road riporter 14.1 spring equinox 2009

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 14.1 Spring Equinox 2009

1/24

Spring Equinox 2009. Volume 14 No. 1

Visit us online:

wildlandscpr.org

InsideA Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie

Walder. Page 2

The Plum Creek Chronicles, Pages 3-5

Get with the Program: Restoration andTransportation Program Updates.Pages 6-7

Odes to Roads: Undemocratic Din (parttwo), by Ted Williams. Pages 8-9

DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder.

Pages 10-11

Wildlands CPRs 2008 Annual Report.Pages 12-14

Regional Reports & Updates. Page 15

Biblio Notes: ORV impacts on SandDune and Beach Habitats, by BethGibson. Pages 16-18

New Resources. Page 19

Citizen Spotlight on Tim Clarke, byLaurel Hagen. Pages 20-21

Around the Office, Membership Info.

Pages 22-23

story begins on page 3

The Plum Creek ChroniclesBy Bethanie Walder and Dan Funsch

Photos (clockwise from top left): the scenic Swan Valley (Wildlands CPR); wildlife on the road (Marcel Huijser);a Swan subdivision (Wildlands CPR), and; one of Plum Creeks square-mile clearcuts (Northwest Connections.)


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 20092

2009 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wildlandecosystems by promoting watershed restorationthrough road removal, preventing new wildland

road construction, and stoppingoff-road vehicle abuse.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551www.wildlandscpr.org

Director

Bethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

Legal and Agency LiaisonSarah Peters

Montana State ORVCoordinator

Adam Rissien

Utah State ORVCoordinator

Laurel Hagen

Washington StateRepresentativeSue Gunn

Program AssociateCathrine L. Walters

Restoration ResearchAssociate

Josh Hurd

Journal EditorDan Funsch

Interns & VolunteersGreg Peters, Geoff Fast, Beth Gibson, Owen

Weber, Stuart Smith

Board of DirectorsAmy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish,William Geer, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd,

Cara Nelson, Brett Paben

Restoring Watersheds Through Stimulus FundingWeve been working round-the-clock since mid-November to promote the Forest Ser-vice Legacy Roads program as a critical component of any final stimulus package.

Some days we thought we had a great chance at success, and other days seemed rathergrim. In the end, we landed somewhere in the middle.

What we proposed

We developed a $500 million proposal to fund the Legacy Roads program for 2 years,at $250 million per year. More than 100 groups and retired agency staff, from all over thecountry, endorsed the proposal. We then submitted it to key Congressional offices in theHouse and Senate.

The original House bill included some report language that mentioned the LegacyRoads program by name as an example of a good program for stimulus dollars. Unfor-tunately, that language didnt make it into the final House bill or the final conference bill.However, after much education Congress did include the word decommissioning in theexplicit list of how Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CIM) funds andBureau of Land Management (BLM) Construction funds could be spent. Congressionalstaff are starting to understand that road decommissioning is a smart way to bring greenjobs to rural communities.

What Congress adopted

The final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by PresidentObama on February 17, included $650 million to the Forest Service for CIM, and $180 mil-lion to the BLM for construction (in addition to other funds those agencies received). Theagencies were given 30 days to obligate the funds. The Park Service, Fish and Wildlife

Service and numerous other entities also received funds for restoration and maintenance/improvement.

The Forest Service CIM money can be used for nearly any type of road maintenance,in addition to other facilities maintenance and improvement, like fixing visitor centers.The Senate initially requested that the FS spend $380 million of the CIM funds on roadsand trails; though that language didnt make it into the final bill, it does provide an ideaof how they may allocate the funds. The bills purpose is to create jobs, but it also directsthat these funds be focused on improving natural resources. With no clear direction, theagency could invest a lot of money maintaining or even upgrading roads that really arentneeded anymore.

Whats next

Wildlands CPR put together an urgent letter to the acting Under Secretary of Agricul-

ture and other Forest Service officials the day after the bill was signed, again endorsed bythe groups who supported the initial proposal, requesting critical sideboards for spend-ing the roads/trails money. We explicitly asked that they spend it on Legacy Roads typeprojects to provide green jobs in rural communities by decommissioning unneeded roadsand stormproofing needed roads. We also requested that they use a portion of the funds toidentify the minimum road system and prioritize roads for reclamation.

We know theyll spend some of the money on good projects, but theyll also spendsome on projects we wont like. While we should fight those bad projects aggressively,lets work to highlight and promote the good ones, and give the agencies a pat on the backwhere they deserve one. This can be a good second step for Legacy Roads, and if we canhelp the agency create green jobs while restoring watersheds, we can continue to advanceour case for long-term, sustained funding for road decommissioning.


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 3

The Plum Creek ChroniclesBy Bethanie Walder and Dan Funsch

Editors Note: some scenes have been slightly dramatized to fit your newsletter

Prologue: April 2008The camera pans across a forest checkerboardedwith clearcuts, focusing in on a realtors SUV as itwinds along a dirt road between Plum Creek and

Forest Service lands in western Montana

The news broke in Missoula, MT that PlumCreek Timber Company had been engaged insecret negotiations with the Department of Ag-riculture regarding the terms of their many roadeasements with the Forest Service. The ease-ments were giving Plum Creek heartburn as theycontemplated subdividing and selling off up to2 million acres (of their 8 million acres nation-wide) for high value homesites in the expandingwildland-urban interface.

The question on everyones mind: did theeasements allow access for residential develop-ment, or for resource management (ie. timberharvest) only? Some in the Forest Service andmany in local government supported the latterinterpretation - thus the secret negotiations. IfPlum Creek prevailed, significant ecological,economic and social impacts were certain in thecommunities where the company most wantedto divest.

Over the next eight months a diversity ofpublic and private interests came together toprevent Plum Creeks interpretation, in a perfectstorm of protest. In addition to Plum Creek andthe Forest Service, a full cast of characters hadroles to play:

US Department of AgricultureUndersecretary Mark Rey

Montana Senators Jon Tester andMax Baucus

The Government Accountability Office

(GAO) Missoula County Commissioners andCounty Attorneys

Other County Commissioners in Montana Social investment firms Conservation organizations Conservation lawyers

Act OneFeaturing: Plum Creek, Mark Rey, and some top level ForestService officials

The camera pans across faces in a dimly lit, smoke-filled room. The drinksare flowing, theres laughter in the air, and a pile of paperwork on the table

The parties agree to language clarifying that the easements acrossnational forest land do, in fact, allow Plum Creek to sell off prime real es-tate for residential development. The Forest Service gets a guarantee thatthey wont be responsible for fire-fighting costs to protect the new homes.Amidst backslapping and handshaking, the deal is agreed to, in theory.

Act Two

Featuring: the Missoula County Commissioners/attorneys,Senator Tester, and conservation organizations

The camera reveals a collective jaw-dropping expression from the MissoulaCounty Commissioners as they catch wind (and some rancid cigar smoke) ofthe negotiations

The commissioners inform Senator Jon Tester, who orders Mark Reyto fly to Missoula and meet with the commissioners. Rey comes to the

meeting but will not release any significant information about what he andPlum Creek have been cooking up. News accounts of the meeting and se-cret negotiations are negative, but the story gets little play outside of Mis-soula. The county files a Freedom of Information Request with the ForestService, seeking more detail. Rey chuckles all the way home, while SenatorTester makes a formal request for a GAO investigation.

continued on page 3


4/24


The Plum Creek Chronicles continued from page 3

Interlude

Featuring: Sen Max Baucus, conservation organizations, PlumCreek

The cameras frame is filled with a signature that of Senator Max Baucus. Itzooms out to include the other players

Following years of not-quite-so-secret negotiations, Senator Max Baucus in-cludes funding in the 2008 Farm Bill that would allow The Nature Conservancyand other land trusts to buy more than 300,000 acres of Plum Creeks Montanaholdings. The proposal is critically needed to prevent wholesale developmentof vital habitat. The timing, however, is not ideal in light of the revelationsabout Plum Creeks backroom dealings over road easements. An article in theWashington Post covers both issues together. Baucus and conservationistswork hard to clarify that the land exchange/buyout is separate from the ease-

ment fiasco.

Montanans seem equally excited and alarmed about the proposal whichhas a $510 million price tag (only partly funded by the Farm Bill). Should ithappen, Plum Creek will be laughing all the way to the bank after all, theynever paid for the land in the first place (they came to own it as a result of the19th century railroad land grants). While the majority of Montanans seem towant this land to be converted to public ownership, few can disguise their frus-tration over the fact that Plum Creek will make millions from the deal.

Act Three

Featuring: conservation organizations/lawyers; social invest-ment firms

Scene One:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch images of suits and ties, bifocals and headscratching fill the screen

The county, Testers office and the GAO are completing their due diligenceto challenge the disastrous easement negotiations. Conservationists wantto engage, but decide to remain behind the scenes, as Missoula County andthe Senator are doing a good job making Plum Creek look bad in the media.Nonetheless, conservationists work with their own lawyers to identify potentialchallenges to any final renegotiation of the easements. Any litigation must wait

until the easements are finalized. There must be something else conservation-ists can do while they wait for the case to ripen

Scene Two:

The camera cuts to a classic scene: conservation staffers at a happy hour partyscribbling on cocktail napkins

Fortuitously, staff from Wildlands CPR and the Clark Fork Coalition end upat a small party with representatives from Trillium Asset Management, a socialinvestment firm. They cook up a plan to launch a shareholder action againstPlum Creek to pressure the firm into withdrawing from the negotiations. Tril-

lium brings in Newground Social Invest-ment in Seattle, which has engaged inother dealings with Plum Creek, and thetwo firms launch a shot across Plum

Creeks bow. The mere mention of theirplan attracts more negative media at-tention to Plum Creek. Plum Creek andthe shareholders trade letters back andforth over several months, culminatingin a final decision by the investmentfirms to file a formal shareholder resolu-tion. Wildlands CPR provides the firmswith the bulk of the information neededto continue with these actions.

Entire square mile sections of Plum Creek landhave been heavily logged (above - photo courtesyof Northwest Connections). Below, the Swan Rivermeanders through the valley, Wildlands CPR photo.


5/24


Act Four

Featuring: Plum Creek, Missoula County, Forest Service, SenatorTester, GAO

In dramatic fashion, the halls of Congress are backlit, and the cameras capture a pressconference

The GAO releases their preliminary findings, which clearly question the legalityof the proposed Plum Creek/USDA easement renegotiation. Tester continues topress Mark Rey. The Forest Service releases the tiniest trickle of relatively use-less information to Missoula County from their long-ago filed FOIA request. PlumCreek and the Forest Service hold a series of meetings in different counties. At theMissoula County meeting Plum Creek unveils a new strategy of subterfuge, statingthat the county doesnt have to sign the blanket renegotiation if they dont wantto. Instead, Plum Creek considers using the new easement language as a templateand applying it on a case-by-case basis. You can almost read their minds with thisapproach theyll just go where people arent paying attention and apply the rene-gotiated easements without controversy. The media coverage continues to paintPlum Creek in a very bad light, but it also continues to be mostly focused in thelocal paper, The Missoulian.

Act FiveFeaturing: the entire cast

On-screen, a series of tightly-edited shots: a bustling newsroom; a bulldozer movingearth; men in suits shaking hands

On New Years morning The Missoulian includes yet another above-the-foldstory about the Plum Creek renegotiations. The headline is a brutal welcome to2009 and does not bode well for those who care about the environment: Rey tomake decision on Plum Creek road access. A few days later, on a Sunday, TheWashington Postruns a lengthy article about the easement issue, and Reys pendingdecision. It is a follow up to their summer article that looked at both the easementrenegotiation and the Baucus/Nature Conservancy/Plum Creek land deal. The ar-ticle is good, but seems to be too little, too late, as Rey practically guarantees hellsign the deal before leaving office.

About face: The first real work day of the year (January 6) is half over whenPlum Creek drops a bomb to the Missoula County Commission, declaring that theyare pulling out of the renegotiation deal. The county commissioners, activists andmany others rejoice that this part of the fight with Plum Creek is over. The follow-ing day The Missoulian has one more front page story proclaiming Plum Creekswithdrawal. The Washington Postalso runs a follow-up.

EpilogueThe camera catches a glimmer ofsunlight in the forest; a fisherman castsa line to trout in a clear stream; an oldercouple stroll quietly down a forest trail

Everyones asking what happened,and those interviewed are consistent

in their message: It was a full-courtpress. No matter where Plum Creekturned they were resisted: MissoulaCounty, federal legal analysis, publicopinion, even some of their sharehold-ers. Its likely that there was no oneact, on its own, that led Plum Creek toback down. It took a lot of differentpeople, engaging in very different ways,to surround Plum Creek and force themto drop their plans. External factorslike a crashing real estate market andthe shift to a new Presidential Adminis-tration didnt hurt either, though only

Plum Creek can say why they finallypulled the plug.

The costs of losing this one would havebeen astronomical from a conserva-tion perspective. But the battle isntover and many of the ecological threatsstill exist. Plum Creeks withdrawaljust means that the status quo remainsintact. Plum Creek can continue sellingparcels of land for development and theindividual buyers can negotiate withthe Forest Service on a case-by-casebasis. Many renegotiated easements

are likely to fly under the radar andnever be challenged. Its one moreexample of the nature of conservationbattles, which often involve ephemeralwins and permanent losses. While thisis an enormous victory, it may still beephemeral.

That said, by preventing the whole-sale renegotiation of these easementsto allow for development, the county,the Senators offices, conservationgroups and other interested partieshave ensured that there is at least some

possibility for a vigorous review ofeasements in each case.

In other words, stay tunedfor the sequel!

At left, another home for sale in the wildland-urban interface. Photo by Dan Funsch.


6/24


Thank You Marnie!

Program Updates, Spring 2009

For the past nine years, our restoration program has been led both fear-lessly and creatively by Marnie Criley. In mid-2008 Marnie informed usthat she was ready to move on, and that she would be leaving WildlandsCPR at the end of the year. Even though we had about six months to getused to the idea, its still pretty strange not having her as an official part ofthe Wildlands CPR team. As we continue to adjust, we thought wed takethis opportunity to share with you, our members and readers, the amazingstory of what Marnie started with, what she built and where our programis as a result of her work,

It was January 2000, we had just finished a major push to press theForest Service to change off-road vehicle management, and the roadlessrule was about to be finalized. Wildlands CPR had been involved at theinception of the roadless campaign, and as it grew into a major DC-basedeffort, we complemented the endeavor with a focus on place-based roadrestoration. By the time the rule was adopted, people understood thatwildland roads can be quite damaging. We created a full-time position,enabling us to aggressively expand our emphasis on watershed restorationthrough road removal.

Marnie was working as a restoration practitioner with her partnerMark, but she had a very strong policy background. She and Mark hadattended several Wildlands CPR workshops, most of the time ending up asde-facto instructors to Forest Service participants. Marnie was clearly per-fect for the job, and apparently she thought so, too, because she took it!

As a direct result of Marnies efforts, road decommissioning is much more common than in the past.Here, before (above) and after photos of a restored road in Rye Creek, Bitterroot national Forest, Montana.

Photos by Byron Williams, US Forest Service.

Within a short time, Marnie directed Wild-

lands CPR toward research into the economicsand socio-political aspects of watershed restora-tion through road removal. She became a keyparticipant in the national effort to develop aset of restoration principles, building allianceswith partners in the community-based forestrymovement. Marnie helped many understandthat restoration could result in win-win situa-tions and move us away from tiresome jobs vs.

the environment arguments, andshe oversaw the developmentof a formal economic analysisof the jobs creation benefits ofroad decommissioning. Today

it seems everyone is jumping onthe green jobs bandwagon, butMarnie blazed a trail those manyyears ago. Weve expanded onand promoted the results of thatfirst report (Investing in Com-munities, Investing in the Land)ever since, with Marnie becom-ing a sought-after expert indeveloping high-skill, high-wage,green restoration jobs.


7/24


While the agency was beginning to engagein watershed restoration through road decom-missioning, there were a lot of false startsaround the country. So, Marnie developedanother project to identify what works and whatdoesnt in road decommissioning. The resultwas an extremely valuable report including afantastic flow chart to help agency staff imple-ment socio-politically acceptable road decom-missioning programs on national forests. If theycould head off opposition, and even more impor-tantly, build public support, then, theoretically,the agency would be able to implement betterrestoration programs. This report and severalothers became known as our road removal tool-box. Now we needed to get the toolbox into theright hands . . .

Since our inception, Wildlands CPR hadimplemented citizen workshops to teach peoplehow to document roads in the field, work withthe agency to change road management, etc.And while we had invited agency staff to ourroad decommissioning workshops, our focus

was still on the general public. Marnie tookour workshops in an entirely new direction,identifying agency staff as a prime audience. In1.5 years, more than 100 agency staff attendedworkshops that Marnie coordinated, all focusedon the toolbox. Staff from Forest Service regions1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 all attended. Wildlands CPR hassince led trainings in both our restoration andORV programs for more than 300 agency staff.

During all this time, Marnie was engaged in many state and national ef-forts to combine labor and environmental advocacy especially as a resultof the economics/jobs work she had been doing. In 2006, she got moreheavily involved in Montana restoration, after our board finally relaxedtheir dont focus so much on Montana rule. Marnie worked with theMontana governors office and Wildlands CPR became an original cospon-sor, along with the MT AFL-CIO, of the Governors Restoration Summit inJune 2006. More than 300 business, tribal, conservation, university andgovernment representatives participated in this meeting. Just this fall thegovernor held a follow up meeting focused on building a restoration work-force in Montana, and Marnie presented at that as well.

As an outcome of the governors 2006 summit, Marnie began coor-

dinating a group of summit participants from industry, labor, university,timber, conservation and hunting communities to promote recommenda-tions from the 2006 summit. We began calling this ad-hoc group RestoreMontana, and Marnie was the unofficial leader of the pack. We set anagenda for the 2007 MT legislature, and when all was said and done, weended up with $34 million in new state funding for restoration, the creationof a state office of watershed restoration, and a new messenger, Gover-nor Schweitzer, on the importance of building a restoration economy inMontana. During 2007, Marnie also took a leadership role with a group ofagency staff, timber, hunting and conservationists who were developing aset of restoration principles for Montana.

This review includes just some of the big projects that Marnie hasbeen involved in, but throughout the past 9 years, shes been helping Wild-

lands CPR grow into the diverse, respected organization that we are today.When Marnie left Wildlands CPR at the end of 2008, she did so with oneprimary goal in mind to turn Restore Montana into an effective organiza-tion promoting a restoration economy in the state of Montana. Shes got aboard of directors (which includes Wildlands CPR E.D. Bethanie Walder),shes in the process of raising money, and shes got a vision for how tomove forward. Restore Montana is a coalition effort, and Wildlands CPRwill continue to be a big part of it. We hope this brief review of Marniesimpact on Wildlands CPR provides a small token of our thanks for all herhard work with us. Marnie, we wish you all the luck in the world wehope youre as successful at this next endeavor as you were with Wild-lands CPR well miss you!

Marnie brought a diverse array of talents to theorganization.

Marnies experience in the woods and working with wood helped Wildlands CPRestablish credibility in the restoration debate.


8/24


Undemocratic DinBy Ted Williams

Editors Note: This is the second part of this essay; we printed the first half in the last issue ofThe RIPorter (13.4). The essay appeared in its entirety in Forest Magazine in summer 2008, butwas written in the late 1990s. The places of employment and/or titles of some of the characters

have since changed.

Basically, ORVs ran me out

of Michigan

Colonel George Buchner

Carrying the ORV industrys gasand venting itis the BlueRibbonCoalition, a group dedicated to keepingpublic land accessible to ORV us-ers. The coalition has acquired majorfunding from Yamaha, Honda, Polaris,Ski-doo and Horizon, and lists among itsmembers scores of motor-head clubs,with names like the Missouri Mud-ders, and a host of firms and cartels,including the Western States Petroleum

Association, American Forest & PaperAssociation, Boise Cascade, IdahoCattle Association, Committee forPublic Access to Public Lands, IdahoMining Association and Northwest Min-ing Association. Cofounder and directorClark Collins defines the roadless ruleproposed by the Clinton administrationand squashed by Bush as a plot by theGAGs (green advocacy groups, whichhe has also referred to as hate groupsand nature Nazis).

Also supporting and promoting theBlueRibbon Coalition has been the Out-door Channel, the first full-time cablenetwork with a programming focus onhunting and fishing and which reaches11 million homes across the nation. Ithas included the coalition among itswebsite links to conservation organi-zations and given it plenty of airtime totub-thump for motorization and priva-tization of public land. Jake Hartwick,

the Outdoor Channels executive vicepresident, says that wise-use groupsare defending the very foundation ofour system and that environmentalgroups are advocating the completeabolition of private-property rights.

But not all sportsmen are so easilyseduced, and when you strip away themirrors, gongs, water and dry ice, Col-lins becomes a little man in a Wizard ofOz suit. In the BlueRibbon Coalitionshome state of Idaho, the Fish and GameDepartment reports that at least 86 per-

cent of elk hunters find that encounterswith motorized vehicles detract fromtheir outdoor experience. Fewer than 5percent of the members of the MontanaWildlife Federation (composed basicallyof hunters and anglers) own ORVs, andthe group has asked the Forest Serviceto close all roads that dont service full-size vehicles.

Motorcycle traffic eroded this fragile soil.Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.


9/24


Jim Posewitz, director of Orionthe Hunters Institute, a Montana-basedsportsmens group, says: The presenceof ATVs on public hunting grounds willprobably be one of the largest con-tributors to loss of hunting opportunitythat weve yet experienced. It puts theanimals at a disadvantage. It violatesthe security that wildlife once had indifficult terrain. The Forest Service andBLM have decided to disenfranchisethe people who have followed the lawand empower those who have violatedit. Those of us who have participated innonmotorized use have no way to stakea comparable claim.

The BlueRibbon Coalition blamesthe unpopularity of ORVs on the be-havior of bad apples, and maybe itsright. But because the new machinescan go where there is no enforcement,bad apples proliferate. Evaluating the600cc mountain line snowmobiles

for SnoWest Magazine, Steve Janes ofthe SnoWest test crew filed this report:In the four days of riding in Quebec,we estimate that we violated around652 laws or regulations. But since ourcrews motto was If you cant breakparts, break laws, we acted naive andwandered off the groomed trails insearch of test areas.

The 500 combat missions flown byColonel George Buchner over Vietnamdidnt prepare him for ORV combat inMichigan, where the machines have

done an estimated $1 billion worth of

damage, tearing up ground cover sobadly that utility poles were falling over.Where Lake Huron collects the Au SableRiver system, Buchner found trespass-ing ATV operators popping wheeliesin his private trout stream. When hedemanded their names, one riderdismounted and attacked him, breakinghis nose. When he fenced his postedstream and property, ORV operators cutthe wire and pulled the stakes. When hereinforced the stakes with cement, theyknocked them down. When he and theMichigan United Conservation Clubssuccessfully pushed for a state ORVpolicy of closed unless posted open,he received death threats and hadhis streetlights shot out, his mailboxsmashed, his driveway seeded with bro-ken glass, the eight-strand fence on hisChristmas tree farm cut in eighty-eightplaces, and his wife run over.

Robin was screaming, he says,

and the guy calmly cranked up hismachine and finished running over her.Hed come through multiple barriers,multiple posted signs, three fences anda gate. She had a hematoma extendingthe length of her leg.

Basically, ORVs ran me out ofMichigan, Buchner told me from hisArizona home.

But in the end the problem comesdown not so much to the nature of ORVusers as to the nature of their vehicles.

ORVs are designed to go off road,

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

where motorized vehicles dont belong.Their noise is undemocraticlikesecond-hand smoke. They need to beremoved from our wildest and best pub-lic landnot because regulations cant

control them (although they cant),not because most people hate them(although they do), but because theyintrude and usurp. Snowmobile din nowpenetrates five miles into the backcoun-try of our first national park. Wintervisitors are having trouble hearing thegeysers, and elk and bison are beingdriven from the forage of open mead-ows and the shallow snow of thermalareas, which they desperately require.In order for ORV operators to do theirthing, everyone else, including wildlife,must cease doing theirsat least inpart.

Some people cant enjoy our publiclands without ORVs. But when theresno escape from them, the rest of uscant enjoy our public lands either.

Ted Williams is a freelance writerspecializing in conservation and theenvironment. He is editor-at-large ofAudubon andconservation editor of Fly

Rod & Reel.

A few bad apples? Or an integral part of off-road culture? Photo courtesy of BLM.


10/24


Can the Forest Service Rightsize the National

Forest Road System?By Bethanie WalderIn the midst of this economic downturn, the termrightsizing is often considered a euphemism forlayoffs and downsizing. Reflecting on all the layoffs as aresult of our current recession, I got to thinking aboutmuch needed reductions in the bloated Forest Serviceroad system as an opportunity for rightsizing.

In recent conversations, meetings, and somepublications, the Forest Service has hinted at thepossibility of rightsizing the road system as well.But as I reflect on the past eight years and reviewmore recent documents and conversations, Imincreasingly concerned that their idea of rightsizingis fatally flawed.

An Opportunity MissedThe Forest Service (FS) was given an optimal

tool for rightsizing their road system in 2001, whenthe outgoing Clinton administration (after yearsof study) adopted the long-term transportation policy. It called for the agencyto determine a minimum road system necessary to meet the needs of forestusers and resource managers. And while it offered great potential, the rule waseclipsed by its contemporary, the roadless rule.

Unfortunately, in applying the roads policy, the FS Washington office decid-ed to limit analysis of its road system to only those roads suitable for passengervehicles; the agency turned a blind eye to roads that were closed or roads opento high clearance vehicles. As a result, most forests decided they needed all oftheir roads.

Years passed, funding for road decommissioning ebbed and flowed, andonly a handful of forests (or districts) took the time to analyze and identify aminimum road system. Outside of those few forests it became clear that therewas little motivation to begin systematically dismantling the worlds largestroad system. Meanwhile, the road maintenance backlog grew exponentially, andmany passenger vehicle roads crossed over maintenance tipping points andwere reclassified as high clearance roads.

Playing With WordsIn October 2007 Undersecretary of

Agriculture Mark Rey provided a writtenresponse to several Senators who hadinquired about Forest Service road manage-ment. He explained that the agency wouldreduce roads open to the public because offunding constraints: We will make forest-by-forest annual road maintenance deci-sions in a manner that reduces availabilityof roads to public traffic and also reducesthe standards of the roads that are madeso available, to miles of road and levels ofroad service that are sustainable at currentbudget levels.

At around the same time, the agencywas completing some national road assess-ments, apparently for the Office of Manage-ment and Budget and for the Office of theInspector General. One of their draft re-ports, Rightsizing the Forest Service RoadSystem, made it into the final Environmen-tal Impact Statement on Idaho roadlessareas in 2008. Apparently a final copy wasnever released (at least not one that wecan access), but the charts and informationcontained in the report are rather alarming.

Road Access Strategies (Most likely scenario - 2% Loss in Purchasing Power)

ClosedMiles

HighClearance

Miles

PassengerCar Miles

Existing Condi tion Maintain Open Road Access Reduce Access Proportionately

89,600 89,600

220,180 278,390

69,910

11,700 20,499

64,561

294,630

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Graphics here & below adapted from T. Moore 2007, unpublished draft report.

TimeRoadCondition

InvestmentNeedHigh

Low

Medium

Good

Fair

Poor


11/24


The reports bottom line: The FS roadsystem is too big, the bulk of the maintenancebacklog is on passenger vehicle roads, and bydowngrading these to lower capacity roads,the agency can reduce the backlog. The reportassumes the road system will stay the same sizeover time; it does not recommend decommis-sioning any roads. This is particularly hard to

understand, since the agency is engaging in roaddecommissioning, albeit at a small level, all overthe U.S. Instead, to work within their budgetthey recommend closing up to 80% of the roadsnow open to passenger vehicles. Taken fromthe report, these charts (see figure at left) showfunding scenarios and how those might play outon the ground.

How can the agency refer to this as rightsiz-ing the road system? Just for arguments sake,lets pretend that the FS was rightsizing like anauto manufacturer might. The workforce couldrepresent different types of roads as defined by

Maintenance Level (ML): managers represent-ing roads open to the public (ML 3-5); factoryworkers representing high-clearance vehicle (ML2) roads; and janitorial staff representing closed(ML 1) roads. If the company did as the FS isdoing, they wouldnt lay anyone off, but wouldinstead downgrade them to jobs with fewer ben-efits. They might cut management positions by80% and move these managers into the factoryand janitorial staff. While this might cut theiroverall costs, it probably wouldnt help thembe successful, in fact, it would probably do theopposite.

In 2006, according to the FSs annual RoadAccomplishment Reports, they were only ableto maintain 36% of their roads to standard. Ifthey reclassify 50,000 miles of passenger vehicleroads to high clearance roads, they could thenclaim, without any increase in funding, that theyare maintaining the bulk of their roads to stan-dard. But they wont have changed anything onthe ground, nor secured any new funding. Theroad system is an ecological nightmare that getsworse every day as maintenance is delayed againand again because of a lack of funding.

Road Size: Right or Wrong?The Forest Service doesnt really seem to have a plan for rightsizing

their road system. Instead they appear focused on keeping the system thesame size, but reclassifying some roads to reduce maintenance require-ments and hence, theoretically saving money. Though this might be areasonable solution on paper, it could be disastrous ecologically. Heres asample of the potential fallout:

Increased erosion and sedimentation

Increased likelihood of blocked fish passage from unmaintained orunder-maintained culverts

Increased risk of mass wasting related to catastrophic culvert failuresor other road blowouts

No reductions in habitat fragmentation Increased spread of weeds and other invasive species Increased threat of off-road vehicle trespass from ML 2 roads

Rightsizing the road system by removing roads on-the-ground, as wellas on paper, will provide real and lasting benefits to wildlife, water resourc-es, American taxpayers and local workers. Eight years ago, when the FSadopted that long-term transportation policy, the agency determined thata minimum road system would have 25-40% fewer roads than the currentsystem. But somewhere along the line the agency forgot all about that, and

many line officers decided they just had to keep every single existing roadin their system. So here we are, nearly a decade later, with a growing bud-get deficit and a growing ecological crisis. The agencys draft proposal forrightsizing might solve the immediate budget problem, but it will resultin even greater long-term costs from the road failures and ecological dam-age that will be inevitable as maintenance is ignored. Perhaps thats whythe draft Rightsizing the Road System report never made it into final form?

With hefty stimulus funding barreling their way, the Forest Service hasan opportunity to invest wisely in three key benefits (ecological improve-ment, green-job creation, and long-term future taxpayer savings). Or, they

may choose to spend these funds to upgrade roads that are no longerneeded, creating jobs now but increasing long-term ecological and fiscalcosts. Were pressing hard for the agency to stop shuffling papers andhiding the maintenance problem, and to get busy truly rightsizing our roadsystem.

Citation

Moore, T. 2007. [unpublished draft]. National Forest System Road Trends,Trends Analysis Submitted to Office of Management and Budget.United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, EngineeringStaff,Washington Office, Washington, DC.

Plugged culverts are just one symptom of an ailing roadsystem. Photo courtesy of BLM.

Loss in Passenger Car Access

93,600

85,00085,022

76,000

69,910

82,163 81,871

75,000

79,763

74,000

Miles

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1991

1997

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Graphicadapted

fromT. Moore2007,

unpublisheddraft report.


12/24


Tangible results of Wildlands CPRs mission: a road is removed.Photo by Adam Switalski.

Wildlands CPR 2008 Annual Report

Watershed RestorationOur restoration program had two

emphases in 2008 engaging in pilotprojects to build a restoration economyin the state of Montana and securingnational funds for watershed restora-tion on public lands. We spent the earlypart of the year working with the ForestService to ensure they spent their ~$40million in Legacy Roads and Trails Reme-diation Initiative money (Legacy Roads)

effectively and appropriately. Concur-rently, we worked to ensure the LegacyRoads program was funded in FY 2009and beyond.

Here in the region, Restoration Pro-gram Coordinator Marnie Criley contin-ued her leadership role in on-the-groundactivities with the Montana Forest Resto-ration Committee and Restore Montana.At the national level, Wildlands CPRsWashington Field Rep Sue Gunn actedas the Campaign Coordinator for theWashington Watershed Restoration

Initiative (WWRI) and related nationalefforts. In addition, our RestorationResearch Associate, Josh Hurd, began ayear-long project to identify the regula-tory and policy changes needed to builda sustained, robust restoration sector ofthe economy.

Restoration Program Accomplishments

Expanded program with two new staff: Sue Gunn at time and Josh Hurd at time.

Provided support and oversight to the Forest Service for implementing the $39.4million Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRRI), including:

Presented the Washington Office of the Forest Service with a national reportof road decommissioning needs and recommendations on how to spend LRRIfunds.

Reviewed the distribution of LRRI funds and challenged projects that didntmeet Congressional intent; several inappropriate projects were pulled andreplaced.

Promoted LRRI to regional and national media, with numerous newspaper and

television reports that focused on LRRI implementation and green-jobs. Developed a multi-faceted approach to advocate for LRRI funding from multiple

sources: Worked with congress on dear colleague letters in the house and senate sup-

porting LRRI funding and green jobs. Implemented a strategy for stimulus funding for LRRI that was incorporated by

national environmental and sporting organizations and other diverse partners.(More than 100 groups and individuals directly endorsed our proposal.)

Secured language in the stimulus bill that ensures the Forest Service canspend a portion of their funds on road decommissioning (finalized in 2009).

Promoted on-the-ground restoration in Montana through leadership of the Mon-tana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) and Restore Montana.

Completed our fourth year of citizen monitoring of road removal on the ClearwaterNational Forest began final assessment of multi-year data with statistically signifi-

cant information about wildlife use of roads. Developed a set of watershed restoration/road removal resources for tribes and

posted this information on a new section of our website. Co-sponsored two critical restoration/stewardship summits.

Recruited speakers and participants for the Pacific Rivers Council/WWRI wa-tershed restoration symposium in Tacoma, WA in April

Participated in the steering committee for Sustainable Northwests WesternStewardship Summit in Bend, OR in September. Presented at or chaired numer-ous panel discussions.

In2008 Wildlands CPR led national conservation

efforts to secure increased funding for watershed

restoration on public lands. We also continued to

play a strong leadership role in the campaign to stopoff-road vehicle abuse on national forests. For fifteen

years now, Wildlands CPR has identified strategic

solutions to intractable conservation, transportation,

and restoration problems on public lands. 2008 was no

exception, with real on-the-ground success in both our

transportation and restoration programs.


13/24


ORVsWildlands CPR is heavily engaged in the Forest Services

national travel planning process. Our ORV state coordina-tors in MT and UT (Adam Rissien and Laurel Hagen) workedtirelessly to influence travel planning on their priority forests.They also established many new partners and expanded publicsupport for stopping off-road vehicle abuse. Our Legal Liaison,Sarah Peters, assisted activists throughout the nation in legal

efforts surrounding travel planning and road management.And our Staff Scientist Adam Switalski partnered with the WildUtah Project to publish a report on Best Management Practices(BMPs) for off-road vehicle use on forested ecosystems. TheBMPs, along with our earlier report on effective enforcementstrategies, are another example of Wildlands CPRs focus onproviding real-world solutions to difficult land managementproblems.

Off-Road Vehicle Program Accomplishments

Published and distributed ~1000 copies of BMPs for Off-Road Vehicles in Forested

Ecosystems, in conjunction with Six Strategies for Success: Effective off-roadvehicle management on public lands, to Forest Service, Park Service and Bureau ofLand Management staff. Several thousand additional copies of both reports havealso been downloaded from our website.

Distributed nearly 5000 copies of the coffee-table book Thrillcraft. Helped with two congressional oversight hearings on off-road vehicle management.

Identified witnesses and key questions. Our enforcement report was highlighted inthe hearings as a critical resource for land managers.

Provided extensive support to the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition and Montanansfor Quiet Recreation.

Coordinated meetings with rural Utahns and the governorof Utah regarding challenges with motorized recreation andpromotion of non-motorized recreation. This resulted in fa-vorable press in the Salt Lake Tribune, including a statement

by the Governor that the effects of off-road use in southernUT are abominable.

Provided leadership and strategic support to numerousorganizations in Montana working to develop enforcementlegislation for the 2009 legislative session.

Participated in a three-day field meeting with top level ForestService staff and a variety of motorized and non-motorizedrecreationists. Coordinated conservation comments to theinterim final trail classification guidelines.

Partnered with The Wilderness Societys Recreation PlanningProgram to provide leadership to activists throughout thewest on national forest travel planning.

Settled a lawsuit with the National Park Service over off-road vehicle management in National Parks. The settlement

identified pilot parks where new reporting methods will betested, and it guaranteed that parks that have not undertakenplanning for off-road vehicles (where such use is allowed), willcomplete the needed planning.

Annual Report continued on next page

Adam Switalski prepares a group of students to assist with WildlandsCPRs monitoring effort.

Technological improvements have changed the nature of off-roadtransportation, making Wildlands CPRs work all the more important in

protecting natural resources. Photo by Laurel Hagen.


14/24


Income

Grants$451,521

Other$15,238

Contributions &Membership

$63,960

Contract Income$16,500 Expenses

Transportation$268,273

Restoration$204,621

Admin. & Fundraising$49,473

Org. Development$48,726

2008 Income: $ 547,218.232008 Expenses: $ 571,093.42

In-Kind Donations

& Services $ 21,161.42

Wildlands CPR 2008 Annual Report continued from previous page

2008 Financial Report

Organizational DevelopmentWildlands CPR continues to be supported by

foundations and individuals. Wed like to thankthe following for their support for our work in2008: Bullitt, Cinnabar, Firedoll, Harder, Horizons,Maki, National Forest, New-Land, NW Fund for theEnvironment, Page, and 444 S Foundations. In ad-dition, we extend a huge thank you to all those in-dividuals who provided us with financial supportto complete our projects. Our successes are yoursuccesses, and they always will be. Thank you!

Additional Accomplishments Took a behind the scenes leadership role in challenging Plum Creek Tim-

ber Companys efforts to develop a new road easement agreement withthe Forest Service nationally which would have facilitated Plum Creekssale of lands in the wildland urban interface.

Worked with several organizations to prepare for possible litigationagainst any final agreement.

Partnered with Clark Fork Coalition (MT), Newground Social Investing(WA), and Trillium Asset Management (MA/ID) to develop a share-holders action requesting that Plum Creek cease the negotiations.On January 5, 2009, Plum Creek pulled out.

Upgraded our website and electronic communications tools, includingsignificant expansion of our electronic newsletter, The Dirt.

Published a leather-bound collectors edition of our book (and accompa-nying woodcut engravings),A Road Runs Through It, which was signed byall 26 of the living authors.

Note: The figures used in this report have yetto be audited, so they are subject to change.


15/24


FS Trail Classification Update

In mid-December, Wildlands CPR and several othergroups provided comments on interim final directives theForest Service issued in October to address how recreationaltrails are managed. These directives, while positive overall,also had a few zingers buried in their depths. Were still wait-

ing to see whether the FS listens to any of our suggestions toapply common sense to this guidance.

These directives provide no direction for how trailmaintenance and upgrade projects are to comply with NEPAand public involvement, leading to a very real concern thattrails will be upgraded, either to a higher standard trail for thesame use or from a nonmotorized to a motorized trail, with-out environmental analysis and without public involvement.

Another worrisome change included a definition for aUtility Terrain Vehicle (UTV), which further conflates thenon-existent difference between the FS definition for a roadand a trail. UTV is a term created by the ORV industry to

indicate vehicles where passenger and driver ride side byside and that has a steering wheel like a regular automobile.These vehicles were already covered under the FS definitionfor four wheel drive vehicle and as such there was no needfor a new definition. Adding this definition advances the FSfurther down a slippery slope of trying to accommodate eachnew addition to the ORV arsenal.

Wildlands CPR will be closely watching for the final ver-sion of these directives to determine if the Forest Service hasfixed these, and other problems, and well let you know whatwe find out.

9th Circuit Win for GrizzliesSwan View Coalition, Friends of the Wild Swan, and

Wildlands CPR won a victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Ap-peals against the Flathead National Forest in a dispute overroad management. The Flatheads Resource Management Plan(RMP) requires it to maintain areas for grizzly bears wheremotorized travel is restricted. In these areas, when the needsof grizzly conflict with other management options, the RMPstates that the grizzly should win.

However, in its implementation of a post-fire salvage plan,the Flathead NF left several roads open to motorized use with-out evaluating the resulting conflict with the requirements es-

tablished in their management plan. On January 9, 2009, the9th Circuit over-ruled a previous decision made by DistrictJudge Malloy and told the Flathead to go back and re-analyzethat decision, with the needs of grizzly in the forefront.

Court Blocks Alaska RoadThe Federal District Court of Alaska ruled in February

that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) failed toconsider a full range of alternatives when considering theJuneau Road and Ferry Project. For the project to moveforward, Judge Sedwick specifically required that the AlaskaDepartment of Transportation (DOT) and FHWA consider analternative to improve ferry service using existing ferries andterminals. The 50 mile, $374 million road was planned to linkAlaskas capital with the interior.

The court ruling states: The [Final Environmental ImpactStatements] omission of such an alternative is particularly

troublesome in light of the agencies awareness that such analternative was the first obvious alternative and had thefewest environmental impacts, and the fact that the communi-ties who stand to benefit the most from the Project explicitlyrequested the agencies to focus on improving ferry transpor-tation within Lynn Canal.

This means that road construction through Berners Baywill not commence this summer, nor any time soon. GovernorPalin and the State now have three choices: (a) appeal thecourts decision; (b) revise the EIS according to the districtcourts instructions, or; (c) scrap the project altogether. Gov.Palin seemed ambivalent about the proposed road, and nowmust decide to either throw more good money after bad or to

scrap the road and put the states money to better use.

Visit www.seacc.org/issues/transportation for the fulldecision.

The planned road would have crossed dozens of active avalancheshutes. Photo courtesy of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council.


16/24


Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of thescientific literature in our 15,000 citation bibliography on the

physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. Weoffer bibliographic searches to help activists access importantbiological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most

articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts on Sand Duneand Sandy Beach Habitats

By Beth Gibson

Introduction

Sand dunes and sandy beaches contend with surf spray,storms, wind, and other extreme conditions. These coastalareas also face unique challenges related to population

growth, climate change, and urban development and sprawl more than half the U.S. population lives in coastal areas.And while these habitats and the flora and fauna that inhabitthem are robust, they are also vulnerable to the impacts ofhuman recreation and development. In fact, the coastal zoneis home to more than one third of U.S. federally listed species.In this paper, I review the negative impacts on sand dunesand sandy beach habitats from off-road vehicles (ORVs)including cars, trucks, and other vehicles driven off the mainroad.

Vegetation

Godfrey and Godfrey (1981) found ORV traffic to have

substantial negative impacts on dune plant species. Theysubjected three plant communities to 50 vehicle passes. Notonly were plants trampled and damaged by the traffic, butthey were also slow in recolonizing ORV tracks after traf-fic had ceased. Some quickly growing plants, such as thosethat specialize in colonizing new areas, were able to recoverrelatively rapidly. Other slow growing plants and those thatreproduce by seed did not recover as quickly. For example,lichen cover was found to be extremely fragile.

ORVs also churn up and dry out the organic drift lines(the high point of material deposited by waves). Plant seedsdeposited at these organic drift lines often develop intomature plants over time, but Godfrey and Godfrey (1981)found that ORV traffic trampled seedlings and made the soilunsuitable for growth, thereby retarding the natural cycle ofplant colonization and the formation of foredunes (a ridgeof irregular sand dunes partially covered with vegetation).Rickard et al. (1994) examined the impact of ORVs on vegeta-tion growth by comparing two dune sites in South Africa: apioneer vegetation zone and a climax shrubland. Both siteswere damaged by ORV traffic, but the pioneer vegetation wasable to rapidly recolonize while climax shrubland was muchslower in its regrowth. An important consideration for theseareas is once vegetation has been killed by ORV traffic thebare tracks are also vulnerable to wind erosion.

Physical Impacts

Schlacher and Thompson (2008) found beach trafficcaused widespread and significant physical disturbanceto sandy beaches: large areas of the beach were rutted byvehicle tracks, ORVs compacted and displaced significantvolumes of sand down shore, and in general, traffic disturbedthe drift line, foredunes, and backshore (area of shore lyingbetween the average high-tide mark and the vegetation).

Anders and Leatherman (1987) examined ORV impactson the coastal foredunes of Fire Island in New York. Herebeach grass assists in promoting sand accumulation; thisaccumulation creates a broad foredune that helps dissipatestorm wave energy. In ORV impacted areas the beach grasswas eliminated, thereby inhibiting sand accumulation. Theend result was a steeper foredune profile that did not dis-sipate wave energy as effectively as the natural dune face,creating a greater potential for beach erosion (Anders andLeatherman, 1987).

Dune vegetation can be extremely sensitive to physical disturbance.Photo by Bethanie Walder.


17/24


references on next page

Fauna

Birds

Dune and beach dwelling birds tend to nest in or aroundthe dunes above the high water mark. Since most beachtraffic is concentrated at or below the high water mark, nestsmay be relatively safe from vehicle disturbance. However,

once chicks hatch, they move from their nests to the inter-tidal zone where they feed and roost. This puts them directlyin the path of ORV traffic. Both Watson et al. (1996) andMelvin et al. (1994) found the feeding and roosting behaviorof various bird species [whitefronted plovers (Charadriusmarginatus), damara terns (Sterna balaenarum), African blackoystercatchers (Haematopus moquini), and piping plovers(Charadrius melodus)] to coincide with the main ORV driv-ing areas. Specifically, Melvin et al. (1994) found that ORVuse, even at very low levels (5-10 vehicle passes per day), isenough to threaten unfledged piping plover chicks and adultsduring brood rearing periods.

TurtlesORV traffic negatively impacted Loggerhead turtle

(Caretta caretta) hatchlings (Hosier et al. 1981). ORV rutscreated difficult terrain for turtle hatchlings to negotiate ontheir journey from nest to sea. On flat, water-smoothed beachsurfaces turtles could orient themselves toward the surfphototactically (using light intensity in order to determinethe way to the water), but on a bumpy terrain turtles foundtheir way toward the water less directly. This time-consum-ing, indirect route left turtles more exposed to the elementsand vulnerable to predators.

Invertebrates and other beach dwelling

organismsInvertebrates make up a large part of the fauna popula-

tion of sandy beaches (Schlacher et al. 2008a). In monitoringthe overlap between invertebrate habitat zones and areas ofORV traffic, Schlacher and Thompson (2007) found the major-ity of the invertebrates they sampled (65%) lived in areas ofvehicle traffic. Ghost crabs (Ocypode cordimana) constructand live in beach burrows during the day and are mostly ac-tive at night. Schlacher et al. (2007b) conducted a number ofexperiments to evaluate ORV impacts on crab populations.When crabs left their burrows at night there was a high mor-tality rate due to night ORV driving. They found beaches withfewer ORVs had higher crab populations. In addition, crabsburied farther below the sand were more protected from

crushing than those shallowly buried.

Finally, the surf clam (Donax deltoids) was also adverselyaffected by ORV traffic on beaches in Australia. As the num-ber of vehicle passes increased, so too did the number ofclams killed (Schlacher et al. 2008).

Management Recommendations

Any management strategy considered or implementedmust take into account myriad factors from environmentalto recreational to economic. From a conservation perspec-tive all ORV traffic should be eliminated from sand dunes andsandy beach ecosystems. In the event this is not feasible,other options are available that can mitigate ORV impacts.Mitigation strategies include: seasonal closures during birdbreading periods; only allowing riding on designated routes;limiting driving during times of high water; and prohibitingnight beach driving especially on beaches where there isnight activity among fauna. There should also be manda-tory vehicle registration and educational programs. And inareas with damage, sand dunes should be rehabilitated andstabilized.

A study by Celliers et al. (2004) outlined an integratedcoastal management system to determine which coastalareas were suitable for ORV use. Their management strat-

egy concentrated ORV use in small pockets, leaving otherareas of the coast free from harmful impacts. Celliers et al.(2004) developed seven attributes that determine if areas aretoo vulnerable to allow ORV use. This system gives manag-ers baseline criteria that unequivocally protect areas fromORV use. Though this system was applied to a specific areaof South Africa, it can be modified and used as a model forcoastal land managers in other parts of the globe.

Conclusion

Off-road vehicle use on sandy beach and sand dunehabitats exists within economic, environmental, and socialcontexts. Off-road vehicle recreation has economic and

social benefits and drawbacks. It also negatively impacts theflora, fauna, and physical landscape of these areas. It is es-sential that integrated, thoughtful, and site-specific manage-ment programs be implemented to mitigate and prevent ORVimpacts to sand dune and sandy beach ecosystems.

Beth Gibson is a graduate student in Environmental Studiesprogram at the University of Montana.



18/24


References

continued from previous page

Anders, F. & S. Leatherman. 1987. Effects of off-road vehicleson coastal foredunes at Fire Island, New York, USA.

Environmental Management11(1): 45-52.

Celliers, L., T. Moffett, N.C. James, & B.Q. Mann. 2004. Astrategic assessment of recreational use areas foroff-road vehicles in the coastal zone of KwaZulu-Natal,South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management47: 123-140.

Godfrey, P. & M. Godfrey. 1980. Ecological effects of off-roadvehicles on Cape Cod. Oceanus 23: 56-67.

Hosier, P., M. Kochhar, & V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicleand pedestrian track effects on the sea-approachof hatchling loggerhead turtles.EnvironmentalConservation 8(2):158-161.

Melvin, S., A. Hecht, & C. Griffin. 1994. Piping plovermortalities caused by off-road vehicles on Atlantic coastbeaches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(3): 409-414.

Rickard, C.A., A. McLachlan, & G.I.H. Kerley. 1994. The effectsof vehicular and pedestrian traffic on dune vegetationin South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management23: 225-247.

Schlacher, T., J. Dugan, D. Schoeman, M. Lastra, A. Jones, F.Scapini, A. McLachlan, & O. Defeo. 2007a. Sandy beachesat the brink.Diversity and Distributions 13: 556-560.

Schlacher, T., L. Thompson, & S. Price. 2007b. Vehicles versusconservation of invertebrates on sandy beaches:quantifying direct mortalities inflicted by off-roadvehicles on ghost crabs.Marine Ecology28: 354-367.

Schlacher, T. & L. Thompson. 2007. Exposure of fauna tooff-road vehicle traffic on sandy beaches. Coastal

Management35: 567-583.

Schlacher, T. & L. Thompson. 2008. Physical impactscaused by off-road vehicles to sandy beaches: Spatialquantification of car tracks on an Australian barrierisland.Journal of Coastal Research 24: 234-242.

Schlacher, T., L. Thompson, & S. Walker. 2008. Mortalitiescaused by off-road vehicles (ORVs) to a key memberof the sandy beach assemblages, the surf clamDonaxdeltoides.Hydrobiologia 610: 345-350.

Watson, J. J., G. I. H. Kerley, & A. McLachlan. 1996. Humanactivity and potential impacts on dune breeding birds inthe Alexandria coastal dunefield.Landscape and Urban

Planning34: 315-322.




19/24


Apartnership of state agencies has released The SenateJoint Memorial 40 Report on off-road vehicle recreationin New Mexico. The report acknowledges a need for the stateto move toward better management of off-road vehicle recre-ation. It also recognizes that the Forest Service and Bureauof Land Management lack the resources and authority to man-age off-road vehicle recreation for the entire state.

A few of the topics addressed in the report: User conflicts. The report notes that user conflicts tend

to be one-sided, with motorized recreationists being less ad-versely affected and other public land users more adverselyaffected. It also notes that user conflicts can impact ranch-

ing as a traditional way of life as well as an economic aspectof New Mexico, and affect riparian areas, rangeland, and othernatural resources.

Enforcement. The report acknowledges that roughlyhalf of ATV and motorcycle riders prefer to ride off of desig-nated routes, and that simply designating specific routes foroff-road vehicles is not successful without adequate enforce-ment.

New Report Available on New Mexico ORVs

As noted in the report, enforcement of road closures is oftenproblematic. Here, a closure sign prooves to be an ineffective barrierto off roaders.Wildlands CPR file photo.

Natural Resource Issues. The report discusses the im-pacts from ORV recreation on soils, vegetation, wildlife, habi-tat, riparian areas and hydrologic flows. It notes that Proper-ly sited and engineered trails reduce impacts and require little

maintenance but such trails are almost non-existent.

Safety. The report reviews the dangers of off-roadvehicle recreation, especially for children, and concludesATV riding is the most dangerous sport for children 62%more dangerous than football and 110% more dangerous thansnowboarding.

Among the reports recommendations: a safety and re-sponsibility media blitz; working with responsible ORV usersto help solve problems; coordinating statewide enforcement;and managing off-road vehicle education and training.

The report was authored by New Mexicos Energy, Miner-

als and Natural Resources Department and the Department ofGame and Fish in partnership with the Department of Agri-culture, The Range Improvement Task Force, and the TourismDepartment.

For a copy, please visit: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/main/sjm40/SJM40report-01-07-09.pdf

Trail widening due to off road vehicle use on the Gash Creek trail,Bitterroot NF, Montana. Photo by Adam Switalski.


20/24


The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of theawesome citizens and organizations we work with,

both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlightingsuccessful strategies and lessons learned. Please

e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight [email protected].

Spotlight on Tim Clarke & the Boulder CommunityAllianceBy Laurel Hagen

Outskirts of the town of Boulder, Utah. Photo by LaurelHagen.

Tim Clarke surveys the landscape from his porch. Photo byLaurel Hagen.

Ifirst heard about Tim Clarke and the BoulderCommunity Alliance (BCA) through South-ern Utahs excellent rumor mill. The BoulderTown Council did WHAT? I shrieked. This first

response only got more enthusiastic as I sortedout truth from rumor.

Some background: the tiny town of Boul-der, Utah perches on the edge of Utahs fabledEscalante desert, occupying the green spacewhere the aspens and rushing creeks of BoulderMountain meet an ocean of bare sandstone. Thestory Ive always heard (so Ill assume its true)is that Boulder was the last town in the lower 48to have electricity, and got its mail by mule untilthe 1950s because there was no road. The Boul-der Mail Trail, now a favorite for backpackers,dips into hidden canyons, traverses cliff walls,

and climbs ledges via tottering stacks of rocks.That trail was my first introduction to the area; tramping across a high white plateau in the June heat, I cameto a cliff and saw the neat green irrigated fields of BoulderTown. I decided they were a hallucination. But a good one.

As I got to know Boulder in later years, its culture stoodout as remarkably as its setting. With a population of about250, Boulder seems made up mostly of Mormon ranchingfamilies, transplanted outfitters and shopkeepers, and eccen-tric homesteaders and artisans. Boulders people have madeefforts to keep the towns culture whole, despite residentsdiffering backgrounds. Everyone Ive met there expressesdeep appreciation for the land and the community, oftenwithin the first five minutes of our conversation.

The first splash of what would become the BoulderCommunity Alliance had the feel of another good hallucina-tion. Heres what happened: In the spring of 2006, the CountyCommission published a set of maps and brochures callingthe county ATV Trails Headquarters. The maps showednumerous ATV routes that had not before been advertisedthat way, as well as a few routes that illegally invited ATVsinto protected lands. Boulder Town itself was at the nexus ofseveral routes.


21/24


Aspen grove on Boulder Mountain. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

The residents of Boulder objected to theseplans, which were entirely new to them. As BCAtells it, within 48 hours over 130 residents,property owners and friends of Boulder hadsigned on to a petition that we presented to theCounty Commissioners. The Boulder TownCouncil unanimously passed a motion ad-dressed to the County Commission. Part of themotion stated:

There are several types of tourism and they do notnecessarily coexist We do not feel that our area ofinterest and impact stops at the Town borders. Ourcommunity members -- including businesses who

presently have a substantial base in non-motorizedtourism, cattle ranchers whose existence dependsupon range lands and watersheds, and residentswho have stayed on or moved in to enjoy the peaceand quiet of this rural lifestyle feel that any ATV

promotion in the east side of Garfield County is to ourdetriment We also feel that this policy [allowingchildren on ATVs on a paved road] was institutedsolely to facilitate the ATV promotional agenda ofcross-county travel, allowing that agenda to override

common sense.

This event spurred Boulder CommunityFoundation [which sponsors BCA] to incor-porate and gain non-profit status. The orga-nizations mission included a variety of localcommunity-based projects as well as issues ofregional concern affecting the community, suchas the projected increases in motorized tourism.Tim Clarke was the only paid staffer (working upto half-time).

Tim, still the Executive Director and onlystaff member of the Boulder Community Alli-

ance, was also on the Town Council when theATV trails issue came up. A landscape architectfrom the UK, Tim and his artist wife Scottymoved to Boulder more than ten years ago.While building their own house on a small pieceof land among the pinyon pines and sandstonehills, Tim and Scotty settled into the life of thetown. Tim joined the Town Planning Commis-sion, becoming the chair, and was elected to theTown Council. Though now no longer a Coun-cilor, Tim remains active in local projects, likedesigning and helping to construct a gatheringplace at the town center. All that is in addition torunning BCA, of course.

Tims dry humor, low-key common sense,and ability to gracefully walk a fine line haveearned him the respect and friendship of peoplethroughout southern Utah. Under his supervi-sion (and that of BCAs board of directors) BCAhas taken on a wide range of projects. Theyvestarted a farmers market, a local oral history

project, and a newsletter and website called The SagePage that won awards at the annual Utah Tourism con-ference. In partnership with other Utah groups, BCA hasworked extensively on several public lands projects in theEscalante River Basin, such as watershed restoration andbeaver reintroduction on Boulder Mountain. In partnershipwith Wildlands CPR, BCA has done extensive work on theDixie National Forest travel planning process, includingtraining locals to perform fieldwork, hiring a student internfor route surveys, and collecting local knowledge about thehistory and impacts of the road system on Boulder Moun-tain. BCA also printed a brochure promoting the benefits ofquiet recreation in the Escalante River Basin. The group iscurrently in the process of dividing into two linked entities:BCA will focus primarily on in-town and cultural issues;and the Escalante River Basin Initiative (ERBI) will focus onregional and public lands issues. ERBI, or the Basinheads,have already partnered with allies in nearby towns to ad-dress regional issues from a rural Utah perspective.

Tim and his work with BCA are a sign of what I hope

is the future of rural Utahs environmental movement, andhes the kind of activist I aspire to be: a settler who com-mits wholeheartedly to the culture and place of his home,putting his heart and hard work into it. We are very grate-ful to Tim and the community of Boulder for showing theway forward, and giving us hope for good things to come.

You can read more about BCA at www.bouldercommu-nityalliance.org


22/24


The sun is shining in the middle ofFebruary not a common occurrencein Missoula, but a reminder that the SpringEquinox is just around the corner. Its beena crazy winter as we and other activistsadjust our strategies and consider new op-portunities in light of the changing of theguard in Washington DC. Theres been a lotof change here in our office as well read onfor more details

Good-bye and good luck!

After nearly a decade running ourrestoration program, Marnie Criley has leftWildlands CPR to try to make one of our

pet projects, Restore Montana, a full-blownorganization. To learn more about Marnieswork in the past, and whats coming up inthe future, check out our program updateson pages 6-7.

It was short and sweet and were sorryit had to end, but Franklin Seal is no longerour communications coordinator. He did a fantastic job upgrading many aspects ofour electronic communications, especially our website and e-newsletter, The Dirt.He pressed us to think outside the box and to actively expand our work and mediaefforts. Well miss you Franklin, and we wish you the best of luck in your nextendeavor!

Welcome!In the last issue, we announced the departure of long-time board member Greg

Fishbein, who bumped up against our 6-year term limit. Were now delighted tointroduce new board member Crystal Mario. After a distinguished career with suchhigh-profile companies as Adobe Systems, Inc. and Xerox Imaging Systems, Crystaltired of spending her life in airports and hotel rooms. She started Rivanna Natu-ral Designs in 2001 with a simple goal: to provide safe, meaningful, and rewardingemployment for recently-arrived refugees and others who need a second start or anopportunity to learn new skills. Rivanna uses sustainably harvested or reclaimedwood and recycled glass to create the clocks, plaques, pens, and desk accessoriesfor sale through the companys online store. While Crystal isnt directly engagedwith restoration or transportation issues, shes been engaged in environmental andother progressive issues for a long time, and shes an extremely successful busi-nesswoman. We are really looking forward to having her expertise and perspectiveas part of Wildlands CPRs team!

Charity Lake in the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area. Wildlands CPR photo.

Thanks

Wed like to thank everyone whodonated to our annual gifts campaignfor 2008 we raised just about $25,000.Were delighted with the results of thecampaign, especially considering that

this was in the midst of a presidentialelection and a growing recession. If youhavent donated yet but youd like to,its never too late we can always useyour support. Thanks, too, to everyonewho has renewed their membershipduring the past few months again, sup-port from individuals like you is criticalto our success.

We would also like to thank theFiredoll, Harder, Horizons and 444SFoundations and Patagonia for theirgenerous grants to support our trans-

portation and restoration programs. Weappreciate it!

Get The Road-RIPorterOnlineWith this issue of The RIPorterwere introducing a new electronic

version of the entire quarterly journal, broken out into individual articles.If youd like to help us reduce postage and printing costs, please e-mailcathy@wildlandscpr and ask to receive The RIPorteronline instead of by mail(or you can receive both).


23/24


Support Wildlands CPR Today!Weve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier and more effective than ever before.

Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program Reducing Overhead

Monthly giving puts your contributiondirectly into action and reduces our

administrative costs. The savings go torestoring wildlands and building a more

effective network.

Making Your Gift Easier

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Yourcredit card or bank statement will con-

tain a record of each gift; we will alsosend a year-end tax receipt for your

records.

Our Promise To You

You maintain complete control overyour donation. To change or cancel

your gift at any time, just write or giveus a call.

Name

Street

City, State,

Zip

Email

Phone

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Type of Membership: OrganizationIndividual/Family Business

Thank you for your support!

Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge

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

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

CSC Number: ________________ *(see below)

Expiration date: _____________________________

Signature: __________________________________________

* The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which isnot part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back ofa credit card (usually in the signature field).

Please send this form and your payment option to:

Wildlands CPR P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807

Payment Option #1:

Electronic Funds Transfer

from Checking Account

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

from my checking account once per month.

$5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other

Signature

Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confiden-

tial. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, orthe following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation,

please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your

check to the address below.


24/24

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

Non-profit Organization

US POSTAGEPAID

MISSOULA MT, 59801PERMIT NO. 569

The road running through this

meadow is nothing more than a

potholed portal for bad ideas, a

puncture wound that wont heal,

allowing human fallibility to flow

unchecked into the delicate heart

of healthy land.

Guy Hand, Pining for an Oak

Meadow from A Road Runs

Through It.

Montanaafternoon.

PhotocourtesyofBureauofLandMangement.

road riporter 14.1 spring equinox 2009

Documents