Road RIPorter 8.2

Summer Solstice 2003.
Volume 8 # 2 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads
Trading Roads for Jobs

Reinvesting in Jobs, Communities and Forests
By Dan Ihara and Marnie Criley
Inside…
Trading Roads for Jobs. Pages 3-5
Get with the Program: Restoration and ORV Program
Updates. Pages 6-7
Legal Notes: Court Rejects Bush Administration’s
Rush for Oil Development, by Steve Bloch.
Pages 8-9
Policy Primer: Recreational Trails Program Update,
by Lisa Philipps. Pages 10-11
Odes to Roads: Here’s Sand in Your Eye, by Jan
DeBlieu. Pages 12-13
Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 14-15
Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 16-17
Biblio Notes: Erosion at Stream Crossings, by Mary
Ann Madej. Pages 18-19
Activist Spotlight: Sungnome Madrone. Page 20
Removing roads on the Clearwater National Forest. Photo by Scott Bagely.
Check out our website at:

www.wildlandscpr.org
— See article on page 3 —
Wildlands
Center for
Preventing
Roads
By Bethanie Walder P.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
I
t seems like only yesterday that candidate Bill Clinton said, “it’s the economy, WildlandsCPR@wildlandscpr.org
stupid!” But that refrain has finally made it into the strategic framework of many www.wildlandscpr.org
conservationists, including Wildlands CPR. With this issue of the newsletter, we are
releasing our first of hopefully several reports regarding economic issues related to
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to
roads and off-road vehicles. This report in particular looks at opportunities to incorpo-
rate road removal into rural economies, and help move those economies from resource protect and restore wildland ecosystems by
extraction to restoration. Eventually we hope to expand this work in two ways: first to preventing and removing roads and limiting
provide more site-specific information about road removal - on a forest by forest or even motorized recreation. We are a national
county by county basis; and second to look into motorized vs. non-motorized recre- clearinghouse and network, providing citizens
ational activities and their economic impacts and benefits. with tools and strategies to fight road
construction, deter motorized recreation, and
Our report was prepared by the Center for Environmental Economic Development promote road removal and revegetation.
(CEED), with Dan Ihara acting as the principle investigator. CEED spent months collect-
ing information on Forest Service road removal programs throughout the country. They
compared costs and benefits of road removal and clearly addressed some of the broad Director
scale economic questions regarding development of a road removal workforce. Their Bethanie Walder
report focuses on the potential impacts and benefits of fully implementing the road
Development Director
removal component of the Forest Service long-term transportation plan. This plan calls
Tom Petersen
for up to 186,000 miles of road removal over the next 20 years.
Restoration Program
This preliminary economic analysis Coordinator
will be critical to conservationists’ efforts Marnie Criley
to balance the playing field regarding
economics and the environment. Rather Transportation Policy
Coordinator
than the age-old jobs vs. the environment
debate, this information enables us to Bridget Lyons
speak more effectively about jobs and the Science Coordinator
environment. In addition, understanding Adam Switalski
the economic implications and especially
the economic benefits of our work can NTWC Grassroots
help us expand our partnerships more Coordinator
broadly. The report also shifts the focus Lisa Philipps
away from more contentious debates over
Program Associate
forest thinning as a method of restoration.
Jennifer Barry
Combined with the recent release of Newsletter
the Restoration Principles (see page 17), Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield
the economics report provides a glimpse
into a new management approach to Interns & Volunteers
restoration. Road removal is a viable Maureen Hartmann, Shay O'Brien-Ugaldea,
management option for restoration on Beth Peluso
forestlands, deserts, and wetlands - Board of Directors
publicly or privately owned. Nonetheless, Karen Wood DiBari, Greg Fishbein, Dave Havlick,
over the past few years, conservationists Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Sonia Newenhouse,
have been playing an increasingly difficult Mary O'Brien, Matt Skroch, Ted Zukoski
game of defense. It is our hope that this Advisory Committee
report, and others to follow, will offer
Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
positive opportunities for new conserva- Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
Arrowleaf balsamroot blooms are a sure sign of tion approaches that combine jobs, Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin
springtime in the Rockies. Photo by George economics and environment into a Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
Weurthner. comprehensive package for wildland Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
management through restoration. Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
© 2003 Wildlands CPR
2 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

Reinvesting in Jobs, Communities and Forests
By Dan Ihara and Marnie Criley
E
arly January 2000 was a good time for roadless
areas and road removal. The Forest Service
finalized a new policy to protect roadless areas
and to promote better road management. But when
Bush took office on January 22, 2001, the first thing
he did was write an order that indefinitely postponed
the implementation of the roadless rule pending
litigation outcomes. At the same time, he delayed
implementation of the long-term transportation
policy by six months. In December 2002, the
roadless rule was partly reinstated by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to that, in May 2001,
the long-term transportation policy went into effect.
That policy calls for removing up to 186,000 miles of
roads over the next 20-40 years. It even states that
unroaded acreage might increase by 5-10%. So what
would happen if this policy were really implemented
and what would it take to get there?
Wildlands CPR road removal workshop in the Dragoon Mountains of Arizona.
Photo by Bethanie Walder.
In the fall of 2002, Wildlands CPR hired the
Center for Environmental Economic Development to
answer just that question. They studied the economic benefits and CEED’s study uses a conceptual framework
costs of a national road removal program on the National Forests. involving five forms of capital: constructed,
(The executive summary and full report will be available on our natural, human, social and cultural capital. Con-
website by July 1, 2003.) They found that with some additional structed capital includes the stock of buildings,
appropriations dedicated to road removal, the US Forest Service tools and equipment, inventories of goods, and
could put a lot of people to work removing roads over the next twenty “infrastructure” facilities of all sorts including
years and beyond. Not only would this provide much-needed jobs, energy, water, transportation, and so forth. Natural
but it would save significant amounts of taxpayer money that’s now capital includes stocks of natural resources and
used to clean up sedimentation and other damage from roads. functional components of ecosystems and their
Equally important, it would go a long way towards restoring damaged interaction from which flow goods (natural re-
ecosystems, too. source harvests) and services (climate regulation,
gas exchange, purification of water and air, and so
For the purposes of the study, gating and other forms of blocking forth). Human capital includes the accumulation of
road entrances do not constitute road removal if hydrologic concerns individual abilities, skills and experience that serve
remain. But any combination of the following treatments does: as the basis for human productivity in all its forms,
• revegetation and waterbarring; both within labor markets and in households and
volunteer activities. Social capital represents the
• removing fills and culverts;
stock of “civic virtues” and networks of civic
• establishing drainageways and removing unstable road engagement, community involvement, reciprocity
shoulders; and, norms, and trust essential to the function of
• full obliteration by recontouring and restoring natural slopes. democratic societies (and essential to vibrant
economies as well). Cultural capital refers to the
The study compares the cost of removing sediment from a stream body of stories, visions, and myths shared by
to the cost of removing sediment before it ends up in the stream (ie. people and providing the framework for how
removing the road/fill). The one-time road removal expense averaged people view the world and their proper role in it
$1.00 to $3.50 per cubic yard, while the ongoing sediment mitigation (Hackett, 2001).
averaged $7.70 per cubic yard. In other words, the cost of removing
sediment from waterways is significantly higher than the cost of prevent- In addition to addressing these different forms
ing it from eroding in the first place. And while the numbers may not of capital, CEED also looked at numerous case
seem significant, if you multiply by the hundreds, thousands and studies throughout the U.S. where road removal is
sometimes hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sediment located actually taking place.
at stream crossings along roads, the savings become profound.
— continued on next page —
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 3
— continued from previous page —
Mile-by-mile and job-by-job

Focusing on the 446,000 miles of National Forest System
(NFS) roads and unclassified roads in National Forests, the
study defines three basic road decommissioning program
alternatives. The first two are based on existing options for
the long-term transportation plan, while the third is proposed
by the study.
1. The “Status Quo” Road Decommissioning Program An excavator at work decommissioning a road. Wildlands CPR file
photo.
for NFS roads would decommission 2,500 miles of road a year
over the next 40 years (with an additional 2,500 miles becom-
ing impassable per year due to lack of maintenance);
2. The Critical Funding Road Decommissioning Program for NFS water remains untreated. The city has now closed
roads would decommission 7,000 miles of road a year over the next 20 access to the Cedar River watershed and is remov-
years; and, ing approximately 10 miles of road per year at a
cost of $30,000 per mile. To meet their goal of
3. Complete Unneeded Road Removal Program involves an removing 200 miles over the next 20 years, they will
active road decommissioning program (ripping, waterbarring, spend approximately $6 million. The alternative is
removing culverts, and recontouring) directed at the 186,000 miles of building a multi-million dollar water filtration
unneeded roads associated with the Status Quo Program over a 20 facility with ongoing facility costs thereafter.
year period. Instead, they’ll end up with a restored watershed
and continuing clean water for a lower cost.
A very rough, first approximation of the employment impact of a
national road removal program was derived from an “analyses of the As another example from a different perspec-
1995 Resource Planning Act Program [which] showed that about 33 tive, consider the relationship between the Karuk
jobs economy wide are supported per $1 million expenditure on Tribe and the Six Rivers National Forest in northern
building and maintaining roads [and that the] case can be made that California. An EPA report notes that, “Over the
removing existing roads and restoring the land underlying them long term, more than 2,000 miles of road through-
would support roughly the same rate of employment” (Clearwater NF, out the Karuk’s ancestral territory will need
Roads Analysis). The job creation estimates are “economy wide” and decommissioning or significant upgrading and
include indirectly created jobs such as those related to manufacturing remediation of mining impacts” and that “Building
of heavy equipment used in road decommissioning. For example, the the tribe’s capability to play an appropriate role in
study identifies dozens of tasks that can be done by both heavy ecosystem management is the only means by
equipment operators (bulldozers and excavators), and others (e.g., which ecosystem restoration, cultural survival, and
engineers, GIS techs, road obliteration inspectors, revegetation). community prosperity will be achieved.” The
Karuk Tribe is completing their first major road
One ongoing road removal program in Washington state presents removal project (see The RIPorter 7:5)
an excellent example of saving money while restoring habitat and
providing jobs. The Cedar River and Tolt watersheds outside of CEED’s overall study estimated that road
Seattle provide the majority of the drinking water to that city — their removal costs would vary from several thousand to
Comparison of Road Removal Options

Program Name Total Miles* Miles/Yr $/mile Annual Cost Jobs/year
(in millions)
1. “Status Quo” 50,000 2,500 $ 7,500 $18.75 619
2. “Critical Funding” 140,000 7,000 $ 7,500 $52.50 1733
3. “Complete URR” 186,000 9,300** $10,000 $93.00 3069
* Over twenty years
** With a greater proportion of road obliteration and more thorough road decommissioning treatments.

several hundred thousand dollars per mile. They
project that the Forest Service, in partnership with
local communities, could provide significant jobs
putting the forests back together. These jobs could
increase economic returns for those communities,
as fisheries and terrestrial habitat would be
restored, mitigation and maintenance costs would
be reduced, and wildland recreation opportunities
would be improved. If the jobs are to truly help
restore communities, then they must be quality
jobs, not just another round of boom and bust
opportunity, and the government must fund
training programs. The Alliance for Sustainable
Jobs and the Environment has defined quality jobs
Heavy equipment was essential for removing roads in Redwoods National Park.
as having the following characteristics:
Wildlands CPR file photo.
1. family wage, fully trained, journeyman level

(careers);
2. certified training and apprentice with skills
standards and curricula;
3. a safe healthy workplace;
4. year-round jobs (duration, stability, tenure, Report Recommendations
mixed contracting); and,
5. trained pools of contractors to bid on Include:
stewardship style.
• In addition to the $93 million annually in the pro-
For full economic benefits to continue flowing
over time, the Forest Service must not only reduce posed Complete Unneeded Road Removal Program
its road system through a dedicated program of Alternative, $5 million annually would be allocated
road removal, but it must begin to fully maintain its for road decommissioning related training and $5
remaining road system. A full road removal million for building communities’ capacity to coordi-
program will require significant funding from nate their diverse stakeholders and agencies.
Congress to ensure that workers receive excellent
training in this difficult work (the study envisions • Road decommissioning training should be integrated
approximately $5 million/year for training and $5 with other ecosystem restoration training. The
million/year to coordinate diverse stakeholders
suggestions of the Western Council of Industrial
and agencies) — as well as funding to employ those
workers after they’ve been trained. An effective Workers regarding implementation should be
road removal program must be directly paired with considered.
a full maintenance program for the roads that
remain. This program will provide continued • Individuals and organizations in communities near
employment for newly trained and veteran heavy National Forests should be encouraged to investi-
equipment road workers. gate their National Forests’ Roads Analyses, which
were completed January 13, 2003. Several indi-
vidual national forests have made their Roads
Conclusion Analyses available on their websites. In particular,
The pioneering road removal work in Northern individuals and organizations should identify critical
California and the Pacific Northwest brought roads at high risk of becoming impassable and
together diverse constituencies and revitalized which are associated with significant environmental
local economies; there is every reason to believe a impacts. Participatory research by the various
national road removal program could do the same stakeholders in communities near national forests
in rural communities throughout the country.
should be encouraged and organized.
As this report shows, a national road removal
program could reduce future maintenance costs, • After FY 2004, the report suggests that funding be
increase human capital, and build communities’ committed for five year blocks of time to individual
capacities to collaborate. At the same time it national forests. This may be an effective way to
builds natural capital by improving water quality, encourage individual national forests to more quickly
habitat, recreation and other benefits. It provides develop and implement road decommissioning
us with a rare opportunity to turn our country’s components as part of their overall Road Manage-
road problems into a valuable national asset. ment plans.

Restoration Program Update
Summer 2003
By Marnie Criley, Restoration Policy Coordinator
Road Removal Workshop in Missoula/ Science Program

Clearwater National Forest Adam and five other scientists have finished a
first draft of “Watershed benefits from road
On June 6-7, Wildlands CPR joined the National Network of Forest removal: review and prospectus.” This paper
Practitioners, National Forest Foundation and Redwood Community summarizes what research has been conducted on
Action Agency to sponsor a road reconstruction and removal work- road removal and identifies glaring gaps in our
shop tailored to contractors, operators, restorationists and agency knowledge of this emerging field. After a few more
personnel. Thanks to funding from the National Forest Foundation, edits, they will submit this article to “Frontiers in
Sungnome Madrone, a twenty year veteran of road removal and Ecology and the Environment,” the Ecological
restoration work in northern California, led the workshop. Day 1 Society of America’s new interdisciplinary journal.
covered road reconstruction and removal opportunities, funding for Additionally, along with general duties of answering
road restoration, contract models, and the economic benefits of road information requests and attaining the most recent
removal. Day 2 was spent on the Clearwater National Forest discuss- roads and ORV research, Adam has been working
ing techniques and cost estimation. The road removal crew for the on developing research projects on road removal.
Nez Perce Tribe led the Clearwater field trip. Thirty-five people Specifically, he is working with scientists to
participated, including representatives from seven different national develop projects that measure if wildlife is re-
forests, numerous contractors, and conservation activists. The mix sponding to road removal.
of people led to lively discussions and a thorough critique of the
Clearwater program. More importantly, it opened doors for more
collaboration between the agencies, conservationists and contrac- Clearwater National Forest
tors. The Clearwater road removal assessment
conducted by Watershed Consulting, LLC has been
Restoration Principles submitted for publication in Ecological Restoration.

Adam, Marnie and Mark Vander Meer recently
The Restoration Principles (see page 17) were peer reviewed and presented the findings at a conference in Calgary
published in the March 2003 issue of Ecological Restoration. They titled Making Science, Making Change, put on by
were also publicly released in late May. Endorsed by more than 100 the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative
groups, the principles are now being used to develop region/ecosys- and Wilburforce Foundation (who funded the
tem specific principles that can be tested on the ground. The study).
California Wilderness Coalition recently issued a report doing just
this. The principles were two years in the making — following our
first restoration summit in Spring 2000.
This March, we co-hosted the third annual summit in Ashland,
OR, and it was our most successful to date. Participants spent an
entire day in the field looking at restoration projects and discussing
how the conservation community, forest practitioners and commu-
nity forestry groups can find common ground on restoration. On the
last day we focused on opportunities to work together — funding and
appropriations topped the list. Many environmental and community
forestry groups have already been working together to find more
money for restoration, but we hope to broaden that relationship.
Marnie will be involved in this work. The restoration steering commit-
tee is now setting up regional summits for next year.
Labor and the Environment

Marnie continues working with two different groups to build
relationships with labor unions. As co-chair of the Alliance for
Sustainable Jobs and the Environment’s Restoration Working Group,
Marnie attended their annual meeting in April and is working with
them to promote the new economics report. She’s also working with Out in the field at the Clearwater road removal workshop
the Missoula Blue-Green Alliance; both groups will be taking a close June 7th. Photo by Adam Switalski.
look at our economics report as we work together to rebuild rural
economies and restore public lands.
Transportation Program Update
Summer 2003
By Bridget Lyons
A few years ago, the “travel planning” process was virtually

unheard of. Public lands agencies evaluated their road and trail
systems as part of their regular forest plan or resource plan revision
process, and few citizens got involved. The variety, accessibility, and
popularity of recreation opportunities have increased, however - and
so have the numbers of people using roads and trails on public lands.
This increase has resulted in more opinions, making it challenging for
agencies to grapple with the development of their transportation
system while simultaneously managing timber, wildlife, mineral
extraction, and water resources. Consequently, many forests and
BLM resource areas have opted to separate the travel planning
process from the overall forest plan or RMP revision process. Wild-
lands CPR’s transportation program has been largely focused on this
process of late. Here’s a little of what Bridget has been working on....
Travel Planning Primer

This booklet, expected to be ready this summer, is designed to
guide place-based, quiet-use oriented groups through the travel
planning process. It includes a description of the travel planning
process, suggestions on how to formulate travel planning goals, Photo courtesy of Buffalo Field
details on how to get involved in the agency process, and a thorough Campaign.
examination of political organizing, including working with diverse
allies. The appendices of the primer will contain sample comment
letters, monitoring forms, and other useful documents. All of these
resources are available now; call Bridget if you can’t wait until the
primer is published!
Comments and Appeals

The Arizona Five Forests ORV Plan. This draft ORV plan, released
in late April, is intended to guide ORV use on the Kaibab, Coconino,
Prescott, Tonto, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona.
The draft wisely calls for banning cross-country ORV travel and
restricting travel to designated routes on these lands. Unfortunately,
no process or timeline for designating these routes is included, and
continued use of user-created routes will be permitted until the
designation process is completed. Wildlands CPR will be working
with local groups to advocate for a more effective designated routes
policy through this process. A copy of the DEIS is available at
www.fs.fed.us/r3/ohv, and comments are due on June 13.
Motorized recreation comments. Wildlands CPR has been

helping a number of other organizations by submitting comments or
crafting road and motorized recreation language for comment letters.
Some of the projects with which we assisted include a road proposal
in Alaska, two forest plan revisions, an RMP revision, a National
Monument plan, and a coalbed methane development project.
We’ll keep you posted on all of these issues as they develop. Feel
Using an auger to decompact desert roads.
free to email Bridget (bridget@wildlandscpr.org) is you have any Photo by Bethanie Walder.
questions or want to hear more about any of this work.

What’s the Hurry?
Court Rejects Bush Administration’s Rush for
Oil and Gas at Arches N.P.
By Steve Bloch
Editor’s Note: Wildlands CPR is keeping an eye on the Bush administration’s plans for
energy development, because with resource extraction comes a maze of roads and
traffic impacts. The seismic testing case described below was a major victory for road-
free wild places. For more information on seismic testing and its related road and ORV
impacts, please see The RIPorter 7(1):16-17.
I Background
n a decision that the New York Times heralded
as one of the country’s two most important
environmental victories of the year, a federal The BLM had approved a request by the
district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in Decem- world’s largest seismic exploration company,
ber 2002 that the Bureau of Land Management WesternGeco, to explore for oil and gas in the
(BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Dome Plateau region outside of Moab, Utah, (just
Act (NEPA) when it authorized the Yellow Cat east of Arches National Park), also known as the
seismic project. Because of this decision, the BLM Yellow Cat project area. The project area encom-
now will have to complete a proper environmental passed more than 23,000 acres of spectacular
review before authorizing any additional seismic wildlands - including proposed wilderness; the
operations in the project area. The decision also region also provides habitat for several threatened
creates a precedent requiring agencies to assess or endangered species, including the black-footed
the impacts of energy development equipment on ferret, the bald eagle and the Mexican spotted owl.
the land. This was the first time a federal court has Exploration was to be done using vibraseis (popu-
had the opportunity to review a Bush administra- larly know as “thumper”) trucks — 60,000 pound
tion-sponsored oil exploration project. vehicles which cause immense impacts upon the
land.
After the plaintiffs won a temporary stay of the

BLM’s decision to approve the Yellow Cat project, a
divided panel of the Interior Board of Land Appeals
upheld BLM’s decision in late August 2002. After
learning that WesternGeco was planning to return
and finish the project in September, the Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance, along with the Natural
Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society
and the Sierra Club (we’ll refer to all the groups
collectively as SUWA) filed a lawsuit in federal
district court in Washington, D.C. to challenge the
project.
In late October, the court issued a preliminary

injunction temporarily blocking the WesternGeco
project so that it could consider the environmental
groups’ claims. On December 20, 2002, the court
agreed with SUWA that BLM, by approving the
Thirty-ton “Thumpers” like this one can devastate fragile desert soils.
Photo courtesy of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA).
exploration activity, had violated NEPA.

Plaintiffs’ Claims
Attorneys for SUWA successfully argued that
the BLM relied on an inadequate environmental
assessment (EA) that failed to consider alternatives
to the proposed seismic project. SUWA also
provided evidence that the project would cause
significant impacts to the human environment. In
particular, SUWA noted that WesternGeco used
thumper trucks to criss-cross sensitive desert soils,
while vibrating the ground at regular intervals to
record seismic information about oil deposits.
Thumper trucks cause the same type of damage as
off-road vehicles do in arid environments - they
ravage fragile cryptobiotic soils and cause ecologi-
cal damage from which it can take as many as 300
years for the desert to recover. Because the court
concluded that the BLM had failed to analyze any
alternatives to the proposed action, it did not rule
on the adequacy of the analysis of the ecological
damage thumper trucks cause, but these impacts Leaving ruts over a foot deep, oil and gas exploration invites severe erosion
are mentioned in the decision. The BLM appealed problems. Photo courtesy of SUWA.
the court’s decision but chose to dismiss the
appeal last month.
Just the Beginning

The Bush Administration has been pushing federal land managers to “fast-track”
development on public lands across the West, allegedly to bolster U.S. energy security.
Last year, the BLM released a blueprint memo outlining their strategy to open up public
lands for oil and gas exploration and drilling. In another memo, released earlier in 2002,
the BLM told federal land managers in Utah that oil and gas lease applications coming
into the agency should be considered “priority number one.” With this mandate in
place, we can expect this case and other energy cases to be regularly tested in court
over the next couple of years.
SUWA and its conservation partners were represented by SUWA

staff attorney Steve Bloch, NRDC senior staff attorney Sharon Buccino,
and Katherine Meyer & Tanya Sanerib from the D.C. based law firm of
Meyer & Glitzenstein. Please see the “Legal Notes” section of Wild-
lands CPR’s website (www.wildlandscpr.org) for a copy of this deci-
sion.
— Steve Bloch is a staff attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness

Alliance.
A road (on right) leads up to a drilling platform along

Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front, which is also targeted
by the Bush Administration for oil and gas develpment.
Photo by Bill Cunningham.
Photo courtesy of SUWA.

The Policy Primer is a column
designed to highlight the ins &
outs of a specific road or Off
Road Vehicle policy. If you have
a policy you’d like us to
investigate, let us know!
Recreational Trails Program Update

By Lisa Philipps
Editor’s Note: In the past few years there has been a landslide of applications
submitted by off-road vehicle organizations for Off Road Vehicle (ORV) project funding
under the Recreational Trails Program (RTP). The resulting funds, combined with
money from state ORV registration funds, are allowing off-road-vehicle riders to “buy
access” to public lands and displace human-powered recreation. In spite of this grim
reality, there are ways we can divert these funds and stop bad RTP projects. This article
will review how RTP works and discuss strategies for halting the creation of new
motorized trails. For background on the RTP, see The RIPorter 7.3.
RTP In Review...
In 1998, the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Since 1993, states have funded more than 5,500 recreational trail
was re-authorized until the year 2003. As part of the or hiking projects with $180 million in federal funds. Project sponsors
“Transportation Equity Act (TEA),” RTP provides (typically ORV or hiking clubs) have contributed more than $180
$50 million annually to the states to develop and million in value toward these projects in cash, materials, and ser-
maintain recreational trails and trail-related vices, making a total of $360 million spent on trails. In-kind contribu-
facilities for non-motorized and motorized uses. tions appear to have a significant impact on which projects are
Each state administers its own program, usually accepted. For example, in 2001, a total of $173,744 was granted to 11
through a State resource or park agency, and snowmobile-related projects through a cooperative program between
develops procedures to solicit and select projects. Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Snowmobile Association —
State Recreational Trail Advisory Committees $50,000 of the total came from separate funding through state
assist with the program. For each state’s particular snowmobile registra-
state trails administration contact, go to: tion fees.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
rtpstate.htm RTP requires that
states use 30 percent of
The funds can be used for these activities (RTP their funds for motor-
Legislation, 23 U.S.C. 206): ized trail uses, 30
percent for non-
A - Construction of new trails, motorized uses, and 40
B - Acquisition of easements or private property; percent for “diverse,”
C - Maintenance and restoration of existing trails; or multiple-uses. In
D - Purchase or lease of trail equipment/facilities; some cases multiple-
E - Educational programs and outreach; use trail funding goes
F - Rehabilitation of trails and trailside facilities. to motorized/non-
G- Acquisition of easements and fee simple title motorized uses. In
to property for recreational trails or other cases it goes to
recreational trail corridors. multiple-motorized
uses or multiple-non-
It is important to note that RTP funds may not motorized uses. In the
be used for planning. For example, the Colorado west, this is dispropor-
State Parks committee denied a $62,000 request by tionately spent on
the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition motorized develop-
(COHVCO) to fund the development of their ments; in the east it’s
“People’s Choice Alternative for Recreation” for the the opposite.
Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison (GMUG)
Forest Plan revision.
Soil damage on an ATV trail in the White River
National Forest. Photo by R. Compton.

States may provide grants to private organizations or to munici-
pal, county, state, or federal agencies. Projects may be on public or
private land, however, projects on private land must have written
assurance of public access. Some private organizations are going to
land managers and “suggesting” that they submit proposals to the
state trails committee. In Idaho, for example, there is a proposal to
designate a 450-mile ATV trail through the Wood River Valley. Idaho
State Parks admits this is a very attractive proposal as it will use
some of the state’s $816,000 trails budget and additional funding from
the Idaho State OHV registration fund. At a time when land managers
are scraping the bottom of their barrels to continue even their basic
programs, this is like candy.
For more details on RTP funding, go to: www.fhwa.dot.gov/ ORV users are not shy about pursuing RTP funding to
environment/rectrail.htm establish ORV recreation areas. Photo courtesy of Grand
Canyon Trust.
How We Can Influence the RTP Process

One of the most powerful tools we have to address a project is
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). All RTP projects are State Advisory Committees
required to comply with NEPA. Activists can also have considerable influence
in the grant making process with the trails commit-
The RTP Interim Guidance (1999) outlines the program’s general tees. States are required to establish a “trails
environmental requirements: “Documentation of compliance with the advisory committee,” representing both motorized
NEPA and other environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive and non-motorized trail users, which meets at least
Orders must be provided as part of an authorized project under the once a year. These meetings provide opportunities
RTP..... However, each project must be reviewed to assure that it does for citizens to get involved in the decision-making
not have a significant impact on the environment.” process. In addition, many states ask for volunteers
to review and provide input into the project
In addition, the language within the environmental requirements proposals. Activists should keep track of when this
for RTP states: takes place. Typically the projects will be sent for
(e) Environmental Benefit or Mitigation—To the extent practi- review in the fall, and decisions made in December.
cable and consistent with the other requirements of this section, a Contact your state trails committee (see http://
state should give consideration to project proposals that provide for www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rtpstate.htm). Tell
the redesign, reconstruction, non-routine maintenance, or relocation the State Trails Administrator that you are very
of recreational trails to benefit the natural environment or to mitigate interested in the allocation of your state’s funds
and minimize the impact to the natural environment. - RTP Legisla- towards recreation projects. Let them know you
tion: 23 U.S.C. 206. want to preserve and encourage non-motorized
recreation opportunities. Ask to be put on their
As an advocate for public lands, you can keep an eye on projects mailing list to receive a state trails newsletter and
to ensure that NEPA analysis is being adequately completed and become involved in the grant review process.
documented. Attend the public meetings that the trails commit-
tee holds and become acquainted with their board
Who Is Responsible For NEPA and process. Lastly, plan on submitting your own
grant proposals for projects that encourage
Compliance? restoration and/or non-motorized uses.
The federal agency must provide the guidance and oversight for In conclusion, the RTP program is providing a
proper NEPA compliance for RTP projects. The language in the source of money to agencies at a time when money
statute states, “This section shall not relieve the Federal official of his is scarce. Off-road vehicle organizations are further
or her responsibilities for the scope, objectivity and content of the sweetening their proposals with volunteer staff at a
entire statement or of any other responsibility under 42 U.S.C. 4321 time when agencies are facing staff shortages.
et seq.” These same organizations are also adept at
“selling” their proposals under the guise of educa-
All those involved with the Recreational Trails Program must tion and promoting responsible riding. We must be
comply with NEPA. Most states have included an environmental just as effective in our pursuit of RTP funding for
compliance section within the application form that all project enforcement or restoration as well as non-motor-
sponsors must fill out. This alerts project sponsors to the fact that ized project funding. For more information contact
environmental compliance is one of the criteria that must be met in Bridget Lyons, Wildlands CPR Transportation
order to receive federal and state project approval. No project can Policy Coordinator or Lisa Philipps, Natural Trails
receive federal approval or money until NEPA has been satisfied. and Waters Grassroots Coordinator.

Here’s Sand in Your Eye —
Driving Plovers from the Beach
By Jan DeBlieu
T he bridge over Oregon Inlet stretches above a

sluicing channel and, on the north edge, a fan of
beach that climbs slowly out of volatile Atlantic
waters. In winter I love to ride over the bridge,
In the past few years a heated argument has
broken out between surf fishermen and the
biologists at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
For decades these two interests have engaged in
looking east to the pounding surf for which North verbal shoving matches for control of the beaches
Carolina’s Outer Banks are known. The sandy curl within the national park. Each year when biologists
is deserted then, or nearly so. I have the sense that close areas of the beach where shorebirds nest,
I am looking down on a landscape as wild as any fishermen complain. Mostly, though, the protests
left in the East. have been blustery but polite.
But come spring, everything changes. On Enter the piping plover. You can probably
weekends trucks crowd fender to fender along the guess where this is going to go; it’s an old, tired
waterline, white rod holders fastened against their story. Two years ago, in response to a law suit filed
grills like shiny teeth. Anglers cast all manner of by the Defenders of Wildlife, park biologists
lures into the waves. Children careen back and designated Cape Hatteras-including Oregon Inlet,
forth on four-wheelers, weaving in and out of the Cape Point, and other popular fishing spots-as
truck traffic. Any semblance of wildness is van- “critical habitat” for the plover, which is threatened
quished. in North Carolina and endangered in the Great
Lakes. Some of the Great Lakes birds use Cape
And this is just the beach that’s visible from Hatteras as a wintering ground. The designation of
the road. critical habitat was merely a procedural change.
Biologists didn’t alter the way they managed beach
Inlets attract fish, and fishermen. So does Cape nesting areas. Nor did they increase the amount of
Hatteras, jutting far into the sea. Locally the curling territory that was closed to driving. They were
spit that forms the tip of the cape is known as the simply complying with a stipulation spelled out by
Point. On virtually any day of the year the beach at the Endangered Species Act.
the Point is lined with trucks, each nosed up to the
tide line. It is one of the most heavily used Nonetheless, when anglers read the critical
stretches of shoreline in North America. Whether habitat regulations, they were dismayed to see that
or not it is suffering biologically depends on who the park service now had the power to close wide
you ask. areas, and not just to motorized vehicles. If need
be, the regulations said, officials could even keep
pedestrians off the beach.
“They’re going to close the beach!” The cry

went up from fishing club to fishing club. “They’re
going to close the beach!” Overnight a remote
possibility became fact: The park service wants to
deprive us of our lifelong custom. No, it’s more
than that, dammit. It’s our birthright. Fishermen
have been driving the beach here for generations.
There was, the anglers decided, only one thing

to do. Sue. Sue their butts, before they try to keep
everyone off the Point and away from the inlets.
And so in February a group known as the Cape
File photo. Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance filed suit to
overturn the critical habitat designation. They were feeling hemmed in. So they cling to one of the few
joined by the Boards of Commissioners in the two things that has remained the same: their power to
counties that comprise Hatteras and Ocracoke drive the beach without rules.
islands.
But the wildlife of the Outer Banks is suffering
One of the main reasons I love living on the from the same overcrowding. A friend who works
Outer Banks is the wild west feel, the atmosphere for the park service points out that shorebirds are
of man-and-woman against the elements. Fishing is visitors to the Outer Banks, too. Don’t they have a
an integral part of that. Before there was much right to some undisturbed space?
tourism on the islands, there was fishing. Before
there was a reliable highway down Hatteras Island,
people rode the beach. It’s no exaggeration to say
that beach driving is part of the culture. The debate about beach driving is
I have friends on both sides of the lawsuit. I’ve about basic freedoms, perhaps, but
talked with people about it, a lot. Even so, I wasn’t something more, too.
prepared for the ferocity of opinion I encountered
one day in a tackle shop on Hatteras Island.
I had gone into the shop to drop off some

brochures for a coastal environmental group. I Some conservationists believe driving should
introduced myself to the shop owner, a burly man be banned, and the beaches left entirely for the
with a thick black beard, and asked if he’d put out birds. But that’s too easy. A ban would eliminate a
the brochures. cultural aspect of Outer Banks living that is
important not just to the local economy, but to the
He looked me up and down as if assessing not residents’ attachment to the landscape. We
my sexuality, but my political leanings. “I’m not shouldn’t underestimate the importance of that. If
going to have anything to do with your group,” he we are to make any headway in the fight for
growled, “until I find out how you stand on one conservation, we must work with people in rural
issue.” communities who share our love for nature. We
need to find ways to honor their attachment to the
I assured him that we are not in favor of land.
barring vehicles from the beaches. (Neither is the
park service, but I didn’t mention that.) There need to be restrictions on beach driving.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to know what form
We chatted for a few minutes about business, they should take. I do know that adopting a hard
and how a ban on beach driving would bankrupt stance, left or right, will only prolong the screaming
his shop. “But,” I ventured, “you’ve been here a match. Whatever happens with the lawsuit, it’s my
long time. There are lots more trucks on the beach hope that my
than there used to be. Do you think there needs to colleagues
be some form of control?” here will look
for creative
He scowled. “Sounds like you’re talking about ways to tap
permits for beach driving.” He shook his head, into the surf
hard, and stuck out his chin. I couldn’t help being casters’ love
impressed with his size and lavish whiskers. “You for the natural
know what’s happened up at Assateague Island? If world. I’m
you show up to fish on the beach at 6:30 in the convinced it’s
morning, you have to wait in line until someone there, close to
else comes off. That’s what happens with permits.” the surface,
waiting to rise.
“This is the only place left where you can fish It’s the one
without getting some sort of permission from the thing we all
government. And by God, we’re going to keep it share, living as
that way.” we do on the
Photo courtesy of Dan Funsch.
edge of the
The debate about beach driving is about basic earth.
freedoms, perhaps, but something more, too. It
seems to me that the anglers’ intense response to — Jan DeBlieu is the author of three books about
the possibility of restrictions springs from some- people and nature, including Wind, which won the
thing deeper than a desire to fish where they want, John Burroughs Medal for Distinguished Natural
when they want. I think it’s a reaction to the History Writing. She has lived on the Outer Banks
whittling away of the place they once knew by ever and written about the islands for 18 years.
more people, ever more development. They’re

Democracy and the Environment on the
Chopping Block
— Bethanie Walder
I
n this era of eroding civil liberties, I often wonder whether I and
other conservation activists shouldn’t put aside our issues for the
moment and work to ensure that the governmental institutions in
this country maintain some semblance of democracy. Indeed, the
Bush Administration, Forest Service and US Congress have focused
many of their recent attacks on conservationists. While we implement
trusted strategies to protect the environment (e.g. organizing citizens,
writing comments, litigating as appropriate, bringing mismanagement
and environmental attacks to the attention of our elected officials),
the Forest Service, Congress and the Bush Administration are chang-
ing the rules. It has become all too clear that the conservation
community must not only protect the natural environment, but also
the political environment in which we live, play and work — an
environment founded on democratic principles that are being
Apparently, the Forest Service would rather
squandered in the name of corporate profits.
that citizens simply stay out of their
decision making process. Photo by Liz
The majority of proposed changes apply to the National Environ- Tanke.
mental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws that regulate citizen involve-
ment and citizen oversight of federal agencies. But laws like the
In December 2002, the Forest Service proposed
Patriot Act also affect citizen participation in government as a whole,
new appeals regulations limiting how Americans
and that, too, affects conservation activism. While most of the
can comment on public land management. These
measures discussed here have not yet been implemented — the
changes impose severe restrictions on what can be
wheels are in motion for drastic and disturbing changes.
appealed. Prior to appeals, they allow the Forest
Service to arbitrarily dismiss whatever public
NFMA, NEPA and Categorical comments they think are not “substantive” and
thereafter deny legal standing to the citizens who
Exclusions submitted those comments. In addition, the
appeals changes remove the “stay of implementa-
In late November, the Forest Service (FS) proposed new regula-
tion” of projects under appeal. So if a group does
tions to implement the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The
litigate to stop a project, unless they get a court
proposal limits public comment on forest planning, precludes judicial
injunction the project may be completed and
review of agency plans, and makes forest plan standards and guide-
therefore no longer considered relevant by the
lines non-binding and voluntary. To put this into a roads perspective,
court — even if the Forest Service was wrong.
some of the most important work mitigating road impacts relies on
Changing the appeal regulations will only result in
binding road density standards. To exceed those standards, the FS
less meaningful citizen participation — and quite
must amend their forest plan (see The RIPorter 7(3); legal notes).
possibly more litigation.
Without these road density standards, most road removal and
prevention efforts in the west will become significantly more difficult
In early January 2003, the Forest Service
(most eastern forests currently don’t have road density standards).
proposed expanding categorical exclusions of
certain timber sales, road building and salvage
The new regulations also allow forest plans to be categorically
logging. This proposal also included language to
excluded from environmental review under NEPA. As a result, the
allow categorical exclusions to be used in combina-
public may not be allowed to propose or promote our own alterna-
tion - a practice that courts repeatedly have found
tives for analysis. When categorical exclusions were developed under
illegal under current regulations.
the National Environmental Policy Act, they were designed to exclude
routine maintenance and other noncontroversial management
In early 2002, the Forest Service decided to
decisions from analysis. To apply them to Forest Plans in their
discount what it called “technically similar com-
entirety - documents to which all other management decisions on the
ments” (e.g. petitions and postcards) by grouping
National Forests are tiered - is utterly nonsensical and completely
those and counting them as one. In other words, if
counter to NEPA’s intent.
500,000 people submit pre-printed postcards, their comments
would be counted as only one total comment on that topic.
While one might be able to understand their rationale, it
disempowers citizens who want to comment on issues of
concern, but who do not have an encyclopedic understanding
of the proposed project.
In a further attack against public participation, in late

April 2003 the FS announced it would no longer consider e-
mail messages as legitimate public comments on Forest
Management Plans, Amendments and Revisions. This is a
straightforward attempt to undermine what has become a
democratic means of communication — the internet. Many
conservation organizations have developed e-mail systems
The Bush Administration’s loyalty, or royalty, has never been in
that help concerned citizens generate comments and then question. Photo by George Wuerthner.
submit them electronically. According to the new rules, even
though these are individualized comments, they will no
longer be considered.
The Healthy Forests and Restoration Act Conclusion

of 2003 While the Forest Service and Congress are
busy rewriting the rules of engagement (perhaps
In mid-May 2003, the US Congress passed the Healthy Forests and we should call them the rules of exploitation),
Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904 - also known as the McInnis Bill). numerous other efforts are underway that will
This bill would implement President Bush’s “Healthy Forests Initia- affect conservationists and ordinary citizens alike.
tive.” Among its provisions are numerous attacks on the public One of significance is a series of statewide efforts
participation rights of American citizens. First, the bill eliminates the to make citizen advocacy on behalf of the environ-
NEPA requirement that the FS or BLM consider alternatives to its ment (and numerous other issues that affect
proposed actions. The agencies could conduct large-scale logging commerce) a crime. The second is the proposed
projects without considering or analyzing any alternatives. HR 1904 Patriot Act II. A bill that would curtail civil liberties
would also abolish citizens’ statutory right to appeal Forest Service even more dramatically than the first Patriot Act, it
hazardous fuels projects by repealing the Appeals Reform Act of 1992. currently includes a provision that could affect
members of advocacy organizations. For example,
if the government defines a particular environmen-
tal group as a “terrorist” organization, they could
If we want to protect nature, we must seize the names of all members and investigate
become more engaged in the fight to those members as well. If this doesn’t limit
personal freedom, freedom to assemble, free
protect democracy. speech and free thought, what does?
While citizens sit idly by, this government is

Even more significantly, and further reducing the checks and actively dismantling the principles on which our
balances set up by the framers of the constitution, HR 1904 would country was founded. If we as conservationists
restrict the right of Americans to seek judicial relief from illegal want to protect nature - especially in the face of
agency actions. Sections 106 and 107 of the bill reverse the balance such severe threats, we must become more
of harms that now define judicial actions — specifically regarding engaged in the fight to protect democracy. Simi-
temporary restraining orders and permanent and preliminary larly, we must engage the members of our organiza-
injunctions for “hazardous fuels” projects. These changes require tions and others to become active in the politics of
judges to give weight to agency claims regarding a project’s impacts this country. The efforts of the Bush Administra-
even if citizens present clear evidence of harm to water quality, tion to demonize and marginalize citizens engaged
endangered species or other concerns. Remember too, that agencies in protecting liberty and freedom for all people
aren’t required to analyze alternatives under earlier provisions of the (not just multi-national corporations) can only
act. succeed within a complicit society. We must work
to ensure that this government remains account-
The combination of a lack of analysis and limited judicial review able to its citizens, not its corporate sponsors - by
would make it nearly impossible to stop damaging projects. In more actively combining political and environmen-
addition, no longer would there be any outlet for that damage to be tal advocacy.
aired publicly. The judicial sections of the bill limit the time judges
have to review cases, which could result in the automatic expiration Many thanks to American Lands Alliance for
of injunctions that have been issued. In a bizarre twist, the bill would information about changes in NFMA, CE regulations,
also require agency officials to report to four different congressional and HR 1904.
committees whenever a judge renews an injunction, which in effect,
could intimidate judges and the agencies.

BLM Plan Opens Algodones Roadless Bill Introduced In Congress
Dunes To ORVs On June 5, U.S. Representatives Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and
Jay Inslee (D-WA), along with 150 cosponsors, introduced bipartisan
In a final plan released on May 23, the BLM legislation to codify the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule,
opened up the majority of California’s Algodones which generated over 2.2 million comments when it was proposed,
Dunes to off-road vehicles. Before the new plan protects 58.5 million acres of National Forest land from most commer-
was created, this area was managed under a cial logging and roadbuilding.
settlement agreement between the BLM, off-road After President Clinton issued the rule, it was challenged in Idaho
vehicle groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, District Court by the Boise Cascade Corporation and other logging
Sierra Club, and Public Employees for Environmen- and snowmobile interests. The District Court enjoined the rule, and
tal Responsibility. This agreement protected then upon taking office, the Bush administration issued an interim
roughly half of the area for wildlife and scenic non- directive blocking its implementation. But after conservationists
motorized recreation, in addition to allowing over appealed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction last
106 square miles of unlimited off-road motorized month. In addition the Bush Administration has now announced its
travel. intention to allow its interim directive to expire.
The new plan allows for a significant increase Nevertheless, the Bush administration is planning 49 timber sales
in off-road vehicle use, adds new vendor areas, in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, a forest that the administration
increases carrying capacity, and removes a require- proposed for exemption from the rule. Undersecretary Mark Rey has
ment that motorized recreationists have to pass an publicly signaled the administration’s intent to alter the rule, having
ecological awareness test before traveling in said that an amended rule could be expected “within a few months.”
sensitive areas. It also removes protection for the These impending threats to the integrity of the rule have made the
desert tortoise, one of several endangered species legislative effort especially critical. Currently, there are 386,000 miles
in the Algodones Dunes. A recent U.S. Fish and of roads on National Forest lands, and nationally there is an 8.4 billion
Wildlife Report found that another endangered dollar backlog of road repairs.
species in the area, Peirson’s Milkvetch, is threat-
ened primarily because of off-road vehicle activity -
its recovery is not expected under the new plan. Conservation Groups Intend Moose Post-
The conservation areas in the Algodones Dunes
will remain closed for another month while legal Fire Project Lawsuit
protests are being filed. The Center for Biological
Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Wildlands CPR has joined three other conservation groups in a
Responsibility intend to challenge the plan in notice of intent to file a lawsuit over portions of the Moose Post-Fire
court. Project that fall short of Flathead Forest Plan standards for restoring
watersheds and wildlife habitat. The lawsuit would not challenge the
salvage logging already underway in the Big Creek area. It would force
the agencies to comply with Flathead Forest Plan standards for
managing roads and their effects on threatened grizzly bear, lynx and
bull trout.
The groups, including Friends of the Wild Swan, Swan View
Coalition, and Alliance for the Wild Rockies, point out that implement-
ing road management standards currently is pumping over $2 million
into the local economy and creating some 140 jobs reclaiming roads
and restoring watersheds. The Moose Project would reclaim 56 of the
417 miles of road currently slated for reclamation on the Flathead.
The groups cite Flathead and Lolo National Forest statistics showing
road reclamation is worth an average of $5,000 per mile and that one
job is created for every three miles of road reclaimed.
Big Creek, a key bull trout spawning stream, has been listed by
File photo. the State of Montana as “impaired” due to logging and road building
since 1992, long before the Moose Fire of 2001. Big Creek is also listed
by the Flathead National Forest as “functioning at unacceptable risk”
due to too many roads — it has yet to meet Flathead Forest Plan
Amendment 19 road density requirements for wildlife.
Announcing the Citizen’s Call for Ecological Restoration:
Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria
On May 21, 121 local and national organiza-
tions unveiled the “Citizen’s Call for Ecological
Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles and
Criteria.” The Restoration Principles are the result
of a two-year bridge-building effort between
conservation groups, community forestry advo-
cates and restoration practitioners to develop
agreement on a common sense, scientifically-based
framework for restoring our nation’s forests.
The Restoration Principles serve as a national
policy statement to guide sound ecological restora-
tion. They clearly define principles and criteria in
order to evaluate proposed forest restoration
policies and projects. By including social and The Forest Restoration Principles represent a new approach to managing our
economic criteria, the Restoration Principles also National Forests. They emphasize restoration and sustainability rather than
bridge the gap between what’s good for the land continued resource extraction. Photo by Liz Tanke.
and what’s good for communities and workers.
The Restoration Principles stand in stark fuels reduction” and “forest health.”
contrast to the so-called “Healthy Forests Restora- During a period of significant change in forest policies at the
tion Act of 2003” passed recently by the U.S. House federal, state and local level, the Forest Restoration Principles
and the Bush administration’s “Healthy Forest establish a vision for restoring natural ecosystems and a sustainable
Initiative” (HFI). Instead of restoring National relationship with the land. They reject the pseudo-science, failed
Forests, these measures limit citizen participation economics, and erosion of public participation that underlie current
and undermine environmental laws in order to “healthy forests” measures. The Principles and Criteria provide an
increase logging and road building, creating an essential tool for stakeholders and decision-makers at all levels to
even greater need for restoration in the future. evaluate, critique, improve, support or reject a proposed project or
The so-called HFI and the House bill purport to policy. All parties are invited to endorse and utilize this document.
restore forest health, but the focus remains on
logging and “thinning” forests. This represents the Marnie Criley, Wildlands CPR’s Restoration Program Coordinator, is a
same failed management of past decades, now co-author of the Principles. If you have any questions please contact her
being advanced under the guise of “hazardous at marnie@wildlandscpr.org
Montana Shares Raffle

Wildlands CPR is a member of Montana Shares, a federation of 38 Montana-
based nonprofits that cooperatively fundraise through workplace giving pro-
grams. The Montana Shares raffle helps fund Montana Shares, which in turn,
helps fund Wildlands CPR. Last year Montana Shares raised over $200,000 for
non-profits throughout the state.
This year’s raffle prizes range from guided boat trips to lodging at Montana
Bed and Breakfasts to Patagonia outerwear. The drawing is September 6th. A full
list of prizes is posted on our web site, www.wildlandscpr.org. Please contact our
office to purchase tickets: 406-543-9551.
Thanks to all of you who purchased tickets last year!
To enter this year’s raffle, simply fill out, clip and return these tickets to Wildlands CPR!
(Suggested donation is $10 per ticket — make checks payable to Montana Shares)
Name Name
Address Address
City/State/Zip City/State/Zip
Ticket Seller and Organization Ticket Seller and Organization

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights
some of the scientific literature in our 6,000 citation
bibliography on the ecological effects of roads.
We offer bibliographic searches to help activists
access important biological research relevant to
roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in
Bibliography Notes in our office library.
Erosion at Stream Crossings:

The Case for Restoration
By Mary Ann Madej, Ph.D.
Introduction
Wildland roads are a major source of sediment in many water- The potential for gully
sheds. Although sedimentation is a natural process in many aquatic erosion, slides and failures
systems, large amounts can greatly impair the integrity of a water- is much greater when roads
shed. For example, suspended sediments can negatively impact intersect waterways.
Wildlands CPR file photos.
salmonid fisheries through direct mortality, hindering the develop-
ment of eggs and larvae, disrupting natural movements and migra-
tion, and reducing food organisms (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).
Inadequate drainage structures on roads are a common cause of
erosion, so if a road is no longer needed, removal of culverts through
road decommissioning is recommended.
Literature Review
Several studies conducted in northern California address erosion
and sedimentation from failed culverts. Best et al. (1995) examined
111 stream crossings on unpaved logging roads. They found that
stream diversions at road crossings are the most important causes of
fluvial erosion in the watershed. Such diversions typically occur
when a culvert plugs and flow is diverted down the inboard ditch Bloom (1998) surveyed 86 decommissioned
instead of breaching the road fill. Diversions are more prone to occur road crossings before and after a 12-year recur-
on insloped roads with inboard ditches than on outsloped roads. The rence interval storm in the Bridge Creek basin,
most important factor in determining the probability of stream northern California. A total of 117,500 cubic yards
diversion is the gradient of the road at the point of crossings, and of fill had been excavated from these stream
diversions are more common on steeper roads. There were 15 stream crossings during restoration work. In the 1997
diversions noted in the study, and these diversions produced 64,000 storm, decommissioned stream crossings yielded
metric tons of sediment. This volume was much greater than the an average of 5 cubic yards of erosion (much less
volume of road fill in the 15 crossing prisms, and illustrates the fact than what would have eroded if the road fill had
that the total erosion due to problems at a stream crossing must be been left in place and the culvert failed).
considered, not just the immediate problems associated with breach- Madej (2001) examined 207 road crossings in
ing the road fill at a crossing. Redwood National Park that had been decommis-
In addition to erosion due to stream diversions, 43 culverts sioned during the previous 20 years. Bank erosion,
plugged and caused erosion of road fill at the stream crossings. Some channel incision and mass movements were
crossings were rebuilt and failed again, resulting in 52 total failures. measured at each road crossing (measurements did
These failed crossings contributed 11,200 metric tons of sediment, not include surface erosion or rilling). A total of
and had an average failure size of about 200 metric tons. In many 220,000 m3 of fill had been excavated from the
cases the amount eroded from the crossing was greater than the crossings (which could be considered potential
amount of road fill in the prism because of incorporation of native sediment input if the road prisms had not been
material through bank erosion and knickpoint retreat. decommissioned), and 10,500 m3 of sediment
Klein (1987) surveyed 24 stream crossings immediately following eroded from the crossings since decommissioning.
culvert removal and again after winter flows caused some erosion of The crossings eroded a median volume of 23 m3
the decommissioned crossings. Post-rehabilitation erosion was since the crossings were excavated. A few trouble
positively correlated with stream power, and inversely related to the crossings produced the most sediment (20 % of the
boulder and cobble content of the stream bank materials. Average crossings produced 73% of the sediment). Because
incision of the newly excavated streambed was 0.8 m3 per meter of many of these crossings were removed in the early
channel length. (Average width of stream channel was not listed, nor days of the restoration program, erosion was
was surface erosion measured in this study.) probably higher than we would expect in current

day excavations with more experienced staff. Channel incision and
bank erosion were the most common forms of post-treatment erosion
in crossings. The volume eroded was positively correlated with
stream power and the volume of road fill excavated (i.e., the more
road fill that had to be excavated, the more bare slopes were exposed
to erosive forces and subsequently they showed higher erosion
rates). Surface treatments of the bare slopes varied, from no treat-
ment to heavy mulching.
Without treatment, roads can eventually fail and contribute
sediment to streams. Based on an inventory of 330 km of untreated
roads in a northern California basin, Weaver and Hagans (1999)
estimated past road-related sediment delivery to be 720 m3/km of
road, and future potential sediment delivery without road treatment
to be an additional 820 m3/km, for a total of 1540 m3/km. In a similar Installing sediment traps on a road restoration project.
study based on 140 km of untreated roads in the Redwood Creek Photo by Bethanie Walder.
watershed (G. J. Bundros and B. R. Hill, unpublished data, 1997) past
and potential sediment delivery from roads was reported to be 1450
m3/km of road. By removing culverts and restoring natural drainage References
patterns, restorationists have removed the risk of stream diversions Best, D. W., H. M. Kelsey, D. K. Hagans, and M. Alpert.
(discussed previously under the Best (1995) study). None of the 207 1995. Role of Fluvial Hillslope Erosion and Road
excavated crossings examined in the Madej (2001) study had diver- Construction in the Sediment Budget of Garrett
sions or debris torrents related to road treatment. Although road Creek, Humboldt County, California. Chapter M
restoration in Redwood National Park did not completely prevent in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
sediment production from removed roads, it did substantially reduce 1454. Geomorphic Processes and Aquatic
the long-term sediment risk from abandoned roads. Habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin,
Furniss and others (1998) examined the effects of the 1996 Northwestern California. K.M. Nolan, H.M.
Oregon/Washington flood events on road-stream crossings in three Kelsey, and D.C. Marron, eds.
physiographic regions. Fill erosion was found at 49% of the failed Bloom, A. L. 1998. An assessment of road removal
crossings, and diversion of streams occurred at half the failed and erosion control treatment effectiveness: A
crossings, resulting in erosion of the ditchline and road surface, and comparison of 1997 storm erosion response
gullying of the sidecast road fill. In addition, 69% of the diversions between treated and untreated roads in
left the originating watershed and delivered runoff to an adjacent Redwood Creek Basin, northwestern California.
watershed and stream. Cascading failures occurred where stream MS Thesis. Arcata, CA. Humbolt State University.
diversions were routed to adjacent crossing structures, causing them Bundros, G. J. and B. R. Hill. 1997. Unpublished data.
to fail. Redwood National Park. Arcata, California.
Furniss, M. J., T. S. Ledwith, M. A. Love, B. C. McFadin
Conclusion and S. A. Flanagan. 1998. Response of Road-
These studies were conducted in the Pacific Northwest, but many stream Crossings to Large Flood Events in
of the results can be applied to other wildland roads. The studies Washington, Oregon, and Northern California.
show that when culverts fail (through hydraulic exceedance, plugging U.S. Forest Service San Dimas Technology and
by woody debris or sediment, or destruction by debris torrents, for Development Center Report 9877-1806. 14 p.
example) the amount of erosion may exceed the volume of material http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road/w-r-pdf/
within the road prism overlying the culvert because of off-site effects. floodeffects.pdf
Also, based on many field observations, when the road prism is Klein, R. D. 1987. Stream channel adjustments
eroded, most commonly channel incision does not stop at the top of following logging road removal in Redwood
the culvert, but extends to the natural channel bottom. The culvert National Park. Arcata CA: National Park Service;
more frequently acts as a large roughness element that induces scour Redwood National Park Watershed
along the stream banks and channel bed rather than acting as Rehabilitation; Technical Report No. 23. 38 p.
channel armor to prevent further erosion. Although many problems Madej, M. A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery
with drainage structures are preventable through proper road design following removal of forest roads. Earth Surface
(construction of rolling dips to prevent diversions, for example) and Processes and Landforms. Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.175-
regular maintenance (especially the use of storm patrols), culverts 190.
can still plug with debris and fail. Road decommissioning removes Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects
the threat of culvert failure. The removal of culverts during decom- of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems.
missioning does not prevent all erosion from the crossing site, but North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
with adequate mulching and implementation of best management 11:72-82.
practices we have found that post-rehabilitation erosion is much less Weaver, W. E. and Hagans, D. K. 1999. Storm-proofing
than the erosion associated with unmaintained culverts. forest roads. In: Proceedings of the
International Mountain Logging and 10th Pacific
— Mary Ann Madej is with the USGS-Western Ecological Research Northwest Skyline Symposium. Sessions, J. C.
Center. and W. C. Chungs, (eds.) Oregon State
University Department of Forest Engineering
and the International Union of Forestry
Research Organizations. Corvallis, Oregon.

The Activist Spotlight shares the stories of some of
the awesome activists we work with, both as a
tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight to
jenbarry@wildlandscpr.org.
Spotlight on Sungnome Madrone
S
ungnome Madrone has felt connected to nature since childhood:
he remembers finding joy in the worms, willow thickets, gardens
and orchards of his backyard in Dubuque, Iowa as a young boy.
When his family relocated to Southern California in the 1950’s
Sungnome witnessed orange grooves being mowed down to make
room for housing tracks. Disturbed by what he saw, the beginnings of
activism began to stir in him. Indeed, a career path involving the
natural world won out over a curiosity in Catholicism: after spending
6 days studying to be a priest, it became clear to Sumgnome that the
seminary was not for him. Instead, he enrolled at Humboldt State
College (HS) in Eureka, California to study forests and natural re-
sources (he says he retains that missionary zeal but pours it into his
activist work!).
At Humbolt State Sungnome was influenced by Dr. Rudy Becking,
an eminent redwood ecology scientist and the only professor in the
HS forestry department teaching the ecological approach of European
(or all-aged) forestry rather than the western model of even-aged
forestry. Dr. Becking was studying the world’s tallest trees and had,
along with several students, started an off-campus group called the
Emerald Creek Committee (ECC).
Sungnome spent the following years working with the ECC to stop
devastating logging and expand Redwood National Park. Harmful
Photo by Adam Switalski.
logging roads nearly always accompany logging, and soon Sungnome
became more and more interested in the question of what to do with
these massive disturbances after expanding the park. Then in 1977,
the year before the expansion, the park’s first road decommissioning
pilot projects began. As Sungnome points out, this was the birth of tions — they are finally ready for work to begin. It
the watershed restoration movement in this country. will take two years to finish, and after a monitoring
Today Sungnome is co-director of Natural Resources Services program has been designed and carried out, the
(NRS), a division of Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA), project will have spanned nearly ten years.
based in Humboldt County, California. NRS provides assistance to How does Sungnome keep up his stamina for
watershed groups throughout the region, focusing on natural re- such long-range and detailed work? His colleague,
sources restoration, trail planning and construction, and non- Ruth Blyther at RCAA, says it’s his extraordinary
motorized transportation planning. NRS collaborates with local, dedication: “Sungnome lives and breathes his
regional, state and national networks like the National Network of work. He is always thinking of how to integrate
Forest Practitioners. Sungnome himself is a forest practitioner and projects, extend the budgets and get more work
Licensed Landscape Contractor. done. Sungnome is a quick thinker, he likes to solve
RCAA’s current restoration work in Humboldt Redwoods State difficult problems, and excels in crisis management
Park (the Park) is a partnership with the State Water Board and scenarios. He is an eternal optimist and manages to
private heavy equipment contractors, and exemplifies their excellent pull off projects that most people would walk away
collaborative work. The Park approached RCAA to help secure from. He never takes no for an answer.”
additional funding beyond the state budget allotment. The NRS staff Sungnome has his own advice for folks wanting
wrote a proposal with RCAA doing the primary work (which included to get into this work. He recommends starting
training and community based education), and the state funded the small, doing pilot projects, building success from
project for $511,000 with state water and watershed restoration there, and leveraging dollars in creative ways. He
bonds. adds, “work on ego-system management as much
Efforts like this take patience and perserverence. After a two- as eco-system management. Give thanks daily!”
year bureaucratic process to get the proposal approved, it took NRS Thanks to you, Sungnome for your steadfast
three and a half years to survey, map, and determine site prescrip- dedication to restoration work!

I
n mid-May the board and staff met in the Tom Minor Basin
near Yellowstone National Park for our annual board and
staff retreat. We had a great weekend of strategy building,
brainstorming and program development. Many, many
thanks to Mary Anne Mott and Herman Warsh for their
generosity in providing lodging and food at the B-Bar Ranch.
It was a great place to meet and certainly stimulated intense
discussion about our programs.
We’re thrilled to have three new board members joining

Wildlands CPR and we’d like to introduce them here.
Greg Fishbein joined our board in early March. He’s been

a member of Wildlands CPR for several years, during which
time he’s been an international environmental and business
consultant. Just last year, Greg joined the staff of The Nature
Conservancy in Washington DC. There he manages the
Business Consulting Group, which supports senior Nature
Conservancy managers in the US and overseas as they
negotiate complex conservation transactions. Greg served as
an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan on international
trade, budget and economic policy issues in 1986 and 1987.
He has a B.A. in Economics from Dartmouth College and an
M.B.A. in Finance from the Wharton School. Greg will bring Photo courtesy of Buffalo Field Campaign.
some business savvy to our board - something that we’ve
been looking for as we implement our strategic plan.
We are also delighted that Matt Skroch became a board member

in early May. Matt is the Field Director for the Tucson-based Sky
Island Alliance, a regional conservation organization that integrates
grassroots organizing with conservation biology to protect and also has a B.A. from Michigan State University,
restore native biological diversity in the Sky Island Region of the Business School. Sonya currently serves on the
Southwest. Matt also serves on the board of directors and as the City of Madison Solid Waste Advisory Committee, is
Southeast Arizona Representative for the Arizona Wilderness Coali- Vice Chair of WasteCap Wisconsin Board of Direc-
tion. He has worked on road removal techniques and policy for five tors, and is an active member of the Transportation
years and he advocates for sound transportation policy in the Committee for Downtown Madison, Inc. Two years
Southwest. He has initiated many volunteer-led road obliteration ago she divorced her car and travels by bike and
projects on the Coronado and Gila National Forests, developed a bus to reduce her output of CO2 emissions.
citizen’s wilderness proposal for the Coronado National Forest, and
organized the longest running volunteer wildlife track count in the US. A big welcome to Greg, Matt and Sonya -—
Matt received his B.S. in wildlife biology from Iowa State University. we’re looking forward to sharing your energy and
He also serves on an environmental advisory committee for Congress- enthusiasm for addressing road and motorized
man Raul Grijalva. recreation issues.
Sonya Newenhouse is our most recent addition, joining the board On a different note, many thanks to the
in mid-May. Because of our quest to reach out to more people, we are Yellowstone-to-Yukon mini-grant program for a
particularly excited about Sonya’s work with urban transportation small grant to enhance a road restoration project
issues and communications. Sonya is president of Madison Environ- on the Clearwater National Forest. And a parting
mental Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm that provides thank you to Shay O’Brien-Ugaldea for the fantastic
research, planning and communication services using interdiscipli- work she did during an internship this winter and
nary approaches. Prior to that, she created WasteCap Wisconsin, a spring. Shay worked with Tom Petersen, our
nonprofit organization providing waste reduction and recycling development director, researching new funding
assistance to businesses. Dr. Newenhouse received her Ph.D. from the opportunities for everything from scientific
UW-Madison, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies in 1997. She research to videos. Thanks Shay — we’ll miss you!

New Resources Wildlands CPR
Publications
Web Updates
Road-Ripper’s Handbook ($20.00, $30.00 non-
Monitoring and Survey Materials members) — A comprehensive activist manual
We’ve updated the monitoring and survey section of our that includes the five Guides listed below, plus
website. All of our current monitoring sheets are now available The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gathering
on one page, most with accompanying instructions for how to Information with the Freedom of Information
use them. If you’re working on a summer monitoring program Act, and more!
on the public lands near you, please check out our resources at Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Forests ($5,
www.wildlandscpr.org/ $8 non-members) — By Keith Hammer. How-to
procedures for getting roads closed and
revegetated, descriptions of environmental laws,
RS 2477 road density standards & Forest Service road
For more information about what’s happening with RS 2477 policies.
please check out our website. Click on the homepage link to the Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Parks ($5, $8
RS 2477 page — there you’ll find information about the latest non-members) — By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo.
political maneuverings regarding RS 2477, as well as links to Provides background on the National Park
other critical web resources to address RS 2477 challenges. If System and its use of roads, and outlines how
new RS 2477 claims are cropping up in your neighborhood, activists can get involved in NPS planning.
please contact Bridget, our Transportation Policy Coordinator. Road-Ripper’s Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-
members) — By Dan Stotter. Provides an
Mini-grants Available overview of road-related land and resource laws,
Are you a member of the Natural Trails and Waters Coali- and detailed discussions for participating in
tion? If so, you’re eligible to apply for a limited pool of mini- BLM decision-making processes.
grant funding for fighting off-road vehicle abuses. For more Road-Ripper’s Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8
information contact Lisa Philipps, Grassroots Coordinator for non-members) — By Dan Wright. A
the Coalition. Lisa’s based in the Wildlands CPR office, or you comprehensive guide to reducing the use and
can email her at lisa@naturaltrails.org. abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an
extensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal
($5, $8 non-members) — By Scott Bagely.
Provides technical information on road
construction and removal, where and why roads
fail, and how you can effectively assess road
removal projects.
Trails of Destruction ($10) — By Friends of the
Earth and Wildlands CPR, written by Erich Pica
and Jacob Smith. This report explains the
ecological impacts of ORVs, federal funding for
motorized recreation on public lands, and the
ORV industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.
— To order these publications, use the

order form on next page —
Hand tools commonly used in road removal. Photo by Bethanie Walder.
Refer a friend to Wildlands CPR!

Send us the names and addresses of friends you think may be interested in
receiving membership information from Wildlands CPR.

Membership and Order Information
Memberships
Joining Wildlands CPR increases our member base — which Yes! I want to help revive and protect wild places by
increases public awareness, citizen activism, and political clout — becoming a Wildlands CPR member
and increases the dollars to get our work done. (or by renewing my membership)
All members receive an annual subscription to The Road-RIPorter.
Organization
Name
Name
City, State,
Address
Zip
Phone Email
Type of Membership: Individual Organization
Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

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

from my checking account once per month. Please include a voided
check. All information will be kept confidential. Payment Option #3:
Give online via your credit card.
Signature
Go to www.wildlandscpr.org/join_us/index.html
Thank you for your support!
Publications
Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications: Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.
International Membership — $30 Minimum. All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.
Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
Check here if you are interested in helping
/ to distribute The Road-RIPorter in your area.
Check here to receive our ORV and road email
/ newsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks.
Check here for our Email Activist List.
/ Please remember to include your email address.
Total of all items: Check here for our RIP-Web non-paper

option. Get the RIPorter online before it gets
printed. Please include your email address.
In order to increase our membership, Wildlands CPR

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

Non-profit Organization
US POSTAGE
PAID
MISSOULA MT, 59801
PERMIT NO. 569
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
“OHV use alone affects more

imperiled species than logging
and logging roads combined.”
— Dale Bosworth,
U.S. Forest Service Chief
April 22, 2003
The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper with soy-based ink.

Road RIPorter 8.2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Road RIPorter 8.2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Summer Solstice 2003.

Volume 8 # 2 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

Trading Roads for Jobs

Removing roads on the Clearwater National Forest. Photo by Scott Bagely.

Check out our website at:

By Bethanie Walder P.O. Box 7516

© 2003 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

Mile-by-mile and job-by-job

Comparison of Road Removal Options

4 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

1. family wage, fully trained, journeyman level

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 5

Road Removal Workshop in Missoula/ Science Program

Restoration Principles submitted for publication in Ecological Restoration.

Labor and the Environment

A few years ago, the “travel planning” process was virtually

Travel Planning Primer

Comments and Appeals

Motorized recreation comments. Wildlands CPR has been

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 7

After the plaintiffs won a temporary stay of the

In late October, the court issued a preliminary

8 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

Just the Beginning

SUWA and its conservation partners were represented by SUWA

— Steve Bloch is a staff attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness

A road (on right) leads up to a drilling platform along

Photo courtesy of SUWA.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 9

Recreational Trails Program Update

10 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

How We Can Influence the RTP Process

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 11

T he bridge over Oregon Inlet stretches above a

“They’re going to close the beach!” The cry

There was, the anglers decided, only one thing

I had gone into the shop to drop off some

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 13

In a further attack against public participation, in late

The Healthy Forests and Restoration Act Conclusion

While citizens sit idly by, this government is

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 15

Montana Shares Raffle

Ticket Seller and Organization Ticket Seller and Organization

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 17

Erosion at Stream Crossings:

18 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 19

Spotlight on Sungnome Madrone

20 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

We’re thrilled to have three new board members joining

Greg Fishbein joined our board in early March. He’s been

We are also delighted that Matt Skroch became a board member

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 21

— To order these publications, use the

Refer a friend to Wildlands CPR!

22 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003

Type of Membership: Individual Organization

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

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

Thank you for your support!

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