Autumn Equinox 2005.

Volume 10 # 3

Victory in the Lost River Valley

By Lahsha Johnston

Inside…
Victory in the Lost River Valley, by
Lahsha Johnston. Pages 3-5
Policy Primer: Data Quality Act, by
Amy Atwood. Pages 6-7
Depaving the Way, by Bethanie
Walder. Pages 8-9
Odes to Roads, by Scott Stouder.
Pages 10-11
Get with the Program: Restoration &
Transportation Program Updates.
Pages 12-13
Biblio Notes: Roads in the Brazilian
Amazon, by Adam Switalski.
Pages 14-16
Legislative Update: The Highway
Spending Bill. Page 17
Regional Reports. Pages 18-19
Citizen Spotlight: The Sky Island
Alliance, by Cathy Adams.
Pages 20-21
Around the Office, Membership info.
Pages 22-23

Check out our website at:

www.wildlandscpr.org
The fragile apline meadows and grasslands of the Lost River Valley have
been, for now, spared the intrusion of a motorized mega-route.
Photo by Matt Leidecker.
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

T
he times they are a changing (well, sort of), at the Federal Highways Department (406) 543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org
(FHWA). On August 10, 2005, the President signed the long-overdue, oft-extended
six year federal highway spending bill. This bill includes one significant beneficial
change from previous highways bills, continuing a trend toward more ecologically sound Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore
highway planning that began in 1992. But it is also, as always, loaded with ecologically wildland ecosystems by preventing and
damaging pork projects. removing roads and limiting motorized
While we review key provisions of the bill on page 17, some overall trends are worth recreation. We are a national clearinghouse
noting here. For the first time, the new bill provides direct funding for wildlife cross- and network, providing citizens with tools
ing structures across highways. Such structures can increase habitat connectivity and and strategies to fight road construction,
reduce collisions – saving both human and animal lives. The bill also provides funding to deter motorized recreation, and promote road
improve fish passage under roads. removal and revegetation.
These provisions are historic, though in truth, they are long overdue. Other coun-
tries, including our immediate neighbor to the north, have far outspent and out-re-
searched the United States in devising more effective mitigation structures to reduce the Director
impacts of roads on wildlife. On the bright side, numerous projects are now underway Bethanie Walder
in the U.S., including the reconstruction of a road right here in Montana that will include
more than 40 wildlife crossing structures over a 60-mile stretch of highway. Development Director
We will work with other conservationists to assess the true amount of funding avail- Tom Petersen
able for wildlife and aquatic mitigation, and to ensure that such money is used to develop
ecologically sound structures that will help reduce the impacts of highways on wildlife. Restoration Program
But it is important to remember that mitigation is not the same as prevention or restora- Coordinator
tion. Wildlands CPR’s first priority will always be to prevent new road construction in Marnie Criley
ecologically sensitive places, since mitigation can only reduce, but not eliminate, habitat
Science Coordinator
fragmentation and other ecological impacts of highways.
While the name is pretty: “the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Adam Switalski
Equity Act – A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU), the bill maintains the status quo on
Transportation Policy
highway spending and funds $24 billion worth of pork projects, while tossing a bone to
conservation interests to address the impacts of some of these projects. Wildlands CPR Organizer
worked with a small group of activists from Washington DC and the west to promote some Jason Kiely
of the good provisions, while also fighting the bad provisions in the bill. Unfortunately, Program Assistant
we were not able to stop all of the funding for bad earmarks, including three ecologically Cathy Adams
devastating, and extraordinarily expensive projects proposed in Alaska. Our efforts now
will turn to fighting the implementation of such projects..
Newsletter
As we were going to press, the New York Times editorialized about one way we could
both reduce the highway spending pork and help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. They Dan Funsch & Marianne Zugel
recommended that the states give back some of the earmarked pork project money al-
located in SAFETEA-LU. We support the idea, and think it’s an ideal way for other states
Interns & Volunteers
to lend a financial hand to the Gulf Coast residents as they deal with the fallout of the
Jess Bernard, Katherine Court, Sonya Germann,
hurricane, and for people throughout the country to show that we really can set priori- Laura Harris, Gordon Willson Naranjo
ties about what’s important. We hope that some good can come from this tragic and
truly catastrophic event by helping Americans refocus our efforts on addressing poverty, Board of Directors
injustice and environmental degradation right here in our own backyard. Our thoughts Amy Atwood, Karen DiBari, Greg Fishbein,
and best wishes go to everyone affected by this storm. Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Cara
Nelson, Sonya Newenhouse, Matt Skroch

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

Lost River panorama. Photo by Matt Leidecker

© 2005 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

Victory in the Lost River Valley
By Lahsha Johnston

T
he Lost River Valley is iconic of the West’s
broad, open valleys flanked by steep,
dramatic mountain ranges. High elevation
peaks dotted with snow fields and cirques holding
small lakes sweep down to sage and grass covered
hills. Below these majestic peaks, meandering river
channels intertwine with meadows in this central
Idaho setting. And this summer, in a victory for
rural values and quiet recreation, the Lost River
and Pahsimeroi Valleys were spared from becoming
home to the nation’s largest off-road vehicle route
and the first such route to propose state manage-
ment of federal lands.

Background
In 2002 the Idaho Department of Parks and
Recreation (IDPR) proposed the Lost River Trail, a
460-mile off-road vehicle route to be built on public
lands managed by the Salmon-Challis National For-
est and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In addi-
tion, the IDPR requested sole management authority
over a two-mile wide corridor the route’s entire
length. The proposed route ran from the city of
Arco north to Challis and beyond, and on both sides
of the Lost River Range, with two portions crossing
through the heart of these mountains.
Opponents succeeded in defeating this ill-con-
ceived mega-route by working together. Cutting
through misinformation and rhetoric, The Wilder-
ness Society and its Idaho allies revealed the ugly
facts: (1) the ecological and social impacts created
by increased off-road vehicle traffic would change
the way of life for area ranchers and residents; (2)
the unfunded maintenance and enforcement costs
to municipalities and counties, as well as federal
agencies, greatly outweighed the cheery forecast of
the benefits that a mega-route would bring to strug-
gling rural economies.
Considering the Impacts
Our concerns over the off-road vehicle route
included impacts to the environment, wildlife,
Wilderness Study Areas, noise, erosion, habitat frag-
mentation, weeds, fire, water, route proliferation,
enforcement, maintenance, monitoring, rehabilita-
tion, and general route management including state
control. The effects of a route this large, however,
go far beyond the immediate corridor and actual
route — cumulative impacts to resources and other
forms of recreation enjoyed on adjacent public
lands would be significant and irreversible. We
also knew there would likely be increased demands
Rural values like peace, quiet, and (the lack of) traffic were all threatened by
the proposed route. Photo by Matt Leidecker.
placed on federal agencies and local government services, conflicts
with private property owners and recreation, and impacts to the local
economy. Many people shared our concerns, but did not understand
the federal planning process and agency regulations that govern off-
road vehicle use.
Federal law requires preparing an in-depth analysis of the environ-
mental, social, and economic consequences of any major federal action
in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Such an analysis must in-
clude consideration of alternatives to the proposal. Since the IDPR is a
state agency they were not required to undertake this type of extensive
analysis, however, because their proposal required the BLM and Forest
Service to sanction the route across federal land, we argued that an EIS
should be prepared. When the federal agencies would not commit to
an EIS, we made it very clear that we were prepared to seek immediate
legal recourse to force them to do so.
An Agency’s (Blind) Ambition
The IDPR was convinced that if given the opportunity, they could
manage off-road vehicle use better than the federal agencies. The
opinions of federal agency staff were mixed. Some thought that a des-
ignated route would help resolve conflicts over increasing motorized
recreation, or that money from the IDPR would provide resources to
make up for decreasing federal budgets. And, since IDPR was propos-
ing the route, state officials would bear the brunt of criticism and
public scrutiny. Finally, no one had developed any alternatives to the
large route concept. It was the only game in town.
In addition to being the only alternative proposed, the IDPR called
it a demonstration project to be used to monitor, evaluate, and test po-
tential management strategies for motorized recreation in the state of
Idaho. The IDPR identified the proposed “Lost River Trail” as the first
of several such demonstration projects around the state. Then last
— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005 3

 — continued from page 3 —

April the IDPR State Director, Rick Collignon, resigned. A big propo-
nent of the Lost River Trail, he left behind a cash strapped agency with
low employee morale — in a poor position to expand their manage-
ment portfolio with the addition of a large off-road vehicle route.

Selling Snake Oil

The IDPR compared the Lost River Trail to the Paiute Trail in Utah
in order to gain the support of business leaders. The Paiute Trail con-
sists of 275 miles of designated routes and hosts an estimated 47,000
ORV riders annually. Paiute Trail promoters steer riders to an addi- Photo by Matt Leidecker.
tional 2,500 trail miles on surrounding public lands, tying 16 local com-
munities into the “unofficial” trail system. Similarly, IDPR called for the
In addition, the IDPR proposal called for only
Lost River Trail to link the communities of Arco, Mackay, and Challis,
two law enforcement officers to patrol the entire
envisioning trail expansion to reach 12 more communities. And like
460-mile route. Local communities, counties, road
the Paiute Trail, the Lost River Trail was touted as a revenue source
and fire districts were asked to provide mainte-
of millions for local economies by attracting riders from across the
nance, search and rescue, ambulance, fire, law en-
country. For a while, this promise of prosperity seemed to work. For
forcement and manage access points with existing
example, the Custer County Commissioners were in favor of the route
budgets. The BLM and Forest Service would receive
and had been convinced it would be an economic savior to their strug-
no additional resources to manage thousands of
gling communities. But these comparisons were based on anecdotal
new riders expected to use the route. And, human
opinions obtained from Utah businesses along the Paiute Trail, not on
nature being what it is, those riders would also use
any economic data or analysis.
the more than 3,000 miles of routes accessible from
the official Lost River Trail.
Fuzzy Math
Listening to the Locals
The start-up budget for the Lost River Trail project was $172,500,
to be used for parking, rest-rooms, information kiosks, cattle guards, In Idaho, The Wilderness Society has a reputa-
signs, maps and fencing needs. As one local citizen estimated, “The tion for working with people in local communities
cost of purchasing a special ORV guard or a standard 8-foot cattle that are directly affected by federal policies. By
guard and wings is somewhere between $500-800.” Add an estimated meeting with small groups of ranchers and other
$600/install for a backhoe, foundation material, hand labor, etc. Based community leaders, we discovered ways to work
on the budget allocation, this citizen commented “you will only have together. Some of the first things we provided
enough money for five cattle guards. I can count at least 20 allotments were maps of the proposed off-road vehicle route.
along the proposed trail just from Arco to Willow Creek Summit that This helped us acquire very specific on-the-ground
will be affected.” information as to the potential impacts of the
route. In return, we shared our knowledge and

Information requested from the

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR)
• Baseline data on wildlife habitat, noxious weeds, dispersed use, current use, and economic data
• Ground truthing data, surveys, and the methodology used for the 2002 surveys on potential trail routes
• IDPR’s inventory of existing roads and trails and the GPS database of all routes that intersect the proposed trail
• IDPR’s draft charter for the proposed Citizen’s Advisory Committee
• All documents relating to costs of the trail, including advertising, signage, enforcement, resource restoration,
search and rescue, noxious weed control, education, trail maintenance, construction and reconstruction, monitor-
ing, restrooms, parking, kiosks, and maps
• The IDPR 2002 budget, including funding and expenditures on motorized versus non-motorized recreation
• Cost estimates for county and local government services that IDPR expects these entities will absorb
• Letters of support from city, county and state officials
• Minutes, records, presentation materials and handouts from all inter-agency steering committee meetings
• All information gathered about the Paiute Trail ORV route

4 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

expertise on federal land policy, agency planning requirements, and
opportunities for public involvement. We concentrated our efforts on
educating those most directly affected, developing relationships with
private property owners, ranchers, local governments, and community
leaders. We worked to dissuade the Forest Service and BLM of their
initial support for the proposal. And, we organized a coalition of other
conservation, hunting, wildlife, and recreation interests. The IDPR
abandoned the route proposal as a direct result of our efforts.
Over the last few years we have developed a greater understand-
ing of the values we share with many of the residents of these small
Everyone agrees that existing off-road vehicle use
needs better management.
communities. They value their way of life, which includes wildlife,
peace and quiet, and low traffic. Everyone agrees that existing off-road
vehicle use needs better management. Designating a 460-mile route
through the heart of this remote landscape would not necessarily
result in better management. Nor would it necessarily result in overall
economic benefits to the local communities. Local citizens’ growing
understanding of these threats prompted them to publicly oppose and
thus help stop this proposal.
For now, the Lost River Valley will be spared ORV
damage. Photo by Keith Hammer.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
In their own words
“I’m a cattle rancher using the range in which
this trail will be placed. We have to have an
average of five years’ study to simply place
a water trough or move a bit of fence. If this
trail is allowed with the minimal amount of
study, I would seriously recommend that graz-
ing permittees file suit against the BLM and
Forest Service for harassment and discrimina-
tion between multiple use users.”
– public comment sent to IDPR
Do It Right the Next Time
The BLM and Forest Service should complete
a comprehensive route designation process for all
lands under their jurisdiction in the Lost River Val-
ley. The agencies should work together to analyze
the environmental and social impacts of hundreds
of miles of user-created renegade routes. We expect
that communities are looking at a variety of options
to promote recreation and boost local economies
— our recommendation is for the IDPR to work with
them to develop a variety of sustainable recreation
opportunities that take into consideration the qual-
ity of life and values that are important to these
rural residents. IDPR should also use the income
they generate from off-road vehicle registrations to
establish a mandatory state-wide off-road vehicle
safety, education and enforcement program. Local
elected officials such as county commissioners con-
sistently receive complaints from private landown-
ers and ranchers who experience off-road vehicle
trespass spilling over from neighboring public lands.
Federal land management agencies should negotiate
cooperative agreements that fund county sheriffs
to enforce off-road vehicle rules on federal public
lands. Working together we can find solutions that
are good for the landscape and the local communi-
ties.
— Lahsha Johnston is the Regional Conservation
Associate in the Idaho Office of The Wilderness
Society. Since 1995 she has worked closely with
diverse groups from other conservation, recreation,
government, and other interests on a wide range of
issues and projects involving wilderness and public
lands management.
5
 Wildlands CPR
Policy Primer
Data Quality Act
By Amy Atwood
D
uring the last five years, the Bush Administration has system-
atically attacked scientific integrity in all aspects of govern-
ment regulation. They have relied on junk science, innuendo,
and anecdotes to support industry-friendly environmental policies or
weakened environmental safeguards. This trend has only increased as
the Administration’s friends have increasingly turned to a four-year-old
law with a misleading name, the Information Quality Act (IQA), in their
ongoing effort to weaken federal environmental regulations.
IQA in Theory and Practice
The IQA (also known as the Data Quality Act), a seemingly in-
nocuous law passed as a rider to a 2001 appropriations bill, required
the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish
guidelines for federal agencies to maximize the quality, objectivity,
utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public.
OMB’s guidelines were promulgated in 2002, and, in addition to requir-
ing federal agencies to adopt their own IQA rules, require agencies
that disseminate so-called “influential” information to provide a “high
degree of transparency about data and methods to facilitate reproduc-
ibility of such information by qualified third parties.”
In a few cases, the IQA has been rightfully used to stymie agen-
cies’ reliance on clearly flawed data. In response to an IQA challenge
filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER),
the Fish and Wildlife Service was forced to acknowledge it had consis-
Good science shows the benefits of restoring roads through techniques
such as installing this sediment wash. Is there a place for science in
the Bush Administration? Photo by Marnie Criley.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
This 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!
tently relied on flawed habitat and population data
concerning the habits of the highly endangered
Florida panther. In addition, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency routinely makes minor data
corrections as a result of petitions submitted to the
agency pursuant to the IQA.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, how-
ever, the IQA has been used by industry groups
and political interests to challenge agency data that
supports common sense regulation in many areas,
including the environment and public health. For
example, in 2003, the Salt Institute, an association
of salt producers and manufacturers, submitted
an IQA petition to the Department of Health and
Human Services challenging dietary guidelines that
— surprise — urged Americans to lower their intake
of salt in order to reduce the risk of hypertension.
As another example, in deliberating whether to list
the greater sage grouse under the Endangered Spe-
cies Act, Julie MacDonald, a Department of Interior
(DOI) political appointee with no formal biological
education or training, tried to quash data showing
that the greater sage grouse needs diverse sage-
brush ecosystems to survive, on the basis that such
information violated the IQA.
While the IQA cases brought by industry (on is-
sues as varied as salt, asbestos and pesticides) have
weakened environmental and human health provi-
sions, the few cases filed on behalf of the environ-
ment have changed little on the ground. In the case
of the panther data, the FWS admitted the data was
flawed, but then announced that no agency decision
or biological review would be reexamined as a result
of PEER’s ostensibly “successful” IQA challenge.
Clearly, there are some problems with the IQA.
In fact, these examples only hint at the Act’s
problems and raise doubts about using the IQA at
all as a tool to protect the environment. Rather, a
serious overhaul or repeal might be in order. To be-
gin with, the standards imposed on agencies by the
IQA — i.e., that they ensure the “quality,” “objectiv-
ity,” “utility,” and “integrity” of information that they
disseminate to the public — are utterly vague and
totally subjective. There is no direction as to what
was actually intended by such terms, since the IQA
was passed as a rider to a 2001 appropriations bill
without any hearings or Congressional debate, and
therefore lacks any legislative history.

In addition, when it comes to data that informs

decisions that impact the environment, the Act has
been read to impose higher standards for scientific
information than those found in our nation’s exist-
ing environmental laws. For example, the Endan-
gered Species Act requires federal agencies to rely
on the best scientific information “available” and
to draw all inferences in favor of imperiled species.
The best information available is not always peer
reviewed. Yet, Ms. MacDonald interpreted the IQA
to require FWS to rely on peer reviewed information Bighorn sheep in Glacier National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.
to support a listing of the grouse — a much higher
standard that effectively put the burden of proof on
the species. For such species, just as with many
other environmental concerns, such ironclad data
These problems create a perfect storm of conditions for any
are rarely available. Such an approach also conflicts
administration to make politically convenient decisions that reward
with the so-called “precautionary principle,” argu-
friends but which do not necessarily rely on the best data and informa-
ably inherent in many of the nation’s environmental
tion available. As PEER’s Executive Director, Jeff Ruch, told a House
laws and regulations, which requires that when
Subcommittee in July, “the IQA produces meaningful relief only if the
probabilities cannot be calcluated with reasonable
agency feels like giving it.”
precision, decisions that could lead to great harm
should be avoided.
We should not be so innocent to think that unseemly use of the
IQA won’t happen. In February, PEER and the Union of Concerned
In addition, industry groups exploit the IQA’s re-
Scientists released the results of a survey of FWS biologists, ecologists,
quirement that scientific studies must be reproduc-
and other science professionals, which revealed that over half had
ible, by designing meaningless studies to confound
been induced to reverse or withdraw scientific conclusions through
good data within the literature. Such junk science
political intervention by commercial interests. A similar survey of
was used in an IQA challenge to the EPA’s restric-
scientists within the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administra-
tions on the pesticide atrazine, which was linked
tion Fisheries Services produced similar results. It should also come
to hormone disruption by separate studies in three
as no surprise that the IQA is supported by entities such as the Salt
countries. Atrazine’s manufacturer conducted its
Institute, Partnership for the West, and the Chamber of Commerce, the
own studies that did not reproduce these results,
latter of which testified before Congress in support of the IQA in July,
and convinced EPA against restricting atrazine’s use.
or that the IQA has been strongly criticized by progressive groups and
(The pesticide is banned in Europe because of its
legal scholars. OMB Watch released a report on the IQA’s first year of
health effects.)
implementation, and found the law to be riddled with problems. Even
PEER, one of the few non-industry organizations to use the IQA, told
Furthermore, at least two federal district courts
Congress that it found the IQA to be flawed, only slightly effective, and
have ruled that IQA challenges to the quality of in-
profoundly weak.
formation disseminated by federal agencies should
take place only in administrative proceedings before
agencies, and not in the courts, thereby seemingly Recommended Reforms
insulating agency IQA determinations from judicial Only in the unlikely event that the IQA’s many problems could be
review. remedied through legislative action following informed debate and
hearings in Congress should the IQA be given any legitimacy at all.
Such reforms must include, at a minimum, clear standards for ensuring
Consequences of IQA Loopholes the quality of agency-disseminated information, and provisions that al-
Neither the IQA itself, nor the OMB or other
low for judicial review of agency decisions made under the IQA, as well
agency guidelines, provide a means for interested
as for the participation of interested parties in the administrative pro-
parties to defend the quality of information they
cess. If such reforms were passed following an informed debate, the
submit to a federal agency when that information
IQA could become a powerful tool for any organization to participate in
is later attacked through an IQA challenge. For
the democratic process, and, presumably, could even result in higher
example, when the Partnership for the West — a co-
quality information flowing from federal agencies. Until then, and per-
alition of western industries and economic interests
haps even then, the IQA will remain a subjective, politically-driven, and
— attacked through an IQA challenge the quality of
expensive albatross on an already-strapped federal government.
information in the petition to list the sage grouse
under the ESA, the conservationist petitioners were
— Amy Atwood is a lawyer with the Western Environmental Law Center
never so much as informed of the Partnership’s
in Eugene, OR. She is also a member of the Wildlands CPR Board of
challenge, let alone afforded any formal opportunity
Directors.
to respond and defend the quality of the data sup-
porting listing.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005 7

Roaring Through the Parks
By Bethanie Walder
D
uring the brief moments of the 2004 presi-
dential campaign that weren’t focused
on Iraq, the economy or terrorism, other
issues got some mention — including healthcare,
education, and even the environment. One of the
safe environmental topics George Bush chose to
speak about was the National Parks. He explicitly
discussed the need to fully fund the National Parks
to address their maintenance backlogs and restore
these national treasures to their full glory. Now,
nearly a year after the election, that funding has
failed to materialize and the Bush Administration
has largely ignored every National Park except Yel-
lowstone while systematically promoting resource
extraction and privatization of other public lands.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s true
priorities for National Park management became
painfully clear last month. The Coalition of National
Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) released a copy of
Bush’s proposed changes to National Park policies.
His proposal would fundamentally change more
than 100 years of management direction. The New
York Times and Los Angeles Times both reported
on the revisions, which were prepared by the office
of Paul Hoffman, deputy assistant secretary of the
Interior. Fran Mainella, Director of the National Park
Service, reports to Paul Hoffman.
How far will the Bush Administration go to
accommodate motorized users? Widening a trail in
Glacier National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.
8 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
According to CNPSR, the Department of the Interior (DOI) spent
two years developing their proposed changes, which call for significant
increases in motorized recreation and decreases in environmental pro-
tection. The Los Angeles Times reported that the changes would “allow
snowmobiles to travel over any paved road in any national park in the
winter; elevate certain activities already occurring in some parks, such
as grazing and mining, to ‘park purposes’ — which would ensure their
continuation; and change the acceptable level of air quality from ‘natu-
ral background’ to air that has been altered by human presence.”
National Park Origins
The National Park Service (NPS) and System were created by Con-
gress in 1916 (even though the first National Park, Yellowstone, was
designated in 1872). Congress established the system to “conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein
and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by
such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations” (16 USC § 1). This conservation purpose was further
clarified by Congress in 1978 and by the NPS in 2001 to ensure that it
remained more important than other uses, so that park resources will
be available for future generations in perpetuity.
New Direction for Parks?
The proposed new policies would directly violate this Congressio-
nal direction, though the DOI insists that the changes are minimal and
would have little impact. CNPSR developed an excellent chart compar-
ing the proposed changes to the 2001 policy language — we’ve used
it to highlight a few of the changes that concern people interested in
reducing the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles. For the full chart,
go to http://www.npsretirees.org/index.htm
Off-Road Vehicle Changes (Section 8.2.3.1)
Former language that has been removed or reworded
“Within the National Park System, routes and areas may be des-
ignated for off-road motor vehicle use only by special regulation, and
only when it would be consistent with the purposes for which the park
unit was established. Route and areas may be designated only in loca-
tions in which there would be no adverse impacts on the area’s natu-
ral, cultural, scenic and esthetic values and in consideration of other
visitor uses. As required by the Executive Order and the Organic Act,
superintendents must immediately close a designated off-road vehicle
route whenever the use is causing, or will cause, unacceptable adverse
effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or
historic resources.”
Proposed new language
“Within the National Park System, off-road vehicle use that occurs
on or over roads regularly used by automobiles shall be allowed and
managed in the same manner as automobile traffic is managed, while
also ensuring traffic safety. Off-road vehicle use on off-road routes or
in off-road areas may be necessary, when consistent with park purpos-
es, to provide opportunities for visitors to use and
enjoy their parks. Off-road routes and areas may be
designated for off-road motor vehicle use by special
regulation when consistent with park purposes and
public safety and in such manner as will not cause
the impairment of resources or values. The criteria
listed in section 8.2 should also be applied to deter-
mine whether off-road vehicle use may be allowed
on off-road routes or in off-road areas. As required
by the Executive order and the Organic Act, super-
intendents must first manage off-road vehicle use,
and, if necessary, prohibit off-road vehicle use, on
off-road routes or in off-road areas to provide for
public safety and prevent impairment of resources
or values.”
[The Bush Administration’s]
proposal would fundamentally
change more than 100 years of park
management direction.
Analysis of the Proposal
This example highlights the profound change
that DOI envisions for off-road vehicle recreation
in the parks. The original policy allowed off-road
motorized use by special regulation only, and only
if it was consistent with the purposes for which the
park unit was established. The proposed policy al-
lows off-road vehicle use throughout the system on
roads used by automobiles, and suggest that such
use could be managed like automobiles. This is
problematic in part because most states don’t allow
non-street legal vehicles to travel on regular roads,
and off-road vehicles typically are not street legal. It
may be part of a broader trend, however, as many
states have changed regulations to allow off-road
vehicles on public land roads.
Even more disturbing is the suggestion that off-
road use may be necessary to enjoy the parks. This
bold language would practically give off-road vehicle
riders a designated right to drive in national parks.
It is unclear how the parks or the courts would
determine when off-road recreation is “necessary,”
but in desert parks of the southwest with many dirt
roads, like Death Valley, off-road vehicle enthusiasts
could make significant claims.
Finally, the proposed language is completely
inconsistent with the off-road vehicle Executive Or-
ders, and perhaps also the Park System Organic Act,
because it directs Park Superintendents to “manage”
off-road vehicle use and only prohibit it to prevent
impairment of resources or values. The Executive
Orders are very clear that off-road vehicle use has
no primacy, and, in fact, can only be permitted when
consistent with maintaining environmental, cultural
and historic resources.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
Mountain goats and other wildlife are being increasingly pushed to the edge to
make room for motorized vehicles in our national parks. Photo by Dan Funsch.
Tip of the Iceberg
This is just one small example of the policy changes proposed by
the DOI. The changes for regulating snowmobiling are similar to those
for wheeled off-road vehicles. In addition, the proposal would make it
easier to build roads in national parks, harder to designate wilderness,
and harder to protect natural quiet, wildlife habitat and other resourc-
es if protection interfered with visitor “enjoyment.” The proposed
changes would also allow increased mining, cell phone towers, and
low-flying tour planes (some of these are allowed in some parks, but
they are heavily regulated). Adding insult to injury, the proposed rules
curtail the Park Service’s ability to use science as a management tool
while simultaneously promoting the sale of religious materials in park
stores and removing references to evolutionary processes.
Time to Respond
The proposal is extremely audacious and was met with immediate
and harsh criticism from the seven regional directors of the NPS. The
NPS then appointed a panel to work out compromise language with the
DOI. Was, then, the initial proposal intended to make any compromise
changes to the policy seem more reasonable? It is unclear whether or
not Paul Hoffman will accept the compromise language, which has not
yet been made public. Nonetheless the direction is clear — the Bush
Administration intends to reduce protection for National Parks.
With National Parks now under direct attack, it is clear that noth-
ing is sacred to this Administration. While the American public is
struggling to deal with a failing economy, a devastating war in Iraq,
continuing attacks on civil liberties and rising energy prices, the Ad-
ministration is busy dismantling America’s natural heritage. If we sit
quietly by and do not fight back, in a few short years we may no longer
recognize our own backyard. For more information about these pro-
posed policy changes, or to get involved with efforts to maintain exist-
ing park protections, please visit http://www.npsretirees.org/index.htm
References
Barringer, Felixity. 2005. Top Official Urged Change in How Parks Are
Managed. The New York Times. 8-26-05.
Cart, Julie. 2005. Controversy Over Plans for Changes in U.S. Parks. Los
Angeles Times. 8-26-05.
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. 2005. Analysis of Draft NPS
Policy Changes. http://www.npsretirees.org/05 0826-ANALYSISofN
PSmgmtpolicies.htm (posted 8-26-05).
9
Keeping the Hunt Wild
by Scott Stouder

M
ike Duffy had been elk hunt-
ing since daylight. It was two
hours after dark when he hung
his rain jacket outside the tent, parted
the canvas flap and stepped into the
lantern light. His hair was plastered to
his forehead and his eyes seemed as
wild as the land outside, but a smile
stretched across his bearded face.

I handed him the hot drink that had

been sitting next to the wood stove for
almost an hour. “So where did you kill
the bull?”

As of this night Mike had listened

for 15 years to others tell their story
of killing elk without a story of his
own. This night, in Oregon’s Eagle Cap
Wilderness, with rain pounding the tent Photo by Bruce Eilerts. Courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
roof, he would finally tell his story.

“He’s a long way up the mountain,”

he answered wearily as he stripped his
soaked clothes, donned dry shirt and
pants, and paused to take a sip from the
cup. “Near the top of the divide, about a
half mile down in a steep canyon.”
We would spend the next few hours
reliving his hunt and the next few days
packing and caring for elk meat. That’s
the best of wilderness elk hunting. The
worst is that it’s increasingly threat-
ened by an insatiable urge to open
every acre to motorized travel.
Today, over 385,000 miles of roads
criss-cross our national forests. That’s
enough to stretch around the globe
three times and over 50 times the
length of America’s interstate free-
way system. Worse, we can’t afford to
maintain this giant motorized web - the
maintenance backlog on the Forest
Service road system alone exceeds $10
billion.
Perhaps more threatening than tra-
ditional road building, off-road vehicle
(ORV) use continues to escalate on pub-
lic lands. Industry figures put current
ORV sales at about 2000 vehicles a day.
Add those numbers to the estimated
5 million snowmobiles, all-terrain ve-
hicles and off-road motorcycles already
out there and the question becomes:
Why build roads if we can drive across
the land without them?
In the spring of 2005, the Bush Ad-
ministration abolished the protection
of our last roadless public lands with
the rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Since that dark day there is no effective,
comprehensive national policy address-
ing the cumulative threats of develop-
ment and industrialized recreation to
our public lands.
However, there is a policy that was
designed by Congress to protect our
public lands from being consumed by
our own greed. It’s called the 1964 Wil-
derness Act. But since the hardening of
America’s political climate in the 1980s,
Congressional wilderness designation
has been deemed too radical for our
last roadless areas.
It is not of course. Of the more than
2.25 billion acres in the United States,
only 104 million wilderness acres exist
(including Alaska). That’s a paltry 4.5
percent of our national landmass. We
are hardly wallowing in wilderness.

10 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

 After Mike finished his drink and
his story I stepped outside of the tent.
The night air reminded me of other
times and other wilderness hunts.
For a quarter of a century my
father, brother, uncle and I hunted elk
and deer in Idaho’s Frank Church River
of No Return Wilderness. One morning
I left camp before daylight and walked
up a steep trail to a point we called
Fire Knob. As the first light awakened
across the land I found myself sur-
rounded by elk. They were skylined
above me, their long necks silhouetted
against the light blue of the pre-dawn
sky. Thinly screened by trees, I shrunk
behind a windfall as two cow elk took
tentative steps toward me and stopped.
The day’s first sun hit the tops of the
pine trees. The air slowed. The world
yawned. Then the primal scream of a
bull jolted the mountain awake.
He bugled from the heavy timber
on top warning the cows not to wander.
But they, and the wind, continued to
drift downhill. Frozen, I was suspended
half crouched and half standing while
the bull battered a hapless pine sapling.
My feet tingled toward numbness and
my legs began to tremble as minutes
crawled by. But my focus was riveted to
a sunlit opening the bull had to cross to
retrieve his wandering harem. He did.
The herd bolted at the shot, but
the bull lay where he had fallen. As I
walked up to him his liquid brown eyes
glazed to black glass. After leaning my
rifle against a tree I knelt on the ground
beside him. Fresh green strips of tree
bark clung to the thick base of his
mahogany rack. The warm morning air
reeked of pine resin, elk and fresh earth.
I reached down and touched him, and
the years I’d spent wandering and hunt-
ing in wild land flooded my conscious-
ness like a tide.
Images of other elk I’d hunted,
horses I’ve loved, and the faces of fami-
ly and friends with whom I’d shared the
wilderness blurred my emotions. I knelt
beside the dead elk with my eyes closed
until my only tangible thought was
simple gratitude for being a free person
on this earth. I stood up, shrugged out
of my pack and pulled my hunting knife
from its sheath. Its familiar heft and the
pragmatic need of caring for the meat
helped settle my emotions.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
But this elk - this being - was more
than a piece of meat and I wasn’t able
to render him to components quite yet.
I looked at his teeth. Some were miss-
ing. All were worn down from winters
of stripping aspen bark and scrap-
ing bunchgrass from snow-covered
hillsides. He was connected to these
mountains. Here was his place. As I
looked out over the rolling spruce and
pine carpet that buckled and broke into
ridges and canyons, I knew for certain
that he knew this land with more detail
and intimacy than I could understand.
I call the hill Fire Knob because a
wild fire swept over it years ago. Today
it’s covered with mixed bunchgrass
meadows and clumps of jackpine. The
knob is really just a hump west of The
Long Ridge and The Meadow. It’s just a
little north - actually an extension - of
The Brushpatch. Those names identify
places where I’d spent my Septembers
for over 20 years. They’re geographical
blurbs on mental maps that exist on no
paper. But they do exist.
The elk, deer and grouse who live
on Fire Knob know where it is. The
moose and elk who spend summer days
deep in The Brushpatch know every
trail leading to The Meadow where they
feed at night. The wolves, cougars and
black bears know every ridge, trail and
creek that binds the land and its intri-
cate web of life together. Human hunt-
Photo by Dan Funsch.
ers have mentally weaved the drain-
ages and ridges together into personal
treasures they revisit each autumn.
The animals know these places
because it’s their home. Humans know
them because the Wilderness Act forces
us to travel slow and watch the land.
These old memories, and Mike’s
new ones, flowed through my mind
later that night as I lay in my sleeping
bag listening to rain on the canvas roof
and dry pine crackling in the stove.
“Are you worried about packing the
meat out tomorrow?” I asked.
“No. We have plenty of time.” Mike
answered in the darkness.
That’s right, I thought. We do have
time. Time to pack the elk out. Time
to reflect on the absolute privilege of
being a hunter and a free person on
this earth. And time to be thankful that
somebody before us had the foresight
to preserve a small space in the world
as wilderness.
— Scott Stouder lives in Pollock, Idaho.
He is the Western Field Director for
Trout Unlimited and works to protect
roadless public land in Idaho. This essay
is excerpted from a longer piece in A
Road Runs Through It, a Wildlands CPR
anthology to be published in 2006.
11
Transportation Program Update
The Transportation Program focused its efforts this
summer on building our organizing, policy, and information
capacity in anticipation of the coming wave of travel planning
on national forests.
Building Capacity
Anticipating the revised off-road vehicle regulations,
many national forests have already begun designating
systems of roads, motorized recreation routes, and foot and
hoof trails. Once the new rule is finalized, we expect even
more forests to conduct such travel planning. To prepare,
Wildlands CPR worked this quarter to increase funding for
grassroots conservation efforts, leverage outside training
resources, and craft a strategy to best support planning that
will determine whether our forests become motorized play-
grounds or serve as refuges for native plants and wildlife, and
safe, quiet places for humans to recreate lightly on the land.
Trying to reach a place of responsible travel
management?... Expect delays. Here, road crews
repair Glacier’s Going To the Sun Road.
Photo by Dan Funsch.
12
Early in the summer, Wildlands CPR assisted eleven con-
servation organizations in their attempts to secure funding
from the National Forest Foundation. Over half were awarded
grants to address unmanaged off-road vehicle recreation,
with projects ranging from citizen monitoring to facilitating
collaboration. One successful grant came from the Natural
Trails and Waters Coalition (“NTWC,” of which Wildlands CPR
director Bethanie Walder is a co-chair). The matching grant
will enable the NTWC to partner with the University of Virgin-
ia’s Institute for Environmental Negotiation to offer trainings
on effective collaboration. The workshops will be offered
to representatives of conservation organizations, off-road
vehicle clubs, a diversity of forest users, and agency plan-
ners. The Coalition will offer the workshops in 5-8 states over
the next year in response to the Forest Service’s insistence on
using “collaboration” to inform travel planning decisions de-
spite the agency’s lack of expertise and financial commitment
to these potentially nebulous and provincial processes.
The NTWC also received a grant from the Harder Founda-
tion that will allow Wildlands CPR to place Transportation
Organizer Jason Kiely “on loan” to serve as the Coalition’s
Forest Campaign Coordinator. In this capacity, Jason will
provide training, consultation, technical and other support
to travel planning initiatives in three to six targeted states.
In this vein, Wildlands CPR continues to aid the efforts of
the Three Forest Coalition in southern Utah to secure travel
and forest plans which will protect native plants and wildlife,
preserve natural quiet, and secure safe and quiet trails. Wild-
lands CPR is now in the process of hiring someone to replace
Jason.
From Grassroots Contact to Scientific
Research
Over the summer, we enjoyed the help of intern Gordon
Willson Naranjo, who conducted a survey of 1,100 citizens
that had commented on the Forest Service’s draft off-road ve-
hicle rule. As a result, we garnered more than 100 responses
and 60 new members. Perhaps more importantly, we con-
nected many of those respondents with nearby grassroots
organizations and provided materials to help those folks
challenge off-road vehicles.
This summer we contracted with Noah Jackson to update
our bibliographic database on the ecological effects of roads
and off-road vehicles. The database now contains more than
12,000 citations on impacts. As we went to press, we were
preparing to upload the new database (and new software) to
our website. Check it out at www.wildlandscpr.org.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
Restoration Program Update
Wildlands CPR continues our proactive restoration work
with on-the-ground, collaborative road removal projects. In
particular, Marnie Criley worked this summer to advance two
efforts in the inland northwest.
Lolo Creek, Western Montana – In June Sungnome
Madrone, from Northern California’s Redwood Community
Action Agency, gave an inspiring restoration workshop in the
community of Lolo, Montana. The workshop excited com-
munity members about road restoration, and was followed
with a field tour of potential road removal sites on upper Lolo
Creek in the Lolo National Forest. Wildlands CPR is a key
member of a group that is meeting to discuss funding oppor-
tunities and road removal priorities: their proposal includes
decommissioning some 80 miles of road and removing or
replacing 21 culverts in order to improve water quality and
fish habitat. The project has an estimated cost of $3 million.
The Forest Service is eager to work with conservationists
and the community of Lolo to make this project happen, and
they recently released an Environmental Assessment, so stay
tuned.
Hells Canyon, Northeastern Oregon – On August 22,
Marnie attended a meeting in Enterprise, Oregon to discuss
restoration within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.
The meeting led to the formation of a collaborative with
representation from environmental and community forestry
groups, the local Resource Advisory Committee and the
Nez Perce Tribe, among others. The fledgling collaborative
will take on a small project to build trust (possibly a culvert
replacement) and then hopes to move on to a much larger
project like transportation planning and road removal priori-
tization.
Separate from that meeting, Wildlands CPR is working
with the Nez Perce Tribe to host a roads workshop in the
Hells Canyon region this fall to introduce the ecological and
economic benefits of road removal to the local community.
Tribal Road Removal Internship – The Restoration
Program’s summer intern, Laura Harris, did a great job of
mapping where tribal and forest service lands overlap, and
conducting preliminary research into which tribes might be
interested in establishing road removal programs similar
to the Nez Perce and Karuk Tribes. We hope to find a Na-
tive American intern to follow up on Laura’s work. If you or
anyone you know might be interested, please contact Marnie
Criley at marnie@wildlandscpr.org.
Supporting Restoration with Science
Science Coordinator Adam Switalski continues to pro-
mote road removal as a key component of wildland restora-
tion and provide citizens with the latest research on roads
and off-road vehicles. He has recently given presentations
at scientific conferences and is coordinating road removal
research projects in Idaho and Montana.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
Marnie Criley at the U.S. Society of Ecological Economics
conference.
Conferences
Adam attended the Rockies Wildlife Crossing Field
Course in Payson, AZ where he sat on a panel entitled “Wild-
life Linkage Approaches: Land Conservation and Manage-
ment.” He spoke on integrating road removal into mitiga-
tion, and had many valuable conversations with engineers
and biologists. Afterwards, Adam attended the Spine of the
Continent Workshop to strategize how to implement Wildland
Network Designs (WNDs).
Adam also attended the Society for Conservation Biology
conference in Brasilia, Brazil, where he presented a study he
coauthored with Lisa Eby of the University of Montana on
stream habitat restoration following road decommissioning
on the Flathead National Forest. The conference was very
well attended (1,500 people from 60 countries), interesting,
and productive.
Citizen Science on the Clearwater
With the help of our Development Director Tom Peterson
and others, Wildlands CPR received continued funding from
the National Forest Foundation for our citizen science pro-
gram on the Clearwater National Forest (CNF). With funding
secured, Adam and Katherine Court, a University of Montana
Environmental Studies (UM EVST) graduate student, bought
field sampling supplies, identified monitoring sites, and began
monitoring. They have already caught tracks or photos of
bear, deer, elk, moose, squirrels, and voles. Additionally,
Hank Green (UM EVST) has developed an online data form
for citizen scientists to enter data and conduct basic analysis
remotely. We plan to continue collecting data until the snow
falls: if you would like to assist us please contact Katherine at
kcourt@gmail.com.
Wildlife on the Flathead
Adam also worked with Sonya Germann (UM Forestry
student) this summer on a project exploring the impact of
road removal on wildlife (particularly grizzly bears) on the
Flathead National Forest. She used techniques similar to
those Wildlands CPR tested on the CNF on open, removed,
and slated to be removed roads. Adam and Sonya are work-
ing with UM Forestry professors Dan Pletcher and Kerry
Foresman to finalize the results of the research.
13
 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles.
We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access
important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies
of most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

The Ecological Effects of Roads in the

Brazilian Amazon:
Current Status and Prospects for the Future
By Adam Switalski

H
ome to almost 15 percent of nian highway. Originally built for military purposes, by 1984 some 160,000 migrants
the world’s plants and animals, were colonizing the interior Amazon each year (Shankland 1993). While develop-
Brazil is the most biologically ment agencies hoped to bring lifestyle-improving economic activities to inacces-
diverse country on the planet (Le- sible areas, they quickly found they had no control over the volume and nature of
winsohn and Prado 2005). While the migration (Dobias and Talbott 2001). Four years later, a fifth of the surrounding
great Amazon rainforest is probably its rainforest had been destroyed and 85 percent of the indigenous population had
most well known ecosystem, Brazil’s died from violence and disease (Shankland 1993). Following the construction of the
Atlantic Forest and Cerrado regions trans-Amazonian highway, annual deforestation rates increased from a background
are considered hotspots, some of the level of 1,216 km2 per year in 1976 to 13,955 km2 per year in 1984 (Fearnside 1987).
earth’s most biologically rich places. The most obvious result of the trans-Amazonian highway was intensive logging
Additionally, the Pantanal in southern and conversion of the rainforest to ranches and cropland. Several studies have
Brazil is the world’s largest wetland since documented increased deforestation following Amazon road building (Fearn-
(about the size of Colorado). Within side 1987, Carvalho et al. 2001, Laurance et al. 2001, Nepstad et al. 2001, Steininger
the Amazon, Brazil sustains over half of et al. 2001). In fact, Laurance et al. (2002) reported that highway proximity was the
the world’s remaining tropical rain- “single most important predictor of deforestation.” Furthermore, more than two-
forest. Unfortunately, it also has the thirds of the deforestation in the Amazon has occurred within 50 km of major paved
world’s highest rate of forest destruc- highways (Nepstad et al. 2001).
tion (seven football fields per minute;
Laurance et al. 2001). Roads are key Fragmentation
to this destruction and are providing In addition to deforestation, much of the remaining Amazon is fragmented and
conduits for logging, forest fragmenta- prone to edge effects. One study found that edge effects impacted an area more
tion, and access deep into the heart of than 150 percent larger than the area actually deforested (Skole and Tucker 1993).
the Amazon. An additional million hectares of forest are selectively logged each year as well
Brazil has an ecological research
base which exceeds that of any other
tropical country. This year, Brazil
hosted the annual meeting of the Soci-
ety for Conservation Biology and the
journal Conservation Biology dedicated
an entire special section on Brazilian
conservation. In this paper, I review the
research on the ecological impacts of
roads in the Amazon and comment on
the state of conservation in this mega-
diverse country. With over $40 billion
in planned infrastructure improvements
in the next decade, Brazil’s natural
heritage is at risk as roads chip away at
the largest rainforest on Earth.

Deforestation
The environmental and social costs
of roads in Brazil did not gain attention The ecological effects of roads in the Amazon are far more profound than
the obvious visible scars. Photo by Adam Switalski.
until the building of the trans-Amazo-

14 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005

(Nepstad et al. 1999). Fragmented forests experience dramatic changes in forest
dynamics, structure, composition, and microclimate resulting in a high vulner-
ability to drought and fire (Laurance et al. 2000). If this trend continues, Nepstad
et al. (2001) warns that forest conversion could transform half of the Amazon into
fire-prone scrub vegetation and cattle pastures.
Fragmented forests directly affect wildlife as well. For example, a study found
that Amazonian birds rarely crossed a road that received only 6-10 vehicle passes
a day (Laurance et al. 2004). Even overgrown sections of the road were rarely
crossed by solitary understory bird species. Another study found that closing
roads showed a potential to restore bird movement: mixed-species flocks readily
crossed a closed road while avoiding open roads (Develey and Stouffer 2000).

Overhunting Increased access leads directly to increased

hunting and poaching. Photo by Adam
Road building allows greater hunter access and can have dramatic effects on
Switalski.
wildlife populations. Roads reduce transportation costs and create a commer-
cial demand for forest resources beyond local subsistence needs (Lorenzen and
Almeida 2005). Intensive hunting can completely extirpate game species that have
low reproductive rates. For example, Peres (1991) reported that populations of tive resource management programs
the endangered Humboldt’s wooly monkey were “quickly wiped out once access is supported by wealthy nations and non-
opened by new roads.” governmental organizations may help.
While the road density of the Amazon is only 0.0085 km/km2, Amazonian hunt- Some 350 indigenous and environmen-
ers are willing to wander far from the road to kill preferred game species (Peres and tal groups work in Brazil, and many of
Lake 2003). Accordingly, Peres and Lake (2003) found that populations of preferred these are oriented towards sustainable
species were much lower close to access points (roads and rivers). Furthermore, development or indigenous commu-
Peres and Lake (2003) argue that 100 percent of the Amazon would be accessible to nities (Anon 1999). Additionally, an
hunters if road densities increased to 0.119 km/km2. This is particularly disturbing international initiative for Amazonian
because what appear to be pristine forests from satellite images may be absent of conservation entitled, “Pilot Program
key wildlife species. to Conserve the Brazilian Amazon”
includes land use planning, extractive
and Amerindian reserves, ecological
Roadkill corridor systems, applied research, and
In addition to building new roads, a current trend in Brazil is to pave existing
capacity building for local governments
roads. Paving roads allows access throughout the wet season, as well as increasing
(Laurence et al. 2000).
travel speed. With increased access and speeds, roadkill also increases. Recent re-
search is exploring wildlife/vehicle collisions. Gordo et al. (2005) collected roadkill
on a remote Amazon highway where only 200 cars pass each day. Over five years, Conclusion
they collected over 2,400 birds and mammals killed on a 120 km stretch of road. It has been well documented that
Studies in other parts of Brazil also found high rates of roadkill following road pav- increased transportation infrastructure
ing (e.g., Coehho et al. 2005, Bueno et al. 2005). Proposed strategies for mitigating accelerates migration and deforestation
wildlife/vehicle collisions include signs and driver education (Bueno et al. 2005) as in the Amazon. The Amazon’s popula-
well as wildlife passages and speed reducers (Coelho et al. 2005). tion has increased ten fold since the
1960s, and it has the highest defores-
tation rate in the world. While some
Challenges road construction has been prevented
Since the building of the trans-Amazonian highway, dozens of studies have
through environmental protest, the
documented the social and environmental impacts of roads in Brazil. The lessons
pressure to build roads continues. With
are being applied around the world, except, unfortunately, in Brazil. In December
only one percent of the Amazon of-
2004 Peru and Brazil agreed to build the transoceanic highway, which would stretch
ficially protected (Peres and Lake 2001)
from Peru’s Pacific ports across the Andes and Amazon to the Atlantic (Brandon et
and an estimated 80 percent of Amazon
al. 2005). Additionally, the government’s Avanca Brasil (Advance Brazil) program
timber harvested illegally without any
includes $40 billion for infrastructure in the Amazon to meet a perceived need to
environmental control (Abrzmovitz
transport soybeans (Laurance et al. 2002). It would include paving over 7,500 km of
1998), it is essential that roads be
highways and greatly expanding the Amazon road network (Laurance et al. 2002).
prevented in the most pristine places.
Avanca Brasil will nearly double the forest area within 50 km of a paved road
Hopefully, decision makers will chose
and result in an estimated 120,000 - 270,000 km2 of deforestation in the coming 2-3
a sustainable path for the most biologi-
decades (Nepstad et al. 2001). In addition to deforestation, Avanca Brasil will ex-
cally diverse forest in the world.
pand the logging industry, increase forest fire, and affect indigenous and biological
reserves (Nepstad et al. 2001). While the official justification is to reduce the cost
of transporting soybeans, the deforestation and other impacts may not be worth
— Adam Switalski is Wildlands CPR’s
the benefits to this small segment of society.
Science Coordinator and recently
attended the Society for Conservation
Hope for the future Biology annual meeting in Brazil and
The predicted loss of the integrity of the Amazon may be averted. Pressure witnessed firsthand the impacts of roads
from the international community and foreign investors can greatly influence plan- in the Amazon.
ning and environmental assessment (Laurance et al. 2002). Additionally, coopera-

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005 15

References
Anon. 1999. Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain
Forest: Annual Report on Progress. World Bank,
Brasilia, Brazil.
Abramovitz, J. 1998. Taking a Stand: Cultivating a New
Relationship with the World’s Forests. World Watch
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Brandon, K., G.A.B. Da Fonseca, A.B. Rylands, and J.M.C.
Da Silva. 2005. Introduction to special section:
Brazilian conservation: challenges and opportunities.
Conservation Biology 19(3): 595-600.
Bueno, A., S.C.S. Belentani, and M.C. Ribeiro. 2005. Wildlife
road mortality in Triângulo Mineiro, southeastern Brazil.
Abstracts of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society
for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal
District, Brazil.
Carvalho, G., A.C. Barros, P. Moutinho, and D.C. Nepstad.
2001. Sensitive development could protect the Amazon
instead of destroying it. Nature 409: 131.
Coelho, I.P, A. Kindel, and A. Coelho. 2005. Vertebrate
road-kills in two highways crossing the Mata Atlantica
Biosphere Reserve in southern Brazil. Abstracts of the
19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation
Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil.
Develey, P.F., and P.C. Stouffer. 2005. Effects of roads on
movements by understory birds in mixed-species flocks
in Central Amazonian Brazil. Conservation Biology 15(5):
1416-1422.
Dobias, R.J., K. Talbott. Environmental and social
considerations in the development of the greater
Makong subregion’s road network. 2001. Pages 258-280
in I.A. Bowles and G.T. Prickett, editors. Footprints in
the Jungle. Oxford University Press, New York.
Fearnside, P.M. 1987. Deforestation and international
development projects in Brazilian Amazonia.
Conservation Biology 1(3): 214-220.
Another road to nowhere sustainable in the Brazilian Amazon.
Photo by Adam Switalski.
16
Gordo, M., E.M. Venticinque. 2005. Cryptic effect of roads in
the Amazon: Quantification of the fauna mortality from
running over on highway BR-174. Abstracts of the 19th
Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology,
July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil.
Laurance, W.F., H.L. Vasconcelos, and T.E. Lovejoy. 2000.
Forest loss and fragmentation in the Amazon:
implications for wildlife conservation. Oryx 34(1): 39-45.
Laurance, W.F., A.K.M. Albernaz, and C. Da Costa. 2001. Is
deforestation accelerating in the Brazilian Amazon?
Environmental Conservation 28: 305-311.
Laurance, W.F., A.K.M. Albernaz, G. Schroth, P.M. Fearnside,
S. Bergen, E.M. Venticinque, and C. Da Costa. 2002.
Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
Journal of Biogeography 29: 737-748.
Laurance, S.G., P.C. Stouffer, and W.F. Laurance. 2004. Effects
of road clearings on movement patterns of understory
rainforest birds in central Amazonia. Conservation
Biology 18(4): 1099-1109.
Lewinsohn, T.M., A.V.L. Freitas, and P.I. Prado. 2005.
Conservation of terrestrial invertebrates and their
habitats in Brazil. Conservation Biology 19(3): 625-631.
Lorenzen, K., O.T. Almeida. 2005. Commercial fisheries and
community-based management of floodplain lakes:
modelling the impacts of the Cuibá-Santarém Highway,
BR-163. Abstracts of the 19th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia,
Federal District, Brazil.
Nepstad, D.C., A. Verissimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima,
P. Lefebre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Mountinho, E.
Mendoza, M. Cochrane, and V. Brooks. 1999. Large-
scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging
and fire. Nature 398: 505-508.
Nepstad, D., G. Carvalho, A.C., Barros, A. Alencar, J.P.
Capobianco, J. Bishop, P. Mountinho, P. Lefebre, U.
Lopes Silva, and E. Prins. 2001. Road paving, fire regime
feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Forest
Ecology and Management 154: 395-407.
Peres, C.A. 1991. Humboldt’s wooly monkeys decimated by
hunting in Amazonia. Onyx 25(2): 89-95.
Peres, C.A., and I.R. Lake. 2003. Extent of nontimber
resource extraction in tropical forests: accessibility
to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon basin.
Conservation Biology 17(2): 521-535.
Reid, J.W., and I.A. Bowles. 1997. Reducing the impacts of
roads on tropical forests. Environment 39(8): 10-35.
Shankland, A. 1993. Brazil’s BR-364 highway – a road to
nowhere? The Ecologist 23(4): 141-147.
Skole, D., and C.J. Tucker. 1993. Tropical deforestation and
habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from
1978 to 1988. Science 260: 1905-1910.
Steininger, M.K., C.J. Tucker, J.R.G. Townsend, T.J. Killeen, A.
Desch, V. Bell, and P. Ersts. 2001. Tropical deforestation
in the Bolivian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 28:
127-134.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
Legislative Update
A Close Up Look at the Highway Spending Bill
By Wildlands CPR staff
B
elow is a summary of some provisions of the highway spending
bill signed by the President on August 10: the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). This information comes from several sources, including
Josh Burnim of American Wildlands and Michael Replogle of Environmen-
tal Defense (environmentaldefense.org/go/transportation). Because the
bill contains so many provisions this summary is far from comprehensive;
for the entire bill, go to http://www.house.gov/rules/109textTEALU.htm
Negative Provisions
Forest Highways
Sec. 1101. Authorization of Appropriations (Title I, p. 17)
Funding for Public Lands Highways starts at $280 million per year in
2005 and increases to $300 million per year by 2009. Of this, the For-
est Highways program receives 66%, or an average of $188 million/year
through 2009. This funding is used to upgrade regular forest roads to
paved, high speed forest highways, increasing environmental impacts.
However, a new provision allows $10 million per year to be used to im-
prove fish passage, $20 million for maintenance, and $1 million for increas-
ing hunting and fishing signage. (Title I, p. 113).
Recreational Trails Program
Section 1109 Recreation Trails (Title 1, p. 54)
Funding for trails will increase from its current rate of $50 million
per year to $85 million by 2009. While some is dedicated to nonmotor-
ized trails, the bulk goes to motorized trail development. This program
receives much support from the motorized and nonmotorized recreation
communities, making it a very difficult appropriation to challenge.
Changes to Section 4f of the Transportation Act
Sec. 6009. Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges and His-
toric Sites (Section 4f and 106) (Title VI, p. 96)
Section 4(f) was one of the strongest components of the US Depart-
ment of Transportation Act of 1966. It provided control against roads that
would affect public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges,
or historic sites. (Reasonable alternatives had to be chosen, or mitigation
was required.) The new regulations are weakened to allow the Secretary
of Transportation to find that a project has de minimis impact if it “will
not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park,
recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection...”
Fortunately, the definition of de minimis impact is restrictive and there
are requirements for public notice and comment every time the new de
mininis exemption to 4(f) protections is used. The minimization of impacts
remains intact.
Changes to NEPA Implementation
Section 6002 of the final bill (Efficient Environmental Reviews for
Project Decisionmaking) limits the consideration of alternatives in high-
way project environmental impact statements (EISs), further eroding the
National Environmental Policy Act. It also limits the timeline (180 days
from a record of decision) for challenging those EISs, forcing people to file
quick lawsuits rather than negotiate for better projects.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
Bad Projects Funded
The final bill earmarks funding for eco-
logically devastating projects throughout the
country — for example, constructing a road to
Juneau, Alaska, and constructing the Gravina
Bridge in Alaska. Both communities are already
well served by the ferry system. For a listing of
earmarks, go to Taxpayers for Common Sense:
www.taxpayer.net/transportation/safetealu/
states.htm.
Positive Provisions
Wildlife Crossing Structures and Fish Passage
Funding from the following programs can
now be used to pay for wildlife crossing struc-
tures and/or fish passage:
Sec. 1401. Highway Safety Improvement
Program, 148(a)(3)(B) Inclusions: Measures to re-
duce wildlife-vehicle accidents (Title I. Subsection
D, p. 4). The total program is $1.25 billion, and a
portion can be used to add or retrofit structures
to reduce animal/vehicle collisions.
Sec. 1113. Surface Transportation Program.
Transportation Enhancement Activities (Title I,
p. 65). A portion can be used to reduce wildlife
mortality and maintain habitat connectivity; also
to address water pollution from highway runoff.
(Total TE funding about $650 million/year)
Sec. 1119. Federal Lands Highways. Forest
Highways (Title I, p. 114). Passage of aquatic spe-
cies. $10 million per year can be used for fish
passage.
Non-native invasive species
Sec. 6006. Environmental Restoration and
Pollution Abatement; Control of Noxious Weeds
and Aquatic Noxious Weeds and Establishment of
Native Species (Title VI, p. 90). Funding is now
available to control noxious weeds and to estab-
lish native vegetation in highway projects.
Increased funding for mass/alternative transit
Sec. 3021. Alternative Transportation in Parks
and Public Lands (Title III, p. 176). Funding could
be used for trams, pedestrian/bicycle trails, etc.
and is focused on energy efficient alternatives.
Sec 1807. Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot
Program. While not related to wildlands, this sec-
tion funds implementation and monitoring for
a comprehensive non-motorized transportation
network in four U.S. cities.
17
Roadless Roundup: Western States
React To New Rule
Western states are scrambling to deal with President
Bush’s new Roadless Rule, which gave state governors 18
months to design proposals to either protect roadless acres
or open them up to development.
On June 8 Colorado Gov. Bill Owens signed legislation
creating a committee to advise state and federal officials on
the state’s 4.4 million acres of roadless forests. The 13-mem-
ber task force will field public sentiment and forward their
findings to the governor, who then will take the plan to the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), which retains the final say.
Utah is taking a decidedly different tack, one that has
environmentalists worried. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said he will
not petition the USDA to protect Utah’s four million roadless
acres, but instead let the Forest Service address the issue
through its forest management plan revisions, which are on-
going in four of Utah’s six national forests. But environmental
groups argue that declining to formally protect roadless areas
will invite development.
In Montana, Gov. Brian Schweitzer wrote a strongly
worded letter to Bush, saying that Montana has insufficient
resources to evaluate and establish a roadless plan for the
state’s 6.4 million acres of federal roadless lands. He also
took issue with the fact that the USDA retains final author-
ity over proposals, writing, “In other words, Washington has
the final say, not Montanans.” Nonetheless, Gov. Schweitzer
is planning to submit a petition. Washington Gov. Christine
Gregoire is planning to petition for protection of most, if not
all of her state’s roadless areas.
Finally, an attempt by the Wyoming Outdoor Council and
seven other environmental groups to repeal Bush’s Roadless
Rule was dismissed by a federal court. The groups hoped
to have the Clinton-era Roadless rule reinstated, but since
a replacement rule has already been adopted, the panel of
three judges ruled the appeal irrelevant. Attorney Jim Angell
of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund said the appeals court
decision does not end the fight but only “clears the decks” for
future battles.
The first battle started when the Attorneys General of
California, Oregon and New Mexico filed suit against the Bush
Administration for repealing the 2000 Roadless Rule. The
states argued that the repeal was illegal because of insuffi-
cient analysis of the new rule.

Gallatin Study Finds Motorized Restrictions Won’t Hurt Economy

An economic study released in mid-June by officials
in Montana’s Gallatin National Forest found that proposed
restrictions on motorized use in the forest would not have
a negative impact on the area’s economy. The study also
found that nonmotorized users generate nearly twice as
much spending as motorized users: $7.3 million in spending
supporting 330 jobs versus $3.9 million in economic activity
and 185 jobs for motorized use. Forest recreation in general
was found to be a minor player in the economies of the three
counties that contain the Gallatin National Forest, making up
less than 2 percent of the overall economy.
Gallatin officials ordered the study after fielding concerns
from the public and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-MT., that limiting
motorized recreation would impact the region’s economy. A
Forest Service economist and a social scientist performed the
research, based on a yearlong visitor survey in the Gallatin as
well as state, federal and academic data about the area. The
study is now part of the environmental impact statement that
considers the Gallatin’s proposed closures, which forest of- Unlike motorized restrictions, clogged culverts do drain the federal
ficials say are needed in the face of growing use. treasury. Photo by Marnie Criley.
The study breaks down people’s activities in the forest,
and finds that the vast majority prefer nonmotorized usage: hiking and walking make up 29.1 percent; relaxing accounts for 10.6
percent; hunting is 9.2 percent; downhill skiing is 8.2 percent; snowmobiling is 7.8 percent; fishing is 6.6 percent; developed
camping is 4.5 percent; viewing natural features is 3.7 percent; nonmotorized water use is 3.2 percent; and viewing wildlife is
2.9 percent.
For more information, please visit http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/?page=/projects/travel_planning

18 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005


Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
New Washington Law Permits
Unlicensed Off-Highway Vehicles
A new Washington law would permit riders of unlicensed
off-highway vehicles to use forest roads and trails, and
managers on national forests in Washington are studying the
issue to gauge whether and where such vehicles might be
appropriate. Until now, all vehicles used on forest roads were
required to be licensed and street legal, but the new legisla-
tion distinguishes these roads from streets and highways and
makes it legal to mix both licensed and unlicensed vehicles
on forest roads.
The Collville National Forest in eastern Washington has
been piloting a consensus-based collaborative process to
determine which roads previously open only to high-clear-
ance trucks and jeeps may be suitable for ATV and dirt bike
recreation. Initially, the forest considered making a blanket
decision to open more than 2,000 miles of these roads to
motorized recreation. However, the statewide organization
Conservation Northwest engaged diligently throughout the
process, successfully limiting the designation to 450 miles of
roads open to off-road vehicle recreation.
Other state legislatures have passed similar legislation
or are considering allowing off-road vehicle recreation on
roads designed for passenger vehicles; recreation managers
in some of those states similarly have advanced this idea.
Washington may set a precedent for when, where, and how to
allow ATV and dirt bike recreation on unimproved roads.
Elsewhere in Washington, Okanogan and Wenatchee Na-
tional Forests Supervisor Jim Boynton approved vehicle clo-
sures in several parts of the Milk Pond complex after illegal
off-highway vehicle users turned much of the area into mud
bogs over the Memorial Day weekend. “Maybe that’s what
people need to see — that this kind of behavior can force
closures,” said acting Naches District Ranger Jodi Leingang.
How Many is a “Few” Bad Apples?
The off-road vehicle community frequently laments the
irresponsible behavior of “a few bad apples” who ride off of
designated routes. Organized motorized recreation groups
consistently state that this minority of riders give the sport
an undeserved black eye. However, two recently reported
studies suggest that a majority of off-roaders, not just a few,
violate commonly known rules in forests that have limited
vehicle use to designated routes only and that prohibit cross-
country travel.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
The first study was commissioned in 2001 by the Colo-
rado Coalition for Responsible OHV Riding. In that study
Monaghan and Associates found that as many as two-thirds of
off-roaders deviate from the sanctioned routes “some of the
time” despite knowing that going off the route is not “correct”
behavior. The study reports that “an estimated 15-20% of
Colorado users strictly follow safety and environmental rules
and never go off the trail,” while “a similar range of 15-20% of
the state’s OHV users frequently break the rules and often go
off-trail.”
A similar study, completed in 2002 by the University of
Utah’s Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, sur-
veyed summer off-road vehicle riders for their riding prefer-
ences and practices. Of the ATV riders surveyed, 49.4% prefer
to ride off established trails, while 39% did so on their most
recent excursion. Of the dirt bike riders surveyed, 38.1%
prefer to ride off established trails, while 50% did so on their
most recent excursion. Significant portions of federal public
lands in Utah still allow for cross-country travel, which may
account for much of this “off-trail” use. Nonetheless, the
preference and practice point to an enforcement challenge
for those public land managers attempting to limit off-road
vehicle recreation to designated routes only.
Thanks to Colorado Mountain Club for information about
the Colorado study.
Despite this research, a group of off-roaders, environmen-
talists and public officials in Colorado recently launched an
educational campaign intended to keep off-road riders from
veering off-routes and destroying habitat and roadless areas
on public lands.
3rd annual “Quiet Commotion”
Citizen Conference
October 14-15, 2005
Come join us in beautiful Crestone, Colorado at the
Colorado College-Baca Campus surrounded by the
jagged peaks of the Sangre De Cristo range to the east
and the San Luis Valley to the southwest.
The Quiet Commotion is a weekend forum for human-
powered recreationists to gather and exchange
experiences, share inspiration, and learn skills from
national experts to enable effective advocacy for
protecting the quiet non-motorized experience in the
places we cherish.
Organizations and individuals throughout the Southern
Rockies are providing expert knowledge, materials, and
experience. We will learn about what works and what
doesn’t, acquire essential skills for being an effective
advocate, and strategize how we are going to preserve
quiet use. We will have a few plenary sessions to set the
stage, and then will learn through hands-on field trips
to the BLM lands in the San Luis Valley.
For more information and to register:
visit www.southernrockies.org or contact Aaron Clark
303-324-7031, or aaron_clark@tws.org
19
 Organizational
organizations we work with, both as a tribute to them
and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and
The Sky Island Alliance
By Cathy Adams
I
t is said you can walk from Mexico to Canada in a day if you’re visiting
the beautiful region of the Sky Islands — encompassing southeast Ari-
zona, southwest New Mexico and northern Mexico. A hiker can literally
begin their trek in the desert, pass through chaparral, meander into oak
woodlands and finish in a spruce fir forest in less than five miles.
The Sky Island region encompasses 70,000 square miles of some of
North America’s most diverse ecosystems. There are about 40 Sky Island
mountain ranges in all, connecting the temperate Rocky Mountains in
the north to the sub-tropical Sierra Madre Occidental in the south. This
unique overlap of ecosystems generates a diverse range of habitats from
temperate to tropical, inhabited by wildlife from wolves to parrots. Isolat-
ing these islands in the sky are seas of desert and grasslands, creating
some of the most important wildlife corridors in the country.
Photo courtesy of Sky Island Alliance.
Locals and visitors alike have long known the value and beauty of
the area, but to scientists and conservationists it is much more than just
a pretty place. In 1991, a proposal by the U.S. Forest Service to turn the
Coronado National Forest into a National Recreation Area (NRA) had many
citizens and scientists concerned. A small group was so concerned that
they launched a group to help protect it.
The Sky Island Alliance (SIA) was formed in 1992 to protect and re-
store the native biological diversity of this rich landscape by launching an
alternative proposal that placed emphasis upon landscape-level planning
and bioregional reserve design. Matt Skroch, Executive Director of SIA,
says an National Recreation Area would emphasize industrial recreation
over natural resource protection. The bio-regional reserve process contin-
ues today, representing one of the nation’s first case studies of large scale
reserve design implementation.
20
The Citizen/Organizational Spotlight shares the
stories of some of the awesome activists and
lessons learned. This issue we focus the spotlight
on an organization for the first time. Please e-
mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to
cathy@wildlandscpr.org.
“Our approach is to see the region as a
whole, connecting our conservation actions
to the larger picture of regional, and in our
case, continental landscape connectivity,” says
Skroch.
“The Sky Islands underscore the impor-
tance of landscape connectivity because, while
topographically isolated from one another, they
are biologically very much connected. Large
mammals such as black bear, jaguar, Mexican
gray wolf, mountain lion and bobcats require
more than one Sky Island range to maintain pop-
ulation viability. In fact, these far ranging mam-
mals often move from range to range, depending
upon wildlife corridors between our mountain
islands.” That, Skroch says, is why we can’t
manage areas in a piecemeal fashion, and why
it is critical to deal with habitat fragmentation,
including that caused by roads. Though private,
federal, state, and locally owned land creates a
“management mosaic,” wildlife travels across
landscapes in what makes the most biological
sense. Therefore landscape-level planning that
connects habitat patches is recognized as an
important component to any conservation plan.
With the region being home to the United States’
most diverse populations of reptiles and mam-
mals, about 4,000 plant species, and more than
half of all the breeding birds in North America,
it creates an urgency for SIA staff, scientists,
and citizens to push forward with conservation
action.
Sky Island Alliance’s proposed interconnect-
ed conservation area is now in the implementa-
tion phase, and quickly on its way to becoming
a reality. The organization focuses on protect-
ing the core habitat patches – often existing or
proposed Wilderness Areas – and the wildlife
corridors in between.
Because Mexico hosts almost half of the Sky
Island region, SIA also dedicates time to con-
servation challenges along the border. Skroch
says that one unique problem the region faces is
immigration policy, and that with increased mili-
tarization of our southern border we are quickly
pinching off movement patterns of important
species traveling across the border.
While Sky Island Alliance has an eight
person staff, it also has an extremely large volun-
teer pool that extends the organization’s reach
and ability many-fold. In the past five years SIA
has worked with more than 1,200 volunteers,
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
who have donated more than 40,000 hours sup-
porting SIA’s mission and programs. In the mid-
1990s SIA started their volunteer program with
road monitoring efforts on the Coronado, with
assistance from Wildlands CPR. After several
years of inventorying the location and impacts
of roads throughout the Coronado, SIA started
working with the forest to determine which
roads to close and obliterate. Then in 1999, SIA
invited Wildlands CPR to lead a road decom-
missioning workshop for SIA volunteers. SIA
has since been able to share their road decom-
missioning and other volunteer expertise with
numerous other groups in their region. They’ve
gotten 45 miles of roads closed and restored
on the Coronado and Gila National Forests, in
addition to many roads in the BLM Las Cienegas
National Conservation Area.
But their volunteer program goes far be-
yond road issues. Volunteers help map potential
wilderness areas by completing surveys, assist
in identifying landscape linkages by recording
wildlife tracks and sign, and directly engage in
restoration efforts such as road removal, ripar- Photo courtesy of Sky Island Alliance.
ian vegetation projects, and wildlife reintro-
duction programs. However, these volunteers
aren’t just tossed into the woods with a note- SIA also works with locally elected officials, businesses and communi-
book and pen; SIA hosts an intensive five-day ty groups. Over the last two years, they’ve spearheaded the Friends of the
training workshop taught by regional wildlife Tumacacori Highlands, a coalition of more than 120 local businesses and
experts and staff. By incorporating volunteers organizations proposing to designate portions of a Sky Island as Wilder-
into almost every program, Sky Island Alliance ness. The Tumacacori Highlands campaign is lead by Congressman Raul
achieves a level of public participation rarely Grijalva and when designated by Congress, will establish the first wilder-
seen in other places. ness on Arizona National Forest lands in more than 20 years.
“We accomplish three things with our vol- Regardless of what the conservation challenge is, Sky Island Alliance
unteer program” Skroch says. “We cover more takes a pragmatic, practical approach to finding a solution. Sometimes
ground in our inventory and restoration proj- working with land agencies and sometimes working against, their mission
ects, educate the public with first hand experi- to protect and restore landscapes and wildlife in the region goes unde-
ence of conservation issues facing our region, terred. By integrating volunteerism, science, and conservation advocacy,
and build a critical advocacy pool for conserva- their formula works well in a region that is as biologically diverse as it is
tion campaigns.” culturally diverse. To achieve the lofty goals of landscape level conserva-
tion, they work on a long-term timeframe. “We’re in this for the long-haul
and hope that our actions today will benefit those who come after us. To
enjoy the howl of a wolf, or the solitude of our wilderness – those are
experiences that we must keep whole.” Skroch says. That, combined with
their hard hitting science and advocacy work will surely keep Sky Island
Alliance busy for generations to come.
The best way to support the Sky Island Alliance is to donate your
time or money. After all, wild places only get protected when individual
citizens have the passion to fight for them. You can become a member by
calling or logging on to their website, www.skyislandalliance.org, which in-
cludes an updated list of upcoming events and other ways to get involved.

The most significant thing I learned is how important our participa-

tion as individuals contributes to the health of our ecology. It is up to us to
educate others on how everything fits together to form one healthy ecosys-
tem. Our efforts to study, document and vie for protection of a single species
or group make a difference for us all.
— Quote from SIA wildlife monitoring volunteer, taken from SIA
website.

Photo courtesy of Sky Island Alliance. — Cathy Adams is Wildlands CPR’s new program assistant.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005 21


W E
ildlands CPR has been hopping with interns this
summer, and also some stellar volunteers. In
June, Gordon Willson Naranjo joined us for six
weeks to help with an off-road vehicle outreach project. He
developed a survey that we sent to approximately 1,000
people who had commented on the Forest Service’s national
off-road vehicle rule. We’ve been delighted by the response,
and we now have a better sense of how individuals want to
help out with local travel planning. We’re in the process of
connecting those individuals with the local groups.
In July, Laura Harris joined us for a month to research the
relationship between tribal land ownership, treaty rights, and
federal lands. The Clearwater National Forest, for example, is
located on ceded tribal territory to which the Nez Perce Tribe
has certain rights. This has enabled the Tribe and the Forest
to develop a partnership to restore land, especially through
road removal. Laura just finished the first phase of the proj-
ect and we hope to hire a second intern, a Native American, to
complete the next phase.
We were also fortunate this summer to work with Sonya
Germann, who collected data on wildlife use on removed
roads on the Flathead National Forest. Sonya is conducting
this research as part of her senior thesis for her undergradu-
ate degree. She’ll be analyzing the data with Staff Scientist
Adam Switalski and University of Montana Wildlife Biology
Professor Kerry Foresman.
Thanks to all three of our interns for investing their
summer time, we’re delighted to have their assistance. Many
thanks, too, to Jess Bernard for volunteering with us this sum-
mer and helping out with numerous mailings, filing and other
things.
In addition to interns, we have another new face in our of-
fice. In mid-June, Program Assistant Kiffin Hope left Wildlands
CPR to move into campaign consulting work. In early August,
Cathy Adams joined our staff to take his place. Cathy has
worked on native prairie restoration and office management.
We’re pleased to have her on board and she’s rapidly getting
our office back into shape since Kiffin left. Welcome Cathy!
Finally, many thanks to the, 444 S, Lazar, Maki, Weeden,
and Wilburforce foundations for generous grants to support
our work. In addition, we want to give a special thanks to the
B-Bar Ranch in Emigrant, Montana, near Yellowstone National
Park. For the third year in a row, they’ve hosted our annual
board and staff retreat, and we can’t imagine a more produc-
tive or beautiful place! Speaking of which, the B-Bar will host
two wildlife-viewing vacations in 2006 in conjunction with
Wild Things Unlimited. Wildlands CPR will receive a donation
if you sign up for one of these wildlife vacations, so checkout
the adjacent column, or visit our website at wildlandscpr.org
for more details.
22
Predators and other Wild Things
of the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
xperience a wildlife paradise and participate in impor-
tant research with renowned wildlife biologists Steve
Gehman and Betsy Robinson of Wild Things Unlimited
(WTU). Participants will stay at and have exclusive use of B
Bar Ranch, located just north of Yellowstone National Park
(YNP) in the spectacular Tom Miner Basin. In addition to the
wonders of the Basin, participants will take several trips from
the ranch into Yellowstone Park to observe wildlife in the
Park’s magnificent Northern Range.
Tom Miner Basin is a place of exceptional beauty and
provides precious habitat for most forms of wildlife found in
neighboring YNP, including grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines
and lynx. You will participate in early morning and evening
observation sessions, as well as day hikes, and record data
related to locations and activities of wildlife such as bears,
wolves, elk, moose, mountain goats and bighorn sheep.
Your Guides
Steve Gehman and Betsy Robinson have been living and
working as wildlife biologists in the Northern Rockies for a
combined 34 years. They founded Wild Things Unlimited in
1997 to conduct wildlife research that was not being accom-
plished by other entities, and to implement wildlife education
programs.
2006 Dates
February 14-18 (6 days/5 nights), price $1575 per person.
May 22-28 (7 days/6 nights), price $1795 per person.
Special Note
Of these fees, $200 will be donated to Wildlands CPR, if
you let WTU know that you heard about the offer from us.
For more information
Wild Things Unlimited 406-522-9825, wtu@mcn.net, www.
wildthingsunlimited.org
B Bar Ranch 406-848-7729, bbar@bbar.com, www.bbar.
com
Photo by J. Schmidt; courtesy of National Park Service.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005
 Join Wildlands CPR Today!
We’ve made joining Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

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

Name
Phone
Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership: Individual/Family Organization Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge Electronic Funds Transfer
from Checking Account

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

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

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

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

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

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

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2005 23

 Summer along the Rocky Mountain Front, Montana. Photo by Dan Funsch.

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

The world is its own quiet engine, alive

and patient as sunrise, waiting for each
of us to take a few steps away from the
road. And hear it.

— Phil Condon
A Road Runs Through It, (in press)

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