Winter Solstice 2005.

Volume 10 # 4

The Long-Anticipated
Forest Service ORV Rule
By Tim Peterson

Photo courtesy of Forest Service.

Inside…
The Long-Anticipated Forest Service ORV Rule,
by Tim Peterson. Pages 3-5
Legal Notes: Eldorado ORV Routes Closed,
by Ronni Flannery. Pages 6-7
Odes to Roads, by Janisse Ray. Pages 8-9
Get with the Program: Restoration &
Transportation Program Updates.
Pages 10-11
Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder.
Pages 12-13
Biblio Notes: Mycorestoration on Decommissioned
Roads, by Joseph Trudeau. Pages 14-16
Regional Reports. Pages 17-19
Citizen Spotlight: Keeping the Southern Rockies Wild,
by Cathrine Adams. Pages 20-21
Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org

 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551

O
www.wildlandscpr.org
ver the past few months, Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA) has been in the
news repeatedly for his anti-environmental proposals. His concerted effort to Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore
rewrite the Endangered Species Act is just the tip of the iceberg. This fall he wildland ecosystems by preventing and
also made headlines by proposing to sell off 15 national parks to help pay for Hurricane removing roads and limiting motorized
Katrina relief. While Pombo said this was just a “conversation starter,” he can’t say the recreation. We are a national clearinghouse
same about his most recent shenanigans. In November, Pombo inserted a provision into and network, providing citizens with tools
a budget reconciliation bill to allow any individual or corporation to stake a mining claim and strategies to fight road construction,
on federal land and then outright purchase that land for as low as $1000/acre. Pombo’s deter motorized recreation, and promote road
provision would amend the 1872 Mining Act; a similar provision used to be included in removal and revegetation.
the act, but was rescinded in 1994. That provision required you to prove there were min-
erals within your claim before you could take ownership of the land. Pombo’s proposal Director
requires no such proof. You can stake a claim for mining practically anywhere, and then, Bethanie Walder
whether or not it contains any minerals, you can purchase the land and make private
what is now public land. Development Director
There has long been an aggressive group opposed to the concept of public lands Tom Petersen
who would like to see most, if not all public lands privatized. This movement gained
steam during the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of the 1970s, but fizzled, until people like Pombo Restoration Program
became their new champions. Interestingly, their rhetoric is now focused on increasing Coordinator
revenue to the debt-ridden U.S. treasury. Unfortunately, the Congressional representa- Marnie Criley
tives proposing to sell public lands to address the national debt are the same people who
are exacerbating that debt by cutting taxes, increasing defense spending and decreasing Science Coordinator
social spending. Adam Switalski
In the name of fiscal responsibility then, the Bush Administration has implemented
all sorts of new policies that cripple public oversight of public lands, if not outright priva- NTWC Forest Campaign
tizing them. For example, land management agencies have been required to study which Coordinator
Jason Kiely
jobs could be outsourced to the private sector. Indeed, many have already been trans-
ferred. The Bush Administration has pushed hard to privatize land management, increase
Transportation Policy
private fees for public land use, and otherwise change the way we think of public lands
Coordinator
and the public trust.
Tim Peterson
While some of these actions resulted in a well-deserved backlash from the public,
we’ve been all too silent on others, especially the more insidious actions like recreation Program Assistant
access fees and privatization of services. Nonetheless, the Pombo provision is one of the Cathy Adams
most blatant attempts to privatize public lands in a long time, and it was inserted into the
bill with no debate. Now, as this Road RIPorter heads to the printer, it’s up to a Senate/
Newsletter
House conference committee to allow the provision to stand, modify it, or strip it from
Dan Funsch & Marianne Zugel
the bill.
Public lands in this country are our national natural heritage. We had the foresight,
Interns & Volunteers
as a nation, to set aside these areas as common land for the American people. We did so
Katherine Court, Sonya Germann, Anna Holden,
to provide clean water, to protect scenic and wildlife resources, and to provide sustain- Laura McKelvie, Jennifer Scott
able sources of natural resources. Nonetheless, we are experiencing a resurgence of both
covert and overt efforts to privatize our public resources. If we sell them now for a one- Board of Directors
time gain, we will be selling off the natural inheritance of all future Americans. Represen- Amy Atwood, Karen DiBari, Greg Fishbein,
tative Pombo, and anyone who supports his provision, should be ashamed of themselves. Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Cara
Nelson, Sonya Newenhouse

Advisory Committee
Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lind-
ner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie
Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak,
Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

© 2005 Wildlands CPR

Tushar Mountains proposed wilderness. Photo by Tim Peterson.

2 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Long-Anticipated Forest Service ORV Rule
Fizzles on Protection
By Tim Peterson

Overview
T
he long-awaited off-road vehicle planning rule
began as a well-intentioned effort to address
one of the four key threats outlined by Forest
Service Chief Dale Bosworth in a speech in January of
2004: unmanaged recreation.

“Each year, the national forests and grasslands

get hundreds of miles of unauthorized roads and trails
due to repeated cross-country use. We’re seeing more
erosion, water degradation, and habitat destruction.
We’re seeing more conflicts between users. We have
got to improve our management so we get responsible
recreational use based on sound outdoor ethics,” the
Chief relayed to a meeting of the Idaho Environmental State and federal agency staff discuss motorized vehicle use
Forum in Boise. on the Blue Mountain OHV Trail, Wallowa-Witman National
Forest. Photo courtesy of Forest Service.
The rule is already long overdue. Presidents
Nixon and Carter recognized the threats to public
lands from unmanaged off-road vehicle use in the
Cross Country Travel
1970s — more than thirty years ago. They issued two
The new rule would close Forest Service land to off-
Executive Orders (#11644 and #11989) that guide off-
route cross-country travel, except in small and limited
road vehicle use to this day. They clearly state:
areas. Currently, 69 million acres, roughly one-third of
the land managed by the Forest Service, is open to cross-
“(1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize
country travel. That’s right — ride in any direction, over
damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other re-
any species, through any habitat — and it’s legal, if moral-
sources of the public lands.
ly indefensible. The rule set out to address cross-country
(2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize
travel and other off-road vehicle concerns, but fell short
harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of
in many ways. In particular, the new rule may allow many
wildlife habitats.
user-created, renegade routes to be designated without
(3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize
requiring site-specific analysis, and it could make it more
conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other exist-
difficult to address resource impacts and minimize user
ing or proposed recreational uses…”
conflicts.
But, the final rule not only lacks the teeth it needs
More importantly, the agency left open two key
to effectively deal with the explosive growth in off-
loopholes large enough to drive a fleet of off-road ve-
road vehicle abuse on our national forests, it seems to
hicles through, if district rangers choose to leave those
de-claw the Executive Orders themselves. In addition,
loopholes open. First, although the rule requires national
the agency decided to keep the old rules for snow-
forests to close most land to cross-country use, it delays
mobiles, while this rule applies to wheeled off-road
the action until the forest — or even a ranger district
vehicles.
— revises its travel plan, and it sets no timeline for revi-
sions (though the Chief says he expects Supervisors to
Opportunities complete this work in four years). This could mean many
more years of legalized renegade and cross-country use.
The final rule does take some positive steps by
establishing use maps (see sidebar on page 4), by not Second, the rule also includes a provision allowing for-
requiring that every renegade route be mapped (and est managers to permit dispersed camping and/or game
therefore, legitimized) as a precursor to route designa- retrieval off designated routes. While every forest won’t
tions, and by shifting management away from large- choose to do this, it is allowed under the new rule and off-
scale cross-country use. road vehicle users will push hard for such provisions. It
— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005 3

 — continued from page 3 —
is possible the agency will include some sidebars on such
authorizations in the guidance they are now preparing to
help managers implement the rule.
Specific Problems
Inconsistencies with the Executive Orders
The new rule reinterprets the Executive Orders’
mandate significantly, by directing agency staff to desig-
nate routes “with the objective to minimize” impacts of
off-road vehicles instead of simply designating routes “to
minimize” those impacts. By changing this language, the
agency went from a mandatory obligation to minimize
impacts to an unquantifiable objective. This could be
interpreted to mean that the agency no longer has a legal
obligation to minimize impacts, and it certainly does not
satisfy the intent of the Executive Orders.
The new rule also allows off-road routes to be re-
opened if their considerable adverse effects are “miti-
gated,” where the Executive Orders require that such
effects must be “eliminated” before use can be allowed
again. The Forest Service maintains that mitigation and
elimination are synonymous by arguing that “mitigation of
adverse effects has the net effect of elimination of adverse
effects . . .” Mitigation, however, is defined as lessening
or moderating the severity of an impact, not eliminating
it. This again removes clarity and enforceability from the
plain language of the Executive Orders.
Scope of Implementation
The rule allows off-road vehicle route designation
to occur at a scale smaller than forest-wide, leading to
potentially serious problems with consistency within and
across Forest Service boundaries. The Forest Service’s
stated goal is to make off-road vehicle rules more consis-
tent nationally, but if units as small as individual Ranger
Districts are allowed to plan on their own, the results
can’t help but be inconsistent. If one Ranger completes
designations in his/her district, and the adjacent Ranger
does not, the inconsistency remains even within a single
forest.
Damage resulting from unmanaged off-road vehicle use on the
Lassen National Forest. Photo courtesy of Forest Service.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
Transportation Use Maps
While the new off-road vehicle rule has numer-
ous problems that make its ultimate effect on
the ground questionable, the Forest Service did
take a big step with one aspect. In what could
be considered a paradigm shift, the agency has
shifted the burden of responsibility for knowing
where it’s legal to ride from the agency to the
user. Up until now, almost all off-road vehicle
routes have been signed on the ground: some
forests post signs on closed routes, others post
signs on open routes. If a closure sign was
vandalized or removed, then the next person
driving by could honestly say they thought the
route was open.
In the new system, the agency will treat off-
road vehicle use as it treats fishing and hunt-
ing (except for the licensing requirement). If
someone wants to ride their off-road vehicle on
national forest lands, they will be required to
get a transportation “use map” to learn where
it is legal to ride. If they are riding where it is
not allowed according to the map they will be
violating the transportation restrictions, regard-
less of whether or not there is a sign on the
ground. We applaud this long-overdue shift of
the burden of responsibility from signage to use
maps, though we recognize that some signage
on the ground could still be helpful. This
change should make enforcement of illegal
riding somewhat easier, if and when the agency
invests more significantly in enforcement.
Game Retrieval and Dispersed Camping
One of the most troubling provisions in the rule
gives individual forests the authority to waive the
cross-country travel ban for game retrieval and/or
dispersed camping. Dispersed camping exemptions
allow vehicles to drive 300 feet off any route to reach
a campsite, no matter if it would require crossing
meadows, wetlands, riparian corridors, or streams
themselves. While dispersed camping occurs year-
round, it tends to be heavy during hunting season.
Similarly, off-road vehicle users often create renegade
routes by driving to their kill-site to retrieve an animal.
Where such exemptions are granted, renegade routes
could proliferate. In addition, this exemption could
open up relatively secure habitat to increased hunt-
ing pressure if game doesn’t have to be packed out by
foot or horse.

Off-road vehicle riders skirting nonmotorized vehicle
notice. Photo by Dan Schroeder, Sierra Club, Ogden
Chapter.
Site-Specific Analysis
An important component of off-road vehicle plan-
ning is site-specific analysis. If land managers don’t
know when or why a route was established, what
destination it serves, what condition it’s in, what level
of use it receives, and what soils and habitats are af-
fected, they don’t have the information they need to
make informed decisions about travel management.
Unfortunately, the new rule both limits monitoring
requirements and fails to clarify when site-specific
analysis is required as part of the designation process.
This could lead to wholesale designation of routes
with little or no analysis under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act. Sadly, this exact scenario is cur-
rently playing out on the Fishlake National Forest in
Utah, where motor-loving planning staff has neglected
adequate analysis in favor of digitizing every track
anyone has ever ridden, then proposing more than 400
new miles of unclassified routes for “open” designa-
tion. The rule’s failure to require site-specific analysis
consistent with NEPA will likely result in a number of
lawsuits contending inadequate analysis.
Enforcement
The new rule includes some provisions that
will make enforcement easier on the ground. But it
also relies heavily on ethics education by the Forest
Service and self-policing of off-road vehicle riders
while neglecting enforcement and oversight. Accord-
ing to a Utah State University survey, nearly half of
riders prefer to ride “off established trails.” Of the ATV
riders surveyed, 49.4% prefer to ride off established
New Rule Resources
To help you understand the new rule, we’ve set
up a webpage with links to relevant articles:
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/orvs/ORVpolicy.
htm. This website includes links to a summary
analysis and a detailed section-by-section
analysis of the rule. In addition, you can view
our press release at: http://www.wildlandscpr.
org/fsrules.htm
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
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% did so on their most recent
excursion. A study in Colorado found that “ . . . knowing
that going off trail is not ‘correct’ OHV behavior, as many
as two-thirds of adult OHV users go off the trail occasion-
ally.” The study concludes: “In a ‘nutshell,’ it is our prem-
ise that further information and education per se – will
not result in substantial behavioral change” (emphasis
in original). Such a pervasive problem demands more
enforcement on the ground, not simply “education.”
Conclusion
The new Forest Service travel management rule
has some key problems that need fixing if the Service is
serious about addressing unmanaged recreation. Many
of these changes could be made at the regional level,
for example, by discouraging the use of exemptions for
game retrieval and dispersed camping. Regional Forest-
ers should require site-specific, route-by-route analysis
of every path considered for designation. Forests should
conduct comprehensive forest-wide travel planning, ad-
dressing the designation of both motorized routes and
non-motorized trails. If appropriate lands are available,
forests should design compact and enforceable networks
of off-road vehicle routes, and the extent of the designat-
ed route network should be limited to the level of funding
for enforcement, monitoring, and maintenance — fewer
dollars results in less management capacity and, there-
fore, should be matched with fewer places where off-road
vehicle use is allowed.
National leadership for the Forest Service has missed
a rare opportunity get control of a runaway problem. The
new rule does not reflect the legal mandate of the Execu-
tive Orders and does not demonstrate political support
for better agency management. In effect, Washington lead-
ership has actually made it more challenging for respon-
sible Forest Supervisors to ensure the promotion and
protection of quiet forests, healthy watersheds, abundant
wildlife and intact native systems.
Nonetheless, the rule does allow for local discre-
tion and public involvement. Environmental advocates
and a broad swath of potential allies — including hikers,
hunters, horseback riders, ranchers, and forest neigh-
bors — may be able to awaken agency leadership among
District Rangers, Supervisors and Regional Foresters. As
administrations come and go, land managers closer to
the land will have to make and live with decisions about
public land uses, impacts, and conflicts. They will make
these decisions as individual forests and ranger districts
begin to implement the rule by crafting travel plans and
designating off-road vehicle routes. During this critical pe-
riod, Wildlands CPR will provide grassroots activists and
organizations with the strategies, materials, and messages
to rally the vast majority (a majority that does not rely
on motors to explore and use the forest) to stand up and
speak up for the values and benefits of quiet, nonmotor-
ized, wild landscapes.
— Tim Peterson is our new Transportation Policy
Coordinator.
5
Eldorado ORV Routes Closed by Court
By Ronni Flannery

M
ore than 700 miles of user-created routes have been closed to motor- In 1989, the Forest Service adopted the
ized vehicles on the Eldorado National Forest in California as a result Eldorado Forest Plan, which reversed man-
of a lawsuit brought by the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, agement direction to limit motorized travel
Center for Biological Diversity, and California Wilderness Coalition. The user- to designated routes and areas. According
created routes will remain closed at least until the Forest Service demonstrates to the plan, only those routes designated in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), at which point a forest-wide off-road vehicle plan would be
it is possible that some will be opened for legal, authorized use. open to motorized use. The agency did, in
1990, create such an off-road vehicle plan,
Case Background but it simply incorporated existing routes,
roads, and tracks that had been used by off-
road vehicles. Moreover, the Forest Service
The suit challenged several related actions concerning off-road vehicle did not conduct a separate NEPA analysis
management in the Eldorado National Forest. [Center for Sierra Nevada Con- for the ORV Plan, but rather “tiered” the
servation, et al. v. John Berry, et al., No. Civ. S-02-325 LKK/JFM (E.D. CA 2005).] plan to the Forest Plan’s EIS. The Forest
Located in the heart of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in central California, Service Chief, responding to numerous
the Eldorado contains more than 786,000 acres of forestlands with extremely Forest Plan appeals, subsequently directed
diverse topography, soils, vegetation, and habitats. The forest provides habitat the Eldorado to conduct an environmental
for numerous endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife species, and analysis of the motorized routes designated
includes portions of the Pacific deer herd critical winter range. The forest is in the 1990 ORV Plan by May 1997, but the
also a popular area for a wide range of recreational uses. Used by motorized agency never complied.
recreationists year-round, the forest contains hundreds of miles of roads and Over the years, the Center for Sierra
routes open to motorized use. A variety of non-motorized activities compete Nevada Conservation and others spent
with motorized use, including hiking, horseback riding, mountain bike riding, countless hours urging the Forest Service
hunting, and fishing. to satisfy its NEPA obligations, and other-
wise advocated for responsible manage-
ment of off-road vehicles. During this time,
the organizations documented extensive
damage throughout the forest resulting
from motorized use of the user-created,
unanalyzed routes.

Summary of the Court’s

Rulings

In 2002 Plaintiffs filed suit against the

Forest Service for its mismanagement of
motorized use throughout the Eldorado
National Forest. In early 2005, the District
Court for the Eastern District of California
issued an order resolving the Plaintiffs’
legal claims. The Court ruled in Plaintiffs’
favor on several claims, including that the
Service violated NEPA by:
1) Failing to conduct any environmen-
tal analysis under NEPA before adopting the
1990 ORV Plan;
2) Limiting the geographical scope of
the cumulative impacts analysis in the Rock
Closing user-created routes helps protect fragile alpine meadows in the Eldorado National Creek Recreational Trails Plan Environmen-
Forest. Photo by Karen Schambach. tal Impact Statement (“Rock Creek EIS”) to
the Rock Creek area;

6 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

 3) Failing to adequately describe ders 11644 and 11989. Plaintiffs had argued
or discuss “other activities” that might that the government’s own analysis contained
contribute to the Rock Creek EIS’ analysis alternatives that admittedly minimized impacts
of cumulative impacts to the Pacific deer to a greater degree than the alternative chosen,
herd; and while still providing motorized recreational
4) Failing to mention or analyze at opportunities, and that its failure to select such
all in the Rock Creek EIS the cumulative alternatives was a failure to comply with the
impacts that grazing allotments in the minimization criteria. But the Court concluded
Eldorado National Forest might have on that while minimizing environmental damage
the Pacific deer herd. from off-road vehicles was a mandatory duty,
As relief for these legal violations, the government had a great deal of discretion
the Court ruled that the 1990 ORV Plan to decide how to accomplish this.
be withdrawn and that by December 31,
Gerle Creek, Eldorado
National Forest. Photo by
2007, the Forest Service issue an EIS and Claims by Intervenors
record of decision on a new off-road vehi-
Joseph Dougherty/ecology.org.
cle plan that complies with all applicable
Representing Motorized Interests
laws and regulations. In the interim, the
Court ruled that all private party motorized use be restricted to system Lastly, the Court rejected a claim made
motorized roads and routes. The Court also ordered the Forest Service by off-road vehicle riders’ organizations that
to supplement its EIS for the Rock Creek Area ORV Plan in accordance the Forest Service, in adopting the Rock Creek
with the Court’s earlier ruling on the merits. Plan, had evaluated an unreasonably narrow
range of alternatives by failing to consider
an alternative with a motorized route density
Challenge to Forest-wide ORV Plan greater than that established by the Forest
Service. The Court questioned whether the
Plaintiffs’ central challenge in the lawsuit concerned the Forest’s intervenors (whose plain purpose was to seek
1990 ORV Plan, which authorized motorized use on designated routes plans that have a more significant impact on
throughout the forest. Plaintiffs claimed that the Forest Service vio- the environment) should be allowed to sue
lated NEPA by failing to conduct a forest-wide environmental review under NEPA (whose purpose is to preserve
of that plan. The Court agreed with the conservation groups that the and protect the environment), and in the end
agency had illegally adopted and implemented the Plan by failing to determined that that the agency did all it was
conduct a separate forest-wide analysis of the Plan’s environmental required to do under the law.
impacts.
The Court rejected the agency’s claim that it should be permitted
to satisfy its NEPA obligations by doing “priority” reviews on an area-
Significance of the Case
by-area basis, rather than conducting a forest-wide analysis. Out of
16 off-road vehicle areas within the forest, the only area-wide plan the The case represents a victory for
agency had actually completed since the ORV Plan went into effect was organizations that have been working tirelessly
the Rock Creek ORV Plan, which plaintiffs also successfully challenged to rein in mismanagement of off-road vehicles
in the lawsuit. on the Eldorado National Forest. One of the
The Court ruled that because the creation and implementation of most significant aspects of the case is that the
the ORV Plan was clearly a major federal action, and because “tiering” judge required that all user-created routes be
to the Forest Plan EIS without also conducting a project-level EIS was closed unless and until they are analyzed under
not proper under the law, the Plan violated NEPA. The Court further NEPA to determine whether or not they can be
reasoned that because the agency itself chose to create and implement added to the system. The Forest Service has
a forest-wide off-road vehicle plan, the Forest Service was required to recently published a notice of intent to prepare
examine the environmental impacts of each and every route on a for- an EIS for the motorized route designation
est-wide basis. process, and the Plaintiffs will fully participate
in this public process. The case stands for
the proposition that motorized route designa-
Related Rulings tion requires an analysis of the environmental
impacts associated with the motorized routes.
The Court also agreed with The case also suggests that off-roaders are on
Plaintiffs that the Forest Service shaky ground when they attempt to use envi-
conducted a deficient cumula- ronmental laws to expand destructive motor-
tive effects analysis for the Rock ized use.
Creek ORV Plan, as summarized
above. — Ronni Flannery is an attorney in Missoula,
Unfortunately, the Court Montana handling a wide range of public interest
did not agree with Plaintiffs that issues, with a concentration on environmental
the Rock Creek ORV Plan failed law. Ronni, and Keith Wagner of the law office
to designate routes in accor- Stream bank erosion caused by off-road of J. Williams Yeates (Sacramento), represented
dance with the “minimization vehicles travelling on user-created the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation and
criteria” contained in federal routes. Photo by Karen Schambach.
its partners.
regulations and Executive Or-
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005 7
Road-bed
by Janisse Ray
P
eople wonder why I’d make such
a fuss about a road. It’s only a
couple miles of Georgia dirt, after
all, and bad dirt at that. The clay gets
slick as pig-grease in wet weather. In
dry, the road’s so worn and dusty that
after a car passes, some of the road
rises like a congregation of drifters and
wanders over to the house where I live.
The house most people would bulldoze
and hire a contractor to rebuild: it’s full
of holes. Haggard molecules of road-
dust crawl into the house through its
cracks and holes.
I’m always dusting the road off the
tables and shelves, and blowing it off
rows of books, and off the seashells and
fossils and turtle backs we collect as
if we run a museum instead of a farm.
Still it gathers in little dust-ponds, and
I blow and sweep, and haul the road
back out where it belongs, old dirty
nuisance.
And the way the road grips and
shakes the GMC when I drive the half-
mile to the highway is enough to alien-
ate a person. The truck is 33 years old
and the old road is hard on it. Flakes of
rust shake loose until they rain down
and pepper the cab. Entire chunks of
the truck are missing, and I know where
they are.
That damn road is like a sad va-
grant, the way it insinuates itself in my
life.
When a scrubbed man wearing
slacks and a pressed collared shirt that
looked bought in some Atlanta depart-
ment store twenty years prior showed
up at the farm, waving a piece of paper
in his hand like a little white truce-flag,
I could have offered him a cool glass of
water. I could have apologized for not
having a pitcher of sweet tea chilling
in the Frigidaire (disrespecting the
memory of all my mothers and grand-
mothers).
But the man hadn’t come to see
me. I didn’t own a foot of the land that
interested him, along the road -- not
8 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
even an inch -- and my signature on his
paper was as worthless as a ticket to
last week’s movie. No, he needed my
Uncle Percy, heir to everything closest
to my grandmother’s heart.
Uncle Percy’s mother was my
grandmother. I would come to occupy
her house, and be my uncle’s neighbor.
The day the well-dressed man showed
up, Uncle Percy was sitting on the steps
of his mobile home. I would watch the
man get out and stand under that guile-
less water-oak’s upraised and weaken-
ing limbs, holding the paper smooth
and protected from the wind. I saw
everything from my front porch, behind
the azaleas that had grown taller than
my head.
The man, who had just arrived by
the road, would have greeted Uncle
Percy as if he’d known him all his life.
Because he had. They had been raised
together as boys, closest neighbors;
had attended the same country school
and the same Baptist church; had been
made to chop cotton, dip turpentine
and slop hogs. Except Uncle Percy
graduated at sixteen and joined the Air
Force, and the neighbor boy grew up
and married and moved off and worked
for some corporation up in Atlanta,
where he raised his children.
The neighbor had decided to run
for county commissioner, having come
back to his backwards little county with
ideas about progress. He was elected.
Now he had papers but they
weren’t church papers nor was the man
trying to get elected. Whatever it was,
of course Uncle Percy would sign.
In the early 1800s, Wilson Baxley
migrated to Appling County, Georgia,
from North Carolina. The indigenous
people, the Creeks, had been stripped
of their landholdings in the coastal
plains of Georgia, and had been herded
south to Florida and west to Oklahoma.
White settlers began to move in. They
created roads along old trading routes
and between settlements. The northern
Sitting on the old Hilton Baxley
Road, Janisse and her mother
display a quilt they made. Photo by
Janisse Ray.
part of Appling County, Georgia that is
named Spring Branch Community was
settled in the mid-1800s by the Baxleys,
the Branches, the Carters, and the
Moodys. My people.
At first, Hilton Baxley Road, where I
live, was a two-path road, wide enough
for a team of oxen. Then it was wide
enough for a car. Then two cars. Then a
tractor and a car.
When my mother was raised on the
family farm, starting in 1939, she walked
on Hilton Baxley Road to school, to
church, and to Little Ten Mile Creek,
where her brothers swam. When I was
a girl in the late 1960s, the bridge over
the creek was still wooden, without
guardrails, a rattling affair of loose
beams and boards, through which the
meandering brook could be seen.
As a girl I spent most Saturdays at
my grandmother’s house. Gnarled and
sapsucker-pocked crabapple trees grew
out by the road, from which we gath-
ered sharply sweet pomes. Few cars
passed. After the letter carrier arrived,
and left, I could retrieve the mail. Some-
times Uncle Bill drove his cows along
the road, from one pasture to another.
Sometimes a cow and her heifer got lost
and, unable to find the herd, came bawl-
ing along the road.
As an adult, I came to despise
roads. They meant fragmentation of
the native landscapes I loved, death to

Tree removal along Hilton Baxley Road in preparation for paving.
Photo by Janisse Ray.
the fauna. They meant mortality to our
already-numbered black bears and pan-
thers and indigo snakes. In our national
forests, roads were bulldozed into
beautiful forests, and next the forests
were destroyed. Salamanders trying to
cross roads on rainy nights, migrating
to ponds to breed, were smashed.
In the natural history of roads,
human passage evolved from path to
trail to trace to way to lane to road, but
at some point the meaning of the word
“road” changed. As long as humans
perambulated, we had no need for a thor-
oughfare wider than our swinging arms.
As long as we rode horses, we had no
need for roads wider than a team. Roads
connected people to each other, threads
through wilderness. Then, “road” was a
verb meaning “to join.” Now, it connotes
“divide.” In our past one hundred years
of life in this country, since the Model T
was created in 1908 following invention
of the automobile in Europe, our roads
have ever widened, until they became
great swaths piercing landscapes. The
widest road I have ever seen was in
Los Angeles, about 24 lanes, each wide
enough for a tractor-trailer, twelve going
one way and twelve the other. Dividing
everybody from everybody. Each person
in his or her own car, divided.
Hilton Baxley Road as it appears after
levelling. Photo by Janisse Ray.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
We have gone crazy for roads. In
the twenty years of my adult life, I have
seen roads forced through salt marsh-
es, through neighborhoods, through
forests, through coastlines, through
prairie and scrub. I’ve seen roads made
into highways, and highways into super-
highways.
What I love is movement on the
smallest of scales. I love footpaths and
trails and little boats on rivers.
When I moved into my grandmoth-
er’s farmhouse, however, I fell in love
with the beautiful red road that ran
alongside my home. Daily I watched the
road and I watched what traveled upon
it.
Appling is a poor county and
doesn’t have a lot of money to pave
every road in the county. But if you
get elected county commissioner, you
get to name one road you’d like paved,
and it doesn’t have to be the worst
road. It doesn’t have to be washed out
or corrugated or closed because of a
faulty bridge, and it doesn’t have to be
well populated. You can live on a pretty
good road with only four or five other
houses on it, and if you’re county com-
missioner, you get to butter your own
bread.
And if you talk nice enough,
everybody will sign the papers you
need signed. Except my mother. She
wouldn’t sign. She had come to own
the house along the road where I lived,
and although my Uncle Percy signed,
my mother wouldn’t. So we wrote let-
ters to the neighbors and to the editor
of the paper that said, “A paved road
is not progress.” We took the case to
court and my shy, angelic mother had
to stand in front of a brusque judge and
tell him why she opposed the road-
paving. The county left a check for us
at the probate judge’s office, thinking
we wanted money for our little strip of
land, but we let the check lie. We didn’t
want money. We wanted to preserve
the old-growth longleaf pines lining the
road, and the rural character of the
farm, and the peace and sanctity of the
countryside. I couldn’t imagine cover-
ing that wonderful, old, omnipotent
dirt – my great-grandparents had walked
on it, do you understand that? – with
asphalt. “When I turn off the highway,
coming home, I hope it always will be
onto a cool, tree-shaded, clean road
made of Georgia clay and sand,” I wrote.
We met with the road department and
saved the old-growth longleafs.
I have become increasingly bitter
about the ignorance of the federal
Department of Transportation, state
highway departments, and county road
supervisors. I am convinced that a
road-building lobby as organized and
destructive as the development lobby
is driving the manic road-building going
on in our nation. Most roads are waste-
ful. Most are unnecessary. Dare me to
say it – all are contrary to environmen-
tal ethics, and all are enemies of wild
America.
Paving the road by the farm is part
of an American idea of progress that is
quickly becoming outdated, losing its
context and its potency. Paving makes
possible more and faster traffic, and
more comfortable traffickers – hence
more fossil fuels. What do I need to say
to my neighbor so that he sees the futil-
ity in road-building? What can I say that
will ignite him to be thinking beyond
petroleum?
Come in, my neighbor, my country-
man. You have come walking the red
road through moonlight to my door.
Let’s rinse the dust off the glasses and
pour a noggin of moonshine, to toast
our ancestors who also sat together in
prophecy of this night, they who still
walk the roadbed invisible in their suits.
Let’s talk while we can, before we too
join them walking there.
— Janisse Ray is a naturalist, an
environmental activist, and a winner
of the 1996 Merriam Frontier Award.
She has written Ecology of a Cracker
Childhood and Wild Card Quilt: Taking
a Chance on Home and is a nature
commentator for Georgia Public Radio.
This essay is excerpted from a longer
piece in A Road Runs Through It:
Reviving Wild Places, a Wildlands CPR
anthology to be published by Johnson
Books in early summer 2006.
9
Transportation Program Update
W
ildlands CPR welcomes Tim Peterson to the role of
Transportation Policy Coordinator. Jason Kiely has been
placed on detail with the Natural Trails & Waters Coali-
tion where he serves as the Forest Campaign Coordinator. One of
Tim’s first assignments was to serve up a thorough analysis of the
new Forest Service regulations on off-road vehicles — see this issue’s
cover story.
In support of the Utah Three-Forest Coalition, Tim and Jason
contributed to comments on the Fishlake ORV Route Designation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Further, Jason and Wildlands
CPR Science Coordinator Adam Switalski participated in a day-long
strategic planning meeting for the Three-Forest Coalition and a
separate meeting with the Utah Quiet Forests Coalition working on
the Wasatch Plateau. We also met with the Wild Utah Project to begin
developing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for off-road vehicles.
Staff scientist Adam Switalski provided model BMPs from our library,
and he will help them develop these BMPs and get them peer-re-
viewed. The BMPs will be relevant far beyond Utah when finished.
We continue to work closely with national allies, grappling with
the threat of politically tinged and commercially motivated manage-
ment policies drafted by the National Park Service (NPS). If adopted
as written, the policies would redefine the overarching duty of the
agency by weakening longstanding legal mandates that emphasize
the agency’s responsibility for preserving America’s natural heritage.
For example, the proposed policies would increase the allowance of
high-impact activities such as off-road vehicle recreation, and muddy
the water on what type of management should be required for such
activities if they are allowed.
In addition to responding to a barrage of policy action at the
national level, the Transportation Program assisted grassroots con-
servationists from around the country and places as distant as Spain
and Brazil. Closer to home, Adam is working with several University
of Montana students who will be researching a variety of topics for
Bibliography Notes in The Road RIPorter.
NTWC Update
On November 2, the Forest Service announced their final regula-
tions governing travel management, with a focus on designating off-
road vehicle routes to curb impacts caused by cross-country travel
(see cover story). The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition staff in
Wildlands CPR’s office coordinated a national response to the rule.
As part of our response, coalition staff members provided timely
information, analysis, and outreach materials to more than 300 Coali-
tion members and other grassroots groups. Outreach to reporters
and editorial boards resulted in more than 125 news articles. The
Coalition’s assessment of the rule was reflected in a majority of these
articles, including those written by the Associated Press, USA Today,
10
Hellgate High School students help Wildlands CPR monitor
local streams. Photo by Adam Switalski.
New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and
scores of regional and local newspapers. The Denver
Post and Salt Lake Tribune have both written and
editorialized on the rule in a way that also reflects the
Coalition’s assessment.
Immediately after the rule’s release, former US
Forest Service Deputy Chief Jim Furnish and Wildlands
CPR Executive Director Bethanie Walder met with For-
est Service officials to discuss the revised regulations
and agency plans for implementation. Jim has since
followed-up by meeting with Associate Deputy Chief
Fred Norbury and conducting outreach to congres-
sional staff.
Sometime in early 2006, the Forest Service ex-
pects to conduct internal trainings for land managers
on how to implement the new rules through travel
planning and route designation. The Chief has already
called on forests to ensure public participation in
these planning processes and has advanced collabora-
tion as a method for involvement.
The Coalition will make substantial contributions
to build grassroots capacity in the coming year. Janu-
ary through July of 2006, the Coalition will partner
with the University of Virginia’s Institute for Environ-
mental Negotiation to provide workshops on effective
collaboration for travel planning and off-road vehicle
designations. The Coalition anticipates inviting con-
servationists, off-roaders, diverse allies, and agency
staff to eight workshops limited to about 25 people
each.
The Coalition is currently searching for a new Di-
rector. Please visit www.naturaltrails.org for informa-
tion on the position.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
Restoration Program Update
M
arnie has been traveling this fall, attending
conferences and presenting on the impor-
tance of wildland road removal. In Septem-
ber she attended the annual meeting of the National
Network of Forest Practitioners, held in Appalachian,
Ohio, where she presented on two panels: collabora-
tion and restoration jobs. Marnie spoke about Wild-
lands CPR’s numerous collaborative efforts, including
our work with the Lolo National Forest, our collabora-
tive work in Hells Canyon, and the National Forest Res-
toration Collaborative. Marnie was the only person on
the panel from the environmental community, so she
provided a unique and well-received perspective. The
restoration jobs panel looked at the important role
restoration jobs can play in the economy, as well as
some of the hardships that restoration workers face,
including low wages.
Other travels have included a Sierra Club/Wilder-
ness Society sponsored forest planning workshop in
Salt Lake City where Marnie presented on transpor-
tation planning; the Inland Northwest Restoration
Conference, where she presented Adam and Katherine
Court’s poster on citizen monitoring in the Clearwater
National Forest; and a road removal workshop in En-
terprise, Oregon that was sponsored by the Nez Perce
Tribe and aimed at getting the Wallowa-Whitman Na-
tional Forest excited about road removal. Several folks
from the Hells Canyon collaborative attended.
University of Montana students participate in Wildlands CPR citizen science projects, assessing road impacts on
Idaho streams. Photo by Adam Switalski.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
This winter, Wildlands CPR is excited to have intern Josh Hurd
on board. Josh will be working with grassroots groups around
the country to raise road removal as an issue in forest planning.
Also, Wildlands CPR is still looking for a Native American intern to
complete our tribal/national forest project. If you know anyone who
might be interested, please have him/her contact Marnie Criley at
Wildlands CPR.
Citizen Science on the Clearwater National
Forest
Staff scientist Adam Switalski continues to oversee our citizen
science project in Idaho, working closely with University of Mon-
tana graduate student Katherine Court. After concluding summer
fieldwork, Katherine is now putting together the data collected by
citizen scientists. Soon the data and analysis will be available online
at: www.clearwaterroads.com. Katherine and Adam presented their
monitoring program at the International Conference on Ecology and
Transportation (ICOET) in San Diego, CA.
As Katherine finishes up her masters, Adam welcomes a new
graduate student, Anna Holden, to organize more citizen scientists
and continue the program. She is training with Adam and has
already met with local high school teachers to engage their classes.
We look forward to working with Anna and all the folks she recruits
to monitor decommissioned roads on the Clearwater National For-
est.
11
A Look at Agency Off-Road Management
By Bethanie Walder
D
uring the last five years we’ve seen more attention paid to
off-road vehicle management from the three major federal land
management agencies [National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest
Service (FS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)]. Some of this
attention was a reaction to conservationist pressure (e.g. rulemaking
petitions submitted to the Park Service and Forest Service in 1999),
while some was in recognition of the improved technology and increas-
ing impacts of off-road vehicles on public lands.
While the three agencies all seem to understand that off-road
vehicles are an increasing threat to the resources they manage, they
have taken vastly different approaches to addressing this threat. This
article compares their respective approaches.
Photo courtesy of Forest Service.
Executive Orders and Enabling Legislation
Off-road vehicles are managed on all public lands under the
direction of the Executive Orders (EOs) signed by Presidents Nixon
and Carter in 1972 and 1977. EOs 11644 and 11989 require public land
managers to minimize damage from off-road vehicle recreation and to
ensure that such use does not conflict with other uses of public lands.
In addition, each agency is also guided by an Organic Act (the law that
established the agency) and other laws (Endangered Species Act, Clean
Water Act, etc.).
The Forest Service Organic Act (1897), the Multiple Use Sustained
Yield Act (1960), and the National Forest Management Act (1976), gen-
erally grant the FS a “multiple use” mandate, theoretically requiring a
sustainable supply of resources such as timber, grazing, mining, clean
water, wildlife and recreation. The BLM is bound by a similar mandate
under the Federal Lands Policy Management Act (1976). In contrast,
the Park Service’s Organic Act (1916) requires the agency to protect
natural resources, leaving then unimpaired for future generations. The
NPS has been relatively true to this mandate, though they have allowed
some very significant developments in concentrated areas within the
parks.
12
Recent Approaches to Off-road
Recreation
Bureau of Land Management
Of these three agencies, BLM was the first to un-
dertake an agency-wide study and consider national
action on the off-road vehicle threat. A February
2000 report (“Land Use Planning for Sustainable
Resource Decisions - Backlog of Planning Needs -
Keeping Pace with a Changing Nation”) submitted to
Congress articulated the need to revise BLM’s Land
Use Plans to address off-road vehicle problems,
which it says included:
“…continued widespread resource damage affect-
ing other uses such as grazing and wildlife, fragmen-
tation of T&E habitats, a reduction in air and water
quality, and visitor use conflicts between motorized
and non-motorized users...”
Following the report, BLM spent a year analyz-
ing off-road vehicle recreation and management.
The result, a National OHV Strategy (January 2001),
was unhelpful. While it described off-road vehicle
recreation, conflicts and problems, it did not pro-
vide any strategy for action. Existing regulations
could provide a means for effective management,
but they aren’t enforced. At best, the OHV Strategy
made it clear that the BLM should revise their regu-
lations, Handbook and Manual, but none of these
revisions have occurred.
Until meaningful changes are implemented,
BLM lands will continue to absorb the bulk of the
impacts from off-road vehicles. While the agency
has restricted off-road vehicles to designated routes
in new national monuments like Grand Staircase
Escalante and Missouri Breaks, approximately 90%
of the total BLM land area is open to cross-country
travel by off-road vehicles.
Forest Service
While cross-country travel is out of control on
BLM lands, the Forest Service is making an effort to
rein it in. In November 2005, the FS released their
final rule to overhaul off-road vehicle regulations
nationwide; a key provision will restrict most off-
road vehicle use to designated routes. The agency
currently has approximately 69 million acres open
to cross-country travel.
Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth set the
stage for this new rule in an Earth Day speech in
2003 where he pointed to increasing problems with
off-road vehicle use (Managing the National Forest
System: Great Issues and Great Diversions):
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
 “We’re seeing more and more erosion, water
degradation, and habitat destruction. We’re seeing
more and more conflicts between users. We’re seeing
more damage to cultural sites and more violation of
sites sacred to American Indians. And those are just
some of the impacts. We’re going to have to manage
that by restricting OHV use to designated roads, trails,
and areas.”
The FS rulemaking was also motivated by
requests from FS field staff for more assistance in
addressing off-road vehicle problems. In addition,
Wildlands CPR led more than 100 groups in submit-
ting an off-road vehicle rule-making petition in late
1999.
While the new rule is a step in the right direc-
tion, the agency left most of the hard work to man-
agers on the ground, while securing no additional
funding to support it. More importantly, the FS rule
reinterprets the Executive Orders in such a way as
to render them almost meaningless. For example,
where the EOs required the elimination of impacts,
the new rule only requires mitigation.
Nonetheless, the new rule does have some
redeeming features in addition to prohibiting most
cross-country travel. It would, for the first time
ever, shift the responsibility for knowing where to
ride from the agency to the rider. Once routes are
designated and maps published, riders will have
to determine where they can legally ride. Posted
“open” or “closed” signs will no longer be the pri-
mary form of route designation (because vandalism
to those signs is such a problem). This is a long
overdue and much needed shift in off-road vehicle
management philosophy.
The Forest Service is now in the process of up-
dating their management handbook and manual to
provide more specific standards and guidelines for
managers to implement the rule. They will publish
revisions in the Federal Register for public com-
ment, most likely in early 2006.
National Park Service
Off-road vehicle use is typically managed on a
case-by-case basis in the parks, with some NPS units
having off-road vehicle provisions in their enabling
legislation, and other units categorically prohibited
from allowing off-road vehicles. Nonetheless, where
off-road vehicles are allowed, they must comply
with the same Executive Orders that govern all off-
road vehicle use.
In 1999, the Bluewater Network led a coalition
of more than 50 groups (including Wildlands CPR)
to file a rule-making petition with the Park Service
to overhaul their management of off-road vehicles.
The Park Service denied the petition in November
2005 and several petitioners (Bluewater, Wildlands
CPR and National Parks Conservation Association)
filed a lawsuit in response.
According to an internal survey conducted
as a partial response to the petition, more than 90
NPS units reported illegal off-road vehicle use. Of
these, more than 70 units reported that the illegal
use adversely affects natural and cultural resources
and creates conflicts among visitors. For example,
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
Evidence of illegal motorized use of a trail. Photo by
Dan Schroeder, Sierra Club, Ogden Chapter.
managers of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail called illegal off-
road vehicle use one of their “most pernicious management problems.”
One of the responses to the internal survey illustrates the extent of the
problem:
“At Joshua Tree, we have a fragile desert environment. The illegal
[off-road vehicle] traffic causes scars in the desert floor that take many
years to heal if at all. Fragile plants are torn up and destroyed.... The
endangered Desert Tortoise dens are run over and damaged by [off-
road vehicle] traffic.... [W]e do not have the staff to patrol these remote
areas...”
In October 2005 the Park Service released new draft management
policies that would affect every aspect of park management, including
off-road vehicles and snowmobiling. Unfortunately, the draft policies
remove all specific references to off-road vehicle Executive Orders
11644 and 11989, and also remove guidelines for designating off-road
vehicle use. There is no clear justification for this policy rewrite, other
than as a compromise to an even more terrible revision by a Depart-
ment of Interior political appointee (Paul Hoffman). This represents a
disturbing development for the national parks.
Conclusion
The Park Service and BLM have both conducted studies of the
impacts of off-road vehicles within their boundaries, though neither
agency has undertaken any meaningful action to address problems.
The Forest Service did not conduct a formal study to identify problems
(though numerous advocacy groups have), but they did revise off-road
vehicle regulations through a rulemaking process that took nearly
two years. The Park Service’s proposed policy revisions address all
aspects of park management, but took only a few short months.
All these agencies have consistently stated that they lack sufficient
funding to enforce their regulations and monitor the impacts of off-
road vehicle use. This is a systemic problem and the agencies should
cooperate to increase their management capacity. It is likely that the
national parks will be held to a higher standard than our FS and BLM
lands, but while these three land management agencies operate under
different legal constraints, they could adopt policies that are at least
synchronous. All three must base their minimum management stan-
dards on EOs 11644 and 11989, ensuring that off-road vehicle use does
not impact natural resources or interfere with other uses of public
lands.
With off-road vehicle use growing (the FS estimates that more
than 36 million off-road vehicles are now in use in the United States),
and technology improving to the point where these vehicles can travel
practically anywhere, it is high time that all three agencies adopt poli-
cies to ensure that off-road vehicle abuse of public lands will stop. It’s
time they applied their mandates for protecting the land to more for-
mally and realistically address off-road vehicle problems and to ensure
that they are protecting natural resources for future generations.
13
 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 10,000 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.

Evaluating the Use of Mycorestoration on

Decommissioned Roads in Arizona
By Joseph Trudeau

W
hile restoration scientists
have established protocols
to guide the process of
road ripping, little research has been
done to assess the effectiveness of
these procedures in restoring ecosys-
tem processes (Switalski et al. 2004;
Elseroad 2003). The Society for Eco-
logical Restoration defines a restored
ecosystem as self-sustaining in struc-
ture and function, resilient to normal
ranges of stress and disturbance, and
able to interact with contiguous ecosys-
tems (SER 2002). A road that is merely
ripped and then left to recover on its
own may not meet these criteria. Luce
(1997) concluded that ripping leads to
a temporary and marginal improvement
in hydrologic and ecological function.
Fungi and Roads
Mycorrhizal fungi form important
relationships with over 90% of the
plants on Earth, whereby the fungus
receives photosynthates from the
plant while the plant benefits through
Saprophytic fungi were evaluated
for their potential to aid restoration
efforts of decomissioned roads.
Photo by Joseph Trudeau.
improved water relations and nutrient
uptake, and protection from pathogens
(Allen 1991). Saprophytic fungi are
primary decomposers of dead or-
ganic material, and their underground
vegetative structure, called mycelium,
is important in nutrient transfer, soil
stability, and ecosystem function (Hunt
and Wall 2002; Setala and McLean 2004).
Road construction and subsequent
use removes organic matter and leaves
a compacted mineral surface devoid
of fungal propagules (Amaranthus
and Trappe 1993; Harvey et al. 1979).
Decommissioned roads, ripped or not,
are also lacking in fungi that complete
essential processes such as nutrient
cycling and plant community support
(Morman and Reeves 1979; Reeves et
al. 1979). In theory, then, effective road
restoration may utilize fungal inoculum
to assist plant and microbial communi-
ties to achieve pre-disturbance condi-
tions.
There have been only limited explo-
rations of the possibilities of using fun-
gal inoculum in ecosystem restoration.
Johnson (1998) examined the effects
of mycorrhizal inoculation on a weedy
non-mycorrhizal plant (Salsola kali) and
a perennial mycorrhizal plant (Panicum
virgatum) in an abandoned mine set-
ting. Results indicated that plots with
mycorrhizal inoculum resisted invasion
by the exotic weed and enhanced the
growth of the perennial native grass,
but manipulating conditions to favor
mycorrhiza formation (addition of soil
organic material) may be more cost
effective than the expensive process
of inoculation. Stamets and Sumerlin
(2003) have used fungal inoculum to
restore roads in the Pacific Northwest.
In a practice they call “mycofiltration,”
saprophytic and mycorrhizal fungi are
inoculated into mulch to accelerate de-
composition and provide the improved
conditions offered through mycorrhizal
associations. Advantages of this tech-
nique include sediment containment,
moisture enhancement, habitat recov-
ery, soil structural improvements, and
aesthetic enhancement (Stamets and
Sumerlin 2003).
There has never been a rigor-
ous study done to evaluate the use of
fungal inoculum in road restoration in
a southwestern ponderosa pine forest.
The purpose of this study was twofold:
to evaluate the effect of mycorrhizal
inoculum on plant establishment and
abundance on a closed and ripped road
in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine
forest, and to evaluate the efficacy of
saprophytic fungal inoculum in coloniz-
ing ponderosa pine mulch.
Experimental Design
In August, 2004, three logging roads
at approximately 7400’ elevation in a
ponderosa pine/gambel oak forest 6
miles west of Flagstaff, Arizona were
selected for the experiment. The roads
were built to facilitate a 2003 timber
sale and were closed and ripped by
September 2003. The roads were flat (0-
2% slope), with low canopy cover and
clayey soils of basaltic origin.

14 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

 Upon each road, five 11m long by
2m wide experimental blocks were
installed end-to-end in succession.
Blocks were divided into four 1.5m
by 2m plots with 1m by 2m buffers
between each plot, resulting in 2m long
buffers between blocks. Four treat-
ments were assigned to the plots: A)
control, B) mycorrhizal inoculum C)
mulch + mycorrhizal and saprophytic
inoculum, and D) mulch. All plots were
seeded with a native seed mix consist-
ing of Elymus elymoides, Festuca arizo-
nica, Muhlenbergia wrightii, and Lupinus
argenteus. Ponderosa pine woodchips
(mulch) were applied to a depth of ~4
inches after seeding. The mycorrhizal
inoculum was “Mycogrow Micronized
Endo-Ecto Seed Mix” and the sapro-
phytic inoculum was the “dowel spawn”
of the species Hypholoma capnoides.
Results
Vegetation Response
We collected data in mid-October,
2004, two months after application,
and mid-October, 2005, 14 months after
application, identifying each species
and counting every plant. In 2004,
Treatment B plots (those with only
mycorrhizal inoculum) had the highest
abundance of grass seedlings, but con-
trols had the highest species richness.
In both cases the differences between
those two non-mulched treatments
were insignificant.
In 2005, after a full year, control
plots had the highest richness and
Montoring test plots of fungi inoculum on decomissioned roads in Arizona.
Photo by Joseph Trudeau.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
abundance for all species, though not
significantly more than Treatment B.
Mulched plots (Treatments C and D)
had significantly lower species rich-
ness, grass seedling abundance, and
total species abundance in both years
(ANOVA P<0.001). While mulched plots
(Treatments C and D) suppressed the
establishment of most species, oak
seedlings preferred them over non-
mulched (Treatments A and B) (ANOVA
P=.0157), and did especially well on one
of the roads.
Fungal Response
In 2004, 70% of inspected dowels
showed successful survival and colo-
nization, but by 2005 only 34% showed
signs of success. The inoculum on one
of the roads was vigorously colonized
by a resident soil fungus, and there was
0% survival by 2005. The two roads
that did better were examined more
critically for resident soil fungi. Sixty-
eight percent of sampled subplots that
had been inoculated were colonized by
resident fungi, and 60% of mulch-only
plots were colonized. There were no
relationships between success of inocu-
lation and presence of resident fungi.
Discussion
The results of this study provide
little support for fungal inoculation of
ripped roads in Arizona ponderosa pine
forests at this time. The mycorrhizal
inoculum appeared to have no effect on
plant establishment in mulched or non-
mulched plots. Johnson (1998) used
soil from a nearby location as a source
of fungal inoculum and had success,
and Bagley (1999) suggested using local
soil to prevent introducing exotic fungi.
It is likely that the inoculum in the
present study simply died as it was not
adapted to local conditions. Also, St.
John (1996, 1998) noted that inoculum
placed on the soil surface will have less
chance of working than inoculum that
is buried. In this study inoculum was
lightly raked into the soil and it prob-
ably was not deep enough. Future trials
with powdered inoculum would benefit
from adding it at the time of ripping
to increase mixing in deeper soils. As
plant roots tend to be most dense near
the surface, any deeper than 8 inches
for the inoculum is not advised.
Mulch had a strong inhibitory
effect on plant growth, except for favor-
ing the sprouting of oak seedlings. The
reduced understory plant establish-
ment is unfortunate, but in terms of per-
manently restoring roads, oaks may be
a more effective plant. As they mature,
they will become natural barriers to ve-
hicle passage, contribute to organic soil
creation with their annual leaf fall, and
their roots will be effective at loosening
the compacted soil of the road.
Since the majority of mulched plots
became colonized by fungi that already
existed in the soil or nearby, the inocu-
lation of the saprophyte was unneces-
sary. That the mulch was colonized by
local fungi is a testament to the ubiq-
uitous nature and effective life history
of nature’s most important degrader of
wood. Those interested in trying this
idea in different regions should con-
sider locating or developing inoculum
that is adapted to the environmental
conditions of their region. Until aggres-
sive regional strains of mycorrhizal or
saprophytic fungi can be cultured and
produced for distribution, like in the
Pacific Northwest, these methods will
remain less effective at restoring roads
than spreading local soils and mulch
and then allowing local fungi to colo-
nize naturally.
— Joseph Trudeau is a Research
Assistant at the Ecological Restoration
Institute and a student at Northern
Arizona University in Flagstaff.
15
References
Allen, M.F. 1991. The ecology of mycorrhizae. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Amaranthus, M.P. and J.M. Trappe. 1993. Effects of erosion
on ecto- and VA mycorrhizal inoculum potential in soil
following forest fire in southwest Oregon. Plant and Soil.
150(1): 41-49.
Bagley, S. 1999. Desert road removal: Creative restoration
techniques. The Road Rip-porter. 4(4): 12-13.
Elseroad, A.C., P.Z. Fule, and W.W. Covington. 2003.
Forest road revegetation: effects of seeding and soil
amendments. Ecological Restoration. 21(3): 180-185.
Harvey, A.E., M.J. Larsen, and M.F. Jurgensen. 1979.
Comparative distribution of ectomycorrhizae in soils
of three western Montana forest habitat types. Forest
Science. 25(2):350-358.
Hunt, H.W. and D.H. Wall. 2002. Modeling the effects of loss of
soil biodiversity on ecosystem function. Global Change
Biology. 8(1): 33-51.
Johnson, N.C. 1998. Responses of Salsola kali and Panicum
virgatum to mycorrhizal fungi, phosphorous and soil
organic matter: implications for reclamation. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 35: 86-94.
Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring
infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology.
5(3): 265-270.
Fishhook Cactus. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
16
Moorman, T. and F.B. Reeves. 1979. The role of
endomycorrhizae in revegetation practices in the semi-
arid west. II. A bioassay to determine the effect of land
disturbance on endomycorrhizal populations. American
Journal of Botany. 66(1): 14-18.
Reeves, F.B., D. Wagner, T. Moorman, and J. Kiel. 1979. The
role of endomycorrhizae in revegetation practices
in the semi-arid west. I. A comparison of incidence
of mycorrhizae in severely disturbed vs. natural
environments. American Journal of Botany. 66(1): 1-13.
Setala, H. and M.A. McLean. 2004. Decomposition rate of
organic substrates in relation to the species diversity of
saprophytic fungi. Oecologia. 139(1): 98-108.
Society for Ecological Restoration Science & Policy Working
Group. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration.
www.ser.org/.
Stamets, P. and D. Sumerlin. “Mycofiltration: A novel
approach for the bio-transformation of abandoned
logging roads.” Retrieved from http://www.fungi.com/
mycotech/roadrestoration.html (6 March 2004).
St. John, T. 1996. Mycorrhizal inoculation: advice for growers
& restorationists. Hortus West. 7(2): 1-4.
St. John, T. 1998. Mycorrhizal inoculation in habitat
restoration. Land and Water September/October:17-19.
Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and
M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 21-28.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
 ‘Bridges to Nowhere’ ATV Safety
Going Nowhere for Now
On October 14th the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety
During final consideration of a budget bill, Republi- Commission (CPSC) issued an
cans in Congress this fall pulled out the dedicated fund- Advance Notice of Proposed
ing for Alaska’s infamous “bridges to nowhere” (see The Rulemaking (ANPR) concern-
RIPorter v. 10.3 for background). By simply granting ing all-terrain vehicle (ATV)
the $442 million to the state for general transportation safety for children. As the
assistance, however, they left open the possibility that federal agency with jurisdic-
state officials could decide to build the two bridges. tion over these products, the
CPSC could take strong action
The bridges are planned for remote areas near to reduce deaths and injuries
Ketchikan and Anchorage; one is a mile long, the other caused by ATVs, especially
nearly two miles. Alaska officials claimed the bridges those suffered by children
would bring growth while budget watchdog and conser- under 16 years old.
vation groups called them boondoggles. Both areas are
already accessed by frequent ferry service. The Consumer Federation
of America believes that any
comprehensive solution must
also include strong state laws Invasive weeds were the consequence of
setting minimum age limits for illegal off-road vehicles on this meadow.
ATV riders, requiring licens-
Petition Wins Road Closure ing, registration, and training,
Photo by Dan Schroeder, Sierra Club,
Ogden Chapter.
and prohibiting passengers.
The Federation further advo-
At the behest of a petition circulated by envi- cates that:
ronmental groups, the Forest Service has tentatively
agreed to decommission a road used to access illegal •The CPSC should issue a mandatory rule prohibiting the sale
trails in Wyoming’s Medicine Bow National Forest. The of adult-size ATVs for use by children under age 16;
petitioners include the Wyoming Wilderness Associa- •The CPSC should not promote a new generation of larger,
tion, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for faster and more powerful ATVs for older children (the so-called
Native Ecosystems, Wildlands CPR and High Country "transitional ATV");
Citizens’ Alliance. The petition calls for ending off-road •The CPSC should evaluate the current ATV training program
use on three routes to more effectively deter unauthor- and determine why such a low percentage of ATV riders obtain
ized motorized use. The illegal routes and part of the training; and,
closed road would then be restored. •The CPSC should require that information from CPSC’s Annual
Report on All-Terrain Vehicle-Related Deaths and Injuries be com-
In response to the damage caused by off-road municated to all ATV buyers.
vehicles, the Forest Service had already placed ob-
stacles such as boulders and fences at trail access
points. These proved ineffective in preventing damage
Take Action!
to stream beds, vegetation, and wildlife, as they are
skirted by off-road vehicle users. The Forest Service The CPSC will take comment on the ATV safety rulemaking
has also proposed increased law enforcement and sea- through December 16. For more information, visit http://www.cpsc.
sonal closures to further limit access. A final decision gov/businfo/frnotices/fr06/atv1.html, www.naturaltrails.org, or
will be made after public hearings and additional study. www.consumerfed.org.

— more updates on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005 17

 More Regional Reports & Updates

Conservation Groups Challenge the Park Service’s The draft management policies
would diminish park protection and
Off-Road Vehicle Management boost commercialism as priorities for
the National Park Service. The draft
In November, Wildlands CPR joined co-plaintiffs Bluewater Network, a division policies reduce protections for pro-
of Friends of the Earth and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) posed wilderness within the park sys-
in filing a lawsuit against the National Park Service and the Department of Inte- tem, by allowing more recreational and
rior. The lawsuit follows up on a rule-making petition that was submitted by these other development within proposed
parties and others requesting significant changes in off-road vehicle management wilderness. The national parks have
throughout the parks. Unfortunately the Park Service denied that petition, while at millions of acres of lands that are man-
the same time documenting significant impacts from off-road vehicles throughout aged as wilderness but have not been
the Park System. The lawsuit challenges the agencies’ failure to protect the parks designated by Congress. The ambiguity
from off-road vehicle impacts. in the new rules will make it harder to
protect and easier to exploit the parks
In 2004, the Park Service conducted an internal survey of all national park through motorization, privatization and
sites. The 256 responses available to the plaintiffs demonstrate that off-road ve- commercialization. Conservationists
hicles are causing widespread damage in America’s national parks. More than 90 and other national park advocates are
Park units reported evidence of illegal off-road vehicle use, with the bulk of those asking the Park Service and Department
parks also reporting that the use was causing significant impacts to cultural and of Interior to abandon this rewrite.
natural resources.

Park managers reported that off-road vehicle use is harming archaeological

Take Action!
sites at the Grand Canyon; tearing up hiking/horseback trails at Olympic National
Park; crushing animal burrows in Arches and Canyonlands national parks; and The Park Service is accepting
facilitating fossil poaching at Badlands National Park, as well as negatively affecting public comments on the revisions until
the experiences of other visitors. February 18, 2006. To comment on the
draft, read it online at http://parkplan-
Management Policy Revisions for the National ning.nps.gov/waso and send feedback
by e-mail to waso_policy@nps.gov or
Park Service by mail to Bernard Fagan, National Park
Service, Office of Policy, Room 7252,
Taking its cue from an Interior Department political appointee, the National Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street,
Park Service (NPS) has proposed new management policies that, if adopted, would NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.
redefine the overarching duty of the agency. The policies would weaken longstand-
ing legal mandates for preserving America’s natural heritage. For example, the Talking points:
proposed policies would increase the allowance of high-impact activities such as •The mission of the National Park
off-road vehicle recreation, and muddy the water on how to manage such activities Service is to preserve unimpaired for
where they are allowed. future generations the resources of our
national parks. This revision could have
NPS management policies are typically revised every ten to fifteen years. The devastating impacts on park resources.
Park Service last revised the policies in 2001, nonetheless, the Department of Inte- •The latest draft eliminates restric-
rior decided to do so again, and Undersecretary of Interior Paul Hoffman oversaw tions against the interference with the
a nearly 200-page rewrite. That rewrite was leaked to the press in late August, just “atmosphere of peace and tranquility,
2 days before Hurricane Katrina hit; it would have had catastrophic impacts on the or the natural soundscapes”, which will
integrity of our entire national park system and it was quickly denounced by the make it easier for motorized recreation
Park Service. Still, the Park Service to expand within park boundaries.
was compelled to engage in a rewrite •The latest draft changes off-road
of their own, and on October 17 they vehicle management, making it much
released a new set of draft policies. less clear where and when such use
These new policies cause many of should be restricted.
the same problems that the Hoffman
•Other weakened policies include
policies would have, but they are
those that protect air quality, control
couched in more obtuse language,
livestock damage, and preserve park
making them seem less harmful.
water rights.
Conservationists and parks advocates
have nicknamed the draft policies,
Buffalo in Badlands National Park. Photo courtesy
“Hoffman Lite.”
of National Park Service.

18 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

 Groups File Suit to Challenge Bush
Roadless Rule
A group of about 20 environmental organizations has
joined the states of Oregon, California, and New Mexico in
filing suit against the Bush administration over its new forest
roadless rule, seeking reinstatement of the rule adopted by
the Clinton administration.
The Bush rule invites Governors to petition the Secretary
of Agriculture for protections that were guaranteed under the
Clinton-era, widely supported ban on road construction in
roadless areas. State petitions may or may not be granted.
Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of local, regional, and
national conservation organizations.
In Colorado, hundreds gathered for a public meeting to
discuss the future of roadless areas, the first of eight to be
held by the Roadless Area Review Task Force. This biparti-
san, 13-member body was created by the state legislature and
will take public comment from Coloradoans before making a
recommendation to Gov. Owens.
Meanwhile, a petition submitted by Oregon Gov. Ted
Kulongoski — requesting that states retain the option of
adopting the 2001 Roadless Rule — has been rejected by
the Department of Agriculture. It was Kulongoski’s effort to
protect Oregon’s two million roadless acres from develop-
ment. A letter from Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey
suggested that the petition was rejected, in part, due to
Oregon’s participation in the lawsuit against Bush’s roadless
plan. Because the 2001 Roadless Rule was struck down by
a Wyoming federal court, Rey said that its reinstatement was
not a possibility. He did imply that if Oregon withdrew from
the lawsuit, the Department would be willing to “engage...in a
good faith discussion of protection for roadless area values in
Oregon.” Kulongski is evaluating the letter and its proposal.
Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire also submitted a
similar petition, seeking the freedom for states to adopt the
2001 Roadless Rule. Gov. Gregoire has said the state is also
considering joining the lawsuit against the Bush Administra-
tion.
Take Action!
Join the Citizen Roadless Petition Drive
American Lands Alliance, the Heritage Forests Campaign
and other partner organizations have launched a citizen peti-
tion drive to request that the Bush administration reinstate
the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule that limited log-
ging and road-building on nearly 60 million acres of national
forests. The petition will be filed under the auspices of the
Administrative Procedures Act, which allows citizens to
request that the government, issue, amend, or revoke federal
rules. Please visit http://www.net.org/petition.php to sign the
petition. The petition will be presented to President Bush
and the Department of Agriculture. Additionally, a copy of
the petition will be delivered to your Governor.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
New Resources
Guide to Transportation Planning in
Northern Rockies
American Wildlands recently released a new
guide for citizens interested in addressing highway
transportation issues and making highways safer
for wildlife and people. The guide is available from
their website: http://www.wildlands.org/publands/
cit%20guide%20final2.pdf
The guide explains the transportation planning pro-
cess in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and the relevant
laws, policies and science citizens can use to influence
transportation decision-making. Although the informa-
tion is regional in nature, much can be applied outside
of the Northern Rockies. The guide covers the following
topics:
•Effects of Highways on Wildlife,
•Transportation Systems and
Management,
•Planning Process,
•Role of Citizen Participation,
•Tools For Making Your Case.
Wildlands CPR Road and ORV Database
Updated!
Wildlands CPR has recently completed an update
of our road and off-road vehicle online database. The
database now exceeds 12,000 citations documenting
the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road
vehicles. In the U.S. alone, there are 6 million kilometers
of public roads and over 36 million registered off-road ve-
hicles. We compiled this bibliography to help people ac-
cess relevant scientific literature on erosion, fragmenta-
tion, sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic
and hydrologic effects, and other up-to-date information
on the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles. Many
thanks to Noah Jackson and Bob Jaffe for compiling the
database and making it web-accessable. Check it out at
www.wildlandscpr.org.
A Guide to Engaging Allied Voices
Earlier this year, the United Forest Defense Cam-
paign released an excellent guide for activists working
to engage non-traditional, diverse allies in conservation
work. This new guide offers direction for developing
partnerships with many types of constituencies. As
stated in the introduction, “In reality, the conservation
community is not monolithic or elitist. Our community
is made up of hunters, anglers, people of faith, business-
people, scientists, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, and
many, many others. We do reflect broad public values,
yet that is not how our message often comes across.”
For a copy, contact Anne Martin at American Lands
Alliance: annem@americanlands.org..
19
 The Citizen/Organizational Spotlight shares the
stories of some of the awesome activists and
organizations we work with, both as a tribute to them
and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and
lessons learned. This issue we focus the spotlight
on an organization for the first time. Please e-
mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to
cathy@wildlandscpr.org.

Keeping the Southern Rockies Wild

Spotlight on Vera Smith of Colorado Mountain Club
By Cathy Adams

S
ince its beginnings in 1912, the Colorado
Mountain Club (CMC) has tirelessly worked
for remote, wild and quiet places in the
southern Rocky Mountains. The organization
played a critical role in designating Rocky Moun-
tain National Park and Dinosaur National Monu-
ment, and in passing the Wilderness Act. The
Club continues its contribution by working for
permanent protection of the last remaining road-
less areas and the ecological integrity of their
region. The organization works to bring people
together who care deeply about mountains,
recreation, conservation, education and bringing
the quiet experience back to the backcountry.

Vera Smith, Conservation Director for CMC, Vera Smith at Colorado Mountain Club headquarters.
says what their organization does is very impor- Photo courtesy of Colorado Mountain Club.
tant in today’s economic climate.

“Recreation is the foundation of the Rocky
Mountain West. Amenity-based recreation is fun-
damentally important to everyone in the Rocky
Mountains. People want to play on the public
lands of the western United States. Recreation is
the public land use today that involves the most
participants and requires the most acreage, and
although it can provide a lot of benefits, if left
unmanaged, it creates a lot of problems.”
Vera worked to develop three major pro-
grams to help combat problems associated with
recreation abuse. The first, Preserving Wildness,
focuses on permanent protection for vulnerable
roadless areas. The second program, Restoring
the Quiet Experience, works to bring outdoor
users like anglers, hunters, bikers, hikers and
others together to preserve and restore quiet
places in the backcountry. Lastly, the Balancing
Recreation and the Environment program works
to find a balance between recreation and natural
resource protection, to ensure the sustainability
of a treasured backcountry experience for Colo-
radans now and in the future.
Vera says the best way to accomplish CMC’s goals is to make sure
people understand that protecting lands for recreation and wildness is
important to their state. “We have been successful in getting the message
out that there is a need to preserve wild places,” she says. In her six years
with CMC, they have helped pass five wilderness bills, averaging about one
every year with two more ‘in the hopper’ now. Vera added that a higher
level of awareness and an infusion of resources are needed, or CMC could
lose the battle.
CMC works with the Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) at all levels, with the media, and with state and federal
elected officials. The organization’s work with the FS included years of
work on the off-road vehicle Rule and on regulation policy.
Vera says many groups work synergistically. In particular, Wildlands
CPR helped by playing a role in developing the quiet use movement with
CMC and has worked hand in hand with the organization on the off-road
vehicle Rule.
CMC is building a citizen movement for quiet use by holding get-
togethers every year for citizens from around the region. In October, at
CMC’s third annual “Quiet Commotion” conference, participants learned
skills from national experts, enabling them to effectively advocate for the
protection of quiet non-motorized experiences in the places they treasure.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

In addition to networking opportunities and field
trips to public lands, Quiet Commotion gave
local activists a chance to explore strategies,
exchange ideas, and recharge their energy on
the issues.
CMC works to educate citizens by leading
trips that center around a traditional backcoun-
try experience in an undeveloped landscape.
Participants can enjoy a quiet experience in the
wilderness while learning about the importance
of protecting the habitat and its species.
Eventually, CMC decided they wanted to
branch out and build a statewide presence to
reach citizens in other Colorado communities.
As Director, Vera opened two more CMC offices
in Colorado, in Carbondale and Grand Junction,
to focus on conservation.
Vera explained that with more offices “you
can have staff involved in communities. And
since we work on land, and land is fundamen-
tally local, you need an understanding of local
needs and issues. Being able to operate locally
and regionally also helps to bring about policy
decisions.”
“I think we need to restrict ORV
use to places where the land can
handle it…unfortunately, it may
occur 30 years too late. We will
suffer the cost of losing species
and ecosystem function, and we
will suffer the cost of trying to
restore those places.”
-Vera Smith, Conservation
Director, CMC
CMC is currently working on the new FS
ORV Rule and implementation of the Region 2
off-road vehicle strategy. CMC will urge the For-
est Service to take a detailed look at how it can
protect the quiet experience in Colorado. The
organization is also working with the BLM on
travel management.
According to Vera “off road vehicles are the
biggest obstacles to preserving our wild lands,
from extreme jeeps to dirt bikes.” The battle is
not about off-road vehicle use per se, but rather
the fact that it is largely unmanaged, without
control or restriction. “Off road vehicle use is
not a typical environmental issue that people
think about, but it is one of the most important
issues in the West that any organization can
work on.”
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005
Off-road motorists. Photo courtesy of Forest Service.
Vera says we need to keep damaging recreation out of wildlife corri-
dors and protect key places that still have wildness. Fortunately, all three
of CMC’s programs work together to achieve this; when you protect wild-
ness, you restore the quiet experience and balance recreation. One way to
restrict off-road vehicle use, Vera offered, would be to create zones with
routes that are constructed to handle the intense use.
Before beginning her fight for the West, Vera started her non-profit
career managing a soup kitchen in Philadelphia and operating a homeless
advocacy organization. After receiving her masters in Land Resources
from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, she worked as a geologist and
restoration specialist for the National Park Service in Utah. Her desire to
develop a conservation program brought her back to the non-profit world
and to Colorado to work with CMC.
From a resource management background, joining CMC opened
Vera’s eyes to the intensity of recreation politics. The recreation industry
was very new to her when she started six years ago. Her job is program
development, figuring out where CMC is going and obtaining the resources
to get there. Vera doesn’t think the work is being done fast enough. “I
think we need to restrict off-road vehicle use to places where the land can
handle it…unfortunately, this may occur 30 years too late. We will suffer
the cost of losing species and ecosystem function, and we will suffer the
cost of trying to restore those places.”
When looking to the future, Vera says, “We need to paint a picture
of what people are losing. The saddest part of all is that we are losing
big chunks of our landscape not even for a good reason — more from an
absence of management and leadership than anything else.” She hopes
that new leaders will emerge, and talk to local land managers and elected
officials about quiet use and the need to restrict off-road vehicles.
Talk to your friends and family while you’re gathered around the table
this holiday season, and let them know how important wild places are to
you and what they can do to help preserve our wild lands.
Contact Vera Smith at 303-996-2746 or smithv@cmc.org if you are
interested in volunteer opportunities or to join CMC’s conservation alert
list serve. A quiet use list serve is also available by contacting Aaron Clark
at aaron_clark@tws.org.
— Cathy Adams is the Wildlands CPR Program and Memebership Associate.
21
I
t’s been an extremely busy season here at Wild-
lands CPR. In addition to preparing for and re-
sponding to the final off-road vehicle rule released
by the Forest Service (see cover story), we’ve been
tracking new draft management policies released
by the Park Service. Organizing and participating in
forest planning workshops, regional gatherings and
national strategy meetings also filled our plate this fall.
In the midst of all that, we found time to hire
a new staff person at Wildlands CPR, and to bring
aboard a new graduate student for our citizen monitor-
ing program on the Clearwater National Forest. Wild-
lands CPR is very pleased to welcome Tim Peterson as
our new Transportation Policy Coordinator (not to be
confused with our Development Director, Tom Pe-
tersen). Tim is taking over Jason Kiely’s old position.
Jason is still working out of our office, but he is now
the Forest Campaign Coordinator for the Natural Trails
and Waters Coalition.
ing Wildlands CPR’s methods and programs on the ground. We’ll
miss you both and we can’t thank you enough for your commitment
to and work on behalf of Wildlands CPR.
We also want to thank everyone who has contributed financially
to Wildlands CPR during the last quarter. For starters, a big thank
you to the Harder, New Land and Flintridge Foundations for their
generous grants to support our work. And thanks too, to those of
you who make year-end contributions through our Give Thanks
Campaign (or just because you’d like to make a year-end contribu-
tion). We greatly, greatly appreciate your support—we couldn’t do it
without you!
Thank you
2005 Annual Gifts Campaign Donors

Tim has spent the last eight years conducting road
and off-road vehicle monitoring around the Colorado
Plateau, including a three-year roadless/wilderness in-
ventory for Utah Forest Network. He comes to us most
recently from southern Utah where he has been work-
ing with Red Rock Forests. We couldn’t have asked for
a new person with more relevant experience.
A
hearty thank-you to all donors in Wildlands CPR’s 2005 An-
nual Gifts Campaign! At press time we’ve received more than
$20,000, and we know donations will continue until year’s
end to help us reach our $32,000 goal. We appreciate the strong
support to help us promote the restoration of natural areas through
road removal, and curb off-road vehicle abuse. Thank you again! And
if you’ve made a pledge but haven’t sent in your donation yet, please
do so soon!

We are also pleased to be working with Anna

Holden, an Environmental Studies graduate student
at the University of Montana. Anna is recruiting and
training volunteers for our citizen science monitoring
project on the Clearwater National Forest, in partner-
ship with the Nez Perce Tribe. Welcome to Anna, and
a big thank you to Katherine Court, who started the
project last year, developed the protocols, and spent
almost every weekend this summer with local folks
collecting field data. Katherine will be finishing up her
master’s thesis this winter.

Wildlands CPR wants to extend a very big thank

you to outgoing board members Karen Wood DiBari
and Matt Skroch. Karen has served very energetically
on the board for the past six years, as our president
for the last two. During this time, she helped recon-
figure the way the board engages in Wildlands CPR’s
work in a very productive way. Matt has been a criti-
cal partner for us through his work with Sky Islands Missoula’s “Tuesday Hiking Group” hikes along a restored road on a
Alliance, providing an important model for implement- field trip with Wildlands CPR. Photo by Sharon Dill.

22 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

 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
contain 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: _________________________________

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

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005 23

 Western Yucca Forest. Photo courtesy of U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

“Maybe we just need to figure out how

to find satisfaction and inspiration
and beauty in ways that don’t ride
roughshod over our neighbors or have
us motoring frantically past the flame-
orange leaves of autumn maples.”

— Dave Havlick
A Road Runs Through It, (in press)

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