Winter Solstice 2007. Volume 12 No.
Restoring Montana,
One Collaboration at a Time
By Marnie Criley
Inside…
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2
Restoring Montana, by Marnie Criley. Pages 3-6
Regional Reports & Updates. Page 7
DePaving the Way: Things aren’t always what they
seem, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 8-9
Diverse interests came together to find common ground, and crafted the
Restoration Principles for Montana. Photo courtesy of Montana Forest
Restoration Working Group.
Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation New Resources. Pages 19
Program Updates. Pages 10-11
Citizen Spotlight: Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, by
Policy Primer: The ABCs of Travel Planning, by Sarah Peters Bethanie Walder. Pages 20-21
and Adam Rissien. Pages 12-13
Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23
Odes to Roads: Beach Bums, by Ted Williams. Pages 14-15
Biblio Notes: Just a Few Bad Apples?, by Jason Kiely and
Chris Kassar. Pages 16-18 Check out our website at:
www.wildlandscpr.org
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org

FS Shell Game Thwarts Road Fix Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore
wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing
roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are

I
a national clearinghouse and network, providing
n June, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) wrote to the Forest Service asking some point-
citizens with tools and strategies to fight road
ed questions about management of their road system. In October the Forest Service construction, deter motorized recreation, and
finally responded — the unfortunate thing is that even though Senator Cantwell asked promote road removal and revegetation.
some good questions, she didn’t get many good answers.
Director
A few things are painfully clear from the agency’s response: Bethanie Walder

• The Forest Service does not have a good sense of how its road system is impacting Development Director
national forest resources, and what it would take to reduce those impacts; Tom Petersen
• The Forest Service is playing a shell-game with maintenance costs and road clas-
sifications, rather than seeking critically needed funding to bring their road system up to Communications
Coordinator
minimum water quality or wildlife standards; Jason Kiely
• Roads are being indiscriminately closed to address funding shortfalls, not to ad-
dress resource management needs. Restoration Program
Coordinator
The letter to Cantwell revealed a disturbing approach to the funding problem. The Marnie Criley
Forest Service first pointed out that federal regulations require that “management of the
system of NFS roads be conducted in a manner that is sustainable with current levels Science Coordinator
of funding …” (36 CFR 212 A). (Wildlands CPR strongly supports this policy in concept, Adam Switalski
unfortunately, agency efforts to implement it are fatally flawed.) The letter then explains
that it is agency policy to reduce the service level of roads to a level that can be sustained Legal Liaison/Agency
with expected funding. The result? Fewer roads are available for passenger vehicles, Training Coordinator
and more roads are either closed or open only to high clearance vehicles. This backward Sarah Peters
thinking only exacerbates natural resource damage, and potentially increases public an-
Montana State ORV
ger over access. Not to mention that even with these reductions, there is still a $5 billion
Coordinator
backlog, so they remain out of compliance with their own policies.
Adam Rissien
The Forest Service should have enough money to maintain their road system, but
Program Associates
this means increasing funding, not decreasing maintenance. The Forest Service is in
charge of the largest road system in the world, and the bulk of it is in a terrible state of Cathy Walters Adams & Andrea Manes
disrepair, wreaking havoc on America’s natural resources and natural heritage.
Membership/Web
The American taxpayer will continue to pay for these roads, either in a proactive way Marketing Associate
by investing in needed maintenance and restoration (thereby preventing new damage), Josh Hurd
or in a reactive way, by paying to clean up the messes and clean up our water, when the
roads fail. A significant portion of the road system is no longer needed and could be Utah State ORV
restored to natural conditions. The agency should first determine the minimum road sys- Coordinator
Laurel Hagen
tem needed, and then manage their funds and roads to realize that minimum system. Re-
storing unneeded roads to natural conditions should be an important part of this process. Journal Editor
Dan Funsch
This letter from the Forest Service provides a disturbing look at how the agency is
managing (or not managing) its road system. With limited knowledge about the extent of Interns & Volunteers
the environmental impacts of Forest Service roads and even less motivation to solve the Carla Abrams, Mike Fiebig, Marlee Ostheimer,
problem effectively, the agency is instead playing an ecologically dangerous shell game Ginny Porter
that will only result in greater impacts on the ground. We’re working to prevent that.
Board of Directors
Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish,
To read the letter, go to www.wildlandscpr.org/files/NFsroadsresponse.pdf William Geer, Dave Havlick, Chris Kassar,
Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson

© 2007 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Restoring Montana,
One Collaboration at a Time
By Marnie Criley, Restoration Coordinator

I
n February 2007 I took my puppy to a newly
formed collaborative’s first meeting to draft a
set of Montana restoration principles. I knew
some folks; others I’d recently met for the first
time. People in the group held different views
about how national forest lands in Montana
should be managed, but we had agreed to come
together to find common ground around the
issue of forest restoration. We knew it wasn’t
going to be an easy process, but the tension
in the room was at least in part eased by the
presence of a 3 month old, floppy-eared beagle
named Gypsy, who tried to drink our coffee and
fell asleep on my pile of restoration documents.
Over the next 6 months, both Gypsy and our
collaborative grew from infancy to maturity.
Photos courtesy of
Our collaborative did it through a process that I
Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.
think is worth reflecting upon.

Collaboration seems to be the current “solution” for dealing with natu-

ral resource issues. Collaborative groups are forming all around the West
to deal with issues ranging from fuels reduction around communities to
motorized recreation on public lands. While I’m not convinced collabora-
tion is the answer to all our natural resource dilemmas, the Montana resto-
ration collaborative that Wildlands CPR is involved in holds great promise
for accomplishing ecologically sound restoration projects in Montana.

In January 2007, the National Forest Foundation and Artemis Common

Ground convened thirty-four representatives of conservationists, motor-
ized users, outfitters, loggers, mill operators, and state government and
Forest Service officials to discuss the possibility of writing a set of prin-
ciples that might help guide the restoration process on national forests in
Montana. These principles would represent a “zone of agreement” where
controversy, delays, appeals, and litigation are significantly reduced.
While we recognized that there were some strong differences of opinion
in the room, everyone agreed that the effort was worth pursuing — we all
wanted to see restoration projects occur on the ground that would provide
both ecological as well as community benefits.

At that first meeting the group brainstormed a list of 60 restoration

vision categories and restoration attributes. We formed three subcommit-
tees: one to work on a set of restoration principles, one to come up with
a plan to implement those principles, and one to plan a field trip to talk
about restoration outside of a meeting room. We named ourselves the
Montana Forest Restoration Working Group and set a deadline of August 1,
2007 to complete the principles and an implementation plan. I volunteered
to chair the Vision and Principles Subcommittee as well as serve on the
Steering Committee to help guide the larger effort.

— story continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007 3

 — Restoring Montana,
continued from page 3 —

Over the course of the next six months, our Vision and
Principles Subcommittee met face-to-face for nearly 50 hours
to hash out a set of principles that everyone could agree on.
The core Principles Subcommittee consisted of 10 people
representing conservation groups, the Forest Service, timber
mills and motorized recreation. We reviewed and took ideas
from several other restoration principles, including the
Citizen’s Call for Ecological Restoration that Wildlands CPR
co-authored several years ago. I think one of the keys to our
success was that we meshed as a group almost immediately,
thanks in large part to everyone’s sense of humor, as well as
their firm belief that these principles could really make a dif- Getting out on the ground helped shift the group’s focus
ference in accomplishing needed restoration work in a timely from a potential ideological divide to a pragmatic, results-
manner. It also helped that members had experience with oriented approach. Photo courtesy of Montana Forest
other collaborative efforts. Finally, the involvement of the Restoration Working Group.
Forest Service was essential to making the principles a viable
tool for the agency to utilize. hazard to say that some friendships were started in the
process. Subcommittee members admitted to me that they
Now don’t think that we had smooth sailing all through enjoyed our four and five-hour gatherings. I agreed to meet
the process. Roads, fire and the commercial use of wood on my 40th birthday and my fellow subcommittee members
products were some of the issues we had to spend extra time brought me a birthday cake.
on in order to reach consensus. However, by being honest,
by talking issues out and by really listening to each other, we
were able to find common ground. It required some give on
everyone’s part — in order to make this work we would all While none of us have changed our
have to leave our comfort zones and explain our positions to fundamental positions, I think we
people who might not think like we do.
all were changed by the process.
At times I questioned whether I was “giving in” too
much on issues in order to reach consensus — I imagine all
involved had those gut check moments where they realized
On August 1, the Montana Forest Restoration Working
that they were representing a constituency of people, be it
Group approved the thirteen principles (see next page) and
environmentalists or loggers, who expected us to speak up
the implementation plan. Next, the group agreed to change its
for their interests. The key is to figure out what can work for
name to the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC)
your interests as well as the interests of the person sitting at
— reflecting its new mission to see that the Principles and
the table with you. It’s hard work but as you struggle through
Plan are put into practice. Finally, every member of the group
it, you realize the process is almost as important as the end
agreed to serve on the new MFRC and we added three new
product. You get to know the mill worker as a person and you
people to the Steering Committee.
start understanding his or her perspective better. I would
While none of us have changed our fundamental posi-
tions, I think we all were changed by the process. Of course,
now comes the really hard part — putting the restoration
principles into practice on the ground. My hope is that our
success with this initial effort will fuel our commitment to use
these principles to get ecologically appropriate restoration
projects happening on Montana’s national forests; restoration
projects that put ecological needs first while also addressing
economic and social needs including community vitality.

On November 1, we had the first meeting of the Lolo

Restoring roads will provide steady work for heavy equipment operators
and others. Road removal in progress on Arapaho-Roosevelt NF (CO)
Photo by Wendy Magwire, U.S. Forest Service.
Forest Restoration Committee, a collaborative group whose
purpose will be to work with the Lolo National Forest to
design restoration projects consistent with our Restoration
Principles. Wildlands CPR will continue its involvement in
this process and continue to push for road removal to be a
key component of restoration projects on Montana’s national
forests.
For more information, go to www.montanarestoration.org

4 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

 Restoration Principles
T
he following principles should be applied when planning and executing all forest
restoration work on national forest lands in Montana. Projects should adhere to all
applicable principles. Parties working on restoration projects should:

1) Restore functioning ecosystems by enhancing ecological processes: Re- 5) Reestablish fire as a natural pro-
store ecosystems and biotic composition to achieve ecological integrity through cess on the landscape: Reestablishment
recovery of species diversity, water quality and quantity, soil quality and function, of natural fire regimes may be accom-
terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and resilience. Project design will utilize adaptive plished through Passive or Active Man-
management, recognizing the dynamic character of ecosystems and the unpredict- agement. Passive Management allows
ability of the future. Active and Passive Management strategies (see Appendix A for for natural processes to take place by
definitions) will be used to attain desired ecosystem objectives and future condi- not suppressing natural fire starts, sub-
tions. ject to cultural and social constraints.
Active Management includes silvicultur-
2) Apply adaptive management approach: Restoration will be conducted al treatments and/or the reintroduction
through adaptive management that includes assessment, project design, implemen- of fire as prescribed fire. Mechanical
tation, research and monitoring. Adaptive management is an approach to natural treatments may be needed in order to
resource policy that embodies a simple imperative: actions are experiments; learn reintroduce fire. Restoration activities,
from them. The process does not necessarily follow a specific pattern, but rather including design and implementation,
is dynamic and responds to inputs and outcomes at any point along the way (See should be tailored to the fire regimes of
Figure 1). each forest type (see Appendix B).
Fire is used to both achieve ecolog-
3) Use the appropriate scale of integrated analysis to prioritize and design ical objectives and ultimately increase
restoration activities: Use landscape, watershed and project level ecosystem public understanding and acceptance of
analysis in both prioritization and design of projects unless a compelling reason to fire as a natural process. Once fire is re-
omit a level of analysis is present. While economic feasibility is essential to project introduced, natural or prescribed fires
implementation, priorities should be based on ecological considerations and not be could be implemented or permitted on
influenced by funding projections. a natural interval thereby restoring this
fundamental process within the forest
4) Monitor restoration outcomes: Monitoring is essential for determining the community.
effectiveness of implemented restoration projects. Baseline measurements, project
monitoring, and the incorporation of research complete the information feedback 6) Consider social constraints and
loop used in future project design. Monitoring must be conducted at multiple seek public support for reintroducing
scales. fire on the landscape: The use of fire in
restoration will require a commitment
to ecological principles combined with
sensitivity to social constraints. Cur-
rent and expanding human occupation
of forest landscapes, carbon dioxide
release, clean air regulations, and other
factors may limit the widespread return
of fire. As such, where the risk of social
backlash is high, the use of fire will
move forward only when broad public
support can be gained. Proper use of
fire as a component of restoration,
combined with community outreach,
can enhance public support and under-
standing over time.

Principles continue
on next page
Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.
More information, background, figures
and appendices are available on the
website: www.montanarestoration.org

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007 5

— Restoration Principles, continued from previous page —
7) Engage community and interested parties in the
restoration process: Community involvement and support
enhances the ability to achieve restoration on the ground.
Successful restoration seems to occur when there is a
consensus building, grassroots collaborative group whose
mission is to coordinate efforts that enhance, conserve and
protect natural resources and local lifestyles for present and
future generations. Restoration efforts should be developed
jointly by agency staff, community members, and other
interested parties. This cooperation will lead to better and
more productive outcomes and the wide range of knowledge,
opinions, and interests will contribute to project design and
implementation. Finally, landscape level approaches are more
efficient and effective than smaller individual project efforts
and should lead to increased quality of life and a greater
sense of connection to the landscape.
8) Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat and connec-
tivity: Restoration projects should enhance habitat for the
complex of terrestrial and aquatic species that are native to
the target location or ecosystem. Projects should, when eco-
logically beneficial, enhance habitat connectivity to promote
free migration and movement of native species between and
through natural landscapes. Enhanced connectivity does not
preclude future active management.
9) Emphasize ecosystem goods & services and sustain-
able land management: Restoration activities should lead
to the sustained abundance of ecosystem goods & services
within the landscape. Ecosystem goods & services encom-
pass human derived goods and services from ecological
landscapes and sustainable ecosystems. Restoration activi-
ties should be evaluated for the potential to influence these
services and provide goods.
10) Integrate restoration with socioeconomic well-being:
Restoration efforts must enhance long-term social benefits
and be economically feasible to ensure success. Restora-
tion activities should emphasize landscapes that provide
sustained employment opportunities, and maintain thriving
communities, both rural and supporting urban areas. Com-
Photo courtesy of Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007
munities should benefit from restoration in numerous ways
including employment opportunities, healthy living environ-
ments, and intact infrastructures. A sustainable, vibrant,
integrated forest industry infrastructure is critical to imple-
mentation of viable restoration projects involving vegetative
management by providing necessary equipment, expertise
and markets to help offset restoration costs.
11) Enhance education and recreation activities to build
support for restoration: Promote education and recreation
activities and facilities which interpret and complement the
natural function of the ecosystem. Education and recreation
activities on national forest lands are highly important and
can provide opportunities for people to both observe and
appreciate restoration efforts.
12) Protect and improve overall watershed health, in-
cluding stream health, soil quality and function and riparian
function: Restoration activities should focus on restoring and
maintaining properly functioning conditions in high value
watersheds and riparian areas. Stream bank, stream channel
and stream crossing restoration and improvements in priority
watersheds are critical to achieving watershed health and
resiliency to allow for functioning hydrologic conditions and
aquatic habitat. Restoration projects should include efforts to
minimize long-term soil degradation and erosion and should
also strive to improve soil productivity, increasing soil water
infiltration rates and water holding capacity.
13) Establish and maintain a safe road and trail system
that is ecologically sustainable: National Forest System roads
and trails provide important access for land management
activities and public use. However, many national forests cur-
rently have some roads and trails that are adversely impact-
ing watersheds and wildlife. The Forest Service, along with lo-
cal communities and interested parties, should analyze which
roads and trails will be maintained, constructed, reconstruct-
ed, or decommissioned to address ecological concerns and
access needs. Road and trail restoration and maintenance can
improve wildlife and fisheries habitat, protect watersheds,
and improve public access.
Lewis and Clark National Forest
Releases Two Travel Plans
The Lewis and Clark National For-
est (LCNF) released two separate travel
plans on October 1. One covers the
Jefferson District, while the other cov-
ers the Rocky Mountain Front Division,
evaluating both summer and winter mo-
torized travel and recommending road
mileage for closure. It appears that the
LCNF decided to simultaneously pro-
tect the majority of the Rocky Mountain
Front from motorized recreation, while
keeping other areas open to it.
That said, even the Jefferson Dis-
trict, which covers nearly one million
acres, adopted a plan that significantly
improves conditions on the ground.
And that’s a good thing: in the Little
Belt Mountains alone there were nearly
1,200 miles of bladed roads, 436 miles
of “high clearance roads,” and more
than 500 miles of trails open to off-road
vehicle use. By contrast, only 62 miles
had been previously designated as qui-
et trails. While the majority of routes
and roads remain open to motorized
use, the number of trails designated
for non-motorized use increased to 573
miles in the new plan. That’s nearly a
tenfold increase in areas designated for
traditional, active recreation.
Snowmobilers head out
into another season.
Photo by Will Tardy,
courtesy of Flickr.com.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007
The largest blocks designated for
non-motorized transportation include
about three-fourths of the Middle Fork
of the Judith Wilderness Study Area,
most of the Tenderfoot drainage and
most of the Deep Creek/Smith River
Corridor. But these are just two of 14
inventoried roadless areas; the rest
were not substantially protected. It is
critical for roadless areas to remain free
of motorized recreation, and the Jeffer-
son plan is problematic in this sense.
On the other hand, the bulk of the
Rocky Mountain Front was protected
from motorized recreation. While the
new plan is far from perfect, it views the
Front as a place for hikers and horse-
men, while offering motorized access
along certain existing roads. This is
probably one of the more restrictive
plans we will see. Kudos to the Coali-
tion to Protect the Rocky Mountain
Front and others, for their hard work
to elevate the status of this area as a
mecca for traditional recreation, and to
so clearly articulate the impacts motor-
ized recreation has on clean water,
wildlife and other recreationists. More
information on the Coalition’s work can
be found at http://www.savethefront.
org/issues/motorized.php.
YNP Snowmobile
Update
It’s winter in Montana, which
means that it’s time to update the
snowmobile situation in Yellowstone
National Park. Just in case you haven’t
followed this, the Park Service changes
their winter recreation management
nearly every year, as they struggle to
adopt a snowmobile plan that will be
legally and politically defensible. It’s a
bit confusing, but while the current de-
cision technically (on paper) decreases
the number of snowmobiles in the
park, it actually allows nearly twice the
number of snowmobiles that have been
using the park during the past three
years. The low numbers of snowmobile
visitors during the past few years has
led to vastly improved winter condi-
tions, and these gains could be lost
under the new decision if snowmobile
numbers begin to increase again.
On November 20, the Park Superin-
tendent Suzanne Lewis signed a Record
of Decision (ROD) on a long-term plan
to guide management of winter use in
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks. The plan “reduces the daily
number of snowmobiles (from the num-
ber called for in the Draft EIS preferred
alternative, 720) to . . . 540 snowmobiles
per day in Yellowstone and 65 snowmo-
biles in Grand Teton and the Parkway.”
The Park’s scientists actually recom-
mended capping snowmobile use at
levels closer to the actual use for the
past three years, (approximately half of
what the agency says they will allow).
The new decision will increase the
noise influence of snowmobiles from
the current zone of 21 square miles to
63 square miles. In addition, the new
decision will increase wildlife impacts,
air and water pollution.
Greater Yellowstone Coalition,
National Parks Conservation Associa-
tion, The Wilderness Society, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Winter
Wildlands Alliance, and Sierra Club
have announced that they will seek a
court review of this decision.
7
Closed Roads: Open for Business?
By Bethanie Walder

H
ere in the U.S., and pretty broadly throughout the
western world, people have become accustomed to
the concept that “no means no.” While this slogan
was created by activists working to end violence against
women, and especially date rape, the meaning can and should
apply to other things as well.

No should mean no, in whatever context it is used,

including public land management. Unfortunately right now, it
seems that on national forests, that might not be the case. In
the past few years, the Forest Service has started a new trend
to promote motorized recreational use on gated roads. I don’t
know about you, but when I see a locked gate across a road,
I assume that means I shouldn’t drive on that road. I assume When the dust settles, will the Forest Service send a
that the gate means the road is closed. I also think that most consistent message to off-roaders? Wildlands CPR file
people who see locked gates across roads assume the same. photo.
I’ve been trained to understand that no always means no, and
that locked gates mean that things are closed.
There is a catch — there are ML1 roads for which the
Forest Service has issued a formal closure order — to pro-
When Closed Means Open tect wildlife, clean water or other natural resources. These
closure orders are legally enforceable, and they clearly state
With their new approach to off-road vehicle use, the
what uses are prohibited on the road or trail in question. In
Forest Service is reversing this basic concept, and reversing
most instances, the agency will post a sign at the gate, indicat-
any gains they might have been making in enforcing limits on
ing the specifics of the closure. The confusion comes in when
off-road vehicle recreation. Forest Service staff have been ac-
the FS has downgraded roads to lower maintenance levels,
tively promoting the use of “maintenance level 1” (ML1) roads
including ML1, without issuing closure orders and without
for motorized recreation. The problem is that ML1 roads are,
posting signs (and sometimes without installing gates). The
by definition, closed.
secondary confusion comes in when signs explaining the
closures are vandalized and removed. Then, all that’s left is
According to the Forest Service Handbook, maintenance
a gate (if it hasn’t been vandalized as well). If the Forest Ser-
level one is “assigned to intermittent service roads during the
vice aggressively promotes the use of motorized recreation
time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period
on some gated, closed roads, but not on others, then how are
must exceed 1 year. . . . Appropriate traffic management
drivers ever supposed to know what a gate means when they
strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.” Roads receiving
see one. It’s just nonsensical, and extremely counterproduc-
level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class or construc-
tive to their efforts to manage motorized recreation.
tion standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance
level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while
being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traf-
fic, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses.”
FSH 7709.58, 12.3
Instead of the new travel planning
The last time I checked, off-road vehicles were “vehicular process improving enforcement
traffic.” But this is where the Forest Service seems to forget
that no means no. Because definitions in the Forest Service
capacity for the agency, it may
Handbook are not necessarily enforceable in a court of law, very well encourage riders to drive
the Forest Service has decided that they can flout this defini- around gates.
tion by not just allowing, but promoting motorized use behind
the gates. The Bitterroot National Forest, for example, has
recently updated their visitor map to promote motorized use
on numerous ML1 roads.

8 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

 When finished with the ongoing travel planning process, each forest
will issue “motor vehicle use maps” (MVUMs) that show where vehicles
are and are not allowed. If the map recently issued by the Bitterroot
National Forest is any indication (although it’s not a formal MVUM), new
MVUMs will show some ML1 roads, many of them likely gated, as open
to motorized use by off-road vehicles. Instead of the new travel planning
process improving enforcement capacity for the agency, it may very well
encourage riders to drive around gates. So perhaps we need to start a new
campaign on public lands, with a mantra of “closed mean closed,” because
the Forest Service doesn’t seem to understand the consequences of their
proposed actions.
The Montana Conservation Corps works to revegetate a removed
road and landing. Photo by Adam Switalski.
What’s in a Name?
This contradictory management policy is further exacerbated by the
agency’s newly adopted (2005) definitions of roads and trails. Can you spot
the difference?
Road: “A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified
and managed as a trail.”
Trail: “A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide
that is identified and managed as a trail.”
The basic meaning of these two definitions is that a road is a road, un-
less we manage it as a trail, and vice versa. However, as if exploiting their
own loophole, the agency is now promoting motorized use behind closed
gates by considering a double classification for many ML1 and ML2 roads
(those suited only for high-clearance vehicles) — they are “roads” and they
are also “motorized trails.” In other words, an ML1 road can be simultane-
ously classified as a closed road, and as a trail open to motorized use. Such
a road could have a gate across it to prohibit passenger cars, but it would
be legal for ORV users to drive around the gate to use the road.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service does not have trail density standards
to protect wildlife or aquatic resources. By obliterating the line between
road and trail, between motorized and non-motorized access, the agency
has made it nearly impossible to manage roads and trails from a biological/
ecological perspective (though some national forests do appear to include
motorized routes when calculating open road densities). Nonetheless,
if you reclassify a road as a trail, all of a sudden your road maintenance
backlog has dropped, your road density has dropped, your wildlife man-
agement requirements have changed, etc. But the reality is that the same
impacts are still occurring on the ground, the same impacts to water qual-
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007
ity and wildlife, for example, but those impacts
are no longer accounted for in the same way,
since they are being caused by “trails” instead of
“roads.”
If the Forest Service wants to enable off-road
vehicle riders to legally drive on Forest Service
roads (most ORVs are not street legal, so they
are not allowed on FS roads unless specific ex-
ceptions have been made in state law), then they
should either reclassify the roads as ML2 (which
requires more maintenance), or they should
create a new travelway definition for “motorized
routes,” and those motorized routes should be
managed with the same natural resource require-
ments as roads.
End of the Road
As part of travel planning, numerous forest
managers are making the line between trail and
road so blurry that it is not even visible. Further,
they are promoting actions that will seriously
impact their capacity to enforce any new travel
restrictions. It’s time for the agency to ensure
that “closed means closed,” and to make a clear
distinction that roads (and if necessary, motor-
ized routes) are for motorized use and trails are
for non-motorized use. Non-motorized recre-
ationists and wildlife advocates must demand
that the agency provide this clarity for all forest
users, and that the agency apply the concept
of “closed means closed.” One of the primary
purposes of the new travel planning process was
to address the threat of unmanaged recreation.
It’s laughable to think that promoting motorized
use on closed roads will help the agency manage
recreation more effectively.
Riders’ tracks violate another closure, while
the Forest Service send mixed signals to riders.
Wildlands CPR file photo.
9
Program Updates, Winter 2007
By Jason Kiely

Restoration Program

T
here’s no way around it: watershed restoration costs money. As
reported in the previous issue of The Road RIPorter, Representative
Norm Dicks (D-WA) earmarked $65 million in the House Interior Ap-
propriations bill for the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation program. The
Senate’s Interior Appropriation bill earmarked $55 million for forest health
projects, but contained no provision for road remediation. As a result, Sue
Gunn, Wildlands CPR representative in Washington, and Executive Director
Bethanie Walder mobilized to reach out to environmental organizations in
other states to contact their Senators and urge them to add comparable
funding in the Senate bill. Wildlands CPR prompted and/or helped craft
sign-on letters from partner organizations in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico.

Wildlands CPR is also helping other westerners learn about the bene-
fits of road removal. Restoration Coordinator Marnie Criley and Wildlands
CPR board member Rebecca Lloyd addressed 50 leaders from eight states
when they led a road restoration panel at the ground-breaking “Pay Dirt”
conference organized by Western Progress, a new think tank. The confer-
ence was focused on building a restoration economy in the intermountain
west; road removal could be a key part of such economic development.

Science
Science Coordinator Adam Switalski collected interesting data on
the ecological effects of road removal on the Clearwater National Forest
(ID), where Rebecca Lloyd has been working with the Nez Perce Tribe for
years to restore salmon fisheries and wildlife habitat by decommissioning
unstable and unnecessary roads. As reported on the front page of a recent
edition of The Missoulian, preliminary results of ongoing field monitoring
reveal that bear and moose are found in greater numbers on decommis-
sioned and removed roads, respectively. The project also captured images
of wolf and cougar on removed roads.
Adam is working with another Board member, Cara Nelson, a restora-
tion professor in the School of Forestry and Conservation at the University
of Montana, to test the effectiveness of different native seed mixes for
use on removed roads. Adam and a graduate student have been scouting
out possible study sites on the Clearwater and Kootenai National Forests
(MT).
And on the Flathead National Forest (MT), Adam collaborated with
the Forest Service and local group Northwest Connections to plant local,
native seeds to help reduce erosion and invasion of weeds along old log-
Elk captured by remote camera on a removed road
on the Clearwater National Forest. Wildlands CPR file
photo.
ging roads in a highly roaded and logged area
recently acquired from Plum Creek Timber. The
land is in a grizzly bear corridor, and we are
helping restore this key linkage.
Adam did spend some time in the office. On
the ORV side, he made critical contributions to
the Izaak Walton League of America, providing
them with a review of the impacts of off-road
vehicles to fish and wildlife for inclusion in their
new report, Collision Course? Off-Road Vehicle
Impacts on Hunting and Fishing.

10 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

 Transportation Program
A
fter two years of frustration, and a legal fight with the Forest
Service, Wildlands CPR is now the proud recipient of an enormous
amount of data about national forest road and off-road vehicle
management and impacts on the 84 national forests in the west. In June,
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy (MT) compelled the Forest Service to
settle our lawsuit. During settlement negotiations, the agency granted us
all of the information we requested. Thanks to Western Environmental
Law Center’s great work in the courtroom and on the phones, this story
received impressive media coverage. Legal liaison Sarah Peters will lead
the analysis and distribution of this information; we’ve already received
numerous requests from conservation partners who recognize the ecologi-
cal and fiscal impacts inflicted by wildland roads and off-road vehicles.
In Montana, Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator Adam Rissien has been
strongly supporting the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition. He and Commu-
nications Coordinator Jason Kiely helped coalition leaders issue a com-
manding response to the Bitterroot National Forest’s proposed travel plan,
which threatens both Wilderness Study Areas and roadless areas. The
Coalition has also crafted a citizens’ vision for the plan, one that empha-
sizes protection of these critical wildlife corridors and headwaters of a
blue ribbon trout stream. Adam also serves as an emissary to natural
allies in this effort, making presentations to local fish and wildlife groups,
backcountry horsemen, and winter recreation organizations. Webmaster
Josh Hurd helped Adam create www.quietusecoalition.org where you can
find more information.
After a series of meetings with Region One staff, Adam also helped
convene conservationists and Forest Service planners to discuss travel
planning expectations and ways to reduce conflict during the travel plan-
ning process. The session was facilitated by the National Forest Founda-
tion, and it opened more doors for improving agency action in Region One
on travel planning. Close work with the agency organizing this event also
seems to have had an impact on how the Bitterroot framed their Travel
Plan, expanding the field of interest beyond “motorized opportunities” to
better consider all of the stakeholders and their travel planning needs.
In Utah, Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator Laurel Hagen continues to build
local capacity in communities threatened by cancerous off-road vehicle
creep throughout area public lands. See how Laurel has put her artistic
talents to use in building organizational capacity by improving the web site
The Freemont River, in proposed Wilderness east of Capital
Reef National Park, Utah. Wildlands CPR file photo.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007
This vandalized sign once pointed out
that the road is closed to motor vehicles.
Wildlands CPR file photo.
for the Uinta Mountain Club in northern Utah:
www.uintamountainclub.org. She’s worked with
them in real-time as well, providing training on
the best ways to engage in public processes
to advance conservation and quiet recreation
values.
In southern Utah, Laurel is helping the Boul-
der Community Alliance promote their area as a
quiet recreation destination, on an unavoidable
collision course with the county commissions
who champion unbridled off-road vehicle facili-
ties expansion. She is also helping them field a
team of activists to comb the land and compare
notes with the Dixie National Forest’s proposals
so the Alliance can educate others on what an
acceptable travel plan should look like.
On the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Laurel
has secured funding to enable Moab-based Red
Rock Forests hire an outreach coordinator to
organize around travel planning in the Abajo
Mountains. And she’s coordinated with the
Great Old Broads for Wilderness to map off-road
vehicle impacts in the area.
Laurel is also working to protect the
backcountry areas of the Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area. Working with The Wilderness
Society, Laurel drafted and recruited sign-ons
to comments calling for reasonable limits on
off-road travel and recreation. As in the Boulder
Mountain area, Laurel is organizing grassroots
citizens to serve as legitimate counterweights
to county commissions hooked on the hollow
promise of an economic boost that off-road
vehicle use is supposed to deliver to rural com-
munities.
11
The ABC’s of Travel Planning
By Adam Rissien and Sarah Peters
Introduction
In 2005, the Forest Service published new regulations in
the Federal Register1 (commonly called the Travel Manage-
ment Rule) for managing the Forest Service Transportation
System. The Travel Management Rule, found in the Code of
Federal Regulations (36 CFR 212), has three sections: Subpart
A, “Administration of the Forest Transportation System”;
Subpart B “Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor
Vehicle Use”; and Subpart C “Use by Over-Snow Vehicles.”
This article explains the intersection of these three subparts
during the travel planning process.
Subpart A
In 2001, then Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck signed
the “Road Management Strategy Rule and Policy,” commonly
known as the “Roads Rule.”2 This rule signaled a new direc-
tion for the agency, as its goal was to guide future manage-
ment of the entire road network. Decisions on road density
standards and decommissioning were left to the local level,
and each national forest had two years to determine the
“minimum road system required to balance access objec-
tives with ecosystem health goals.”3 To meet the deadline the
agency looked only at roads for passenger vehicles, called
maintenance level 3, 4 or 5 roads. Left out were roads closed
to the public and those for high clearance vehicles (mainte-
nance level 1 and 2 respectively) — analysis for these roads
was delayed until a project level action triggered review.
Unfortunately, most national forests still have not completed
a comprehensive review of their entire road system.
Fast forward to 2005, when, with the release of the Travel
Management Rule, many forest officials promptly forgot about
their obligations under the Roads Rule. While significant
changes were made to the old policy, two key requirements
remained. The first is that “the responsible official must
identify the minimum road system needed for safe and ef-
ficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protec-
tion of National Forest System lands.”4 In order to identify
the minimum road system, the Forest Service must complete
a full, science-based roads analysis. The second requires re-
sponsible officials to “identify the roads … that are no longer
needed to meet forest resource management objectives and
that, therefore, should be decommissioned or considered for
other uses, such as for trails.”5
These two requirements are essential to any good travel
management plan. With a comprehensive review, mainte-
nance level 1 and 2 roads will be examined. Unfortunately,
there has been a tendency among land managers to shortcut
the review process by only addressing Subpart B of the travel
management rule.
12
Subpart B
Unmanaged motorized recreation was a key threat
identified by former Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who
instituted the 2005 Travel Management Rule. To address the
threat, the rule mandates that forest officials produce a Motor
Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) illustrating the specific routes and
areas open to summer off-road vehicle use. The MVUM be-
comes the basis for enforcement, and users must know where
travel is legal by referencing the map, not by relying solely
on road or trail signs. This establishes a “closed unless open”
policy where roads, trails and areas are protected from mo-
torized use unless the map shows otherwise. Forest officials
can release an MVUM that simply designates the official road
and trail system, or it can propose changes through the travel
planning process.6
However, motorized recreation is only one aspect of
travel management, and the opportunity to create good
transportation and recreation plans is often lost in the mad
rush to produce an MVUM — the Subpart A requirement for
comprehensive review has been one such casualty. Bosworth
tied each national forest’s annual performance review to the
publication of an MVUM, and all travel plans must be com-
pleted by December 2009.
To guide implementation of the 2005 Travel Management
Rule, the agency proposed new directives in its forest manu-
als and handbooks. One, called “travel analysis,” incorporates
the roads analysis (discussed below) and goes a step further
by including motorized routes. Release of the final directives
is not expected until spring 2008. However, we have already
seen at least one forest, the Black Hills National Forest (SD),
complete a travel analysis in preparation for travel planning,
and expect that other forests will follow suit.
Barricaded road on Clearwater NF (ID) Wildlands CPR file photo.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Plugged culvert
and road washout
in B.C. (Canada)
Photo by Adam
Switalski.
Subpart C
The Travel Management Rule eliminated 36 CFR 295: “Use
of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads,” which
had provided authority to manage snowmobile use. To re-
place it, Subpart C of 36 CFR 212 was created. Unfortunately,
while the new rule (mostly) eliminated cross-country travel,
it separated its impacts between uses, effectively de-empha-
sizing damage and disruption caused by snowmobile use.
This means that separate winter use plans or existing forest
plans will guide snowmobile use. The deadline for completing
MVUMs does not apply to motorized winter recreation, so the
agency is under no obligation to address over-snow vehicles
during travel planning.
Roads Analysis Through Travel Analysis
The roads analysis process as adopted in 2001 was in-
tended to be comprehensive, looking at multiple scales (eco-
regional, forest, and project) and evaluating the ecological
effects of roads. But that goal was never realized, as analysis
was done only at the forest scale, and only for maintenance
level 3-5 roads. It can be argued that “travel analysis” now
gives the Forest Service a second chance at roads analysis,
and activists should try to persuade agency officials to finish
what they started when they analyzed their maintenance
level 3-5 roads.
In the draft directives, before the agency proposes a
travel management action, officials are to conduct travel
analysis. We are awaiting the final directives before evalu-
ating them fully, but key points stand out. The proposed
Chapter 20 for the Forest Service Handbook [FSH 7709.55 Ch.
20.02(1)(a)] states that one objective is to identify the mini-
mum road system needed and establish a complete inventory
of all system roads and trails7. The first step is to “complete
an interdisciplinary science-based analysis of road system op-
portunities.”8 Travel analysis must be based on “a complete
and accurate inventory of NFS roads, NFS trails, and designat-
ed areas within the area being analyzed.”9 This does not mean
that every user-created route on the forest must be mapped,
but that the previously authorized travel system must be
determined. Travel analysis, similar to roads analysis, should
be “broad-scale,” and should inform the decisions made at
the Ranger District or administrative level that implement
the “minimum road system” and make “travel management
decisions.”10
Unfortunately, this weakens a key part of the roads
analysis process. The proposed directives removed the
requirement that a roads analysis should be based on the
“best available” science,11 instead requiring a “science-based”
analysis. The proposed directives also de-emphasize the need
to remove roads, and instead concentrate on adding to the
existing system. This allows more roads to be identified as
necessary for a minimum system and for fewer roads (if any)
to be identified for decommissioning.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007
Travel Planning and Subpart A
Unfortunately, many forest officials skip travel analysis,
missing an opportunity to evaluate their maintenance level
1 and 2 roads and highlight opportunities for decommission-
ing. Another problem is that the purpose and need of a travel
planning project is sometimes phrased in a manner that
narrows its scope to only designating motorized recreational
use, avoiding decisions on the minimum roads system.
In order to address these shortcomings, Wildlands CPR
recommends the following actions:
• Request that travel planning meet Subpart A
obligations, identifying the minimum road system and
recommending the removal of unneeded, damaging
roads and trails;
• Verify that officials completed a roads analysis that
included all roads. If maintenance level 1 and 2 roads
were not evaluated, then demand they be assessed
through travel analysis;
• Request that officials conduct travel analysis before
developing proposed actions, and include a science-
based travel analysis at multiple scales;
• Find out the forest’s obligations under their forest plan.
Initiating subpart B independent of the minimum road
system may conflict with the Forest Plan in regards to
(1) environmental and fiscal resource objectives [36 CFR
219.10(a)(b)];
• Remind officials that they must identify the minimum
road system as required by Executive Order 11644.
Conclusion
Since the 2005 Travel Management Rule’s release, Forest
Service officials have focused almost exclusively on desig-
nating summer motorized recreation and effectively ignored
their obligations under 36 CFR 212, Subparts A and C. It is
necessary to ask each responsible official to conduct travel
analysis, as outlined in the draft directives, and to include
roads analysis and snowmobiles. Even then, conservation-
ists will need to make sure such analysis considers multiple
levels, is science-based and includes all system roads. Finally,
even the best analysis is useless if the responsible official
artificially narrows the travel planning scope to focus only
on designating summer motorized recreation routes. Conser-
vationists need to meet with the Forest Service to request
that they conduct a comprehensive travel planning process
that includes all recreational uses and identifies the minimum
road system, including decommissioning opportunities.
Footnotes
1 Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 216/Wednesday, November 9, 2005.
2 See The Road RIPorter issue 6-2 or visit http://www.wildlandscpr.
org/understanding-new-national-forest-system-road-
management-strategy.
3 Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001.
4 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1).
5 36 CFR 212.5(b)(2).
6 See The Road RIPorter Vol. 10-4 for a full explanation or visit http://
www.wildlandscpr.org/long-anticipated-forest-service-orv-rule-
fizzles-protection
7 FSH 7709.55.
8 FSM 7712.4(1).
9 FSM 7712.1(4).
10 See FSM 7712.1(2).
11 FSM 7710.3(1).
13
Beach Bums
By Ted Williams

Editor’s note: This essay is an abbreviated version of the original, and reprinted by permission of the author.
It originally appeared (in its entire length) in the 1/1/07 issue of Audubon. Wildlands CPR has highlighted the
ORV issue at Cape Hatteras, and ORVs in beach habitats, in other Road-RIPorters. See Jan DeBlieu’s excellent
essay, “Here’s Sand in Your Eye” (Vol. 8#2, 2003); see the Biblio Notes in Vol. 6#5 (2001), and also short updates
in Skid Marks Sept. 19, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003. The Audubon field tech in the essay, Sidney Maddock, is a
former Wildlands CPR Board member.

W
hat’s wrong with this picture: off-road vehicles (ORVs) mo-
nopolizing barrier beaches on North Carolina’s Outer Banks,
aborting nesting attempts by colonial waterbirds, oystercatch-
ers, threatened piping plovers, and threatened and endangered sea turtles;
crushing eggs and young of all these species; and imperiling and/or intimi-
dating the roughly 90 percent of visitors who travel by foot.
Answer: These long, thin islands that help insulate the northern half of
the state from storms and provide critical habitat to vanishing wildlife are
part of our National Park System. Seventy miles of them were designated
as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 1953.
Such abuse results largely from ongoing priorities of the Bush adminis-
tration that give lie to its “new park policy,” announced August 31, 2006, of
favoring the protection of natural and cultural resources over recreation.
Even if such a policy were genuine, it would hardly be new. Through-
out most of its history the National Park Service has been a beacon for the
nation and the world, protecting and restoring native ecosystems. Other
federal resource agencies have been charged by Congress with managing
for “multiple use,” but despite the fact that about 274 million people visit
national parks each year, this has never been part of the Park Service’s A lone set of tracks belies the damage
mandate. Unlike the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Manage- done by beach drivers. Photo courtesy
ment, the Park Service does not auction off timber, minerals, or cattle of Airstream Life magazine.
forage. Unlike the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it does not manipulate
habitat for maximum production of favored species. like chicken;” a passenger on a speeding ORV
Current management of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore is, how- heckling us because Maddock was toting a spot-
ever, one of the better examples of how the Park Service is flouting federal ting scope. In 2005 what I would have called traf-
laws, such as its own organic act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migrato- fic jams were defined by both my companions
ry Bird Treaty Act, and the General Authorities Act (which requires that all as “relatively light summer use.” Said Maddock,
park units be managed as a single system); executive orders by Presidents “Look, there are parking spaces left.”
Nixon and Carter (which forbid ORV use unless it can be demonstrated The opposition is vocal, with the loudest,
that it won’t compromise natural values); and the seashore’s enabling ugliest voices those of the Orwellian-named Out-
legislation (which requires that it be “permanently reserved as a primitive er Banks Preservation Association, whose flier
wilderness”). reads: “The Endangered Species Act has become
“Primitive wilderness” is hardly what Audubon North Carolina’s the favorite ‘tool’ of the radical environmental-
deputy director Walker Golder, Audubon field technician Sidney Maddock, ists who want to obstruct development, re-
and I have encountered on our outings to the Cape Hatteras National source extraction, many public works projects,
Seashore these past two summers. Instead we’ve seen: casings of spent and also YOUR rights to recreate responsibly on
fireworks (illegal in the park because they discourage nesting); footprints YOUR public lands. . . . The radical enviro-cra-
and tire tracks on the wrong side of symbolic (string) fences erected to zies and Hollywood fat-cat sycophants who want
protect nesting birds; bumper stickers that featured circled and slashed to shut you out of YOUR public lands…”
renderings of piping plovers or proclaimed, “I love piping plover, tastes With the warm sea wind in our faces and

14 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007


Piping plover nests and eggs. Photo on
right by Laurie MacIvor. Both photos
courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
brown pelicans skimming the waves, Golder, Maddock, and I stood next to
the symbolic fencing at Cape Point on Hatteras Island. To our left, in the
open vehicle area, the sand was clean and white. But to our right it was
festooned with seaweed behind which sanderlings hunkered. “Wrack,” as
it’s called, is vital to beach birds because it provides rich habitat for their
invertebrate prey as well as protection from the wind. ORV tires destroy
wrack.
In 2005 the seashore failed to get its symbolic fencing up before April
1, thereby violating guidelines set forth in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
piping plover recovery plan. In 2006 it got the fencing up in time, but
mostly where it wasn’t needed—i.e., marginal fishing areas, where it
wouldn’t offend. Then, when bird-breeding behaviors were observed in
unfenced areas, the seashore delayed or failed to take action. The popular
beaches—at Cape Point, South Beach, Bodie Island, Hatteras Inlet, and
Ocracoke, for example—all had legal ORV traffic in front of unfledged
shorebirds or waterbirds.
In 2006 black skimmers at Cape Point failed on their first nesting at-
tempt. Some re-nested and were incubating on July Fourth, when there
were 17 documented instances of trespass. Fireworks were set off illegally.
In the mid-1980s there were 1,000 pairs of colonial waterbirds at Cape
Point. Now there are fewer than 100.
That decline reflects a breach of law. Thirty-five years ago President
Nixon issued an executive order directing the Department of the Interior
to issue ORV-use regulations within six months. In 1978 (seven and a half
years late) the seashore hatched a “draft interim management plan,” there-
by eliciting histrionics from the ORV lobby. Management decided not to
finalize it. Since then the seashore has, when convenient, operated under
the interim plan, a document rife with deficiencies such as suggested clo-
sures for nesting birds that the Interior Department’s own consultants say
are grossly inadequate. “At the beginning of the 2006 season the seashore
said they were going to follow their newly minted Draft Interim Protected
Species Management Strategy plan,” said Maddock. “As the season wore
on and that plan would have caused closures they deviated even from
their own lax guidelines.”
Diminished as they are, the colonial waterbirds at Cape Point and
adjacent South Beach are still an important part of the seashore’s produc-
tion. But after predators destroyed many of the nests of least terns, com-
mon terns, and black skimmers in 2006, the seashore opened South Beach
back up to ORVs. Then, when the remaining eggs hatched, it didn’t put up
fencing.
Not far from the Point, in the ephemeral ponds created by rain and
overwash, we watched three diminutive birds with sand-colored backs,
white bellies, black breast bands, and orange legs and bills as they alter-
nately dashed and froze along the moist edges. They were piping plovers.
There had been a successful nest at Cape Point this year—the only one for
the entire seashore.
ORVs aren’t entirely to blame. Predation of eggs and chicks is a grow-
ing problem on most of the seashore. Some of this predation is the result
of the massive development along the Outer Banks in the past 30 years
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007
and the corresponding increase in cats, foxes,
and garbage-swilling raccoons. But ORV opera-
tors discard bait and fish entrails, and they don’t
like skates and sharks, so instead of releasing
them, they leave them on the beach. All this
offal, along with other garbage and purposeful
feeding, attracts gulls, resulting in loss of eggs
and chicks. When the seashore closes areas
to vehicles the dearth of gulls is sudden and
dramatic.
And at times ORVs play the main role in
chick loss and nest failure attributed to “preda-
tion.” For example, last June at Hatteras Inlet
two oystercatcher chicks were lost to predators
due to the seashore’s refusal to close the beach.
When the chicks wandered into the traffic, Mad-
dock asked ORV operators to please wait until
the chicks could rejoin their parents. When the
ORV operators refused, one chick fled and got
nailed by a ghost crab. The other, abandoned
after traffic flushed the adults, became hypo-
thermic and got eaten by a grackle.
ORV drivers are never silent, and the Park
Service is terrified of them. For instance, after
they publicly accused its biologists of concoct-
ing excuses for fencing off more beach by herd-
ing piping plovers west toward Cape Point (a
physical impossibility), the seashore instructed
field personnel to approach birds from the east.
To comply, however, they had to disturb a large
tern colony.
As for the ORV management plan required
by law to have been implemented in 1972, the
seashore hopes to have it ready by 2009. Toward
this end it has embarked on what it calls “negoti-
ated rule making,” a process by which private
“stakeholders” do the Park Service’s job for it
by promulgating regulations for themselves. The
seashore has spent the last year just trying to
figure out who should sit at the table, and at this
writing it’s still figuring. “We’ve agreed to partici-
pate because they asked us,” said Derb Carter
of the Southern Environmental Law Center. “But
I really question whether the ORV crowd will
accept any level of compromise. . . . There’s not
going to be much incentive for environmentalist
involvement if this is just going to be a distrac-
tion from actions that the seashore should be
taking.”
So far ORV interests dominate the stake-
holder committee. The Hatteras Island Home-
owners Coalition (a group committed to limiting
ORVs on Hatteras) tried and failed to get a seat.
But the Outer Banks Preservation Association
succeeded. Its representative at the table will be
none other than Dave Goodwin, moderator of
the “Free Access Dammit!” forum of the pro-ORV
chatroom Fish Mojo.
— Ted Williams is a freelance environmental
writer. He write the conservation column for Fly
Rod & Reel magazine and is regularly featured
in magazines such as Audubon. He tends to like
piping plovers more than ORVs.
15
 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 15,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We
offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important
biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most
articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Just a Few Bad Apples?

Research Shows Many Off-Roaders Break the Law
By Jason Kiely and Chris Kassar

Editor’s Note: Bibliography Notes typically covers the ecological effects of roads or
ORVs by reviewing scientific literature. However, assumptions about social behavior
also influence the debate around the management of off-road vehicle use on public
lands. This edition of Bibliography Notes explores one important social science
issue that has been studied by researchers.

Introduction
The ecological impacts of off-road vehicles on water, air and land have
been well documented. In the past five to ten years, however, these issues
have taken on social dimensions, and social scientists have begun explor-
ing the attitudes and behaviors of off-road vehicle drivers.
Countless newspaper articles are peppered with myths perpetuated
by off-roaders, such as: “elite environmentalists are locking the public out
of public lands;” “the old and infirm need vehicles to explore the forest;” “if
you give folks a place to ride their ATVs, they won’t break the rules;” and
“it’s just a few bad apples riding where they’re not supposed to and caus-
ing damage.”
This article examines important social science research that debunks
the “few bad apples” myth. Analysis includes a review of three state-level
surveys revealing that a majority of off-roaders break the law. These stud-
ies point to the failure of this myth and show a pronounced preference and
practice among off-road vehicle recreationists to travel cross-country and Bad apples or good apples? Wildlands CPR file photo.
ride off of legal routes.

Montana
In 2006, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks received survey responses
from 446 owners of registered off-road vehicles. Among the full sample of
respondents, 23% “always or sometimes” ride cross-country even though
off-route riding is against the rules in Montana and has been since 2001.
Over 28% “sometimes or never” avoid riparian areas and wetlands, in vio-
lation of rules for federal and state public lands in Montana.
Sixty-four percent of those surveyed have used an off-road vehicle
while hunting. The majority of this hunting subset admits to riding cross-
country — over 58% have traveled off of legal routes to retrieve downed
game.
Colorado
A 2001 Colorado study cited the state of
Montana’s off-road vehicle public education
program as a model to emulate. According to the
Colorado study, Montana’s “On the Right Trail”
program “provided a list of key behavioral traits
that define an ‘ethical hunter’ — with several
of these related to proper OHV use.” However,
as discussed above, the more recent Montana
study revealed a significant disregard for the
rules among many off-road vehicle riders, point-
ing to the ineffectiveness of the state’s education
program. This supports the key conclusion of
the Colorado study: “information and education
per se – will not result in substantial behavioral
change” (emphases in original).

16 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

 Monaghan and Associates, a marketing research firm, conducted the
2001 study at the behest of the Colorado Coalition for Responsible OHV
Riding, a coalition of off-road vehicle representatives, environmentalists
and public officials. Researchers surveyed Colorado off-road vehicle rid-
ers through a series of three focus groups.
Monaghan and Associates found that the majority of off-roaders un-
derstand that staying on designated routes is “fundamental trail etiquette”
and that going off trail is not “correct” off-road vehicle behavior. The sur-
vey revealed, however, that regardless of this knowledge “as many as two-
thirds of adult users go off the trail occasionally.” A significant percentage
of riders, 15-20%, admitted to frequently breaking the rules and riding off
of legal routes often. Survey participants also stated that “others” ride off-
route and cause most of the damage. ORV tracks “adorn” Factory Butte, Utah. Photo by
Marcel Huijser.

Utah
In a separate study, the Utah Division of Parks & Recreation commis-
sioned Utah State University to survey riders to determine their “OHV uses
and owner preferences.” The university conducted a telephone survey of
335 riders from a random sample of the 50,676 people who registered off-
road vehicles with the state in 2000.
The Utah report reveals that a high percentage of riders prefer to ride
“off established trails” and did so on their last outing. Of the ATV riders
surveyed, 49.4% prefer to ride off established trails, while 39% did so on
their most recent excursion. Of the dirt bike riders surveyed, 38.1% prefer
to ride off established trails, while 50% rode off established trails on their
most recent excursion.
When surveyed on issues affecting off-road vehicle use in Utah, survey
respondents recognized the need for enforcement but not the need for
protecting the natural resources where they ride. This questions the
assumption that off-road vehicle riders will stay on-route if educated that
cross-country travel is illegal or damaging. One-third of the respondents
said there should be more law enforcement presence in OHV areas. Only
6% cited “resource management conservation” as the most important is-
sue affecting off-road vehicle use in Utah.
Nevada
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found a near universal disregard
for motorized guidelines when the BLM experimented with a “voluntary
off-road vehicle route system” in Nevada. The area in question serves
as a refuge for the disappearing Sand Mountain Blue butterfly, a species
proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. A 2006 monitoring
report compiled over a three-year period found that “98 percent of all ex-
isting routes continued to be used and new routes were created, indicating
an ongoing expansion of habitat degradation.” The study also found that
half of the places where riders violated guidelines were near signs that
discouraged them from proceeding into sensitive butterfly habitat. The
cumulative impacts of such “noncompliance points” were four-fold as each
discouraged route experienced multiple incursions.
riders are educated as to where they are and are
not allowed to ride.
In contrast, the research above shatters
the myth that damage and conflicts are being
caused by an insignificant percentage of off-road
vehicle riders. The findings of these studies
suggest that even if the “demand” for more off-
road vehicle riding opportunities is met, riders
will continue to fulfill their preferences by riding
off legal routes. They also conclude or at least
strongly suggest that education and information
alone are not effective strategies for changing
off-road behavior.
Instead, Monaghan and Associates offers
the following recommendation: “In order to be
successful and actually influence behavior, OHV
users must be motivated to behave properly.”
While more social science research is
needed to determine what will motivate users to
behave properly, anecdotal research (Wildlands
CPR 2007) argues most strongly for increasing
enforcement, and especially increasing the con-
sequences for breaking the law, through mecha-
nisms like vehicle confiscations, increased fines,
and closing areas to all motorized users when
motorized trespass occurs.

Conclusion
One can assume that many folks will not tell the truth when asked if
they participated in a behavior known to be illegal or generally perceived
to be in conflict with social norms. This tendency is known as the “social
desirability bias” and defined as under-reporting undesirable attributes
and/or over-reporting desirable attributes due to the tendency to present
oneself in a favorable light (Groves et. al. 2004). Therefore, the percentage
of off-roaders who violate the rules is likely even higher than revealed in
the survey results discussed above.
Many public land managers assume that designating additional off- Definitely bad apples: participants in Moab’s Jeep
Safari drive through the stream. Wildlands CPR file
road vehicle routes will lead directly to greater compliance, less cross-
photo.
country travel and, as a result, less resource damage and fewer conflicts
among incompatible uses. Some believe that off-road vehicle riders will
quit creating renegade routes once more routes are designated “open” and — references on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007 17

 — continued from previous page —

References
Archie, M.L., H.D. Terry, B. Walder, and N.
Jackson. 2007. Six Strategies for Success:
Effective Enforcement of Off-Road Vehicles
on Public Lands. Wildlands CPR, Missoula,
MT. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/Reports/
EnforcementReport.html.

Fischer, A.L., D.J. Blahna, and R. Bahr. 2002.

Off Highway Vehicle Uses and Owner
Preferences in Utah (Revised). Institute
for Outdoor Recreation & Tourism,
Department of Forest Resources, Utah
State University for Utah Department of
Natural Resources’ Division of Parks &
Recreation. http://extension.usu.edu/iort/
files/uploads/pdfs/revisedOHVreport.pdf.
Three dirt bikers flee the scene after assaulting the leader of a Sierra
Club hike who raised his camera to document the illegal motorized
intrusion of the Great Burn Recommended Wilderness near the Idaho-
Montana border on July 30, 2006. The repeat offender, Timothy David
Turner, was later arrested for felony aggravated assault. Clearwater
County granted him a misdemeanor plea of disturbing the peace
after federal prosecutors failed to take the case. Photo courtesy of the
Sierra Club.

Frueh, LM. 2001. Status and Summary Report

on OHV Responsible Riding Campaign.
Prepared by Monaghan and Associates for
the Colorado Coalition for Responsible
OHV Riding. http://www.wildlandscpr.
org/status-and-summary-report-ohv-
responsible-riding-campaign.

Groves, R.M., et al. Survey Methodology.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004, p.
208.

Lewis, M.S., and R. Paige. 2006. Selected

Results From a 2006 Survey of Registered
Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Owners in
Montana. Responsive Management Unit
Research Summary No. 21. Prepared for
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. http://
fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=19238.
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 2007. 12-Month Finding
on a Petition to List the Sand Mountain
Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes pallescens
ssp. arenamontana) as Threatened or
Endangered with Critical Habitat. Federal
Register, Vol. 72, No. 84. See pages 24260-
61. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/denial-
petition-list-sand-mountain-blue-butterfly-
threatened-or-endangered.
Collision Course: Off-road vehicle
impacts on hunting and fishing
The Izaak Walton League of America recently published an
excellent report on the impacts of ORVs on hunting and fishing.
Wildlands CPR assisted with the scientific overview of how ORVs
and roads impact hunting and fishing. In addition, the report
includes personal stories about negative experiences hunters and
anglers have had with ORVs in the field. The League also included
a summary of a survey in which state fish and wildlife managers
were asked about ORV impacts on hunting and fishing.
According to the introduction from the report, “The three
sections of this report all point toward similar conclusions—that
ORVs can indeed have some negative impacts on hunting and
fishing, and that better enforcement and education are vital to
reducing these impacts.” The report concludes with policy rec-
ommendations to address the problems. Read it at: http://iwla.
org/publications/wilderness/OHVreport.pdf

18 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

Thrillcraft Available
The Foundation for Deep Ecology has released a new book, Thrillcraft:
The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. Edited by
George Wuerthner, this shocking book is packed with more than 100 pow-
erful, color photographs and two dozen insightful essays. Wildlands CPR
Executive Director Bethanie Walder and Board member David Havlick both
contributed essays to the book. The book covers off-road vehicle culture,
environmental impacts caused by off-road vehicles, policy decisions that
have led to such rampant abuse, suggestions for reform, and inspiring suc-
cess stories.
George Wuerthner also worked tirelessly behind the lens to provide
most of the photographs, illustrating the intense environmental destruc-
tion caused by off-road vehicles of all types. These high quality images
cover regions and landscapes from across the United States. From jet skis
on crowded beaches in the southeast, to ATVs tearing up arid lands in
the Colorado Plateau, to two-wheeled tracks criss-crossing fragile tundra
ecosystems in Alaska, the photographs in this volume clearly expose the
damage off-road-vehicles wreak on our natural areas.
Wildlands CPR has partnered with the Foundation for Deep Ecology
to distribute the book through our large network of grassroots activists.
They will, in turn, hand-deliver the book to local policy makers, law en-
forcement officials, and concerned citizens.
Other essays in the book include: Tom Butler’s “Mind and Machine:
A Brief History of Human Domestication,” Rick Bass’s “Fourteen Gardens:
Reflections of an Activist,” D.J. Schubert’s
“Snowmobiles and Public Lands: Unacceptable
Impacts on a Winter Landscape,” Barrie Gilbert’s
“No Wild, No Wildlife: The Threat from Motor-
ized Recreation” and others by wildlife scientists
and activists. In his foreword, founder and
president of the Foundation for Deep Ecology,
Douglas Tompkins writes:
“Every American who values clean air and
water, healthy wildlife populations, and the oppor-
tunity to find some peace and quiet while enjoying
public lands has a stake in this fight…This book
seeks to alert all Americans to this crisis of motor-
ized wreckreation…Take it as a challenge to read
this book, to look carefully at the damage being
done to your land. Become enraged, and en-
gaged. Ultimately, only citizen action can counter
the elitist minority that wants to use the commons
as outdoor NASCAR-style abusement parks. As
owners and trustees of America’s public lands,
will we fight for the freedom of wild places to stay
wild, or allow the damage to continue? Will we
be true patriots, or cowards, who turn away from
the looting of our natural heritage?”

Wildlands CPR’s E-newsletter

Wildlands CPR has discontinued publication of skidmarks and now
publishes a monthly e-newsletter. Visit www.wildlandscpr.org to sign-up.

The newsletter includes news, views, analysis, images and resources

related to watershed restoration, off-road vehicles, and roads. It’s much,
much more comprehensive than our old newsletter and will keep you up-
to-date on these issues year-round. The e-newsletter links directly to www.
wildandscpr.org for analysis and information you can use — check it out,
and if you like what you see sign up and forward to your friends so they
can sign up too!

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007 19

 The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the
awesome citizens and organizations we work with,
both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to
andrea@wildlandscpr.org.

Keeping Wildlife Connected, in the

Southern Rockies
By Bethanie Walder

I
n 1995, Wildlands CPR hosted our first-ever training session for activ-
ists to monitor road impacts. Among the 30 or so participants was
a member of the equally young organization, the Southern Rockies
Ecosystem Project (SREP).

Both SREP and Wildlands CPR were interested in creating intercon-

nected landscapes of functioning, intact habitat for terrestrial and aquatic
species, and everything else that depends on them. During the ensuing 12
years, we’ve continued to work with SREP, and we’ve been ever-impressed
by their incredible success from both the research and policy perspec-
tives. Below are highlights of SREP’s many accomplishments – too many
to list in one short article. One of the most interesting things about their
work is how it has adapted over time to fit changing conditions. Through
those adaptations, SREP has become an incredibly strong and influential
organization not just in the southern rockies, but throughout the west.

SREP was founded in 1992 to create an ecoregional approach to con-

servation. Their initial emphasis was on research to synthesize existing
science and clearly identify the threats and impacts to natural resources
in the southern rockies. SREP used Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
resources to analyze and depict these impacts. They acted as a resource
for other groups in the region, conducting needed mapping projects and
disseminating their accumulated research for other groups to use in their
advocacy efforts.
In 2002/2003, the board and staff decided to take their vision and ap-
ply it on the ground. They reviewed their research, and met with con-
servation groups in the area to identify a new niche. As a result of that
process, they refocused their efforts on restoring landscape connections
with a particular emphasis on wildlife corridors and linkages and specifi-
cally, highway mitigation.
Engaging in highway mitigation meant working with the Colorado De-
partment of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highways Administra-
tion (FHWA). In a novel approach for a conservation organization, SREP
went directly to CDOT and FHWA and sought funding to address wildlife
connectivity across highways. SREP’s ten year record of excellent mapping
and research helped them make their case. CDOT liked the idea and in
2004, FHWA awarded SREP a $90,000 grant to both prioritize wildlife link-
ages within the state and then to identify mitigation opportunities within
those linkages to restore connectivity. In 2005, SREP received an additional
$120,000 to complete the project.
SREP planning map shows priority work areas.
With the CDOT funding, SREP conducted
a series of in-depth studies on wildlife connec-
tivity and highway impacts that included very
specific management recommendations. To un-
derstand the management side, SREP staff also
had to become experts at the highway planning
process. According to SREP Development and
Communications Director Monique DiGiorgio,
“CDOT has now included wildlife language in ev-
ery long-term highway planning document that
affects priority wildlife linkage zones identified
by SREP.” With this critical policy effort, SREP
has dramatically altered the playing field for the
future by ensuring CDOT will address wildlife
concerns from the earliest planning stages.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

 But their successes aren’t all policy-based. Through their unique
capacity to work with the public, policy makers and transportation and
federal land managers, SREP has been able to bring real dollars into Colo-
rado to fix habitat fragmentation problems. In 2005, SREP was a key force
in getting Congress to allocate $420,000 for a wildlife overpass on I-70 near
Vail Pass. While the overpass hasn’t yet been built (and more funding is
still needed), CDOT has convened an expert panel to create a preliminary
design for the project. In addition, SREP recently partnered with Ouray
County to raise approximately $100,000 for wildlife mitigation on US 550.
This project will enable the county to build 10 wildlife escape ramps along
an 8 mile stretch of highway that has wildlife fencing but no
crossing structures. In addition, wildlife group up along one
end of the fence and cross the road in significant numbers at
that area. This recently led to a fatal animal-vehicle collision.
With this funding, planners will also extend the fence into the
actual habitat to try and prevent animals from surging onto
the highway near the edge of the fence. At the same time,
SREP is working with experts to determine more functional
methods to get wildlife across the highway safely.
SREP’s remote cameras catch visits by bear and sage elk (right) in key
habitat linkage corridors. Photos courtesy of SREP.
SREP also identified a mitigation need along SR 160 east of Durango
and worked to raise the priority of that project, which CDOT eventually
funded with hazard mitigation money. In that area, CDOT is installing an
animal detection system in Spring 2008 that will alert drivers when wildlife
are on the road. This allows wildlife to cross the road over a large area,
without fencing or under/overpasses, but still has the potential to dramati-
cally reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.
To complement their on the ground projects, SREP developed an ac-
tive citizen-science monitoring program — especially along the Vail Pass
corridor on I-70 where they raised funding for the wildlife bridge. Ac-
cording to DiGiorgio, “SREP recruits volunteers and we teach them about
habitat fragmentation, wildlife connectivity, scientific methodologies and
policy. Each volunteer adopts one of our cameras and is responsible for
all aspects of data collection in association with their photo transect.”
The project has 20 steady volunteers, responsible for 50 cameras. SREP
raised nearly $100,000 in private donations to fund this research, which
will provide pre-overpass baseline data on wildlife presence; data collec-
tion will continue after the bridge is installed to monitor its effectiveness.
Looking at the landscape level, SREP has requested nearly half a mil-
lion dollars in federal and state funding to assess the entirety of the I-70
corridor for wildlife mitigation, to expand on their earlier successes with
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007
the proposed wildlife overpass. They will find
out in a few weeks whether or not that funding
will be awarded.
DiGiorgio described SREP’s biggest success
as, “raising public and agency awareness about
the importance of wildlife connectivity across
highways, especially through our work on the
Vail Pass wildlife bridge, and getting the funds
allocated through Congress. In addition, we’ve
seen a major transition in the last four years,
with CDOT taking ownership of the overpass
project and engaging more and more in wildlife
connectivity issues across highways.”
One thing SREP staff have determined is
that you must stay engaged over the long haul,
even when the politics are not encouraging.
When they started their highways work, CDOT
was run in a very different way, and the state
was not investing in wildlife protection and
restoration. As the politics have changed, SREP
has found more and more doors open to them,
but that’s only because they stuck it out during
the difficult periods. SREP has traveled a long,
winding and very successful road to their cur-
rent work on the ground; what’s explained here
is only the tip of the iceberg of their activities.
With their critical combination of science, map-
ping, policy work and advocacy, they’ve been
able to bring real funds into Colorado to fix very
real wildlife problems. Over the next few years,
SREP will be expanding beyond the mitigation
work to look at comprehensive protection,
mitigation and restoration strategies (includ-
ing some work we’re doing with them on road
removal) in 6-7 critical areas. We extend a huge
thanks to them for their incredible work in the
southern rockies and beyond!
For more information about SREP’s excel-
lent programs, check out their website at restor-
etherockies.org.
21
T
he first snow of the season finally fell during Thanksgiving week,
blanketing everything in brilliant white and heralding the arrival of
the winter recreation season, including both skiing and snowmo-
biling. And as another winter begins, there’s been yet another round of
changes to the Yellowstone winter recreation plan (see page 7). Perhaps
five years from now, when the snow starts to fly, there will actually be a de-
finitive plan for managing recreational access to our nation’s first national
park.
responsible off-road vehicle recreation. Many
thanks to the Foundation for Deep Ecology for
publishing the book and donating them to Wild-
lands CPR to distribute. Thanks, too, to all of the
grassroots groups who will do the legwork to get
these books into the hands and onto the desks of
the people who need to understand and regulate
this problem more effectively.

Read on for the latest happenings at Wildlands CPR… Thanks

Welcome
We were delighted to be able to bring Cathy Walters Adams back to
Wildlands CPR as our Program Associate. She was our office assistant for
almost two years and she’s back with us halftime now, assisting in the of-
fice and with other program work. It’s absolutely fantastic to have her back
in the office!
As is typical in the fall, we have two graduate students from the
University of Montana working on research projects. Many thanks, in
advance, to Shannon Donahue for reviewing recent literature on the impact
of roads on bears, and to Peter Bugoni for reviewing the impacts of oil
and gas development (and associated linear barriers) on wildlife. Both of
these will update previous reviews, as we like to keep you informed of new
research as it becomes available.
We’re also very happy to have another UM graduate student, Greg
Peters, working on a project to help us distribute 5,000 copies of the book
Thrillcraft, as described below.
We’d like to start with a big thanks to ev-
eryone who has responded to our annual gifts
campaign request. We’re well on our way to our
goal of $35,000. If you haven’t sent in a contribu-
tion yet, now is the time, and we do need your
help to reach that goal!
Many thanks to the following foundations
for their generous support of our work this
quarter: Foundation for Deep Ecology, Harder
Foundation, Maki Foundation, Page Foundation,
Patagonia, and Weeden Foundation.

Partings
Say it isn’t so!! Dave Havlick, Board President, author of No Place
Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America’s Public Lands; author
of numerous other exceptionally written essays about roads, restoration
and ORVs, former Road-RIPorter editor, former road inventory field dude
extraordinaire, professor of geography specializing in restoration, and all
around great guy, has reached his term limit for being on the Wildlands
CPR board. In December, Dave will have to step down, and we’ll miss
his dedication, insights, humor, and presence on the board. He’s been
involved on or off with Wildlands CPR since 1995, so we won’t let him get
too far away, but rules are rules, and he’ll have to step down. Thanks Dave
— for everything you’ve done to make Wildlands CPR a better organiza-
tion! We’ll introduce you to our new Board members in the next issue.

Thrillcraft
As mentioned on page 22, the Foundation for Deep Ecology has just
published their latest coffee-table advocacy book, Thrillcraft. In early No-
vember, the Foundation donated 5,000 copies of the book to Wildlands CPR
(a $100,000 in-kind contribution). Greg Peters spent most of the fall con- As the field season ends, Wildlands CPR will
tacting grassroots groups throughout the country to determine how many encourage planners to turn their attention to
copies of the book they would like to receive and distribute to decision- restoration projects for next year. Photo courtesy of
Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.
makers, agency managers, local officials and media representatives. Before
the books were even in the warehouse, Greg had 4,800 copies already ac-
counted for, and we expect to have all of them into activists’ hands before
Christmas. We also developed a great brochure and several resources for
groups to use to accompany the book. It’s a great opportunity to raise
awareness of the intense level of damage and destruction caused by ir-

22 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007

 Join Wildlands CPR Today!
We’ve made joining Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

• Reducing Overhead
Monthly giving puts your contribution
directly into action and reduces our
administrative costs. The savings go to
restoring wildlands and building a more
effective network.
• Making Your Gift Easier
Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your
credit card or bank statement will con-
tain a record of each gift; we will also
send a year-end tax receipt for your
records.
• Our Promise To You
You maintain complete control over
your donation. To change or cancel
your gift at any time, just write or give
us a call.

Name
Phone
Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership: Individual/Family Organization Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge Electronic Funds Transfer
from Checking Account

$10/Month (minimum) $20/Month other $5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other

I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated above

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express from my checking account once per month.

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

CSC Number: ________________ *(see below)
Expiration date: _____________________________
Signature
Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confiden-
tial. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or
the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

Signature: __________________________________________
* The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is
not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of
a credit card (usually in the signature field).
Thank you for your support!
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership
donation ($30 standard membership, or more), please visit
our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the
address below.
Please send this form and your payment option to:
Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2007 23

 Quiet recreation at its finest... floating the Grand Canyon, October 2007. Photo by Dan Funsch.

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

The road running through this meadow

is nothing more than a potholed portal
for bad ideas, a puncture wound that
won’t heal, allowing human fallability to
flow unchecked into the delicate heart of
healthy land.

— Guy Hand, “Pining for an Oak Meadow”

from A Road Runs throught It.

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