Road RIPorter 7.0

January/February 2002.
Volume 7 # 0 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads
Inside…
Down the Road…. Page 2
ORV Monitoring in Montana. Page 3-5
Depaving the Way: A Tale of Two Roads,
by Bethanie Walder. Page 6-7
Policy Primer: The “Existing Routes Exception.”
Page 8-9
Odes to Roads: The Landscape of Desire,
by Greg Gordon. Page 10-11
Biblio Notes: Evaluation Of Wildlife Crossing
Structures, by Maureen Hartmann.
Page 12-14
New Resources. Page 14
Regional Reports & Updates. Page 15
Legal Notes: The Forest Service and Categorical
Exclusions, by Jim Bensman. Page 16-17
Activist Spotlight: Brian Scherf, Page 17
Around the Office. Page 18
Resources & Membership. Page 18-19
Mount Cowan, in the Absaroka-Beartooth Off-Road Vehicle

Wilderness. A trail just to the east of this peak
is often used illegally by motorcycles trying to
cut through the wilderness.
Monitoring in Montana
— Phil Knight Photo.
Many groups in Montana were out in the field this summer documenting
ORV and user created route damage from escalating ORV use and abuse
and ground-truthing the effects of the new Forest Service Tri-State Off-
Highway Vehicle Plan (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota).
Check out our website at: Here are their summaries.
www.wildlandscpr.org — See article on page 3 —
A Look Down the Road… Wildlands
C
Center for
Whether it’s roadless protection or new “restoration” plans (more realistically
P
Preventing
known as salvage sales), the Bush Administration is doing its best to circumvent the R
Roads
public process and existing environmental laws. In mid-December, the Forest Service
took yet another hatchet to what minimal protection for roadless areas still re- Main Office
mained. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth issued a directive that effectively P.O. Box 7516
circumvents the National Forest System Transportation Policy protections for roadless Missoula, MT 59807
areas. With this Bosworth directive, the Bush Administration and its players may (406) 543-9551
nullify the effort by the previous administration to protect roadless areas. But there is WildlandsCPR@wildlandscpr.org
one thing Bush doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge: Those efforts were not www.wildlandscpr.org
undertaken because Clinton was such a big fan of roadless areas, but because the
American public wants roadless areas protected. Bush, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Colorado Office — Jacob Smith
Veneman and Bosworth can undercut these policies all they want, but that won’t stop 2260 Baseline Rd., Suite 205
Boulder, CO 80302
the American public from speaking up and speaking out to protect our public lands. (303) 247-0998
And sooner or later, Bush is going to have to pay attention to the American people. prebles@indra.net
In this issue of the Road-RIPorter, we provide you with some new and helpful Wildlands Center for Preventing
information to use to ensure that your government is following it’s own laws. To Roads works to protect and restore
continue the theme of public process gone awry, our “Legal Notes” section includes a wildland ecosystems by preventing
thorough explanation of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) process and an update on the and removing roads and limiting
status of a current case challenging the abuse of CEs. The newsletter opens, however, motorized recreation. We are a
national clearinghouse and network,
with a cooperative article that highlights the multi-tiered monitoring and documenta- providing citizens with tools and
tion efforts going on in Montana. The importance of these monitoring efforts are strategies to fight road
made clear through our new “Policy Primer” section. In it, we highlight the extremely construction, deter motorized
insidious practice of allowing off-road vehicle use to continue on existing, unautho- recreation, and promote road
rized routes. Much of the Montana monitoring was designed to collect just this type removal and revegetation.
of information. (And though this issue does have two features about Montana in it, do
not fret, we continue to be an organization with a national perspective and we will Director
continue to cover articles from all over the country. Nonetheless, it had been a long Bethanie Walder
time since we promoted the excellent work of the folks in our own backyard.) Development Director
Tom Petersen
The remainder of the newsletter centers on a different theme — sprawl and
mitigation. DePaving the Way looks at some of the biodiversity costs of sprawl, and ORV Policy Coordinator
Jacob Smith, Nicky Phear
provides a curious comparison of the drastically different planning/mitigation efforts
used during the expansion of a road in western Montana. The mitigation theme also Roads Policy Coordinator
appears in both the Odes to Roads essay by Greg Gordon and the excellent Bibliogra- Marnie Criley
phy Notes about mitigation structures by Maureen Hartmann. And finally, to bring Natural Trails & Waters Coali-
things full circle, Mike Anderson from the Wilderness Society provided us with an tion Grassroots Coordinator
informative analysis of the Bosworth directive mentioned above. Lisa Philipps
So read on, enjoy, learn something, and please, keep in touch with us about our Program Associate
newsletter and features or topics you’d like to see in future. Jennifer Barry
Newsletter
Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield
Interns & Volunteers
Editors’ Note Benjamin Hart, Maureen Hartmann,
As you’ve probably noticed, The Road-RIPorter has taken on a bit of a facelift! Emily Yeomans, Roiann Matt,
After around 5 years of the same old format, we’ve decided to start making some Erich Zimmerman, Brian Crawford,
changes: some subtle, and some not so subtle. In this issue, we’ve moved to a slightly Amy Barry
heavier paper, so as to prevent so much bleed-through, but it’s still 100% post- Board of Directors
consumer waste and is process chlorine free. We’ve changed the look of the front Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari,
cover somewhat, and look for further changes in the format and presentation in Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,
upcoming issues! Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary
We’ve also added a few new sections: the Policy Primer, where Wildlands CPR O'Brien, Ted Zukoski
staff provide info about some of the finer points surrounding road and ORV policies;
Advisory Committee
and the Activist Spotlight, where the RIPorter highlights the work of an individual Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
who excels at fighting the hard battles out there. Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
And last, but not least, we’ll be moving to a quarterly format after this issue — Marion Hourdequin,
our final bimonthly Road-RIPorter. But don’t worry, each issue will consist of 24 Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lindner, Andy
pages of hard-hitting material to fill your road-fighting desires. We’ll also be adding Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie
more diverse material, but more on that in the next issue. Mills, Reed Noss,
So we hope you all enjoy the changes, and as always, please let us know how Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
we’re doing — a little constructive criticism, or a few kudos now and then are Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
always welcome! — Jim & Dan. Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
© 2002 Wildlands CPR
2 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

Off-Road Vehicle
Monitoring in Montana
Quite a few years ago, the US Forest Service and the to existing roads and trails. The Code of Federal Regulations
Bureau of Land Management got together in Montana, North also has very strong language regarding use of and monitoring
Dakota and South Dakota to talk about off-road vehicle (ORV) of ATVs — were it only enforced.
management. They did so, partially, at the request of the BLM
resource advisory committees who were frustrated by the
spread of weeds from ORVs. The BLM and Forest Service Data Gathering and Monitoring
eventually decided to undertake a joint planning process that We have developed and refined techniques for field
would change ORV management on 27 million acres of land monitoring, and have a standardized set of forms and codes
in the three states. They called this the tri-state OHV plan. for recording photographs, GPS points, trail and road numbers,
Because the BLM and Forest Service had different levels of types and severity of damage, and habitat types. This informa-
knowledge about their ORV route systems, they devised a tion is being entered into a comprehensive database.
solution that would apply to all the lands, even if some were
already at a higher level of management. Finally, they decided All is not Lost
that they would allow ORV use to continue on any routes that Many strategies aimed at battling destructive motorized
existed on the ground, but all other cross-country ORV use recreation are coming together on the Gallatin. They include
would be prohibited. (See “Policy Primer” p. 8-9 for a com- field surveys and documentation, training volunteers, collect-
plete explanation of this item.) ing evidence, refining field monitoring, litigating over impacts
But then the BLM became engaged in a national ORV
effort and they pulled out of the tri-states plan. So when the — continued on next page —
Forest Service went ahead with the plan, which affects 17
million acres of land in the area, activists decided it was time
to get more people on the ground conducting ORV inventories.
Though the tri-states plan affects almost all the National
Forest lands in the region, other factors also influenced the
scope and direction of this summer’s Montana field invento-
ries. These issues ranged from the impacts of ORVs on grizzly
bears to the illegal incursion of ORVs in wilderness, to ORV
trespass in roadless areas and wilderness study areas pro-
tected under the Montana Wilderness Study Area Act. All told,
it was a big summer of data collection in Montana, and
activists in the region are still coordinating the results of the
summer surveys and determining the best possible way to
utilize the data. Please read on, in their words, about this
summer's monitoring efforts…
The Wild Trails Campaign

Documenting the Damage
By Phil Knight, Native Forest Network
In May the Native Forest Network, in conjunction with

Sierra Club Grizzly Bear Ecosystems Project, launched the
Wild Trails Campaign to document the damage caused by
motorized recreation on the Gallatin National Forest in
southwest Montana. The burgeoning popularity of dirt bikes,
ATVs and snowmobiles is wreaking havoc on public forests,
especially in otherwise wild roadless areas.
We found trash (most of which we packed out), bullet
shells and shot-up targets, rutted meadows, and trampled,
overused campsites. We found abandoned cars, trucks and
trailers. We found evidence of illegal motor vehicle use in
several locations, including the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilder-
ness. We almost never saw Forest Service people out there
checking things out, talking to users, cleaning up messes or
packing out trash. It’s a free for all.
Recent agreements by the Forest Service give us consider-
able leverage in limiting motorized travel. The Forest Service
has agreed to manage off-trail travel in occupied grizzly bear
habitat. In addition, wheeled motorized use is now restricted Great Burn Roadless Area. Photo courtesy of the Great Burn Study Group.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 3

on grizzly bears and Wilderness Study Areas, coordinating miles inside the roadless area, was severely damaged by up
environmental groups, reaching out to the public, and to 60 ORVs per weekend. The Forest Service allowed a half-
pressuring the Forest Service to deal with this growing mile section of the State-Line Trail #736 to remain open to
menace. We are working to secure restrictions in the areas these machines even though the State-Line Trail is desig-
where the worst abuse is occurring. nated off-limits to ORVs in Forest Plans.
This winter and spring, when the snow piles deep in the * Numerous cases of unsigned or improperly signed trailheads
remote backcountry, we will be out there on skis and snow- and vandalism to existing restriction signs.
shoes, and in airplanes, watching for and recording evidence * Heavily impacted outfitter camps complete with roughly
of lawbreaking by snowmobilers who illegally ride their built furniture, latrines, and lodging structures, hitching
machines in designated wilderness and other closed areas. poles nailed to trees, large corrals built with sapling poles
and/or strung with electric fencing wire, and tarps and other
Damage Photos Available Online equipment stored in the woods. These sites covered large
Please visit http://grizzly.sierraclub.org/wildtrails.htm to areas devoid of vegetation.
see photos of some of the worst examples of public lands
abuse we found this summer. You can also download copies of ORV management in the Great Burn is a complicated mix
our documentation forms. Start your own monitoring project of open and closed trails resulting from differing management
to document the damage! philosophies of the Lolo and Clearwater National Forests (the
Join us next season as we expand our efforts to stop the Lolo NF portion is closed to all motorized use, while 75% of
abuse of our fragile public lands by motorized wreckreation. the Clearwater’s trails are open in proposed wilderness).
Contact me at pknight@wildrockies.org to get involved. Significantly, the project discovered that motorized use is
occurring virtually everywhere in the Great Burn, regardless of
restriction, terrain, or distance.
The Great Burn For more information about the Great Burn, to obtain
copies of the Project Report or to get involved in this ongoing
Citizen Monitoring of ORVs project, contact:
By Bob Clark, Great Burn Study Group Great Burn Study Group
1434 Jackson Street
The Great Burn Proposed Wilderness is a vast expanse of Missoula, MT 59802
wild country along the Montana/Idaho border in the northern or call 406-721-6438
Bitterroot Mountains. This primeval landscape burned heavily
in the Great Fire of 1910, leaving charred snags, grassy slopes,
and expanses of sub-alpine tundra-like meadows. High
cirques, impressive stands of mountain hemlock, and dozens
of clear lakes adorn the high country. Elevations within this
300,000 acre roadless area range from 3200' to 7900' provid-
ing critical year-round habitat for a variety of species listed as
threatened, endangered, or sensitive.
Unfortunately, and to the great concern and dismay of
conservationists and some land managers, motorized use has
sharply increased in this area (since the early 1990s).
Responding to this situation, two local grassroots organi-
zations — the Great Burn Study Group and Friends of the
Clearwater — developed and implemented the 2001 Trail
Monitoring Project. This project gathered information on off-
road vehicle (ORV) and other recreational uses in the Great
Burn, including impacts to natural resources and potential
user conflicts. Carried out by more than 35 dedicated volun-
teers, who logged hundreds of hours on more than 15 field
outings, with financial assistance from the Natural Trails and
Waters Coalition, the project was truly an inspirational effort.
The project has yielded hundreds of photos, reports, and
summaries outlining the types and level of motorized recre-
ation, user conflicts, illegal activity, resource damage, user-
created trails, conditions at trailheads and backcountry
campsites, proper signage, and vandalism. Some of the more
significant observations include:
* Evidence of illegal motorcycle use on several trails at remote

locations within proposed Wilderness. Volunteers also
encountered two motorcyclists deep in the backcountry on
the State-Line trail (restricted) in the Cache Saddle area.
* The conversion of Fish Lake, just off the Bitterroot crest on
the Idaho side, into an ORV playground. Sadly, the Forest
Service itself did the “converting.” Forest Service develop-
ments at the lake include three port-a-potties, two docks,
and ORV parking areas. This beautiful subalpine lake, six
Motorcycle track in the Great Burn Proposed Wilderness Area.

Photo courtesy of the Great Burn Study Group.

Predator Conservation Data Gathering
Benjamin used data forms to record critical information
Alliance Field Monitoring about each road. He recorded the date, location by global
By Shawn Regnerus, Predator Conservation Alliance positioning, initial road width, presence of exotic invasive
plants, severity of erosion and other details. He took photo-
PCA’s summer monitoring focused on road and off-road graphs and kept a photo log to keep track of information.
vehicle impacts in grizzly bear habitat, not just in MT, but in Benjamin attempted to show both the average conditions of
ID, WA, and WY. each road and the most damaged areas. Two questions were of
After completing the road inventory in the Selkirk grizzly primary concern: 1. What is the condition of existing roads in
bear recovery zones in WA, and ID, our field crew went south the Pryors? 2. Are roads being illegally created in the Pryors?
to the Targhee NF in WY to survey user-created roads and ORV
trails. The Targhee has a long history of heavy motorized use User Created Routes
that has hampered the recovery of grizzlies on the western The topography and vegetation in the Pryors welcome
edge of Yellowstone, but with its last forest plan the Targhee user created routes: the sub-alpine meadows and sage
committed to close roads and restrict motorized use to dominated desert offer little protection from off-road vehicles.
“designated” routes. Our field crew looked at two areas to Routes have been created by individuals accessing mining
ensure that the Forest Service is living up to its promises. claims and by cattle ranchers checking on their stock; after
Finally, our field crew went into the backcountry north of these routes are created they become part of the ever-
Yellowstone to document user-created routes on the Gallatin. increasing network of recreational ATV routes.
Aaron Schuerr, one of our field workers who inventoried Rock
Creek for ATV routes, was amazed by the user created routes
he found. “I thought I might find a few scattered ATV tracks Erosion
but instead I found that the user created trails were promi- All of the roads inventoried in the Pryors were rated at
nent, well established ruts that were more visible than the their most eroded spots on a scale from 0 to 4.
official trail.” Shuerr returned a month later to complete the Of the 122.507 miles of roads surveyed, Benjamin didn’t
work and found that “even though the ATV riders had already observe any that didn’t have level 2 erosion (which includes
created obvious trials, they still didn’t follow them. Every- water channeled down the roadbed) at some point or another.
where there was a difficult spot in the trail there were numer- Many of these roads have become nothing more than a
ous muddy detours around it. The amount of damage even a playground to challenge four wheel drive vehicles.
few ATVs could do was amazing.” All of the trails our field
crew found in Rock Creek are inside grizzly bear core habitat, ORV Use
which the Gallatin is required to protect from all wheeled ORVs have left their mark on the fragile Pryors. Benjamin
vehicles under the settlement terms of PCA’s recent lawsuit. estimates that over half of the user created routes were made
For more information contact Shawn Regnerus at 406- for and by ATVs. They have caused significant erosion on both
587-3389 or shawn@predatorconservation.org. user created and legal roads. ATVs leave a distinct track, which
over time has changed many roads from a double to a wider,
triple track.
Road Widening
One of the largest threats posed by roads in the Pryors is
road widening. Sub-alpine roads quickly reach erosion levels
that make them too challenging to drive on. Individuals begin
driving outside of the ruts, creating new ruts. Over time roads
in the Pryors have gone from a few feet to dozens of feet wide.
Wildlands CPR is still in the process of analyzing
Benjamin’s data and checking his mapping against the Forest
Service’s. For more information on this project contact Marnie
Criley in the Wildlands CPR office.
The Pryors
Monitoring Roads and User-Created Routes
By Marnie Criley and Benjamin A. Hart
In the summer of 2001 Benjamin A. Hart, an intern with

Wildlands CPR, conducted a systematic survey of roads in the
Pryor Mountains, located in south central Montana within the
Custer National Forest. The Pryors are one of the most
complex and interesting areas in Montana; all of the ecosys-
tem types from Great Basin desert and sub-alpine forest exist
within them. The reasons we chose to survey this area are
twofold:
1) The Custer National Forest is in the process of ground
truthing all their transportation structures and we wanted to
check the accuracy of their mapping.
2) A couple of years ago the Custer classified nearly 2000
miles of unclassified routes without going through a NEPA
process. Wildlands CPR wanted to check the on-the-ground
status of roads and see what type of roads they classified.
Pryor Mountains road washout. Photo by Benjamin A. Hart.

A Tale of Two Roads
By Bethanie Walder
W
hen a new road invades a native ecosystem, like the
“Before any design concepts for southern California foothills, or the Big Bend of northwest
ern Florida, or rural West Virginia, it brings development,
the road were conceived, it was death and destruction. The development of houses, shopping malls,
banks, schools and post offices means the death of plants and animals
essential to get a better that had taken refuge in that natural place, and the destruction of wild
understanding of the land, what character. This is more commonly known as sprawl.
Sprawl, after all, is about urban, suburban and rural areas. It’s not
makes it unique, and how the about wildlands and it’s not about nature. Or is it? Undeveloped lands,
whether private or public, protected or not, provide important and often
Salish and Kootenai people critical habitat for native plants and animals. But protecting habitat
relate to the land. from sprawl is difficult, partly because of the scarcity of legal opportu-
nities to limit development on private lands. This article looks first at
The design of the reconstructed some of the impacts of sprawl, and then at the stark contrast between
the redevelopment plans for one road in two different areas.
highway is premised on the idea Sprawl, whether for resource extraction or new housing, doesn’t
that the road is a visitor and happen without roads, and it doesn’t depend on new road construction.
Sprawl is often fueled by paving an existing dirt road, or by widening or
that it should respond to and be lengthening an existing rural road, increasing the ease of access and
hence, the desirability of traveling to and fro. And with increased access
respectful of the land and the comes exploitation and degradation.
Spirit of the Place” This degradation is happening on a grand scale: two to twenty
percent of the species loss in the lower 48 states is caused by habitat
conversion to urban, suburban or agricultural development (Biodiversity
Project: Getting On Message About Sprawl). Poster species like grizzly
bears and wolves may rely on protected federal lands, but only ten
percent of all threatened species live on such lands (ibid). Before white
settlers populated the west, these species lived everywhere, from the
plains to the mountains. It was sprawling development, and white
settlers’ refusal to share their land with wild predators, that lead to the
extirpation of grizzlies and wolves from most of their native habitat.
And the roads continue to roll through what little remains, impacting
species far less photogenic than wolves and grizzlies.
Western Montana provides a tale of two roads: Highway 93 north
and south of Missoula. This road travels the length of Montana from the
Canadian to the Idaho border west of the rocky mountain divide. It
separates the Mission Mountain Wilderness from the Mission valley, and
bisects the Bitterroot valley, separating the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness
from the Sapphire Range. It’s already a significant barrier to wildlife
movement and has been slated for upgrading (widening) for years.
The US Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and the Montana
A small snake at the Lee Metcalf Department of Transportation (MDOT) have conducted studies, fought
National Wildlife Refuge. The Metcalf citizen lawsuits, and negotiated with the Confederated Salish and
parallels Highway 93 for several miles Kootenai Tribes over road reconstruction. But the outcomes north and
in the Bitterroot Valley, and is home to south of Missoula are as different as fire and water.
a diverse array of wildlife.
File photo.

Highway 93 North - The Missions The indiscriminate widening of HWY 93 south will
The Salish and Kootenai Tribes recognized that if Highway forever change the character of the Bitterroot Valley. The
93 was reconstructed as planned, to an undivided four to five discriminate widening of HWY 93 north will forever change
lane highway, it would destroy the remaining rural character the Mission Valley. While most wildlife were long ago driven
of the reservation and dramatically increase habitat fragmen- out of the valleys and into the mountains to avoid people,
tation. After difficult negotiations with the FHA and MDOT, these valleys still provide important habitat for many species.
the Tribes succeeded in forming a committee to consider And this is where conservation and sprawl activism again
highway redesign in a more culturally and environmentally connect.
sensitive manner. According to the Memorandum of Agree- Up in the Mission valley, the Tribal government now must
ment (MOA) signed by all three parties in late December 2000: follow through to ensure that developments on adjacent land
are at least as sympathetic to the land, wildlife and cultural
“Before any design concepts for the road were conceived, heritage of the area as the redesigned road. They have the
it was essential to get a better understanding of the land, what power to do so.
makes it unique, and how the Salish and Kootenai people In the Bitterroot Valley, communities have eschewed
relate to the land. The design of the reconstructed highway is zoning for years, and with the widening of HWY 93 are now
premised on the idea that the road is a visitor and that it faced with new developments that many community mem-
should respond to and be respectful of the land and the Spirit bers don’t want. They must quickly enact regulations to
of the Place” (MOA, US 93 Evaro to Polson, 12-20-2000). control and manage growth.
These are incredible words for a highway development Clearly, sprawl affects not just the private lands where it
document; the language refers to the road as a visitor, and occurs, but the adjacent private and public lands that provide
directs that the road respond to the place, not the other way important habitat for wildlife. Unfortunately however, it
around. The result is a redesign incorporating two lane, three seems that until we run out of space, we are not willing to
lane and four lane segments depending on terrain and traffic, conserve it. Sprawl is just one obvious symptom of that
in addition to dozens of wildlife crossing structures. The MOA problem. Roads provide access for increased and rampant
also explains the impacts the existing highway is having on a development, and people have to come together to fight both
migratory bird wetland, and it offers options for re-aligning roads and development. While these battles may be difficult,
the highway to remove the worst part of the road from the they can be won. Sprawl can be combated through federal
Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge. laws (e.g. endangered species act), economic incentives (e.g.
While the redesign of HWY 93 north is a success story, it conservation easements), and through fighting roads. But
will still be a bigger, faster highway, and it will still fragment without coordinating anti sprawl and conservation efforts,
critical wildlife habitat (see Bibliography Notes this issue re: much of the hard work of both groups will be for naught and
mitigation). But by foregoing a standard 5 lane construction efforts to conserve public land habitat will fall far short of our
for the project’s 53 miles, the upgraded road will not increase goals to protect wildlife and wild places.
sprawl or habitat fragmentation as much
as the original design would have. The
catalyst for this change was the fact that
the agencies were forced to negotiate
with the Tribes for right-of-way access.
They had no such mighty foe along HWY
93 south through the Bitterroot, just
concerned citizens who don’t want to see
their rural communities turned into even
larger bedroom towns for Missoula.
Highway 93 South
— The Bitterroots
The Highway 93 Citizens Coalition
for Responsible Planning formed in the
early 90’s when MDOT first proposed
widening the road. This coalition
promoted a “Super Two” road plan similar
to that now approved on the Flathead
reservation: they proposed a mile-by-mile
design, with frequent passing lanes and
opportunities to enhance wildlife migra-
tion (Highway 93 fact sheet). They The Mission Mountains loom over the Mission
offered comments within the public process, and appealed Valley, providing habitat for old-growth
MDOT’s final decision to construct a five lane undivided forests, grizzlies, and wolves. This side of the
highway. When they lost, they joined with Friends of the Missions is a Tribal Wilderness Area with a
Bitterroot, a conservation organization, and sued to force designated buffer zone along its perimeter
consideration of the Super Two. However, without the that controls development. In places, it is only
negotiating power of the Tribes they lost. a few miles away from Highway 93. Photo by
To date, eight of the 34 miles to be rebuilt have already Jim Coefield.
been widened to five lanes with no wildlife crossing structures
and no other significant wildlife or habitat mitigation. New
housing developments are already under construction in
anticipation of the road expansion.

Wildlands CPR Policy Primer
The Policy Primer is a new column in the Road-RIPorter,
designed to highlight the ins & outs of a specific road or ORV policy. “Unfortunately, as is often the case,
If you have a policy you’d like us to investigate, let us know!
the devil is in the details.”
The “Existing Routes Exception”

An update on a new Forest Service
paradigm for ORV management the Forest Service just announced the closure to dirt bikes of a
By Jacob Smith long-contested route technically off-limits to vehicles but
never managed as such.
These gains reflect our commitment to eliminating cross
country motorized vehicle travel on public lands. Recent
The Forest Service is slowly conceding that cross-country Forest Service decisions suggest that the agency is slowly
motorized travel is inappropriate. While this is a significant conceding that cross-country motorized travel is inappropri-
step toward appropriate management of off-road vehicles on ate. For instance, recent travel management decisions on the
Forest Service lands, the agency’s implementation of this new Medicine Bow National Forest in Wyoming and the Gunnison
management approach is deeply flawed. This primer outlines National Forest in Colorado included, as central provisions, a
our off-road vehicle management goals, describes this new prohibition on cross-country travel. The January 2001
Forest Service approach and its flaws, and discusses some decision by the Forest Service to ban cross country travel on
implications for public lands activists. nine National Forests in Montana and the Dakotas, known as
the Tri-States OHV Management Plan, is an even more
Appropriate Off-Road dramatic example.
Vehicle Management Unfortunately, as is often the case, the devil is in the
details. Most of these decisions involve three components.
In December of 1999, more than 100 organizations joined
First, they formally prohibit cross country travel. This is good.
a formal petition requesting that the Forest Service adopt a
Second, they commit to a process for inventorying all of the
suite of management rules aimed at ensuring responsible and
existing non-system routes (those routes that have been
prudent management of off-road vehicles. The petition,
created through use or for long-forgotten purposes and have
authored by Wildlands CPR and The Wilderness Society,
never been planned for, analyzed, or formally adopted into the
requested five specific management changes:
travel system). As these routes are inventoried, the Forest
Service will then make a site-specific management decision
* The Forest Service must demonstrate that a proposed
for each. This is a mixed bag, as I explain below. Third, as an
motorized route will not cause adverse impacts before
ostensibly interim management measure, they allow contin-
designating the route.
ued motorized use of those routes that existed as of a specific
* The designation of motorized vehicle routes, construction of
date (usually near the date of the decision). In other words,
new routes, upgrading of existing routes, and other projects
while the Forest Service is clearly moving toward a ban on
related to off-road vehicle recreation must be fully analyzed
cross-country travel, in each of these instances motorized
under the National Environmental Policy Act.
vehicle use will be permitted on previously existing or
* Off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited in roadless and
established routes until the agency gets around to analyzing
other sensitive areas.
all of those routes for their appropriateness and legality. The
* Off-road vehicle use is only permitted on routes designated
result, typically, is a so-called “ban” on cross-country travel
and posted as open for this purpose. Cross country travel
that is largely a ban in name only. This is bad.
shall be prohibited.
* Off-road vehicle use shall be prohibited unless adequate
monitoring and enforcement of the use and impacts are
fully funded and implemented.
We argued, given the numerous laws and regulations that

pertain to off-road vehicle management, and the large body of
scientific evidence about the environmental impacts of off-
road vehicle use, that these five requests were required in
order to manage off-road vehicle use legally and responsibly.
Banning Cross-Country Motorized Travel

In the time since we submitted our petition, the conserva-
tion community has made noteworthy gains (and suffered
some setbacks as well). For example, conservation groups in
Montana forced the Forest Service to remove an illegally
created snowmobile route, and successfully assisted the Forest
Service in defending a decision to prohibit off-road vehicles in
a Wilderness Study Area. In August, activists in California
successfully pushed the Forest Service to eliminate off-road This is a good example of a cross-country route that has been widened
vehicle access to a fragile botanical area. In western Colorado, by unregulated off-road vehicles. Photo by Benjamin A. Hart.

The Flaws of the might be a short-term increase in environmental damage if
the agency withdrew its decision because of the appeal, we
“Existing Routes Exception” believed that the long-term implications clearly outweighed
While we greatly appreciate the general direction toward these concerns. For all of the same reasons we object to this
a cross-country travel ban, the flaws in this “interim” ap- approach in the first place, we believe the long term impacts
proach are severe: of “existing routes” policies are severe enough to warrant
aggressive political, administrative, and legal challenges to
* Motorized vehicle use of routes not planned and designated their use, even at the risk of Forest Service reliance on older,
in accordance with the National Forest Management Act, “anything goes” type management while these challenges are
Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, the National Environ- resolved. Although it is possible that such a compromise
mental Policy Act, other applicable statutes and all the might make sense under unusual circumstances, in every
implementing regulations for these laws is illegal and, example we’ve evaluated we believed that the long-term
furthermore, represents poor land stewardship. importance of appealing far outweighed the potential short-
* Permitting the continued use of user-created and other term costs of walking away.
unplanned routes rewards decades of destructive and often
illegal motorized vehicle travel. Implications for Activists
* The political challenges associated with closing any given
area or cross-country route to motorized travel will only It is important to recognize that these new challenges
increase over time. The more established the use, the more represent progress on the motorized recreation front. The
difficult it will be to eliminate later regardless of environ- Forest Service is, by all appearances, conceding that cross-
mental and other impacts. This dynamic is especially country motorized travel is inappropriate. That said, the flaws
pronounced if the Forest Service informally sanctioned such of the “existing routes” approach are so severe that we are
use (e.g., by officially permitting its continuation, even if on generally better off challenging this approach than living with
an interim basis, through travel management planning). The the so-called compromise.
end result will almost certainly incorporate much of this There are at least several implications for conservation
existing system. activists. First, challenging these policies will require thor-
* Without a clear and nondiscretionary endpoint to the ough and credible field data documenting the existence of
transition period, this type of approach will be interim in illegal routes, use of those routes, and the environmental
name only. If a given National Forest unit ever completes its damage caused by off-road vehicle use. While we should
inventory and evaluation process, and this is by no means aggressively challenge these sorts of travel management
assured, it will require many years if not decades. planning decisions, as well as any inappropriate off-road
* Responsible off-road vehicle users, which may constitute a vehicle use of Forest Service lands, we must do so thought-
large percentage of those who ride the vehicles, will fully. In every instance, we must be certain to carefully build
generally have a very difficult time determining if use of any our case that inappropriate off-road vehicle use has real
given route is legal or not. impacts to the environment and to other users. Simply
* Enforcing an “existing routes” policy will be extremely arguing that the Forest Service is violating the letter of the law,
difficult, as motorized recreationists will usually be able to without demonstrating that the impacts of such violations are
claim, credibly, that they believed a given route was legal for substantive, will not persuade a judge who doesn’t know or
motorized use. Thus, irresponsible off-road vehicle riders care about off-road vehicle issues.
will largely be able to ignore the ostensible prohibition on Second, conservation activists should aggressively clarify
cross-country travel. This problem is exacerbated by the to the Forest Service that they have both the authority and
critical gaps in law enforcement funding and capacity. The duty to eliminate off-road vehicle use that is unplanned or
result is that motorized use is likely to continue in largely causing environmental damage (or both). Even where agency
the fashion it occurred before the new policy was adopted. decision-makers are sympathetic, they are often reluctant to
close routes or make strong travel decisions for fear of losing
subsequent administrative appeals and litigation. To date, the
The Bitter Pill agency’s authority to close such routes has been largely
Although it may be simple for activists to determine if an affirmed by the courts; our task is to communicate this to the
interim management policy is appropriate (it almost certainly Forest Service.
is NOT appropriate), there is a more difficult challenge. Forest Finally, the fact that banning cross-country travel is
Service decisions to ban cross country travel with an “existing increasingly a part of the agency’s management paradigm is
routes” grandfather clause are frequently structured such that extremely encouraging. We are gaining ground and need to
challenges to the sweeping existing routes exception will continue to push hard until off-road vehicles are managed
result in a reversion back to whatever abysmal travel plan appropriately.
existed before the new decision.
For example, the Forest Service adopted a Travel Manage-
ment Plan with this “existing routes” provision on the
Uncompaghre National Forest in western Colorado. The Along these lines, conservationists
Forest Service tried to persuade the conservation coalition to
drop the appeal, arguing that our administrative appeal would
should push hard for cross-country
result in a temporary withdrawal of the decision (while the travel bans, strongly support National
appeal was decided), which meant that management reverted
to the previous “anything goes” policy. In other words, the Forests that have such bans, and
Forest Service argued that if we didn’t accept this compromise,
with all its warts, and appealed or litigated the decision, the
aggressively challenge Forest Service
resulting environmental impacts would be worse than if we decisions that only give lip service to
had left it alone. We not only filed the appeal but won it as
well, which meant that the “anything goes” approach remains this critical goal of prohibiting cross-
in effect while the agency completes another travel plan.
Although we agreed with the Forest Service that there
country motorized travel.

“…our purpose isn’t to pass through
Odes to Roads an area as quickly as possible, but
rather to come to know a place, to
The Landscape linger and saunter as Thoreau would
have us do. ‘For every walk is a sort
of Desire of crusade,’ he wrote…”
An excerpt, by Greg Gordon
To the west of Green River, Utah juts the San Rafael Reef, the highway, having spent so much of our lives traveling over
a shark tooth ridge of upended sandstone. Not an actual it. This ribbon of asphalt superimposed over the landscape
marine reef, but so christened by the early pioneers because defines our movement telling us which places are important
this 2000 foot high pleat proved a significant impediment to and which are not. It gets us from here to there with little
east-west travel. Most of the desert beyond remained concern as to what lies between. We build our highways with
inaccessible until the construction of Interstate 70. Begun in near total disregard toward the land and its inhabitants.
1970, this stretch of Interstate took 20 years to complete. The I also wanted to experience how animals move through
highway slices right through the San Rafael Reef, revealing the landscape. Driving along I-70 from Grand Junction,
successive layers of geologic history. Deposited horizontally, Colorado, to Moab, Utah, I was overwhelmed by the hundreds
they are now tilted on end, so that one drives through the of ground squirrel carcasses littering the pavement. Are we
entire Jurassic period in a few minutes. simply oblivious of the lives of animals in our rush across the
A dirt road off a dirt road leads to Muddy Creek, the only desert? Why right here on this one stretch of highway?
reliable source of water in the southern half of the vast and The Humane Society estimates more than one million
seldom visited San Rafael Desert. It looks more like an animals are killed every day on U.S. highways. This includes
irrigation ditch loaded with cow manure than a creek. not only large and small mammals such as deer, bear, rac-
Composed of grey Mancos Shale, the Coal Cliffs loom coons, hares and rodents, but also reptiles, amphibians, birds,
above us. A cold wind whips the cumulus clouds across the and an untold number of invertebrates. Over half a million
sky like a time release film. Through the low clouds we can deer alone are killed every year by traffic. Roadkill is the
see snow in the highlands of the leading cause of mortality for most large
Fishlake Plateau. As we step out of mammals and several endangered
the van after the long ride, species, such as desert tortoise,
everyone replaces their shorts Houston toad, brown pelican,
with pants and long underwear ocelot, northern long-eared bat
and quickly throws fleece over (whose only known breeding
their T-shirts. location is bisected by the
I pull out the maps and Transcanada Highway), American
show my students we are crocodile, and key deer (of which
headed clear through the San 80% of all known deaths are
Rafael Desert, from I-70 to the attributed to traffic). Highways
tiny town of Hanksville. A also act as wildlife mortality sinks.
person could easily hike For example, snakes are attracted
through this county in less to the road to sunbathe and are
than half the time, but our flattened as a result; ravens and
purpose isn’t to pass through jays and other scavengers come to
an area as quickly as possible, feed off the carcasses and are in
but rather to come to know a turn killed themselves.
place, to linger and saunter as From salamanders to grizzlies,
Thoreau would have us do. “For every highways prove to be impermeable
walk is a sort of crusade,” he wrote. “We should go forth on barriers to some wildlife movements, preventing amphibians
the shortest walk, perchance, in the spirit of adventure, never from reaching their breeding grounds and bears from finding
to return, prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as mates. Roads can also dissect habitat. I-70, for example,
relics to our desolate kingdoms.” severs the San Rafael bighorn sheep population in half. As
“It’s a big chunk of country, nearly all roadless. I’ve never traffic flow increases in speed and volume, the highway
been here before; should be interesting,” I say, closing the becomes like a solid wall of speeding metal, resulting in
map case. decreased gene flow between isolated populations. Further-
We shoulder our heavy packs and navigate through failed more, a decreased ability to re-colonize results in a drop in
attempts at alfalfa fields. We aim toward the Interstate, overall ecological resilience. If populations remain isolated
sighting our course along Muddy Creek. We trudge slowly in a long enough they become susceptible to disease and inbreed-
perpendicular line, unwavering as a missile, so as to intercept ing. Extinction results.
the four-lane Interstate. We wonder if anyone notices a line of Many animals avoid highways altogether. Elk spurn areas
backpackers threading their way through a maze of barbed up to half a mile from a road. Small mammals find many
wire, old tires and car parts to the highway, passing beneath it roads too wide to cross. A study of a four-lane highway in the
and heading south into a landscape as desolate as the moon. Mojave Desert discovered that rodents hardly ever crossed the
We could have parked on the other side of I-70 and begun road. This is particularly portentous to the Colorado Plateau,
our hike farther downstream, but I wanted us to walk under which is home to more than thirty species of rodents. Thus

highways are a double jeopardy for wildlife, for not only do before the damming of the Colorado, Harold Ickes, FDR’s
they fragment the available habitat into smaller islands, they Secretary of Interior, proposed the world’s largest preserve, a
simultaneously kill off the remaining populations. 4.5 million-acre national monument that would reach from
Muddy Creek flows unhindered beneath the Interstate. If Lee’s Ferry in Arizona west to Kanab, Utah, north to Green
an animal sensed this passageway, it could safely move from River and east to Moab. Only one dirt road crossed this region,
one side to the other. Riparian corridors like this serve as the most remote in the contiguous U.S. However, FDR’s
valuable wildlife habitat; indeed 80% of deer kill zones are Federal Reserve Chairman, Marriner Eccles, was from Utah
associated with major drainages. If properly designed, the and was vehemently opposed to the monument. The idea was
creek could serve as a wildlife underpass, an idea now being shelved as the bombing of Pearl Harbor shifted attention
incorporated into highways from Florida (which has installed elsewhere. Even earlier, Bob Marshall, co-founder of the
underpasses for crocodiles and panthers) to Canada (which Wilderness Society, identified two million acres of roadless
has installed overpasses for larger mammals such as elk). The land in the San Rafael alone in 1935. While I-70 now sliced it
Texas highway department is considering a plan that installs in half, I wondered how much remained. Although Interstates
tunnels under the highway for the endangered Houston toad. and dams have shredded and fragmented one of our last
Near Park City, Utah, fenced right-of-ways funnel deer to remaining wildernesses, could we still thread together a
painted cross walks that have reduced mortality 40%. How- patchwork traveling by foot across this remote region? Is it still
ever, these mitigation measures are expensive and the results possible to set off into the unknown for weeks, simply
mixed. In Florida, deer and raccoons frequently use the following a creek? Would we find the soul of the Colorado
underpasses but black bears do not. In Canada, elk, deer and Plateau here, damaged but still intact? Would we find our
coyotes use the overpasses, but grizzlies and wolves may not. own?
As we hike, I think about Simon Ortiz’ poem. For our We pass an abandoned mine and a road bed scarred into
brothers: Blue Jay, Gold Finch, Flicker, Squirrel, who perished the desert crust. This is a place where you damn the land and
lately in this most unnecessary war, saw them lying off the hope to get rich quick and get the hell out, an area so desolate
side of a state road in southwest Colorado.
They all loved life.

And suddenly,
it just stopped for them. Abruptly,
the sudden sound of a speeding machine,
and that was it.
I don’t have to ask who killed you.

I know, and I am angry and sorry
and wonder what I shall do.
This, for now, is as much as I can do,

knowing your names, telling about you.
Squirrel. Flicker. Gold Finch. Blue Jay.
Our brothers.
This particular highway also defines some sort of bound- Photo by Marcel Huijser.
ary in my own mind. Although much of the Colorado Plateau
lies north of I-70, for me the area between I-70 and the
Arizona line embodies Utah’s redrock wilderness. I-70 that it has never seen a permanent settlement. Scour the earth
represents civilization and I had always looked to the south — for uranium (or magnesium as in the case of this mine), or
Canyonlands, Zion, the Escalante — as the real wilderness. By coal or oil and gas, or fill it with cows, scrape every available
starting north of the Interstate and walking beneath it I wanted source off and then fill in the gaps with toxic waste. This
to defy the validity of that line. I also hoped that this would unlovely land has been consigned to satisfy the motorized
somehow frame the students’ concept of wilderness on an recreation needs of off-road vehicles. We take everything it
experiential level. has to offer and leave feeling not quite satiated.
Does anything significant change when we pass under the This is a grey streaked country, always too cold and windy
Interstate? We are hardly in the land of Oz, but nothing or searingly hot. This is a land of salt bush flats and little to no
civilized lies between us and the tiny town of Hanksville, 85 water. What water exists is foul, laced with heavy metals, salt
river miles downstream: no pavement, no houses, nothing but and giardia (as we later discovered). These barren bentonite
a couple of dirt roads, a muddy creek to follow and over half hills, mysterious enough on their own, seem inhabited by
million acres of wilderness. At Hanksville, Muddy Creek joins ghosts of a different kind — the specters of greed and desire.
the Fremont River and creates the Dirty Devil River. After a The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as an “untram-
short re-supply, we would follow the Dirty Devil its entire meled” area. Most misinterpret this as “untrampled.” Untram-
length, another 85 river miles to where it converges with the meled refers to a trammel line, which is what fishermen use to
Colorado River beneath the surface of Lake Powell. surround a school of fish with nets. Thus untrammeled would
I-70 to Lake Powell. Icons of the modernization of the pertain to an area whose boundaries are flexible and porous,
West? The Interstate serves as a transportation corridor, not surrounded by civilization. I wondered to what degree I-70
emblematic of speed, efficiency, globalization, carrying lettuce and Lake Powell act as ecological trammel lines for the San
from California to the Midwest, orange juice from Florida to Rafael/Dirty Devil region. Could they also act as psychological
San Francisco, and no doubt cocaine from L.A. to Denver. Lake trammels reining in our own wildness?
Powell was created by a massive dam across the Colorado — This essay is taken from the forthcoming book about the
River, 120 miles long; the “lake” flooded what was once the Colorado Plateau, The Landscape of Desire by Greg Gordon.
very heart of the Colorado Plateau — Glen Canyon.
But what lies between I-70 and Lake Powell? Twenty years

Bibliography Notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 6,000 citation bibliography on the
ecological effects of roads. We offer bibliographic searches to
help activists access important biological research relevant to
roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in Bibliography
Notes in our office library.
An Evaluation Of Wildlife Forest Service graphic.
Crossing Structures
Their Use And Effectiveness In the last decade, wildlife crossing structures ranging
from amphibian tunnels to large carnivore open span bridges
— By Maureen Hartmann have been built to combat roadkill and road avoidance. With
the passage of a new federal highway bill in the U.S. Congress,
the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21), federal support is
The study of road impacts upon wild- available for wildlife crossing structures on both new and
existing roads in the United States. The European Union
life has ignited in the last decade, but only passed a similar measure, COST-341. Both initiatives have
heightened the concern for sustainable transportation systems
in the past few years have efforts begun to and incorporation of mitigation structures into road plans
(Gloyne and Clevenger, 2001).
mitigate these impacts. Engineers and Only limited information exists on the efficacy of those
biologists are now working jointly to structures that are just now gaining nationwide and global
support. Biologists and engineers are on a learning curve, and
design operative wildlife underpasses and future studies are needed to determine what attributes will
make these structures most effective for the greatest number
overpasses that will temper the effect of species. Although the need for more research is apparent,
roads have upon wildlife. Effective cross- preliminary studies from Europe, Canada, and the United
States have provided some insight concerning significant
ing structures will help to reconnect areas features/issues that should be considered when building
wildlife crossing structures.
of viable habitat that have become isolated Wildlife crossing structures come in many sizes and
due to road construction. This is an ardu- shapes; their features ultimately depending upon the ecologi-
cal and behavioral needs of the diverse species that inhabit an
ous task if you consider the wide-ranging area. Each species has different needs, therefore, when
designing these structures it is virtually impossible to accom-
species in the world, their diverse biologi- modate all species in an area. A more generalized approach
cal needs and habitat requirements. should be taken to make highways permeable for as many
species as possible. “Today highway planners and land
mangers can ill afford the naïve luxury of single-species
mitigation structures. Species do not function in isolation but
are components of ecological systems that inherently fall into
the category of organized complexity. Therefore, any single-
species mitigation structure is likely to have cascading effects,
some positive and some negative, on non-target species also.
If a mitigation structure is to succeed, a multi-species ap-
proach is needed to evaluate the efficacy of such mitigation on
non-target species as well” (Clevenger and Waltho 2000).
Various attributes of crossing structures such as light,
noise, substrate, natural cover, dimensions, and placement will
determine usage by different species. Most studies indicate
that the larger the underpass/overpass, the better suited it will
be to accommodate a wide range of species (Reed 1981, De
Santo and Smith 1993, and Jackson and Curtice 1998).
Natural vegetation near the opening will give both large and
small species the security of their preferred environment
(Rodriguez et al. 1996, Hunt et al. 1992, Clevenger et al.
2001a). Vegetation can serve as a funneling system, guiding
animals to the openings, thus helping to motivate them to use
Photo by Marcel Huijser. the crossing structure (Yanes et al. 1995).

Proper placement of the crossing structure is likely the crossing rates, movement patterns, population densities, and
most important feature in determining success (Jackson and life history requirements, years of study are needed. “Answer-
Curtice 1998, Rodriguez et al. 1996, Land and Lotz 1996, ing some of the complex ecological questions around roads
Singer et al. 1985). Most studies indicate that placing the and long-lived wildlife like bears may require research
crossing structure near traditional migration routes will timeframes of up to 10-15 years” (Whyte Museum 2000).
increase effectiveness. Methods to determine proper place- Even then, biologists will need to take into consideration that
ment are track count surveys, monitoring trails with infrared a low crossing rate may be due to a natural fluctuation/decline
cameras, GIS modeling to determine likely travel corridors, in wildlife populations. Low crossing rates may also be
roadkill data, and radio tracking collared animals (Scheick and attributed to the time it takes certain species to adapt to and
Jones). In addition, some biologists recommend that crossing use a crossing structure.
structures be placed away from human disturbance areas; Although more studies are needed to determine effective-
human activity has been negatively correlated with underpass/ ness, the crossing structures and fencing erected in areas such
overpass use. as Banff National Park, Glacier National Park, Florida and
Underpasses and overpasses will be more effective if they Europe have dramatically decreased roadkill and have allowed
are accompanied by fencing on both sides of a road. Fences for numerous wildlife passages. In some cases the carnage on
were primarily erected to reduce roadkill, however, without a roads has decreased as much as 97%, and wildlife ranging
crossing structure, fencing further reduces a road’s permeabil- from salamanders to large grizzly bears and panthers are
ity. Most studies indicate that fencing should be about eight passing through the structures to reach vital habitat.
feet tall (Groot Bruinderink and Hazelbrook 1996, Sipes and
Neff 2001). Fencing should be built around the crossing Conclusion
structure to guide (funnel) animals to the passageway, thus Wildlife crossing structures have had some great suc-
preventing them from circumventing the system (Jackson and cesses. They have been useful in decreasing roadkill, and
Curtice 1998). have been successful in enhancing landscape connectivity.
The dearth of information on their effectiveness makes
further studies essential if biologists and engineers are
expected to make the crossings even better for a diverse array
of wildlife (Clevenger 1998). Regardless of how much data is
collected, there will never be one perfect structure to suit all
species’ needs (Clevenger and Hardy pers. comm.). Therefore,
“our first choice would always be to not build a road through
wildlife habitat” (Lavendel 2000). For already existing roads,
wildlife passages should be added thoughtfully with all
species considerations in mind.
The following list provides some salient recommenda-
tions to consider when developing or monitoring wildlife
crossing structures:
* Take a multi-species approach rather than a single-species
focus, remembering that species do not function in isolation
but are components of ecological systems;
* Know the biology of the species in the area, their distribu-
tion, abundance, and ecological and behavioral needs;
* Place the structures at known migration routes, away from
human disturbance. This can be determined by roadkill
data, infrared cameras, GIS modeling, and track-count
surveys;
* Make the passages wide to accommodate a larger number of
species;
* Try to build structures to allow for natural lighting and low
Photo by Marcel Huijser. noise levels;
* Have a clear view to the other side;
* Use fencing designed to reduce wildlife intrusions;
* Conduct intensive monitoring before and after constructing
Are These Structures Effective? the wildlife passages via track count surveys, radio-collaring,
Crossing structures are slowly being incorporated into the mark-recapture studies, etc., and;
road plans of transportation agencies around the globe, * Share the results!
however, very little research has been done on their true
effectiveness. “This is a field of applied ecology still very It is imperative that biologists and engineers share their
much in its infancy,” says Parks Canada researcher Tony findings and ideas concerning crossing structure effectiveness.
Clevenger (Wilkinson 2000). Clevenger also adds that virtually Events such as the International Conference on Wildlife
nothing is known about the relative effectiveness of over- Ecology and Transportation have become integral to this
passes and underpasses, or between the different types of process. Ideally, the knowledge gained from these meetings
underpasses being tested (Clevenger 1998). We can infer what will lead to the design of improved crossing structures that
features are most important based on the studies that have will more effectively connect the habitats of a diversity of
been conducted so far, but no study has been able to accu- wildlife.
rately estimate how many animal crossings would have — Maureen Hartmann is a graduate student in Environmental Studies
occurred if a given structure was not there. at the University of Montana.
Knowledge of the abundance and distribution of popula-
tions is essential in developing criteria to measure crossing
effectiveness (Clevenger 1999). To try and obtain expected — Citations on next page —

Literature Cited New Resources
Clevenger, A.P. 1998. Permeability of the Trans-Canada Highway
to wildlife in Banff National Park: Importance of crossing
structures and factors influencing their effectiveness. Pp.109-
119. In G.L. Evink, P.A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, eds. Wildlands CPR interns produced a series of excellent
Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife reports last fall. They ranged from the effectiveness of
Ecology and Transportation. Feb. 10-12, 1998 Fort Myers, FL. highway mitigation practices (see page 12-14) to the ecologi-
FL DOT FL-ER 69-98. cal effects of oil and gas drilling and seismic exploration. The
Clevenger, A.P. and Nigel Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the Road-RIPorter will feature many of them in the future. These
effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, reports will be posted on our website, and you also can
Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology. 14(1): 47-56. contact our office to receive copies of them. Many thanks to
DeSanto, R.S. and D.G. Smith. 1993. Environmental auditing: An the graduate students who completed these reports for us!
introduction to issues of habitat fragmentation relative to
transportation corridors with special reference to high-speed Ecological Effects of Seismic Testing
rail (HSR). Environmental Management. 17(1): 111-114. By Erich W. Zimmermann
Gloyne, C.C. and A.P. Clevenger. 2001. Cougar (puma concolor) use This report includes an incredibly clear and concise
of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans Canada highway in explanation of the seismic exploration, from a description of
Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology. 7(2): 117-124. the seismic receiving and source lines to the enormous
Groot Bruinderink, G.W.T.A. and E. Hazelbrook. 1996. Ungulate vibrasise trucks used. It also provides a detailed explanation
traffic collisions in europe. Conservation Biology. 10(4):1059- of the profound amount of ground disturbance caused by
1067. seismic exploration.
Hunt, A., H.J. Dickens, and R.J. Whelan. 1987. Movement of
mammals through tunnels under railway lines. Australian Coal Bed Methane: One Way Road to
Zoologist. 24(2) 89-93.
Jackson, S.D. and G.R. Curtice. 1998. Toward a practical strategy Environmental Degradation
for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife. Pp. 17-22 in G.L. A study of road-related impacts during development
Evink, P.A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of By Brian Crawford
the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Brian looked at existing coal bed methane developments
Transportation. Feb. 10-12, 1998 Fort Myers, FL. FL DOT FL- to analyze the number of miles of linear disturbance that are
ER 69-98. created through a typical project. Brian also included a short
Land, D. and M. Lotz. 1996. Wildlife crossing designs and use by comparison to conventional gas extraction.
florida panthers and other wildlife in southwest Florida. In G.L.
Evink, P.A. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, eds. Proceedings of
the International Conf. on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation.
The Impact of Roads on Neotropical
June, 1996. Tallahassee, FL. FL DOT FL-ER 58-96. Migratory Songbirds
Lavendel, Brian. 2000. Putting the breaks on roadkill. Animals. By Roiann Matt
133(6):20-23. Roian's paper summarizes the current research on the
Mansergh, I.M., and Scotts, D.J. 1989. Habitat continuity and impacts that roads have on neotropical migratory songbirds in
social organization of the mountain pygmy-possum restored North America. She presents a detailed discussion of the main
by tunnel. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3):701-707. impacts: nest predation; parasitism; and habitat decline.
Rodriguez, A., G. Crema, and M. Delibes. 1996. Use of non- Finally, Roian recommends several ways to minimize these
wildlife passages across a high speed railway by terrestrial impacts if road obliteration isn't an option.
vertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology. 33:1527-1540.
Reed, Dale. 1981. Mule deer behavior at a highway underpass Impacts of Helicopter Recreation
exit. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45(2):542-543.
By Emily Yeomans
Savage, Candace. 2000. A highway runs through it. Canadian
Emily's report is an assessment of the impacts of helicop-
Geographic. 120(5): 35-42.
ter recreation on wildlife. It provides a survey of the scientific
Scheick, B.K. and M.D. Jones. Locating wildlife underpasses prior
literature on helicopter impacts and recommendations
to expansion of highway 64 in North Carolina. North Carolina
regarding their management.
Wildlife Resources Commission, Plymouth and Bridgeton,
North Carolina. www.myflorida.com/emo/sched/locate.pdf.
Servheen, C. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Field Guide to Road Closures
Recovery Coordinator. Personal Communication Nov, 2001. By Amy Barry
Singer, F.J., W.L. Langlitz, and E.C. Samuelson. 1985. Design and The new "Field Guide to Road Closures" surveys the
construction of highway underpasses used by mountain goats. techniques used to close routes, from the installation of road
Transportation Research Record. 1016:6-10. closure signs to complete road obliteration, assessing the
Sipes, J.L. and J. Neff. 2001. Fencing, wildlife crossings, and strengths and weakness of each.
roads: separating animals and vehicles. Landscape
Architecture. 91(6):24-27. Wildlife Crossing Structures
Whyte Museum. 2000. Mitigation: Reducing the Impacts of
Roads and Railways on Bears. http://www.whyte.org/bears/ Evaluating their Use and Effectiveness
mitigate.html. — By Maureen Hartmann
Wilkinson, Todd. Making the road safe — for elk, bears, and Maureen's report provides a detailed and compelling look
wolves. The Christian Science Monitor. 12/09/00. http:// at the benefits and limitations of highway mitigation struc-
www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/12/19/text/p3sl.html. tures for wildlife connectivity. She has summarized the
Yanes, M., J.M. Velasco, and F. Suarez. 1995. Permeability of available research, presented several case studies and included
roads and railways to vertebrates: The importance of culverts. information about the research questions that remain to be
Biological Conservation. 71:217-222. answered.

chap.20.6(3)). Consequently, Forest Service managers could
now elect to build roads in a roadless area without preparing
Regional Reports & Updates an EIS if they determine that the roadless area would not be
substantially altered.
Third, by rescinding the roadless area section of the
Forest Service Interim Directives on Transportation Policy, the new interim directives remove any
form of protection for uninventoried roadless areas. As noted
Roadless Area Management above, the special procedural requirements of the Transporta-
by Mike Anderson tion Policy applied equally to IRAs and to uninventoried
roadless areas located adjacent to IRAs and wilderness areas.
The Wilderness Society analyzed the Forest Service’s These “contiguous unroaded areas” often provide important
latest interim directives on roadless area management. This wildlife corridors or other ecological values. Since the new
latest directive affects the National Forest System Road interim directives only require Chief-level review of road-
Management Strategy (Transportation Policy). The directive building projects in IRAs, the Forest Service apparently has
takes all language within the Transportation Policy that decided that the contiguous unroaded areas warrant no
protects roadless areas (this part of the Transportation Policy special protection of any kind.
is enjoined due to lawsuits) and removes it. Fourth, the new directives apparently create a loophole
The interim directives — issued as an amendment to the for logging old-growth forests in roadless areas. The Roadless
Forest Service Manual — went into effect on December 14, Rule generally prohibited commercial logging in IRAs, but
2001 and will continue for 18 months. A 60 day public included exceptions for logging that “is incidental to the
comment period ends on February 19th. implementation of a management activity not otherwise
prohibited by this subpart” (36 CFR 294.13(b)(2)). The interim
Summary directives greatly broaden this exception by allowing logging
The new Forest Service directives significantly reduce “incidental to the implementation of a management activity
administrative protection for national forest roadless areas. and not otherwise prohibited under the land and resource
Specifically, the directives: management plan” (FSM 1925.04a(2)(b). This latter exception
is far broader than the one in the Roadless Rule, since local
1. eliminate the requirement that there must be a “compelling management plans often allow unlimited logging in IRAs.
need” for road construction in roadless areas; In addition, the new interim directives would leave in
2. eliminate the requirement to prepare an environmental place Chief Bosworth’s policy of allowing all roadless area
impact statement prior to building roads in roadless areas; decisions ultimately to be made through local forest planning.
3. eliminate any special protection for uninventoried roadless The new interim directives require approval from the Chief for
areas greater than 1,000 acres that are adjacent to invento- road building and logging activities in IRAs, with some
ried roadless areas or wilderness areas, and; exceptions. However, the Chief’s approval is no longer
4. create a new loophole for logging old-growth forests in required once a national forest completes a forest-scale roads
roadless areas. analysis (for road-building activities) and a forest plan revision
(for logging activities).
The directives essentially allow logging and road building — Mike Anderson is a senior resource analyst for The
in roadless areas, subject to the approval of the Forest Service Wilderness Society.
Chief or Regional Foresters. However, that approval require-
ment only lasts until local forest managers complete an
amorphous “roads analysis” and update their forest plans.
Logging projects in national forests that revised their plans Send Comments by February 19, 2002
prior to July 2001, such as the Tongass National Forest, are
exempt from Chief-level review. The directives continue the USFS CAT
policy of ultimately turning over all roadless area manage- Attention: Road Policy
ment decisions to the local forest planning process, which has P.O. Box 221150
favored logging and other development in roadless areas. Salt Lake City, UT, 84122
via email to: roads_id@fs.fed.us
Analysis or via fax: 801-517-1021, to USFS CAT, Attn: Road Policy
The new directives consolidate interim management
direction for inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) into one section
(the forest planning section) of the Forest Service Manual, and Talking Points:
they entirely delete the roadless area section of the Transpor- * Please demand that the USFS cease any attempts to
tation Policy. These changes have several negative effects on undermine protections on our National Forest roadless
roadless area protection. areas as provided by the Roadless Area Conservation
First, the Transportation Policy stated that any road Rule and the Transportation Policy adopted last January.
construction or reconstruction in IRAs may only be authorized * Urge the Forest Service and Administration to not
if the Regional Foresters determine a “compelling need” for a renege on their promise to uphold protections for
road (FSM 7712.16b(1)(a)). The new directives eliminate that
roadless areas.
requirement. Consequently, the standard for road building in
roadless areas will be reduced to the same as that in any other * Our National Forests currently contain over 383,000
area — i.e. the Forest Service must determine only that the miles of classified roads and the maintenance backlog
road would serve a “documented need” (FSM 7712.12b). now exceeds $8 billion dollars. The Forest Service
Second, the Transportation Policy required the Regional should eliminate roads not build new ones.
Foresters to prepare and approve an environmental impact * These directives continue the Forest Service policy of
statement (EIS) prior to approving road building in IRAs (FSM turning over all roadless area management decisions to
7712.16b(1)(c)). The new interim directives give the Forest the local forest planning process, which has favored
Service discretion to determine whether or not an EIS is logging and other development of roadless areas. This
required (FSM 1925.04b(3)). Another section of the Forest marks a return to the same failed management policy
Service directive requires an EIS only if an action would that created the need for the Roadless Area Conserva-
“substantially alter the undeveloped character of an invento- tion Rule in the first place.
ried roadless area” (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15,

The Forest Service and can argue that the action was not in the category.
You can argue the project does not fit the plain language
Categorical Exclusions of the category. You can also use the drafting history (i.e.,
Federal Register Notices) of the CE regulations. They have
A Primer and Update on Current Litigation information about the intent of the Forest Service. The
— By Jim Bensman citation for the first notice is 56 FR 19718; (April 29, 1991).
The final notice is at 57 FR 43180 (September 18, 1992 ).
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) can be a citizen’s nightmare. The second way to challenge the use of a CE is to argue
The Forest Service loves to use CEs to avoid public participa- that an extraordinary circumstance is present. The Forest
tion and make it easier for them to violate the law. This article Service NEPA Regulations at 1909.15 FSH § 30.3(2) state:
will help you understand CEs and how to deal with them.
“2. Extraordinary circumstances include, but are not
limited to, the presence of the following: a. Steep slopes or
What is a CE? highly erosive soils. b. Threatened and endangered species or
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides their critical habitat. c. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal
three ways for agencies to document their decisions. An watersheds. d. Congressionally designated areas, such as
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a full-fledged wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation
analysis, and of the three ways, it requires the most analysis Areas. e. Inventoried roadless areas. f. Research Natural Areas.
and public participation. The second way is called an Environ- g. Native American religious or cultural sites, archaeological
mental Assessment (EA). An EA is basically a mini EIS. sites, or historic properties or areas.”
The third way is a CE. CEs can be used for “actions which
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on If any of these extraordinary circumstances are present,
the human environment and which have been found to have the Forest Service cannot legally use a CE. They must prepare
no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in either an EA or EIS.
implementation of these regulations and for which, therefore, Following the law gets in the Forest Service’s way so they
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental have come up with an illegal way to get around this require-
impact statement is required.” 40 CFR § 1508.4. When a CE is ment. Instead of preparing an EA or EIS when extraordinary
used, the least amount of analysis and circumstances are present, the Forest
public participation is provided. CEs are Service will often prepare an internal
supposed to be only used for projects that analysis and then claim there will be no
have no potential for significant impacts significant effects to the extraordinary
(i.e., cutting the grass at a Ranger Station). circumstance and then use a CE. This is
When the Forest Service uses an EA illegal and we have proven it in court.
or EIS, they have to consider the impacts The best case is the Court of Appeals
of the project. The Forest Service’s NEPA ruling in our lawsuit over a project on the
regulations include a list of categories of Shawnee National Forest: Rhodes v.
actions that “do not individually or Johnson, 153 F.3d 785 (C.A.7(Ill.)1998).
cumulatively have a significant effect” on Another relevant case is Bensman v. United
the environment. See 1909.15 FSH § 30. States Forest Service, 984 F.Supp. 1242,
One example of a categorically exclud- 1250 (W.D.Mo. (1997). There are two more
able category of actions is: cases that have also ruled that this practice
Repair and maintenance of administrative sites. Examples is illegal: Washington Trails Association v. United States Forest
include but are not limited to: a. Mowing lawns at a District Service, 935 F. Supp. 1117 (W.D. Wash. 1996); and High Sierra
office. b. Replacing a roof or storage shed. c. Painting a Hikers Ass’n v. Powell, 150 F.Supp.2d 1023, 1044 (N.D. Cal.
building. 1909.15 FSH § 31.1b (b)(3). 2001).
When the Forest Service established these categories, they The Forest Service recently issued a proposal to change
made a determination that every project in that category does their regulations to get around all these court rulings. 66 FR
not have the potential for significant effects unless there are 48412. We contend that this proposal is illegal and that we
“extraordinary circumstances.” Therefore, unless there are will challenge the agency if they adopt it. We even have
extraordinary circumstances present, the Forest Service does memos from their own attorneys telling them that what they
not have to analyze the effects of any project in the category. are proposing is illegal.
To properly use a CE, the Forest Service must determine the
project is in the category and there are no extraordinary What about comments and appeals?
circumstances present. If these conditions are met, the action
When the Forest Service proposed to eliminate appeals of
can be CE’d from any more thorough NEPA process.
their projects, Congress responded by passing the Appeals
Reform Act. 16 USC § 1600NOTE. The law required the Forest
How do you challenge the use of a CE? Service to provide a comment and appeals process for
The first way to challenge the use of a CE is to argue it is “projects and activities implementing” Forest Plans. Despite
not in the category. The Forest Service will often try to use a this Congressional action, the Forest Service did not provide a
CE for projects that do not fall within the categories set forth comment and appeals process for projects approved with CEs
in their regulations. It is important to remember that the Heartwood and other groups filed a Petition for
examples listed in the regulations are not the only items in the Rulemaking arguing that the Appeal Reform Act requires the
category. Make sure you properly identify the category (i.e., Forest Service to provide a 30 day comment period and
“repair and maintenance of administrative sites”). Then you appeals for projects approved with a CE. The Forest Service

denied our petition. Heartwood then
sued the Forest Service. We settled the
lawsuit and the Forest Service agreed to
Activist Spotlight
immediately start providing comments
and appeals for many projects including The Activist Spotlight shares the stories of some of the incredible activists we work
many ORV projects. They also agreed to
with, both as a tribute to them and to highlight successful strategies and lessons
start rulemaking to make additional
projects subject to appeal. learned. Please email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight to
After we settled our lawsuit with jenbarry@wildlandscpr.org.
the Forest Service, the Blue Ribbon
Coalition sought to intervene and to Activist Spotlight honors
vacate the settlement. The judge issued the outstanding work of Florida
an absurd ruling that completely Biodiversity Project volunteer
ignored all the guidance from the 7th Brian Scherf. Brian has been
Circuit. He let them intervene and defending Florida’s imperiled
vacated the settlement. We appealed to wildlands since 1968, when the
the 7th Circuit, just had oral arguments construction of State Road 84
on the case and hope to prevail. sliced through the heart of
While the regulations do not Florida’s Everglades. That’s over
currently require a 30 day comment 30 years of dedication!
period, they still must conduct scoping In 1993 Brian united with
for projects that are categorically other activists to form the
excluded. 1909.15 FSH § 30.3(3). Florida Biodiversity Project
Scoping is an initial step in the NEPA (FBP). FBP, a member of the
process allowing interested citizens to Natural Trails and Waters
identify issues that the Forest Service Coalition, works proactively to
should address. It is also the time when preserve and restore Florida’s
you should argue that the proposal is native ecosystems. FBP utilizes
not in the category and/or that extraor- a variety of tactics to compel
dinary circumstances are present. agencies to follow environmen-
Since projects approved with a CE tal laws, pushing them to
include the best scientific data Photo courtesy of the Florida Biodiversity Project.
are not subject to appeal, the Forest
Service can implement the project as in their decision making.
soon as the decision is made. Your only In 1995 Brian helped FBP file suit against the National Park Service (NPS) for
recourse is to file a lawsuit. But you ORV damage in Big Cypress National Preserve, home to an exceptional number of
have to act quickly. To prevent you from endangered species (including the Florida panther) and rich in biodiversity. The
suing, the Forest Service will often issue subsequent settlement agreement forced the NPS to prepare an ORV Management
a CE for an ORV race, rally or similar Plan/Supplemental EIS. The Plan disclosed a disturbing fact: the Preserve has over
project on the day that project is to be 23,000 miles of mainly user-created ORV trails — nearly enough to encircle the
implemented. You may not find out earth! Last January, FBP, Wildlands CPR, and a number of other groups formed a
about the decision until after the project coalition of defendant intervenors to defend the ORV Management Plan against a
is already carried out. To avoid this, you lawsuit filed by pro-ORV organizations. In the words of Jacob Smith, ORV Policy
must be vigilant about conveying your Coordinator for Wildlands CPR, “Brian has worked tirelessly to protect Big Cypress.
interest in such projects to the relevant Without his deep commitment to saving this priceless ecosystem, it would have
Forest Service staff, you must be vigilant been destroyed by irresponsible off-road vehicle use long ago.”
in monitoring NEPA project schedules Brian is working to have U.S. Hwy 41 and I-75 elevated where they cross the
(issued by every Ranger District) and Everglades to allow for safe wildlife passage under the roads, and he’s fighting the
advertisements for the activities you are expansion of U.S. Hwy 1 in the Florida Keys. Brian keeps road and ORV issues
concerned about. germane by attending local meetings, monitoring field impacts, and traveling to
While it can be difficult to stop a Washington D.C. to press his congressional delegation for action.
categorically excluded project, if the Brian’s hard work pays off. Attorney Amy Atwood with Meyer and Glitzenstein,
use of the CE is inappropriate you says: “Brian is incredibly passionate and dedicated when it comes to his work on
should try, and you should document environmental issues. He accomplishes most of his work during his own time, works
the impacts of the project so that you tirelessly to produce famously long and detailed comment letters to agencies,
are in a stronger position to require a attends public meetings, and is tenacious about following through on his FOIA
full environmental analysis and public requests. Brian is so persistent that he is no match for those who seek to continue to
participation process if the proposal degrade Florida’s amazing biodiversity and natural resources.”
reappears in the following year. In addition to a hefty schedule of volunteer work, Brian also holds a full-time
If you need a copy of the Federal job as a travel counselor with the American Automobile Association, working one-
Register Notices, Forest Service NEPA on-one with AAA members to help them plan their travel routes. Many AAA mem-
Regulations, or the cases I mention go bers travel to National Parks or across natural areas by car, and to Brian, this
to http://webpages.charter.net/ presents a perfect opportunity to educate them about the ecological condition of
jbensman1/. Our comments on the these areas. Brian notes that on US or regional maps it is easy to contrast the dense
recent FS proposal are also there. spider web network of roads with the relatively tiny area of preserves. Most AAA
— Jim Bensman is Forest Watch members are unaware of road impacts and Brian is not shy when it comes to
coordinator for Heartwood. Reach him engaging people in conversation about these issues. Often, he will even suggest ways
at jbensman1@charter.net. they can take action themselves.
Thanks Brian for your hard work making Florida’s natural world a better place.
Contact Brian at b.scherf@worldnet.att.net

Around the Office… Resources
Thanks Printed Materials
Wildlands CPR would like to thank the following Road-Ripper's Handbook ($20.00, $30 non-members) — A com-
foundations for their generous grants: Patagonia — Dillon prehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides listed
Outlet; and thePage Foundation
below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gathering In-
And thanks to all the others who responded so
formation with the Freedom of Information Act, and more!
generously to our “Give Thanks” appeal, including:
* Hi Fidelity Investment Charitable Gift Fund Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($5, $8 non-mem-
* Bank of America Charitable Fund (anonymously) bers) — By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmental
laws, road density standards & Forest Service road policies.
Newsletter Distributors Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($5, $8 non-mem-
We would like to thank the following Wildlands CPR bers) — By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background
members for distributing The Road-RIPorter in their on the National Park System and its use of roads, and out-
hometowns: Andrew Laird, Stockbride, Michigan; Larry
lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning.
Glass, Eureka, California; Scott Silver, Bend, Oregon; Howie
Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-members) — By
Wolke, Conner, Montana; Catherine Landis, Syracuse, New
York; Howard Wilshire, Sebastopol, California; John Noyes, Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and
Kalispell, Montana; and Mary Hindelang, PhD. Chassell, MI. resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in
Thank you all! If you are interested in doing the same, BLM decision-making processes.
email Jen Barry at jenbarry@wildlandscpr.org or call our Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8 non-mem-
office at 406-543-9551. We’d send you about 15 copies— bers) — By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reducing
more or less is fine—for distribution, and offer you a the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an ex-
complimentary membership for your efforts. tensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($5, $8 non-
Welcome members) — By Scott Bagley. Provides technical informa-
Wildlands CPR welcomes two new activists to our tion on road construction and removal, where and why roads
staff: Nicky Phear and Lisa Philipps. Lisa comes to us from fail, and how you can effectively assess road removal projects.
Colorado, where she was working on off-road vehicle Trails of Destruction ($10) — By Friends of the Earth and Wild-
issues. She is taking over as the Grassroots Coordinator for lands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This re-
the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. Lisa has done port explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal fund-
extensive field monitoring and worked for Colorado Wild ing for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV
before joining us at Wildlands CPR & Natural Trails. Her industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.
breadth of experience is refreshing and we’re sure she’ll
keep you well-informed, while keeping us on our toes.
Much to our chagrin, Jacob Smith has decided to move
Online Resources
Visit our Web Site at http://www.WildlandsCPR.org
in a new activist direction. Starting in January, he began You’ll find educational materials, back issues of The Road-
splitting his position with Nicky, and he will be working on RIPorter (including all our bibliography, legal and field
protecting native grasslands through the Center for Native notes), and current action alerts.
Ecosystems during the other half of his time. Fortunately,
he’s made the transition as painless as possible by giving Also at the site, we’ve got a link to an ORV Information Site
us a year to adjust to life after Jacob. with an interactive map-based database on each National
During that year, Jacob will continue working out of Forest’s ORV Policy.
the Colorado office, and Nicky will be working on off-road
vehicle issues in our main office in Montana. Nicky brings
a diverse background of outdoor education leadership and Now available on our site:
activism. Most recently she completed a stint as the acting Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database
Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. We (Updated Jan. 2001) — Contains approx. 6,000 citations —
couldn’t be happier to have two such terrific people join including scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation,
our staff, and we’re sure you’ll find them as resourceful sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and
and helpful as their predecessors and co-workers. Wel- hydrological effects, and other information on the impacts
come aboard Nicky and Lisa! of roads.
New Office Environmental Impacts of Motorized Recreation:

A Bibliography
After nearly five years of our beloved — if a bit This is a 5000 citation bibliography of scientific studies,
decrepid — grain elevator, and nearly seven years sharing government reports, and related documents on the
space with Missoula’s Ecology Center, Wildlands CPR is environmental impacts of motorized recreation. The
moving to a new office space in downtown Missoula. documents cited here include scientific studies on a wide
We’ve tried to maintain some continuity by finding variety of adverse impacts, including: soil erosion and soil
another funky space, but it certainly has a different feel to compaction, sedimentation, pollution, wildlife disturbance,
it than our current digs. We’ll miss the EcoCenter, but habitat fragmentation and degradation, and others.
we’ve really outgrown our space there.
Moving does have significant added costs, so if you’d Subscribe to our online list-serves. Check the boxes on the
like to make an extra donation, we’d sure appreciate it! member form and receive Skid Marks and/or our Activist
Alerts over email.

Membership and Refer a friend to
Wildlands CPR!
Order Information Send us the names and addresses of friends
you think may be interested in receiving
membership information from Wildlands CPR.
Join the Rip-a-Road-a-Month Club!

To help ensure steady support for Wildlands CPR, Yes! I’d like to join Wildland CPR’s
please consider our new Rip-a-Road-a-Month Club! new Rip-a-Road-a-Month Club!
NEW!
It’s simple: Please withdraw my monthly donation

Instead of a yearly membership fee, a monthly via automatic checking account debit.
donation can be automatically withdrawn from your
checking account. Everyone spends five dollars a Day of month for debit __________________
month on something frivolous. Why not spend $5 a
month or more to protect wild places? Amount to withdraw ____________________
Consider this: Signature _____________________________

$5 (a movie ticket) You won’t
$10 (lunch out) even miss it! Please include a voided check!
$15 (round of lattes) All information will be kept confidential.
Wildlands CPR Membership/Order Form

I have enclosed my tax-deductible Wildlands CPR Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:
membership contribution of: Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
$1,000 $250 $50 family $15 living lightly
/
$500 $100 $30 standard other
/
Rip-a-Road-a-Month Membership (fill out above form)
/
Type of Membership:
Total of all items:
Individual Organization (put name below)
Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;
Organization for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.
Name International Membership — $30 Minimum. All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.
Name
Check here if you are interested in helping
to distribute The Road-RIPorter in your area
Address
Check here to receive our ORV and road email
newsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks.
City, State,
Check here for our Email Activist List.
Zip Please remember to include your email address!
Phone Check here for our RIP-Web non-paper option. Get
the RIPorter online before it gets printed!
Please include your email address!
Email
Pay by Credit Card: ❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard
Please send this form and your check payable to: Cardholder name: __________________________________
Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 Card # ___________________________ Exp. date: _______

Visions…
Photo by Cate Campbell.
Non-profit Organization
US POSTAGE
PAID
MISSOULA, MT 59801
PERMIT NO. 569
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
“Let the beauty we love be what we do.”

—Rumi
The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper.

Road RIPorter 7.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Road RIPorter 7.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Road RIPorter 7.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January/February 2002.

Volume 7 # 0 The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

Mount Cowan, in the Absaroka-Beartooth Off-Road Vehicle

2 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

The Wild Trails Campaign

In May the Native Forest Network, in conjunction with

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 3

* Evidence of illegal motorcycle use on several trails at remote

Motorcycle track in the Great Burn Proposed Wilderness Area.

4 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

In the summer of 2001 Benjamin A. Hart, an intern with

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 5

6 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 7

The “Existing Routes Exception”

We argued, given the numerous laws and regulations that

Banning Cross-Country Motorized Travel

8 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 9

10 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

They all loved life.

I don’t have to ask who killed you.

This, for now, is as much as I can do,

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 11

An Evaluation Of Wildlife Forest Service graphic.

12 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 13

14 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 15

16 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 17

New Office Environmental Impacts of Motorized Recreation:

18 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002

Join the Rip-a-Road-a-Month Club!

It’s simple: Please withdraw my monthly donation

Consider this: Signature _____________________________

Wildlands CPR Membership/Order Form

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2002 19

Photo by Cate Campbell.

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

“Let the beauty we love be what we do.”

You might also like