Summer Solstice 2002.

Volume 7 # 2 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

A Monumental Challenge:
By Lisa Philipps
Managing ORVs in Our
Newest National Monuments
Inside…
A Monumental Challenge,
by Lisa Philipps. Page 3-6
Regional Reports, Page 7
Policy Primer: Recreational Trails Program,
by Maureen Hartman. Page 8-9
Legal Notes: Categorically Excluded,
by Derek Goldman. Page 10-11
Depaving the Way: The Newest Threat,
by Bethanie Walder. Page 12-13
Get with the Program: ORV and Roads Program
Updates. Page 14-15
Odes to Roads: A Reasoned Rant,
by David Petersen. Page 16-17
Biblio Notes: Helicopter Impacts on Wildlife
by Emily Yeomans. Page 18-20
Activist Spotlight: Sally Grimes. Page 21
Around the Office & New Resources. Page 22
The Presidential Proclamations establishing our newest National Monuments started — but didn’t
finish — the job of protecting these national treasures. Paria River canyon in the Vermillion
Check out our website at: Cliffs National Monument. Photo by Lisa Philipps.

www.wildlandscpr.org
— See article on page 3 —
 Wildlands
C
Center for
P
Preventing
R
Roads

Main Office
P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
While President Bush basks in the glow of bombs falling on Afghanistan, he contin- (406) 543-9551
ues to undercut, overturn and subvert hard-won environmental protections instituted WildlandsCPR@wildlandscpr.org
before his rule. And significantly, it seems that Bush is acting against the will of the www.wildlandscpr.org
American people. On two issues of particular concern, motorized recreation in the
Colorado Office — Jacob Smith
National Parks and roadless area protection, Bush has been nothing but atrocious. But PO Box 1365
by the time this newsletter lands in your mailbox, two new bills should have been Paonia, CO 81428
introduced in Congress to bring some power back to the people. First is a bill to imple- prebles@indra.net
ment the roadless policy. Second is a bill to implement the Yellowstone snowmobile
ban. Both are policies that were adopted by agencies under the Clinton Administration Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to
after years of public comment and scientific review, and then almost immediately protect and restore wildland ecosystems by
circumvented and effectively overturned by Bush. preventing and removing roads and limiting
motorized recreation. We are a national
In both cases, Bush reopened a completed process for further study and review. In clearinghouse and network, providing citizens
both cases, the process had been ongoing for at least three years and the agencies had with tools and strategies to fight road
given the public extensive opportunity to comment. And the public had responded.
construction, deter motorized recreation, and
Over one million people commented on the roadless rule - many requesting even
stronger protection than what the Forest Service was proposing. Over 65,000 people
promote road removal and revegetation.
commented on the proposal to phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. In
Director
both cases, an overwhelming majority supported the agencies’ proposals - proposals Bethanie Walder
that were grounded in sound science and the mission of the agencies to protect the
land. Development Director
Tom Petersen
By restarting these processes and asking for public comment again, Bush
ORV Policy Coordinators
disempowered the people who had already responded. But people commented again,
Jacob Smith, Tom Platt
pouring another million responses into the Forest Service’s mailbox, and they still
supported roadless protection by over 90%. (The latest Yellowstone comment period Roads Policy Coordinator
was closed as this issue went to press.) With no forward movement from Bush, Con- Marnie Criley
gress took over and introduced a bill to codify the roadless rule - the bill had 180
original cosponsors! Similarly, Congress will introduce a bill to enact the snowmobile Science Coordinator
ban. Legislative action is challenging (and even if these bills were to pass, it’s unlikely Adam Switalski
Bush would sign them), but it can re-invigorate the public and provide a real outlet for NTWC Grassroots
public sentiment - rather than continually sending letters to agencies who are barred
Coordinator
from listening by their commander-in-chief.
Lisa Philipps
Program Associate
Jennifer Barry
Newsletter
Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield
Interns & Volunteers
Derek Goldman, Allison Hanks, Leslie Hannay,
Brooke Hughes
Board of Directors
Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari, Dave Havlick,
Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,
Dan Stotter, Ted Zukoski
Advisory Committee
Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin
Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa
Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
Photo by John McCullah. © 2002 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002

A Monumental Challenge:
Managing ORVs in Our Newest National Monuments
By Lisa Philipps
“I believe there are certain places humankind simply cannot improve upon -
places whose beauty and interest no photograph could capture, places you simply
have to see for yourself. We must use this time of unparalleled prosperity to ensure
people will always be able to see
these places as we see them today.”
— President William Jefferson Clinton
I
had unpacked my gear and was starting to unroll my tent when I
paused to listen to what sounded like a solo clarinet, or no...it was
deeper, more like an oboe. I looked around for the source of this
private musical serenade. This was hardly the environment for some
lone musician to be practicing his woodwinds. Saguaro cactus
reached their gangly arms and legs to a cloudless sky, the tangled
branches of gnarled ironwood trees embraced pairs of desert spar-
rows, as they awaited cool night breezes. Everywhere I looked was
the quiet beauty of the desert at dusk. Here was a stillness, a peace, a
stark contrast to the urban cities of Phoenix and Tempe less than 50
miles away. I was embraced by the statuesque saguaro cacti that
reach to heights of 30 feet and more. As I wandered the sands through
these gentle giants of the desert, I felt a quiet ancient presence
relatively untouched by humans. But who was teasing my senses with
that music? It got louder as I got closer to one especially large,
wrinkled, many-limbed, saguaro. This giant showed his age with many
animal holes and twisted limbs. Looking closer, I noticed the saguaro
was almost entirely hollowed out. I had found my mystery magician.
The slight breeze had turned the cactus into a natural desert flute!
Laughing to myself, I knew I had witnessed first hand what few people
have the opportunity to experience in our hectic modern world. I was
in a treasured place, I was in one of America’s newest national
monuments, Ironwood National Monument, Arizona.
A stately saguaro cactus in the new Ironwood National Monument. Photo by Lisa
Philipps.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
The Antiquities Act and the National
Monument Fairness Act
The Antiquities Act of 1906 declares:
“The President of the United States is authorized in his
discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other
objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon
the lands owned or controlled by the United States to be
National Monuments, and may reserve as a part there of
parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be
confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care
and management of the objects to be protected.”
Between 1906 and 2001, 14 US Presidents have
used the Act to proclaim 118 National Monuments.
The only three who did not use it were Presidents
Nixon, Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Monuments
range in size from 1 acre (Fort Matanzas, Florida)
to 10,600,000 acres (Yukon Flats, Alaska), and many
National Parks were initially protected as monu-
ments, including the Grand Canyon.
President Clinton established many of the
nation’s newest National Monuments by Presiden-
tial proclamation, and almost all were designated
on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.
These new monuments have raised the ire of the
Bush Administration, which is calling for less land
protection, not more. Recent designations have
also infuriated western Republicans in Congress,
who claim that they “lock up” millions of acres of
land and ignore local sentiment.
In an effort to limit the President’s discretion
to protect land, the House Resources Committee on
March 20, 2002 approved H.R. 2114, the National
Monument Fairness Act. This bill amends the
Antiquities Act of 1906 to require the President to
solicit public comment and consult with a state’s
governor and congressional delegation at least 60
days before creating any National Monument.
However, it still would not require Congressional
approval. This measure is a solution in search of a
problem — all of the new monuments were desig-
nated on land already under federal management.
The bill has not yet been discussed on the House
floor and no companion has been introduced in the
Senate. Nonetheless, activists are watching to
ensure the bill does not advance.
— continued on next page —
3
 — continued from page 3 —
Management Planning
On April 24, 2002 the Department of Interior
launched planning periods for 11 of the nation’s
newest National Monuments (see sidebar on page
13). Advisory councils are being established for
many monuments including Carrizo Plain National
Monument in California, and Canyons of the
Ancients in Colorado. Conservationists are
working to ensure that the public participates in
adopting management plans and that public
concerns are not overshadowed by special
interests such as oil and gas developers.
As part of the planning process, the Depart-
ment of Interior is looking at re-designating some
of the new monument boundaries to address
resource extraction and motorized recreation. In
no instance does the Interior Department seem
interested in expanding protections, only in
limiting them, from reducing the acreages within
the boundaries, to promoting continued oil and
gas development. Key among the threats however,
is the issue of off-road vehicle recreation.
Off Road Vehicles in the New
Monuments
President Clinton proclaimed the new monu-
ments to “ensure people will always be able to see
these places as we see them today.” However,
several of them are already suffering impacts that
are not consistent with that proclamation; almost
all are being damaged by off-road vehicles. Damage
can be significant in sensitive desert washes,
which are vital wildlife habitat in the arid west.
For example, in the Ironwood Forest Monument in
Arizona the BLM found that off-road vehicle use in
washes “degrades habitat for desert tortoise,
pygmy owls as well as a host of other species...
The effects, [of wash running] (soil compaction,
erosion, vegetation destruction, disturbance,
accidental death, deliberate poaching), are
immediate and long-lasting.”
The proclamations that established most of
the new monuments recognize the threats posed
by unlimited off-road vehicle use. They prohibit
motorized and mechanized vehicular use off roads
except for emergency and administrative pur-
poses, providing an excellent opportunity for
public lands activists. The monuments’ language,
if implemented, provides the basis for an effective
The monument was created by an Act of Congress in 2000, and is
ban on cross-country travel by off-road vehicles.
Several of the new monuments are already
suffering impacts that are not consistent
with (the President’s) proclamation; almost all in areas that have been closed protect wildlife,
are being damaged by off-road vehicles.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
Utah’s Governor Leavitt has proposed National Monument status for
part of the San Rafael Swell. Photo by Cole Trusty.
Further, by stating that motorized use must occur only on roads, it is
consistent with the goals of the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition
(which includes Wildlands CPR). The new National Monuments
could become a model for effective off-road vehicle management on
public lands, but only if the BLM analyzes the road system and
designates (through an open and environmentally appropriate
process) which roads, routes or trails ORVs can travel on, while
prohibiting vehicles from all others.
As part of the planning process, each monument will conduct a
full inventory of transportation facilities on the ground. While it is
important to understand where unauthorized routes are causing
damage, it is equally critical that these user-created routes not be
considered part of the road system. Only those travel ways that
meet the definition of a road, serve a purpose authorized by procla-
mation, and are analyzed through NEPA should be included in the
road system. The discretionary maps will be the basis for travel
management in the full management plans. The following monu-
ments provide examples of the challenges and opportunities facing
conservationists as they push to create models of good, rather than
bad, motorized management.
Specific Challenges in the New Monuments
Cascade-Siskiyou (Oregon)
The southern portion of the monument is bisected by the
Schoheim Jeep Trail (See RIPorter 5.4). The Soda Mountain Wilder-
ness Council describes the Trail as “a long and ugly scar that was
bulldozed from Pilot Rock to Agate Flat.” It dumps sediment into
clear streams, disrupts the natural hydrology of the region and,
before monument designation, was subject to chronic off road
vehicle abuse. While the designation closes the Schoheim trail,
illegal trespass still continues.
Santa Rosa/San Jacinto (California)
located within the vast California desert ecosystem,
which already suffers from tremendous off-road
abuse in places like Algodones Dunes. The BLM
does not have enough law enforcement personnel in
the monument to prevent illegal off-road vehicle use
plants and other natural resources. In fact, activists
have observed illegal dirt bike and ATV use within
sight of the BLM field office.
Ironwood National Monument
(Arizona)
Ironwood National Monument
has already delved into the plan-
ning process and will provide useful
experience and tools for planning in
all the monuments. A comprehen-
sive travel inventory is being
completed by the University of
Arizona: every road, trail, path and
divot on the ground is being
mapped. Ironwood currently has no
designated ORV routes, but much
use of ORVs — both on county
roads and user-created routes. In
theory, inventories are good —
they let us know what the situation
is on the ground. They should not,
however, be used to legitimize
resource scars into travelways or
roads. For these inventories to
prove useful, two things are
important. Conservationists and
local landowners must ensure that
the inventory accurately represents
the travelways on the ground.
Further, user-created routes and
other non-roads must not be added
to the travel plan without adequate
environmental analysis. The crux
of the issue will be how the BLM
decides to define a road; currently
there is no universal definition.

San Rafael Swell (Utah) - An Anomaly

Protection of the magnificent San Rafael Swell
region of southern Utah’s redrock country has long
been controversial. More than a million acres are
proposed for wilderness in America’s Redrock
Wilderness Act. The Swell is also an area of
intense off-road vehicle use. A recently released
BLM plan would legitimize many user-created
routes and allow off-road vehicle use to continue in
wilderness quality lands. Breaking ranks with
Republican distaste for National Monuments, Utah
Governor Mike Leavitt (R) has proposed that
President Bush designate a portion of the San
Rafael Swell as a National Monument. At 620,000
acres, the monument would include nearly half the
Swell lands proposed for wilderness. The Presi-
dent has given the go ahead for a 90-day study,
after which he could designate a monument.
The bad news is that Leavitt’s proposal fails
to mention reducing ORV use and may suggest that
the BLM transportation plan be adopted for the
monument, thus authorizing both user-created
routes and highly questionable RS 2477 claims.
Thus, in this instance, a monument proclamation
could undermine potential wilderness designation.
Given that the Antiquities Act is about enhancing
protection, the current San Rafael Swell proposal is
hardly consistent with either the intent or spirit of
other monuments. Perhaps Governor Leavitt isn’t
breaking ranks at all.
National Monuments are a Legacy
It will be up to the American public to ensure that National
Monuments are effectively protected during the current planning
process. This will mean getting out on the ground and monitoring
motorized use, inventorying roads, routes and other travelways, and
actively participating in the land management planning process from
start to finish. Motorized users will certainly be participating to try
to maintain their use of these lands. Quiet recreationists, conserva-
tionists, birders, horseback riders and all other citizens who care
about protecting and restoring dynamic, functioning habitats should
find the time to fully engage in this process and make their voices
heard.
At the end of a long day, I find myself leisurely hiking up from the
Agua Fria River in the Agua Fria National Monument. I am pondering
the pictures I saw imprinted on the dark basaltic walls below.
Dancing deer, horned, alien-like men, and mythical jackalope critters
were immortally scratched into the walls almost 1000 years ago. The
pictures are in stark contrast to modern-day graffiti scratchings on
the interstate underpass less than a mile away - modern day graffiti is
about gang names and self-promotion. The rock art of the ancients
depicted the world around them, and how people interacted and
depended on this world. I ponder why we are so concerned with
ourselves and preserving the proof of our own existence, and so
unconcerned with the world around us. Monuments dedicated to
— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002 5

 — continued from page 3 —
natural and human history have an uncertain
future as land managers and politicians grapple
with how these special treasures will be managed
for future generations. With active citizen involve-
ment, perhaps we can move beyond recreational
exploitation to true land protection in these special
places.
— Lisa Philipps is Grassroots Coordinator for the
Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. When she’s not
out hiking in the monuments, she works out of the
Wildlands CPR office in Missoula.
The new monuments protect thousands of acres in the desert
southwest. Photo by Cole Trusty.
What You Can Do
Inventory and monitor
Ensure that citizen monitoring of off-road
vehicle impacts is shared with the agency and
organize new inventories where needed. For more
information on setting up monitoring programs
contact wildlandscpr@wildlandscpr.org.
Get Involved in the Planning Process
Scoping begins in May and June 2002 for most
monuments, with draft plans due out in the fall.
Contact your local BLM office at www.blm.gov/nlcs/
or go to the Wilderness Society webpage at http://
www.wilderness.org/standbylands/
national_monuments.htm and follow the link to
“ABBY, a planning tool.” Here you will find details
on the monuments and also sample letters. Contact
Lisa Philipps at lisa@naturaltrails.org or Scott
Kovarovics at scott_kovarovics@tws.org for a copy
of draft scoping comments.
Media/Letters to the Editor
The Arizona Republic has published several
editorials on the future of National Monuments in
Arizona. Write letters to the editor in your commu-
nity urging protection of these natural treasures.
Rampant ORV use and road networks are simply
not compatible with National Monuments.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
Our Nation’s Newest
National Monuments
Listed here with the date of their Presidential Proclamation.
Unless otherwise noted they are managed by the BLM.
Agua Fria, AZ (Jan. 11, 2000)
Anderson Cottage, Washington, DC (July 7, 2000)- managed
by the National Park Service
Buck Island National Monument U.S. Virgin Islands
(expansion; Jan. 17, 2001)- managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
California Coastal (Jan. 11, 2000)
Canyons of the Ancients, adjacent to Mesa Verde National
Park, CO (June 9, 2000)
Carrizo Plain National Monument, CA (Jan. 17, 2001)
Minidoka Internment National Monument, ID (Jan. 17,
2001)
Cascade-Siskiyou, OR (June 9, 2000)
Craters of the Moon, ID (expansion; Nov. 9, 2000)
Giant Sequoia National Monument, CA (April 15, 2000)-
managed by the U.S. Forest Service
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, AZ (Jan. 11,
2000)
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT (Sept.
18, 1996)
Hanford Reach, WA (June 9, 2000)- managed by the
National Park Service
Ironwood Forest, AZ (June 9, 2000)
Pinnacles National Monument, CA (expansion; Jan. 11,
2000)- managed by the National Park Service
Pompeys Pillar National Monument, MT (Jan. 17, 2001)
Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, NM (Jan.
17, 2001)
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument,
CA (Oct. 24, 2000)
Sonoran Desert National Monument, AZ (Jan. 17, 2001)
Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, MT (Jan. 17,
2001)
U.S. Virgin Island Coral Reef National Monument (Jan. 17,
2001)- managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Vermilion Cliffs, AZ (Nov. 9, 2000)
Hansen Files Trail Bill
Bill would designate 350 miles of ORV
routes in Utah
House Resources Chairman Jim Hansen introduced a bill March
14, 2002 to establish the James Hansen /Shoshone National Recre-
ation Trail on approximately 350 miles of existing off-road vehicle
routes on Utah’s Wasatch-Cache National Forest and adjacent BLM
lands. Human-powered recreation would only be allowed if “compat-
ible with motorized use” — giving motorized users exclusive use of an
area where hikers, bicyclists, equestrians and other quiet users will
dare not venture.
The legislation would undermine ongoing land use planning for
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, including the NEPA process and a
Travel Management Plan, due out this Fall.
According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, elk, bear,
and moose thrive in the area. A recent study commissioned by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found 36 animal and 18 plant species at
risk that use this rugged terrain. If designated, this motorized route
system poses a serious threat to their continued viability.
Plans for the trail system do not stop here. According to an
article on the utahtrails.com ORV website, the trail “. . . will ultimately
permit the preservation of OHV travel and recreation throughout the
State of Utah from border to border. Several additional pieces of the
puzzle . . . remain to be negotiated and designated. All the pieces are
needed to complete the Governor’s vision of a recreation enabled
state, for the advantage and use by its citizens and visitors, be they
national or international.”
What You Can Do
Contact your representatives and ask them to oppose Hansen’s
bill, H.R. 3936. Tell them it would undermine the NEPA process and
years of scientific study, and ask them to strike the language allowing
non-motorized use only when it is compatible with motorized use.
Roadless Bill Introduced
On June 5th Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chairman
of the House Science Committee, joined Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) to
introduce legislation to protect 59 million acres of national forest
roadless wildlands. The bill codifies the Roadless Initiative approved
by President Clinton, but circumvented by the Bush administration.
At press time, the bill had 175 co-sponsors.
The legislation would protect about 30 percent of the 192 million
acres administered by the Forest Service. The remainder is already
open to logging and mining, and includes more than 380 thousand
miles of roads.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
Road Access Denied
In Absaroka-Beartooth
Wilderness
In an April 2 ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Richard W. Anderson of Billings, MT rejected a
landowner’s lawsuit to construct 8.6 miles of new
road to reach a private parcel deep within
Montana’s Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Area.
The Judge ruled that existing trail and helicopter
access to the landowner’s property was adequate
to permit use of the property while preserving “the
pristine and primitive nature of the wilderness.”
The court ruling was in response to a lawsuit
filed in December 2000 by the Absaroka Trust, a
trust established by Livingston, MT resident James
Sievers. The Trust sought the proposed road to log
and mine a 120-acre inholding property, and to
construct and operate a hunting and fishing lodge.
In its lawsuit, the Trust asked the Court to order
the Forest Service to permit road construction and
to require the taxpayers to pay all construction
costs, estimated at between $150,000 and $1.7
million.
The ruling, if upheld by a district judge, could
have implications in similar cases around the
country. “When you buy land in a wilderness area,
you shouldn’t expect to drive to it, much less have
the taxpayers subsidize your road access,” said
Bob Ekey, of The Wilderness Society, one of the
groups that joined the suit.
Shell Mountain, just outside the Absaroka-Beartooth
Wilderness. Photo by Jim Coefield.
7

The Tilted Playing Field:
Understanding the Federal Recreational Trails Program
By Maureen Hartman
What is the recreational trails
program and how does it work?
The Recreational Trails Program is a federal
grant program that provides money to states for
trail building and maintenance projects, construc-
tion of trail-related facilities, and trail user educa-
tion programs for both motorized and non-
motorized uses. Originally authorized by Congress
in 1991 as the National Recreational Trails Funding
Program (also known as the Symms Act), it was
reauthorized in 1995 as the Recreational Trails
Program (RTP) under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century.
Money for the program is allocated by Con-
gress to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which
then distributes the funds to individual states.
Each state creates its own State Recreational Trail
Advisory Committee to assist with the program.
This Advisory Committee must have both motor-
ized and non-motorized user representation in
order for the state to be eligible for federal
funding. There is no mandate under the RTP to
ensure public participation beyond the advisory
committee structure, but state and federal statutes
may establish broader public participation
standards for specific types of projects.
Citizen advisory committees decide how to allocate funds
under the trails program. File photo.
8 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
The Policy Primer is a column
designed to highlight the ins &
outs of a specific road or ORV
policy. If you have a policy you’d
like us to investigate,
let us know!
How much money is allocated?
Under the Transportation Equity Act, Con-
gress has authorized $50 million dollars to the RTP
for each of the years 2000-2003. Once states
receive the money, they distribute it to federal,
state, and private entities for recreational trail
projects. While states can distribute this money
according to their specific program rules, at least
88% of the funds must be used on actual trail or
trail-related projects. The other 12% can be used
for administrative costs and environmental
protection, education, and safety.
Funding from the Recreational Trails Program
can pay for up to 80% of a project. Other federal
funds (from a federal agency project sponsor) can
provide more, however, the total federal funding
cannot exceed 95%. The remainder of project
funding must come from a non-federal source.
Regardless of the total funding a state re-
ceives, they are required to spend 30% on motor-
ized recreation, 30% on non-motorized recreation,
and 40% on projects for diversified trail uses
(projects that benefit multiple trail users). Diversi-
fied projects may benefit both motorized and non-
motorized users either separately or simulta-
neously, in some cases tilting the diversified trail
category in favor of motorized use interests.
How does RTP funding differ
between states?
States choose an agency to administer the
program and federal funding. Some choose their
park agency while others select their Department
of Transportation. Half of the annual RTP money is
distributed evenly among the states while the
other half is distributed proportionally according
to the estimated off-road recreational fuel use in
each state. Off-road fuel use is the amount of fuel
consumed for recreational purposes by snowmo-
biles, all-terrain vehicles, off-road motorcycles, and
off-road light trucks, as determined by research
carried out by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
in 1999.
What types of projects are funded?
Permissible uses of funds apportioned to a
state for a fiscal year include:
(a) Maintenance and restoration of existing
trails;
(b) Development and rehabilitation of
trailhead and trailhead facilities and trail linkages
for recreation trails;
(c) Purchase and lease of recreational trail
construction and maintenance equipment;
(d) Construction of new recreational trails...
(exceptions with regard to federal lands);
(e) Acquisition of easements or property for
trails;
(f) State administrative costs for the RTP;
(g) Operation of educational programs to
promote safety and environmental protection
related to trails. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment /fundrec.htm and 23 U.S.C. 206).
While the use of RTP funds for law enforce-
ment is not permitted, law enforcement safety
programs may be incorporated into RTP educa-
tional programs, and law enforcement personnel
may use facilities constructed through RTP
funding.
Recreational Trails Program
projects in your state
The Recreational Trails Program offers
benefits to both motorized and non-motorized trail
users. However, it is important to note that
motorized recreation advocates in Congress
crafted the original legislation and tailored it to
provide ample motorized recreation opportunities.
The Federal Highway Administration’s RTP website
offers state-by-state breakdowns of current and
proposed RTP funded projects and provides
contact information for state agencies administer-
ing RTP funds. Advocates of non-motorized
recreation must maintain strong representation on
state advisory boards and track individual projects
funded through the Recreational Trails Program to
ensure that motorized uses do not dominate
funding allocations. For assistance or information
on how to deal with specific projects in your state,
please contact the Wildlands CPR ORV Program
(tplatt@wildlandscpr.org).
For additional information on the Recreational
Trails Program, see the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration’ RTP web page at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
environment/rectrail.htm.

What does the program say about — Maureen Hartman is a graduate student in
environmental compliance? Environmental Studies at the University of Montana.

State agencies responsible for administering

the Recreational Trails Program are directed to
develop their own procedures and criteria for
selecting projects. States must submit an annual
program document with a list of selected projects
to the FHWA division office for authorization, after
the funds have been apportioned and obligation
authority has been provided. Funds are only
obligated when a project is authorized.
The enabling legislation for the RTP states that
“[t]o the extent practicable and consistent with
the other requirements of this section, a state
should give consideration to project proposals
that provide for the redesign, reconstruction, non-
routine maintenance, or relocation of recreational
trails to benefit the natural environment or to
mitigate and minimize the impact to the natural
environment” (23 U.S.C. 206(e)).
The RTP Interim Guidance (1999) outlines the
program’s general environmental requirements
(available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environ-
ment/rtp9908.pdf). The interim guidance requires
state documentation of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
other environmental statutes, regulations, and
Executive Orders. While many RTP projects may
qualify for Categorical Exclusions under NEPA (24
Getting involved in the best way to ensure that
CFR 771.117), each project must be reviewed to
funds are spent on quiet recreation. Photo by Bill
assure that it does not have a significant impact on Cunningham.
the environment. Independent citizen oversight of
individual projects will help ensure that such
reviews take place.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002 9

Categorically Excluded
Forest Service Looks to Streamline NEPA
By Derek Goldman
The US Forest Service recently proposed a
significant revision to Chapter 30 of the Environ-
mental Policy and Procedures Handbook - the
agency’s rules for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [FSH 1909.15].
The revision, called an interim directive, would
allow the agency to utilize a broader application of
the categorical exclusion (CE) to avoid preparing
an Environmental Assessment (EA) for certain
projects. Its most dangerous aspect would permit
an agency official to invoke a CE even when
extraordinary circumstances are present. You can
view the full text of the agency’s Notice of Pro-
posed Interim Directive in the Federal Register at
66 FR 48412-48416.
NEPA Background
Under NEPA, Congress charged the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) with the task of
promulgating rules and regulations to implement
the act. The Forest Service, and all other federal
agencies, must follow these regulations and draft
their own NEPA guidelines consistent with them.
As part of their work, the CEQ defined a categori-
cal exclusion as, “a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment... and for which,
therefore, neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is re-
Under the new rules, more road building on steep slopes would
escape NEPA analysis. Photo by J. McCullah.
10
quired....” [40 CFR §1508.4]. This regulation was
created to reduce unnecessary delay in undertak-
ing routine activities, such as painting a govern-
ment building, or mowing a lawn. However, this
section also provides for extraordinary circum-
stances, when a “normally excluded action may
have a significant environmental effect.” In these
situations, the agency must conduct an EA to
determine the significance of any environmental
impact. There are currently a minimum of seven
extraordinary circumstances defined by the USFS,
such as the presence of steep slopes, inventoried
roadless areas, and threatened or endangered
species [1909.15 §30.3(2)].
Implications of the Interim Directive
Under the proposed redefinition of extraordi-
nary circumstances [§30.3 and §30.5], an agency
official could decide that no significant environ-
mental effect would result from a planned project,
even if a condition currently defined as an extraor-
dinary circumstance exists. The official could
subsequently issue a CE, in essence making a
significance determination without completing an
EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Since NEPA was intended to establish a process for
determining significance, this seems to contradict
the intent of Congress. Furthermore, issuing CEs
on a case-by-case basis is an oxymoron, since CEs
are “categories of actions” by definition [40 CFR
§1508.4].
The revision notice states that the intent of
these rule changes is “to facilitate consistent
interpretation and application of NEPA require-
ments....” [66FR 48412]. But how can issuing CEs
on a case-by-case basis engender consistency? In
fact, weakening a guideline for land managers will
result in less consistent application of CEs. This
inexorably leads to the conclusion that the
drafters of this notice are either shortsighted or
deceiving the public about their intent.
Another proposed change, although subtle, is
very important. In the current handbook, extraor-
dinary circumstances are not limited to the seven
specific circumstances listed. The Handbook
revisions would change §30.3(1)(b), §30.3(2) and
§30.5 by deleting the phrase “include, but are not
limited to,” in effect narrowing the definition of
these extraordinary circumstances.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
 The proposed interim directive would ad-
versely affect public participation in Forest Service
management decisions in two ways. First, the
Handbook changes would result in a higher
percentage of actions falling under categorical
exclusion - actions that are currently subject to an
EA. With a CE, the only opportunity for public
involvement is during the scoping process,
whereas an EA provides for a comment period, as
well as the opportunity for an administrative
appeal of a decision and FONSI. Once the decision
memo for a categorically excluded action is issued,
citizens’ only recourse is to file a lawsuit.

The proposed Handbook revisions in the

notice would have another subtle, yet drastic
impact on public participation in decision-making -
the agency proposes to delete the “scoping”
phrases from §30.3(3) and §30.5. Upon careful
examination of these paragraphs, one thing
becomes apparent: the USFS intends to go through
the motions of scoping, but will no longer neces-
sarily consider the issues raised in relation to
extraordinary circumstances, and whether or not
to prepare an EA or EIS. This implicit intent to
ignore concerns raised by the public during
scoping is outrageous. While the CEQ regulations
only require scoping for an EIS, the Service’s own
Handbook specifically demands scoping for ALL
proposed actions [FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10]. In Under the Forest Service proposal, habitat for
fact, one of the listed purposes of scoping is to sensitive species may no longer trigger preparation of
ascertain significant environmental concerns [FSH an environmental assessment. File photo.
1909.15 §11; 40 CFR 1501.7]. The agency’s own
definition of scoping is, “The procedure by which
Mississippi ex rel. Moore v. Marsh, 710 F. Supp.
the Forest Service identifies important issues and
1488 (S.D. Miss. 1989). Courts have also set aside
determines the extent of analysis necessary for an
CEs when extraordinary circumstances exist.
informed decision on a proposed action. Scoping is
Rhodes v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 785; 1998 U.S. App.,
an integral part of the environmental analysis.”
Washington Trails Association v. United States
[FSH 1909.15 §05].
Forest Service 935 F. Supp. 1117 (W.D. Wash. 1996),
Jones v Gordon 792 F. 2d 821 (9th Cir. 1986),
Judicial Review of Categorical California v. Cal. Coastal Commission, 150 F.Supp.
Exclusions 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001), Bensman v. USFS, 984
Until very recently, there has been little F.Supp. 1242 (W.D. Mo. 1997).
judicial review of the use of categorical exclusions.
When cases have been brought forth, courts have Conclusion
examined them in two different ways: under the The USFS proposed interim directive appears
“arbitrary and capricious” standard of the Admin- to have been crafted specifically to circumvent
istrative Procedures Act; or as an agency NEPA court rulings requiring an EA when extraordinary
decision similar to a FONSI.1 Almost all cases cite circumstances are present. By seeking to expand
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 its ability to invoke a categorical exclusion, and
U.S. 360, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L. Ed.2d 377 (1989), in thereby implement more environmentally destruc-
which the Supreme Court limited NEPA judicial tive projects on public lands, the Service shows a
review to whether or not the agency has taken a blatant disregard for the intent of the National
“hard look” at environmental consequences. If so, Environmental Policy Act.
then courts have generally extended deference to
the agency’s decision. — Derek Goldman is a graduate student in
Environmental Studies at the Univ. of Montana, and
There is a small, but potent supply of case law a summer intern at Wildlands CPR.
(particularly in the 7th and 9th Circuits) regarding
the illegal use of a categorical exclusion by a Footnotes
federal agency. If a proposed action differs from
1 Sheldon, K and M. Squillace (1999) The NEPA
the category under which its CE was issued, then
Litigation Guide, American Bar Assoc.
courts have generally demanded an EA or EIS. See
Publishing: Chicago, IL.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002 11

From Walking to Winnebagos
By Bethanie Walder
ecreational development and use is fast
R becoming the single greatest cause of
environmental degradation on public lands,
and particularly the National Forests. Don’t
get me wrong, logging, mining and energy develop-
ment won’t disappear - the Bush Administration is
trying desperately to re-invigorate these industries
- especially logging and natural gas extraction. But
on the whole, the balance of impacts is quickly
shifting from resource extraction to recreation.
After all, as resource extraction declined over the
last decade, the Forest Service searched for a new
mandate; it found its calling in promoting motor-
ized, privatized, industrial recreation.
So is the conservation community ready to
fight this shift to high infrastructure, high cost and
high impact recreation? Two issues in particular
have captured activists’ attention: the Recreation
Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), and
motorized recreation. The increased infrastruc-
tures required of both Fee Demo and motorized
recreation result in cascading economic and
ecological problems, from habitat destruction to
perverse incentives for development. But while
these two issues are very clearly part of the same
problem, they are being addressed in isolation.
Activists could and should be working more
closely together towards a long-term goal to end
the privatization, commercialization and motoriza-
tion of our public lands.
How much would you pay for a day on the river? Photo by Bill
Cunningham.
12
Fee Demo
June 15, 2002 was a National Day of Action to
Protest Fee Demo and its attendant ecological and
economic problems. At the heart of the problem,
Fee Demo is basically a goods-for-services system,
and those who “pay to play” will expect something
more than pretty views in return for their money.
But what they get in return will have profound
ecological impacts. Big infrastructure, including
full-service campgrounds, gondolas to the tops of
mountains, souvenir shops, guided tours, fancy
outhouses and smooth paved roads could be likely
additions to the National Forests under Fee Demo
and its counterpart - private/public partnerships.
In addition, economists are promoting scaled
fees commensurate with use, so hiking and bird-
watching may cost less than off-road vehicle use.
Sounds fair enough, but these scaled fees create a
perverse economic incentive for the Forest Service
to promote the higher fee, higher impact uses. In
response to criticism, the FS is changing the fee
demo program by charging fees for infrastructures
and limiting fees where fewer services are pro-
vided. While limited in scope, these changes may
take the wind out of the sails of much of the
opposition.
For nearly a century, the Forest Service has
effectively sold public resources to the highest
bidder. Recreation is no different, and the high
bids will demand excess infrastructure, excess
motors, and excess noise. They will also foster
potentially inappropriate relationships with
private industry. But will they maintain the
oversight and authority needed to manage recre-
ational development and its impacts on National
Forests? Our experience with logging, mining and
energy development suggests not. With recre-
ation, the Forest Service has an opportunity to
break the mold, but it appears they are headed
down the same old path. Motorized recreation
provides a timely and critical example.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
Motorized Recreation As resource extraction declined, the
We tend to think of motorized recreation in
terms of dirt bikes and off-road vehicles, but it also Forest Service searched for a new
includes winnebagos and other Recreational
Vehicles (RVs), passenger vehicles, and new
motorized toys that haven’t yet hit the market. The promoting motorized, privatized,
fact is, motorized users require a developed infra-
structure, or they create it themselves. Does that
infrastructure and use belong on the National
Forests any more than full service campgrounds and
souvenir shops? With this perspective, we can see how the issue is
analogous to Fee Demo in the recreation debate. For example, the
Forest Service has asked the Federal Highway Administration for
hundreds of millions of dollars per year to upgrade and pave almost
70,000 miles of forest roads. Why? Simply because they get the most
recreational use.
Unfortunately, road infrastructure isn’t the only thing likely to
change on the National Forests. Instead of setting a controlled,
purposeful agenda for appropriate and ecologically sensitive recre-
ation management on National Forest lands, the Forest Service has
adopted a passive, reactive approach to this challenge. The manage-
ment of off-road vehicles is a case in point: for the most part, FS
management plans historically relied on terrain to limit ORV activity.
But as technology advanced, terrain became a challenge, not a limit,
and off-road vehicle use is now rampant throughout the forests.
Similarly, other motorized toys have been developed that the agency
isn’t prepared to deal with, from motorized skateboards and
Next time you go out to your National Forest,
don’t forget to bring quarters for the toll. Photo
by Mark Alan Wilson.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
mandate; it found its calling in
industrial recreation.
snowboards to personal gyrocopters. It’s not up
to the Forest Service (or any other public land
management agency) to provide a place for every
recreational activity imaginable, but the agency
does not seem willing or able to draw clear lines
about what is appropriate and what isn’t. Existing
toys are changing everyday - snowmobiles are now
used to cross lakes and rivers and some have even
been converted for use on grass. With these
technological changes and without appropriate
controls, we will see continuing degradation of the
National Forests, degradation of the habitat
contained within them, loss of water quality, and
ultimately a loss of wild places.
Fee demo and motorized recreation both
displace other recreationists and as human-
powered recreationists seek solitude and quiet
from the motorized masses, they will come into
competition with the wildlife that have already fled
motorized playgrounds. The setting will be our
designated Wilderness, the only areas spared from
recreational insanity. Many Wilderness Areas were
designated because of their scenery and recreation
value, and since then have, out of necessity,
become ecological refugia for wildlife, though the
habitat they provide is often subpar.
Of course there is a place for recreation on
public lands, but at this point in time the Forest
Service has not defined what is or is not appropri-
ate recreation. Nor have they attempted to control
inappropriate recreation. The agency is too
blinded by dollar signs to do anything but promote
motorized, high cost, high impact recreation. In
reality, however, all management of the National
Forests should be based on maintaining the
ecological health and resiliency of the land.
Activities that do not impair the land should be
permitted, whether they are motorized or
nonmotorized. But we also have philosophical
reasons to maintain primitive, undeveloped
recreational opportunities on public lands. Private
lands, private parks and other places already
provide recreational infrastructure for people who
are seeking a controlled, developed and comfort-
able experience. The National Forests should not
be converted for such use.
13
 Roads Program Update
Spring 2002
By Marnie Criley, Roads Policy Coordinator
First, the Roads Program would like to welcome
Adam Switalski as Wildlands CPR’s new Science
Coordinator. With the addition of Adam, the Roads
Program looks to further diversify its work. While
Adam will focus on our scientific understanding of
road removal, Marnie will continue to work on
socio-economic issues as a way to build a broader
constituency for road removal. As part of this work,
we will commission an economic study of the
benefits of road removal.
Economic Study of Road Removal
Wildlands CPR is accepting proposals for a
study to explore the job creation and other eco-
nomic benefits of ecologically-sound road removal
on National Forests (NF). We recognize that road
closure statistics are unknown and the economic
benefits and non-market impacts of road removal
vary between regions. However, we believe this
study, combined with other region-specific studies,
could be extremely beneficial in promoting road
removal as a key component of forest restoration.
Background
There are over 400,000 miles of roads on NF
lands, and their environmental impact is becoming
well understood. Beginning to grapple with the
problem, in January 2001 the Forest Service (FS)
adopted the National Forest System Road Manage-
ment Strategy (Roads Policy). This new policy sets
the course for managing the road system. It calls
for a shift from developing transportation to
managing the road system within the capabilities of
the land — the agency hopes to expand unroaded
areas by 5-10% by decommissioning up to 100,000
miles of roads. We hope our economic study will
bolster the FS’s direction, and encourage other land
managers (Bureau of Land Management, State and
private landowners) to develop their own road
removal programs.
Economic costs of road system
Currently there is an $8.5 - $10 billion deferred
maintenance backlog of road work, such as culvert
replacement, on NF lands, and the FS can only
afford to maintain approximately 20% of their road
system each year. This lack of road maintenance,
reconstruction and removal has led to heavy
sediment loading in aquatic systems, harming not
only fisheries but also water quality and community
water supplies. Road-related landslides have led to
loss of homes and lives. Roads also impact hunting
and fishing, which in many states provide huge
revenues. Finally, the cost of eradicating invasive
weeds, which are spread via roads and motorized
recreation, is one we still haven’t grasped.
14
Economic benefits of road removal
Decision-makers and land management agencies are finally
recognizing the need to restore National Forests, but so much of the
current conversation is focused on thinning and fuels reduction that
the ecological and economic benefits of a comprehensive road
removal program have been largely ignored.
Investing in ecologically sound road removal and restoration
holds significant potential for rural communities, the broader timber
dependent workforce and society as a whole. Road removal can
provide long-term quality employment to residents of rural communi-
ties. A study by the University of Oregon’s Ecosystem Workforce
Program shows that road related jobs tend to have a more local
workforce than other forms of ecosystem management work. Jobs
created through road removal could also avoid the inherent conflicts
that have plagued many communities focusing on commercial
resource extraction as a means to create local jobs.
Study Goals
The goals of the study are to:
1. Demonstrate and quantify the market and non-market eco-
nomic costs and benefits associated with road removal and restora-
tion.
2. Provide the basis for a credible “blueprint” for the economic
transition of rural communities by reprioritizing Forest Service
budgets to pursue ecologically sound forest restoration through road
removal;
3. Demonstrate to local and national decision-makers the job
creation potential of road removal and restoration. This study can be
used to support shifting federal resources towards a landscape
restoration agenda focused on road removal; and
4. Identify strategies and recommendations for shifting Forest
Service resource emphasis towards road removal and involving local
communities and the associated workforce.
For more information and a complete Request For Proposals,
contact Marnie Criley at the Wildlands CPR office. Deadline for
proposals is July 5.
Restoring roads will put people to work. Photo by Bethanie Walder.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
 ORV Program Update
Spring 2002
By Tom Platt, ORV Policy Coordinator
Uncompahgre National Forest Travel
Management Plan
After extensive citizen participation and review,
Colorado’s Uncompahgre National Forest Travel
Plan has been released. The March 1, 2002 Record
of Decision is precedent setting for its proposed
forest-wide area closure eliminating all cross-
country motorized travel. A key element of the
area closure is the plan’s extensive inventory of
both existing roads and user created motorized
travel routes.
Cross-country travel bans are a crucial element
of the program advocated by Wildlands CPR - the
restriction of all motorized travel to NEPA-analyzed
and designated forest roads. However, while the
Uncompahgre plan is an improvement over previ-
ous Forest Service efforts, it still fails to address the
serious problem of rapidly proliferating user-
created travelways outside of the designated
system road and trail inventory. While Wildlands
CPR opted not to challenge the plan in favor of
allowing the cross-country travel closure to take
effect, we are not satisfied that the Uncompahgre
has fulfilled its legal and ecological obligation to
protect forest resources from off road vehicle
damage. Therefore, we are working with local
groups to follow developments on the
Uncompahgre, as well as tracking upcoming Travel
Plan revisions on other forests. We will continue to
push for limiting motor vehicles to designated
roads and for full environmental impact analysis of
non-system, user-created motorized travelways.
Restore Native Ecosystems
Alternative Prepared for BLM
A coalition of citizen organizations has devel-
oped the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative for
inclusion into the Bureau of Land Management’s 16-
state invasive species management Environmental
Impact Statement process. The groups are working
to ensure that prevention of weed invasion and
least-impact control methods are adopted by the
agency in its programmatic proposal for addressing
problems with invasive species and forest fuel
build-up in the western states and Alaska. Wild-
lands CPR is participating in the citizen alternative
development by providing resources and policy
direction that addresses the ecological impacts of
roads and off road vehicles in the spread of inva-
sive, non-native plant species. We were also
actively involved in bringing together this working
group. Research has shown that motorized vehicle
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
Banning cross-country motorized travel will help protect key resources
on the Uncompahgre. Photo by Bethanie Walder.
travel accelerates invasive species spread in several ways. Weed
seeds are directly transported over long distances when they are
picked up and carried in the undercarriage of motor vehicles. Soil
disturbance and compaction from off road vehicle travel provides
favorable locations for weed seeds to gain a foothold in new habitat.
Road construction and road corridors are significant disturbances
that offer weeds the opportunity to colonize new areas. Finally, fire
associated with motor vehicles and increased human access along
wildland roads creates significant native plant community distur-
bance and opens broad regions of habitat to weed invasion.
The Restore Native Ecosystems citizen coalition is developing a
strategy for public outreach in order to expand public understanding
about the EIS and invasive species management on BLM lands, and to
facilitate public participation once the EIS is released for public
comment (projected for October 2002). For additional information on
the Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative or to become involved
with the coalition, visit the American Lands Alliance’s web site at
http://www.americanlands.org/blm_weeds_plan.htm.
Dixie National Forest Lawsuit
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has upheld a lower
court ruling in favor of the Forest Service for its decision to close 89
miles of roads and trails to motorized vehicles on the Dixie National
Forest. The April 25th ruling affirmed the discretion of the agency to
ban travel where adverse ecological impacts are occurring, and
rejected the claim by the Shared Access Alliance, a Utah off road
vehicle group, which argued that the Forest Service failed to show
damage resulting from motor vehicles. The Court’s opinion stated
that “[c]ommon sense alone suggests that a haphazard system of
roads in close proximity to lakes would likely be a significant cause of
erosion, and there is no dispute that agency personnel documented
significant visible effects of lake sedimentation from the roads on
Boulder Top.”
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and several other environ-
mental organizations (including Wildlands CPR) intervened on behalf
of the Forest Service to support the road closures. Steve Bloch,
counsel for SUWA, commented after the ruling, “Federal agencies
should take heart from [t]his decision and move forward on their
plans to protect Utah’s spectacular landscapes from the damage ORVs
can cause.”
15
Road Huntin’ Ain’t No Huntin’ A’Tall
A Reasoned Rant
By David Petersen
s a conservationist, naturalist and, as one of my
A less-understanding neighbors terms it, “our
local wildlife idiot,” I see no contradiction in
pointing out that I’m also a lifelong hunter.
Nor am I alone in this apparent contradiction. Yale
sociobiologist Stephen Kellert, America’s leading
researcher in the area of human attitudes toward
nature, categorizes a minority segment of hunters,
at least 20 percent, as having a strong “nature/
naturalistic” orientation. As such, they/I/we
comprehend and embrace nature on an ecological
scale and constantly ponder the conundrum of
killing and eating the very creatures we so love.
From my neo-animistic point of view, there is no
oxymoron here: Death feeds life; life feeds on
death; that’s how nature works. Respect, empathy
and reciprocity are the keys to moral compatibility
in this ancient bloody arena. Done right, there is
no more natural, thus moral, human-nature
relationship than hunting.
Done wrong, hunting is a horror show. And far
too often, it is done wrong. Sadly, for every
“nature” hunter, there are at least two of the type
Kellert classifies as “dominionistic/sports.” These
On heavily roaded landscapes, elk find
themselves lethally sandwiched
between almost ceaseless harassment
by motorized invaders . . . and
decreased hiding cover.
mostly urban and suburban weekend warriors
know or care woefully little about nature, ecosys-
tem dynamics or the animals they hunt. (The only
other faction of American culture to score as
dismally low on Kellert’s “nature knowledge” tests
as the sports, ironically, were their “animal rights”
counterparts!) Worse, a growing number of these
clueless shooters, bowing to our consumer culture
and the outdoor marketing industry’s dictum to
16
abandon their lungs, legs and hearts in favor of
engines, wheels and banality, undertake most of
their “hunting” with their butts planted firmly on
the seats of off-highway vehicles (4x4 pickups,
SUVs and ATVs) and view wildlife as little more
than moving targets and potential trophies. True
hunters are embarrassed and angered by the
words, actions and myopic, self-serving politics of
these armed motorheads, who cruise back-roads
and illegally off-road in search of easy targets and
unearned bragging rights, and who leave ugly
ecological, spiritual and public-opinion footprints
everywhere they go, though their boots rarely
touch the ground.
As one crusty old outfitter friend once put it,
“Road huntin’ ain’t no huntin’ a’tall.”
For an example of the harassment and harm
that roads and their human cargo bring to wildlife
— not only butt-bound hunters but so-called
“nonconsumptive” (no such critter exists) motor-
ized recreationists as well — let’s consider the
impacts on a popular, tough and adaptable big
game species that’s been the subject of intense
long-term studies in relation to road impacts: the
elk.
On heavily roaded landscapes, elk find
themselves lethally sandwiched between almost
ceaseless harassment by motorized invaders,
especially during hunting season, and decreased
hiding cover. The “big four” survival essentials for
elk and other wildlife are food, water, cover and
room to roam. Unrestricted legroom is essential to
elk (a highly mobile and migratory species) not
only to meet the first three needs through all the
seasons but to allow females to “shop around” for
the fittest males to father their young. In heavily
roaded and logged habitat — and roading and
logging are sinister twins — this essential freedom
to roam is bought by elk at the usurious price of
greatly increased stress and greatly reduced
survivability. Either way, move or sit tight, the
wapiti lose. Moreover, researchers point out that
elk and other wildlife often suffer stress and
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
behavioral disruption due to continual motorized
traffic noise — the growl and engine-rattle of diesel
OHVs, the mosquito-whine of ATVs and snowmo-
biles — even should they escape such direct
harassment as being shot at and chased around.
Ostensibly to reduce the risks to elk of
proposed new roads and timber sales, the Forest
Service employs a “vulnerability paradigm” called
the Blue Mountain Habitat Effectiveness Model.
This rule of thumb, developed via studies con-
ducted in the fecund forests of the Pacific North-
west, proclaims that “good” elk habitat consists of
60 percent forage (with “forage” generally and
erroneously considered to be satisfied by clear-
cuts) and 40 percent cover. But the radically
varying quality of forage and cover across all the
many western states occupied by elk is insuffi-
ciently addressed. Cow-burned clear-cuts and arid
rangelands offer radically inferior forage (not only
in calories per acre, but in digestibility and
nutrition-essential variety) compared to moist,
ungrazed riparian corridors or aspen understory.
Likewise, the harsh artificial edges between clear-
cuts or road-cuts and standing timber do not
equate to rich natural ecotones; quite the oppo-
site, both in fact and ecological effect, as preemi-
nent conservation biologist Dr. Michael Soulé and
others have demonstrated.
The Blue Mountain model goes on to specify
that elk cover should consist of 20 percent hiding,
10 percent thermal, and 10 percent “either thermal
or hiding cover.” In yet another omniscient agency
dictum, effective hiding cover is decreed to be
“vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a
standing adult deer or elk from the view of a
human at a distance equal to or less than two-
hundred yards.” Which leaves one to wonder: Is
that with the naked eye ... or through a riflescope?
Such substantially hypothetical models and
definitions would be laughable if they weren’t so
tragic for the animals they purport to protect. And
even these obviously inadequate minimums have
traditionally been subverted when they threaten to
True hunters are embarrassed and angered by
the words, actions and myopic, self-serving
politics of these armed motorheads.
interfere with bureaucratic business as usual.
According to retired Montana USFS biologist Jack
Lyon: “We had a lot of trouble recognizing the
distinct difference between habitat effectiveness
and habitat security for a while. Many wildlife
biologists would say, ‘No [the 60/40 model] doesn’t
necessarily provide security,’ but district rangers
would say, ‘Yes it does; we need to get the cut out.’
I can’t describe how rash the interpretations were.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
Wapiti in its home. Wildlands CPR file photo.
And it was very clear why the interpretations came about, and it
didn’t have a damn thing to do with elk.” (Quoted in Bugle, the
journal of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.)
Another former USFS biologist, Alan Christensen, specialized in
elk vulnerability. Summarizing his career findings and feelings (also in
Bugle), Christensen says flatly: “Roads are the single biggest problem
on the landscape for elk. It’s well documented and everything else
pales in comparison.”
Citing long-term studies in Idaho, Christensen points out that
bull elk survival and average age (that is, “trophy” status) decrease
radically with increased road access. “It’s simple biology and com-
mon sense. Roads are the delivery system for people to invade
habitat. If a wildlife population is weakened by land management
decisions — in this case motorized access — you’ll have higher
losses from everything: winterkill, predation, hunting, accidents and
disease.”
This is no “liberal tree-hugger voodoo.” It is scientifically
documented, personally observable fact. Even the most thoughtless
road “hunter” should be able to understand that if you want some elk
to hunt, first you need some elk. And to have and keep elk — and
particularly to “produce” trophy bulls — you need viable habitat to
support and shelter them, in all seasons and over the long term. And
roads and clearcuts have been proven to weaken
and, too frequently, utterly destroy elk habitat
viability.
And so it is that by attacking the integrity of
wildlife habitat in pursuit of a personal passion for
effortless motorized access everywhere — mouth-
ing the greed-head “wise use” lie “We can have it
all” — all too many sportsmen, sitting all too
comfortably on their motorized butts, rumbling blithely along (and
often illegally off) tens of thousands of miles of public-lands byways,
are pissing on their own best interests.
— David Petersen resides year-round in “a little cabin on a big
mountain” in southwestern Colorado. David’s dozen books include the
anthology A Hunter’s Heart: Honest Essays on Blood Sport (Henry Holt)
and Heartsblood: Hunting, Spirituality, and Wildness in America (Island
Press).
17

Chop-Chop
The Impacts of Helicopter Recreation on Wildlife
By Emily Yeomans
Remember the days of sweating and climbing
up steep slopes to gain spectacular views and
relish the sounds of silence? Silence is not so
easily won these days, even in remote wilderness.
With the aging and relatively affluent baby-boomer
market, helicopter recreation is one of the fastest
growing types of wilderness adventure. Heli-
skiing, heli-hiking, heli-site seeing, and heli-fishing
are all forms of helicopter recreation and along
with the increase in human activity in wilderness,
they raise concerns about impacts to wildlife
populations.
A Varied Response
Helicopter disturbance of wild animals may
cause physiological and/or behavioral responses
that compromise the animals’ survival, growth and
reproductive fitness, ability to raise young, energy
budgets, and habitat use. Behavioral responses in
animals vary among individuals within a species
and between species types; these variations may
be due to differences in temperament, sex, age,
prior experience with aircraft, or other factors
(McKechnie and Gladwin 1994). One relationship
is clear between aircraft and behavioral responses:
the closer the aircraft the greater the probability
that the animal will respond, and the greater the
response.
Accidents Happen
Accidental injury of animals that panic and
run from aircraft is a common concern of biolo-
gists. Occasionally animals, especially young
ungulates, will run into objects or fall and get
trampled while fleeing from aircraft.
Reproductive Stress
Aircraft disturbances can cause reproductive
losses by altering patterns of attendance to young
(National Park Service 1994). Both mammals and
birds leave their young or eggs exposed to preda-
tors and the elements when they run or fly away
from aircraft.
18
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights
some of the scientific literature in our 6,000 citation
bibliography on the ecological effects of roads.
We offer bibliographic searches to help activists
access important biological research relevant to
roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in
Bibliography Notes in our office library.
What goes up . . . must have impacts on wildlife. Photo by Bill
Cunningham.
Energy Loss
Panic reactions and escape responses to overflights can be
energetically “expensive” to animals for two reasons. First, feeding
animals nearly always stop ingesting food when disturbed, which
means a decrease in energy intake. Second, disturbed animals
usually run or otherwise move away from aircraft, thus increasing
their energy expenditure (National Park Service 1994). Increased
energy expenditures can reduce the rate of survival and reproduction
(Albright and Kunstel 2001). Disturbance from overflights could
cause sensitive animals to abandon their habitats. However, more
research is needed on the long-term effects of helicopter distur-
bances.
Associated Impacts
Helicopter recreation raises concern not only about the impact
of helicopters themselves but also about associated increases in
recreation. Heli-skiing is concentrated in upper-elevation terrain,
where goats, caribou, elk, and brown bears occupy habitat. In 1997, a
human-triggered avalanche in the Chugach Mountains of Alaska killed
a female Brown Bear and her two cubs while hibernating. Likewise,
the increase in heli-hiking is taking more people to historically low-
use areas like high alpine or tundra. Alpine habitat is extremely
fragile and cannot support such use at high levels; by bringing in
groups by helicopter, the numbers and degree of disturbance will
increase. Trampled alpine vegetation causes increased stress on
wildlife - mountain goats and sheep are particularly vulnerable to this
type of disturbance because critical habitat is already in short
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002

A view of elk from the air — notice they are fleeing. File photo.
supply. There are also concerns related to two aspects of brown
bear/helicopter/recreational conflicts (ADF&G 1992). First, most
individual bears flee approaching helicopters in a full run. If helicop-
ter activity were frequent, bears would most likely move away from a
locale (ADF&G 1992). The second concern is for the direct human
intrusion into brown bear habitats. Hiking in alpine terrain increases
the risk of grizzly/human conflicts. Such conflicts will result in more
grizzlies being destroyed in the name of public safety.
Case Studies
Because helicopter recreation is relatively new, review of the
literature found few studies that specifically examine the effects of
helicopter recreation on wildlife. However, many studies have
examined the responses of wildlife to mechanized recreational
activities and human disturbances. Therefore, the majority of
studies lend themselves to drawing conclusions about the impacts of
helicopter recreation.
Perching or nesting birds may flush when disturbed. A study of
bald eagles elicited responses from over 40% of eagles when helicop-
ters approached at distances of under 3,050m (Watson 1993). In
Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, heli flights have caused
flight/fright behavior in tundra swans and snow geese, and swans
have abandoned nests due to the disturbance (Albright and Kunstel
2001). Presence of young in the nest increased tenacity. Eagles,
presumably defending their young, did not flush until encounters
under 30m (Watson 1993). What seems to be no disturbance and a
lack of response to human activities may actually be a form of nest
defense (Watson 1993). Even if adults do not flush, regular disruption
of nesting activities by aircraft or other human activities (i.e. hiking,
skiing, etc.) could result in reduced brooding and feeding of young.
This may lead to reduced attentiveness and nest failure (Watson 1993).
A rather significant study in 1982 by Ann Gunn looked at Caribou
behavior, range use patterns, and short-term responses to helicopter
landings on the Beverly Calving Ground. The study included an
experimental disturbance with eight phases: approach, turn, descent,
wind-down, shutdown and ground activity, wind-up, take-off, and last
audible (Gunn 1982). Gunn found that there were relatively more
occasions than expected when caribou exhibited maintenance
behaviors or behavioral responses to the helicopter (Gunn 1982).
For example, Caribou responded to the helicopter by galloping and
trotting during the turn phase. The results from the experimental
landings showed that the cows and calves were readily displaced and
their activity patterns interrupted even by landing at a distance of
300-2200m away from them. Overall, the study found that helicopter
landings within several hundred meters of early post-calving groups
or aggregations of caribou will 1) disrupt ongoing maintenance
activities; and 2) elicit behavioral responses that lead to displace-
ments from the immediate range to distances of, at least, 1-3km.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
A study in 1987 by biologists from Northern
Arizona University investigated whether helicopter
activities in Grand Canyon National Park affected
the feeding behavior of bighorn sheep (Stockwell
and Bateman 1991). They found that in the
presence of helicopters, sheep were taking in less
energy and expending more. Specifically, sheep
spent 14% less time feeding during the spring and
42% less in the winter. Meanwhile, the sheep
walked 50% more while feeding (McKechnie and
Gladwin 1994).
Conclusion & Recommendations
There is a general consensus in the literature
that helicopter traffic is more disruptive than
fixed-wing overflights (Watson 1993, Albright and
Kunstel 2001, Harrington and Veitch 1991, Belanger
and Bedard 1989). The literature indicates that
flight altitude, noise output, speed, and approach
pattern are the most important factors in deter-
mining an animal’s reaction to an overflight
(McKechnie and Gladwin 1994). Review of current
literature and information suggests the following
regulations to mitigate impacts of helicopter
recreation:
1) Zoning of wild lands to assure that critical
habitats and opportunities for non-motorized
recreation are not lost to industrial, commercial
recreation or inappropriate private uses.
2) Any action requiring permitted helicopter
activities (i.e. helicopter flight seeing, glacier
landings, etc.) should have above ground level
flight restrictions imposed and enforced. Scientific
research indicates a 2 km above ground level no-fly
zone to completely avoid harassment of wildlife.
3) Minimum distance guidelines of 300m for
aircraft flying over sheep, goat, and caribou
habitat. Aircraft should keep a quarter of a mile
distance from eagle’s nests.
4) Knowledge of species in an area that could
be affected by helicopter recreation should be
obtained. Flight paths and landing sites should be
established to minimize contact with wildlife and
should avoid surprising (i.e. popping over cliffs) or
flying directly at animals. The seasons, habitat
ranges, and specific periods when consequences
of disturbance are particularly high (i.e. breeding
season) should also be considered when planning
flight paths.
5) When planning management strategies a
precautionary approach should be taken and focus
should be on the reactions of the most sensitive
species.
— Emily Yeomans is a graduate student in
Environmental Studies at the Univ. of Montana and a
longtime outdoor educator who has seen the effects
of helicopter recreation first hand.
For Emily’s complete report on this topic, go
to the Wildlands CPR website resources page.
— References on page 20 —
19
References
— continued from page 19 —
Albright, J. and M. Kunstel. 2001. A Research Report for the Jackson
Hole Conservation Alliance. Jackson, WY.
Anderson, D. E., O.J. Rongstad, W.R. Mytton. 1990. Home-range changes
in raptors exposed to increased human activity levels in
southeastern Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2):134-142.
Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow
geese to human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management
53(3):713-719.
Bunnell, F.L., D. Dunbar, L. Koza, and G. Ryder. 1981. Effects of
disturbance on the productivity and numbers of white pelicans in
British Columbia—observations and models. Colonial Waterbirds
4:2-11.
Callanan, L. 1993. Heli-hiking in the bugaboos. Forbes 151:166-170.
Cassirer, E. F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk Responses to
disturbance by cross-country skiers in Yellowstone National Park.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381.
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999.
Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican Spotted Owls. Journal of
Wildlife Management 63:60-76.
Ferguson, M.A.D., and L.B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on
distribution of Moose and Elk in Elk Island National Park, Alberta.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 96(1):69-78.
Gladwin, D.N., D.A. Asherin, and K.M. Manci. 1987. Effects of Aircraft
Noise and Sonic Booms on Fish and Wildlife: Results of a Survey of
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species and Ecological
Services Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries and Research Centers.
NERC-88/30. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., National Ecology Research
Center, Fort Collins, CO. 24pp.
Gunn, A. 1983. Caribou Behavior, Range Use Patterns, and Short-Term
Responses to Helicopter Landings on the Beverly Calving Ground,
N.W.T. Yellowknife Wildlife Service, Northwest Territories,
Renewable Resources.
Harrington, F.H. and A.M. Veitch. 1991. Short-term impacts of low-level
jet fighter training on Caribou in Labrador. Arctic 44(4):318-327.
Hilderbrand, G.V., L.L. Lewis, J. Larrivee, and S.D. Farley. 2000. A
denning brown bear, Ursus arctos, sow and two cubs killed in an
avalanche on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist
114(3):498.
Johnson, B. 1977. The effects of human disturbance on a population of
harbor seals. In Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan
Continental Shelf, 422-431. Annual Reports of Principal
Investigators for the Year Ending March 1977, Vol. 1, Receptors-
Mammals.
Jope, K. L. 1985. Implications of grizzly bear habituation to hikers.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:32-37.
Knight, R.L., and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists:
Coexistence through Management and Research. pp. 51-156.
Island Press.
Krausman, P.R., B.D. Leopold, and D.L. Scarbrough. 1986. Desert mule
deer response to aircraft. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:68-70.
Little, J.B. 1999. Quiet! The sounds of nature are harder to hear.
Wilderness 21-25.
MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and
behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance.
Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358.
Maffly, Brian. 2000. Forest Service Upholds Copter-Ski Ruling. Salt Lake
Tribune, Jan. 6th, 2000.
20
Maffly, Brian. 2000. Compromise on Heli-Skiing
Pleases Nobody. Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 3rd,
1999.
McKechnie, A. and D. Gladwin. 1994. Helicopters
and Wildlife. Rotor and Wing 32-33.
Miller, F.L., E. Broughton, and A. Gunn. 1988.
Mortality of Migratory Barren-Ground Caribou
on the Calving Grounds of the Beverly Herd,
Northwest Territories, 1981-83. Ottawa:
Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No.
66.
National Park Service. 1994. Report to Congress:
Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the
National Park System. Denver Service Center.
Phillips, G.E. and A. W. Alldredge. 2000.
Reproductive success of elk following
disturbance by humans during calving season.
Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2):521-530.
Stockwell, C.A., G.C. Bateman, and J. Berger. 1991.
Conflicts in national parks: a case study of
helicopters and bighorn sheep time budgets at
the Grand Canyon. Biological Conservation
56:317-328.
Thiel, R.P., S. Merrill, and L.D. Mech. 1998. Tolerance
by Denning Wolves, Canis lupus, to Human
Disturbance. Canadian Field-Naturalist
112(2):340-342.
Titus, K. 1992. Letter to the USDA Forest Service.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Douglas,
AK.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Final
environmental impact statement for the
Wasatch Powderbird Guides permit renewal.
Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City,
UT and Unita National Forest, Provo, UT. pp.3-
35-3-40.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Helicopter
Landings in Wilderness: Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Alaska Region, Tongass
National Forest. Chatham, Stikine, and
Ketchikan Areas. RM-MB-340a.
Watson, J.W. 1993. Responses of nesting bald eagles
to helicopter surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin
21:171-178.
Wilson, S.F. and D.M. Shakleton. 2001. Backcountry
Recreation and Mountain Goats: A Proposed
Research and Adaptive Management Plan.
Wildlife Research Group, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior
responses and reproduction of mule deer,
Odocoileus hemionus, does following
experimental harassment with an all-terrain
vehicle. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:425-429.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002

When Sally Grimes was an undergraduate studying Outdoor
Recreation and Resource Management, to her the phrase “outdoor
recreation” meant solely human-powered recreation. The thought of
motors in the wilderness didn’t cross her mind. It wasn’t until she
interned with the American Hiking Society that the reality of off-road
vehicles and their threat to peace and quiet shocked her into action
to protect the natural outdoor experience from motorized recreation.
Sally, a current Boise, Idaho resident, grew up in Indiana. The need to
be outside was ingrained in Sally at a very young age, (she has a
photograph of her father hiking in a Midwestern forest, carrying her
on his back) and these days, life just doesn’t seem quite right unless
she can get outside every day and take a hike, kayak a river, climb a
crag, or sit and simply listen to the wind.
As Director of Winter Wildlands Alliance, Sally campaigns on
behalf of winter human-powered recreationists, who seek a quiet,
peaceful outdoor experience. A year and a half ago ski groups from
California, Colorado, Nevada and Idaho came together to solve a
common problem: snowmobiles had taken over public lands and
skiers were running out of places to enjoy winter. Through this initial
coalition, Winter Wildlands was born — it has since expanded to
include snowshoers, snowboarders, backcountry and nordic skiers.
Sally observes that the perception of multiple-use differs from
the national to the regional or local level. National policy makers
understand that multiple-use does not mean shared use — not all
recreationists have to coexist on the same piece of land. So when
local forest rangers resist setting aside areas for human-powered
recreation, Sally and her ski groups approach them with letters from
national Forest Service representatives in hand. Peer-to-peer
pressure can be very effective.
The human-powered recreationists who get involved with Winter
Wildlands do so to protect a quality outdoor experience — and to
preserve the land, wildlife, and natural sights and sounds. And while
these people love the land, many do not realize that laws exist to
protect their values. A large part of Sally’s work is educating people
about Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and the Code of Federal
Regulations 36CFR295.2-295.6, which state that off-road vehicle use
must be planned to protect land and other resources, promote public
safety, and minimize conflicts with other uses.
Even with the law on their side, skiers have found that closing
areas to snowmobiles takes a savvy mix of media work, outreach and
political pressure. For example, when skiers in Nevada wanted to
close Tahoe Meadows to snowmobiles (an area historically used
solely for human-powered recreation) they found the FS not at all
receptive, so they documented user conflicts by photographing
snowmobiles side by side with kids trying to ski. Next, they gathered
letters from skiers vowing they no longer felt safe skiing at Tahoe
Meadows. When the FS was still not receptive, the skier-activists
interested the Reno Gazette by bringing photographs, copies of the
laws, and skier testimonials. Once in the public eye, the Forest
Service began to squirm, but with nothing changing at Tahoe Mead-
ows, the skiers took their case to Washington, DC. After learning that
2,000 constituents wanted to see Tahoe Meadows returned to skiers,
Senator Reed’s office called the FS, and it wasn’t long before the
Tahoe Meadows Ranger announced the area would be closed to
snowmobiles.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002
The Activist Spotlight is a new feature for The Road-
RIPorter. Our intention is to share the stories of some
of the awesome activists we work with, both as a
tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight to
jenbarry@wildlandscpr.org.
Often by the time people have discovered
Winter Wildlands, they are frustrated, disillu-
sioned, and don’t know what to do next. Winter
Wildlands turns that frustration into motivation.
Jesse Logan of the Logan Backcountry Skiers’
Alliance in Utah puts it this way: “Sally lets you
know that you are not alone in your concern about
loss of winter wildlands and solitude. In the face
of aggressive advertising by the snowmobile
industry, and the astronomic rise in snowmobile
numbers, it can feel like we are shouting into the
wind. Sally and Winter Wildlands provide the
reassurance that there are thousands of winter
foot travelers that lament the loss of wilderness
and solitude, and despair over noise and air
pollution. Winter used to be the easiest season to
escape the hassles of modern society, now it is the
hardest. Sally and Winter Wildlands give us hope
that we can regain some of what has been lost,
actually, stolen, from us.”
Sally says the biggest surprise over the last
year and a half has been learning that many people
who enjoy snowmobiling cite the same reasons as
those who enjoy non-motorized recreation: the
natural sights and sounds, being outdoors,
relaxation, etc. While she finds this point of view
puzzling, she says learning where motorized users
are coming from has been interesting. Sally and
Winter Wildlands share the organizing tactics that
work. They provide skiers and others with an
effective blueprint of strategies to reclaim their
favorite outdoor places. Thank you Sally! Because
of your efforts, we all have more peace to enjoy
the natural beauty of a quiet winter day.
21
 If Spring is the time when nature awakens from
dormancy, it is also the time when conservation work
kicks into full gear, and that is certainly the case for us
here at Wildlands CPR. After a grueling nine-month
process, we have finally hired a Science Coordinator;
we are thrilled to welcome Adam Switalski to the
Wildlands CPR staff. Hailing most recently from Utah,
Adam brings experience with road and wildlife issues,
a passion for conservation, and enthusiasm for road
removal research. Adam officially started in June, but
was able to attend the annual Wildlands CPR board/
staff retreat in May, shortly after we hired him. If you
have science questions, or ideas about road removal
research, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with
Adam here at our office.
In May we hosted our annual staff/board retreat,
just outside Missoula at the University of Montana’s
Lubrecht experimental forest. At the meeting, we
began a strategic planning process that will take eight
months to a year to complete. We are excited about the
possibilities and will keep you posted as we continue
the process.
Thank You!
Numerous local eateries donated food for our
board meeting. A huge thank you to Tipu’s Tiger, for
providing us with an incredibly healthy and delicious
vegetarian Indian feast one evening. Thanks also to
Bernice’s Bakery for delicious treats and breads, to
Hunter Bay Coffee Roasters for some excellent coffee,
and to the Good Food Store for a gift certificate that
helped us out with our food shopping. Thanks too to
several volunteers who prepared scrumptious food for
us over the weekend!
Many thanks to the Flintridge and Bullitt Founda-
tions, both of whom provided generous grants for our
work in the Pacific Northwest. Thanks too, to all of you
who continue to send us your personal donations, they
make all the difference in the world.
Colorado ORV Report Available
The Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative in Nederland,
Colorado, has just released a report entitled “Off-road
Vehicles in Colorado: Facts, Trends, Recommendations.”
The report contains maps, photos, and fact sheets docu-
menting the rise of ORVs in Colorado and exploring options
for better ORV management. It shows that the FS and BLM’s
approach has been reactive rather than proactive, and calls
upon the agencies to take a broader perspective.
The report adds to the lively dialogue among land
managers and recreationists as to how to balance the
competing needs of wildlife and recreation. It concludes
there is a need for better designed, better enforced ORV
route systems that concentrate use in limited areas to
reduce habitat fragmentation and leave roadless and
wilderness-quality lands intact. Authored by Roz McClellan
and Vanessa Arbogast, the report is based on ten years of
field work and tracking of federal land management policies
and biological research.
The ORV report may be viewed or downloaded for
printing at website: rmri.org To order a paper copy of the
report or the report on CD, call the Rocky Mountain Recre-
ation Initiative at (303) 444-4050.
Motorizing Yellowstone Report
The Sierra Club and Native Forest Network have just
released a 24-page report entitled “Motorizing Yellowstone:
An Investigative Report on Off Road Vehicle Use within the
Gallatin National Forest.” This report is the result of many
months of fieldwork on the Gallatin, in the northern and
northwestern portions of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys-
tem. Authored by Margot Higgins and Phil Knight, it features
photos depicting the damage inflicted on the land by off-
road vehicle use. “Motorizing Yellowstone” includes quotes
from forest users, recommendations on what the FS should
do to curb damage to the land, as well as a bibliography.
“Motorizing Yellowstone” is available through Native
Forest Network, PO Box 6151, Bozeman, MT 59771-6151,
(406) 586-3885, pknight@wildrockies.org

Montana Shares Raffle

Wildlands CPR has joined Montana Shares, a federation
of 38 Montana-based nonprofits that cooperatively fund-
raise through workplace giving programs. The Montana
Shares Raffle helps fund Montana Shares, which in turn,
helps to fund Wildlands CPR. The prizes are awesome and
range from guided float trips to stays at Montana Bed and
Breakfasts to outerwear from Patagonia! Tickets are $10
each and the drawing will be held on September 7th. A full
list of prizes is posted on our website,
www.wildlandscpr.org. Please contact our office to pur-
chase raffle tickets: 406-543-9551.

22 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002

 Membership and Refer a friend to
Wildlands CPR!
Order Information Send us the names and addresses of friends
you think may be interested in receiving
membership information from Wildlands CPR.

Join the Rip-a-Road-a-Month Club!

To help ensure steady support for Wildlands CPR, Yes! I’d like to join Wildland CPR’s
please consider our new Rip-a-Road-a-Month Club! new Rip-a-Road-a-Month Club!
NEW!

It’s simple: Please withdraw my monthly donation

Instead of a yearly membership fee, a monthly
donation can be automatically withdrawn from your
checking account. Everyone spends five dollars a
month on something frivolous. Why not spend $5 a
month or more to protect wild places?
via automatic checking account debit.
Day of month for debit __________________
Amount to withdraw ____________________

Consider this: Signature _____________________________

$5 (a movie ticket) You won’t
$10 (lunch out) even miss it! Please include a voided check!
$15 (round of lattes) All information will be kept confidential.

Wildlands CPR Membership/Order Form

I have enclosed my tax-deductible Wildlands CPR Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:
membership contribution of: Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
$1,000 $250 $50 family $15 living lightly
/
$500 $100 $30 standard other
/
Rip-a-Road-a-Month Membership (fill out above form)
/
Type of Membership:
Total of all items:
Individual Organization (put name below)

Organization
Name Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.
Name International Membership — $30 Minimum. All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.
Address Check here if you are interested in helping
to distribute The Road-RIPorter in your area
City, State, Check here to receive our ORV and road email
Zip newsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks.
Check here for our Email Activist List.
Phone Please remember to include your email address!
Check here for our RIP-Web non-paper option. Get
Email the RIPorter online before it gets printed!
Please include your email address!

Please send this form and your check payable to:

Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002 23

 Photo by Edgar vanderGrift.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

“Instead, for instance, of valuing the

automobile because it may take one to a
national park, the park comes to be
valued because it is a place the
automobile may be used to reach.”

— Joseph Wood Krutch,

American Forests, April 1957

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