto less-traveled roa ds for grave l to aide in digestion, for

insects and worms on roads ides, and to take dust bath s

(Noss 1995). This can lead to collisions be tween birds an d

vehicles (e.g. Novelli et al. 1988). It is est imated that a

million ver teb rate s are victims of road kill ever y day in the

United States; many of these are s ongbirds . Add itionally,

worms cont aminated by road p ollution can be fatal to the

birds that feed up on th em (Noss 1995).

Conclusions a nd SolutionsNeotropical migratory s ongbirds are b eloved and

provide pr iceless ecosystem services, however, a severe

decline of songbirds has been d ocumented . Many causes for

this decline have been identified. Edges create d from road s,forestr y, agriculture, and su burb anization have resulted in a

num ber o f ecological chan ges for so ngbirds , including

greater susceptibility to nest p redation and broo d par asit-

ism. Habitat fragmentation has crea ted a pop ulation sink in

many of the areas where so ngbirds on ce thrived.

To revers e so ngbirds decline, it will be neces sar y to

preser ve critical summer breed ing habitats and , where

poss ible, protect and restore large tracts of intact forest.

Conser vation efforts shou ld be focused on a regional scale

beca use sm all natu re pres er ves alone will not b e sufficient

to pres er ve songbirds (Askins 1995). Maurer and Heywood

(1993) recommend decreasing timber har vest on remaining

tracts o f extensive forest on pub lic lands. In urb an areas,Hennings and Edge (2003) suggest increasing forest cano py

and reducing street d ensity within a 100-meter radius of

stre ams. Succe ssfully prot ecting and rest oring large

continuous forest tr acts, reducing forest edges, and improv-

ing urban /subu rban h abitats should help slow songbirds

decline.

Ada m Switalski is the Science Program Coordinator for

Wildlands CPR.

Forest edge habitat comprom ises security and gives ne st predators an

advantage. Photo by Messick.

ReferencesAndrn, H., and P. Angelsta m. 1988. Elevated p redation ra tes

as an e dge effect in hab itat islands : exper imental

evidence. Ecology 69: 544-547.

Askins, R.A. 1995. Host ile land sca pe s and th e decline of

migratory songbirds. Science 267: 1956-1957.Berkey, T.U. 1993. Edge effects in seed a nd e gg preda tion at

two neotr opical rainforest s ites. Biological Conservation

66(2): 139-143.

Bhn ing-Gaes e, K., M.L. Taper, and J.H. Brown. 1993. Are

declines in Nort h America insectivorous so ngbirds d ue to

misuse of breeding range? Conservation Biology 7(1): 76-

86.

Boren , J.C., D.M. Engle, M.W. Palmer, R.E. Mast er s, a nd T. Criner.

1999. Land u se ch ange effects o n bree ding bird

community composition. Journal of Range Manageme nt52: 420-430.

Brittingh am, M.C., and S.A. Temple . 1983. Have cowb irds

caused forest songbirds to decline? Bioscience 33: 31-35.

Finch, D.M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirement s,and Cons er vation of Neotrop ical Migrato ry Birds . USDA

Fore st Service, General Techn ical Repo rt RM-205, For t

Collins, Colorad o.

Hagan, J.M., and D.W. Joh nson (e ds .). 1992. Ecology and

Cons ervation of Neotrop ical Migrant Landb irds.

Smithsonian Instution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hennings, L.A., and W.D. Edge. 2003. Ripa rian b ird community

stru cture in Portland, Oregon: hab itat, urb anization, and

spatial scale patterns. The Condor105: 288-302.

Maure r, B.A. 1993. Biologica l divers ity, ecologica l inte grity, and

neotro pical migrant s: new p ersp ectives for wildlife

manageme nt . Pages 24-31 in D.M. Finch an d P.W. Stange l,

editors . Status a nd Management of Neotrop ical Migrator y

Birds. USDA Gener al Tech nica l Rep or t RM-229.Maurer, B.A., and S.G. Heywood. 1993. Geographic ra nge

fragmentation and abundance in neotropical migratory

birds. Conservation Biology 7(3): 501-509.

Noss, R. 1995. The ecological effects of roa ds . Road Rippe rs

Handb ook, Wildland s CPR, Missou la, Mont ana . Available

online at: http ://www.wildlands cpr.org/reso urcelibrary/

reports/ecoleffectsroads.html

continued on next page


18/24


References,continued from previous pa ge

Neotropical migratory songbirds require intact forests in north America.

Photo by S. Lennard.

DrawingbyElizabethOLeary.

Novelli, R., E. Takas e, and V. Cas tro. 1988. Study of birds killed

by c ollision with veh icles in a st retc h o f Highway BR-471,

be tween Quinta an d Taim, Rio Grand e do Sul, Brazil.Revista Brasileira De Zoologia 5: 51-59.

Orte ga, Y.K., and D. Cape n. 2002. Roads as ed ges: effects on

birds in forested landscapes. Forest Science 48(2): 381-

396.

Reijnen, R., R. Fop pen , C. ter Braak, and J. Thisse n. 1995. The

effects of car traffic on b reeding bird p opu lations in

wood land. III. Reduc tion of de ns ity in relation to

proximity of main road s. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:

187-202.

Reijnen, R., R. Fop pen , and H. Meeuwsen . 1996. The effect s of

traffic on de nsity of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural

grasslands. Biological Conservation 75: 255-260.

Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effect of forest fragme nta tion on b ird

po pu lation s. Pages 198-212 in R.M. DeGra af and K.E.Evans, editors . Management of North -Centr al and

Northeas tern Forests for Nongame Birds. Genera l

Technica l Repo rt NC-51. USDA Fores t Ser vice, Nor th

Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Robb ins, C.S., J.R. Sauer r, R.S. Gree nb erg, and S. Droege. 1989.

Population dec lines in North America birds t hat m igrate

to the neo tropics. Proceedings of the National Academ yof Science s o f the United Stat es o f Amer ica. 86: 7658-7662.

Temple , S.A., and J.R. Cary. 1988. Mode ling dynamics of

hab itat-interior bird pop ulations in fragmented

landscapes. Conservation Biology 2:340-347.

Terb orgh , J. 1989. Where Have All the Birds Gone ? Princet on

University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Terb orgh , J. 1992. Why Amer ican songb irds are vanish ing.

Scientific American 26:56-62.

Whitco mb , R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch , B.L. Whitc omb, M.K.

Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystr ak. 1981. Effects of fores t

fragmentat ion on avifauna of the Eastern d eciduous

forest . Pages 125-205 in R.L. Burges s an d D.M. Sha rp e,

editors . Forest Island Dynamics in Man Dominated

Lands cap es . Springer -Ver lag, New Yor k, New York.Wilcove , D.S. 1985. Nest p red ation in fores t trac ts and t he

decline of migrato ry son gbirds. Ecology 66(4): 1211-1214.

Yahne r, R.H., and D.P. Scott . 1988. Effects of fore st

fragmentat ion on d epred ation of artificial nests. Journal

of Wildlife Management52:158-161.


19/24


The Activist Spotlight shares the stories of som e o f

the awesome activists we work with, both as a

tribute to them and a s a wa y of highlighting

successful strategies and lessons learned. Please

em ail your nom ination for the A ctivist Spotlight to

[email protected].

Spotlight on Judith SpencerBy Jen Barry

Judith Spencer and her husb and h ad a vision of a peaceful life,

where she co uld continue her writing and h e could enjoy his

retirement . Their vision never included an intr usive off-road

vehicle (ORV) playground , but after they relocated to th eir dream

hom e in the s mall town o f Arno ld, Californ ia, noise an d tr esp ass from

ORVs at th e near by Interface zone became unbearable. The

Spencers had to keep their windows closed and seldom used th eir

deck becaus e the air was so filled with dus t.

The Interface is an 8,600-acre p arcel of the Stanislaus National

Forest that is surrounded by private land. Thousands of homes are

directly impacted by ORV use, as is wildlife and four major s treams ,

all hea dwater s to t he Calaveras River. Desp ite a forest -wide policy

allowing ORV use on designated tr ails only (i.e. the eighteen miles

of designated Interface trails), ORVs have exte nde d th eir reach t o

more th an 100 miles of additional, unauthorized routes (of these, the

Fores t Service has acknowledged only fifty-five miles).

On a Sierra Club-spon sor ed d ay hike in the su mmer of 1998,

Judith met other area residents disturb ed b y ORVs. Forest Service

perso nnel were on the hike and informed them o f an upcoming public

comment opp ortun ity.

Ten of the h ikers d ecided to organ ize. They forme d Commitment

to Our Recreat ional Environmen t (CORE) and began gen erat ing public

awareness through outre ach to residents in the four surrou nding

towns. Though lacking activist experience, Judith agreed to head the

group, believing the p rocess would b e comp leted and a decision

rendered in four month s.

CORE conducted a sur vey to d etermine how the Interface wasbeing used they found t hat 90% was non-motorized u se and then

encouraged residents to submit comments. The bulk of the com-

ments called either for restricting ORV use t o th e nor thern third of

the Interface, or com pletely removing ORVs. Judith reme mber s

thinking the Forest Service would app reciate learning what the

communities wanted: We had a lot to learn, she now says. On the

last day of the comment period th e District Ranger was tran sferred,

and soon thereafter, the EA was withdrawn with no decision ren-

dered.

When the next EA was issued the vast majority of comments

again called for rest ricting ORVs to th e nor the rn th ird, or excluding

the m ent irely, although the EA still offered no a lternat ive for removing

ORVs. This EA was withdr awn without a d ecision just as a th ird

District Ranger b egan his tenu re.Judith and other CORE members hop ed to reach a com promise

with the ORV recrea tionists, and initiated a stakeholders meeting.

Four local home owner s met with repres enta tives of the Blue Ribbon

Coalition, th e American Motorcyclists Association, Enduro Rider s

Asso ciation, and o ne local rider. These folks turn ed ou t to be well-

paid lobbyists backed by ORV manu facturers . The ORV lobbyists

offered t o give up the lower two-thirds of the Interface as soo n as th e

Forest Service provided an equivalent area for them meaning a

mile of new des ignate d t rail for ever y mile of illegal trail ORVs h ad

created. When this compromise was rejected , the ORV lobbyists

refused to continue th e talks.

Desp ite this, Jud ith has pers isted. CORE

remains a community-based group whose membe r-

ship has grown to 102. They use an ad hoc

approach by meeting only as necessar y, and stay in

comm unication throu gh e-mail and teleph one. In

Febr uar y 2003 CORE joined the Natural Trails and

Waters Coalition (NTWC). According to Judith,

Our as soc iation with NTWC couldnt have come at

a better time. They provided th e oppor tunity for

my meet ing with the DC offices o f our Senator s an d

Congressma n just as the Inter face Trails DEIS was

issued . NTWC provided a grant for our outrea chcampaign, which enabled us to mail or hand

distribu te nea rly 4,000 flyers t o th e comm unity.

And th ey helped us plan for b road med ia involve-

ment the n sec ured an inter view with The L.A.

Times.

The latest public comment period end ed May

19th. This time the DEIS includes an alternat ive for

totally removing ORVs from t he Inter face, and the

vast majority of the more th an 1800 comments

supp ort this alternative. A decision sho uld be

imminent.

Though sh es co ntemplated moving away from

the Interface thinking it would b e easier t o fight

if sh e wasn t living on the bat tlefield Judith sbelief that communities, non-motorized recreation,

and th e environment deser ve protection from ORV

impacts on pu blic land has given her the s trength

to con tinue the campaign. She finds among the

group the needed skills, energy and ded ication to

keep the process moving in a positive direction.

Besides, she s ays, We had to wait for 15 years to

be h ere full time and we don t want to b e forced

to leave. Thanks, Judith for t urning over every

stone and never giving up we hope you ll soo n

be able to enjoy your deck in peace and quiet!

Judith and her dogs on Cougar Rock in the

Interface. Photo by Bob Spen cer.


20/24


The Policy Primer is a column

designed to h ighlight the ins &

outs of a specific road or Off

Road Vehicle policy. If you hav e

a policy youd like us to

investigate, let us kno w!

Travel PlanningBy Bridget LyonsWha t Is Trav el Pla nning?

Travel planning is the process th rough which a land manage-

ment agency creates or designates a transp ortation network and

determines h ow it will be man aged. The end produ ct is a travel

system represented by a travel map that illustrates and d e-

scr ibes the d esignated ro ads an d tra ils in a National Forest o r BLM

Resource Area. Usua lly roads and tr ails are coded to indicate the

type of use for which they are o pen: for example, a red das hed lined

may represent open to motorized use while a do tted black line often

represents ope n to foot tra vel only.

Travel planning is a step in the developm ent of forest p lans and

BLM resource managem ent p lans (RMPs), which are written b y each

forest an d BLM resource area to broad ly guide the planning and use

of land s un der their jurisd iction (43 USC 1712). They are long-term

guidelines, revised e very 10-15 years, that generally designate th e

uses ap propr iate for each sect ion of the forest or resource area. For

example, a forest plan may indicate (through the d esignation of

management areas) that off-road vehicle use is approp riate in a

certain area and that t imber harvest is not app ropriate in another.

Fores t plans and RMPs generally do not d etermine whether or not

dirt b ikes can b e use d on a s pecific trail, for examp le that is the job

of the travel plan.

The law requires forest p lans and RMPs to be

updat ed regularly in order to accommod ate policy

changes, issues raised by the pub lic or b y land

managers, and the res ults of ongoing monitoring

and evaluation (USFS: 36 CFR 219.9; BLM: 43 CFR

1610.5-6). When fores t p lans o r RMPs a re r evised,

travel plans can be created or revised as well.

Sometimes travel planning is assessed at the same

time as the myriad other management issues; other

times, the agency determines that creating a travel

map is to o time cons uming, complicated, or

politically charged to include amids t all the o the r

issues they need to assess. In these cases, the

agency conducts tr avel planning as a sep arate

process , and then releases a notice of intent (NOI)

to develop a travel management plan. The NOI is

pub lishe d in the Feder al Register and mailed to all

individuals and groups on the agencys interested

par ty list. If travel planning has not already come

to a forest or resource area near you, it will soon.

Contact you r local land management agency to

ascertain their plan revision sch edule, and ask

them wheth er or n ot they are likely to make travel

planning a separate p rocess. You can expect the

entire travel planning process to take about two

years.

Whether travel planning is cond ucted as part

of a larger plan revision or a s an individual proces s,

its goals are the same. For each d esignated road

and trail, the tr avel planning process determines

the types of uses (e .g. motorized/non-motorized

recrea tion) th at will and will not be allowed. As

part of this p rocess, travel plans usually address

other recreational issues as well, such as whether

or no t cros s-coun tr y (off-trail) travel by wheeled

and overs now vehicles will be perm itted. Seaso nal

and p erma nent closu res for wildlife and vegetat ionprotection are often addres sed. Plans for stream-

lining the road s ystem and decommissioning and

removing roads also may be included in travel

planning. Signing conventions (e.g. closed unless

signed op en) for the res ource are created and

realignmen ts of trails may be de cided.Decisions on w hich roads to close and reve getate are made through agencytravel plann ing processe s. Wildlands CPR file photo .


21/24


Why Do Tra vel Pla nning?Over time, some ro ads and trails fall into

disuse or disrepair. Others are created legally o r

illegally by the agency or users. These roads

and trails need to be su rveyed and evaluated to

determine whether or no t they should be included

in the transpor tation system or obliterated and

restored. Each year, agencies pas s new manage-

ment directives on s ubjects as d iverse as lynx

habitat and disabled access. Travel plans need tobe upd ated to incorporate th e latest science and

comp ly with new management decisions . Some-

times agencies cite a need for b etter p ublic

edu cation as a reas on for travel planning as well.

In a number of cases, conservation organizations

with off-road vehicle monitoring progra ms or road

and trail surveying programs have tr iggered travel

planning by submitting their data to th e agency

and bringing to light d iscrepancies between

management plan regulations and on-the-ground

reality.

The most com mon reason cited by agencies for

doing tra vel planning, howeve r, is the increas e inrecrea tional use of the land. In prop osa l after

prop osal, agencies descr ibe exponential increases

in visitation o f all types, along with as sociated

increases in user con flicts and resource d amage.

Land managers con sistently mention t hat t he o ff-

road vehicles of today were never anticipated when

the or iginal forest p lans and RMPs were written . Because the explo-

sive growth in the number s and p ower of these mach ines was not

anticipated , motorized use h as be en allowed to grow without limits in

many areas. Current travel planning process es shou ld an d

genera lly do address the n eed for regulating motorized recreation

and new forms of recreation.

Travel Planning GoalsBefore tr avel planning begins, it is impor tant t o det ermine wha t

you want t he final travel plan to look like. This proce ss b egins withsetting goals. General goals that public lands advocates should

purs ue include:

Establish resource p rotection as th e overarching travel

management p riority;

Use science-based decision-making;

Maintain the wild cha ract er of the land;

Streamline the travel system;

Accou nt for pot ential growth in recre ational use; and

Maintain or re-estab lish q uality non -moto rized recreational

experiences.

Motorized recreation planning is o ften at the heart of travel

planning, and you shou ld consider es tablishing goals for th is aspect

of the process. Because of the years of hard work invested b y

conservationists and non-motorized recreationists, it can finally be

said that mo st land managers are aware of the impacts of motorized

recreat ion. While agency officials may or may not act u pon t his

knowledge, most acknowledge th at mo torized recreation requires

careful oversight and active management. These are b asic principles

to follow:

Prohibit cross -countr y travel by m otorized vehicles;

Restrict off-road veh icle use to d esignated ro utes o nly;

Designate routes through a pub lic proces s which includes

full Nationa l Enviro nme nt al Policy Act ( NEPA) an alysis;

Create a closed unless signed open signing convention;

Permit ORV use only when fund ing allows for ade qua te

monitoring and enforcement;

Limit multiple-use t ra ils; and

Prohibit mot orized us e in all Wilder ness Areas , propo sed

Wilderness areas, wilderness-quality areas, and roadless areas.

How can individuals and organizations supp orting ecosystem

health and q uiet use advocate for the goals listed above? Participat-

ing in th e agencies pro cess es, po litical organizing, and on-the-

ground dat a collection are ess ential to creating and implementing a

mod el travel plan. These st eps are th e sub ject of Wildlands CPRsnewest resource, the Travel Planning Primer. This boo klet with lead

you thro ugh the travel planning process step -by-step and p rovide you

with th e tools you nee d to create goals and objectives, write com-

ment letters, organize diverse cons tituencies and more. Please

cont act ou r office to receive a copy of the full doc umen t.

Bridget Lyons was Wildlands CPRs Transp ortation Policy

Coordinator.Road maintenance, public lands access and

travel restrictions are some of the issues

addressed in travel planning. Photo by Mark

Alan Wilson.


22/24


Refer a friend to Wildlands CPR!Send us the names and addresses of friends you think may be inter-

ested in receiving membership information from Wildlands CPR.

Wildlands CPRPublications

To order these publications, use theorder form on nex t page

Road-Rippers Handbo ok ($20.00, $30.00 non-

members) A comp rehens ive activist

manual th at includes the five Guides listedbelow, plus Th e Ecological Effect s o f

Roads , Gathe ring Information with t he

Freedo m of Information Act, and mo re!

Road-Rippers Guide t o th e National Forest s ($5,

$8 non-members ) By Keith Hammer.

How-to p roced ures for getting roads

closed and revegetated, descriptions of

environmental laws, road d ensity

stand ards & Forest Service road policies.

Road-Rippers Guide t o th e National Parks ($5,

$8 non-members ) By David Bahr & Aron

Yarmo. Provides background on the