Fall Equinox 2003.

Volume 8 # 3 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

The Little Alliance

That Could
By Larry O’Hanlon

Inside…
The Little Alliance That Could, by Larry O’Hanlon.
Pages 3-5
Regional Reports & Updates. Page 6
New Resources. Page 7
Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 8-9
Get with the Program: Restoration, Transportation
& Science Program Updates. Pages 10-11
Odes to Roads: A Southern Radical, by Tom
Petersen. Pages 12-13
More Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 14-15
Biblio Notes: Roads, Fragmentation & Neotropical
Migratory Songbirds, by Adam Switalski.
Pages 16-18
Activist Spotlight: Judith Spencer. Page 19
Policy Primer: Travel Planning, by Bridget Lyons.
Pages 20-21
Around the Office, Membership info. Pages 22-23

ORV tracks scar a desert hillside; a broken fence reveals a disregard for private property. Check out our website at:
Photos by Lisa Philipps.
— See article on page 3 — www.wildlandscpr.org
 Wildlands
C
Center for
P
Preventing
R
Roads

By Bethanie Walder P.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
WildlandsCPR@wildlandscpr.org
Great Happenings! www.wildlandscpr.org

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to

protect and restore wildland ecosystems by

H
ere at Wildlands CPR we’ve had a pretty exciting and surprising couple of
months, with several important legal and agency victories coming through. preventing and removing roads and limiting
There’ve been tough spots, too, but it’s nice to have something to crow motorized recreation. We are a national
about for a change, so here we go… clearinghouse and network, providing citizens
with tools and strategies to fight road
First, an enormous thank you to Wildlands CPR board member Mary O’Brien for construction, deter motorized recreation, and
her tenacious efforts to protect Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (on the promote road removal and revegetation.
Idaho/Oregon border). In 1994, Mary put together a coalition of folks to develop a
citizen’s alternative to the Comprehensive Management Planning process. For the
next nine years, Mary dogged the Forest Service, the Council of Environmental Director
Quality, and even the members of the coalition (including me), to ensure that our Bethanie Walder
alternative was fully considered in the planning process. On July 23, we found out
that more than 50% of what we asked for was included in the final decision for the Development Director
management plan. Now let’s be clear, the plan’s not perfect, but Hells Canyon is Tom Petersen
going to close 33% of its road system (with possible decommissioning, too), restrict
off-road vehicle use to designated open routes only, and limit grazing. See page 14 Restoration Program
for details. Coordinator
Marnie Criley
Second, a huge thank you to Brian Scherf and Amy Atwood. Brian has been
working with the Florida Biodiversity Project to protect Big Cypress National Science Coordinator
Preserve from ORVs for at least as long as Mary’s been working to protect Hells Adam Switalski
Canyon. Amy is a lawyer with Meyer and Glitzenstein law firm in DC, working with
Brian and others to protect the preserve. On August 1, the district magistrate in NTWC Grassroots
Florida upheld the Park Service’s off-road vehicle plan limiting off-road vehicle use Coordinator
to 400 miles of designated routes. (One more judge still has to approve the Lisa Philipps
magistrate’s report.) We also intervened with Brian and several other groups on
Program Assistant
behalf of the Park Service plan. See page 6 for details.
Kiffin Hope
And the third thanks goes to Paul Spitler and others who’ve been working on
Newsletter
ORV issues in California. While Wildlands CPR hasn’t been at all involved in their
Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield
project, the work they have done is commendable. The state of California recently
entered into a Memorandum of Intent with the Forest Service to inventory and
Interns & Volunteers
analyze all ORV routes on the California National Forests, and then determine which
Maureen Hartmann, Jason Kiely,
ones to designate as open, and which ones to close, by December 2007. This is a Beth Peluso, Ryan Shaffer
first-of-its kind model for changing USFS ORV management and could provide a
model for other states. (The state of California is funding the work, not the Forest Board of Directors
Service). We’ll have many more details about the pros and cons of the agreement in Karen Wood DiBari, Greg Fishbein, Dave Havlick,
the next RIPorter. Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Sonia Newenhouse,
Mary O'Brien, Matt Skroch, Ted Zukoski
In this era of negative environmental policy-making we’re all routinely bom-
barded with bad news — from the rescission of the roadless policy by a Wyoming Advisory Committee
judge with a conflict of interest, to the exponential growth in RS 2477 claims and Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
settlements by itinerant counties and states. We hope you’ll take as much pleasure Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
as we have in these three stories of good news. And of course, don’t forget the Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin
Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
cover story — a stunning success by a small group of private property owners in Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
Nevada. If we work together, it’s amazing how much of a difference we can make! Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

© 2003 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003

The Little Alliance That Could
By Larry O’Hanlon

F Wilson Canyon Locator Map

olks who drive through Wilson Canyon don’t
soon forget it. It’s a mile of unexpected rock
and river drama along the otherwise sedately
scenic desert Highway 208 between the towns of
Yerington and Smith, southeast of Carson City,
Nevada. Nature made the canyon, it could be said,
by slowly and steadily pitting a mountain against a
river.

The mountain is the modest Singatze range,

which separates Yerington’s Mason Valley from
Smith Valley. The river is the west branch of the
Walker River, which flows east out of the northern
Sierra Nevada. Instead of changing course to go
around the nascent Singatzes, or backing up and
making a lake of Smith Valley, the Walker River
stuck to its course and carved the canyon as the
mountains grew around it. The result is a rare and
beautiful stretch of lush river cut through a desert
mountain. Native Americans cherished the area,
miners valued it as a railroad route for hauling
copper ore, and today it is still a major thorough-
fare for travelers and vacationers in northern
Nevada, a popular place to fish, camp, fossil hunt,
hike and picnic. It’s also in the process of being
rapidly torn apart by off-road vehicles.

The persistence of that little West Walker River

serves as a model for the Wilson Canyon Alliance,
which has recently managed to pressure the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to order the
closure of the some of the heavily damaged
riparian zone at Wilson Canyon to camping and
motor vehicles. Despite continuing roadblocks and
back room deals being put together by a local
good-old-boy (and girl) political system, and an
ongoing misinformation campaign by ORVers in the
local paper, the Wilson Canyon Alliance has
managed to raise the issue of ORV abuse at Wilson
Canyon.

Allied & Angry

The Wilson Canyon Alliance is a truly
grassroots group that represents a wide range of
concerned citizens, nearby private property
owners (like myself), and even some dirt bike
riders who think things have gone too far at Wilson
Canyon. Unlike the “Friends of Wilson Canyon,”
which is merely the local front for the Blue Ribbon
Coalition, we are a loose-knit group of people with
no budget and meager resources. Our members
include people from widely divergent points on the
political and social spectrum, but we all agree on
one thing: Wilson Canyon desperately needs to be
protected and managed with a visionary and inclusive plan that
doesn’t just sweep the problem under the rug.
When people refer to Wilson Canyon today they are usually
talking about a wider area, including a couple of miles of river west of
the canyon that is the only area open to the public, on what is a
mostly privately-owned river. This narrow public stretch of river and
the federal lands on either side of it have been the object of contro-
versy and contention in recent months, culminating in a new BLM
decision to close the heavily abused riparian zone to camping and
vehicles.

— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003 3
The Little Alliance That Could
— continued from page 3 —
The Wilson Canyon Alliance’s existence and the current public
controversy started earlier this year when a locally-raised nature
photographer decided he could no longer stomach the hideous scars
that were multiplying on either side of the highway west of the mouth
of Wilson Canyon. Large, frequent encampments of off-road vehicle
(ORV) users along the river caused the scars. To the south of the
highway and the river, the US Forest Service (USFS) was seeing rapid
deterioration of hillsides that had virtually no tracks or trails ten
years ago. To the north of the highway and river, the BLM had
informally allowed ORV use for years, but had failed to pay attention
as damages increased at a cancerous rate, spreading to every hill and
ridge in the otherwise scenic area, spilling onto private property and
fouling the lush, rare desert riverside “riparian” zone.
. . . we were not content to stand by
while the BLM and county officials
made deals without public input or
notice to local property owners.
In late 2002 that photographer, Ron Walter of Gardnerville, NV,
complained enough that a meeting was arranged between Walter, his
father, representatives from USFS, BLM, a local county commissioner,
the Nevada Department of Transportation, and a group that called
themselves “Friends of Wilson Canyon” (FWC). At that meeting the
“Friends” leader Chuck Worley explained that his group was working
on the matter with the USFS, and were hoping to post signs and erect
barricades to block some trails to ORVs.
A canyon once quiet . . . Wilson Mountain (top) and a beaver dam
on the West Walker River (lower left). Photos courtesy of the
Wilson Canyon Alliance.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
In the months that followed, local resident
Lauri Christine and I (both property owners near
Wilson Canyon) learned of the meeting and started
asking Worley questions about his group’s goals,
plans and affiliations. What skimpy responses we
got did not answer our questions and made it clear
that we were not invited to participate in their
process, other than in a minimally responsive
“suggestion box” sort of way. We tried to get
around this by contacting Worley’s political
advocate, Lyon County Commissioner Phyllis
Hunewill, but she stuck to Worley as the only voice
on the matter and was openly hostile to what she
called “outsiders” (translation: anyone not born in
the area or a residing there continuously for more
than 30 years).
We were not satisfied with trusting the ORVers,
nor were we content to stand by while the BLM and
county officials made deals without public input or
notice to local property owners. So, we started
making noise, broadcasting e-mails to all sort of
folks we didn’t know. We hit paydirt when a
sympathetic “insider” (by Hunewill’s definition)
contacted us: Ron Walter. After talking it over with
Ron, we realized that for our vision of a restored,
planned, intelligently managed, multiple-use Wilson
Canyon to become a reality, we could not leave it in
the hands of the ORV folks — whose sole motiva-
tion appears to be fear of losing ORV access.
Hollering the Truth
The upshot was the formation of the Wilson
Canyon Alliance. We created a petition for emer-
gency closure of the BLM lands near Wilson
Canyon to ORVs and other vehicles (but not to non-
motorized use). We then developed the website
http://www.wilsoncanyon.org to broadcast the
issues at Wilson Canyon and address the ORV
misinformation people were reading in the Mason
Valley News, the weekly family-run newspaper in
Yerington, NV. Every time someone approached us
with a claim like “dirtbikers are good for business,”
we mulled the matter over and did some research.
Those claims and our responses now fill the
website’s “Truth about ORVs” section so people
can find their way through the Blue Ribbon
Coalition’s smokescreen. On that particular issue
we concluded it was unfounded, and that dirtbike
destruction is bad for business in the long-run
since it drives away visitors looking for natural
beauty and river access. What we were beginning
to build was a watertight case for protecting Wilson
Canyon.
 At the same time, we started documenting the
damage. In other words: pictures, pictures, pic-
tures. Images are far more powerful than words,
especially on an emotional matter like protecting
the land. So we started gathering a baseline image
bank to show the state of things. That image bank
also will document future improvement or degrada-
tion, by simple comparison. The pictures cover the
gamut: multiplying trails and scarring hillside
tracks; illegal fires; unlicensed vehicles on public
roads; unburied human waste and toilet paper
along the riverbank; piles of garbage; toxic waste;
illegal wood cutting and fires; ORV tracks in the
riverbed; and trespassing and vandalism by ORVers
on private lands.
While we were documenting the problems, we
began searching for others locally and nationally
who might be facing similar issues. We found
friends in the Lahontan Audubon Society in Reno,
Nevada. They had already published a position
statement on protecting the watershed of the
Walker River and its terminus, Walker Lake. We also
were contacted by Bonnie Rannald of the brand-
new Walker Lake Interpretive Association, who
shares our dream of creating a Walker River
Interpretive Center at Wilson Canyon. We also
discovered Wildlands CPR and the National Trails
and Waters Coalition (NTWC). Lisa Philipps and
other NTWC folks have provided us with invaluable
knowledge on how to file a Freedom of Information
Act request, what the applicable laws are, and who
else is out there fighting similar ORV abuses on
public lands.
In June we published a 27-page report entitled
“Crisis at Wilson Canyon.” In it we documented the
state of affairs with minimal text and maximum
color photography. The report also includes maps
and a sketch of a visionary regional park plan that
we believe is the wisest and most beneficial use of
the Wilson Canyon area. We even included a closed,
user-fee ORV course. We sent the report to every-
one we thought had a stake or a part in the man-
agement of Wilson Canyon — from Carson City to
Washington, D.C. We also posted it online and
alerted everyone to the ongoing destruction. The
response has been phenomenal.
In July the NTWC’s Lisa Philipps petitioned the
BLM for the immediate emergency closure of the
Wilson Canyon area to ORVs. That, plus our
Alliance’s report, made the truth unavoidable:
Wilson Canyon was in trouble and BLM’s manage-
ment of the area was shameful. A few weeks later
BLM announced the decision to begin the long
process of closing the riparian zone to camping and
vehicles. The ORVers immediately protested —
despite the fact that protecting the riparian zone is
the very least the BLM could propose.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
Instead of resting on the laurels
of our small victory, the Wilson
Canyon Alliance has taken the
matter an unusual step further. We
recognize that no good is going to
come of shoving court decisions or
bureaucratic edicts down the
throats of either side. We also
recognize that there is no chance
that we will change the minds of
ORVers or that they will make us see
the wisdom of their destructive
pastime. So we have proposed a
series of meetings to identify the
things the Friends of Wilson Canyon
and the Wilson Canyon Alliance can
agree on (e.g. a managed, user fee As the song goes, “take me to the
campground along the river) and the river,” but NOT in an off-road
vehicle, please. Photo courtesy of
things we agree to disagree on (e.g.
the Wilson Canyon Alliance.
open range for ORVs). Our hope is
We recognize that no good is going to
come of shoving court decisions or
bureaucratic edicts down the
throats of either side.
that by focusing our collective efforts on things we agree on, more
local citizens will get involved and more can be accomplished. As for
our differences, we have to learn to respect these and find solutions
— much like the one we already proposed in our report (i.e., includ-
ing an ORV area in the regional park plan).
So far the ORVers have not shown much willingness to cooperate.
Eventually they will have to, however. The law and common sense is
on our side, as well as that great silent majority of folks who we are
trying to wake up to this issue.
— Larry O’Hanlon is an independent science journalist as well as a
private property owner in Wilson Canyon.
This BLM sign (on left) “recommends” using firepans and porta-potties.
Unfortunately, ORV users have ignored both these recommendations, leaving fire
scars, trash and refuse alongside the river. Photos courtesy of Wilson Canyon
Alliance.
5
Big Cypress ORV Limits Upheld
In a Report and Recommendation issued on August 1, Florida
Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier upheld restrictions in a National
Park Service (NPS) management plan on the use of off-road vehicles
(ORVs) in Big Cypress National Preserve. According to Judge Frazier,
Big Cypress’s off-road vehicle plan “implements the management
philosophy for ORVs that was identified by Congress when it created
the Big Cypress NP.” Big Cypress is home to the Florida panther and
Cape Sable Seaside sparrow, two critically endangered species.
The NPS plan will designate a 400-mile trail system for off-road
vehicles, along with access points and nighttime and seasonal
closures. Prior to the plan, the Preserve had wracked up more than
23,000 miles of user-created routes, as swamp buggies were allowed
to drive anywhere. This resulted in extreme damage to the preserve’s
fragile biodiversity and wetlands ecosystem.
ORV groups challenged the management plan, and the Park
Service was engaged in intense backdoor negotiations with these
groups for a long time. Fortunately, however, these negotiations
failed. Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental and animal welfare
organizations intervened in the lawsuit to defend the management
plan on behalf of the federal government.
Wildlands CPR has been working with Brian Scherf and the
Florida Biodiversity Project for years to protect the Preserve, and
was joined in the litigation by the National Parks Conservation
Association, The Fund for Animals, The Wilderness Society, American
Lands, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Bluewater Network, Defenders
of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States and the Sierra Club.
Jarbidge Dispute Revisited
After several years of relative quiet in Elko City, Nevada, the
dispute over the South Canyon Road on the Jarbidge river has
resurfaced. In mid-August the Forest Service reported that it appears
unauthorized work is being done on the road to reopen it. It is now
passable by ATVs and small SUVs, which have been driving across the
river in at least three places.
The dispute dates back to 1995 when the road was washed out
during a flood. Then, in 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) issued an emergency listing under the Endangered Species
Act to protect a distinct population of bull trout. Two years later, a
“shovel brigade” was organized for the July 4th weekend to rebuild
the road, despite a judge’s ruling that the road was to remain closed.
Then in 2001, the Forest Service and the county came to a settlement
regarding ownership of the right-of-way to the road. But conserva-
tionists intervened and a judge set aside that settlement agreement
this June.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
A thousand points of light? Or, runaway ORV traffic
bisecting the fragile wetlands of Big Cypress. Photo by Karl
Forsgaard.
While we are extremely pleased with the
Judge’s report, the NPS must still assure that the
management plan is fully implemented. This will
require adequate funding from the Department of
Interior and congress. Along with implementing
the plan’s trail system and protections, the NPS
must fund research, monitor impacts, educate the
public and enforce the terms of the plan.
Judge Frazier’s Report and Recommendation
also must be approved by Justice John Steele, Chief
Judge of the Ft. Myers Division. The coalition of
intervenors were represented by Amy Atwood and
Eric Glitzenstein of the Washington, D.C. public
interest law firm of Meyer & Glitzenstein.
That appears to have triggered a return to the
July 4th tradition. Though this reconstruction
effort wasn’t as organized or as large, a visit to the
road in mid-July found boulders moved, young
cottonwoods run-over, and clear evidence of
attempts to open the entire 1.5 mile stretch of road.
According to the USFWS the new re-opened road
crosses the river several times. Vehicles have been
driving directly through the riverbed, trashing this
southernmost habitat for bulltrout.
We’ll keep you posted on further developments
regarding Jarbidge and the South Canyon Road.
For more information, see RIPorter 4:6.
New Resources
C heck out the Sierra Club’s website for a little Hummer
humor: www.hummerdinger.com or http://
sierraclubmedia.net/ Here you’ll find out whether you’re
compatible with your hummer, whether you’re a hummer
hunk, or how you, too, can live the hummer lifestyle!
On a more serious note, a new children’s book was
recently published looking at the impacts of cars on our
lifestyles...
The Little Driver
By Martin Wagner, 2003, 56 pages.
Joe always dreamt of driving his own car. When his wish
comes true and he takes his brand-new sports car for a spin
through town and country, his adventures soon take a turn
for the unexpected. A children’s book for young and old, The
Little Driver takes a fresh look at our obsession with cars
through the eyes of a boy still young enough to take nothing
for granted. Available from http://www.thelittledriver.com
New Coalition Report on ATV
Safety Crisis
On August 20, the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition
joined together once again with the Consumer Federation of
America, Bluewater Network, and doctors to release a new
report documenting the ongoing ATV safety crisis. This
report expands on one issued last year. The Coalition took
the lead in researching and drafting this report, which
documents the failure of the ATV industry’s voluntary
approach to safety using previously unpublished data which
the Coalition and Consumer Federation obtained through a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. This report also
describes and challenges industry’s proposal (floated in
June) to abolish voluntary recommendations against the use
of adult-size ATVs by children under 16 and put some
children on the bigger, faster machines made for adults. The
full report and a press release are available at
www.naturaltrails.org.

New Studies On Roads and Motorized Use

Effects of Roads on Wildlife
The Wilderness Society has recently issued a compre-
hensive report entitled Ecological Effects of a Transporta-
tion Network on Wildlife. It utilizes spatial analysis to assess
the potential impacts of transportation networks on wildlife
within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.
Access the full report at: http://www.wilderness.org/Library/
Documents/MissouriBreaksTransportationEffects.

Impacts of Motorized Uses on Wildlife in

Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front
The Coalition for the Protection of the Rocky Mountain
Front has recently issued a new analysis of scientific
literature assessing the impacts of motorized vehicles on
wildlife common to this area. This new report also offers a
series of recommendations about specific measures that
should be included in travel management plans in order to
avoid such impacts. In addition to general recommenda-
tions, more specific recommendations are offered for lynx,
wolves, grizzly bears, wolverines, cougar, elk, bighorn sheep
and mountain goats. Access the full report at:
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents Wildlands CPR file photo.

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003 7

Bosworth — Diverting Our Attention
By Bethanie Walder

I
n this era of great political diversions, it was
with some humor that I read the title of the
Earth Day speech given by Forest Service Chief
Dale Bosworth: “Great Issues and Great Diver-
sions.” Bosworth used this speech and continues
to use this language to argue that conservationists
are focusing on issues that aren’t a problem, while
missing what’s really important in this changing
environment.

For starters, Bosworth claims that the “timber

wars” are over and that roads are no longer a
relevant issue; in his opinion, we should move on
to more important matters. In reality, however,
congress is about to pass legislation that will re-
ignite the conflict over logging. Bosworth’s speech
is itself a great diversion from the issues that lay in
front of us.
While he does not paint the picture as black
and white, Bosworth defines the four great issues
and four great diversions as follows:
1. Fire and fuel is a great issue, while “the
bogus debate over logging” is a great diversion.
2. The spread of invasive species is a great
issue, while “the publicity surrounding individual
endangered species and the efficacy of the regula-
tory system” is a great diversion.
3. Habitat fragmentation through land conver-
sion (rural development) is a great issue, while
“grazing on public lands” is a great diversion.
4. Unmanaged outdoor recreation is a great
issue, while “all the roads the Forest Service is
supposedly building to get out the cut” is a great
diversion.
Interestingly, 50% of Wildlands CPR’s work
(roads) made it into the great diversion category,
while the other 50% (off-road vehicles) made it into
the great issue category. From our perspective,
however, roads and off-road vehicle issues can’t be
neatly separated out — we wouldn’t have off-road
vehicle problems if we didn’t have roads.
Mass failures like this one on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest are a reminder
that the problems caused by roads won’t simply go away with the passage of
time. Wildlands CPR file photo.
own opposition to protecting roadless areas ensures that new road
construction is indeed a major issue.
Bosworth’s dismissal of the problems caused by roads is prob-
lematic to his entire thesis: roads are critical to each and every one of
the great issues he outlines. The majority of wildfires start in close
proximity to roads. Roads are a primary cause of the spread of
invasive species, both plant and animal. Roads are a major cause of
habitat fragmentation on public and private lands. Bosworth’s final
distinction between roads and unmanaged recreation takes the cake,
however. Though it’s a long excerpt, it’s worth reprinting in its
entirety. Bosworth stated in his speech:
“At one time, we didn’t manage the use of off-highway
vehicles, either. OHVs [off-highway vehicles] are a great way
to experience the outdoors, and only a tiny fraction of the
users leave lasting traces by going cross-country. But the
number of people who own OHVs has just exploded in recent
years. In 2000, it reached almost 36 million. Even a tiny
percentage of impact from all those millions of users is still a
lot of impact. Each year, we get hundreds of miles of what we
euphemistically refer to as ‘unplanned roads and trails.’
“For example, the Lewis and Clark National Forest in
Montana has more than a thousand unplanned roads and trails
reaching for almost 650 miles. That’s pretty typical for a lot of

Bosworth doesn’t say categorically that roads

aren’t a problem. Instead, he says new road
construction is no longer an issue and backs it up
by stating that the Forest Service is removing
Ironically, Bosworth’s own opposition
fourteen miles of road for every one mile they build to protecting roadless areas ensures
(I’ll explain the problem with this statistic later).
Ironically, new road construction had become less that new road construction is
of a problem until the Bush Administration over- indeed a major issue.
turned the roadless protection rule. Bosworth’s

8 The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003

 national forests, and it’s only going to get worse. We’re seeing
more and more erosion, water degradation, and habitat
destruction. We’re seeing more and more conflicts between
users. We’re seeing more damage to cultural sites and more
violation of sites sacred to American Indians. And those are
just some of the impacts. We’re going to have to manage that
by restricting OHV use to designated roads, trails, and areas.

“So the great issue is unmanaged recreation — and the

great diversion is all the roads the Forest Service is supposedly
building to get out the cut.”

While Bosworth clearly understands some of the issues sur-

rounding motorized recreation, his arguments regarding roads and
off-road vehicles don’t hold water for a host of reasons. First, let’s be
clear: most of the 380,000 miles of planned roads on the national
forests were built for resource extraction (to get cut out), and most
new road construction continues to serve resource extraction
(though the agency does build some roads for recreation). Second,
the Forest Service itself adds many miles of unplanned roads, obscur-
ing their construction under the moniker of “temporary” roads.
Temporary roads are not tracked by the agency, so there is no way to
determine how many miles are built each year — nor are there
adequate standards for their construction. The Forest Service also
hides new road building behind reconstruction projects, many of
which could easily be considered new construction based on the
status of the existing road bed. Third, off-road vehicle users clearly
recognize the connection between roads and motorized recreation —
they are one of the most vocal and inflexible constituencies fighting
against road removal. Fourth, concerned citizens, conservationists,
and land managers have been pushing the Forest Service to address
the problems caused by unlimited off-road vehicle use for years and
the agency has basically refused. Is Bosworth ready to back up his
words and develop effective, enforceable and meaningful regulations
for off-road vehicles?
Bosworth downplays road issues by explaining that the Forest
Service is decommissioning fourteen miles of road for every one mile
they build. But recent research by Wildlands CPR intern Ryan Shaffer
found that the Forest Service does not track their road decommis-
Is Bosworth ready to back up his words and
develop effective, enforceable and meaningful
regulations for off-road vehicles?
sioning program (report will be available on the web shortly). Only
the Siuslaw National Forest has a database showing what kind of work
is being done where — from gating to culvert removal to full
recontouring. Because of the paucity of data, Wildlands CPR intends
to conduct some ground-truthing and determine whether roads are
being “decommissioned” by throwing up gates or blockades, or by
actually moving some dirt and removing some culverts on the
ground. With costs ranging from less than $1,000 per mile to more
than $10,000 per mile, it seems clear that many different levels of
work are going on. Equally important in understanding Chief
Bosworth’s statement is recognizing that in the past few years nearly
40% of road decommissioning has focused on user-created/non-
system roads.
A slurry bomber drops a load of retardant on a
fire outside of Missoula, Montana. The majority of
this summer’s fires in the northern Rockies started
in roaded landscapes. Photo by Bethanie Walder.
So we come full circle, back to the connection
between off-road vehicles and roads. While
Bosworth claims that road construction is no
longer a problem, the Forest Service is dedicating
nearly half of their road decommissioning money to
dealing with unauthorized roads constructed by
off-road vehicle users. In the
meantime, the official road
system continues to erode along
with falling budgets.
Any way you slice it, roads
remain one of the biggest threats
to the integrity of the national
forests, by increasing the impacts
of every one of the great issues
Bosworth highlighted. If
Bosworth really wants the great issues of the past
to remain in the past, then he should follow in the
footsteps of his predecessor and guarantee the
protection of roadless areas from roads and
resource extraction, while moving away from the
uneconomical logging and resource extraction of
the past. His immediate predecessor also promoted
road removal as a means to restore the health of
national forests. Instead, roadless protection is
being eroded, new logging proposals are being
promoted, and Bosworth may shortly find himself
back at the center of the timber wars that had all
but ended a few short years ago.

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003 9

Restoration Program Update

By Marnie Criley

W ith the economic study complete (check out our website for
the Summary Report and full study) and two interns hard at
work, the restoration program has been quite busy this summer. Beth
Peluso, our contract researcher assessing the Clearwater National
Forest’s road removal program, will return from fieldwork in Septem-
ber to finish her project. Her goal is to develop a template for a
model road removal program. Maureen Hartmann, one of our summer
interns, is already using Beth’s work to strategize a road removal
workshop/training curricula geared toward Forest Service personnel
and Tribal members. Maureen has already collected training materi-
als, researched training opportunities within the Forest Service and
Tribes, and researched potential workshop presenters and sponsors.
Many agency personnel in this region have expressed interest in such
a workshop, which would focus on the steps needed to create a
successful road removal program.

Our other intern, Jason Kiely, is doing outreach and organizing

around the economic study. Jason is working with three key groups:
the Mineral County Community Foundation (MCCF) in western
Montana; the Gifford Pinchot Collaborative Working Group (GPWG) in
Washington state; and folks in Wallowa county in eastern Oregon
(where a new Management Plan for the Hells Canyon National
Recreation Area was just released — see updates). Mineral County’s
landbase is 84% public lands — Pat Hayes, a former union organizer,
heads up MCCF and is organizing local residents and environmental-
ists to propose restoration projects to bring high quality jobs to
Mineral County. Jason and Marnie have started working with Pat to
see how road removal projects might fit into the mix.
Jason is also reaching out to the Gifford Pinchot Collaborative
Working Group. This group of local residents, community leaders and
environmentalists in communities surrounding the Gifford Pinchot NF,
Reseeding helps establish new vegetative cover
quickly. Wildlands CPR file photo.
has already come up with a couple of projects to
propose to the local Resource Advisory Council.
Again, Jason and Marnie are hoping to use the
economic study to start a road removal discussion.
To date, it isn’t something the communities have
been ready to work on. Perhaps the economics
data will open some doors.
In other news, Wildlands CPR joined with Swan
View Coalition, Friends of the Wild Swan, and
Alliance for the Wild Rockies in filing a lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in Missoula against the Forest
Service and Fish and Wildlife Service over parts of
the Moose Post-Fire Project (Flathead NF, Mon-
tana). It is our contention that the project flies in
the face of existing standards for watershed
restoration through road removal. See page 16 of
the summer solstice issue (Volume 8 #2) of The
RIPorter for more information.

Upcoming Events: Marnie will attend the

Wildlands CPR’s road removal workshops have educated
and inspired huundreds of activists and concerned citizens
nationwide. Wildlands CPR file photo.
10
National Network of Forest Practitioners’ annual
meeting in South Carolina in October. Following the
meeting, the Restoration Steering Committee hopes
to have a regional restoration meeting to discuss
restoration on southern public lands. If you’re
interested in attending a southeast regional
restoration meeting, contact our office.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
Transportation Program
Update
By Bridget Lyons
T he big news from the Transportation Policy
program at Wildlands CPR is the unveiling of
several new tools for conservation-minded public
lands advocates. In the last RIPorter, we mentioned
that Bridget was working on a Travel Planning
Primer; this resource is now available electroni-
cally and should be available in print within the
next month. In addition to examining the purposes
and procedures behind Forest Service and BLM
travel planning, this booklet shows how you can
get involved in the political and on-the-ground
processes to support wildland integrity and quiet
use. Appendices include legal resources, scoping
and comment letter templates, sample fact sheets
and press releases, and a host of other tools. We
hope this resource will be useful to those just
getting involved in travel planning, as well as
seasoned activists seeking new tips. Please get in
touch with us to receive a copy!
In addition to the Travel Planning Primer we
also have an updated off-road vehicle presentation,
available as both a slide show and a Power Point
presentation. This resource introduces the public
to the myriad ecological and social effects of
motorized recreation. We hope that the collection
of disturbing impact photographs coupled with an
explanatory text and up-to-date statistics will
inspire more people to get involved with motorized
recreation issues. To this end, a “What You Can
Do” section concludes the presentation. If you are
interested in having a Wildlands CPR staff member
present this show, or if you would like to present it
on your own, please give us a call.
Unfortunately for us, Wildlands CPR also has to
bid Bridget farewell — she’s decided to return to
teaching. We’ll miss her terrific work, but we thank
her for her extremely productive stay with us.
Good luck Bridget!
ORV tracks cross an alpine meadow
in the Flathead National Forest,
Montana. Wildlands CPR’s
transportation program is giving
citizens the tools needed to confront
the damage to public lands caused by
unrestricted ORV use. Photo by Keith
Hammer.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
Science Program Update
By Adam Switalski
A dam continues to promote road removal
research; he recently presented a paper at the
Society for Conservation Biology’s annual meeting
in Duluth, MN and at the International Conference
on Ecology and Transportation in New York.
Between the two conferences he addressed several
hundred researchers — summarizing what we
know about road removal and identifying what
further research is needed. Adam is also coordinat-
ing a project on the impacts of road removal on
grizzly bears in the northern Rockies. He met with
a group of interested university, federal, and
private researchers and will continue to explore
research and funding opportunities with this group.
Ryan Schafer has completed an internship with
Wildlands CPR examining where road removal
(decommissioning) is occurring on Forest Service
lands. Ryan called Forest Service offices across the
U.S., conducted interviews with their road special-
ists, and attained data on costs and miles of roads
removed. He found that some form of road
decommissioning is occurring in most of the 155
national forests across the country, however, he
also found great variety in costs and treatments
between forests. There was no universal treatment
being employed; road decommissioning activities
ranged from blocking road entrances to full road
obliteration. We hope to have another intern this
fall who can follow this project up with ground-
truthing.
Perhaps Ryan’s most important finding is that
more than 50% of Forest Service road removal/
decommissioning work occurs on user-created
routes.
11
A Southern Radical Restore:
To recover — to bring
back to its original
By Tom Petersen
state by repairing or

D rebuilding; to bring
ave Petrig is a seventy-one year old retired lawyer from
Atlanta who bought 460 acres in western Montana with his
daughter. After a few minutes walking with him on an old back to good health or
logging road, Petrig paused, leaned on his walking stick, and care- vigor; to put back in its
fully surveyed their purchase. His grey beret sat cocked at an angle former position; to
on his head, and his red and black checked flannel shirt was
crisscrossed with camera and binocular straps. He looked part reinstate or stabilize.
pioneer, part pirate. We were in Montana, Big Sky Country, the land
of open spaces, but also the land of Gold and Silver (the state motto (Webster’s Dictionary)
is “oro y plata”), the land of mining and logging and roads, and now,
in some desired places like the mountains of western Montana, the
land of second-homes. But Petrig didn’t buy the land to develop it.
He bought his Montana dreamland to restore it.
“Nope, not going to build on it,” he firmly stated, shaking his
head as we continued walking his land. “Just going to take these old
roads out, get a check on the knapweed, and bring back some of the
streams. I just want to make it a better place.”
I turned my ear towards him to make sure I heard him right. Buy
land in Montana and not develop it, not subdivide for a good profit,
or put in a house and a road and a three-car garage?

“More of your kind need to move to Montana,” I told Petrig, and he

broke into an easy Southern smile and motioned me to follow him up the
hill.
We walked up and over the peak of the hill and down into the drainage.
“Take a look at these old roads and small streams,” he said. “This stream is
full of silt from the road erosion, so I hired these guys to get rid of this road
and clean up the stream. I can’t wait to see it when they’re done.” He smiled
again, obviously pleased at the thought, and pushed up his beret with the
tip of his finger.
“These guys” were Watershed Consulting, Inc., a restoration company
based out of Whitefish, Montana. Petrig had hired them to take out some of
the roads, bring back the stream, and revegetate the land with native plants.
The land had been premier elk habitat, but the roads Petrig inherited had
fractured it, as if the land had once been like a single plate of glass — a
smooth, clean surface — and then as road after road was built, the glass
shattered, with jagged lines breaking in every direction.
Later that same week I saw Watershed Consulting and their backhoe
operators at work on one of Petrig’s old roads. But after watching them one
afternoon it seemed the more traditional names for them like “Heavy
Equipment Operator “ just didn’t fit. “Road Removal Artist” came to mind.
But I didn’t realize their work was artful until I saw an operator carefully
transplanting vegetation onto a road he had just removed. The dirt road
surface had been ripped with long, three-foot claws set on the rear of his
backhoe, the culverts removed, and the slopes put back to their original
contour.
David Petrig. Photo by Tom Petersen. He gingerly lifted a snowberry bush from a nearby hillside and placed it
gently on the former roadbed. Its creamy white berries clung to the dark
green stems. With his small front-end scoop like a thumbed-hand extension
of his own, he dug a two-foot deep hole for the snowberry bush, carefully

12 The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003

picked up the bush with his scoop and lowered it into its new home
on the former road. The hand-like scoop filled the hole, nudged soil
under and around the newly transplanted bush, and tamped it down
almost reverently with the back of the bucket, as if tucking it into bed.
The operator moved to a red willow and duplicated the trans-
planting from hillside to former roadbed, and then again with a small
Ponderosa Pine, and then again with a second snowberry. After about
an hour’s work, the former road looked like a natural hillside again.
On another section of the road, streamside, Mark VanderMeer,
another of the Watershed crew, was also transplanting willows and
snowberry bushes, but Mark was placing them by hand in the stream
bank to hold the soil. After he finished planting the willows, he
walked downstream about twenty yards from me and started placing
small logs and branches in the stream to build small fish pools-but
then he stopped suddenly and stared at the ground, eyes wide-open.
I wondered if someone had been hurt, or if he’d seen bear sign.
Mark turned towards me and I saw him beaming, like one of those old
Montana miners must have when they discovered gold. Obviously
there was no danger, but the bear part I still wasn’t sure about; I had
heard about Mark’s fascination with animals. Mark turned and I saw
that he had his hands together and extended, palms up in an almost
supplicant manner, and full of a dark material.
“It’s bear alright,” Mark exclaimed, seeing the concerned look on Mark VanderMeer, of Watershed Consulting, inspects a
my face. “Look at this old bear scat, and really look at what’s in it! You clump of old bear scat, rich in seeds and berries.
couldn’t ask for better reseeding than this!” Healthy wildlife populations not only benefit from
As I walked closer to Mark’s outstretched hands, I saw china-red restoring wildlands, they help facilitate the process.
berries and cream-colored seeds mixed in what looked like a rich Photo by Tom Petersen.
garden humus, but was really decomposed bear droppings.
“Seeds and fertilizer all together,” Mark said. “I can’t believe my
luck. It just can’t happen any better than this, bears spreading their
chewed up seeds on the ground along with their rich fertilizer to get
the seeds going. I love it.”

This discovery made Mark’s day. He had discovered gold. Simple

pleasures for a restorationist, but thinking more about it, I realized
Mark’s enthusiasm was for a natural process that strongly affirms his
own work as an artist, as one who restores the land.
A few months later I went again to Petrig’s land. I walked back
about a mile, uphill from where Mark discovered the bear scat. The
backhoe operator had worked his way down most of the road, ripping
and transplanting as he went. Some of the native grass seeds had
sprouted a luminescent light green. With the slopes recontoured and
dozens of snowberries and willows transplanted to look so natural on
the former road, I had to look carefully to see where the road had
been. He had done his job well, and the definition of restoration was
being fulfilled: Watershed and Petrig were bringing the land back to
good health, to vigor.
I laugh to myself realizing that most of these backhoe operators,
many of whom were former road builders using similar equipment,
would not define themselves as artists, or, as radicals. But they are.
Road removal is a radical act. “Radical” is sometimes defined as
shifting from accepted or traditional forms, and removing roads is
surely a shift from tradition. And what could be more radical in an
economy based on growth, development, and quick profit than to buy
land solely to restore it, as witnessed by the southern gentleman
Dave Petrig?

— Tom Petersen is Wildlands CPR’s Development Director. He lives in

Paying attention to details makes all the difference in
road restoration. Photo by Tom Petersen.
Missoula, Montana and his essay about the spirit of that town, “The
Mountains Rise, The Rivers Sing, The People Dance,” will be published
in the August 2003 issue of ISLE, the journal of the Association for the
Study of Literature and the Environment.

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003 13

New Hells Canyon Plan Viewed
With Cautious Optimism

A fter almost 10 years, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) in
northeastern Oregon finally released a new Comprehensive Management
Plan (CMP) that offers encouraging new direction. The Record of Decision (July
22, 2003) for the CMP directs the HCNRA to be sensitively managed “as a healthy
ecosystem that is an integral component of a larger biological region.” Hells
Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC) and partners organized under the CMP
Tracking Group (including representatives of tribal, hunting, and scientific
communities and Wildlands CPR) presented the case for the Canyon through
hundreds of letters, documents, and meetings; thousands of public comments A tributary of the Snake River in the
from caring supporters; and the development of an alternative for the Forest Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.
Service’s consideration during its planning process: The Native Ecosystem Photo by Bethanie Walder.
Alternative. It appears the HCNRA listened.

A few exciting components of the new plan:

Existing Roads: Road density will be limited to 1.35 miles per square mile,
which is more protective than the existing 1.5 mile standard, though still above
• Lord Flat Trail will remain
the 1 mile threshold supported by science. It will result in the closure of approxi- open to motorized vehicles from June 1
mately one third of the existing roads in HCNRA, or about 200 miles, with decom- through August 31, despite its intru-
missioning a possibility. sion into the Hells Canyon Wilderness
New Road Construction: Road building will generally occur only in conjunc- — where motorized use is supposed to
tion with access to already developed recreation sites and private lands. Roads be prohibited — and chronic distur-
will not be constructed to provide further motorized access to views of the bance of an area critical to elk and
Canyon. Instead, the CMP favors opportunities for enhanced horse and hiker other wildlife. (ROD p.13.)
travel, including several miles of new trail. The Forest Service has long relied on • The CMP establishes snowmo-
achieving this access by motorizing the Canyon instead of serving less impacting, bile routes on 132 miles of existing
non-motorized recreation. roads and creates over 40,000 acres of
All-Terrain Vehicles: The CMP “Limits use of motorized and mechanical snowmobile “play areas.” (ROD p.14.)
equipment [including ATV’s] to designated open roads and trails.” This elimi- This will occur adjacent to roadless
nates the current allowance of off-road/trail motorized use within 300 feet of and wilderness areas, which are
either side of existing routes. Vehicles will still be allowed to access designated critical for wildlife.
recreation sites, but such use will be limited to specifically designated routes.
Grazing Allotments: The Forest Service closed 245,782 acres of grasslands to HCPC is in the process of review-
livestock. Period. All but two of the vacant grazing allotments are closed. It’s ing the entire CMP Decision and has
possible that the remaining two could go through a NEPA process to be used as not committed to a definite course of
grass banks for permittees in the future if they’ve lost use of an existing open action at this time. While not every
allotment. aspect is favorable, the CMP decision
Miscellaneous: No regularly scheduled commercial flights will be allowed and does represent a positive step for
no additional airstrips will be opened within the NRA. which the Forest Service deserves
credit. The new programmatic direc-
A few negative aspects tion contained in the CMP, however,
still needs to be implemented on the
• New road construction is allowed in order to achieve selective logging ground. Wildlands CPR is working with
objectives. (ROD p.13.) HCPC and others to initiate a road
• The Kirkwood Trail will remain open to ATV’s and other motorized decommissioning program on the
vehicles (except a three month annual closure of a 1000 foot section where the HCNRA. For more information contact
Trail crosses Kirkwood Creek) despite persistent illegal ATV use that is spreading Brett Brownscomb at HCPC at
weeds into and trampling upon the area’s rare native grasslands. (ROD p.13.) brett@hellscanyon.org.
14 The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
Department of Interior and Utah
“Resolve” R.S. 2477 Claims
By Bridget Lyons

In an earlier issue of The RIPorter (8.1), we reported on the Bureau of Land

Management’s (BLM) amended regulations for issuing “recordable dis-
claimers of interest.” Their amendment, also called the “disclaimer rule,”
made it easier for states and counties to apply for disclaimers — docu-
ments in which the federal government formally renounces its interest in a
parcel of land. Along with their amendment, BLM announced that “An
existing owner of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way may apply for a recordable
disclaimer under existing regulations or as amended in this final rule.”
At the time the disclaimer rule was released, conservationists were
wondering how it would affect the processing of numerous contentious
R.S. 2477 claims throughout the country. A Memorandum of Understand-
ing (MOU) between the state of Utah and the Department of the Interior
released in April has begun to answer this question — in a way that may
threaten public lands nationwide.
For years, state and county agencies have asserted their rights to
roads and trails on federal land by using an outdated statute called R.S.
2477 (see The RIPorter 6.4). R.S. 2477 is a section of the 1866 Mining Act
allowing for rights-of-way to be granted to individuals or agencies without
applying to the government and without any environmental assessment.
R.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976 by the Federal Land Policy Management Act
(FLPMA), however, claims predating 1976 continued to be honored. In the
past ten years, many rural states and counties have used R.S. 2477 as a
license to bulldoze, widen, and pave their asserted “rights-of-way” and Future resolution of R.S. 2477 claims is sure to muddy
thereby remove areas from consideration for Wilderness designation. up the water. Photo by Dan Funsch.
Environmentalists responded with litigation, but as progress was being
made, Congress placed a moratorium on any further R.S. 2477 rulemaking by ment, called the Taylor amendment,
federal agencies. which then passed on a 226-194 vote.
The Memorandum of Understanding signed by Governor Mike Leavitt of Utah The Taylor amendment prohibits the
and Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton is an attempt to “bring resolution” to this processing of disclaimers on National
issue. It purports to “implement an acknowledgment process to acknowledge Park, National Monument, Wilderness
certain R.S. 2477 rights-of-way on BLM land within the state of Utah.” The MOU Area, Wilderness Study Area, and
will use the disclaimer rule to acknowledge R.S. 2477 claims that: National Wildlife Refuge lands. In
• Were in existence prior to the 1976 passage of FLPMA; doing so, it protects an additional 200
• Are currently in use, as proven by photos, affidavits, surveys, etc, for million acres of land from potential
four wheeled automobiles and trucks; damage. The Taylor Amendment does
not protect as much land as the
• Have had some periodic maintenance; and original Udall Amendment would have
• Are not in Wilderness Areas, WSA’s, National Parks, or National Wildlife protected, however, and a variety of
Refuges. lands — including Wild and Scenic
River corridors, National Conservation
The MOU states that the BLM will only acknowledge R.S. 2477 rights-of-way Areas, and broad tracts of wilderness-
that “are unquestionably part of the state’s transportation infrastructure.” The quality BLM and Forest Service land —
state of Utah has submitted a list of roads to the Department of Interior for may still be vulnerable to road expan-
consideration under this MOU. sion and improvement through the
Conservationists are very concerned about this MOU both because of the processing of right-of-way claims.
effects it may have on wild places in Utah and because of the precedent it may set As we await decisions on indi-
for other states. The negotiations leading up to the MOU were not disclosed to vidual roads and trails in Utah and in
the public, nor was there any opportunity for public involvement. The disclaimer other states, it is important that
process itself does not allow for any public input. No environmental analysis will concerned citizens continue to monitor
accompany the issuance of disclaimers of interest, and it is possible for states and their local agencies for R.S. 2477 claims
counties to upgrade their rights-of-way once a disclaimer has been issued. and keep in touch with organizations
In response to these concerns, Representative Mark Udall (D-CO) proposed working on this issue. For more
an amendment to the Department of Interior’s Appropriations bill that would have information about the MOU and R.S.
prohibited agencies from spending tax dollars on processing disclaimers. During 2477, please see the R.S. 2477
discussion on the House floor, the amendment was altered by another amend- coalition’s website at www.rs2477.org.

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003 15


Where Have All the Songbirds Gone? Roads, Fragmentation,
and the Decline of Neotropical Migratory Songbirds
By Adam Switalski
Introduction
There are approximately 250 species of neotropical
migratory birds, most of which are songbirds. They breed in
North American forests during our summer and spend
winters in Central and South America in search of insects,
nectar, and fruits. These songbirds play a major role in
maintaining the health and stability of forested ecosystems
by dispersing seeds, pollinating flowers, and consuming
massive amounts of insects that if unchecked could lead to
defoliating outbreaks. They are also enjoyed by millions of
people.
Although songbirds are arguably the most watched and
beloved of wildlife, they have experienced a significant
decline in recent years (Terborgh 1989, 1992; Finch 1991;
Hagan and Johnson 1992). This decline is concerning
because bird populations are indicators of ecological
integrity and are highly sensitive to adverse environmental
change (Maurer 1993). This article reviews two important
factors — roads and habitat fragmentation — in the decline
of neotropical migratory songbirds.
Why are neotropical migratory songbirds
declining?
Songbirds require large amounts of continuous forested
habitat for survival and successful reproduction in both
their wintering grounds in Central and South America
and their summer breeding grounds in
North America (Robbins
1979; Whitcomb et al.
1981; Robbins et al.
1989).
Sedge Warbler.
16
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.
Although much of the birds’ tropical habitat has been
degraded, studies suggest that conversion of large tracts of
North American forest is the leading cause of their decline
(Terborgh 1989; Böhning-Gaese 1993). Much of North
America’s forested area has been logged, converted to
agriculture or suburban landscapes, and left inhospitable for
songbirds.
More subtle causes of habitat loss include the construc-
tion of roads and power lines. These linear barriers also
have been correlated with a decline in neotropical migrant
songbirds (Berkey 1993; Boren et al. 1999; Ortega and Capen
2002). Whether by forest conversion or the construction of
roads and power lines, fragmentation subdivides habitat
into smaller and smaller parcels. The result is an increase of
edge habitat, or the boundary between intact forest and
surrounding impacted areas. Small forests with large
amounts of edge habitat are a hostile landscape for nesting
neotropical migratory songbirds. In these areas, songbirds
face two great threats: 1) the loss of eggs and nestlings to
predators and, 2) parasitism by cowbirds.
Nest Predation
Nest predation is thought to be a leading cause of
declines in neotropical migratory songbirds (Wilcove 1985;
Andrén and Angelstam 1988; Yahner and Scott 1988). Forest
edges comprise ideal habitat for many predators that would
not typically invade a forest ecosystem, and many opportu-
nistic predators concentrate their feeding efforts along
these edges. When roads, power lines, or pipelines are
constructed through forests, small mammalian preda-
tors such as raccoons, opossums, skunks, and feral cats
use these linear avenues to access songbird breeding
grounds and prey upon their eggs and young. Addition-
ally, egg-eating birds such as American crows or blue
jays also focus their hunting along forest edges.
Brood Parasitism
The Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) also
thrives along forest edges and may pose an even
greater hazard to songbirds than that posed by preda-
tion (Brittingham and Temple 1983; Temple and Cary
1988). Cowbirds are an obligate brood parasite, which
means they lay their eggs in the nests of other birds and
rely on the host parents to rear their young. This can
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
greatly reduce the reproductive success of parasitized
songbirds because the host parents dedicate much of their
time feeding the fast-growing cowbird nestling while neglect-
ing their own young.
Cowbirds are native to the northern Great Plains and
evolved in close association with bison; they expanded their
range as European settlement brought domestic cows and
grain throughout North America. Songbirds did not evolve
with cowbirds and have only recently been exposed to nest
parasitism. With hundreds of millions of cowbirds now
living throughout the summer breeding range of songbirds,
they will continue to be a great threat.
Other Factors
In addition to fragmentation and edge effects, roads and
other linear barriers contribute to the decline of songbirds
in others ways. Songbirds are very sensitive to noise and
will avoid roads with a large volume of traffic (Reijnen et al.
1995, 1996). With millions of miles of roads in North
America, this renders ineffective a huge amount of potential
summer breeding habitat. Songbirds also can be attracted
to less-traveled roads for gravel to aide in digestion, for
insects and worms on roadsides, and to take dust baths
(Noss 1995). This can lead to collisions between birds and
vehicles (e.g. Novelli et al. 1988). It is estimated that a
million vertebrates are victims of road kill every day in the
United States; many of these are songbirds. Additionally,
worms contaminated by road pollution can be fatal to the
birds that feed upon them (Noss 1995).
Conclusions and Solutions
Neotropical migratory songbirds are beloved and
provide priceless ecosystem services, however, a severe
decline of songbirds has been documented. Many causes for
this decline have been identified. Edges created from roads,
forestry, agriculture, and suburbanization have resulted in a
number of ecological changes for songbirds, including
greater susceptibility to nest predation and brood parasit-
ism. Habitat fragmentation has created a population sink in
many of the areas where songbirds once thrived.
To reverse songbirds’ decline, it will be necessary to
preserve critical summer breeding habitats and, where
possible, protect and restore large tracts of intact forest.
Conservation efforts should be focused on a regional scale
because small nature preserves alone will not be sufficient
to preserve songbirds (Askins 1995). Maurer and Heywood
(1993) recommend decreasing timber harvest on remaining
tracts of extensive forest on public lands. In urban areas,
Hennings and Edge (2003) suggest increasing forest canopy
and reducing street density within a 100-meter radius of
streams. Successfully protecting and restoring large
continuous forest tracts, reducing forest edges, and improv-
ing urban/suburban habitats should help slow songbirds’
decline.
— Adam Switalski is the Science Program Coordinator for
Wildlands CPR.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
Forest edge habitat compromises security and gives nest predators an
advantage. Photo by Messick.
References
Andrén, H., and P. Angelstam. 1988. Elevated predation rates
as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental
evidence. Ecology 69: 544-547.
Askins, R.A. 1995. Hostile landscapes and the decline of
migratory songbirds. Science 267: 1956-1957.
Berkey, T.U. 1993. Edge effects in seed and egg predation at
two neotropical rainforest sites. Biological Conservation
66(2): 139-143.
Böhning-Gaese, K., M.L. Taper, and J.H. Brown. 1993. Are
declines in North America insectivorous songbirds due to
misuse of breeding range? Conservation Biology 7(1): 76-
86.
Boren, J.C., D.M. Engle, M.W. Palmer, R.E. Masters, and T. Criner.
1999. Land use change effects on breeding bird
community composition. Journal of Range Management
52: 420-430.
Brittingham, M.C., and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds
caused forest songbirds to decline? Bioscience 33: 31-35.
Finch, D.M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirements,
and Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. USDA
Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-205, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Hagan, J.M., and D.W. Johnson (eds.). 1992. Ecology and
Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds.
Smithsonian Instution Press, Washington, D.C.
Hennings, L.A., and W.D. Edge. 2003. Riparian bird community
structure in Portland, Oregon: habitat, urbanization, and
spatial scale patterns. The Condor 105: 288-302.
Maurer, B.A. 1993. Biological diversity, ecological integrity, and
neotropical migrants: new perspectives for wildlife
management. Pages 24-31 in D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel,
editors. Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory
Birds. USDA General Technical Report RM-229.
Maurer, B.A., and S.G. Heywood. 1993. Geographic range
fragmentation and abundance in neotropical migratory
birds. Conservation Biology 7(3): 501-509.
Noss, R. 1995. The ecological effects of roads. Road Rippers
Handbook, Wildlands CPR, Missoula, Montana. Available
online at: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/
reports/ecoleffectsroads.html
— continued on next page —
17
 Neotropical migratory songbirds require intact forests in north America.
Photo by S. Lennard.
References,
continued from previous page
Novelli, R., E. Takase, and V. Castro. 1988. Study of birds killed
by collision with vehicles in a stretch of Highway BR-471,
between Quinta and Taim, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Revista Brasileira De Zoologia 5: 51-59.
Ortega, Y.K., and D. Capen. 2002. Roads as edges: effects on
birds in forested landscapes. Forest Science 48(2): 381-
396.
Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. ter Braak, and J. Thissen. 1995. The
effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in
woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to
proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:
187-202.
Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen. 1996. The effects of
traffic on density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural
grasslands. Biological Conservation 75: 255-260.
Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effect of forest fragmentation on bird
populations. Pages 198-212 in R.M. DeGraaf and K.E.
Evans, editors. Management of North-Central and
Northeastern Forests for Nongame Birds. General
Technical Report NC-51. USDA Forest Service, North
Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
18
Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauerr, R.S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989.
Population declines in North America birds that migrate
to the neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America. 86: 7658-7662.
Temple, S.A., and J.R. Cary. 1988. Modeling dynamics of
habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented
landscapes. Conservation Biology 2:340-347.
Terborgh, J. 1989. Where Have All the Birds Gone? Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Terborgh, J. 1992. Why American songbirds are vanishing.
Scientific American 26:56-62.
Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, M.K.
Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest
fragmentation on avifauna of the Eastern deciduous
forest. Pages 125-205 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe,
editors. Forest Island Dynamics in Man Dominated
Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.
Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the
decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66(4): 1211-1214.
Yahner, R.H., and D.P. Scott. 1988. Effects of forest
fragmentation on depredation of artificial nests. Journal
of Wildlife Management 52:158-161.
Drawing by Elizabeth O’Leary.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003

Spotlight on Judith Spencer
By Jen Barry
J
udith Spencer and her husband had a vision of a peaceful life,
where she could continue her writing and he could enjoy his
retirement. Their vision never included an intrusive off-road
vehicle (ORV) playground, but after they relocated to their dream
home in the small town of Arnold, California, noise and trespass from
ORVs at the nearby “Interface” zone became unbearable. The
Spencers had to keep their windows closed and seldom used their
deck because the air was so filled with dust.
The Interface is an 8,600-acre parcel of the Stanislaus National
Forest that is surrounded by private land. Thousands of homes are
directly impacted by ORV use, as is wildlife and four major streams,
all headwaters to the Calaveras River. Despite a forest-wide policy
allowing ORV use on “designated trails only” (i.e. the eighteen miles
of designated Interface trails), ORVs have extended their reach to
more than 100 miles of additional, unauthorized routes (of these, the
Forest Service has acknowledged only fifty-five miles).
On a Sierra Club-sponsored day hike in the summer of 1998,
Judith met other area residents disturbed by ORVs. Forest Service
personnel were on the hike and informed them of an upcoming public
comment opportunity.
Ten of the hikers decided to organize. They formed Commitment
to Our Recreational Environment (CORE) and began generating public
awareness through outreach to residents in the four surrounding
towns. Though lacking activist experience, Judith agreed to head the
group, believing the process would be completed and a decision
rendered in four months.
CORE conducted a survey to determine how the Interface was
being used — they found that 90% was non-motorized use — and then
encouraged residents to submit comments. The bulk of the com-
ments called either for restricting ORV use to the northern third of
the Interface, or completely removing ORVs. Judith remembers
thinking the Forest Service would appreciate learning what the
communities wanted: “We had a lot to learn,” she now says. On the
last day of the comment period the District Ranger was transferred,
and soon thereafter, the EA was withdrawn with no decision ren-
dered.
When the next EA was issued the vast majority of comments
again called for restricting ORVs to the northern third, or excluding
them entirely, although the EA still offered no alternative for removing
ORVs. This EA was withdrawn without a decision just as a third
District Ranger began his tenure.
Judith and other CORE members hoped to reach a compromise
with the ORV recreationists, and initiated a “stakeholders” meeting.
Four local homeowners met with representatives of the Blue Ribbon
Coalition, the American Motorcyclists Association, Enduro Riders
Association, and one local rider. These folks turned out to be well-
paid lobbyists — backed by ORV manufacturers. The ORV lobbyists
offered to give up the lower two-thirds of the Interface as soon as the
Forest Service provided an equivalent area for them — meaning a
mile of new designated trail for every mile of illegal trail ORVs had
created. When this “compromise” was rejected, the ORV lobbyists
refused to continue the talks.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
The Activist Spotlight shares 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.
Judith and her dogs on Cougar Rock in the
Interface. Photo by Bob Spencer.
Despite this, Judith has persisted. CORE
remains a community-based group whose member-
ship has grown to 102. They use an ad hoc
approach by meeting only as necessary, and stay in
communication through e-mail and telephone. In
February 2003 CORE joined the Natural Trails and
Waters Coalition (NTWC). According to Judith,
“Our association with NTWC couldn’t have come at
a better time. They provided the opportunity for
my meeting with the DC offices of our Senators and
Congressman just as the Interface Trails DEIS was
issued. NTWC provided a grant for our outreach
campaign, which enabled us to mail or hand
distribute nearly 4,000 flyers to the community.
And they helped us plan for broad media involve-
ment — then secured an interview with The L.A.
Times.”
The latest public comment period ended May
19th. This time the DEIS includes an alternative for
totally removing ORVs from the Interface, and the
vast majority of the more than 1800 comments
support this alternative. A decision should be
imminent.
Though she’s contemplated moving away from
the Interface — thinking it would be easier to fight
if she wasn’t living on the battlefield — Judith’s
belief that communities, non-motorized recreation,
and the environment deserve protection from ORV
impacts on public land has given her the strength
to continue the campaign. She finds among the
group the needed skills, energy and dedication to
keep the process moving in a positive direction.
Besides, she says, “We had to wait for 15 years to
be here full time — and we don’t want to be forced
to leave.” Thanks, Judith for turning over every
stone and never giving up — we hope you’ll soon
be able to enjoy your deck in peace and quiet!
19

Travel Planning
By Bridget Lyons
What Is Travel Planning?
“Travel planning” is the process through which a land manage-
ment agency creates or designates a transportation network and
determines how it will be managed. The end product is a travel
system — represented by a travel map — that illustrates and de-
scribes the designated roads and trails in a National Forest or BLM
Resource Area. Usually roads and trails are coded to indicate the
type of use for which they are open: for example, a red dashed lined
may represent “open to motorized use” while a dotted black line often
represents “open to foot travel only.”
Travel planning is a step in the development of forest plans and
BLM resource management plans (RMP’s), which are written by each
forest and BLM resource area to broadly guide the planning and use
of lands under their jurisdiction (43 USC 1712). They are long-term
guidelines, revised every 10-15 years, that generally designate the
uses appropriate for each section of the forest or resource area. For
example, a forest plan may indicate (through the designation of
management areas) that off-road vehicle use is appropriate in a
certain area and that timber harvest is not appropriate in another.
Forest plans and RMP’s generally do not determine whether or not
dirt bikes can be used on a specific trail, for example — that is the job
of the travel plan.
Decisions on which roads to close and revegetate are made through agency
travel planning processes. Wildlands CPR file photo.
20
The Policy Primer is a column
designed to highlight the ins &
outs of a specific road or Off
Road Vehicle policy. If you have
a policy you’d like us to
investigate, let us know!
The law requires forest plans and RMP’s to be
updated regularly in order to accommodate policy
changes, issues raised by the public or by land
managers, and the results of ongoing monitoring
and evaluation (USFS: 36 CFR 219.9; BLM: 43 CFR
1610.5-6). When forest plans or RMPs are revised,
travel plans can be created or revised as well.
Sometimes travel planning is assessed at the same
time as the myriad other management issues; other
times, the agency determines that creating a travel
map is too time consuming, complicated, or
politically charged to include amidst all the other
issues they need to assess. In these cases, the
agency conducts travel planning as a separate
process, and then releases a “notice of intent (NOI)
to develop a travel management plan.” The NOI is
published in the Federal Register and mailed to all
individuals and groups on the agency’s interested
party list. If travel planning has not already come
to a forest or resource area near you, it will soon.
Contact your local land management agency to
ascertain their plan revision schedule, and ask
them whether or not they are likely to make travel
planning a separate process. You can expect the
entire travel planning process to take about two
years.
Whether travel planning is conducted as part
of a larger plan revision or as an individual process,
its goals are the same. For each designated road
and trail, the travel planning process determines
the types of uses (e.g. motorized/non-motorized
recreation) that will and will not be allowed. As
part of this process, travel plans usually address
other recreational issues as well, such as whether
or not cross-country (off-trail) travel by wheeled
and oversnow vehicles will be permitted. Seasonal
and permanent closures for wildlife and vegetation
protection are often addressed. Plans for stream-
lining the road system and decommissioning and
removing roads also may be included in travel
planning. Signing conventions (e.g. “closed unless
signed open”) for the resource are created and
realignments of trails may be decided.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
Why Do Travel Planning?
Over time, some roads and trails fall into
disuse or disrepair. Others are created — legally or
illegally — by the agency or users. These roads
and trails need to be surveyed and evaluated to
determine whether or not they should be included
in the transportation system or obliterated and
restored. Each year, agencies pass new manage-
ment directives on subjects as diverse as lynx
habitat and disabled access. Travel plans need to
be updated to incorporate the latest science and
comply with new management decisions. Some-
times agencies cite a need for better public
education as a reason for travel planning as well.
In a number of cases, conservation organizations
with off-road vehicle monitoring programs or road
and trail surveying programs have triggered travel
planning by submitting their data to the agency
and bringing to light discrepancies between
management plan regulations and on-the-ground
reality.
The most common reason cited by agencies for
doing travel planning, however, is the increase in
recreational use of the land. In proposal after
proposal, agencies describe exponential increases
in visitation of all types, along with associated
increases in user conflicts and resource damage.
Land managers consistently mention that the off-
road vehicles of today were never anticipated when
Road maintenance, public lands access and
travel restrictions are some of the issues
addressed in travel planning. Photo by Mark
Alan Wilson.
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
the original forest plans and RMPs were written. Because the explo-
sive growth in the numbers and power of these machines was not
anticipated, motorized use has been allowed to grow without limits in
many areas. Current travel planning processes should — and
generally do — address the need for regulating motorized recreation
and new forms of recreation.
Travel Planning Goals
Before travel planning begins, it is important to determine what
you want the final travel plan to look like. This process begins with
setting goals. General goals that public lands advocates should
pursue include:
• Establish resource protection as the overarching travel
management priority;
• Use science-based decision-making;
• Maintain the wild character of the land;
• Streamline the travel system;
• Account for potential growth in recreational use; and
• Maintain or re-establish quality non-motorized recreational
experiences.
Motorized recreation planning is often at the heart of travel
planning, and you should consider establishing goals for this aspect
of the process. Because of the years of hard work invested by
conservationists and non-motorized recreationists, it can finally be
said that most land managers are aware of the impacts of motorized
recreation. While agency officials may or may not act upon this
knowledge, most acknowledge that motorized recreation requires
careful oversight and active management. These are basic principles
to follow:
• Prohibit cross-country travel by motorized vehicles;
• Restrict off-road vehicle use to designated routes only;
• Designate routes through a public process which includes
full National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis;
• Create a “closed unless signed open” signing convention;
• Permit ORV use only when funding allows for adequate
monitoring and enforcement;
• Limit multiple-use trails; and
• Prohibit motorized use in all Wilderness Areas, proposed
Wilderness areas, wilderness-quality areas, and roadless areas.
How can individuals and organizations supporting ecosystem
health and quiet use advocate for the goals listed above? Participat-
ing in the agencies’ processes, political organizing, and “on-the-
ground” data collection are essential to creating and implementing a
model travel plan. These steps are the subject of Wildlands CPR’s
newest resource, the “Travel Planning Primer.” This booklet with lead
you through the travel planning process step-by-step and provide you
with the tools you need to create goals and objectives, write com-
ment letters, organize diverse constituencies and more. Please
contact our office to receive a copy of the full document.
— Bridget Lyons was Wildlands CPR’s Transportation Policy
Coordinator.
21

A
fter more than a month of dire predictions from land manag-
ers, fire season in the northern Rockies finally exploded
during the second weekend in August. Over fifty fires blew
up in two days, ringing the Missoula valley with fire and smoke.
Those of us who live in Missoula were lucky or unlucky enough to
watch one fire torching on a ridge just outside of town: beauty and
terror in one breath. The fires led agencies to shut down most
activities on public lands, though some lands remain open for limited
use. Many area road removal programs, however, have been discon-
tinued until the fire danger dissipates.
Here in our office, things are smokin’! We have three terrific
interns this summer, and they’ve been working on some fantastic
projects. From June through early August, Ryan Shaffer collected
data from national forests throughout the country to determine how
much road removal is actually happening on the ground. While he
wasn’t able to answer our questions conclusively, he revealed the
shortcomings in Forest Service tracking capacity for restoration
projects and provided some insight into which regions and forests are
restoring the most roads. We’re hoping to have another intern this
fall to set up a ground-truthing program to field check Ryan’s findings.
See page 11 for a short summary of Ryan’s work. THANKS RYAN, we’ll
miss having you around.
Just after Ryan began, one of our former interns returned for a
second round. Mo Hartmann has been working with Marnie and
contract staffer Beth Peluso to develop a workshop to help agencies
develop strong road removal programs. Mo formerly worked with us
assessing wildlife mitigation structures and we’re thrilled to have her
back — especially since she’s double-timing as a road obliteration
inspector for the Nez Perce Tribe.
We’re also very excited to have Jason Kiely join us to develop a
more significant organizing component to our road removal work.
Jason worked as an urban organizer in Chicago for five years before
moving out to Missoula; he stepped into our office just as the Center
for Environmental Economic Development was finishing their road
removal economics report. Jason’s been working with Marnie and
with groups in Montana, Washington, and Oregon to promote the
economic benefits of road removal in rural communities.
We’ll keep you posted on the results of their work — and thanks,
to all of them, for bringing so much skill into our summer internship
program.
On the down side, two of our staffers have decided to move on.
Jen Barry, our tireless program assistant for the past two years, is
returning to school full-time in fine arts, while Bridget Lyons, who
recently joined us to work on transportation issues, has decided to
move on. By the next RIPorter, we should be able to introduce their
replacements. We thank both of them for their fantastic contribu-
tions to Wildlands CPR — they will be missed.
Finally, we’d like to extend a big thanks to the Flintridge, Lazar,
Maki, Wilburforce and Weeden Foundations for generous grants
supporting our work.
Refer a friend to Wildlands CPR!
Send us the names and addresses of friends you think may be inter-
ested in receiving membership information from Wildlands CPR.
22
Wildlands CPR
Publications
Road-Ripper’s Handbook ($20.00, $30.00 non-
members) — A comprehensive activist
manual that includes the five Guides listed
below, plus The Ecological Effects of
Roads, Gathering Information with the
Freedom of Information Act, and more!
Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Forests ($5,
$8 non-members) — By Keith Hammer.
How-to procedures for getting roads
closed and revegetated, descriptions of
environmental laws, road density
standards & Forest Service road policies.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Parks ($5,
$8 non-members) — By David Bahr & Aron
Yarmo. Provides background on the
National Park System and its use of roads,
and outlines how activists can get involved
in NPS planning.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-
members) — By Dan Stotter. Provides an
overview of road-related land and resource
laws, and detailed discussions for
participating in BLM decision-making
processes.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8
non-members) — By Dan Wright. A
comprehensive guide to reducing the use
and abuse of ORVs on public lands.
Includes an extensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal
($5, $8 non-members) — By Scott Bagely.
Provides technical information on road
construction and removal, where and why
roads fail, and how you can effectively
assess road removal projects.
Trails of Destruction ($10) — By Friends of the
Earth and Wildlands CPR, written by Erich
Pica and Jacob Smith. This report explains
the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal
funding for motorized recreation on public
lands, and the ORV industry’s role in
pushing the ORV agenda.
— To order these publications, use the
order form on next page —
The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003
 Membership and Order Information
Memberships
Joining Wildlands CPR increases our member base — which Yes! I want to help revive and protect wild places by
increases public awareness, citizen activism, and political clout — becoming a Wildlands CPR member
and increases the dollars to get our work done. (or by renewing my membership)
All members receive an annual subscription to The Road-RIPorter.
Organization
Name
Name
City, State,
Address
Zip

Phone Email

Type of Membership: Individual Organization

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Monthly Giving Annual Membership Dues
Instead of annual member dues, a monthly donation can be automati- I have enclosed my tax-deductible Wildlands CPR
cally withdrawn from your checking account. A monthly donation will membership contribution of:
do two things: it adds up quickly to a major contribution, and it allows
Wildlands CPR to make long-term plans.
$1,000 $250 $50 family $15 living lightly
$5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other $500 $100 $30 standard other

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

from my checking account once per month. Please include a voided
check. All information will be kept confidential. I prefer to give online via my credit card.

[Go to www.wildlandscpr.org/join_us/index.html]
Signature

Thank you for your support!

Publications
Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications: Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.
International Membership — $30 Minimum. All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.
Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
Check here if you are interested in helping
/ to distribute The Road-RIPorter in your area.
Check here to receive our ORV and road email
/ newsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks.
Check here for our Email Activist List.
/ Please remember to include your email address.

Total of all items: Check here for our RIP-Web non-paper

option. Get the RIPorter online before it gets
printed. Please include your email address.

In order to increase our membership,Wildlands CPR

occasionally exchanges member’s names with like- Please send this form and your payment option to:
minded conservation organizations. If you do not want Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807
your name traded, please check here.

The Road-RIPorter, Fall Equinox 2003 23

 Photo by Glenn Marangelo.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

If its purity and quiet are destroyed and

broken by the noise and smoke . . . then it
will cease to belong to the whole people
and will be unworthy of the care and
protection of the national government.

— 1st Lt. Dan C. Kingman

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Yellowstone National Park 1883

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