Spring Equinox 2003.

Volume 8 # 1 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

Cougar Corridors
Photo courtesy of California State Parks.

Restoring the Missing Link

in California’s Chino Hills
By Alexandra Koelle

— See article on page 3 —

Inside…
Cougar Corridors, by Alexandra Koelle. Pages 3-5
Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 6-7
Odes to Roads: Roads and More Roads, by
Rosalie Edge. Pages 8-9
Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 10-11
Wildlands CPR 2002 Annual Report. Pages 12-13
Get with the Program: ORV and Roads Program
Updates. Pages 14-15
Biblio Notes: The Impacts of Snowmobiling and
Cross Country Skiing on Ungulates, by
Teresa Elise Welsh. Pages 16-18
Activist Spotlight: Lynda Bilbrough. Page 19
Policy Primer: Funding for Road Removal, by
Beth Peluso. Pages 20-22

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org

 Wildlands
C
Center for
P
Preventing
R
Roads

By Bethanie Walder P.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
WildlandsCPR@wildlandscpr.org

A
t our annual board meeting last May, Wildlands CPR began a strategic www.wildlandscpr.org
planning process. After a second meeting in December, and a significant
effort on the part of several board members and the staff, we have just
about finalized a plan for 2003-2005. Through this process we’ve solidified the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to
importance of our existing work and defined our priorities for the next three years
protect and restore wildland ecosystems by
— and we’re very excited about what the future holds.
preventing and removing roads and limiting
Our new plan affirms the trajectory we’d been moving on for the past year or motorized recreation. We are a national
so. It focuses our proactive transportation planning and restoration goals while clearinghouse and network, providing citizens
maintaining and expanding our clearinghouse and activist assistance. Perhaps with tools and strategies to fight road
more importantly, we defined very specific arenas in which we want to expand our construction, deter motorized recreation, and
capacity - reaching out to new people and developing a more public persona for the promote road removal and revegetation.
organization.
Director
We set two programmatic goals for 2005. First, to see at least 50% of the Bethanie Walder
National Forests adopt a designated route system for off-road vehicles, and second,
to see road removal considered as a major component of restoration projects and Development Director
policies. To help us reach these we adopted a series of commensurate organiza- Tom Petersen
tional goals that focus on reaching out to new people and empowering our constitu- Restoration Program
encies, updating our image and presentations and, of course, improving our Coordinator
clearinghouse. Marnie Criley

To this end you’ll start to see some changes at Wildlands CPR. First, we’ve Transportation Policy
changed some position titles and responsibilities. Marnie is now our Restoration Coordinator
Program Coordinator - and she will focus almost exclusively on that second goal Bridget Lyons
regarding road removal. Bridget (our newest staffer, see page 23), is our Transpor-
tation Policy Coordinator. Get in touch with her for answers to your questions Science Coordinator
about off-road vehicles and road prevention. This change in titles reflects a long- Adam Switalski
standing desire of ours to integrate our roads and off-road vehicle work more NTWC Grassroots
effectively. We also think it will help us serve your road prevention, road removal Coordinator
and off-road vehicle needs more effectively. Lisa Philipps
Second, we’re on a major quest to diversify our funding sources. Tommy has Program Associate
been doing an amazing job researching our options, and we’ll have lots of new Jennifer Barry
things in the works as we look throughout and beyond the foundation community.
Newsletter
Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield
As we implement additional changes, we’ll let you know. If you have any
questions about our strategic planning, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with Interns & Volunteers
us. Brooke Hughes, Shay O'Brien-Ugaldea,
Beth Peluso, Teresa Welsh
Board of Directors
Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari, Dave Havlick,
Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,
Ted Zukoski
Advisory Committee
Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
Photo by Phil Knight.

Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,

Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin
Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
© 2003 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003

Cougar Corridors
Restoring the Missing Link in California’s Chino Hills
By Alexandra Koelle

O
n the edge of the United States’ most
notorious example of urban sprawl, a
precedent-setting model of cooperation to
save a critical biodiversity linkage has been set.
The place — Coal Canyon — is a 681-acre parcel of
land bisected by the Riverside Freeway (California
Route 91). This small area of land within an hour’s
drive of Los Angeles’s 15 million inhabitants
currently is home to many species, including
mountain lion, deer, bobcat, and the California
gnatcatcher. As the only remaining viable link
between the Puente-Chino Hills State Park in the
north (40,000 acres) and the Santa Ana Mountains
and Cleveland National Forest in the south (472,000
acres), the significance of Coal Canyon’s preserva-
tion is far larger than its relatively small size.

The ecological value of the Coal Canyon area is
not all that’s significant about this project. In an
historic precedent, state agencies have already
begun removing and revegetating a paved off-ramp
and underpass of State Highway 91, a 10-12 lane
freeway. The road removal will compliment the
state’s earlier acquisition of neighboring lands to
restore a functioning wildlife corridor in Coal
Canyon. California State Parks and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) deserve
recognition for their commitment to public wildlife
and non-motorized recreation.
In This Corner:
Development Versus Diversity
In 2000 California State Parks purchased 649
acres south of the freeway, which had been slated
for development of 1,550 new houses (this land is
currently undisturbed). Then, in 2001, they
purchased an additional 32 acres north of the
freeway, where an industrial park had been
planned. Plans to restore native vegetation on the
32 acres are underway, and a BMX track and horse
stables have already been removed.
The area is a remnant of California coastal sage
scrub ecosystem, widely recognized as one of the
most biologically diverse and threatened ecosys-
tems in the continental U.S. Seventy to ninety
percent of California coastal sage scrub ecosys-
tems have already been lost. Coal Canyon’s 681
An arial view of the Coal Canyon corridor area and the underpass under
Highway 91 (circled). Also see close-up map on next page. Photo courtesty of
California State Parks.
acres host two federally listed species, the California gnatcatcher and
Braunton’s Milk-vetch, and provides nesting habitat to prairie falcons
and golden eagles (Hund 2002). Coal Canyon provides a link between
the two larger protected areas, which together are home to an
additional 55 sensitive or threatened plant and animal species.
Other ecosystems and rare communities in the Santa Ana
Mountains and Puente-Chino Hills include alluvial sage scrub,
grasslands, vernal pools, southern California walnut woodland, tecate
cypress forest, big cone Douglas-fir forest, Engelmann oak woodlands,
the Santa Margarita River, and San Mateo Creek. The latter is the only
perennial stream between Santa Barbara and the Mexican border that
remains wild throughout the entire watershed (Noss et. al. 2002).
The purchased parcel and the associated road removal will
provide a safe crossing for indicator species such as cougar and
bobcat that would otherwise be cut off into separate “islands” by the
freeway. In turn, the mobility of these larger species will provide for
genetic diversity in Puente-Chino Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains,
strengthening the chances for survival of smaller animal species and
plants on both sides of the highway. Relegation to “island” status
would have been an especially grim scenario for the Puente-Chino
Hills State Park, which is too small to support its current species
diversity over time. In this area, up to half of certain classes of
species could be lost if the link to the south is not preserved. In the
event of a localized destruction, the corridor may serve as a means
for the repopulation of connected areas.
— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 3

Cougar Corridors Locator map
— continued from page 3 —

Not Just For Cougars

Mountain lions are considered the indicator species in this
area: if the mountain lion disappears, a host of ecological
changes are certain to follow. An issue paper on Coal Canyon
predicts that “if larger predators became extinct, smaller omni-
vores and carnivores would undergo a population explosion known
as a meso-predator release. They would likely become 4 to 10 times
more abundant. Meso-predator release has been implicated in bird
extinctions in the tropics and elsewhere, including birds (i.e. Califor-
nia gnatcatcher) in San Diego canyon fragments” (Hund 2002). Past
They also project that many more animals will
wildlife crossing research indicates that crossing structures wide
use this route. Deer, for example, currently do not
enough for cougars should also work for other species. Prior to
use the existing double box culvert corridor,
rehabilitating this crossing, one radio-collared mountain lion was
because they cannot see to the other side. With
found to have established its territory on both sides of the freeway,
the pavement gone and the underpass lighting
crossing underneath the freeway over twenty times in a year (Beier
removed, Caltrans is now enhancing the corridor’s
2002).
viability by reconfiguring the fence line adjacent to
the freeway in order to divert animals into the
underpass.
To Make It Work — Remove the Road
However, Noss et. al. emphasize that the Coal
In their paper “Evaluation of Coal Canyon Corridor,” Noss et. al. Canyon Biological Corridor should not be equated
mention that we do not know what corridor traits — including length, simply with its most constrictive element, the
width, and adjacent land uses — are necessary for optimal use. freeway underpass. The 681 acres of Coal Canyon
However, they conclude that the issue “is not how wide an ideal themselves function as a crucial link, of which the
corridor should be but whether the extremely limited options that improved underpass is only a part. For example, a
remain are adequate to provide a functional biological linkage.” pair of gnatcatchers is nesting in Coal Canyon, and
Fortunately for cougars, gnatcatchers, and others, the Coal Canyon other species of concern are found within the 681-
corridor appears to do just that (Noss et. al. 2002). acre linkage zone.

To maximize the likelihood of restoring a “functional biological Biologists predict that species currently using
linkage,” land managers considered the most obvious single impedi- culverts (mountain lion, coyote, skunk, raccoon)
ment — the paved highway underpass — and sought to partner with will be joined by those hesitant to use them (deer,
Caltrans. After a public hearing in 2000 and consideration of the
benefits of road removal, Caltrans joined the effort. By ripping the
underpass road the agencies are well on their way to securing an
effective corridor for wildlife and non-motorized recreationists. Underpass Area

Chino Hills State Park

Maps from California State Parks.

4 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003


California gnatcatcher. Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.
rabbits, rodents, reptiles, and amphibians).
California State Parks is currently removing
pavement and restoring vegetation in the corridor,
which will facilitate its use.
The underpass will also serve as a recreational
trail linkage, allowing bikers, equestrians, and
hikers to travel under the freeway to access
Puente-Chino Hills from the Santa Ana Mountains
and vice versa.
Funding for Corridor Restoration
California State Parks purchased the lands on
either side of the freeway for a total of $53.5
million, using monies earmarked for land acquisi-
tion and a fundraising campaign that included
many public and private sources. And while the
650 acres south of the freeway is undisturbed,
revegetating the 32 acre parcel (north of the
freeway) is estimated to cost from $1 to $1.2
million. State officials hope to involve citizens in
the effort through volunteering.
Caltrans has generously taken on the under-
pass road removal and enhancements — investing
roughly $400,000 in reconfiguring the fence line
alone. As with the revegetation effort, creative
funding tools such as tax credits and issuing bonds
help to get the job done.
Team Effort
Scientists and engineers at Caltrans, the
California State Parks and California Department of
Fish and Game deserve the lion’s share of the
credit for pursuing and implementing this project.
Conservation organizations including Hills for
Everyone, The Wildlands Conservancy, Friends of
Tecate Cypress, Sierra Club, and the Mountain Lion
Foundation also provided important assistance.
Finally, two private companies, the St. Clair
Company and the Pulte Home Corporation, helped
make the project possible by reducing the sale
price of the land and offering up development
rights.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
Conclusion
In an evaluation submitted to California State Parks in support of
the proposed project, wildlife professionals from Oregon and Arizona
urged that: “Restoring a natural linkage in what is now a roaded
underpass would set a global precedent. We are aware of no other
restored biological corridor of this type and scale. Conservation-
minded citizens throughout the world could look to Coal Canyon as
an inspiring example of how an ecological error was corrected
through thoughtful public action” (Noss et. al. 2002).
While conservationists are understandably scrambling to save
the last percent of old growth temperate forest and roadless areas,
the importance of looking at corridors within urban areas should give
us hope as well. The American desire for single-family houses
accessible only by car shows no signs of abating; in this context,
perhaps a remarkable action of foresight is to maintain corridors
within the sprawl. Of course additional private lands will be devel-
oped, and there will be edge effects from trails, roads, and inholdings.
However, this makes preservation of the corridor all the more
important, now and in the future. Many thanks to the State of Califor-
nia for setting this important and hopeful precedent for wildlife and
wildlands.
Former coastal sage scrub habitat in California — and the
type of development that renders it a biological desert.
Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.
— Alexandra Koelle is a graduate of the Environmental Studies
program at the University of Montana, and is currently a writer and
editor in Missoula.
References
Beier, P., and K. Penrod. 2002. Using cougars to design a wilderness
network in California’s south coast ecoregion. In Proceedings of
Defenders of Wildlife’s Carnivores 2002 Conference, Monterey, CA.
Hund, G.W. 2002. Preserving the Coal Canyon Biological Corridor, Orange
County, CA. An Issue Paper for the California Department of Parks
and Recreation, Los Lagos District. 6p.
Krueper, R. 2003. Superintendent, Chino Hills State Park. Personal
Communication.
Noss, R., P. Beier, and W. Shaw. 2002. Evaluation of the Coal Canyon
Biological Corridor. An unpublished report prepared for Hills for
Everyone, Brea, CA. 15 p. Available online at: http://
www.hillsforeveryone.org/PDF_Files/
evaluation_of_the_coal_canyon_biological_corridor.pdf
5
So what’s the difference between forest restoration and
sustainable forestry, anyway?
F
rom the mid-1980’s until today, an untold number of books,
journals, articles, and essays have been published regarding
sustainable forestry and ecological restoration. What’s inter-
esting, however, is that little of this work articulates a distinction
between the two concepts. It’s not a purely academic point - this
question is foremost in the minds of many conservation activists and
forest workers as we work to build alliances with each other. Both
groups are concerned with the health of forests and the health of
communities, and both forest restoration and sustainable forestry
address those issues at some level. But while these two terms are
sometimes used interchangeably, the two practices are fundamen-
tally different.
• The Sustainable Forestry Initiative provides the following
definition: “Sustainable forestry consists of management prac-
tices that ensure the health and growth of our forests for future
generations.” (As an alternative, the Institute for Sustainable
Forestry in California provides a comprehensive list of ten
elements of sustainability (www.isf-sw.org).)
• The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecologi-
cal restoration as: “(T)he process of assisting the recovery of an
ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.”
This definition can be easily applied to forests by substituting
“forest” for “ecosystem.” It should be noted here that forest
restoration is not about returning a forest to any given past
condition, but restoring the forest ecosystem’s ability to proceed
on its natural trajectory.
Clearly the two have very different meanings. Sustainable
forestry is about producing a product without damaging the forest’s
capacity for future production, while forest restoration is about
While sustainable forestry is a vast improvement over forest practices like
clearcutting, it is not a synonym for ecosystem restoration. Photo by Mark Alan
Wilson.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
restoring the structure and function of a degraded
forest. Both are defined in the context of goals
that we, as humans, have set. For example, as
Reed Noss points out in Defining Sustainable
Forestry, “If our goal is only to maintain an approxi-
mately even flow of wood products, then we have a
seemingly easier task than if we have to worry
about sustaining the food webs and nutrient cycles
that maintain soil productivity.”
Forest restoration will always be sustainable.
But sustainable forestry will not always restore a
forest.
Much of the debate between advocates of
forest restoration and advocates of sustainable
forestry is centered on maintaining the human
communities situated near forests. But the short
term debate may be unnecessary. In their imple-
mentation, both can provide jobs — through
silvicultural manipulation, road removal, or
invasive species eradication, for example.
Neither approach excludes people. The SER
Primer on Ecological Restoration states: “Ecologi-
cal restoration encourages and may indeed be
dependent upon long-term participation of local
people.” Perhaps the key to involving local people
over the long term is to develop an economic
system that adapts as the forest moves closer and
closer to its natural trajectory. Such an economic
system must recognize the value of producing a
fully-functioning ecosystem, rather than merely the
production of wood products. (Of course that
begs the question of who is going to fund forest
restoration, but we’ll leave that question for
another time.)
Whether we are producing a wood product or
a functioning ecosystem, we are also producing
jobs — so forest restoration presents an option for
conservationists and forest practitioners to come
together. They have already begun to do so
through a series of meetings, field tours and
restoration summits. Out of those, they have
developed a set of Principles for Forest Restora-
tion. These principles have defined three interre-
lated goals to set the context for restoration while
emphasizing that the primary focus of restoration
“is to enhance ecological integrity by restoring
natural processes and resiliency” (DellaSalla et. al.
2003). The three interrelated goals are:
 (1) ecological forest restoration;
(2) ecological economics; and
(3) communities and work force.

When conservationists and forest workers came together to

begin developing these principles (to be published in the March issue
of Ecological Restoration), their purpose was to provide a tool for
critiqueing forest restoration projects. But over time they recognized
that to be successful on the ground, the principles must address
economic, community and work force issues. The principles may not
answer all our questions, and they certainly don’t say what will
happen to a forest after it’s been restored, but they do provide an
example of how conservationists and forest workers can work
together.

The restoration principles also emphasize that not all restoration

is silviculturally based. A different document, the SER Ecological
Restoration Primer, states that, “in the simplest circumstances,
restoration consists of removing or modifying a specific disturbance, Wildland restoration provides on opportunity for
thereby allowing ecological processes to bring about an independent forest workers and conservationists to work
recovery.” This concept is fully embodied in the forest restoration together. File photo.
principles. So forest restoration may provide jobs
removing roads or controlling and eradicating
weeds, but it may also provide silvicultural jobs.
Either way, people will be put to work putting the Forest restoration will always be
forest back together - even though it might not look
as it did before European settlement. sustainable. But sustainable forestry
will not always restore a forest.
Recognizing that the concept of forest restora-
tion has been abused and often used as a pseud-
onym for commodity production, the restoration
principles provide explicit language on commer- and to do so regardless of what the Forest Service, the forest prod-
cialism as it relates to restoration. They describe ucts industry or the dominant political powers want to see in their
merchantable products as by-products, which are wallets. It has taken us more than 100 years to degrade many of our
secondary to the primary goal of producing forests — it may take just as long to nudge them back on their way to
functioning ecosystems. being self-sustaining. In the process we may redefine our relation-
ship with the forests from one of exploitation to one of mutual
When people of divergent beliefs work support. And by the time we have re-created forest ecosystems that
together, they must decide which differences they are self-supporting the debates over commodity production and
will try to resolve and which they will leave for sustainable forestry may have changed dramatically. So why argue
another day (or not at all). Forest restoration about what we’ll do in the future if we can agree on what to do in the
provides an opportunity for forest workers and present? Since all forest restoration is sustainable, focusing our
conservationists to advocate for the same goal, collective energy on ecologically-principled forest restoration leaves
our future options open while improving our forests and communities
today.

A revegetated log haul road, one year after restoration. Photo by J.
McCullah.
References
Noss, R. 1993. Sustainable forestry or sustainable forests.
In: Aplet,
G.H., N. Johnson, J.T. Olson, and V.A. Sample, eds. 1993.
Defining
Sustainable Forestry. The Wilderness Society and Island
Press. Washington, DC.
DellaSalla, D., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M.
Criley, C. van
Daalen, J. Kreilick, R. Brown, and G. Aplet. March, 2003. A
citizen's call
for ecological forest restoration: Forest restoration
principles and
criteria. Ecological Restoration 21:1.
Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy
Working Group. 2002.
The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org/.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 7

Roads and More Roads in the
National Parks and National Forests Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.
By Rosalie Edge, 1936

Editor’s Note: Rosalie Edge is described by environmental historian Stephen Fox as "the first woman
to have a considerable impact on the conservation movement." As the chairman of the Emergency
Conservation Committee, she was one of the foremost environmental advocates in the United States in
the 1930s and 1940s. Her accomplishments include leadership in the successful efforts to create
Olympic National Park and Pennsylvania's Hawk Mountain Sanctuary.

Introduction
“Build a road!” Apparently this is the first idea
that occurs to those who formulate projects for
the unemployed. In consequence, a superfluity of
four-width boulevards, with the verdure cut back
for many feet on either side, goes slashing into our
countrysides, without regard for the destruction of
vegetation, and, too often without consideration of
whether the road is needed at all. The motoring
public always travels by the new road, and those
who dwell along such highways, and have chosen
their homes from a preference for seclusion, find
themselves parked beside arteries of ceaseless
traffic. No provision is made for pedestrians; and a
man takes his life in his hands if he ventures on
foot to call on his next door neighbor. The city
dweller is forced to go far afield if he is to see
aught besides asphalt, or to breathe air not
polluted with carbon monoxide gas...
...So it is with roads. Through the medium of
road-building, money may be buttered evenly over
the whole country. There is a fixed idea in the
American mind, inherited from a pioneer ancestry
which suffered from having no roads at all, that
any additional road must be good and that one
cannot have too much of a good thing. Conse-
quently, there have already been built with federal
funds more roads than can possibly be kept in
repair by state and local communities-roads
parallel, roads crisscross, roads elevated, roads
depressed, roads circular and roads in the shape
of four-leaf clovers; a madness of roads, too many
of which will be left untended to fall into disrepair
and disrepute.
Roads In The National Parks
Turning to government-owned lands, we find
that work relief has entered our National Parks and
Forests in force. Each one of these has its C.C.C.
(Civilian Conservation Corps) camps; and road-
building is again the chief employment of the
hundreds of men thus introduced into the wilderness. Can anyone
suppose that a wilderness and a C.C.C. camp can exist side by side?
And can a wilderness contain a highway?...
...The Park Service is eager to prevent repetition of the vandalism
that has ruined Park areas in the past; but great pressure is brought
to bear by commercial interests that press to have new areas opened
in order to obtain new concessions. In addition, there is thrust upon
the Park Superintendents the necessity to employ C.C.C. men,
whether or not their services are needed; and the wilderness goes
down before these conquerors. The support of the public at large
must be added to the efforts of the Park Service in order to save the
most beautiful of the wild places. The situation is well told in an
editorial from Glacial Drift, the organ of Glacier National Park, as
follows:
“Let those who clamor for the opening of the last primitive
valleys of the park . . . remember that the charm of many places rests
in their solitude and inaccessibility. Let those who consider accessi-
bility and ease alone, weigh carefully which gives more enduring
recollection, the dash over Logan Pass or the horseback or foot trip
over Indian Pass, and learn that one appreciates in more lasting
measure those things which one must gain through the expenditure
of effort. Let those who urge more roads bear in mind that the
marring of countryside does not end with the construction of a
broad, two-lane, highway, absolutely safe when driven at a sane
speed commensurate with the full enjoyment of a National Park, but
that even the gentlest curves must be eliminated, the width ever
increased, each reopening a wound to leave a more gaping scar; with
no more turns with delightful surprises beyond, for there are to be no
turns; only greater speed and safety, though we may well note the
irony of the latter in mountainous regions where improvement always
has resulted in more fatalities. Let us recall the hundreds who dash
daily over Logan Pass, without so much as a stop, or the great
number who, like the camper from the Atlantic seaboard, boasted he
had just been in three National Parks on that day and would be in Mt.
Ranier on the morrow!”
Last summer we stood at the top of Logan Pass and watched the
cars come sweeping to the summit. They might pause for five
minutes in the great parking place, decorated with landscaped beds
of shrubs bordered with stone copings, which belittle what was once
one of the most glorious points of the Rocky Mountains. Many people

8 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003

did not leave their cars, others stepped down for a few minutes to
look, and to wonder that such height could be reached without a
heated engine. A ranger invited and even pleaded with the sightseers
to go with him on a short walk to see the secluded wonder of Hidden
Lake. “You can have no idea standing here,” he said, “what a wonder-
ful thing it is to go there ... a very little way. . . .” While he spoke, his
voice was drowned in the whirr of the self-starters. The little group of
nature-lovers who followed him discovered the loveliness of the lake
and saw, besides, Rosy Finches and White-tailed Ptarmigan. They did
not miss the company of the motorists who were by that time far in
the valley below, rushing on in their enjoyment of perpetual motion...
Roads In The National Forests
...The Forest Service has fallen prey to two commercial groups,
the lumbermen and the stockmen. Its policy is controlled by these
two interests, each of which maintains a powerful lobby in Washing-
ton. By the skillful use of misleading terms, the nation is kept in
ignorance of the shameful exploitation of the National Forests. The
whole problem of management of the Forests, of which the construc-
tion of roads is only a part, is obscured by undue accent on the fact
that, while the Parks are for recreation, the Forests are for “use.” But
the Forest Service reserves to itself the interpretation of the word
use, and narrows the usefulness of the Forests to the cutting of
timber and the grazing of cattle, forgetting, or willfully subordinating,
other uses of greater importance that are also the function of the
National Forests....
...CCC camps are established in hundreds in the National Forests
and the Forests are being honeycombed with roads. Roads in the
Forests, if not surfaced with asphalt, are called “truck trails.” The
word trail presents to the mind a picture of a narrow woodland path
wending its way beneath the trees. Actually, the so-called trail is a
graded swath, usually following a stream up a narrow valley, over
which may be transported machinery to cut huge trees, well de-
scribed as “forest giants.” When the railway is reached, one section
of such a tree makes a load for a flatcar. Surely trail is a misnomer for
a road wide enough for the motor truck, or the teams of many horses,
that are necessary to draw it from the depth of the forest to the
highway...
...There would be no profit to the lumberman if the roads were
not built at the expense of the nation. Until the public restrains the
Forest Service from giving to a small group the forests that belong to
all, every tax-payer contributes to the profit of the lumberman. The
truck trails now being built, rapidly and secretly, up every exquisite
valley in the Olympic National Forest in Washington testify to the
unholy alliance between the timber interests and the Forest Service.
The roads that are eating into the heart of valleys are often
wrongly declared to be for “fire protection.” The only real fire
protection is eternal vigilance, maintained from fire towers and other
points of vantage, and from airplanes. Roads are, in themselves, the
greatest of fire hazards, for man follows roads, and fire follows man.
Tinder, leaves and dead wood dry out along the roads, and the moist
groundcover of moss and small plants dies, and dries back from the
open spaces that have admitted the sun and wind. Time is the
important element in fighting a fire. Firefighters from concentration
camps, who come with cumbersome equipment long distances by
roads, often do not reach a fire as quickly, nor extinguish it as
quickly, as can fewer men, stationed at short intervals, with the
simple tools that they can carry along a good but narrow trail...
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.
...Above all, the Forests should be preserved
for the recreation of those whose need impels
them to withdraw from time to time from conven-
tional life. A mechanized world has crowded its
citizens into densely populated cities. The tempo
of life is speeded beyond man’s capacity for
endurance. The vital energy of man, whether of his
body, his intellect, or his emotions, is consumed in
his unceasing activity, and too close contact with
the activity of others. When creative force is
exhausted, some mode of re-creation must be
found. Recreation is a first necessity for the cure of
maladjustments resulting from over-stimulation.
Some seek relief through a change in occupation,
others in idleness; those who have few resources
in themselves find diversion in crowds, others
peace in solitude. The Psalmist said: “I will lift up
mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my
help,” -and we are sure that the hills of his vision
were forested! Julian Huxley says: “there are many
people to whom the sight of wild animals, living in
untouched surroundings, is profoundly stirring,
and indeed one of the most valuable things of life.”
When the meaning of the peace and solitude of the
forests, the meaning of the beauty and sane-living
of wild creatures comes to be better understood,
the National Forests may yet offer a higher service
to the people.
To all such benefits roads are inimical. A
minimum of roads may be permitted in the
National Forests for the use of travellers, for the
taking of timber rightfully cut, and for honest-to-
God fire protection. Only trails belong to the deep
forests; a road in to a wild region is the prelude to
its destruction, its forests, its scenery and its wild
life. An increase of roads in the National Forests
spells the doom of the last of the great timber.
Notes
Pamphlet No. 54, Emergency Conservation
Committee. Library, Sequoia National Park, Ash
Mountain.
The Emergency Conservation Committee consisted
of Ms. Rosalie Edge and a few of her friends. She
wrote all the correspondence and bulletins. The
pamphlet was published in March, 1936.
9
Disclaimer Rule May Revive
R.S. 2477 Claims
For years, state and county agencies have been asserting their
rights to roads and trails on federal land by using an outdated statute
called R.S. 2477 (see The RIPorter 6.4 pages10-11). R.S. 2477 is a
section of the 1866 Mining Act allowing for rights-of-way to be
granted to individuals or agencies without application to the govern-
ment and without any environmental assessment.
R.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976 with the passage of the Federal
Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA); however, claims in existence
prior to 1976 have continued to be honored. In the past ten years,
states and counties in rural areas have used R.S. 2477 as a license to
bulldoze, widen, and pave their asserted “rights-of-way” into roadless
areas, and therefore remove these areas from consideration for
Wilderness designation. Environmentalists have responded to these
activities with a flurry of litigation, but just as we were making
progress, Congress placed a moratorium on any further R.S. 2477
rulemaking by federal agencies.
Then, on January 6, 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
increased the confusion over R.S. 2477 by announcing an amendment
to its regulations for issuing “recordable disclaimers of interest.”
While the BLM claims this amendment is not a “significant regulatory
action,” conservationists are concerned about the effect this rule
may have on state and local officials’ rights to create, modify, and
upgrade roads on federal lands.
So what do “recordable disclaimers of interest” have to do with
R.S. 2477? A “recordable disclaimer of interest” is a document issued
by the government that formally renounces its interest in a piece of
land. Parties who claim ownership or access to parcels of federal
land may apply for a disclaimer in order to clear their title to the
land. The amendment passed in January made this application
process easier by extending the time period for filing for a disclaimer
RS 2477 claims bisect many of our nation’s National Parks and recreation areas.
Photo courtesy of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
10
Look like a road to you? Under RS 2477, it could be.
Photo courtesy of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
and by allowing “any entity” to apply for one. In
the past, disclaimers could only be issued to
landowners; this change will allow states and
counties to file for and receive disclaimers as well.
It appears that the recently declared dis-
claimer rule may be a deliberate attempt to
circumvent the R.S. 2477 rulemaking moratorium
and give federal agencies the opportunity to
quickly and easily grant rights-of-way to states,
counties, and others. The rule expressly states,
“An existing owner of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way may
apply for a recordable disclaimer under existing
regulations or as amended in this final rule,” and
we expect local governments to start testing this
soon.
Agencies in Utah, Alaska, and other western
states may be barraged with requests for disclaim-
ers in the upcoming months. Wildlands CPR is
working with national organizations to address the
impacts of this rule change. Activists on the
ground can help immeasurably by staying in close
touch with local BLM and Forest Service offices
and keeping track of any new requests for dis-
claimers. The earlier you know about requests,
the easier it will be to try to challenge them. Field-
checking is an integral part of this process, so
activists’ knowledge of and proximity to these
claimed routes is crucial to the fight. How this rule
is implemented on the ground in the next few
months will determine its significance for road-free
lands for years to come.
For more information about the disclaimer
rule and R.S. 2477, contact Bridget in our office:
bridget@wildlandscpr.org.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
Chile’s Road to
Nowhere Rerouted
On January11, the government of Chile signed
a landmark agreement to redefine the routing of
the Coastal Range Road and establish mechanisms
for creating protected areas along the country’s
Coastal Range — home to the oldest and most
diverse rainforest remaining in southern South
America. (For background, see The Riporter 7.3.)
The agreement was signed with the Coastal
Range Coalition, a group of NGO’s, indigenous
groups, and leading scientists. The Minister of
Public Works, the Intendente of Region X (State
Governor), and the Directors of CONAMA (National
Environmental Commission) and CONAF (National
Forestry Agency) signed the agreement on behalf
of the Government of Chile, and Francisco Solas
signed on behalf of the Coastal Range Coalition.
The Coastal Range Road would have con-
nected the cities of Valdivia and Puerto Montt by
way of the Pacific Coast. The planned route passed
along the western flanks of the Coastal Range,
which contains the oldest and most diverse
rainforest remaining in southern South America.
The road would have further fragmented this
ancient rainforest and facilitated its conversion to
eucalypt and pine plantations.
The agreement represents an outstanding
conservation result. Twenty per cent of the 200-km
road that is already under construction will be
changed from a logging penetration road (speed
limit of 70 km/h) to a minimal environmental
impact road (speed limit of 40 km/h). Additionally,
the remaining 80 per cent of the road will be
routed outside forested areas (east of the range)
and use existing minor roads. Significantly, each
segment will undergo a full environmental assess-
ment, which is not required by law. Finally, the
plan also considers the establishment of protected
areas, since less than five per cent of the Coastal
Range is currently under protection.
Only two years ago the project was moving at
full speed and no communication channels existed
between the environmental community and the
regional or national governments. At the signing,
the Chilean government recognized that the
Coastal Range Coalition was a legitimate, scientifi-
cally and technically sound NGO, capable of
engaging in this and other important environmen-
tal issues in the ecoregion.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
Roadless Area Conservation
Rule Upheld
On December 12, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Rule, issued on January
12, 2001, protects 58.5 million acres of unroaded national forest from
most logging and road building. Even before recent attempts by the
Bush Administration to increase commercial activity on our national
forests, the vast majority of Americans supported the Roadless Rule.
When the Rule was signed two years ago, the state of Idaho,
Boise Cascade Corporation, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and various
motorized recreational groups sued the Forest Service, arguing that
the Forest Service didn’t allow for adequate public input and that the
Rule would cause irreparable harm. On May 10, 2001, the U.S.
District Court in Idaho granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction blocking the Rule. Environmentalists intervened on behalf
of the government, and took the case to the 9th Circuit, which
overturned the injunction.
The case is now headed back to the U.S. District Court in Idaho
for additional review. And while the recent decision is indeed a
victory, many still feel unease about the fate of roadless areas. In
fact, the 9th Circuit ruling came only one day after the White House
announced intentions to hasten the environmental review process
associated with fire-prevention thinning, and just two weeks after
Bush promised greater leeway for logging and other commercial
activities on national forests and grasslands. As such, the 9th
Circuit’s decision, according to Niel Lawrence with the Natural
Resources Defense Council, “is a ray of hope at a time when our
national forests are under assault by the Bush administration and its
timber industry allies.”
More information about the Roadless Rule can be found on the
web at http://roadless.fs.fed.us
Follow up note: A Tongass rider attached to the Omnibus budget
bill was passed on February 13, which would block agency proposals
to designate any Tongass roadless areas for Wilderness. This is a
blatant disregard for the law, as the federal district court in Alaska
ordered the Forest Service to go back and review all Tongass roadless
areas for possible wilderness protection. On a positive note, the
rider to exempt Alaska’s forests from the roadless rule was dropped
from the bill.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited a brief submitted by Montana’s
Attorney General Mike McGrath, who argued that public involvement
in the roadless rule process had been adequate. File photo.
11
2002 Annual Report
I Strategic Planning
n a year filled with economic and political instability, Wildlands
CPR began developing new and exciting programs to increase our
effectiveness. We moved to a new office, went through some
challenging staff changes and just about finalized a new strategic
plan. 2002 was a year of challenge and change, and we think we’re a
stronger organization because of it.
Organizational Development
In January Lisa Philipps joined us as the new Grassroots Coordi-
nator for the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. A few months later
we concluded a year long search for a Science Coordinator when
Adam Switalksi joined our staff and began developing his new
program. Both have been incredible additions to our organization.
Replacing Jacob Smith, our long-time Motorized Recreation Policy
Coordinator, proved challenging, but we were very excited to fill his
position by hiring Bridget Lyons in early 2003. We had eight student
interns who answered all sorts of questions for us, from the ecologi-
cal effects of mountain bikes to the legal implications of the new
Categorical Exclusion regulations. We also added one excellent new
board member and old friend to the organization, Dave Havlick. For
the first time since identifying our science program component, we
have reached a full staffing level at Wildlands CPR.
On the revenue side, our foundation funding remained stable,
with generous grants awarded from the following foundations: 444S,
Brainerd, Bullitt, Flintridge, Foundation for Deep Ecology, Harder,
Lazar, New Land, Norcross, Page, Patagonia, Temper of the Times, W.
Alton Jones, Weeden, and Wilburforce. Flintridge was a new funder
for 2002 and we also began discussions with the LaSalle Adams Fund
that led to new funding for 2003 and 2004. Late in the year we
embarked on our first ever major donor campaign, which netted just
over $15,000. We also expanded our work with the Combined Federal
Campaigns and state workplace giving. Our membership grew
significantly, and we will continue to expand both our membership
and our donor base.
Wildlands CPR’s road removal workshops are giving activists around the
country the skills needed to advocate for effective wildland restoration.
File photo.
12
In May the board and staff began a strategic
planning process. Thanks to a generous grant
from the Wilburforce Foundation we were able to
retain Shelli Bischoff of Conservation Impact and
finish that process in December. The final lan-
guage wasn’t approved until after the new year, so
you’ll hear more about it in next year’s annual
report. Importantly, however, we mapped out the
new directions we had been exploring, expanding
our work regarding road removal on-the-ground.
We also solidified the role we want to play in
affecting off-road vehicle management changes,
both independently and through the Natural Trails
and Waters Coalition.
Roads
With the addition of Adam as Science Coordi-
nator, Marnie has expanded the scope of her road
removal work. In addition, thanks to a new grant
from the Flintridge Foundation, Marnie is working
more closely with the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs
and the Environment and other forest workers. To
compliment this outreach, we hired the Center for
Environmental Economic Development to conduct
an economic assessment of creating a national
road removal program on National Forests; this
study will be completed in 2003. Marnie oversaw
interns who assessed the implementation of the
Roads Analysis Process, and we finalized a report
comparing that process to existing methods for
analyzing road systems on National Forest lands.
Marnie has been a critical member of the Restora-
tion Working Group, which completed the restora-
tion principles at the end of 2002 and has submit-
ted them for publication in Ecological Restoration.
The working group also hosted the second annual
Restoration Summit and several field trips to bring
together conservation activists, practitioners and
community forestry advocates.
Adam’s focus is on increasing the breadth and
depth of road removal research. He began with a
comprehensive search for existing peer-reviewed
literature on road removal; we are not surprised to
say that there is an extreme paucity of such
information. Adam is now working with scientists
around the country to develop an article articulat-
ing the need for advanced road removal research,
and identifying some key questions to ask. A
portion of Adam’s time is dedicated to maintaining
current files on the impacts of roads and off-road
vehicles as well. Adam attended numerous
scientific conferences in 2002 and will be present-
ing road removal research and research agendas at
conferences throughout the country in 2003.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
Off-road vehicles
2002 was a challenging year for Wildlands CPR
on the off-road vehicle front. Jacob dropped down
to halftime and we had trouble finding someone to
job-share and then replace him; this limited our
work. Nonetheless, we focused on litigation
options and researched three important, but
ultimately unsuccessful opportunities to bring
critical litigation against off-road vehicle manage-
ment. At the same time, two lawsuits we were
involved in (with other conservation groups) were
resolved in our favor - one on the Parks Yampa
District of the Routt National Forest and one on
Utah BLM lands regarding RS 2477!
Conclusion
In 2002, we reached out to new people, promoted more road
removal on the ground, and broadened the economic and ecological
understanding of the benefits (and drawbacks) of wildland restora-
tion through road removal. 2002 saw off-road vehicle issues rise up
high on the list of issues the media covers, with many stories detail-
ing the significant concerns regarding off-road vehicle abuses to
people and the environment. While the current political situation
leaves little room for positive gain on environmental issues, we feel
strongly that we are using approaches and messages that can break
through some partisan barriers and result in stronger environmental
protection and restoration. Thanks for your continued support —
please don’t hesitate to tell your friends about us!

In addition, we completed two templates for

activists to use when challenging off-road vehicle
issues related to travel management planning.
Both Jacob and Lisa continued our work with the
Natural Trails and Waters Coalition, a significant
portion of which was focused on highlighting
egregious off-road vehicle violations to the media.
Lisa provided continued assistance to grassroots
activists around the country and also began
connecting with hunters and ranchers who are
opposed to indiscriminate off-road vehicle use.

Wildlands CPR is leading the way in citizen efforts to control inappropriate ATV
use. Here, ATV riders head into the Colorado-San Isabel National Forest.
File photo.

2002 Financial Report

Income: $370,310.71 Expenses: $342,560.25

Membership: 1.5%
Contributions: 5% Interest/Other: 1.5% Science: 7.4% Administration: 7.7%

Clearinghouse:
13.7%
Roads:
26.1% Fundraising:
2.7%

Motorized
Recreation:
Grants: 92% Organizational 21.6%
Development: 20.8%

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 13

 Roads Program Update
Spring 2003
By Marnie Criley, Roads Policy Coordinator
Restoration Principles and Summit
Wildlands CPR has been developing a set of restoration prin-
ciples since 2001; they have currently been endorsed by over 80
organizations. A version of the Principles will be published in the
March issue of the Society for Ecological Restoration’s journal
Ecological Restoration.
The next restoration summit will be held in Ashland, Oregon
March 13-15, 2003. Marnie has been working on the agenda for the
summit, which includes a day of field trips to various restoration
projects in the area, both good ones and controversial ones. The
goals of this summit are:
• Use the Restoration Principles to stimulate a discussion and
look at restoration projects together on-the-ground (includ-
ing controversial Federal land restoration projects);
• Help develop and improve methods for conservationists and
practitioners to work together to support, reject, monitor, or
otherwise influence restoration projects;
• Continue to build bridges and alliances between the conser-
vation community and forest practitioners and community
forestry groups;
• Delve more deeply into key issues around implementing
ecological restoration;
• Share updates on efforts over the past year, discuss lessons
learned, and identify projects that we can work on together
within the following arenas (and potentially others): Appro-
priations/Legislative, Alliance Building, Multi-party Monitor-
ing, Fire and Restoration, Experiential and Indigenous
Knowledge, and the Forest Restoration Principles.
To restrict or restore, that is the
question. . . File photos.
14
Blue-Green Dialogue
Marnie has been participating in monthly blue-
green dialogues in Missoula, Montana designed to
bring environmental and union constituencies
together to discuss issues of common interest,
including forest restoration, energy, and resource
extraction. Recently the group authored a resolu-
tion asking the Montana State Legislature to call on
Congress to establish a trust fund to cover long-
term health care needs of the citizens of Libby,
Montana who suffer, or will suffer, from exposure
to asbestos due to the W.R. Grace vermiculite
mine. Similar to Marnie’s work with Alliance for
Sustainable Jobs and the Environment, this is
another excellent forum for Wildlands CPR to
discuss road removal as a win-win solution for the
environment and local communities.
Clearwater NF Road Removal
Thanks to a two-year grant from the LaSalle
Adams Fund, Wildlands CPR is working to develop
a national model for road removal. To get started
we contracted with a local environmental re-
searcher, Beth Peluso, to:
1. Conduct an in-depth assessment of the
Clearwater National Forest’s road removal
program, and a limited assessment of two
to three other programs; write a report
detailing the results; develop a template
for a model road removal program; and,
2. Research funding opportunities and
sources for road removal on private, state
and federal lands, and design a brochure
to display this information. See our Policy
Primer on pages 20-22 for a preview of
funding opportunities.
Science Program
Adam continues to improve Wildlands CPR’s
visibility within the scientific community. He has
added many road and off-road vehicle articles to
our library and database, supervised two Univer-
sity of Montana environmental studies program
science projects, and fulfilled several information
requests for scientists and activists. He working
with numerous scientists to promote road removal
and define needed research and research sites. He
is also coordinating a review and prospectus of
road removal, which we hope to have published
this year. Finally, Adam has submitted abstracts
for presentations at the Conservation Biology
conference and the International Conference on
Ecology and Transportation.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
 ORV Program Update
Spring 2003
By Lisa Philipps

S
ince our last issue of The Riporter, we’ve been
in the midst of a hiring process to replace
Jacob Smith. That process is now complete,
and we welcome Bridget Lyons as our new Trans-
portation Policy Coordinator. We also reworked our
programs a bit, so in the future this update will
incorporate both road prevention and off-road
vehicle issues. Over the coming months, Bridget
will tackle a number of new projects. One of the
first will be developing a primer for local organizing
related to transportation planning.

Bridget also will reinvigorate our workshop

program, so if you’re interested in inventories and
challenges of roads and ORVs, don’t hesitate to
contact her. In February Wildlands CPR co-spon-
sored a workshop with the East Kootenay Environ-
mental Society to bring together southwestern
Canadian activists working on off-road vehicle While we have changed the name of our ORV program, we won’t change our
issues. The workshop, held in Banff, was a great emphasis: preventing ORV damage like this will still be one of our top
beginning to coordinated off-road vehicle activism priorities. File photo — BLM land north of Boise, ID.
in that region.

In the meantime, the biggest news on the transportation front is
the RS 2477 changes implemented by the Bush Administration in
early January. Please see page 10 for a complete update on that
process. We’re also working to understand some of the changes
proposed in the new transportation bill and how they will affect
public lands. Keep an eye out for more information on transport
funding in future issues of The Riporter. At the national level, here is
a recap of some recent work with the Natural Trails and Waters
Coalition (NTWC).
California Commission Denies Funding to Support Off-
road Vehicle Use in Algodones Dunes
In January, the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation
Commission rejected a $1.1 million funding request from the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) to facilitate dirt bike, ATV and dune
buggy use in the Algodones Dunes of southern California. The BLM
has failed to effectively manage such use while at the same time
proposing to open more critical habitat for threatened plants and
wildlife to these vehicles.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Extends Comment Period on ATV Safety
In December, 2002 the CPSC announced it was
extending the comment period on a proposal to
better protect children under 16 years old from the
dangers associated with adult-size all-terrain
vehicles (ATVs). The proposal was submitted by
nine consumer, medical and conservation organi-
zations, including the Consumer Federation of
America, American Academy of Pediatrics and
Bluewater Network. Major ATV manufacturers
requested the extension; the comment period will
now close on March 16, 2003.
The CPSC will release new reports about ATV-
related injuries to update a 1998 study, which
found that nearly 96% of injured children were
injured by adult-size ATVs. The Natural Trails and
Waters Coalition will analyze these reports; we will
also submit comments using the new data.

NTWC provided a mini-grant to expose the ORV problem at the
Dunes. Andrew Harvey, a professional photographer, created a
traveling photo exhibit documenting both the beauty and the
destruction of the fragile Dunes’ environment. The exhibit is being
shown throughout California and Arizona at museums, zoos, botani-
cal gardens, etc. in an effort to reach out to a broader constituency.
In August, Natural Trails and Waters, CFA and
Bluewater released a report on the growing ATV
safety issue in the U.S. We are continuing to push
for increased regulation through this process. For
more information about safety issues go to
naturaltrails.org.

For more information on the Natural Trails and

Waters Coalition visit www.naturaltrails.org.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 15


The Impacts of Snowmobiling and
Cross-Country Skiing on Ungulates
By Teresa Elise Welsh
Introduction
Across the United States, outdoor recreation continues to rise in
popularity while wildlife habitat continues to shrink. These converg-
ing trends increase the potential for negative human-wildlife interac-
tions and make it imperative that society recognize how recreation
affects wildlife (Knight and Temple 1995). This article reviews the
literature concerning the impacts of snowmobiling and cross-country
skiing on ungulates, and comments on the limitations of this research.
Ungulates are hoofed mammals such as deer, elk, bison, and
moose. Although it is important to know how humans affect these
animals throughout the year, the harsh, limiting conditions of winter
make this a particularly vulnerable season for ungulates. As a result,
wildlife biologists commonly recognize that winter recreationists
potentially have a greater impact than their warm season counter-
parts (McCool 1978). During the winter, ungulates may be more
susceptible to disturbance, which causes an increase in energy
expenditure. Disturbances can elevate heart rate, increase vigilance,
displace animals from their habitat, and can be detrimental if pro-
longed or repeated (Canfield et al. 1999).
Literature Review
Scientific studies find that both snowmobiling and cross-country
skiing disturb ungulates, however, which form of recreation has a
greater impact is still a source of controversy. Furthermore, most
studies use different methods to measure the impacts of winter
recreation, resulting in conflicting conclusions. Here is a brief review
of the literature.
16
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights
some of the scientific literature in our 6,000 citation
bibliography on the ecological effects of roads.
We offer bibliographic searches to help activists
access important biological research relevant to
roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in
Bibliography Notes in our office library.
Snowmobiling
Several studies have examined the impacts of
snowmobilers on ungulates. Bollinger et al. (1972)
found that deer did not change their home range, or
the area of land over which they moved, as a result
of snowmobile activity. He did report though, that
deer movements increased when snowmobiles were
present. Dorrance et al. (1975) concluded that deer
moved away from snowmobile trails during periods
of snowmobile use, and that, at a test site with
historically low snowmobile use, deer home ranges
increased as a result of snowmobile activity.
A 1978 study by Richens and Lavigne reported
that while snowmobiles did not “cause [deer] to
[permanently] abandon preferred bedding and
feeding sights,” the deer did flee when snowmobiles
approached. They even concluded that snowmo-
biles used in a judicious manner to create trails —
by compacting snow — would benefit deer by
facilitating movement to new sources of forage.
Studying reindeer, Tyler (1991) found that flight
response from snowmobiles consumed 0.4% of the
reindeer’s daily energy expenditure. He concluded
that, with one snowmobile disturbance per day, the
reindeer were not adversely affected. However,
Moen et al. (1982) found that deer heart rates
increased in response to snowmobile provocation,
raising energy expenditures without necessarily
changing behavior.
Creel et al. (2001) compared fecal glucocorti-
coid levels in elk and wolves with snowmobile
activity. He and his colleagues found that elk stress
hormone levels rose and fell daily corresponding to
the amount of snowmobile traffic. They also found
that these levels were higher during snowmobile
season than during the off season. For wolves, they
reported that fecal glucocorticoid levels were
substantially higher in an area with diffuse snow-
mobile traffic compared to an area where snowmo-
biles were not permitted.
Young-of-the-year moose feed with their mother in the
Clearwater National Forest. Young animals are particularly
susceptible to energy loss caused by disturbances. Photo by
Jim Coefield.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003

Advances in snowmobile technology now make it
possible to reach remote backcountry areas.
Photo by Phil Knight.
Skiing
Literature on the impacts of cross country
skiing is much more limited. Ferguson and Keith
(1982) were the first to publish a study on the
effects of cross-country skiing on the distribution of
moose and elk. They found that both moose and
elk moved away from ski trails when the trails were
in use. Further, they concluded that cross-country
skiing influenced moose distribution during the
winter, with moose being less likely to reside in
areas used by cross-country skiers. Cassirer et al.
(1992) reported that when people walked or skied
directly towards elk, the elk were temporarily
displaced, but returned shortly after people left the
area.
Limitations of the Research
A direct comparison of the impacts of snowmo-
biles and cross-country skiers has been addressed
in only two published studies (Freddy et al. 1986;
Hardy 2001). Both studies found that cross-country
skiers have a greater immediate impact because
they are less predictable, and therefore more
startling. Other studies have also found predict-
ability to be a major factor in animal response to
disturbance (Vaske et al. 1995). However, no
studies compare the impacts of cross-country
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
skiers and snowmobilers using the same predictable trails. Nor have
any studies observed ungulate response to snowmobiles and cross-
country skiers both traveling in unpredictable locations. Additionally,
no studies have considered the difference in noise produced by the
two types of recreation, or the difference in distances travelled by
motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Snowmobiles produce
73 decibels recorded from 50 feet, a level similar to a busy city street
(WWA 2001; Smith 2002). A carefully controlled study is needed to
establish the effects of noise.
A major limitation of published research on the impacts of
snowmobiles is a failure to consider changes in snowmobile technol-
ogy over the last few years. Modern snowmobiles have more power
and can exceed speeds of 100 mph, but the studies cited here re-
stricted speeds to 15 mph (Freddy et al. 1986; Tyler 1991). In addi-
tion, the power of new snowmobiles allows them to traverse terrain
not previously possible, and to enter wildlands that were once devoid
of any human disturbance during the winter months. This combina-
tion of speed and range has revolutionized access to remote habitat,
and with it the potential for disturbance to wildlife.
Another gap in the research is in snowmobiles’ impacts to
vegetation. Both vegetation trampling and mortality and have been
well documented (e.g. Wanek and Potter 1974), but no study has
measured if a decrease in forage could impact ungulate populations.
Finally, the published studies lack data on the long-term impacts
of recreation. While short-term studies measuring the immediate
response of individual ungulates are easier to accomplish, they do not
address how accumulated exposure affects a population over several
seasons.
Conclusion
While the scientific literature is inconclusive, a snowmobile’s
ability to cover large distances into remote areas, as well as the reach
of its noise, may imply that snowmobiles have a greater impact on
ungulates than previously understood. These concerns combined
with snowmobiles’ other environmental impacts may be of more
consequence than the finding that when cross-country skiers are in
unpredictable locations, they can have a greater impact than snowmo-
biles in predictable locations.
Research has shown, however, that both groups have the poten-
tial to negatively affect ungulates; therefore our primary concern
should be on cumulative detrimental impacts. Although none of the
published studies have proven that either type of recreation influ-
ences ungulates at the population level, Creel et al. (2002) and Hardy
(2001) have presented evidence that individuals are feeling stress
from wintertime recreation. The cumulative effects of this stress may
someday lead to a reduction in ungulate populations.
It would be wise to take steps now to manage recreation access
and educate recreationists about the impacts of their behavior. A
good management strategy would restrict recreation to established,
and therefore, predictable trails. Limiting the extensive range of
snowmobiles may also be a good mitigation strategy, and keeping
trails out of critical ungulate habitat areas is essential. Educational
measures should focus on teaching recreationists not to seek close
encounters with wildlife, and how to act so as to decrease ungulate
disturbance.
Teresa Elise Welsh is a graduate student in Environmental Studies at the
University of Montana.
References on next page.
17
 — continued from last page —

Bibliography
Bollinger, J. G., O. J. Rongstad, A. Soom, and T. Larson. 1972. Snowmobile
noise effects on wildlife. Final Report. University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Canfield, J. E., L. J. Lyon, J. M. Hillis, and M. J. Thompson. 1999.
Ungulates. Chapter 6 in Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain
Wildlife: A Review for Montana, coordinated by G. Joslin and H.
Youmans. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana
Chapter of The Wildlife Society.
Cassirer, E. F., D. J. Freddy, and E. D. Ables. 1992. Elk responses to
disturbance by cross-country skiers in Yellowstone National Park.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381.
Creel, S., J. E. Fox, A. R. Hardy, J. Sands, B. Garrot, and R. O. Peterson.
2002. Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in
wolves and elk. Conservation Biology 16(3):809-14.
Dorrance, M. J., P. J. Savage, and D. E. Huff. 1975. Effects of snowmobiles
on white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 39(3):563-69.
In one study, cross country skiers were more likely than
Ferguson, M. A. D., and L. B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on
snowmobiles to surprise, and startle elk. Photo by Jim
distribution of moose and elk in Elk Island National Park, Alberta. Coefield.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 96(1):69-72.
Freddy, D. J., W. M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule
deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 14:63-68.
Hardy, A. R. 2001. Bison and elk responses to winter recreation in
Yellowstone National Park. Master’s thesis, Montana State
University.
Knight, R. L., and S. A. Temple. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists:
coexistence through management. Chap 20 in Wildlife and
Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research,
edited by R. L. Knight, and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.

McCool, S. F. 1978. Snowmobiles, animals, and man: Interactions and

When considering impacts such as noise pollution and
trampling of vegetation, snowmobilers might well have a
more profound impact than skiers on wildlife populations.
File photo.
management issues. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
Conference 43:140-48.
Moen, A. N., S. Whittemore, and B. Buxton. 1982. Effects of disturbance
by snowmobiles on heart rate of captive white-tailed deer. New
York Fish and Game Journal 29(2):176-83.
Richens V. B., and G. R. Lavigne. 1987. Response of white-tailed deer to
snowmobiles and snowmobile trails in Maine. Canadian Field-
Naturalist 92(4):334-43.
Smith, S. 2002. The snowmobile lobby’s snow job. Earth Island Journal.
Summer: 13.
Tyler, N. J. C. 1991. Short-term behavioural responses of svalbard
reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus to direct provocation by a
snowmobile. Biological Conservation 56: 179-94.
Vaske, J. J., D. J. Decker, and M. J. Manfredo. 1995. Wildlife management:
An integrated framework for coexistence. Chap 3 in Wildlife and
Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research,
edited by R. L. Knight, and K. J. Gutzwiller. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.
Wanek, W. E. and D. Potter. 1974. A continuing study of the ecological
impact of snowmobiling in northern Minnesota (final research
report for 1973-1974). The Center for Environmental Studies,
Bemidji State College, Bemidji, Minnesota. 53pp.
Winter Wildlands Alliance. 2001. Losing ground: The fight to preserve
winter solitude. 13 November. Available at http://
www.winterwildlands.org

18 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003


Spotlight on Lynda Bilbrough
I
n each of the places she’s called home, Lynda Bilbrough’s acti-
vism has focused on saving our precious water resources: Lake
Erie, the Cuyahoga River, the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Barrier
Reef, the China Sea. All these waters are better off due in part to
Lynda’s work. Surprisingly, her background is in corporate public
relations with Fortune 500 companies, and she’s also done public
relations work with international charities. Lynda says her love of
children is tied to her desire to protect natural beaches; a mother of
three, she believes that our children deserve to inherit a healthy
world.
At present, the bulk of Lynda’s activism centers on saving North
Carolina’s North End beach from the devastating effects of beach
driving. Erosion, wetlands destruction, and wildlife displacement
are just some of the results of this reckless recreation, not to mention
the noise, pollution, litter, human and dog waste — even violent
crime. (See The RIPorter 6.5 for background information.)
The North End of Carolina Beach (known as Freeman Beach) is a
nearly three mile stretch of one of the last undeveloped Atlantic
Coast barrier islands. Its shore, sand dunes and wetlands were once
teeming with wildlife — before beach driving exploded. On a typical
weekend, hundreds of off-road vehicles (ORVs) crowd the beach; on a
sunshine-filled holiday weekend that number can top 1,000.
The Town of Carolina Beach manages the first 1000 feet of the
beach and allows 24-hour motorized access. The rest is private, the
majority owned by heirs to Robert Bruce Freeman, Sr. who purchased
the land in 1886. Though the Freeman heirs oppose it, 4-wheel drive
cars and ORVs continually drive on their property. The Town of
Carolina Beach and New Hanover County do little to protect private
property rights; indeed, when Lynda and the owners urged the Town
Council to enforce a 1997 law prohibiting the practice, the council
voted to reverse the “no beach driving” ordinance!
The North End beach is habitat for shorebirds including Ameri-
can oystercatchers, willets, least terns, common terns, black skim-
mers, brown pelicans and the endangered piping plover. In fact, part
of the beach was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) as Critical Habitat for the plover. Loggerhead, green and
leatherback sea turtles once used the inlet to nest. As beach driving
increased, use of the area by wildlife and birds decreased: according
to the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, in 1995, 475 nests of least
terns, black skimmer’s and common terns were found on the North
End. Today, zero nesting pairs remain. Most shorebirds’ nests are
hollow indentations in the sand; when vehicles approach, the birds
fly away, leaving their eggs or hatchlings vulnerable.
Lynda points to clear evidence that the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are being violated. When
she and other citizens first made the Carolina Beach Town Council
aware of this, they were ignored.
When Lynda’s pleas went unheard, she tried other avenues.
National Audubon Society agreed to monitor the area once there’s a
ban on beach driving. Lynda also organized credible scientists and
citizens to document damage and violations. She wrote politicians,
officials, and federal agencies, and persuaded U.S. Senator John
Edwards (D-NC) to get involved. She convinced local and national
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
The Activist Spotlight shares the stories of some of
the awesome activists we work with, both as a
tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight to
jenbarry@wildlandscpr.org.
Lynda Bilbrough. Photo by Jessica Nemeth.
news reporters to cover the issue. She worked
with property owners to request New Hanover
County to close private property to vehicles. The
largest property owner, Evelyn Williams, an
attorney, recently presented evidence of violations
of seven federal laws, nine state laws and two
county ordinances. Lynda addressed the New
Hanover County Commission on behalf of Ms.
Williams and the other owners and in early 2003,
she helped form Citizens for the Conservation of
the North End (CCNE).
Lynda’s hard work has reaped some positive
change: ATVs, dune-buggies, campers, boats and
jet skis were technically prohibited in May 2002.
Speed limits were reduced to 15 mph and a
“drivable corridor” was established. However,
people frequently violate these regulations and
there’s still very little enforcement. In addition,
the beach is still open all night, there are no
sanitation facilities, alcoholic beverages are
prevalent, dogs are allowed to roam, and vehicle
trespass on Freeman Beach continues.
Lynda maintains her stamina by staying
determined to fight for the beach. And a thick skin
helps: At county commissioner’s meetings, Lynda
has been booed and shouted at to, “go back to
where she came from,” but she hasn’t been
deterred. She’s also enlisted the support and
advice of others who’ve worked on similar causes.
In particular, inspiration from Shirley Reynolds has
proven invaluable. Shirley sued Volusia County in
Florida — over beach driving on behalf of sea
turtles — and won! Now, miles of Florida beach
are closed to off-road vehicles. Due to Lynda’s
hard work, someday we may be able to say the
same about North Carolina’s North End Beach.
Thank you Lynda!
19

Funding Opportunities For Road Removal
By Beth Peluso
T
his issue of the Policy Primer focuses on various
funding opportunities available for road removal. As
you will see, these opportunities exist for projects
on federal, state and private lands.
The growing preference for funders is projects that
involve partnerships. From non-profits joining with Native
American tribes to federal agencies working with private
landowners and job creation programs, sometimes the most
unlikely partner proves the most lucrative, tapping into
funds that would otherwise be inaccessible. For more
information on creating partnerships for road removal go to:
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/reports/
PartnershipforFunding.htm
Community-Based Restoration Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Restoration Center
1315 East-West Highway • Silver Spring, MD 20910 • 301-
713-0174 • www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration
Background: This program funds coastal and riparian
habitat restoration and some monitoring. It focuses on anadro-
mous fish species, endangered and threatened marine species,
and commercial and recreational fisheries. Projects should
include community participation and education/outreach.
Who qualifies: Community organizations, nonprofits,
government agencies, businesses, commercial and recreation
fishing groups, students and educational institutions, youth
conservation corps, private land owners
Maximum/Average amount: Ranges from $1,000 to
$500,000; average is $5,000 to $50,000
What activities/scale: Projects are chosen for technical
merit, community involvement, and ecological benefits to fish
habitat, with an emphasis on partnerships and collaboration.
Funding term: Multi-year partnerships up to 3 years
Funding type: Grants
Road removal is the only sure way to prevent damage like
this. Photo courtesy of Florida Biodiversity Project.
20
The Policy Primer is a column
designed to highlight the ins &
outs of a specific road or ORV
policy. If you have a policy you’d
like us to investigate,
let us know!
Endangered Species Recovery Program’s Private
Stewardship Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 • Arlington, VA 22203 •
703-358-2390 • http://endangered.fws.gov • See Web site for
regional contact information.
Background: Focuses on forming partnerships for projects
that “reduce threats or otherwise benefit populations” of
imperiled (not necessarily federally listed) species.
Who qualifies: Federal, state, and local agencies; tribes;
researchers; conservation organizations; businesses; landown-
ers; and individuals
Maximum/Average amount: Varies; program total of $10
million available in 2003
What activities/scale: The program is for individuals and
groups doing “local, private, voluntary conservation efforts.”
Term of funding: Varies
Type of funding: Grants awarded through regional
competition.
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(Farm Bill)
see http://www.usda.gov/farmbill
Background: Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP):
The Department of Agriculture provides “management exper-
tise, financial assistance, and educational programs” to private
landholders through state forest agencies. Program goals
include restoration and enhancement of riparian zones, water
and soil quality, and habitat for plants and animals.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP): Provides
financial and technical aid to projects that create “high quality
wildlife habitats that support wildlife populations of national,
state, tribal, and local significance.” Special emphasis on aiding
declining species. After the landowner completes this habitat
component, WHIP also helps with monitoring and management.
Resource Conservation and Development Program
(RCDP): The Secretary of Agriculture designates up to 450
locally-sponsored areas. The four main goals of the program
are land conservation, water management, economic develop-
ment, and community sustainability.
Who qualifies: FLEP: Tribes, private individuals, groups,
associations and corporations who own nonindustrial, private
forest lands.
WHIP: Private landowners; conservation districts, Federal,
State, and Tribal agencies. Projects can be on tribal, private,
federal (if the main benefit is on tribal or private land), and a
limited amount of state and local government land.
RCDP: Tribal, state, or local governments; nonprofit
organizations in rural areas.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
 Maximum/Average amount: Not specified
What activities/scale:
FLEP: Contact your state forest agency for a list of ap-
proved activities. Treatment areas must be under 1,000 acres
(with possible wavers up to 5,000 acres).
WHIP: Applies to projects dealing with upland, wetland,
riparian, and aquatic habitat
RCDP: Fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, soil erosion
control, water quantity and quality
Funding Term:
FLEP: Not less than 10 years, unless approved by the state
forester. The Program has $100 million to use between 2002-07.
WHIP: Usually 5 to 10 years, but can be shorter in “wildlife
emergencies” and 15 years or more for “essential plant and
animal habitat.”
RCDP: Not specified
Funding Type:
FLEP: Cost share, not more than 75 percent of total cost.
WHIP: Cost share
RCDP: Technical and financial assistance
Jobs in the Woods, US Fish and Wildlife Service
www.fws.gov.Pacific region.Forest resources
Background: The Northwest Forest Plan initiated this
program nine years ago for Washington, California, and Oregon.
Future funding is uncertain.
Who qualifies: Watershed groups, local landowners,
groups of multiple landowners
Maximum/Average amount: Up to $100,000, average
$75,000
What activities/scale: Watershed restoration projects on
non-federal land, from assessment to implementation. Scale
ranges from individual landowners to watersheds.
Funding term: Varies by project
Funding type: Grants; the FWS provides technical assis-
tance and project administration
Matching Awards Program, National Forest
Foundation
National Forest Foundation • Fort Missoula Road, Building
27, Suite #3 • Missoula, MT 59804 • 406-542-2805 •
www.natlforests.org
Background: Created in 1990 by Congress as the nonprofit
partner to the Forest Service.
Who qualifies: State, tribal, and local governments;
nonprofits; educational institutions; non-federal partners;
community-based organizations. The program emphasizes
four geographic areas: Central Colorado Rockies, Oregon coast
and central Cascades, Montana’s Selway-Bitterroot complex,
and the southern Appalachians. In 2003 this will expand to
include California’s central Sierra Nevada and the central
Appalachians. There is also funding for projects in other areas.
Maximum/Average amount: Awards range from $500 to
$100,000. Available funds are $1.48 million for emphasized
areas and $370,000 for other areas.
What activities: Watershed health and restoration, wildlife
habitat improvement, community-based forest stewardship
Funding term: One year. Recipients can reapply.
Funding type: Matching funds of at least 1:1; must be non-
federal money; in-kind contributions are ineligible.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • 1120 Connecticut
Ave. NW, ste. 900 • Washington, DC 20036 • 202-857-0166 •
www.nfwf.org • See Web site for regional office information.
Background: Bring Back the Natives is for riparian
restoration and supporting native species. Funding amount
depends on which of the federal partners (the Bureau of Land
Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Fish and
Wildlife Service) provides funding. Trout Unlimited is also a
partner.
Challenge Grants are for partnership projects focusing on
fish and wildlife conservation and habitat restoration. Grants
range from $10,000 to $150,000
Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program is for
local-level projects in Washington D.C., Maryland, Pennsylva-
nia, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. Awarded 5 grants of
$100,000 to restore fish and wildlife habitat in 2002. Also has
smaller grants of up to $50,000 but averaging $25,000-$35,000,
that groups meet with partnership funds, usually for multi-state
projects. www.chesapeakebay.net
Restore Our Southern Rivers is for partnership projects
that benefit water quality and “living marine resources,
including anadromous fish” in the Southeast. Projects must be
on federal lands or lands that directly affect federal lands.
Who qualifies: Federal, state, local governments; educa-
tional institutions; nonprofit organizations. Can be from the U.S.
or its territories, Canada, Mexico, and international areas with
migratory species
Maximum/Average amount: Varies by program, from
$10,000 to $150,000
What activities/scale: Varies by program, from local to
watershed-wide projects
Funding term: One year. Recipients may re-apply.
Funding type: Challenge Grants: Matching funds
ROSR: Matching funds
BBN: Matching funds
Chesapeake Bay: Matching funds
When planning to remove a road, include a line item for heavy
equipment. Photo by J. McCullah.
— continued on next page –
21
Funding for Road
Removal
— continued from previous page —
Northwest Power Planning Council
851 Southwest 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 • Portland,
OR 97204 • 503-222-5161 • www.nwcouncil.org
Background: The Council recommends projects
to the Bonneville Power Administration that “protect,
mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by
hydroelectric development in the Columbia River
basin.”
Who qualifies: The BPA Columbia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife program covers portions of
Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Maximum/Average amount: Ranges from
$40,000 to $1 million, average $50,000 to $200,000.
BPA may reduce the fish and wildlife fund in the near
future.
What activities/scale: On-the-ground activities
have priority over assessment. Projects range from
Columbia subbasins to state/tribe/province to
regional levels.
Funding term: One-year contracts, which can be
renewed.
Funding type: Matching and cost sharing viewed
favorably.
Other Useful Web sites
Catalog of General Federal Assistance:
www.cfda.gov
This lists all federal funding sources. Although a
little ponderous, it is a good resource.
Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for
Watershed Protection: www.epa.gov/owow/water-
shed/wacademy/fund.html
The EPA published this helpful catalog of
funding sources in 1999, so some of the information
may be out of date.
Beth Peluso is in the process of compiling all the
funding information she has collected into a bro-
chure which should be available later in the spring.
For more information contact
Marnie@wildlandscpr.org.
— Beth Peluso received a Master’s degree in
environmental studies from the University of
Montana last spring. She serves on a local board of
the Sierra Club, and has a strong interest in wildlife
conservation. Exploring the natural world through
writing and painting are what keeps her going
through long Montana winters.
22
W
ith the war drums beating louder every day, keeping
our focus on roads and off-road vehicles has been
challenging. Let’s hope that by the time this
reaches you we’re still working on sanctions and inspections in
Iraq and North Korea. But in the midst of world political turmoil,
we’ve got some exciting news. We’ve hired someone to replace
Jacob, and she started at the beginning of February. Bridget
Lyons is our new Transportation Policy Coordinator (see page 2).
She comes to us from the National Outdoor Leadership School
(NOLS), where she was a public policy coordinator and devel-
oped natural resource curricula for NOLS students. Turns out
this meant a lot of research on things like snowmobiles and RS
2477, so Bridget brings quite a bit of issue knowledge to her new
job as an activist. She’s working out of the Missoula office until
March 31, after which she’ll be opening an office in Driggs, Idaho
for us. We are absolutely delighted to have her with us, and we
think you will be too. Don’t hesitate to call and introduce
yourself, or drop her an email (bridget@wildlandscpr.org).
In addition to Bridget, I’d like to introduce two other people
who’ve been helping us out with our work. Beth Peluso is
working on a contract research project to help us develop some
road removal models. She’s also been researching road removal
funding. You can see some of her initial results in this issue’s
Policy Primer. Shay O’Brien-Ugaldea is our new intern, working
on fundraising and development. She’s helping Tommy out in his
quest for new foundations and new funding sources. Welcome to
both Shay and Beth!
We thought many of you might like a report on the comple-
tion of our first major donor campaign. We set a target of $20,000
for this first attempt, and while we didn’t quite reach it, we are
thrilled that we raised $15,070. If you were one of the contribu-
tors to the campaign, thank you so much! We couldn’t have done
it without you, or without the help of our house party hosts, our
full board and staff, and our team of askers — Jen Barry, Karen
DiBari, Julie Mae Muiderman, Mary O’Brien, Tommy Petersen,
and Bethanie Walder.
And finally, one correction. We failed to credit our back
cover photo in our last issue. The photographer was Jennifer
Nitz — thanks for the photo Jennifer!
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003
 Membership and Order Information
Memberships Publications
I have enclosed my tax-deductible Wildlands CPR Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:
membership contribution of:
Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
$1,000 $250 $50 family $15 living lightly
/
$500 $100 $30 standard other
/

Or, please withdraw a monthly donation via /

automatic checking account debit. Total of all items:

Day of month for debit

Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;
Amount to withdraw 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.
Signature
Check here if you are interested in helping
to distribute The Road-RIPorter in your area
Please include a voided check!
All information will be kept confidential. 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!
Type of Membership: Organization (put name below) Check here for our RIP-Web non-paper
Individual option. Get the RIPorter online before it gets
printed!
Please include your email address!
Organization
Name

Name

Address Refer a friend to

City, State, Wildlands CPR!
Zip Send us the names and addresses of friends
you think may be interested in receiving
Phone
membership information from Wildlands CPR.

Email

Please send this form and your check payable to:

Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2003 23

 Photo by Dan Funsch.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

Roads are, in themselves, the greatest

of fire hazards, for man follows
roads, and fire follows man.

— Rosalie Edge, 1936

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