Winter Solstice 2002.

Volume 7 # 4 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

Steinacher:
Reclaiming a Road and a Culture
By Renée Stauffer, Karuk Tribe of California

Inside…
Steinacher: Reclaiming a Road and a Culture,
by Renée Stauffer. Pages 3-5
Odes to Roads: Old Road, Beleaguered
Wilderness,by Melissa Walker. Pages 6-7
Policy Primer: Special Use Recreation Permits,
by Lisa Philipps. Pages 8-9
Legal Notes: When No Action Is No Excuse, by
Dan Funsch. Pages 10-11
Biblio Notes: The Ecological Impacts of
Mountain Biking, by Jason Lathrop.
Pages 12-14
Activist Spotlight: Cliff Eames. Page 15
Depaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder.
Page 16-17
Get with the Program: ORV and Roads
Program Updates. Pages 18-19
Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 20-21
Reclaiming a road and a culture: the Karuk Tribe has embarked on an ambitious road New Resources. Page 22
restoration project in the Steinacher area of northern California. Photo courtesy of the
Karuk Tribe.
Check out our website at:
— See article on page 3 — www.wildlandscpr.org
 Wildlands
C
Center for
P
Preventing
R
Roads

P.O. Box 7516

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

I
read an interesting article on my way home from Washington, DC in late October – www.wildlandscpr.org
about changing demographics and voting in the interior west. The article looked at
white upper middle-class flight, especially from California, into urban and rural areas
in Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and other intermountain states. Initial expecta- Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to
tions were that the mountain states would become more politically balanced. Instead, protect and restore wildland ecosystems by
the opposite occurred, as wealthier (and fiscally conservative) people moved in and preventing and removing roads and limiting
brought their voting habits with them. The article didn’t go beyond fiscal issues, but I motorized recreation. We are a national
can’t help but wonder if those same people might not be more environmentally con-
clearinghouse and network, providing citizens
cerned than many of the representatives they elect. And if that’s true, then has the
conservation community been missing the boat with their nearly exclusive focus on
with tools and strategies to fight road
Democratic candidates and legislators? construction, deter motorized recreation, and
promote road removal and revegetation.
Once upon a time, Theodore Roosevelt staked out the environmental high ground
for the Republican Party. But the Republicans have moved so far away from environ-
mental protection that those with conservation (or other progressive values) can only Director
be distraught over an election that gave Republicans full control of Congress. While Bethanie Walder
some issues will remain partisan, it is time to make the environment a bi-partisan or
Development Director
non-partisan issue again. The partisan politics of national conservation organizations
Tom Petersen
appear to reinforce the political divide over the environment; it may be more effective
to de-politicize conservation issues. ORV Policy Coordinator
Jacob Smith
It is painfully clear that we can’t count on Democrats, or their leaders, to do this.
More importantly, we shouldn’t. But we should enlist the voting public to ensure that Roads Policy Coordinator
Republicans and Democrats alike will protect the planet. So how can conservationists Marnie Criley
reconnect with the Republican Party and make them more responsive to the average Science Coordinator
American, who is described in survey after survey as environmentally concerned? The
Adam Switalski
first place may be Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), a group trying to
bring environmental issues back into the mainstream of their party (visit www.rep.org). NTWC Grassroots
Perhaps a second step is to look to those American immigrants into the intermountain Coordinator
west. Conservation organizing could focus on building relationships with those who Lisa Philipps
share our values, no matter what party they belong to. Jeb Bush’s rush to protect the
environment in Florida makes it clear just what an important issue conservation can be Program Associate
to Republicans, if they think their seats depend on it. Jennifer Barry
Newsletter
Another step we can take is to encourage our own members to become more Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield
involved in the politics of place — in their own communities. Groups like the Montana-
based Center for Environmental Politics (visit www.cfep.org) are doing just this. Interns & Volunteers
Leslie Hannay, Brooke Hughes, Jason Lathrop,
So what has this got to do with off-road vehicles and roads? Just about everything. Teresa Walsh
While it is imperative that we protect the Arctic Refuge and Rocky Mountain Front from Board of Directors
energy development, we can also use roads and off-road vehicles as a public rallying Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari, Dave Havlick,
cry. Many polls show that most Americans don’t like off-road vehicles, the advertise- Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,
ments that promote them, or the damage they cause. We need to harness this energy at Ted Zukoski
the grassroots level, with the transplants to the interior west, or with the people most
Advisory Committee
affected by off-road vehicle trespass — private property owners. Concurrently, Wild-
Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
lands CPR is working with local communities to promote resource-based jobs in wild- Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
land restoration through road removal. Road removal can provide high wage, high Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin
skilled jobs in economically depressed resource dependent communities. If the Republi- Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
cans are all about jobs, then let’s help make those jobs restorative instead of extractive. Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
The conservation community’s current tactics and continuing reliance on Demo-
crats to protect the environment aren’t working. It’s time for conservatives to think like
conservationists — again. © 2002 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002

Steinacher:
Reclaiming a Road and a Culture
By Renée Stauffer, Karuk Tribe of California

T
raditional sacred hunting and fishing grounds of the Karuk
Tribe once included more than one million acres throughout
the northwestern region of what is now California. Tribal
Ancestral Lands encompass 4,000 square miles along the mid-Klamath
and Salmon Rivers, 95% of which now overlap with the Klamath and
Six Rivers National Forests. It is in the heart of this remote region,
center of the Karuk’s cultural world, that the Forest Service con-
structed the Steinacher road thirty years ago. Originally built to
access timber, the Steinacher is now the focus of the Karuk Tribe’s
effort to revitalize a struggling economy and restore the region’s
native fisheries.

The Karuk Tribe is the second largest tribe in California, with

tribal membership exceeding 3,000. In 1994 they signed a government-
to-government protocol agreement to manage the overlap of tribal
ancestral lands with national forests, and are now working with
federal agencies to implement an ambitious road decommissioning
project.
Road decommissioning on the Karuk Reservation began
with a community commitment to respect ecological values
and develop sustainable economic solutions. Photo by Amy
Chadwick.

Background Dispersed communities depend on the natural

Since the 1850s, the region has been managed primarily for
resource extraction, including mining and timber. These activities
have severely degraded anadromous fish habitat in the Middle
Klamath River, the last major stronghold of summer Steelhead and
spring Chinook in the Klamath River basin. These watersheds are in
imminent danger due to sedimentation from:
• geologically complex, highly fractured metamorphic rock and
easily weathered granitic material on steep topography with
highly erosive soils;
• numerous large landslide complexes;
• under-maintained and high-density road systems ranging
from 3.2 to 4.3 miles/sq. mi.;
• impaired water quality from upriver agricultural sub-basins
and from reduced forest canopy resulting in high tempera-
tures and nutrient loading; and
• frequent and widespread wildfires.
resources of these watersheds for their economic
and cultural lives. Unfortunately, however, the
economy of the mid-Klamath region has been
devastated by the decline of the timber and fishing
industries. There was a 72% decline in timber
harvest between 1989 and 1997, ranging from 12
billion board feet to 3.5 billion board feet extracted
annually. As a result, approximately 1,200 jobs have
been lost in the region since 1987. Unemployment
is 87% in the Native American community and 67%
across the region.
The remote rural area makes it difficult to
recruit and retain a qualified workforce. The
Klamath National Forest recently lost twenty
natural resource positions, while the Six Rivers
National Forest lost twenty-seven. As the largest
employer in the mid-Klamath River region, this
downsizing has a great impact on the local
economy and the Karuk Tribe.

— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002 3

 — continued from page 3 —
Decommissioning Steinacher
In 1996, during the development of the Spring
Chinook Recovery Plan, the Klamath National
Forest, the Karuk Tribe and other collaborating
agencies identified a need for road decommission-
ing - and ranked the Steinacher Road as the
highest priority. Its decommissioning is even more
significant considering it was built as a main
corridor for accessing timber
between 1969 and 1971. The
Steinacher was constructed in
decomposed granitic soils, which Reducing sediment will help conserve
have a high risk of erosion. As a
result, the road contributed
and protect native and at-risk fish
significant sediment to Steinacher habitat, and contribute to species
and Wooley Creeks, and eventu-
ally the Lower Salmon River.
These watersheds have been
classified as Tier I Key Water-
sheds in the Northwest Forest Plan and other
planning documents. Reducing sediment will help
conserve and protect native and at-risk fish
habitat, and contribute to species recovery,
especially in lower Wooley Creek and the lower
four miles of the Salmon River.
The road’s original length of 7.3 miles ended
abruptly at the Marble Mountain Wilderness
boundary. As a first effort in 1997, a Forest Service Northern California Indian Development Council.
contractor partially decommissioned approxi-
mately 2.2 miles, but the Klamath NF discontinued
restoration efforts due to lack of funds.
Then in 1998, the Karuk Tribe and the Klamath
National Forest entered into a memorandum of
understanding to share resources, funding and
Heavy equipment operators work to re-establish land
contours in the Steinbacher project area. Photo courtesy of
the Karuk Tribe.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
staff to continue the decommissioning. The Karuk
Tribe secured funds from the EPA’s Non-Point
Sources program to provide “storm-proofing” and
prescription planning until significant restoration
funds were secured for the remainder of the
decommissioning.
recovery...
In 1999, the Karuk Tribe initiated Phase II of
the decommissioning. Over two years the Karuk
Tribe and the Northern California Indian Develop-
ment Council have secured over $1 million from
seven different funding sources outside the Forest
Service to finish decommissioning the remaining
5.2 miles of road. The non-federal funding came
from the California Department of Fish and Game,
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the
Federal funding came from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the EPA Non-Point Source program, the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and in-
kind service.
Restoration Training Program
With assistance from the Northern California
Indian Development Council, the Karuk Tribe
initiated a Comprehensive Watershed Restoration
Training and Implementation Program for tribal
members and staff. This program was developed
to educate participants in watershed restoration.
The overall goal is to establish a Tribal Restoration
Division to employ watershed restoration special-
ists and offer apprenticeships completing restora-
tion work on projects throughout the Ancestral
Territory. Sixteen tribal members were trained in
heavy equipment operation, prescription planning
and surveying, and supervising project sites; the
tribal members have completed their initial
apprenticeship while earning family wages. The
Forest Service and the Karuk Tribe have estab-
lished a relationship that is facilitating watershed
restoration and economic development.
 Due to insufficient revenue in 2000, the Tribes
were only able to conduct winter maintenance and
monitoring. But since the 2001 season, the Tribe
and FS have spent almost $2 million dollars
decommissioning the Steinacher Road and devel-
oping prescription plans for future road decommis-
sioning projects in the East Ishi Pishi Units.

First, in 2001, the Karuk Watershed Restora-

tion Program completed its third year of develop-
ment. Five agencies provided grants totaling
$551,964 for the Steinacher Decommissioning
Project: US Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Straw is often used to stabilize exposed soils. Photo by
Amy Chadwick.
Tribal Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Approxi-
mately $100,000 in grant funding from the BIA
Watershed Restoration Program and TEPA Non-
Beyond Steinacher
Point Source Program was expended in “out-year”
What are the future plans for the Tribe’s
(November-May) planning for future projects in
restoration program? The team will be moving to
the East Ishi Pishi Unit and for the final phase of
the East Ishi Pishi Watershed area, where many
the Steinacher Decommissioning Project.
sub-watersheds are of “critical concern” and are
considered “impaired” by the Northwest Forest
Then, in 2002, just under $1.2 million was
Plan and the Clean Water Act. These watersheds
secured for the remaining work on the Steinacher
include Ti, Irving, Rogers and Unkonom Creeks,
Road. The fill volume from crossings and swales
which contain high levels of sediment and threaten
moved to stable areas measured approximately
water quality within the Klamath River system.
148,000 cu. yds. for this final field season alone.
Cool water from the sub-watersheds of East Ishi
One of the largest crossings had 72,000 cu. yds. of
Pishi is important for maintaining water quality in
fill, which took three field seasons to excavate.
the Klamath River - anadromous fish depend on
low water temperatures.
Some local people whose livelihoods were
altered after the reduction of logging have op-
Approximately 64 miles of road in the Ishi
posed the project. These people hope logging will
Pishi area are candidates for road decommission-
return to the area and they ask, “Why take the
ing, and roughly 8.5 miles are to be converted to
roads out if we’re going to use them again?” Others
trails - these proposed actions will take over five
think they should be allowed to use the old roads
years to complete. The Tribe has already secured
to hunt or gather basket materials, plants and
funding from the Tribal EPA Program, the BIA, and
mushrooms. But in reality, most old roads are
the Northern California Indian Development
inaccessible due to landslides or overgrown brush
Council to develop a prescription plan for the
and trees. The Tribe is working to educate citizens
priority roads. Additionally, the Tribal Watershed
about road decommissioning.
Restoration Program is developing funding to
begin decommissioning roads in cooperation with
the USFS in the summer of 2003.

The Karuk Tribe’s Watershed Restoration

Training Program and the implementation of
One of the largest restoration techniques have been an outstanding
success. In addition, the fact that people learned
crossings had 72,000 to do this work in unusually complex and danger-
cubic yards of fill, ous conditions is remarkable. The members of the
team are extremely proud to have completed a
which took three field task as difficult as Steinacher and to know they
seasons to excavate. have had a hand in restoring part of their Ances-
tral Land.

— Renée Stauffer is Watershed Restoration

Coordinator for the Karuk Tribe.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002 5

Old Road, Beleaguered Wilderness
By Melissa Walker
L
isten to the names: Chopped Oak, Cherry Log, Goose Island,
Snake Nation, Stanley Mill, Big Creek, White Path, Aska,
Cartecay, Pisgah, and Tickanetley. These tiny unincorporated
communities are all accessible by roads — Rock Creek Road, Big
Creek Road, Turniptown Creek Road, Big Chicken Creek Road, and
Doublehead Gap Road — named for streambeds they follow, the
remains of old settlements, and passes known in these parts as gaps.
These sparsely populated rural settlements lie in
the Chattahoochee National Forest, which contains
ten individual Wildernesses — Blood Mountain,
Brasstown Bald, Cohutta, Ellicott Rock, Mark Trail, Those who want to explore this fertile
Raven Cliffs, Southern Nantahala, Tray Mountain,
and Rich Mountain — that together comprise almost world in depth will need a compass
100,000 Wilderness acres. Judged against the
extensive western Wildernesses with acreages in the
hundreds of thousands, the land-island Wilder-
nesses of the Chattahoochee National Forest are
small indeed. Judged by the lushness and diversity of the plant life,
they are bountiful, substantial storehouses of momentous value.
The 9,649 acres of the Rich Mountain Wilderness are covered
with a rich, black loam that gives the area its name. On ridges and
slopes one finds basswood, ash, and black cherry, trees commonly
found in the eastern Blue Ridge only in high, rich coves. The fecun-
dity of the soil and over 60 inches of rain each year account for
extensive biodiversity and extravagance of the wild flora, and also
The lush undergrowth of Rich Mountain. Photo by David Govus.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
attracted settlers to clear and cultivate appropri-
ate sites. The “Balds,” like Tickanetley Bald and
Big Bald, are relatively treeless mountaintops, one
covered with a meadow of grasses and wildflow-
ers, the other heath-studded with mountain laurel
and the reddish orange flame azalea. The color
was so intense that when he first saw it in bloom,
and a topographical map.
the 18th century naturalist William Bartram
thought the woods were on fire.
The spectacular display of wildflowers in the
spring brings many hikers to the part of the
Appalachians known as the Blue Ridge. Those who
come to revel in the early flush of bloom before the
trees leaf out enjoy unimpeded views of the
mountains, but only a small fraction of the crowds
who invade these hills in search of botanical
wonders make it to the Rich Mountain Wilderness,
where there are no maintained trails. Those who
want to explore this fertile world in depth will
need a compass and a topographical map.
In spite of the area’s relative sparse use, the
wilderness is under siege, and its rare biological
wealth is in jeopardy. What threatens the Rich is
not hunters or campers or fishermen. It is not
poor management, invasive species, or fire. The
enemy is all too familiar. Its name is “road”— Old
Road to be exact — and it forms the northern
boundary of the Rich Mountain Wilderness.
To understand this dreaded peril, let me take
you on a journey. Imagine you live in the heart of
Atlanta, Georgia and that from time to time you
long to escape the noise and rush of the city into a
quiet place where black bear, deer, and grouse are
more numerous that people. You wake very early
one Saturday morning in the spring with a hanker-
ing for the wild, a feeling that to resist puts your
spirit in peril. You study topo maps of the moun-

A user-created road splits off from the main Old Road, into the undergrowth.
Photo by David Govus.
tainous areas less than a hundred miles from the
city and choose a place you’ve never been before.
You get out your backpack and fill it with food and
gear to sustain you for two days.
By 8:00 am you are speeding up Interstate 75,
and in less than half an hour you turn off on a four
lane that takes you past Jasper, Talking Rock, and
Ellijay. At Cherry Log, you turn right on Rock
Creek Road that borders the Rich Mountain
Wildlife Management Area and parallels Rock
Creek. Unfolding to the south is the roadless Cold
Mountain area and beyond that the Rich Mountain
Wilderness. You drive another few miles of what is
now a dirt road and at nine-thirty you leave your
car in a small parking area at Stanley Gap. From
there you follow a rutted, rocky, almost impassable
single lane road for half a mile to the boundary of
the wilderness. There you disappear into the wild.
Not so early that same morning four young
men in Gainesville, Georgia throw a cooler of beer
in the back of a truck and hitch up a trailer
carrying two all terrain vehicles (ATVs). Around
noon they too park at Stanley Gap, but they have a
very different agenda from the one that brought
you to this place. Out for a joy ride, they plow
along “Old Road” drinking beer and yahooing as
they go. When the road is too rough they veer into
the adjacent undergrowth, tearing up the land,
destroying vegetation, and terrifying birds and
small mammals nesting nearby. When they empty
a can of beer, they toss it into the bushes. They do
not even know names of plants they kill and
degrade: trientes borealis (starflower), veradim
viride (false hellebore), and heraculum maximum
(cow parsnip). Among the diverse species of
trillium found here are colonies of the rare trillium
simile and trillium flexipes. Less rare, but still
uncommon are trillium luteum and trillium
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
grandiflorum. Facilitating these destructive
incursions into the wilderness is the Old Road. The
ATVs tear through Stanley Creek and the headwa-
ters of several other trout streams, muddying and
silting the waters as they go. After reaching
Horsepen gap, Old Road runs along a high ridge
line, and from there the annoying whine of their
four-wheelers is audible over most of the once
quiet Wilderness.
As I write these words, I am looking at a
photograph taken in the spring of 2002 of a large
ancient colony of grandiflorum that has been
plowed through, chewed up, and left for dead by
marauding ATVs. Staring at such senseless
devastation, defenders of wildness might be
tempted to give up the effort to protect and
preserve this threatened place, or they might be
moved to confront the public agencies that are
mandated by law to save wild places. Where
wilderness is at stake, the choice between digging
in for a fight or running away from conflict is a
choice between life and death. As with my own
personal wellbeing, I choose life. My weapons are
words. My arsenal is the law. This brings me back to an old enemy
of wildness, the “Old Road.”
For years environmentalists in Georgia have tried to close the
Old Road. Attempts in the past have been unsuccessful because
nobody seems to know for sure who owns it. The Forest Service
passes the buck by claiming that the road, which runs entirely
through wooded national forest lands from one end to the other,
belongs to the county. Gilmer county indeed contends that it owns
Out for a joy ride, they plow along “Old
Road” drinking beer and yahooing as
they go... When the road is too rough
they veer into the adjacent
undergrowth...
the road although the county doesn’t maintain the road and has no
proof of ownership. Nor does the road appear on the county’s road
map. Now Old Road has become a hot item among ATV clubs and is
even described in glowing detail on some of their websites. But it
appears that legal action may have a chance to break up this im-
passe. If the road can be closed, the Cold Mountain roadless area,
which lies on the other side of the road from the Rich Mountain
Wilderness, could become an addition to the wilderness. A wilder-
ness and all that make it wild are at stake.
Melissa Walker is Vice-President of National Wilderness Watch/Chair of
Georgia Wilderness Watch, and author of Living on Wilderness Time
(September 2002).
Send letters to the Chattahoochee/Oconee National Forest urging
closure of the road to Alice Carlton/Acting Forest Supervisor
C.O.N.F./1755 Cleveland Hwy/Gainesville Georgia.
7
 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!

Special Use Recreation Events and the

Permitting Process
By Lisa Philipps

L
ast year the Forest Service and the BLM
issued thousands of special use permits for
off-road vehicle special recreation events.
Moto-cross enduros, hill-climbs, jeep jamborees,
snowmobile rallies, and dirt bike races are just a
few of the special off-road-vehicle events that take
place on our public lands each weekend.

Although many of these events bring thou-

sands of dollars into the pockets of promoters and
competitors, they come at a high price to our
natural resources and the agencies that manage Special events like the annual Barstow to Vegas motorcycle race
draw thousands of spectators and have lasting impacts; they often
them. For example, the 2002 World Championship
escape any meaningful environmental review. Photo by Howard
Super Crawl that took place in Farmington, New Wilshire.
Mexico in October, brought 100 competitors in
their souped up jeeps competing for over $52,000
in prize money in front of 15,000 spectators. The
scarred rocks, pools of leaked fuel, and trampled
vegetation will remain as evidence of the two-day Requirements of a Special Recreation Use
event for much longer. A popular off-road vehicle
website touts hundreds of upcoming events. There Permit
are 36 “Jeep Jamborees” scheduled across the US
for 2003. The special events are not limited to Permits are issued subject to a variety of terms. However, the
summer activities - each year snowmobile rallies authorizing officer can, at his discretion, waive permit and fee
are held in areas of prime habitat for lynx and requirements if a competitive event: is not commercial and involves
wolverine. Most disturbing, a vast majority of these less than 50 vehicles (including spectators); complies with land
events on public land happen with little or no designations; does not award a cash prize; does not involve public
public input. advertising; or, there is no likelihood of significant damage to public
land or water resources nor a need for monitoring.

When Is a Special Recreation
Use Permit Required?
The rules regarding special use permits are
similar on Forest Service and BLM lands. Most of
the governing regulations can be found at 43 CFR
8372. Permits are required in four situations: 1)
commercial use; 2) competitive use; 3) off-road
vehicle events involving 50 or more vehicles; and,
in certain instances, 4) in special areas (such as
Research Natural Areas and Wild and Scenic
Rivers). Generally, there is no requirement for a
special use permit if the affected area is less than
five acres total.
Permits must be applied for 120 days prior to the event. How-
ever, this regulation is often overlooked by the agency. The agency
must then approve or deny the permit within 30 days of receiving the
application and at least 15 days prior to the event. The authorizing
officer must also detail a time period for the permit and issue it only
for the area necessary for the proposed use. The agency can insert
stipulations or mitigation measures that the authorizing officer
considers necessary to protect the lands and resources involved and
the public interest in general. Fees and bonds for restoration or
rehabilitation of the lands affected by the permitted use may be
required but are not mandatory. The agency can issue a permit for
commercial or competitive event only if the applicant obtains
property damage, personal injury, and public liability insurance
sufficient to protect the public and the public’s resources.

8 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002

NEPA and Appealing a Permit Decision
Once you learn of a planned event, it is helpful to persuade the
Forest Service and BLM to prepare an Environmental Assessment
(EA). An EA will force the agency to take the required “hard look” at
the impacts associated with the event, including impacts to sensitive
species, water quality, vegetation, soils, and public safety. In most
cases the agency will claim that the event is of such short duration
(often two or three days) that it will have few impacts. In many
instances the agency even neglected to publish a Categorical Exclu-
sion (CE) for an event. For example, the Forest Service was permitting
the Buffalo Peaks Hill Climb in Colorado annually for 10 years before
local landowners and businesses complained loudly enough, pushing
for some form of NEPA analysis. After five years of CEs, the Forest
Service was finally forced to do an EA last year. As a result, evidence
surfaced that the event was in violation of several environmental
regulations; it will now be held only every other year and with strong
mitigation and monitoring.
If you or a place you care about are adversely affected by a final
decision concerning a special recreation use permit, you can appeal
that decision. While the appeal is pending, however, the decision
remains in effect unless there is an emergency stay of action granted
by the Secretary of the Interior (on BLM lands) or the Regional
Forester (on Forest Service lands). The authorizing officer, usually
the District Ranger for the Forest Service and the Land Manager for
the BLM, has the authority (even after a permit is issued) to stop the
event at any time, “if necessary to protect public health, public safety,
or the environment”(43 CFR 8372.5a).
If any person violates the permit regulations, they are subject to
criminal penalties of a maximum $1,000 fine and/or 12 months
imprisonment. Violations include a failure to obtain a permit or
violating the stipulations or conditions of a permit. The person may
also be subject to “civil action for unauthorized use of the public
lands or related waters and their resources, or violations of the
permit terms or stipulations” (43 CFR 8372.0-7(b)(2)). In this case the
full value of the resources damaged or lost or the amount necessary
to restore those resources can be recovered. The responsible agency
can also cancel the permit if the permit holder, in an action related to
the permit, violates “any federal or state law or regulations concern-
ing the conservation or protection of natural resources, the environ-
ment, endangered species or antiquities” (43 CFR 8372.5(f)).
Special use recreation means different things to
different people. Wildlands CPR file photo.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
Problems and Solutions with
Permits
We have frequently observed agency failures to
rehabilitate damage and take corrective action in
the face of blatant natural and cultural resource
degradation after off-road vehicle events. Often, as
mentioned above, events occur without a permit.
Spectators also often damage the land surrounding
the raceway as much if not more than race partici-
pants. In some cases spectators bring their own
off-road-vehicles to the events and are hyped by
the atmosphere into riding them irresponsibly.
As one solution, the agencies may try moving
the event to a different location every other year to
let the land “recover.” Instead of protecting one
area this usually results in two degraded areas.
To find out where events are occurring visit
the web sites, bulletin boards and other informa-
tion sites for off-road vehicle users. Get on the
mailing lists for your local clubs. Most of the time,
the agencies are not informing the public as to
when these events are happening. Once you learn
of an event, investigate:
• Determine if the event is being held on
private, state, Forest Service or BLM lands.
• Ask the appropriate agency if they have
issued a permit.
• Evaluate the permit to ensure that it was
properly issued with public notice (news-
paper, Federal register).
• If the event occurs, be there. Take pictures
of resource damage and any other permit
or other violations (but be careful not to
be too obvious). Make sure you carefully
label all photos and date them. Observe
and note any plant or animal species that
are being affected by the event as well as
any damage to soil and water.
• Make copies of all the documentation and
be ready to present it as evidence to the
agency for not holding the event in the
future — or for changing the terms of the
permit and mitigation.
For more information on Special Recreation Permits
contact Lisa Philipps at lisa@naturaltrails.org
9
When No Action is No Excuse
Court Finds Status Quo Not Good Enough on Gallatin
By Dan Funsch with assistance from Jory Ruggerio
O
n September 16, 2002 the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled in favor of conservation
ists on a lawsuit challenging a Montana
timber sale. The ruling was authored by Judge
Dorothy Nelson and supported two important
claims made by the plaintiffs, one each from the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). On the plaintiff’s
other claim, involving the National Forest Manage-
ment Act (NFMA), the court sided with the
plaintiffs on a procedural issue but with the Forest
Service on substance. The NEPA claim in particu-
lar was tied specifically to road density issues.
Background
The case, Native Ecosystem Council v.
Dombeck [304 F.3d 886, 2002 WL 31051552 (9th Cir.
2002)], was brought by Montana’s Native Ecosys-
tems Council and the Bear Creek Council against
the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). They challenged the
Darroch-Eagle timber sale, a proposed 2.1 million
board foot sale on 226 acres. The sale was one of
about a dozen slated to provide receipts to pay for
the Congressionally authorized Gallatin land
exchange. In sum, the sales are referred to as the
Gallatin II sales.
Waiving road density standards for a timber sale, a common practice, became
the subject of litigation on the Gallatin National Forest. Wildlands CPR file
photo.
10
As with most of the other Gallatin land
exchange sales and like many other national
forests, the Gallatin made a temporary, site-
specific forest plan amendment exempting the sale
from the forest plan road density standards.
Plaintiffs argued that this violated NEPA and NFMA,
and they also argued that the sale violated the ESA
by failing to consider a nearby sheep grazing
allotment when considering the sale’s effects on
grizzly bears.
NEPA Claims
The Forest Service must disclose cumula-
tive effects of site-specific road density
standard amendments
In the most significant victory of this case, the
court ruled that NEPA is required even where the
FS maintains the environmental status quo.
Plaintiffs argued that the FS’s decision to sell
timber triggered an obligation under the forest
plan to close roads sufficient to bring the current
excessive road density into compliance with forest
plan road density standards.
The FS argued that leaving the roads open
merely maintained the current environmental
status quo, so no NEPA analysis was required. The
Court held that the FS should have done NEPA on
its affirmative decision not to close the roads
necessary to comply with the Forest Plan. Basi-
cally the Court determined that a written decision
to maintain a given management regime on the
ground requires actual analysis.
Specifically, the Court required the FS to
assess and disclose the potential cumulative
environmental effects of routinely making site-
specific Forest Plan road density standard amend-
ments to allow timber sales that would otherwise
violate the Forest Plan standards. This holding
may have important implications in other cases
where the Forest Service is making forest plan
amendments in order to excuse its continuing
failure to comply with forest plan standards:
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
 “The Forest Service also ar-
gues that its adoption of the road
density waiver does no more than
maintain the status quo of road
density on the timber sale site, and
that NEPA documentation is not
required for actions that lack any
physical impact on the environ-
ment. We reject this argument as it
ignores the fact that, absent the
road density waiver, the Forest Ser-
vice would be required to close
nine to eleven miles of road follow-
ing the timber sale. The adoption
of the amendment will have physi-
cal environmental effects, which
must be analyzed in any environ-
mental review of the proposed ac-
tion.” Native Ecosystems Council
decision at p. 13953, n. 3.
While the court upheld the plaintiffs conten-
tion in this regard, essentially holding that the
Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the
FS was inadequate, it stopped short of requiring a
separate, full NEPA review document (such as an
Environmental Impact Statement) to address the
cumulative impacts of the entire series of Gallatin
II road amendments.
The plaintiffs had also argued that the deci-
sion to amend the Forest Plan predated the EA,
and therefore violated NEPA. The court disagreed,
and upheld the agency on this point.
NFMA Claims
The Bad News: It’s hard getting traction on
NFMA substantive requirements.
Plaintiffs had argued that the FS violated
NFMA by amending the Forest Plan to allow for
higher road densities. They pointed to the lack of
a cumulative assessment of road density amend-
ments, and also argued that those amendments
constituted a significant change to the Forest Plan.
The court disagreed, and held that NFMA does not
require a cumulative assessment of the signifi-
cance of all Gallatin II proposed (road density)
amendments. The court also found that the
Darroch-Eagle road density amendment was not a
“significant” change to the overall Forest Plan.
The Good News: Exhaustion of remedies
satisfied when underlying factual issues
raised on appeal
The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ administra-
tive appeal was adequate where it raised the
factual issues underlying plaintiffs’ claims, even
though plaintiffs’ counsel framed the legal theories
related to those factual issues differently during
the formal litigation. “Requiring more might unduly
burden those who pursue administrative appeals
unrepresented by counsel, who may frame their
claims in non-legal terms rather than precise legal
formulations.” (Native Ecosystems Council
decision at p. 13958.)

Conclusion
ESA Claim While very few lawsuits result in across-the-
board victories for conservationists, this case is
Analysis areas may not be delineated
both significant and valuable to activists fighting
based solely on pre-existing political or for lower open road densities on National Forests.
administrative boundaries The Forest Service is clearly required to assess the
combined impacts of open roads, including those
In Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp. that simply remain open by virtue of a Forest Plan
2d 121, 126 (D.C. 2001), the D.C. Cir. Court ex- amendment.
plained why delineating an ESA analysis area too
narrowly precludes agencies from complying with
the ESA obligation to ensure that federal activities
will not jeopardize an endangered species. How-
ever, the Defenders Court also noted in a bad
footnote that agencies are entitled to more
discretion in preparing biological assessments
(BA) than in preparing biological opinions.

The Native Ecosystems Council Court found

that the FS’s adoption of a pre-defined administra-
tive unit as the ESA analysis area for effects on
grizzly bears was arbitrary absent specific analysis
in the record demonstrating why such an adminis-
trative unit actually encompassed the area within
which effects on grizzlies would occur. This
holding seems to counter the bad footnote and
extend the rule set out in Defenders of Wildlife v. A dozen timber sales are slated to help pay for the Gallatin
Babbitt to cases where only a BA is prepared. Land Exchange. Photo by Amy Chadwick.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002 11


The Ecological Impacts of Mountain Biking
By Jason Lathrop
M
any environmentalists and conservation biologists enjoy
riding mountain bikes. Mountain biking is often perceived as
a low-impact pursuit, more like hiking, backpacking, and
paddling than motorized four-wheeling or dirt biking. However, there
actually isn’t much evidence to support this intuition.
There is currently a lack of scientific literature comparing the
effects of mountain biking and other recreational uses on natural
systems (Thurston et. al., 2001). While the effects of recreation
generally have been well studied, the extent to which mountain biking
affects natural systems relative to other forms of recreation has been
studied only superficially (Knight, pers. comm.).
In recent years, the sport of mountain biking has boomed in
popularity. The BLM reports that “an estimated 13.5 million mountain
bicyclists visit public lands each year to enjoy the variety of trails.”
(BLM, 2002). Important questions about mountain bikes remain for
conservationists and land managers in adopting appropriate land
management policies: Do mountain bikes impact ecosystems differ-
ently than hiking? What kinds of impacts do mountain bikes have?
Should special impacts by mountain bikers be considered when
devising management strategies?
The impacts of non-motorized recreational use on ecological
systems can be divided into three categories: “trampling,” mechanical
destruction of ground level vegetation; “erosion,” the mechanical
mobilization of sediment; and “wildlife disturbance,” disruption of
animal ecosystems by human presence. This article reviews the
current literature on the impact of mountain biking recreation on
ecosystems.
Trampling
Trampling studies examine the impact of recreational use on
vegetation through the mechanical application of force on plants.
Terence Yorks of Utah State University has developed a general model
for understanding the varying impact of different modes of travel on
vegetation:
Land Impact = ((weight + output acceleration) x swath)).
The amount of damage inflicted on vegetation can be understood
as a function of the energy released. In the above equation, “output
acceleration” is defined as vehicle power divided by its mass. “Swath”
is the width of the vehicle’s track (tire, foot, or track) multiplied by its
length of travel (Yorks, 2000). This methodology provides an analytic
framework for examining the amount of energy transmitted to plant
structures by various modes of travel. Using this comparative
analysis, mountain bicyclists have more impact than hikers, but are
comparable to hikers in impact when compared to motorized vehicles
(Yorks, 2000). Much of the higher impact of mountain bikes relative
to hikers comes from the longer distance typically traveled, and
subsequently larger “swath.”
12
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.
Courtesy of Terrance Yorks, Utah State University
Department of Forest, Range & Wildlife Sciences.
There are some problems with this method of
quantifying impact, particularly when evaluating a
specific user type in a specific area. For example, it
has been shown that motorcycles actually widen
trails less than horses when going downhill
(Weaver et. al., 1978), though Yorks’s framework
would demonstrate that motorcycles have more
impact. This is explained by the fact that walkers
(human or animal) must check their speed as they
proceed downhill by generating friction with the
ground surface. Wheel-driven vehicles can check
their speed by using brakes, without applying a
shearing force to the ground surface.
Despite some limitations in modeling local
effects, Yorks’s framework is supported overall by
his 1997 meta-analysis of the 400 extant citations
examining the effects of foot and vehicle impacts on
vegetation. According to Yorks (2000), “the weight,
power, and swath equation that was presented here
is consistent with long term observations of
vegetation, soil, and pavement changes following
land use.”
The only published direct comparison of hiking
and mountain biking’s trampling effects on untram-
meled vegetation was conducted by Thurston and
Reader (2001) in Boyne Valley Provincial Park,
Ontario. Applying experimental treatment passes of
varying intensity to a series of test plots in a
deciduous forest, they concluded that mountain
bikes and hikers do not do significantly differ in
their effect on plant stem density, species richness,
or soil exposure. Cole and Bayfield (1993), however,
assert greater standardization of study design and
terminology is needed.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
Erosion
Studies of erosion tend to focus on the effects of recreational use
on existing trails, including trail widening through destruction of
vegetation. Since many mountain bike riders stay on the trail, such
studies may be of relevance.
Past studies have found that different user groups do indeed
affect trails and adjacent vegetation differently. Weaver and Dale
(1978) showed that hikers, motorcycles, and horses have different
impacts on trails through meadow and pine forest. In general, they
found that hikers have the least impact followed by motorcycles, then
horses. However, motorcycles tend to deepen trails more than horses
when traveling uphill and on grasslands (Weaver and Dale, 1978).
Wilson and Seney (1994) applied experimental passes to various
sites on an existing trail system in the Gallatin National Forest of
Montana and, simulating rainfall, measured sediment erosion. In the
only study that specifically includes mountain bikes in such compari-
sons, they found that horseback riders mobilize more sediment than
do mountain bikers, motorcycles, or hikers. However, they also found
a slightly greater mobilization of sediment caused by hikers compared
to off-road bicycles, suggesting the pounding action of feet or hooves
may have a more erosive effect than a wheeled form of travel.
The available literature suggests that different user groups cause
different levels of trail erosion (Weaver et al, 1978). Wilson et al (1994)
reported that mountain bikes have no greater impact on trails than do
hikers and motorcyclists and have less impact than horses. However,
given the little available information, further study seems warranted.
Wildlife Disturbance
The presence of human recreation in wildlife habitat, whether
motorized or non-motorized, has an effect on animals living in that
area. Through flushing, increased stress, and disruption of breeding
and feeding cycles, humans can diminish the health of animal popula-
tions (Knight 1995). While a great deal of literature exists on the effect
of human recreation on animals, few researchers have examined the
effects of mountain bikers and other user classes (Knight, pers.
comm.).
Taylor (2001) examined the differential effects of hikers and
mountain bikers on several species, including bison, mule deer and
pronghorn antelope, on Utah’s Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake.
Taylor (2001) observed a negative relationship between animal body
size and flushing response, but found no difference in likelihood of
flushing caused by mountain bikers and hikers. Regular flushing and
harassment imposes energetic burdens on animals, disrupts feeding
Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
and breeding, increases mortality, and reduces
population health. However, because short-term
behavioral changes are more easily studied, there is
less data on the effect of recreation on long-term
population health. (Knight, 1995)
Stake (2002) looked at the impacts of mountain
biking activity on golden-cheeked warblers at Fort
Hood, Texas, a military training area. This study
was able to examine a wildlife population before
and after the opening of a mountain biking park.
They reported no impacts from mountain biking on
warbler territory density, return rates, or age
structure (Stake, 2000).
Another effect mountain bikes can have on
animals is direct mortality caused by collision.
There is no literature on this topic, however,
anecdotal evidence suggests that small mammals
and reptiles are vulnerable to impact and not
uncommonly killed. (A. Switalski, pers. comm.).
Conclusions and Future Research
Needs
As a non-motorized recreational use, mountain
biking has so far received little scrutiny by conser-
vationists and biologists when compared to
motorized use. While the studies discussed above
suggest that mountain biking does not have a
greater impact on some aspects of ecological health
than other non-motorized user groups, to date
there is not a sufficient body of data to support this
conclusion. However, much anecdotal evidence
suggests that there may be negative impacts
including erosion and wildlife disturbance.
There are some problems inherent in applying
all of these study designs to management. For
example, while Taylor (2001) concluded that
pronghorn antelope do not have a greater likeli-
hood of flushing with each single encounter,
mountain bikers typically travel much farther per
trip, therefore exposing wildlife to more total stress
per recreational visit. Experimental trampling
studies currently do not take into account speed,
braking technique, and other elements of mountain
bicyclist behavior. Unless such factors are taken
into account, these experiments will be limited in
their applicability to real-world mountain biking
situations.
As mountain biking increases in popularity and
improved equipment and technique enable trail
bicyclists to extend their presence further into
wildlife habitat, the potential for negative impact on
trails and wildlife will increase. Proper management
of wildland systems, and ensuring their ecological
health, will require more data and a clearer scien-
tific understanding of the impacts of mountain
biking.
— Jason Lathrop is a graduate student in
environmental studies at the University of Montana
and a recovering journalist. He has written for
Outside, Mungo Park, ABCNews.com, and The New
York Times Sunday Magazine.
13
 — continued from last page —

References
Bureau of Land Management 2002. Letter inviting involvement in the
development of a new National Mountain Bicycling Action Plan.

Cole D.N. and N.G. Bayfield. 1993. Recreational trampling of vegetation:

standard experimental procedures. Biological Conservation 63: 209-
215.

Fairbanks, W.S. Distribution of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra

americana Ord) on Antelope Island State Park, USA, before and
after establishment of recreational trails. Nature Areas Journal
22(4):277-282.

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.). 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists:
Co-existence Through Management and Research. Island Press,
Washington D.C.

Stake, M. M. 2000. Impacts of Mountain Biking Activity on Golden

Cheeked Warblers at Fort Hood, Texas. In: Endangered Species
Monitoring and Management at Fort Hood Texas: 2000 Annual
Report, Fort Hood Project, The Nature Conservancy of Texas, Fort
Hood Texas, USA.

Taylor, A. 2002. Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor

Perceptions at Antelope Island State Park Utah, Master’s Thesis,
Colorado State University Department of Fishery and Wildlife
Biology.

Thurston, E. and R.J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied

mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of deciduous
forest. Environmental Management. 27(3): 397-409.

Weaver, T. and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles,

and horses in meadows and forests. Journal of Applied Ecology
15:451-457.
Wilson, J.P. and J.P. Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, motorcycles,
and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain
Research and Development. 14(1): 77-88.
All types of recreation have environmental
impacts; deciding when and where these
impacts are appropriate is a social and
political question. Photo courtesy of Swan
View Coalition.

Yorks, T.P. et. al. 1997. Toleration of traffic by vegetation: life form
conclusions and summary extracts from a comprehensive
database. Environmental Management. 21(1): 121-131

Yorks, T.P. 2000. Should People or Machines Have Equal Rights, an

automated Web presentation available at http://cc.usu.edu/~olorin/
vehicles/index.htm

14 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002


W
hen you think of Alaska, do you think of solitude,
wilderness, and vast untouched landscapes? If so, you
can thank Cliff Eames, because nowadays the great
outdoors doesn’t just stay beautiful, people have to fight to keep
places wild and quiet, and Cliff’s been dedicated to preserving
Alaska’s wild places for decades. Originally from New Jersey, Cliff
was called westward as a young man, landing in a remote cabin in
British Columbia eight miles from his nearest neighbor. In his first
ten weeks, he didn’t see another human being.
All that solitude inspired Cliff to work for Alaska Center for the
Environment (ACE) and he’s still with the group after 18 years.
Currently ACE’s State Lands Director, Cliff focuses on Alaska’s 104
million acres of state land; his program counters the rising popularity
of motorized recreation on state and federal lands.
Five years ago Cliff co-founded the Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition
(AQRC). A volunteer organization, its founding principle is that quiet
is an essential part of both Alaska’s wilderness experience and life in
Alaska’s communities. Through both groups, Cliff works on the
social impacts of motorized recreation, impacts often evaded by the
agencies because they’re politically charged.
One of Cliff’s biggest challenges is making progress with agencies
intimidated by a Republican state legislature. For example, when the
State Division of Parks tried to create winter quiet areas in Denali
State Park (all 400,000 acres are open to snowmachines), the legisla-
ture retaliated with a law prohibiting them from doing so as a means
to resolve social conflicts.
Cliff challenges commercial motorized recreation abuses and
addresses problems with flight-seeing and heli-skiing. He is also
involved with the Chugach National Forest plan revision. AQRC
commented on the social impacts of motorized recreation, calling for
restoring natural quiet, fairness and balance in recreation. In
contrast to AQRC’s request, the Forest Service (FS) maintained its
policy that recreational snowmachining is a “traditional activity” that
can occur even on lands managed as Wilderness.
The traditional activities issue is significant because defining this
term will affect millions of acres of wildlands. The Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) allows snowmachine,
airboat, and airplane use for “traditional activities” and travel. This is
because some Alaskans, especially Native people, engage in a
subsistence economy relying on snowmachines (many villages inside
conservation units are not accessible by road, only by snowmobiles
and ATVs). Cliff holds that subsistence and roadless travel are truly
traditional activities, while recreational snowmachining is not.
The FS, in contrast, defines “traditional activities” to include
recreational snowmachining. The result of this flawed policy could
be that Alaska wilderness, ironically, becomes the tamest and least
quiet wilderness in the nation. Cliff and others are actively engaged
in developing an effective resolution to the traditional use question.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
The Activist Spotlight is a new feature for The Road-
RIPorter. Our intention is to share the stories of some
of the awesome activists we work with, both as a
tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight to
jenbarry@wildlandscpr.org.
Photo by Andre Camara
To Cliff, the biggest problem is that motorized
recreation is a detriment to quality of life. It harms
the business of eco-tourism and degrades the
scenic experience enjoyed by Alaskans and
visitors alike. But Cliff isn’t afraid to speak up for
quiet. In his opinion, the impacts of motorized
recreation aren’t just physical: wild areas have
mental, emotional, and spiritual benefits that are
lost where machines are in use. What’s needed is
restraint, humility and respect for the natural
world, not attempts to dominate and conquer our
surroundings.
Despite the contentious nature of his work,
Cliff maintains a respectful approach, making an
effort to be civil and reasonable. While he cam-
paigns for balance and fairness he doesn’t compro-
mise the substance of his message. Cliff’s mindful
approach has garnered him the praise of both
activists and opponents. In an editorial piece in
the Anchorage Daily News, Kevin Hite of the Alaska
State Snowmobile Association counts Cliff among
those who are “extremely ethical advocates for
their side.”
Cliff’s colleague, Nicole Whittington-Evans of
the Wilderness Society, concurs: “I’ve worked
closely with Cliff Eames for close to a decade,” she
says, “and Cliff is truly a class act. While Cliff is an
articulate speaker, an excellent writer and a
committed leader in Alaska’s conservation commu-
nity, he’s also humble and understated. Alaska’s
conservation community would not have come as
far as it has without Cliff’s insights, direction and
refreshingly sophisticated approach.” Our grati-
tude to you Cliff, for your perseverance and
continued inspiration!
15
Collaboration: A Conundrum for
Conservationists
By Bethanie Walder
C
ollaboration is all the rage these days. Nonmotorized recre-
ation advocates have sat down at the table with motorized
recreationists to discuss where off-road vehicles should and
shouldn’t be allowed on National Forests. Conservationists and
loggers have sat down to discuss what areas to protect and what
areas to cut. All sorts of stakeholders and interest groups have come
together in small collaborative processes throughout the country, to
look at community-based approaches to resource protection and
extraction.
The rise in advocacy for and promotion of environmental
collaborative processes appears to be an attempt to prevent litiga-
tion. Community forestry advocates interested in collaboration may
be trying to protect jobs; while those conservationists who’ve
supported collaboration may be trying to prevent ecological train
wrecks (e.g.jobs/owls in the Pacific Northwest, or road removal/
grizzly bears in Montana’s Flathead Valley). It is critical to note,
however, that collaboration is a highly contentious and divisive issue
among conservationists. While collaborative processes have resulted
in some interesting approaches to conservation, they have not, in the
end prevented litigation. Perhaps collaboration can only be effective
when litigation remains a real component of the process. This article
examines just that question, as well as how advocates of collabora-
tion may attempt to pre-empt the litigation component.
In a legal article discussing collaborative processes as a new
approach to environmental protection, attorney Bradley Karkkainen
explains the two ways that collaboration and litigation generally
interface with each other.
“Litigation or the threat of litigation may some-
times be a deal-breaker, blocking creative and collabo-
rative problem-solving processes if potential partici-
pants calculate that negotiated outcomes can be
struck down in the courts, so that the game is not
worth the candle.
In other cases, however, litigation or the threat
of litigation may play an important and constructive
background role in creating incentives for parties to
participate in the kinds of collaborative processes I
describe here, and in policing the outer boundaries
of agreements already reached.”
While Karkkainen recognizes that litigation can sometimes
impede environmental protection, he also recognizes that it might be
critical to making collaborative processes work. From the conserva-
tion perspective, the threat of litigation may be most important in
that it creates a level playing field. In most situations, the people
who come to the table will have unequal power. If big timber,
conservationists and local workers are all sitting at the table with the
16
Forest Service, conservationists will be in a weaker
position if legal requirements are not kept on the
table. Similarly, if conservationists and off-road
vehicle users come together to discuss what
routes to leave open and what routes to close,
conservationists will have less power without the
law behind them. It seems clear that legal rules
and tools can help make collaborative processes
more viable. (Anecdotally, for example, President
Clinton’s Northwest Forest Plan was an effort to
get logging moving again after it was shut down
because of a lawsuit over the spotted owl. That
Forest Plan led to community discussions over its
implementation and how to provide jobs in the
woods where timber could no longer be cut. The
litigation forced some of that collaboration.)
In October 2001, a group of nearly eighty
people representing everything from Forest
Service and BLM managers, to Congressional
Representatives, to timber industry managers,
local workers, foundations and conservationists
came together in Red Lodge, Montana to discuss
collaborative processes. The gathering gave birth
to an effort to give collaborative processes an edge
in agency decision-making. “The participants
approved a straight-forward set of policy recom-
mendations intended to position collaboration as
the “preferred alternative” for resolving resource
management issues involving multiple public and
or private sector stakeholders” (Red Lodge
Workshop website — www.redlodgeworkshop.org).
The attendees at the Red Lodge workshop go on to
say that to accomplish this:
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
 “The Regulator y Flexibility Working Group
strongly supported a proposal to meet with the chair
and other appropriate staff of the President’s Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ), as well as top ech-
elon agency leadership, and elected policy makers.
The primary objective is to seek clarification of the
current NEPA regulations as they relate to collabora-
tive resource management and urge that CEQ com-
municate to the appropriate agencies the ways in
which collaboration may help to streamline the NEPA
process.”

In theory, it may seem like a good idea to give collaborative

processes more weight in agency decision-making than other alterna-
tives - the idea is to avoid the bad decisions that lead to litigation in
the first place. In practice, however, this is unlikely to result in less
litigation and more likely to tilt the playing field for the discussions.
(In addition, it is not clear what stakeholders must be represented for
the collaborative process to be considered as the preferred alterna-
tive.) If the agency is mandated to choose the collaborative alterna-
tive, then the collaborators may have less incentive to include
parties that might present dissenting views. If the alternative is then
challenged in court, the courts are more likely to defer to the agency,
as long as they haven’t violated any environmental laws.
Herein lies one conundrum... citizens regularly develop alterna-
tives to be analyzed during NEPA processes, but rarely are they
chosen as the preferred alternative by the agency. This can leave
citizens feeling that their participation is not appreciated. However,
the same is true of a collaborative process that is later dismissed by
the agency. This happened with the Quincy Library Group, so the
group went to Congress and got their alternative implemented
through a legislative process. But the people who participated in
that process were only a subset of the people in that area. Why is
their alternative more significant and more viable than any other?
The more important question is: How do we get the agency to choose
the best alternative, whether it’s been developed through a collabora-
tive process or not?
The bottom line, and the irony here, is that if the Red Lodge
Workshop participants meet their goal and make collaborative
processes the preferred alternative in agency planning, then they
have partially taken away one of the hammers that leads to better
collaboration (i.e. the threat of litigation). Nor is it clear that this
approach would speed up anything. Collaboration takes time,
especially if valid constituents are not included up front.
In practice, project sponsors could limit their choice of collabo-
rative partners, leaving out those who may be in less agreement with
the approach. The agency would be forced to analyze the collabora-
tion as the preferred alternative, and they would be more likely to
choose it. Appeals and litigation might still ensue, and slow down
the process again, if the collaborative alternative doesn’t protect
environmental concerns. While conservationists might have good
reason to sit at the table in this scenario (because the process would
be more heavily weighted), they’d likely have less power, since the
litigation threat would be more limited.
Collaborative processes can help to reduce social tensions
in areas transitioning from an economy based on resource
extraction. Wildlands CPR file photo.
By forcing the agency to choose a
collaboratively derived alternative over all others,
the CEQ would reduce input from some citizens in
favor of those who have chosen to sit at the table.
In the end, they also will have done little to reduce
litigation on environmentally destructive projects.
But more importantly, they will have mandated an
approach that has often been effective when
paired with litigation. Once again, Bradley
Karkkainen, “In short, the background legal rules
operate as a set of ‘penalty’ default provisions, and
litigation seeking to enforce those rules is de-
ployed as a punitive threat,... in a larger, highly
complex negotiating strategy.”
So perhaps nothing changes with collabora-
tion at all, other than more meetings, more
discussion, and a final result that still depends on
substantive environmental law to protect species
from inappropriate development. If national
trends continue, however, the conservation
community can look forward to a lot more partici-
pation in these processes, a lot more difficulty in
bringing litigation against them, and potentially a
lot more headaches about how they turn out.
References
Karkkainen, Bradley. 2002. Environmental lawyering
in the Age of Collaboration. Wisc. L Rev. 555
(2002), Symposium issue on “Lawyering for a
New Democracy: Changing Rules & Practices:
conference held at U. Wisc. Law School May 31-
June 1, 2001.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002 17

 Roads Program Update
Winter 2002-03
By Marnie Criley, Roads Policy Coordinator
Economic Study
The Center for Environmental Economic Development (CEED)
has completed their preliminary draft of “The Economic Benefits of a
National Forest Road Removal Program.” We submitted comments for
the final version, which should be completed in early 2003, and we
hope to use the findings to secure additional funding and go more in-
depth. Marnie has discussed the study with a wide variety of people
and believes there will be a tremendous amount of interest in the
findings, particularly among rural communities and labor.
Restoration Principles
The Principles are finally complete and we are currently in the
process of getting endorsements. We probably won’t release them
publicly until January, but they are already getting a fair bit of use.
The Principles can be viewed on American Lands Alliance’s web page
at www.americanlands.org/restoration_principles.doc
Restoration Field Tours
Marnie recently attended two days of restoration field tours on
the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. Attendees in-
cluded local folks from Lewis and Skamania counties: commissioners,
union folks, economic development leaders, loggers, foresters,
restoration practitioners, forest service personnel and environmen-
talists. Most of the projects we looked at were thinning (there was
one stream restoration and one road removal project), but it was
quite instructive. Attendees tried to come up with positive solutions
aimed at watershed and community restoration and we think this
tour is a model Wildlands CPR could utilize elsewhere.
Roads Analysis Process
Alison Hanks, Wildlands CPR’s summer intern, completed her
survey of where National Forests are with the Roads Analysis Process
and how seriously road removal is being considered. She had in-
depth conversations with about 15 forests across the country and
asked them a series of questions, formulated in part through our
members. Alison compiled her results into a white paper and a tri-
fold brochure that we will mail to members and distribute at events.
Forest Practitioners Annual Meeting
Approximately 120 forest practitioners from around the country
attended this four-day event to discuss issues regarding working in
the woods, from labor policy to national fire plan to techniques for
road removal. Yes, roads played a large part. Marnie co-led a road
removal workshop on the first day of the meeting and Bethanie
facilitated a discussion titled “The 400,000 mile question: road
removal and maintenance on national forests.” NNFP has about 450
members nationally, as well as several regional centers, and we hope
to work with them more in the future. For more information on NNFP
go to www.nnfp.org.
18
Photo by Amy Chadwick.
Transportation Policy issues
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) will be up for reauthorization
during the 108th Congress. The new act will be
called TEA-3; it is the appropriations bill for all
highway/transportation projects for the next 4
years (or longer). It will determine what shape
highway projects take and what issues they
consider. Deb Kmon at American Wildlands and
Marnie are generating interest in TEA-3 and will
have an initial strategy session soon.
Bethanie gave a presentation at the American
Wildlands law conference on national transporta-
tion policies (both federal lands and federal
highways). Finally, Wildlands CPR Board member
Mary O’Brien alerted us to Senator Max Baucus’
(D-MT) transportation bill that would eliminate the
NEPA provision to consider “all reasonable
alternatives” in highway projects. For more info,
contact Marnie at the Wildlands CPR office.
Science Program
Adam Switalski, Wildlands CPR’s science
coordinator, continues to develop our science
program and supply our library with articles on
roads, road removal, and off-road vehicles. Adam
provides activists with resources and information
to fight road construction and limit off-road
vehicles — ranging from the impacts of snowmo-
biles on air/water quality to the effects of roads on
tropical biodiversity. Adam is drafting a list of
questions that will guide scientists in developing
road removal research. This November he
attended the Carnivores 2002 conference spon-
sored by Defenders of Wildlife. International
leaders on carnivore research were there and
Adam provided many of them with information on
road removal research.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
 ORV Program Update
Winter 2002-03
By Bethanie Walder
By the time this reaches your doorstep, Wildlands CPR should
have available two new resources regarding off-road vehicles. The
first, a set of comment templates for dealing with travel plan revi-
sions and off-road vehicle projects. Second, we hope we will have
hired someone to replace Jacob Smith, who is leaving Wildlands CPR
after five years as our ORV Policy Coordinator.
Since Jacob is leaving, we thought we’d use the ORV Program
Update this month to thank him for his tremendous work in creating
and implementing what we think is the strongest ORV program in the
country. He got his start in off-road vehicle work by developing the
background for the Biodiversity Legal Foundation (BLF) lawsuit for a
Yellowstone National Park winter (snowmobile) management plan.
(Yes, the very petition that eventually led to all the Yellowstone
snowmobile controversy, management proposals, litigation, counter-
litigation, news reports, etc.) But most people may not realize that
when we hired Jacob in January 1998, he was the first environmental
staff person in the country dedicated to working exclusively on off-
road vehicles (though he worked for us only halftime that first year,
splitting his allegiances between Wildlands CPR and BLF). By the end
of that year he had developed aggressive plans for putting off-road
vehicles on the national environmental agenda, by working with both
national environmental organizations and with the media.
In November 1998 Wildlands CPR partnered with Friends of the
Earth to host the first national environmental meeting on off-road
vehicles, in Boulder, CO. Over 50 conservationists attended that
meeting, representing local, regional and national conservation
organizations. Out of that meeting Jacob developed plans for moving
the off-road vehicle issue nationally. He started leading workshops
around the country and acted as a direct consultant to dozens and
dozens of activists engaged in off-road vehicle battles. He developed
a series of off-road vehicle monitoring field data sheets, and contin-
ued to update and disseminate our scientific and legal resources on
off-road vehicles. But perhaps most significant was his dedication to
developing a rule-making petition to the Forest Service, requesting a
complete overhaul of their off-road vehicle management system. We
partnered with The Wilderness Society to complete and promote the
petition. Over 100 grassroots, regional and national organizations
signed onto the rulemaking petition, which was filed in December of
1999, and catalyzed the creation of the Natural Trails and Waters
Coalition. Jacob’s involvement with Natural Trails has continued,
and their presence has been critical in making off-road vehicles a
national environmental issue with the public and the media.
As Natural Trails has taken over some of the national media and
grassroots work, Jacob and Wildlands CPR have focused more on
Forest Service follow-up (after the petition), direct consultations with
activists, and litigation. Throughout this entire time, Jacob has
provided insightful and critical explanations of national and regional
policies that affect off-road vehicles. He was also on the inside track
in developing the Southern Rockies Forest Network - a coalition of
conservation groups that took on off-road vehicles as one of its top
three priorities. And at some point while continuing to work on all of
this, Jacob and a couple of friends found the time to start an entirely
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
Thanks Jacob! We’ll miss you.
new conservation organization, the Center for
Native Ecosystems (CNE). It is to CNE that we are
losing him now, as Jacob will be leaving Wildlands
CPR to be CNE’s fulltime Executive Director
beginning in January 2003 — and they’re lucky to
have him!
Throughout the last five years, Jacob has been
ahead of the curve in tracking and acting on issues
of national significance, like the BLM national weed
management planning process that came into play
last year. He has worked closely with environmen-
tal lawyers, grassroots activists, agency folks and
others throughout the country who are engaged in
the off-road vehicle issue. (He’s been mistaken for
both a lawyer and a scientist, neither of which is
his true collegiate background — it’s really
religious studies!) He’s also consistently helped us
keep our office atmosphere fun, regaling us with
tales from river trips, opera and symphony
soundfests, hiking adventures, pool-playing
escapades and his latest hobby - being a radio d.j.
While the person we hire will have some
enormous shoes to fill, Jacob’s replacement will
also have an opportunity to re-craft the off-road
vehicle program, as it will be going through some
significant transitions. Wildlands CPR is finalizing a
new strategic plan and re-visioning our off-road
vehicle work in light of the success of the Natural
Trails and Waters Coalition. We can’t thank Jacob
enough for his dedication to this issue, his commit-
ment to conservation work nationally and locally,
and his critical insights and perceptions about the
important battles in which Wildlands CPR should
engage. If you’ll miss him as much as we will,
don’t hesitate to let him know what a tremendous,
fantastic and amazing job he’s done!!
THANKS Jacob and best of luck in the adven-
tures that await you!
19
Bush Administration Plan for Yellowstone Increases
Snowmobile Use
The Bush Administration recently presented details of its plan to
overturn a Clinton Administration rule to phase snowmobiles out of
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Not only will the plan
allow up to a third more snowmobiles into the Parks, but rangers will
be donning respirators and ear protection to prevent exposure to the
overwhelming human health hazards that have become part of the
job.
Despite 10 years of science and research, 22 public hearings and
5 comment periods, the Bush administration is compromising
protections for the parks and ignoring public support for the ban.
The Grand Junction Sentinel called this decision “a serious mistake
that will harm one of the nation’s true resource treasures.” The
Denver Post reported that “the much watered-down proposal to
permit large numbers of snowmobiles in the two parks doesn’t really
consider the totality of the impacts that these machines create.”
This past year, the administration spent upwards of $2.5 million
dollars of taxpayers’ money to defend industry interests attempting
to disprove 10 years of science that documents the damage snowmo-
biles impose on park resources, visitors, employees and wildlife.
While the Park Service is promoting programs to make operations at
the Park run more smoothly this year, implementing the ban would
have decreased the Park Service’s need for funding.
Everybody’s lining up: the snowmobilers for access, and Park Service
employees for respirators! Photo by Bethanie Walder.
20
For the past three years, human health impact
analyses have demonstrated that the pollution and
noise generated from snowmobiles presents health
hazards to Park employees and both Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks:
1. In 1999, the Environmental Protection
Agency recommended that snowmobiles be
banned from both Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks as the “best available protection”
for air quality, wildlife and public health.
2. In 2000 the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) recommended hearing
protection for Park rangers because the noise
generated from thousands of snowmobiles dam-
ages hearing. OSHA also determined that
Yellowstone employees were exposed to unaccept-
ably high levels of carbon monoxide and benzene
(Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen by
American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) and International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC)).
3. A study released this May by the California
Air Resources Board showed that park workers
were exposed to hydrocarbons at levels 10 times
that measured on California freeways.
4. EPA released its new rule on off-road
vehicle emissions, and it was later discovered that
the Agency failed to examine the public health
hazards associated with particulate matter and
nitrous oxides, two very hazardous chemicals that
are emitted from these machines.
At this point there is little opportunity for
public participation and litigation, again, may be
the only way to control snowmobile use in the two
parks.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
Court Upholds Off-Road Vehicle Restrictions
By Forest Service
After a two-year wait, a federal judge in Denver issued an
important decision reinforcing the Forest Service’s ability to restrict
off-road vehicle use in order to prevent environmental damage. The
Forest Service sought to end cross-country travel by motorized
vehicle use on a portion of the Routt National Forest in northern
Colorado, limiting motorized vehicles to designated routes. The
Forest Service acted after concluding that cross-country motorized
travel in the area was causing considerable environmental damage.

The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition sued to protest

these restrictions, however, arguing that the Forest Service was
required to conduct an environmental analysis (under the National
Environmental Policy Act) for each individual user-created route in
the area. The court disagreed, finding that the Forest Service has the
authority to restrict motorized use in an area if its environmental
analysis produces evidence that damage is occurring. A federal court has affirmed the Forest Service’s right to
restrict off-road vehicle travel to designated routes. Photo
A coalition of conservation groups, including Colorado Wild, The by Amy Chadwick.
Wilderness Society, Wildlands CPR, and Colorado Mountain Club,
intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of the Forest Service. The coali-
tion was represented by Earthjustice.

Executive Order Aimed At Streamlining

Environmental Reviews
On September 18, President Bush ordered the “Environmental
Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews,”
asking the Sectary of Transportation to create a priority list of
transportation infrastructure projects. Chosen items will undergo an
expedited environmental review in order to be granted permits
within a shorter time period. The projects include airports, high-
ways, bridges, and tunnels.

The Bush administration insists that streamlining the environ-

mental review process will reduce highway congestion and air
pollution. Opponents disagree, citing Federal Highway Administration
findings that approximately 62% of project delays are the result of
under funding, local opposition or project complexity rather than
environmental reviews.

Opponents also claim that the executive order circumvents the

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), under which federal
agencies are required to examine the full environmental impacts of
their actions, disclose any foreseen impacts to the public, and
consider public comment. Alternatively, Deron Lovass of the Natural
Resources Defense Council suggests better and earlier public
involvement in project reviews, as well as providing review agencies The Bush Administration has apparently chosen its
preferred constituency. Wildlands CPR file photo.
with more resources, as a way of speeding up the bureaucratic
process required of federal transportation projects.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002 21

Transportation Planning Templates
By mid-December, we expect to have new
templates for activists dealing with transportation
or forest plan revisions. Contact our office for
more information.
Driven Wild: How the Fight Against
Automobiles Launched the Modern
Wilderness Movement
By Paul Sutter
In The Road-
RIPorter’s
second-ever
essay (Odes to
Roads, Decem-
ber 1996), we
printed an
excerpt from
Paul Sutter’s PhD
dissertation. It
provided
incredible
insight into the
history of the
wilderness
movement, and
especially its link
to roads and
cars. Now Paul’s
dissertation has
been condensed and published as a book (Univer-
sity of Washington Press, 2002). Driven Wild
focuses on the rise in automobile recreation, its
commensurate funding, and the birth of the
wilderness concept as a place free from motors
and roads. This motivated Aldo Leopold, Robert
Sterling Yard, Benton MacKaye and Bob Marshall
to create the Wilderness Society in the 1930s. As
the book jacket states, “...each was spurred by a
fear of what growing numbers of automobiles,
aggressive road building, and the meteoric in-
crease in Americans turning to nature for their
leisure would do to the country’s wild places.”
Available in hardcover ($35), this book
provides not only an excellent historical perspec-
tive, but also important insights into American
attitudes toward recreation. The Forest Service in
particular has come full-circle from a focus on
recreation to resource extraction and back to
recreation. Activists working on road, off-road
vehicle and wilderness issues should find the book
valuable for developing strategies to address the
complex recreation issues of today.
22
We’ve been incredibly busy this fall at Wildlands CPR, with
exciting new projects. We’ve conducted our first-ever major
gifts campaign, planned our work for the coming years, and
made presentations at numerous conferences.
First, the major gifts campaign - many, many thanks to those
of you who donated to Wildlands CPR during this campaign! As
of press time, we were more than halfway to our goal, with a few
weeks remaining in the campaign. Special thanks to Susanne
Walder, Greg and Sherry Munther, Beth Graves, Dave Havlick and
Marion Hourdequin. Susanne asked that gifts for her 60th
birthday be made to Wildlands CPR instead of her - and raised
over $1,000 for our campaign. Greg and Sherry were kind
enough to host a house party for Wildlands CPR in Missoula,
while Beth, Dave and Marion did the same for us in Raleigh, NC.
Thanks so much to all of you for your time and gifts.
If you didn’t hear from us as part of that campaign, you will
probably be receiving our annual “Give Thanks” appeal. We
would certainly appreciate any extra donations you can send
our way at the end of this year.
A special thanks to the following foundations: Wilburforce
Foundatiion, Lazar Foundation, Norcross Wildlife Foundation,
Foundation for Deep Ecology, 444 S Foundation, New-Land
Foundation, Harder Foundation, The Brainerd Foundation, and
LaSalle Adams Fund. We are grateful for your support!
Planning is also ongoing. The Wildlands CPR board and
staff are meeting outside Missoula in early December to develop
a strategic plan for the organization to use as guidance for the
next few years. It’s been six years since we’ve done such
planning and it feels like a good time to revisit our programs and
priorities. In the midst of that, Jacob and Bethanie are knee-
deep in applications and interviews for someone to take over
Jacob’s off-road vehicle work this January. We expect to have
someone on board shortly.
Finally, conferences, conferences, conferences. Marnie’s
been traveling around the northwest for field studies on restora-
tion work in addition to the National Network of Forest
Practioners (NNFP) Conference and several other meetings.
Tommy and Bethanie both gave presentations at the University
of Montana and Bethanie also gave presentations at the NNFP
meeting and the American Wildlands Law Conference. In the
meantime, Adam traveled to several meetings including the
Defenders of Wildlife annual predator gathering. Jacob was also
on the road a lot, mostly for strategy meetings, from a legal
session, to a BLM meeting on oil and gas exploration on the
Rocky Mountain Front. If you’re interested in having a staff
member of Wildlands CPR give a presentation at your confer-
ence, or a slide show or other type presentation in your region,
please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002
 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, Winter Solstice 2002 23

 File photo.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

A society of machine owners has a

tendency to think that it has a final
right to everything it runs over, whether
it is woodland, sand, or water.

— John Hay, Bird of Light

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