road riporter 7.1

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 7.1

1/24

From Bicycles to Board Feet:

A History ofPublic Land RoadsInside

Check out our website at:www.wildlandscpr.org See article on page 3

Down the Road . Page 2

Bicycles to Board Feet, by Dave Havlick. Page 3-5

Depaving the Way: Tears for Isis,

by Bethanie Walder. Page 6-7

Policy Primer: Roads Analysis Process, by MarnieCri ley and Amy Chadwick. Page 8-9, 20

Odes to Roads: Walking, 140 Years afterThoreau, by Dan Flores. Page 10-11

Wildlands CPR Annual Report. Page 12-13

Get With the Program: ORV and Roads Programs

updates. Page 14-15 .

Biblio Notes: Shake, Rattle & Roll, UnderstandingSeismic Testing, by Erich Zimmermann.Page 16-17

Regional Reports & Updates. Page 18-19

New Resources. Page 19

Activi st Spotlight : Gary Macfar lane, Page 21

Around the Off ice. Page 22

Resources & Membership. Page 22-23

The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing RoadsSpring Equinox 2002. Volume 7 # 1

By Dave Havlick

Above photo by

Dave Havlick.


2/24


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2002 3

From Bicycles to Board Feet: A History of Public Land Roads

By Dave Havlick

The Fores t Ser vice took to roads a b it more slowly. Recreational

tou rism was tangent ial, at best, to the agencys mission of securingfavorable water flow and providing a continuous su pply of timber to a

growing nation.i Staffed p rimarily by tr ained forester s, the Forest

Service dedicated itself early on to a management p hilosop hy of

sustainably using the natur al resources of the countrys forests. A

hand ful of roads already existed on n ational forest lands at th e time

of their d esignations and th e agency built or improved more road s

each ye ar but in its early days th e Fores t Ser vice gener ally lacked

the incentive to build a great number of smooth, easily traveled

roads.ii In the agenc ys view, road s ser ved utilitarian pu rp ose s and

little more. It would build roads o n a limited b asis, as fores ters

needed them to access timber or to h elp manage sprawling adminis-

trative units.

By the ear ly 1920s, however, moto rized travelers h ad so o ver-

whelmed roadsides and p rivate lands th at car camping tourists weresp illing onto th e national fores ts. iii In 1912, one dozen stalwart

motorists managed t o drive across th e countr y; by 1921, transcon ti-

nental motor trips num bered 20,000.iv By 1922, the New Yor k Times

estimate d th at of the 10.8 million cars re gister ed in the United States,

five million would b e us ed for c amp ing.v The Fores t Service soo n

realized that recreational demand of its lands req uired some re-

sponse.

In 1920, Fores t Service Chief Henr y S. Graves pub lishe d an a rticle

in American Fores try entitled, A Crisis in National Recreat ion.vi

Written a t the close of his tenu re with the Forest Service, Graves

art icle par tially reflected h is agencys growing concern over th e

newly-formed National Park Service. The cr isis h e identified, th ough,

was the exodus of urban automo bile tourists p ouring into national

forests and parks. To Graves, the sub sequen t commercialization ofnationa l par k land s and b y extension, the blurr ing of lines b etween

parks and national forest lands presented an alarming trend. In

Graves view, nationa l fores ts were th e prop er sto reho use for the

countr ys natu ral resources and recreation was becoming just th at: a

valuable resource . Five million car-camping tourists rep resen ted

money and p ower too great to ignore. National parks, on the other

hand , ought to b e kept ap art from commercial exploitation.vii In oth er

words, national forests s hould be u sed, whether for recreation or

timber extraction, and national parks sh ould be preser ved.

Regardless of Graves conc ern as a friend of the National Park

System , bot h agencies would find cau se for furt her r oad building on

the ir lands. The Fores t Service could capitalize on the recreation

resource, while the Park Service wanted to b oost its con stituency and

provide roads for t he en joyment o f visitors.Graves article is no teworthy for mo re than its whispers o f

agency rivalry. It repres ents on e of the first ackno wledgments th at

the Forest Service would con cern itself with recreat ion. And s ignifi-

cant ly, accord ing to Graves, recreat ion was intimately linked with

roads: ...recreation h as an important p lace in the demand for a large

program of road improvement an d extension.viii Later in the sa me

American Fores try a rticle, Graves wrote, Road building is an impor-

tant feature of the development of our p ublic forests and parks for

recreation.ix

Excerpted from No Place Distant: Roads and

Moto rized Recreation on Americas Pu blic Land s,by David G. Hav lick. Copyright 2002 by David G.

Havlick. Reprinted by permission of Island Press,

Washington , D.C. and Cove lo, California. A ll rights

reserved.

Editors Note: This excerpt is from Chapter Two in

the book. Chapter One reviews the development of

roads in the National Park System.

continued on next page


4/24

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 20024

Several things happ ened close on t he heels of

Graves 1920 article to reveal a growing intere st in

recrea tion on public lands. First, Congress

approp riated more money for forest roads and the

Forest Service resp onded with a more d irected

road b uilding program than it ever had before.

The 1916 Highway Act had directed $10 million to

the Forest Service for roa d bu ilding over the n extten years . In 1921, Congress bo ost ed this with an

add itional $5.5 million for forest develop ment

roads, such as tho se used for fire control and

adm inistr ative us e, and $9.5 million for fores t

highways to sup plement state road syst ems.x

With the pas sage of the Pos t Office App rop riations

Act in 1919, Congres s a lso gran ted $9 million to

develop and ad minister road s on n ational forest

lands. The latter amount, prompted originally by

rur al free delivery mail ser vice and the d esire to

conn ect rur al land s, effectively sh ifted a p ort ion of

road d evelopment out of the farmlands and into

the woo ds . In 1916 the re were only 2,795 miles of

road o n nat ional fores t lands; by 1939 the Forest

Ser vice repor ted near ly 140,000 miles.xi

Within a year of Graves article, the Fores tSer vice also red rafted its manu al to recognize

recreation as a value of the Forests to be man aged

in coord ination with timber, water, and forage.xii

The new crush of motor tou rists and roads

spu rred Fores t Service emp loyees Aldo Leop old

and Arthur Carhart to p ress for a new type of land

classification, which Leop old c alled wilder ness .

The simmering interagency rivalry may have

played a role in th e Forest Ser vices willingness to

move in a new direction for man aging lands. By

designating wilderness and primitive areas, the

Forest Service could take land preser vation a step

furth er th an th e National Park Service and pre-

serve lands without th e trapp ings of commercialdevelopment and penetrating road systems that

already characterized national parks.xiii But bot h

Leopold and Carhart mad e it clear that the th reat

of roads and motorized recreation, not agency

competition, lay at the h eart of what moved th em

to p rotect lands in a primitive, undeveloped

condition.xiv

Carhart s interes t in a different and less

intrusive management of forest lands came most

directly from h is concern over sh oreline d evelop-

ment a t Trapp ers Lake, high in the mo unt ains of

wester n Colorad o. Since 1915, the Term Permit

Act h ad allowed recreational developments on

national forest lands.xv These permits were

typically operated under 30-year leases and most

comm only came in the form of lakeside lodges,

cabins, and developed camps. What troubled

Carhart ab out the ar rangement, though, was that

public lands were being developed and b uilt up on,rend ered into co mmerc ial goods , and effectively

removed from free public access .xvi Carhart

favored leaving lands, suc h as Trappe rs Lake,

undeveloped in a p rimitive cond ition as a means of

protecting public access eq uitably. Thus lands

would remain a pu blic good instead of being

parceled out to th e pr ivileged, permitted few (and

their pa ying clients ).

Leop old, meanwh ile, came t o a s imilar

position that cer tain lands s hould be p rotected

from road ing and development but from a

slightly different slant. To Leopold in th e 1920s, as

with many conservationists today, wild undevel-

oped lands o ffered an antidote to th e consumer ism

of outdoor recreationists an d so ciety at large.xvii

Whereas Carhart spoke against development in

order to en sure equal access to p ublic lands,

Leopold so ught more simply to protect lands from

the m enace of auto mob ility; tha t is, motor ized

access and th e roads and crowds th at invariably

accompanied it .xviii

Though much has ch anged in the ensuing

years, we need only to look at private partner ship

agreements and fee programs on public lands

tod ay to see t hat Carhar ts fears may st ill be

realized. Many of Leop olds conc erns over

automob ility have also reemerged, as motorized

off-road vehicles suc h as moto rcycles, all-terr ain

vehicles, and snowmachines on ce again threaten

to br ing a surge of humanity into remote areas

known and valued for th eir solitude.

continued from page 3

Leopold , mea nw hile, came to a s imilar

posi t ion that cer ta in lands s hould be

protected from roa ding and development wild

undeveloped land s offered an a nt idote to

the consumerism of outdoor recreat ionis ts

and society a t large.


5/24


Special thanks to:

Island Pressthe environmental publisher

To ord er No Place Distant, please call

Island Press at ( 800) 828-1302 or place yo ur

order on the Island Press website

www.islandpress.org.

Hard co ver $40.00 ISBN 1-55963-844-3

Pap er ba ck $18.95 ISBN 1-55963-845-1

Additiona l t i t les on related top ics:

Return of the Wild: The Future of Our

Natural Lands, Ted Keras ote , ed. 2001.

Hard co ver $25.00, ISBN 1-55963-926-1.

Pap er bac k $15.00, ISBN 1-55963-927-X.

For the Health of the Land: Previously

Unpublished Essays and Other Writings, b y

Aldo Leop old. J. Baird Callicot t a nd Eric T.

Freyfogle, ed s. 1999.

Hard co ver $22.95, ISBN 1-55963-763-3.Pap er bac k $15.00, ISBN 1-55963-764-1.

Earth Rising: American Environmentalism

in the 21st Century , by Ph ilip Shab eco ff. 2000.

Hard co ver $24.95, ISBN 1-55963-583-5.

Pap er bac k $17.00, ISBN 1-55963-584-3.

Dave Havlick ha s worke d for Wildlands CPR in m any cap acities: as a

Road-RIPorter editor, a researcher, and writer. Dave recently joined

Wildlands CPRs Board of Directors. No Place Distant is his first book.

Footnotesi As cited b y Wilkinson , CF and HM And ers on. 1987. Land and Resource

Planning in the National Fore sts . Island Pres s. Wash ington, DC.p. 18.

ii USDA Fore st Ser vice. Road s in th e National Forest s. Wash ington DC.May 1988, cites th e Weeks Act of 1911 as on e reason for roa ds o nnational forest land s. The Act allowed for the p urchas e of privatetimber lands for convers ion to national forests . Many of thes eprivate lands were already logged and roaded prior to p urchase, sothe agency inherited the road s along with th e land.

iii Belasc o, WJ. 1979. Amer icans o n th e Road: From Autoc amp to Motel,1910-1945. MIT Pre ss . Cambridge, MA.iv Belasc o, p. 72, citing Elon Jess up , The Moto r Camping Book.v Belasc o, p. 74.vi Grave s, HS. 1920. A Crisis in National Recreat ion. Amer ican Fores tr y.

26 (July) pp. 391-400.vii Gra ves , p. 393.viii Graves , p. 391.ix Grave s, p. 399.x Sutt er, P. 1997. Driven Wild: The Inte llect ual and Cultureal Origins of

Wilde rness Advo cacy Dur ing the Inte rwar Years. PhD Disser tat ion.Univers ity of Kansas . Lawren ce, KS, p. 88.

xi Sutter, p. 88, citing O.C. Merr ill, Open ing up t he National Fore sts byroa d bu ilding, Yearbo ok of the Depa rt ment of Agriculture , 1917, pp .521-529. See also , Gilligan, The d evelopment of policy andadministration of Forest Service Primitive an d Wilder ness Areas inthe weste rn United States , p. 73. See U.S. Fore st Service ann ualrepo rts for 1916 and 1939 for mileage accoun ts. The 1939 reportnoted th at more th an 50 percent of the roads were of less-than-satisfactory condition.

xii Gilligan, JP. 1953. Developmen t of Policy and Administrat ion ofForest Service Pr imitive and Wildern ess Areas in the Wester nUnited Stat es. PhD Disser tation . Univers ity of Mich igan. Ann Arbor,MI, p. 76.

xiii Sutte r, Driven Wild, p. 92; Allin, Wilderness policy, p. 174.xiv Paul Sutt ers Ph.D. diss ert ation, Driven Wild, explore s th is nicely.xv Sutte r, pp . 85-86.xvi Sutte r, p. 92xvii Sutte r, pp . 97-98.xviii Sutter uses t his term to include, automotive techno logy, road-

building, and other infrastructural provisions which accompaniedthe auto mob ile. p . 5.

Unless otherwise noted,all photos for this article

are from the Library ofCongress, Prints and

Photos Division. FSA-OW I Collection.
http://www.islandpress.org/books/detail.tpl?command=search&db=IslandPress.db&SKU=1-55963-845-1http://www.islandpress.org/books/detail.tpl?command=search&db=IslandPress.db&SKU=1-55963-845-1


6/24


It was late and I was p acking for a flight at 6:00

the next morning. As soon as I answered the

pho ne I knew someth ing was wrong and was

shocked to find o ut th at one of my favorite dogs,

Isis, had b een h it by a car and killed th at after-

noo n. Crying, I hun g up the ph one. I found myself

crying again as I sat o n th e plane h eading to DC for

meetings on preventing new roads and removing

the mos t egregious on es. As I sat the re thinking

abo ut Isis I foun d mys elf thinking about h ow many

animals are killed o n road s in the US ever y year. I

couldn t help b ut wond er: Who cr ies for all these

nameless , faceless wild animals whos e lives are cu t

short every day by roads and cars?

When talking about road impacts, we tend to

focus on the big picture: habitat fragmentation;

impacts t o aqu atic species; air po llution; erosion;

hyd rologic c han ges; and large-scale ro adkill. And

while ro adkill stat istics are mind-boggling the

Humane Society of the United States es timates th atone million a nimals a da y are killed on road s for

most p eople they are just st atistics. Are the

numb ers t hat weve accepted for ro adkill really

any different than th e number s of human deaths

we accept through risk assessment o n chemicals

and oth er toxins in the environment? Numbers

turn living beings into ob jects - its wh en th ey are

no longer numbers , but peop le, pets o r individual

wild animals that they b ecome real to us. No one

cries for numb ers.

Many of the animals who d ie on US road s are

pets , like Isis, or like my childhoo d d og Boots, who

was hit and killed when h e got out of the hou se

during my older b rothers 12th birthday p arty. But

mos t road kill are wild animals and birds , not to

ment ion all the inver teb rate s th at are killed daily.

We can t tea ch o ur p ets, let alone wild animals, to

look both ways before crossing the street. Some

animals avoid roads, but others must cro ss them

to dispers e into new hab itat, to get from winter to

sum mer ra nge, or just to find water. We know this,

but do we understand what hap pens when an

individua l animal is killed b ecaus e of a road? Do

we understand what happ ens to the animals it

leaves beh ind? Do oth er animals grieve like

humans?

Animal beh aviorists have long stud ied

emotions in animals, and h ave documented a

recognizable grief resp ons e, from d ogs to birds t o

elephants. While elephants are not often the

victims of road kill, other animals are, and m any

sho w clear grief resp ons es to t he loss o f a family

member whether th at loss is through p redation,

dying of old age or b eing hit by a car. Raccoon

mothers for example, have been ob served d rag-

ging their dead young off the side of the road .

Geese have been o bser ved to hang their heads ingrief. Within the comp lex social struct ure of

wolfpacks , grief resp ons es are relatively easy to

obs er ve. Accord ing to Marc Bekoff from th e

University of Colora do, the b est way to me asure

grief in non-speaking animals is to o bs erve

chan ges in beha vior following a dea th. These

behavioral changes have been ob served in many

types of mammals, from se a lions a nd wh ales to

wolves, lynx, raccoons, skunks and antelope.

Grieving animals may remo ve the mselves from a

group, become edgy and nervous , stop eating,

mope aro und and lose interest in playing, and

exhibit other classic grief patterns . It app ears th at

animals do grieve for oth er animals.

Scientists h ave also looked at similarities

between humans an d other m ammals regarding

brain structure and hor monal patterns as related

to emotions. For example, rats prod uce opiates

dur ing play, and t hey have increas ed levels of

dop amine wh en a nticipating play (Bekoff 2000).

Animals knowingly see k out pleasur e, and similarly

attempt to avoid pain.

Tears for IsisBy Bethanie Walder

Photo by Katie Deuel.


7/24


From an e cological per spe ctive, we can

discuss the effects of habitat fragmentation or

roa dkill on t he v iability of a sp ecies . If roa dkill is

par ticularly high for a sp ecies, will it impa ct th at

pop ulations ability to survive? This quest ion has

been con sidered for species from hed gehogs to

mule deer to grizzly bear s. Scientists can meas ure

the imp act of roadkill on sp ecific popu lations, but

are we se lling the issue s hor t if we don t also

cons ider th e eth ical implications o f road kill at an

individu al level? Who cries for th e wildlife?

We use s cientific studies to d ecide where t o

place mitigation meas ures for wildlife, and we use

them to d etermine whether or not the conse-

que nces of roadkill are accep table. Similarly, we

use science to d etermine how many peop le might

likely be killed by chem ical pollutan ts in the air.

For h uman s, we call it risk ass essm ent, and forwildlife, we call it spe cies viab ility. But when we

decide to r edu ce deer /vehicle collisions it is

because th e cost in human lives and prop erty is

deemed to o high, not because the cost o f deer

lives is deemed too h igh. Who cr ies for th e deer ?

We are s o wrap ped up in living our lives as

comfortably and expediently as we can that we fail

to con sider th e impact of our lifestyles on each

other and on th e planet. Risk assess ment for

humans is no more accep table than is road kill for

animals. In both c ases , however, we accept a loss

of life bec aus e it is devalue d nu mer ically. In 1997,

the s tate of Mont ana increas ed th e allowable levelsof arsenic in drinking water. The former level was

bas ed on a likely risk asses smen t of 1:1,000,000;

the new level was 1:100,000. In a st ate th e size of

Montana, allowing more arsen ic in the wate r meant

tha t eight more p eop le would likely die some-

one will be cr ying for those eight s isters, brother s,

mother s, fathers , sons and d aughters.

If animals ha ve com plex emotions similar to

humans , then are we obligated to assess our

impacts on th ese animals as individuals? The

Enda ngered Spec ies Act allows us to legally take

or kill a certain numb er of individual enda ngered

animals, becaus e it is not likely to res ult in the loss

of the species as a whole. Most o ften th ese

takings are allowed in th e nam e of increased

economic development o r resource extraction.

Federal laws allow the s ame thing to hap pen to

peop le through risk assess ment. What type of

society have we created that values money more

tha n it values life? What type of society could we

create th at values life over money? Who mou rns

for the dead ?

Preventing new road co n-

struction prevents new roadkill,

just like preventing the construc-

tion of toxic chemical plants

prevents human cancers and

death. Removing existing roads

red uces road kill. In some in-

stances road prevention and road

remo val will impact o nly the

individua l animals whose lives are

spared . In other cases, careful

road remo val can also increasethe likelihoo d o f the su rvival of a

sp ecies as a whole. As morally

cognizant people, however,

perhap s it is time to consider the

eth ics of roadkill in ad dition to t he

number s. Scientists have clear

evidence, bo th ne urologically, hormo nally and

obs er vationally of a grief resp ons e in domest ic and

wild an imals of all types. Perha ps it is time to ad d

one more reas on to th e list of why we should start

removing road s and res toring wild land s and wild

places.

Who c ries for the deer, elk, birds, squ irrels,

poss ums, bears, turtles, foxes and wolves? Who

cries for the one million animals killed o n U.S.

roads p er day? Are they no less deser ving of our

compass ion and of our efforts t o make this a

health y and s ane p lanet for all living things?

ReferencesBekoff, Marc, 2000. Beastly pass ions. New Scientist.

April 29, 2000.

When ta lk ing ab out roa d impa cts , we

tend to focus on the b ig picture:

hab itat fragmentat ion, impa cts to

a qua tic sp ecies, air po l lut ion,

eros ion, hydrologic cha nges

a nd la rge-sca le roa dkill .

Photo by Edgar van der Grift.


8/24


The Policy Primer is a column

designed to highlight the ins &

outs of a specific road or ORV

policy. If you have a po licy youd

like us to inv estigate,

let us know!

Roads Analysis Process:A Tool for Decommissioning Roads on National ForestsBy Marnie Criley and Amy Chadwick

Photos by Am y Chadwick

Within the National Forest System Road

Manageme nt Rule (Roads Po licy), the Forest

Ser vice calls for an increas e in road deco mmission-

ing. Decisions on which roads to close and which

to reconstr uct are guided b y the docum ent Roads

Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing theNational Fores t Transp or tation System, publica-

tion FS-643. Every fores t is re qu ired to comp lete a

forest-wide Roads Analysis Process (RAP) in 2002,

and while p ub lic inpu t is n ot re qu ired b y RAP, it is

encouraged. Concerned citizens can and shou ld

use this op por tunity to suggest ecologically-based

road remo val on our nat ional forests.

Summar y of Road s Analysis ProcessRAP Object ive

The ob jective of road s analysis is to provide

line o fficers with critical information to d evelop

roads systems th at are safe and respon sive to

public needs and desires, are affordable andefficiently ma naged, have minimal negative

ecological effects o n th e land, and are in balance

with available fund ing for nee ded mana gement

actions (p. 2). As st ated in the RAP (p. 3), roads

analyses are to be bas ed on : 1) Use of the best

available s cientific inform ation a bou t eco logical

effects of roads o n terrest rial and aq uatic systems

at app ropriate scales; 2) Economics of constr uct-

ing, reconstructing, maintaining, and decommis-

sioning roads ; 3) Social and ec ono mic costs an d

ben efits of road s; and 4) Contribu tion of existing

and prop osed road s to management objectives.

Line Officers a nd

Interdisciplinary TeamLine o fficers (Regional Fores ters , Forest

Supe rvisor s, or District Rangers ) and an interd isci-

plinary team commissioned and sup ervised by the

line officer are resp ons ible for condu cting roads

analyses. The manual states that the interdiscipli-

nar y team will be staffed with appro pr iate

technical experts but do es n ot sp ecify if these

exper ts will be Forest Service pers onn el.

Relationship to other AnalysesRAP spec ifies that road s ana lysis is not a

decision p rocess unto itself, but provides informa-

tion for de cisions su ch a s NEPA actions . Road s

analysis may be d one in conjunction with ot her

analyses, such as watersh ed analyses or landscape

assessm ents, but does not neces sarily replace

them.

Adap tive Man agementThis section refers to the opp ortun ity to

revise the roads analysis procedure based o n

feedback from management actions that h ave been

implemented. The road s an alysis manual as it

currently stands is a star ting point, and will

undou btedly und ergo modification in th e future.

This pol icy pr imer w as excerpted f rom:

Cri t ical Review o f the Natio na l Forest Roa ds Analysis

Process Guidance Document

Road s Ana lysis: Informing Decisions Abo ut Mana ging

the Nat iona l Fores t Tra nsp orta t ion System

Prepa red b y Watershed Consul t ing, LLC for Wildla nds

CPR. The ful l review a nd a n act ivis t s guide are

ava i lable on our webs i t e .


9/24


The Roads Analysis ProcedureThis section discusses method s and scales of

roads analysis. Here the manual describes ro ads

analysis as a framework for per iodic reevaluation

of roads syst ems and road management strategies.

The six steps in the roads analysis process are as

follows:

Step 1. Setting up the Ana lysis (p. 17-21)

The products at th is step include a statementof objectives, a list o f interd isciplinar y team

members and part icipants, a list o f information

needs, and a plan for the analysis.

Step 2. Describ ing the Situa tion (p. 22-23)The products d eveloped d uring this step are:

1) Map or other descriptions of the existing road

and access system defined by th e current forest

plan or trans port ation plan, and 2) Basic data

needed to add ress roads analysis and questions

(p. 22).

Step 3. Iden tifying Iss ues (p. 23-24)

The products to b e completed at this step are1) a summar y of road-related issues and 2) a

description of the status o f current d ata (p.23).

This step identifies which issues will have pr iority

and which qu estions will be ans wered in the roads

analysis.

Note: The m anua l specifies th at, while pu blic

par ticipation may be h elpful at th is point, it is not

requ ired (p. 23). However, this is the p art o f the

roads analysis p rocess in which pu blic par ticipa-

tion is cru cial.

Step 4. Asses sing Benefits, Problems,

a nd Risks (p. 24-30)

The produ cts to b e developed in step 4 are: 1)a synth esis of the b enefits, problems, and risks

associated with the curren t road s ystem; 2) an

assess ment of the risks and benefits of entering

any unroaded area; and 3) an assess ment of the

ability of the syste m to mee t objectives (p . 24).

Included in the de scr iption of step 4 is a list of

71 questions th at might be u sed to as sess b enefits,

prob lems, and risks, and that per tain to the

ecological, social, and econo mic consider ations for

roads analysis. These q uestions are explained at

length in App end ix 1 of th e RAP.

Step 5. Describing Opp ortunities

and Setting Priorities (p. 31-33)In th is step the line officer(s) a nd inter discipli-

nary team use information gathered in pr evious

steps to identify management op portu nities,

establish priorities, and make recommendat ionsfor th e existing and future roads s ystem.

Step 6. Rep or ting (p. 33-36)In this step the interdisciplinary team repor ts

the key findings of the roa ds an alysis. The primar y

audience for the rep ort includes s takeholders and

memb ers o f the gen eral pub lic, line officers on t he

national forest and in the region in which the

analysis was done, and technical specialists

conduct ing other a nalyses in other areas (p. 33).

Append ix 1 and 2Appen dix 1 of the ro ads analysis manual

contains q uestions ab out ecological, social and

economic considerations to be answered in step 4

of the roads analysis process . Append ix 2 dis-

cusses indicators of road hazard for analysis of

water/road interactions. The manual relates th ese

indicators to th e qu estions in Append ix 1 to which

the y may app ly. See our web site for a comp lete

critique of these sect ions.

ConclusionIt is encoura ging that th e road an alysis

process h as been standard ized, and that a team of

specialists have com bined th eir knowledge to

create a process th at considers man y ecologic,

social, and e cono mic issu es. However, in order t o

pres erve or imp rove ecological integrity, the road

analysis process m ust be revised to increase its

accountab ility, ensure that information us ed in the

analysis is sc ientifically valid and geared toward

long-term m anagement, and increase its emph asis

on reducing the forest roads n etwork.

Article continues w ith fact sheet on p. 20


10/24


hen I stop t o reflect on r oad s, and walking as

oppo sed to th e thing roads do, which is to enable

machines to penetr ate the world, I do two things. I

go walking, for one. But often before I do I read a

few pas sages of Henr y Thoreau, which is a good

enough way (to employ a Thoreauism) to star t out

thinking abou t man y essen tial things.

I have a cop y of Thore aus Walking th at I was

lucky enough to b e able to buy in his hometown o f

Concord. This is the famous es say, pub lished the

year of his dea th, th at b egins: I wish to s pea k a

word for Nature, for ab solute freedo m and wild-

ness, as contrast ed with a freedom and culture

merely civil to regard man as an inhab itant, or a

part and parcel of Nature, rather than a member of

so ciety. Why sp eak for Natu re? Beca us e there

are en ough cham pions of civilization already,

Thoreau continues. Of course th at is as true in

2002 as it was in 1862, and you h ave to s usp ect it

may have been true for the last 10,000 years or so.

Its no t th at I want to ind ulge a simple du alism

road s as s ynch rono us with civilization, trails as

emb lematic of wilder nes s since I do b elieve th at

nature and cu lture are part of a continuum, the

seco nd growing out of the first like moss in the

cracks of a bo ulder. Nor do I accep t the th inking

that road s are solely the infrastructure of

globa lism and cap italism, the pecu liar footpr int of

us white folks. Ive read eno ugh histor y and

archeology to realize that Europeans found no

trackless wilderness when th ey came to North

America, but a continent anciently inhab ited, used,

and (in many places) quite dense ly popu lated.

And traveled. Archeology chartscenturies worth of continent-wide

exchange routes in the Americas.

Turquo ise mined in th e Cerrillos

Hills south of todays Santa Fe,

New Mexico, for instance, was

regularly hauled as far distant as

the Aztec and Mayan ho melands

edging the Caribbean. The

trader s who journeyed on this

and other continental roads, like

American Marco Polos, beca me

famous, mythic, so that even

tod ay we still recognize the n ame

(and the image): Kokope lli, thetraveling salesma n with his pack of goods . Ameri-

can explorers found roads an d trails everywhere,

some as broad and deep as th e Cumber land

Road, others real two-track cart ro ads m ade b y

Hispanic trader s. The most elaborate road system,

that of the Chacoan civilization of the Colorado

Plateau, truly funct ioned s omet hing like our Forest

Service roads, penetrating stands of ponderosas

that were cut and h auled for use b y distant

commercial centers.

So we, too, and our road s, are part o f a

Walking,140 Years

after Thoreau By Dan Flores

Ever y culture of any cons equence ha s ha d i ts

roa d netw orks , and w hod w ant them al l r ipp ed

out anyw ay? I am mysel f a fan of sp orts cars

a nd tour ing bicycles, for w hich roa ds a re

a n excellent thing.

Photo by Bethanie Walder.

W

Dan Flores is the A.B. Hammond Professor of History at the

University of Montana. He publishes primarily on the en vironme ntal

and art history of the Ame rican West, and Native Am erican history. His

most recent book, Horizont al Yellow: Nature a nd Histo ry in th e Near

Southwest (1999) , has be en a finalist for two prizes. His first book ,

Jefferson an d South wester n Explorat ion: The Freeman & Cust is

Accou nts of the Red River Expedition o f 1806, will appea r in a new

edition as Souther n Counterp art t o Lewis and Clark(2002).


11/24


continental continuum going back thousand s of

years. Every culture of any consequen ce has had

its road networks, and whod want them all ripped

out an yway? I am myself a fan of spor ts car s and

tou ring bicycles, for wh ich roads are an excellent

thing.

But tha t said, and d uly acknowledged, I

rejoin Thoreau on th e trail.

Im a b iped first and last, an

animal, part and parcel of

Nature, and no one has yet

designed a road I prefer to a

ten-inch wide foot path

thro ugh the world. Evolution

fashioned us human b eings

to walk all our live-long days,

as any p hysician (as well as

my hale-and -hea rty 85 year-

old fathe r) will tell you.

Walking, we cam e ou t of

Africa, and spread across the

glob e with mayb e a little

assistance from boats on foot. The world

arou nd u s is fully alive at a sens or y level at that

pace, and it makes sense to a brain designed fortaking in abo ut th ree miles in an ho ur.

When I walk out my do or in the Bitterroo t

Valley of Mont ana, westwar d I can se e th e pe aks of

the largest wilder nes s comp lex in the Lower Forty-

Eight, the Selway-Bitter root /Frank Church /River of

No Return. Eastwar d are the Sapp hire Moun tains,

closer at hand and more human -scale, and here th e

wilder ness I look into is th e Welcome Creek

Wildernes s, the smallest and on e of the mos t

recently preser ved in the state of Montana. The

edge of the Welcome Creek Wilder nes s com menc es

about three miles and 3,000 feet abo ve my hous e,

so b y extension its so rt of a par t of my yard, and

we all have an obligation to know our yards well.Desp ite the s ho rt s traight-line distanc e, its

not easy for my dog and m e to get to th e wilder-

ness boundary from the house. On our property

we start ou t on footpaths , along the trail network

weve created o n the p lace, and b eyond follow

game trails across t he sagebr ush foothills. Soon

enou gh the d eep ca nyon o f Three-Mile Creek

interven es, forcing us onto road s. But tha ts only

the star t of the d ifficulty. Between us a nd Wel-

come Creek, mostly hidden a way from th e valley

but all too ob vious when you walk, is a s tretch of

ridges owned by a timber comp any called Plum

Creek. Its no t th at walking thro ugh Plum Creek

land is difficult. Ind eed , its ridicu lous ly eas y,since th e city of Missoula sca rcely has mor e

thoroughfares and byways. But this is not foot-

pat h coun try. In fact, with its patch work of

clearcuts and its switchbacked roads slicing and

dicing every ridge in sight and bleeding eros ion

down th e slopes, this is one o f the most industrial-

ized mount ain landscap es I have ever seen. As the

scholars of the visual have told us (as if we needed

telling), our hunter-gatherer brains dont know

what to make of such scenes , except to urge us to

escape.

Beyond tha t hacked -up Plum Creek land the

clearcuts begin to drop away, the forest closes in,

and t he national forest trail signs start to ap pear.

Initially even th ese trails the Coon ey Ridge

Trail, the Bitter root Divide Trail are o ld roa d-

bed s, and arrows des ignating Rock Cr. Rd. keep

app earing on the trail signs. A cent ur y ago,

Cleveland Mount ain and the Welcome Creek

countr y were mined, so th is is a wilderness region

quite literally recovering from ind ust rialization andthe roads that accomp anied it . The dog and I

traverse th e hu mped summit of Cleveland Moun-

tain, at 7,280 ft. the highest pea k visible in the

Sapp hires from our h ome, still on a dim two-track

through th e beargrass, the lodgepole pines around

us growing as picturesque as p inons, snatches of

yellow th at we know is t he Bitter root Valley visible

far below. But finally, a ha lf-mile or so b eyon d th e

crest of the mo untain, the two-track scars of the

machines fade and th e ancient lure of footpath s

stretching away along mountain ridges pulls us

pleas ant ly, irres istibly, alon g. Finally, at th e

wilderness b oundar y, we are greeted b y this sign:

Welcom e Cr. Tr. Uns afe for Hor se Travel Beyon dSpar tan Cr. 5. Its th e revenge o f the biped s;

weve reached cou ntry where n either machines

nor hors es will work!

And t his, I think, is a sp lendid place to plop

down on a log, my feet in a ten -inch p ath way

designed truly for th e hum an animal, and read a

few mor e pa ssages from Th oreau s Walking. And

this, by ch ance, is what my e ye falls on from Henr y

the Radical:

When s ometimes I

am reminded that the

mechanics and s hop-

keepers st ay in their

shop s not o nly all theforen oon , bu t all the

afternoon too, sitting

with cross ed legs, so

many o f the m as if the

legs were mad e to sit

upon, and not to stand

or walk upo n I think

they deserve some

cred it for no t having all

committed s uicide long

ago.

But this is not footpa th countr y.

In fact , w i th i ts pa tchw ork of clea rcuts a nd i ts

sw itchba cked roa ds s l icing a nd dicing ever y ridge

in sight and bleeding erosion d ow n the slopes, this

i s one of the most indus tr ia l iz ed mounta in

landsca pes I have ever seen.

Photo courtesy of Roads Scholar Project.


12/24


Wildlands CPRAnnual Report

From th e impacts o f the energy crisis on p ublic land s,

to th e Bush Administra tion rollback of pro tections like the

road less rule, to the even ts of Septe mbe r 11, its be en a year

of adver sity and ch ange for ever yone in the U.S. Even so,

Wildland s CPR feels tha t we have nume rous o pp or tunities

for p ositive change in pu blic lands m anagement and we are

pus hing for mo re wildland re sto ration, more o ff-road vehicle

restrictions and especially more road remo val. Read on to

learn abo ut our p rogram s and s taffing from 2001.

Sta ff a nd Boa rdWhile Board chan ges hap pen every year, we also had

some significant staff changes in 2001. In Sept. Leslie Hannay

left to pur sue music and oth er career ideas, and though we

miss he r terr ibly, we are th rilled to h ave Jennifer (Jen) Barr y

on bo ard as o ur new Program Assistant. Shes been keeping

us organized and working on member ship recruitment andmarket ing. Ronni Flanner y, our s taff repr esen tative to the

Natural Trails & Water s Coalition, also left in Septe mbe r s o

we hired Lisa Philipp s, who moved to Montana from ru ral

Colora do whe re she h ad b een fighting ORV abu ses on p ublic

lands. On the ORV front , Jacob Smith dec ided to p urs ue

work with the Center for Native Ecosystem s, an organization

that he h elped found several years ago. So Jacob went to

halftime an d is now s plitting his job with Tom Platt. Tom

and Lisa are b oth working out o f our Misso ula office. Finally,

we have n ow sp ent 6 mon ths looking for a Scientific Coord i-

nator and still havent found o ne.

On our Board, long-time director s Rod Mondt and

Sidney Maddo ck both stepp ed d own after being involved

with Wildlan ds CPR sinc e its ince pt ion in Feb ru ar y 1994. Wecant than k them eno ugh for their 7 years of dedication.

Their p ositions were filled by Dan Stotter and Dave Havlick

in early 2002. Dan is a lawyer with Bahr and Stott er law firm

in Eugene, OR. In add ition to wo rking on environment al

case s, Dan was the auth or o f the Road-Ripper s Guide to Off-

Road Vehicles and has been o n our advisory committee for

year s. Dave is a long-time Wildlan ds CPR affiliate (form er

editor ofThe Road-RIPorter, author of other rep orts , and

former Roads Scholar Project Coordinator for Predator

Conser vation Alliance) . Dave is th e aut hor of the Island

Press bo ok, No Place Distan t: The effects of Road s an d

Moto rized Recreation on Americas Pu blic Land s.

Programs

RoadsIn 2001 we brou ght a stro nger balanc e between o ur ORV

and Roads programs, than ks to t he tireless efforts of Marnie

Criley, our Roads Policy Coordinato r. After getting her feet

wet with workshop s and the road less and roads policies in

2000, Marnie advanced o ur roa d remova l camp aigns in many

ways in 2001. Marnie was inst rum ental in organizing the

first Forest Restor ation Summit in Boulder, CO. From th ere,

she joined the st eering committee and helped shep herd

thro ugh a set of restor ation pr inciples, culminating in a

follow-up sum mit in Feb ru ar y 2002. In add ition, Wildlands

CPR became actively engaged with t he Alliance for Sustain-

able Jobs and the Environmen t (ASJE), again to e levate road

removal as a viable resto ration op tion. Marnie now co-

ch airs t he New Initiatives Wor king Grou p for ASJE, and h asspo ken at teac h-ins for union wor kers forging new

alliances to develop an active con stituency for road removal.

Marnie has also been keep ing things going on the

science front. In August , we discuss ed pr ioritizing road

removal. With par ticipation from key organizations includ-

ing Pacific Rivers Council, The Wilderness Society, Predator

Conser vation Alliance, Sky Islands Alliance an d nume rous

scientists, we began to co ordinate our efforts and d evelop

hydrologic and terrest rial based priorities. This process has

begun t o move forward thr ough a Wildlands CPR fund ed

critique of the Clearwater National Forests roa d rem oval

program as a case stu dy. As soon as the new Science

Coordinator is on board , this process will be top priority!

In sum, the ro ads p rogram has evolved to bu ild abroader constituency for road removal while also expan ding

our sc ientific und ers tand ing of road re moval. Its been an

exciting an d incredibly bu sy yea r, and in 2002, well be

adding economic research as well.

Off-Roa d VehiclesIn 2001 we implemen ted our off-road vehicle progra m

thro ugh two d istinct avenue s: Wildland s CPR pro gram sta ff

and Natur al Trails & Wate rs Coalition (NTWC) progr am s taff.

Many of our larger program goals are now being add ressed

through the Coalition, nonetheless, we maintain indepen-

dent m otorized recreation staff and we implement ou r own

pro grams to co mpliment th e Coalitions. For examp le, we

pro vide policy analysis for m emb ers of both Wildland s CPRand t he NTWC. We act as a clear inghouse for information

and s trat egies regarding off-road vehicle issu es for our

memb ers an d the co alition, too. And finally, with our

particular expertise on Forest Service issues, we are co ordi-

nating a camp aign to revamp off-road vehicle managemen t

on Fores t Ser vice land s nationwide. This is the focus of

Jacobs wor k, while the po licy analysis, strate gic con sulta-

t ions and workshops have been passed on to h is successor,

Tom Platt.

In th e last two years , we have s een a major s hift in

Fores t Service thinking, a direct res pon se to our ORV effor ts.Graphic by Mark Alan Wilson.


13/24


The agency h as pu blicly acknowledged th at off-road vehicles

mus t be limited to des ignated r oute s. While this is a victory,

it also p resents a challenge for th e future and th e focus for

our current efforts. How do we ensure that routes are

des ignated thr ough a full and o pen NEPA pro cess a nd ar e

based on s ound science regarding ecological impacts? The

Fores t Service app ears t o favor a proces s tha t allows off-

road vehicle use to continue on rou tes that h ave been

created by ORV users without author ization.

Na tura l Tra ils & Wa ters Coa litionNatural Trails and Water s effort s were focuse d o n

communications and Park Service issues for the majority of

the last year an d a h alf in 2002 we are expan ding our

effor ts to en comp ass mo re BLM and Forest Service issu es.

The Coalition developed excellent communications tools

and p ublications, hosted a lobby week, distributed nearly

$60,000 in minigrants for off-road vehicle work, de veloped a

radio advertisement and respond ed to the needs of grass-

root s activists. Throu gh Natural Trails and Water s, Wild-

lands CPR has me t on e of our pr imary goals: facilitating a

greater u nde rst and ing of off-road ve hicle issu es amo ng local

and national decision-makers an d media represen tatives.

ClearinghouseWildland s CPR had a ho st of stud ent inter ns in 2001 who

completed critical research th at we are now p roviding to

activists around the coun try. We conducted research on

forest highways, oil and gas extr action and e xploration,

helicopter recreation impacts, mitigation efforts and much

more. We also upgraded our website and made it more

acces sible. We pub lishe d the Road-RIPort er on a bimonth ly

bas is, tho ugh with the first issue of 2002 we began a tr ans i-

tion to q uarterly printing.

Organiz ationa l DevelopmentWildlands CPR invested in organizational developm ent

in 2001 in two ways : first, thro ugh ou r p articipation in th e

Combined Federal Camp aigns and; second , by focus ing on

members hip development. Jen worked closely with Tommy

to increase renewals, promote new members hips, increase

distribution of the Road-RIPorter and other wise p romote

Wildland s CPR. The boa rd also made a comm itment to

increasing Wildland s CPR memb ers hip. As for the Combined

Feder al Camp aign, this year we h ave also app lied to b e apar t of numerou s sta te camp aigns, including Californ ia,

Colorad o and Nort h Carolina. If you are a sta te emp loyee in

any of those s tates , or if you are a feder al employee, or you

know someone who is, tell them to ch eck box # 2380 on their

CFC form !

ConclusionIn 2001, Wildlands CPR experienced more stea dy,

directed growth. Our staff stayed at abo ut the sam e size,

though we still want to add one more po sition. Our budget

grew by appro ximately 25%, as did ou r fundraising. Our

members hip remained stab le, and our issue and p rogram

work was challenging but succes sful. We strength ened th e

foun dat ion of the Natural Trails an d Water s Coalition; wedevelop ed relationsh ips with non-traditional allies to

promote res toration; we consulted with grassroot s groups

around the cou ntry; we identified and p articipated in

strategic litigation, and we r amped up o ur efforts to p romote

road rem oval as a viable comp onen t of resto ration. While

we experienced setb acks, mostly through th e Bush Adminis-

tration rollbacks on roadless protection and off-road vehicle

regulations, we feel stro ngly tha t now is the time to promo te

wildland pro tection by limiting off-road vehicle abus es an d

new road constru ction while simultaneously promoting

restoration th rough intensive on-the-ground ro ad removal.

We ho pe yo ull cont inue to join us in thes e fights!

Resource/Sales: .07%

Misc. Inco me: .01%

Financial ReportProgram Expenses$317,091.32

Program Income

$390,282.93Roads Pr ogram : 21.1%

Motorized Recreation

Program : 21.8%

Natural Trails &

Wate rs Coalition: 28.4%

Clearinghouse

Program: 8.9%

Organizational

Development and

Fundr aising: 15.7%

Administration: 4.1%

Gra nts : 93.65%

Contribut ions: 3.06%

Inter est Earne d: 1.98%

Members hip: 1.24%


14/24


Welcome to a ne w feature of the Road RIPorter, the Roads

Program Update. This update will appear in each issue

to keep you abreast of the newest happenings withWildlands CPRs Ro ads Program.

Roads Analysis ProcessThe Roads Analysis Proc ess (RAP - FSM 7712.1)

is a key comp onen t of the Fores t Ser vices new

Roads Policy. All fores ts are requ ired to co nd uct a

Roads Analysis this year to d etermine the minimum

road system need ed on their forest. And while

pub lic input isnt req uired, RAP is the key place

where activists should put forth th eir road con-

cerns and ro ad closure requests. Just this month,

Wate rs he d Cons ulting, LLC out of Whitefish ,

Montana co mpleted a critique o f the RAP for

Wildlan ds CPR. By th e time t his Road RIPorterisout, that critique sh ould be up on our revised web

page. See also this issues Po licy Primer on RAP

(page 8-9).

Clear w at er Na tiona l Fores t ProjectThe seco nd p art o f Water sh ed Consu ltings

cont ract with Wildlands CPR was to e xamine theClear water National Fores ts (Idaho) r oad re moval

program. Watershed Consulting conducted litera-

ture re views, inter views, and field invento ry work

to asses s the obliteration program on th e Clearwa-

ter National Fores t (CNF) and c omp are road

analysis meth ods used previously on th e CNF to the

nationa l Road s Analysis Proces s (RAP). This projectis nearing completion and we should have so me

preliminary results on the web page soon.

Forest Resto ra tion PrinciplesOne year ago sever al organizations, including

Wildland s CPR, spo nso red the Fores t Activist

Restorat ion Summit in Boulder, Colorad o. That

summit, whose par ticipants included forest

activists along with a few key scientists, forest

practitioners and community forestr y groups, was

held to d evelop eco logical principles for forest

restoration and add ress the social and economic

compon ents of a progressive restoration agenda.

Wildland s CPR was a ctively involved in t he year-

long proces s of writing the se Restora tion Principles

and p utting forth ro ad removal as a key compon ent.

The Citizens Call for Ecological Fore st Resto ra -

tion: Fores t Restor ation Principles an d Criteria is

prop osed as a national policy statement to guide

sound ecological restoration p olicy and projects.

This Febr uar y, we held a follow up meeting in

Spokane, Washington to bring restoration practitio-

ners and community forestr y advocates into the

dialogue, and to discuss strategy for the Principles.

While we didnt make much h ead way on the Pr inciples, we did have

meaningful discussions ab out how en vironmental groups, p ractitio-

ners and community forestr y groups can build trust and work

togeth er towar ds t he goal of ecologically and so cio-econ omically

sound restoration. By the end of the third day we had committed to

following up o n th is initial effort . This joint wor k may include ap pro -

priations efforts and on-the-ground monitoring of restoration p rojects.

We had some good roads d iscussions and initiated a ro ads working

group to b ring together th e strengths of various environmental

organizations and practitioners.

Socio-Econom ics o f Roa d Oblitera tionWildland s CPR has beco me very involved with Alliance for

Susta inable Jobs and the Environment, a networ k of individua ls and

organizations dedicated t o b uilding a world where nat ure is pro-

tected, the worker is respected , and unrestrained corp orate po wer is

rejected, through grassroots education, organization, and action. We

joined ASJE last sp ring, and Marnie is n ow th e co -chair of their New

Initiatives Working Group , which focus es on fores t rest ora tion,

primar ily in nor the rn California, Oregon an d Wash ington. Marnie will

be p romoting high s kill/high wage road removal jobs as a key compo -

nent o f a restoration jobs economy in th e Pacific Northwest.

Wildlands CPR also plans on contracting out an economic stud y

of the job creation po tential of carrying out a national road decom mis-sioning progr am as called for in th e Forest Services Roads Policy.

Upco ming Events for the Roa ds Program :

April 6-7 - ASJE Annual meeting

Apr il 18-20 - The National Forest Prot ection Alliances con ference

RESTORING PUBLIC LANDS: Rec laimin g th e Conc ep t o f Fores t

Restoration, Boulder, Colorado

Late June - Roads workshop with South ern Appa lachian Biodiversity

Project in Ash eville, Nor th Carolina

Roads Program UpdateSpring 2002

By Marnie Criley, Roads Policy Coordinator



15/24


Like our sibling Ro ads Program, W ildlands CPRs

Off-Road Vehicle Program will offer a brief update on the

latest happenings in each issue ofthe Road-RIPorter,our quarterly newsletter.

Tri-Sta tes Off-Roa d Vehicle PlanThe Forest Service last summer adop ted an off-

road vehicle management plan covering nine

National Forest units in Monta na and the Dakotas.

While osten sibly proh ibiting cross -coun tr y ORV

travel, the plan esse ntially grandfather ed all

existing routes, whether created legally through a

planning process or illegally throu gh repeat ed and

des tru ctive vehicle use . Fur ther more , it will be

near ly imposs ible for res pon sible ORV riders to

determine which rou tes are legal and which arent,

since the agency decided that legal routes are thos etha t were established be fore Januar y 1, 2001. There

are no map s and no signs to aid in this seemingly

imposs ible attem pt at classification. Wildlands CPR

and Pred ator Cons er vation Alliance were joined by

five othe r organizations in appealing the decision;

the Forest Service recently denied our ap peal. Our

coalition is no w cons idering legal action to force

the Forest Service to limit mot orized vehicle use tolegally des ignated routes, which would s ubsta n-

tially redu ce th e environm ental impact s o f ORV use

and m ake responsible riding on th ese National

Forests poss ible.

BLM Vegetative RestorationEnvironm enta l Imp act Sta tement

The BLM in Octob er initiated a s weeping

Environmental Impact Statement p rocess on

vegetation, watersh ed, and wildlife hab itat treat-

ments across sixteen western stat es. While we

app reciate BLMs inte rest in evaluating exotic weed

prob lems and restoring native vegetation o n a large

scale (p art of BLMs s tated objective), the agency

seem s intent o n ignoring virtu ally all of the caus es

of noxious weed invasion and other impacts to

plant communities, instead focusing on controlling

prob lems once they occur. Of course an y land

manager worth their salt knows that preventing

prob lems, especially problems as insidious as

exotic weed invasion, is considerably cheaper,

easier, and m ore effective than t rying to rep air

dam age once it has oc cur red. Yet the BLM has s o

far refused to con sider ORV use, the m otor ized

activities associated with energy development, and

other caus es of exotic weed spread and o ther

impacts . Wildlands CPR and t he Natura l Trails and

Water s Coalition are working to p ush the BLM to

take advantage of this opp ortun ity to really grapple

with how their man agement d ecisions affect nat ive

plant commun ities acros s th e West.

Big Cypres s Na tiona l PreserveOur ba ttle to s ave Big Cypres s National

Preser ve in sout her n Florida from off-road vehicle

devas tation continue s. The Park Service now faces

a legal challenge from motor ized use group s

claiming that t he n ew off-road vehicle managemen t

plan illegally rest ricts th eir use of the area. While

the p lan reduces off-road veh icle use and employs

several reasonab le protections for the fragile

swamp e cosys tems , it by no mean s eliminates off-

road vehicle acces s. Settlement negotiationsbetwee n th e ORV group s and the Par k Service

unexp ected ly fell apa rt in Janu ary 2002; the lawsuit

is now procee ding. Wildlands CPR joined o the r

memb ers of the Natural Trails & Water s Coalition in

interven ing in th e lawsuit.

Upc om ing Event s for

the ORV Program:March 15 - Deadline for scop ing comment s on

the BLMs Revised Notice of Inten t to prep are a n

Environmen tal Impac t Statement an d Forest Plan

Amendment s on cross-countr y motorized travel on

the Apac he-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Pres cott ,

and Tont o National Fores ts in Arizona an d NewMexico.

March 29 - Deadline for scop ing comment s on

the BLMs Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environ-

mental Impact Statement for th e Conservation and

Resto ra tion of Veget ation , Wate rs he d, and Wildlife

Habitat Treatments.

April 27 to May 1- Ann ua l ORV Lobb y Wee k

with Natu ra l Tra ils & Wate rs Coalition in Wash ing-

ton DC. Conta ct Lisa Ph ilipp s

(lisa@wildlands cpr.org, or call her at o ur main

office) for m ore info abou t par ticipat ing.


ORV Program UpdateSpring 2002


16/24


Bibliography Notes sum m arizes and highlights

some of the scientific literature in our 6,000 citation

bibliography on the e cological effects of roads.

We offer bibliographic searches to help activists

access im portant biological research relevant to

roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in

Bibliography Notes in our office library.

The number of seismic tests for oil and gas con ducted on pu blic

lands in the United States is increasing, and this sho uld concern

anyb ody interes ted in con ser ving wildlife, plants and vegetation, soil,

and th e very character of these lands. As domes tic oil and natural gas

exploration increases, geophysicists seek to m ap and under stand

underground d eposits that may hold valuable hydrocarb on resources.

Seismic testing is the ir preferred met ho d, and on e result is a pro lifera-

tion of linear bar riers across th e landscape.Seismic testing evolved from the discovery th at when earth quakes

occur, it is pos sible to capture th e sound waves created and use th e

data to map geoph ysical features th at lie underground . Much of what

we know about the Earths core, mant le, and crust is the res ult of this

discover y, and it follows that man-made seismic, or soun d, waves can

also be used to map subs urface geologic formations and locate stores

of oil and na tur al gas. However, as seismic tests b ecome mo re preva-

lent, there is growing concern about their impacts seismic testing

req uires intensive cross -coun tr y travel, often with veh icles th at weigh

60,000 to 80,000 pou nds .

How Its DoneTo con duc t a test u sing the pr eferred Thre e-dimens ional (3-D)

seismic meth od, long cables ar e first laid along a receiver line. Next,dynamite blasts or Thumper trucks (also called vibrasise trucks) are

use d along a sou rce line to create wha t is essen tially a man-made

earth quake, sending energy into the earth . The energy waves bounce

off of the sub surface formations and back to th e surface where they

are captured by geoph ones, which are connected b y the receiver

lines to a dogho use , or da ta receiving truc k. Knowing the frequenc y

at which th e energy is created, it is p ossible to analyze the frequency

of the returning waves and create a map of the sub surface area.

An earlier te sting me tho d, 2-Dimensional (2-D) s eismic, is con -

ducted by p lacing a receiver line acros s an area of land, and creating

energy along that s ame line. In oth er words , the receiver line and the

source line are the same. This creates a cross-

section al pro file of the un dergro und form ations, as

data is co llected along only one line.

3-D seismic yields a picture tha t sh ows a

volume of ear th, which is much mo re valuab le. In

cond ucting a 3-D test , a numb er of receiver lines

are placed parallel to each o ther acros s a land-

scape. The lines run at an angle (often perp en-

dicular) to the so urce line 1, in a brick pat ter n. To

create the necess ary energy, two method s are

generally emp loyed. In the vibr asise metho d, four

trucks move in tand em along the sou rce line, stop

at a pred eter mined po int, lower a self-cont ained

platform, and vibrate in unison, send ing energy

into the earth. This is repeated hun dreds or

thous ands of times in the course o f one test. If

dynam ite is us ed, a drill rig creates a shot h ole

(50-100 feet deep ) along th e so urce line, into which

a charge is placed . The charge is set off to create

energy in what is called th e sh ot ho le meth od,

and th is process is repeated over th e entire testing

area. In ad dition to s ourc e vehicles, ATVs are a lso

used du ring each test. These are driven along the

receiver lines to t roubleshoot p roblems.

Clearly, seismic testing is a vehicle-intensive

process . In order t o collect the most valuable

data, it is no t pos sible for the s ource lines to run

along existing roads. With both metho ds (sh ot-

hole and vibrasise) it is necessary for a numb er of

vehicles to drive cross -coun tr y, causing potent iallysevere ecological impacts.

Unde r t he National Environmen tal Policy Act

(NEPA), federal agencies are r equ ired to analyze

the po tential impacts of propo sed act ivities. In all

seismic pro jects st udied for th is review, Environ-

mental Assessm ents (EAs) were cond ucted, which

are less th orough th an Environmental Impact

Statem ents (EISs). These doc umen ts outline the

pot ential impacts to wildlife, soil, and vegetation,

among other s, and offer mitigation meth ods to

minimize th e effects.

A review of EAs co ndu cted by th e Bureau of

Land Management ( BLM) for pr ojects in th e Moab,

UT and Green River Basin, WY areas reveals t hatBLM findings of no significan t impa ct d raw largely

on anecd otal evidence an d d o not rely on verified

science o r cited r eferences. In th ese EAs, inter-

views, internal agency documents , and ob serva-

tions from past p rojects are used to conclude that

the impacts from s eismic testing will be tem porar y

and non-severe. In contrast, the documented

science on linear distur ban ces like ORVs and ro ads

is quite extensive, and s uggests th at long-term

damage is occurr ing.

Shake, Rattle & RollUnderstanding Seismic Testing

By Erich Zimm erman n

Photo courtesy of the Southern Utah Wilderness Coalition.


17/24


Ecological ImpactsUse of ORVs, for examp le, destr oys hab itat an d forage for wildlife

and disturbs threatened and endangered species. The impacts to

soil and vegetation include comp action, which causes erosion and

reduced plant growth, as less water is able to penetrate t he sur face.

Ruts may also b e caused if vehicles op erate when the ground is wet,

which can cause even greater prob lems with comp action and water

run off. The he avy vehicles used in 3-D seismic testing create t wo-

tracks that run across th e landscap e. If these tr acks are not elimi-

nated, unaut horized use of recreational ORVs may occur once tes ting

has end ed, and the impacts to wildlife, soil, and vegetation will be

even more pronounced.

ORV use is known to d estroy vegetation th at ser ves as n atural

soil-pro tective element s, even after o ne p ass of a vehicle (Wilshire

1983). This impa ct beco mes more significant as the num ber o f trips

over a n area increa ses ( Payne et a l. 1983). In arid re gions , ORVs h ave

been foun d to increas e water ru noff and er osion (Hinckley et al.

1983), a result of soil comp action and decr eases in soil poros ity and

infiltrat ion capacity (Webb 1983). Impa cts were found even wh en us e

of such veh icles was slight, and th e first pas ses o f a vehicle over a

landscape were found to b e th e mos t dam aging (Iverson et al. 1981).

It is estimated that recovery from soil compaction and a natur al

retur n to bu lk den sity, strength and infiltrat ion capac ity make take a

cent ur y to occur. In add ition, invasive vegetative sp ecies were foun d

in compacted areas within a few years, but native species were much

slower to retur n ( Webb & Wilsh ire 1980).

The impacts of roads, seismic lines and other linear d isturbances

have a n umb er of impacts on wildlife po pulations , including indi-

vidual disrup tion, habitat avoidance, social disruption, habitat

disruption o r en hancement, d irect and indirect mo rtality, and effects

on pop ulation. These impacts h ave received subs tantial treatment

and at tent ion (Jalkotzy, et al. 1997). Stud ies also show th e dram atic

effects th at road s have on t he mo vement an d mor tality of wildlife

(Form an & Alexand er 1998; Trom bu lak & Frissell 2000), and th e

balance of this evidence is so s trong that p olicies have been enacted

to red uce roa d de nsities in national fores ts to p rote ct wildlife

(Hourdeq uin 2000).

Impa cts of seismic testing have been largely ignore d. This is

starting to chan ge, however, as more attention is paid in areas wherethe t esting is most p revalent, espe cially Utah a nd Wyoming. It is

important th at the lack of under standing and information about the

process es and impacts of these projects be so lved, and greater

pub lic press ure placed on th e federal agencies cond ucting these

reviews. Given the d ocum ented impacts of ORV use o n wildlife, soils,

and ve getation, it is impe rative that the BLM and o the r federal

agencies pay greater attent ion to these p rojects and the effects they

are having on our federal lands. It also needs to be d etermined

whether the two-tracks created during seismic testing are used for

recreational purp oses o nce testing is comp leted.

The abs ence of scientific research on these issues is disturb ing,

and u ntil more stu dy is done, it is h ard to justify that th ese impacts

are shor t-term and unimpor tant. One way this might be corrected is

to force th e BLM to cond uct EISs when cons idering seismic projects ,which would result in much greater scrutiny and require a higher

thre sh old of scientific eviden ce be fore d eter mining tha t a pro ject will

have no impact.

Footnotes1. Actua l cables are p laced along a receiver line, but a s ource

line is a t heo retical line along which vibras ise tru cks will drive or

dynamite blasts will be placed to create the energy necessary.

Erich Zimm erman n is a graduate student in Environm ental Studies at

the University of Montana.

References

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexande r. 1998. Roads an d

their major eco logical effects. Annu al Review of

Ecology and Systemat ics 29:207-231 in M.

Hourdequ in. Ecological effect s of road s.

Conservation Biology. 14(1):16-17.

Hinckley, B.S., R.M. Iverson , and B. Hallet.

Accelerated water erosion in ORV-use areas. In

Environ mental Effect s of Off-Road Vehicles:

Impacts and Managemen t in Arid Regions. R.H.

Webb & H.G. Wilshire, ed s. 1983.

Hourdequ in, M. Ecological effects of roads.

Conservation Biology. 14(1):16-17.

Iver so n, R.M., B.S. Hinckley, and R.M. Web b. 1981.

Physical effects o f vehicular disturb ances on

arid landscapes. Science. 212:915-917.

Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross , and M.D. Nasse rden . 1997.

The effects of linear developments on wildlife: a

review of selected scientific literature. Prep.

For Canadian Association of Petroleum

Prod uce rs . Arc Wildlife Ser vices Ltd., Calgary.

115pp.

Payne, G.F., J.W. Foster, and W.C. Leininger. 1983.Vehicle impac ts o n North ern Great Plains ran ge

vegetation.Journal of Range Management. 36(3):

327-331.

Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1980. Recovery of soils

and vegetation in a Mojave desert gho st town,

Nevada, U.S.A.Journal of Arid Environments.

3(4):291-303.

Webb , R.H. 1983. Comp action of des er t so ils b y off-

roa d ve hicles. In Environmen tal Effects o f Off-

Road Vehicles: Impacts and Mana gemen t in

Arid Regions . R.H. Webb & H.G. Wilshire, eds .

1983.

Wilsh ire, H.G. 1983. The impac t of veh icles on d ese rt

soil st ab ilizers. In Environme nta l Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Mana gemen t in

Arid Regions . R.H. Webb & H.G. Wilsh ire, ed s.

1983.

Photo courtesy of the Southern Utah W ilderness

Association.


18/24


Comments Needed onYellowstone Snowmobile Ban

The National Park Service ha s just released a new analysis of the

impact o f sno wmob ile use on Yellowsto ne an d Grand Teton National

Parks. The Park Service needs to h ear from you that it should not

back away from its o riginal decision, based on years of study and

overwhelming pub lic involvement, to protect these national trea-

sures b y phas ing out snowmobile use in the two p arks. Please call or

write th e NPS and ask it to CONFIRM the original ph ase out decision.

The new prop osal is b ased o n an environmental analysis which

was part o f the settlement of a lawsuit by snowmobile makers and

the s tates of Wyoming and Idaho s eeking to roll back th e sno wmob ile

ban . The Interna tional Snowmo bile Manufacture rs Association

request ed the stud y claiming that the ban had been bas ed on earlier

Park Service research that failed to con sider a new generation of

cleaner and quieter mach ines. In analyzing new d ata from the

industry, the Park Service rejected claims t hat snowmobile makers

are pr od ucing cleaner vehicles tha t will not distur b wildlife or p ollute

the air. The Park Ser vice concluded t hat mu ch of the inform ation was

largely unconvincing or dated.

The new p roposal includes four alternatives: 1) Phase out

sno wmob iles b eginning in Decembe r, with a full ban effective in th e

winter of 2003-04. 2) Begin p ha sing ou t sn owmo biles in 2003-04, with

a full ban in 2004-05. 3) Cap the num ber of snowmo biles at 500 and

make them meet stricter emission standard s b y 2005. 4) Cap the

number at 330, require stricter emission standards and req uire

sno wmob ilers to travel with a Park Ser vice guide.Take Action b y May 29th : The r eleas e of the SEIS be gins a p ub lic

comment p eriod and pub lic sup por t for the or iginal Park Service

decision is the o nly way it will be implemen ted . Please s up por t the

decision to p hase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand

Teton nat ional parks b y sending your commen ts via

email to: grte_winter_use_seis@nps .gov or sen d to :

Wint er Use SEIS, P.O. Box 352, Moos e, Wyoming

83012 by May 29, 2002.

Please remind the Park Service that:

Americans want Yellowsto ne a nd Grand Teton

to rem ain peaceful places in winter wh ere bison , elk,

and other wildlife are not h arassed by noisy vehicles.

That snowmobiles in th e two n ational parks

continue to cause p ollution, make rangers sick, andprevent visitors from h earing the er uption of Old

Faithful or e njoying the solitude t hat Americans

expect from their national parks.

That the original, science-based phas e ou t

decision sh ould remain in place becau se it is the only

way to adeq uately prot ect th e nations first National

Park and near by Grand Teton nat ional park.

Chec k out the SEIS at this we bsite: www.winteruse planning.n et/


Wildlife Refuge SystemCommission GetsPro-ORV Chairman

The Bush Administration recently appointed

attorney Bill Horn t o ser ve as th e chairman of the

newly form ed Nation al Wildlife Refuge Cent enn ial

Commission. This Commiss ion, which had its first

meeting March 12, is ch arged with he lping to ch art

the course of the National Wildlife Refuge System

for th e next centur y.

Environmentalists are concer ned that Horn's

app ointmen t will make it mo re d ifficult to reign in

recrea tional sn owmob iling, ATV, and moto rbo at

use on refuge system lands. As a lead attorney

representing the International Snowmobile

Manufactur ers Association, swamp bu ggy user s in

Florida, and the Alaska State Snowmob ile Associa-

tion, Horn has consistently challenged government

decisions that limit ORV use on p ublic land s.

Other ap pointed Commissioners include

repr esen tatives from Walt Disney and Coors

Brewing Comp any. Wildlife refuges ha ve clear

mandate to p rotect wildlife and their hab itat; the

National Wildlife Refuge Syst em Imp rove men t Act

of 1997 clearly states "wildlife and wildlife conser-

vation must co me first ." The Natural Trails &Wate r Coalition (202/883-2300) plans t o clos ely

monitor Mr. Horn's work on the co mmission and

pub licize his actions.


19/24


New Study Confirmsthat Roads Harm Elk

The March -Apr il 2002 iss ue o f Rocky Mount ain

Elk Foundations Bugle Magazine details the

adver se effects o f road s on elk, providing the

results of both current and historic research of

Jack Lyon and others. The research demonstrates

that, although closing roads to motorized access

helped elk, bull ratio and h erd b alance is b etter in

areas th at have no road s at all. Accord ing to Alan

Christens en, th e Elk Foun dat ions Vice Pres ident of

Land s, The d ata s ho ws th at b ull elk will live up to

7.5 to 10 years in unroad ed areas In managed

areas with road closures, that life sp an drop s to 6.5

years . These findings parallel what is known for

the grizzly bear: even closed and gated roads harm

the sp ecies. This elk research will help supp ort

effor ts to limit total road d ensity, pro tect roa dless

areas, and restrict motorized access. In order to

pro tect wildlife h abitat, Christen sen said, We ne ed

to ta lk abo ut are a-wide closures to all vehicles.

Conservationists ChallengeWilderness Vehicle Tours

Three con ser vation group s filed a lawsuit

challenging the National Park Services d ecision to

author ize motor ized vehicle tours in the

Cumberland Island Wilderne ss. (SeeRIPorter6.2

cover stor y Drive Thru Wilder nes s.) The

Island, wh ich lies o ff Georgias s outh east coas t just

nor th of the Florida bord er, is the largest und evel-

oped b arrier island on the eastern seab oard. The

suit was filed Febr uar y 11 by Wilder ness Watch ,

Defenders of Wild Cumb erland , and Public Employ-

ees for Environm enta l Resp ons ibility.

The groups seek to s top th e NPS from autho -

rizing moto rized tou rs in th e Wilder nes s, citing a

strict Wilderness Act pro hibition o n th e use of

motorized vehicles except in rare cases s uch as

emergencies. The suit also alleges that the co m-

mercial nature of some t our s violates the Acts

limitation on c omm ercial use. While the Park

Service operates some of the tour s, most are

conduct ed by a private corpor ation.

According to George Nickas of WildernessWatch , This is th e only place in the cou ntr y where

the NPS drives to urists aroun d in the Wilderne ss. It

sets a terrible precedent for Wildernes s every-

where and flies in th e face of the Wildernes s Act.

Congress mad e it clear that the Cumberland Island

Wildernes s must be managed b y the same r ules as

all oth er Wilderne sses in the United States .

Restrictions, like thos e excluding motor veh icles,

were p ut in p lace to ac hieve th is goal. If we allow

motor vehicle tours here, then we could have them

anywhe re in Americas Wilder ness .

Wilder nes s Watch believes th at th is lawsuit is

the first action to c hallenge the National Park

Ser vice on motor veh icle use in Wilder nes s bas edon th e Wilder ness Act.

Wildlands CPR

Launches New Web Site

Photo by Rick Konrad.

See i t at ww w.w ildlands cpr.org!


20/24


Concerns a nd Recommenda tions

Regar din g the

Roads Analysis Process

The roads ana lysis manual seems to ignore th e

fact that unro aded are as may contain unclassi-

fied roads an d remnan ts of roads th at still have

negative effects on ecological integrity.

RAP should p lace more emph asis on road

removal or other decom missioning. Despite the

increased emphasis on decommissioning roads

in the final rule, the RAP discuss es ro ad closure

and de commissioning infreque ntly compared to

road construction and reconstruction. The roads

analysis docu ment is not consistent in its use of

the terms road closure and decommissioning.

The do cument fails to spec ify clearly what

decommissioning means.

The roads ana lysis manual should examine the

effects of closure and obliteration sep arately.

Too m uch power to m ake final decisions is left to

the fores t or line officer. Extern al and inter nal

techn ical review sho uld be requ ired.

Data sh ould b e ground -trut hed . The RAP

emph asizes the use of existing data to keep th e

analyse s co st-effective and efficient. However,

there ar e many case s in which existing data is no

longer current or where information from a

larger scale will not give a realistic portrayal of

what the cond itions are on the ground.

The ques tions in Appe ndix 1 pertaining to th e

effects of roads on the various ec ological, social,

and eco nomic considera tions generally only

add ress th e effects of existing roads and thepoten tial effects o f new roads. This appr oach

completely fails to recognize the n ew direction of

transportation management described in the

Roads Policy, which includes road removal.

No guidance is provided t o help investigators

prioritize roads for ob literation or o ther forms of

decommissioning.

Multiple spatial and temp oral scales sh ould be

emph asized. Once a specific scale is deter mined

for the analysis, issues per taining pr imarily to

other scales may be ignored. Long-term mo nitor-

ing and management sh ould be emp hasized

mor e in RAP. Long-term ec ono mic con sider -

ations, such as th e long-term cos ts of roadmaintenance, and the multi-billion dollar backlog

for forest road m aintenance, shou ld be included

with shorter-term considerations.

Activist Actions1) Find out wh ere your local fores t is with th e

RAP. Each RAP mus t b e co mp leted for level 3 to 5

roads (down to gravel/improved d irt) in the next

year or two, depe nd ing on the forest. Level 1 and 2

(undr iveable and unimproved dirt) must be

continued from page 9

analyzed next. Our su ggestion to all activists is to

get involved at th e stud y stage since the process

will be well und er way b y the t ime any pu blic

workshops are held.

2) Bring up the RAP at a ny Forest Ser vicemeetings, or in regard to a ny Fores t Ser vice

projects th at involve road constru ction. Any new

road co nstruct ion must go th rough RAP and an y

fores t p lan revisions m ust include RAP.

3) Provide the Fores t Service with informa-

tion you have on roads that shou ld be decommis-

sioned, including any photo o r inventory work

youve do ne. This inform ation is par ticularly

critica l at Step 3 of RAP.

4) Encou rage th e Forest Service to give

greater cons ideration to road removal. If you need

more information on road r emoval feel free to

con tac t Marn ie Criley in the Wildlan ds CPR office.

5) Provide th e FS with your con cerns regard-ing the RAP. Relate th e co ncer ns listed in this

summar y or check out our website for the

complete Critique of the RAP.

Am y is a riparian ecologist and wa ter quality

specialist with Watershed Consulting, LLC out o f

Whitefish, MT


21/24


Gar y Macfarlane has b een sa ving trees a nd p rotec ting wild

places from roads and ORVs for more than 20 years. Born and raised

in a small town in Utah , Gar y spe nt year s with th e Utah Wilder nes s

Asso ciation, succe ssfully closing areas on National Forest ( NF) an d

Bureau of Land Management lands to mot orized recreat ion. He

relocated to th e Northern Rockies in 1994 and h elped incorporate

Friends of the Clear water ( FOC), a hard -hitting group d edicated to

pro tecting the Clear water National Fores t in Idah o. Even in the h ars h

Idaho climate, Gary pr actices what he preach es. He doesn t own a

car, but ins tead b ikes 18 miles to a nd from work each day.

Gar y and Friends of the Clear water ar e working diligently to get

ORVs und er con trol on th e Clearwater and Nez Perce National

Fores ts. For examp le, two years ago the y foun d sub stan tial ORV

abuse in upper Fish Meadows in the North Lochsa Slope Roadless

Area (Clear water NF), and along with ot her co nse rvationists wer e

able to pres sure th e FS to initiate an emergency area closure. In

add ition, with th e he lp of a mini-grant from t he Natur al Trails and

Water s Coalition, Friends of the Clearwater joined forces last year

with the Great Burn Stud y Group to mo nitor th e Great Burn Wilder-

nes s Stud y Area. They have also mon itored Weitas Creek (Clear water

NF), Pot Mountain (Clearwater NF), and Meadow Creek (Nez Perce

NF) with a gra nt from Fund for Wild Nature. All thre e are road less

areas p rop osed for Wilder nes s. Gar ys colleague Chuck Pezeshki

explains how Garys commitment to careful docu mentation con trib-

utes to his su ccess in fighting ORV abu se: Gary h as a mas terful

command of both law and p olicy and h e backs u p h is office work and

NEPA review with meticulous ground -tru thing. Gar y is ou t in th e field

looking at stuff to make sure reality matches th ese docum ents. The

mon itoring repor ts are now b eing finalized and will be available in

early spring.

The Clear water NF is a travel mana gement fiasco. Its th e main

reason why Gary and the rest of FOC are so dedicated to their work.

The Forest Service allows motor ized us e in all recommen ded wilder -

nes s, theres no tr

road riporter 7.1

Documents