Road Riporter 6.3

The Road-RIPorter Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. May/June 2001. Volume 6 # 3

California Dreamin’ . . . of a future free of ORVs Photo courtesy of CBD.

CBD Launches a Ground-Zero Revolution in ORV Restrictions and Road Closures — Daniel Patterson

1976, Congress designated a 25 million acre swath of Sonoran, Mojave and Great Basin deserts — stretching from the Mexican border north to Death Valley and the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains —as the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). The CDCA includes some of the most scenic and biologically important areas in Imperial, San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, Inyo and Mono counties. This Virginia-sized expanse was entrusted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to be forever protected for wildlife, open-space, and sustainable human enjoyment.

In

Photo courtesy of CBD.

— continued on page 4 —

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

A

midst all the bad news that’s been coming out of DC these days, we’re thrilled to be able to report on the excellent work of the Center for Biological Diversity, and their recent road and ORV closures in the California Desert! Let’s hope we have more victories like this one to report in the near future.

Thanks We’d like to thank the Wilburforce Foundation for a grant from their Yellowstone to Yukon science program. This grant will enable us to undertake an important study of the road closure program on the Clearwater National Forest and to understand what that program’s successes and failures mean for road removal elsewhere in the country. We’ll be working with Watershed Consulting Ltd. on this project. We’d also like to thank John Calsbeek for creating a beautiful limited edition print about road removal. We’re still not sure how we’re going to use it, but we’ll let you know.

Welcome We’d like to welcome Kinza Cusik back to Wildlands CPR. Kinza did a research project on roads and wetlands for us last fall, and starting this summer she’ll be working part-time with Ronni to collect information about your most important off-road vehicle issues. She’ll be plugging that information into a database and getting your stories out on the web as part of our work with the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition (formerly known as the National ORV Coalition). Natural Trails and Waters is also pleased to welcome Scott Kovarovics as its new Campaign Director. Scott will be working out of The Wilderness Society’s office in Washington DC, but we’re sure he’ll be introducing himself to those of you who work on off-road vehicles.

In this Issue California Dreamin’, p. 1, 4-5 Daniel Patterson

DePaving the Way, p. 3

Main Office P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 [email protected] www.wildlandscpr.org Colorado Office 2260 Baseline Rd., Suite 205 Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 247-0998 [email protected] Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and promote road removal and revegetation.

Bethanie Walder

Director Bethanie Walder

Regional Reports, p. 6-7

Development Director Tom Petersen

Odes to Roads, p. 8-9 Mary O’Brien

ORV Grassroots Advocate Ronni Flannery

Field Notes, p. 10-11

ORV Policy Coordinator Jacob Smith

Bibliography Notes, p. 12-13

Roads Policy Coordinator Marnie Criley

Danielle Gardner

New Resources for Road Rippers, p. 14

We’d also like to welcome a new board member to Wildlands CPR. Greg Munther joined the board in March, and also joined us at our annual board/staff retreat. Greg lives in Missoula, MT (our first-ever board member from Missoula). He was formerly the district ranger for the Ninemile Ranger District on the Lolo National Forest. He retired about a year ago, and has been working with Wildlands CPR, Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Wilderness Association and others to promote roadless area protection throughout Montana. He is an articulate and vociferous advocate for limiting new road construction and off-road vehicles, both as a former land manager, and as an avid outdoor guide and hunter. We’re glad to have Greg on board and are looking forward to working with him more closely.

Visions Calling all photographers ... would you like to see your photo depicting nature’s way of removing roads on the back cover of The Road-RIPorter? Then send us your visions!

2

Wildlands C Center for P Preventing R Roads

Program Associate Leslie Hannay Newsletter Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield Interns & Volunteers John Calsbeek, Jen Dacy, Gary Hughes, Melanie Kay, Nicole Olmstead, Richarda Ruffle Board of Directors Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari, Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt, Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien, Ted Zukoski Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach, Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke © 2001 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Roads and ORVs in the new Forest Service — Bethanie Walder

I

n late March 2001, Mike Dombeck resigned as chief of the Forest Service in protest over President Bush’s forest policies. The Forest Service then announced in mid-April that former Northern Regional Forester Dale Bosworth would take over as Chief at the end of April. In this era of political conservatism, Dale Bosworth appears to be the absolute best FS Chief we could have hoped for. But what, exactly, does that mean? And in particular, what does that mean for road and off-road vehicle issues? The FS Northern Region has been at the center of the most significant forest road controversies in the nation. The courts found that excessive road densities here constituted an illegal taking of grizzly bears under the endangered species act. Resource advisory councils to the Bureau of Land Management have requested ORV restrictions because they spread non-native weeds, and off-road vehicle use on Forest Service land remains the topic of numerous lawsuits. Dale Bosworth has plenty of experience dealing with roads and off-road vehicles, but what can we learn from that experience?

provides interim protection for roadless areas. It directs the agency to complete a comprehensive transportation atlas of ALL transportation facilities on the ground, including those that were never authorized. The policy states that the road system is larger than needed to manage the national forests, and that it should be reduced. The policy will enable managers to remove roads without appearing to be mavericks or bucking the leadership. Dale Bosworth, after all, was the leader who oversaw development of the policy. What can we learn from his work on the roads policy? That since Bosworth led its development, there’s at least some likelihood that it will be implemented and the Forest Service will continue to move forward on road management.

On Roadless Areas While Bosworth supported his former boss in protecting roadless areas, his tune changed almost immediately after he was appointed FS Chief. In an April 22 interview with the Missoulian, Bosworth said he thought Dombeck and the Forest Service had gone too far when they limited commercial logging in the final roadless area policy. At the same time, Bosworth says it’s important to protect roadless areas. What can we learn from him about roadless areas? That he’s likely to offer only a limited defense of this important policy.

On Roads While Bosworth wasn’t at the helm during the grizzly bear litigation, he did oversee a potentially more significant issue: the development of the Forest Service’s long-term roads policy. This policy has received much attention in The Road-RIPorter (see, most recently, RIPorter 6.1, 6.2) both for its potential to help deal with roads, and for the problems it doesn’t address. Bosworth was the interdisciplinary team leader for developing the national policy. In this case, the good is perhaps more significant than the bad. The problem with the roads policy, aside from its troublesome definition of “road,” is that it maintains the status quo. It does not, for example, provide national road density standards. It does not address user-created roads. It provides a terrible definition of a road. And most importantly, it does not require any particular forest to reduce their road densities by any particular amount — it’s entirely discretionary. The benefits, however, are significant. The policy provides managers with more flexibility to remove roads. It actually suggests that roadless area acreage might increase by 5-10% if the policy is fully implemented. And that’s not all. The Roads Policy

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

— continued on page 14 —

Will federal forest and road policies stay on track, or end up in the ditch, under the new Chief? Wildlands CPR file photo.

3

California Dreamin’ — continued from page 1 —

T

he 1994 California Desert Protection Act further increased protection by designating 3.5 million acres of the CDCA as wilderness, turning Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments into National Parks, and establishing the 1.6 million acre Mojave National Preserve. Despite this strong public and congressional mandate for protection, the BLM has not risen to the challenge of managing the desert for all species and all people. Until recently it supported the historic status quo of mining, grazing, road building, utility projects, and off-road vehicle mayhem for the benefit of a few.

Citizen Action

To meet this challenge the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) and other groups have spurred a revolution in wildlife and ecosystem protection across the CDCA. Through a series of administrative appeals, scientific petitions, and lawsuits, the Center has protected millions of acres, forced the BLM to complete ecosystem management plans, and restored management priorities of the California Desert to those intended by congress: wildlife, wilderness, open space, clean water and natural quiet. Last spring, the Center, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Sierra Club filed suit in the name of 24

locator map

The limited effectiveness of many closures remains a problem in the Dunes. CBD photo.

endangered species against the BLM over the impacts of mining, grazing, damaging roads, off-road vehicles and exotic species on the BLM’s 11 million acre share of the California Desert Conservation Area. A series of far-reaching settlements in 2000 and 2001 protected millions of acres from these destructive practices. This year BLM will designate and close an anticipated 4500 miles of roads in the west Mojave. Going further, the BLM has agreed to complete a desert-wide route designation process on 11 million acres by 2004 — a process that will result in thousands of miles of additional road closures.

Algodones Dunes

In a series of precedent-setting legal settlements between the Center and the Bureau of Land Management, the courts closed 550,000 acres of the CDCA to off-road vehicles to protect the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Peirson’s Milkvetch, desert tortoise and other imperiled species. Included were 49,310 acres of the Algodones Dunes, a mecca for off-road vehicle destruction in southern California. The Algodones are an active dune system that harbors many rare, threatened, and endemic species such as the Peirson’s Milk-vetch, Sand Food, Algodones Dunes Sunflower, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, Andrews Dune Scarab Beetle, Colorado Desert Fringe-toed Lizard and at least 9 endemic beetles. The dunes are threatened by uncontrolled and intense off-road vehicle use. Algodones is ground zero for motorized recreation, annually drawing up to one million dune buggies, motorcycles, jeeps, ATVs and monster trucks. They regularly run over plants and animals and tear up the dune ecosystem. Over the last few years crowds of off-roaders have also become a violent threat to BLM staff at the dunes.

4

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Settling the first round of the lawsuit, the BLM agreed to temporarily ban off road vehicles from an additional 49,310 acres of the Algodones Dunes on November of 2000 (32,000 acres are already protected as the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness, although ORVs frequently violate the boundaries). The ban will remain in effect until a permanent solution is developed to save the Peirson’s Milk-vetch from extinction at the hands of rubber tires and flying sand. While the off-road lobby cries foul, five prominent intervening ORV groups — including the Blue Ribbon Coalition — signed the agreement to avoid a full dunes shut down. Off-roaders still have 70,000 acres on which to play, and approximately 80,000 acres (54%) of the dunes are now closed. Protecting the Algodones Dunes is one of the most significant recent victories by environmentalists working to reign in Peirson’s Milk-vetch, one of several rare or endemic species ORVs, and the situation on the dunes is now settling. This in the Algodones Dunes. CBD photo. winter’s heavy rains have generated an impressive bloom. The Center, BLM and off-road groups are all monitoring recovery of the Peirson’s Milk-vetch within both the closed, and still open areas. BLM conducts aerial monitoring of the dunes every weekend with plaintiffs’ representatives and an ORV representative on board. In response, the Center has already moved to ask that the court find BLM in contempt of a grazing Despite this progress, the dunes remain under threat. Notwithagreement from the same case due to missed standing fair efforts by BLM to implement the closures, there are still a deadlines. Unless BLM moves quickly to fully significant amount of ORV incursions, even in implement the settlement, the Center will likely well-signed areas. US Rep. Duncan Hunter (Rmove for contempt of court rulings for all other CA) last December pushed a rider to open the missed deadlines as well. dunes back up by exempting them from the ESA. A grassroots effort shot the rider down but Hunter has vowed to push it again.

What You Can Do

Enforcing the Settlement

CBD photo.

Elsewhere in the CDCA, BLM failed to meet the deadline for closing Surprise Canyon, an amazing riparian area in the Panamint Range near Death Valley, where off-roaders are winching up waterfalls. They also have missed deadlines to close roads leading to Furnace and Birch Creeks in the White Mountains of Inyo county. California land managers have reported intervention from Washington and Interior Secretary Norton to delay all aspects of the settlement.

Anti-ORV and road activists should mobilize to push BLM to protect the CDCA. It will be very important for environmentalists to weigh in with comments at every step of the route designation process. The off-road vehicle industry is gearing up to try and minimize closures. Contact BLM California Desert District Manager Tim Salt and request to be put on BLM’s route designation & CDCA settlement action mailing list. Contact Mr. Salt at: 909.697.5204 tel, 909.697.5296 fax, 6221 Box Springs Blvd., Riverside CA 925070715, [email protected]. BLM’s lawsuit related press releases and federal register notices are regularly posted at www.ca.blm.gov For continuously updated information on the CDCA please check the Center’s CDCA website: www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/goldenstate/cdca/ index.html Or contact Daniel Patterson at 520.623.5252 x 306 or [email protected]

The dunes area harbors a rich diversity of wildlife, plant species, and topographic features. CBD photo.

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

— Daniel Patterson is a Desert Ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson. He worked formerly with BLM in California’s Mojave Desert for wildlife restoration by reducing ORV damage using effective low-cost techniques to remove & revegetate roads on critical habitat.

5

Regional Reports Alliance For The Wild Rockies And Environmentalists Forest Service Settle Grizzly Lawsuit Intervene In Big Cypress Over Roads Lawsuit Federal Judge Donald Molloy has approved an agreement reached between the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR) and the U.S. Forest Service, settling a lawsuit over road management in grizzly bear habitat in northwest Montana and northern Idaho. The suit was filed by AWR in February 2000 claiming the Forest Service failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act when it adopted a new set of rules for managing roads in grizzly bear habitat in December 1998. Region 1 of the Forest Service, the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, and the Kootenai National Forest were named as defendants in the suit. “The Forest Service has known for years that road density standards are needed to protect and restore the grizzly bear,” said Marc Fink of the Western Environmental Law Center, the attorney on the case for the Alliance. “Unfortunately, litigation was again necessary to force the agencies to incorporate their own best science.” The settlement stipulates that the Forest Service will remedy all the violations alleged in the suit. The Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai National Forests are now required to amend their Forest Plans to adopt new rules for access management in grizzly bear recovery zones, including full public input on new environmental impact analyses. Formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is also required. The settlement stipulates that the environmental impact analyses will be issued no later than February 2002. In the interim, the Forests cannot allow any activities that might adversely affect grizzly bears or their habitat.

The scale of ORV damage in Big Cypress is difficult to appreciate from the ground. Photo courtesy of Florida Biodiversity Project.

6

A federal court recently granted a coalition of environmental and animal protection groups — including Wildlands CPR and Florida Biodiversity Project, the right to intervene in a lawsuit brought by ORV users and national hunting interests against the National Park Service. The lawsuit is currently pending in federal district court, and seeks to overturn new restrictions on ORV use in Big Cypress National Preserve. The intervenors will support the ORV restrictions to protect the fragile and biologically rich Big Cypress National Preserve against continued devastation from extensive ORV use. The new ORV rules are the result of a settlement agreement reached in 1995 by the National Park Service and the Florida Biodiversity Project. Under the 1995 agreement, the National Park Service agreed to establish a comprehensive system for ORV management in Big Cypress to assure its natural and ecological integrity. The new rules are the National Park Service’s attempt to meet its commitment under that agreement. After almost three decades of rampant, unrestrained ORV use, the Preserve, an expansive area about the size of Rhode Island and some of the last undeveloped habitat for the critically endangered Florida panther, has enough miles of ORV trails to encircle the planet. The National Park Service has called the area the worst example of overuse in the National Park System. “These long-overdue restrictions are a major early test for how the Bush Administration will manage the National Park System — as a personal playground for the few, or as public lands to be conserved for future generations,” said Eric Glitzenstein, attorney for the intervenors. The coalition of environmental intervenors also includes the American Lands Alliance, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Bluewater Network, Defenders of Wildlife, the Fund for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, and the Wilderness Society. In a related issue, Florida Biodiversity Project, BLF and others have filed a 60-day Notice of Intent to sue under the Endangered Species Act for impacts the plan may have on Florida panthers.

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Roadless Policy Update The Roadless Area Conservation Rule has been under attack since former President Clinton signed it on January 5 of this year. Following is an overview of the steps leading up to President Bush’s May 4th decision, and what that decision means. The Forest Service worked for years to develop a roadless conservation policy and a roads rule, and finalized them on January 12, 2001. They would have gone into effect 60 days later, on March 12, but on inauguration day, President Bush ordered a 60 day postponement. For the roadless policy, this made the effective date May 12. The President’s actions were followed by lawsuits. The state of Idaho and Boise Cascade timber company filed the first, and Utah and Alaska joined. Colorado also filed suit. There are now six lawsuits challenging the rule, with several dozen plaintiffs ranging from industrial timber companies to state governments to off-road vehicle proponents. The lawsuits charge that, among other things, the Clinton administration improperly followed National Environmental Policy Act procedures. Plaintiffs claim there was no analysis of “reasonable alternatives,” inadequate notice to affected parties, and no cumulative effects analysis. At the end of March, the Bush Administration failed to support the Roadless Policy after Idaho and Boise Cascade requested a preliminary injunction to block its implementation. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Lodge denied the injunction request, but held his ruling in abeyance until May 4, when the Justice Department was to file a brief on the new rule. The Bush Administration made no effort to challenge the plaintiffs’ legal claims or otherwise defend the rule. Indeed, if Judge Lodge strikes down the rule it would provide convenient cover for Bush. On April 23, the American Forest and Paper Industry filed a lawsuit against the Roadless Rule and also against the new National Forest Management Act regulations and Roads Policy. They claim these polices would adversely affect their economic, forest health, informational and procedural interests. Only five days later it became public that White House policy officials had instructed the Justice Department to research ways to set aside the Roadless regulation until the administration can produce either a less restrictive proposal or eliminate the rule entirely. Finally, on May 4, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, accompanied by new Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, presented the Bush Administration’s roadless position. Clearly recognizing public support for the policy, Veneman said “this administration is committed to providing roadless protection for our national forests.”

That protection, however, appears to be merely what roadless areas had before the roadless policy was developed. Individual Forest Supervisors will address roadless areas on a case-by-case basis. If the timber industry challenges a denial to enter a roadless area, there won’t be a policy to provide protection, it will be up to the Forest Supervisor. Even more egregious is the Secretary’s position on forest protection. Rather than protecting roadless areas from roads, logging and off-road vehicle use (which was not covered in the policy), Veneman says that roadless areas need to be protected from fire, insects and disease. That, no doubt, means protecting roadless areas by roading and logging them. Bush and Veneman have essentially turned the roadless policy upside down and are still trying to take credit for protecting roadless areas. The following three key components of Bush’s idea of roadless protection are fairly illustrative: ♦ ♦

♦

“Protecting forests - USDA will protect roadless areas from the negative effects of severe wildfire, insect and disease activity; Protecting communities, homes, and property - USDA will work to protect communities, homes, and property from the risk of severe wildfire and other risks that might exist on adjacent federal lands; and Protecting access to property - USDA will ensure that states, tribes, and private citizens who own property within roadless areas have access to their property as required by existing law.”

Bush is more interested in protecting industrial interests than in protecting roadless areas. To give him any credit for upholding this rule is not only embarassing, but flat out wrong. More importantly, if Americans end up in the same situation we were in prior to the development of the roadless policy, but with the false understanding that roadless areas are protected, it will be even harder for us to keep the roads and chainsaws out of these areas.

Groups Appeal Tri-State Orv Plan Seven conservation organizations called on the Chief of the Forest Service to reverse a decision that would reward unauthorized and destructive use of publicly-owned lands. Wildlands CPR, Predator Conservation Alliance, The Wilderness Society, and four other groups are urging Chief Dale Bosworth to close all unauthorized routes created and used by dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles and other off-road vehicles on national forest lands in Montana and the Dakotas. In January, the Forest Service announced plans to allow unauthorized routes created by ORVs and dirt bikes to remain open until some future analysis determines which, if any, will be closed. These unauthorized routes criss-cross millions of acres of publicly-owned lands in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, the region affected by the Forest Service decision. The agency has indicated that it may apply the same decision to national forest lands across the country, even though it admits that unauthorized routes are damaging the forests and that it does not know the full extent

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

of the environmental damage caused by the sprawling network of unauthorized routes. “Our appeal is straightforward - we are saying that the Forest Service should live up to its stewardship responsibility and protect our public lands,” explained Shawn Regnerus of the Predator Conservation Alliance. “Dirt bikes and off-road vehicles should be allowed to drive only on designated routes, routes that the agency knows will not harm fish, wildlife and the lands they depend on,” Regnerus added. Joining in the appeal were the Montana Wilderness Association, Friends of the Bitterroot, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Greater Yellowstone Coalition.

7

Odes to Roads

Two Ways of Being — Mary O’Brien

August 3, 2000 Gravel is chattering against the underside of our van, so we talk and laugh a little louder. We occasionally look out at the low vegetation and seemingly still, grey water as we pass by. It’s cold, windy, and rainy out there, and it’s been that way for three days. We grind north on another road for three miles, where it comes to an inexplicable end at a pile of shoved-up gravel. O.k., time to get out. We put on our hats and rain jackets, pile out of the van, and are stunned into silence. A vast gravel plain surrounds us. To the north, Sheep Creek roars hard against a craggy, mist-shifting cliff. The wind is wild, the rain is wild, and this precipice, stream, and gravel outwash could be part of a dream sequence: jagged, turbulent, and blurred in gray.

Glaciers line the shores of the wild Copper River. Bethanie Walder photo.

And this, I think to myself, is the profound difference between two ways of being human in North America’s still-wild places. Stunned into silence, awe, respect and precaution by their wind, light, sounds, and untamed lives; or digging mines and oil wells into them, clearcutting forests off them, building lodges and towns on top of them, and slamming roads, industrial recreation machines, and vans full of hyper executives and social tourists through them until the tatters of wildness slide by grey, noticed, if at all, out a window. The water and vegetation we had been passing at 50 mph is North America’s largest remaining Pacific Coast wetland: the Copper River Delta in Alaska. On a map, you can trace our road, a 52-mile gravel berm constricting the Delta’s sheet flows into culverts and streams between bridge pilings. Start at Cordova, just south of Prince William Sound, where, on Good Friday 1989, at least 11 million gallons of oil destined for machines like our van hemorrhaged from the Exxon Valdez after having been piped 800 miles from Prudhoe Bay in the north. Head east across the outwash from Scott Glacier, a finger of the Chugach Mountains’ vast ice blanket. Cross Alagnik Slough and its fecund marsh at the base of McKinley Peak. Bridge-hop onto and off Long Island, an oval chunk in Copper River’s mouth. Start heading up the east bank of Copper River, toward Childs Glacier. But don’t go as far north as the Million Dollar Bridge, which twisted and busted on another Good Friday, 25 years before the Exxon Valdez ran aground and tore apart. Instead, turn right on a road that doesn’t show on the map and hopefully never will: the road that comes to its shoved-up gravel end after just three miles. The plan had been to continue constructing the road across Copper River Delta for 50 miles, a linear barrier with 200 bridges over salmon streams, to access a coal mine controlled by a Korean

8

entrepreneur, and hemlock trees controlled by the Chugach Alaska Corporation. Motorized recreation and development would almost certainly follow. The Chugach National Forest gave the go-ahead for the road. Bridges for its construction were shipped to Cordova. Enter the Eyak Preservation Council, founded by two traditional Eyak (a brother and sister, Dune Lankard and Pamela Smith) and others who value subsistence living and wildness over corporate extraction, industrial recreation, and extinction. Lankard’s focus had changed forever in 1989, when, as a commercial fisherman, he heard the news that oil was pouring out of the Exxon Valdez into his life. He determined to help save Copper River Delta. Its millions of sockeye, kings, and coho salmon; shorebirds, trumpeter swans and other waterfowl. Its water flows, islands, willows, seals, otters, beavers, brown bear, and wolves. Eyak Preservation Council protested the construction of the 55-mile extraction road, (29 of which are on National Forest land), contacted media, staged a lock-down to a bridge along the road, and generally raised hell; the road-builders quit for a while. The bridges stored in Cordova were eventually shipped away, but bridges can always return.

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

By this time Eyak Preservation Council and another local group with vision, the Coastal Coalition, had joined forces and sold National Wildlife Federation on the idea of gathering even more groups into a nationwide campaign to protect the Delta as a whole. Thus the Copper River Delta Coalition was formed, and by December 2000, when the public comment period for a new Chugach National Forest Plan had ended, over 33,000 comments had been submitted. Of these, 30,956 addressed the question of whether Copper River Delta should be designated as wilderness: 93.4 percent of the Alaskan commenters and 99.6 percent of all commenters favored wilderness designation. The ultimate fate of that fragile gravel pile at the end of the three-mile road is still under the watchful, strategic eye of Eyak Preservation Council.

from the nearest road. “For the three or four days they were having a Yes Bay experience,” Baird recalls, “that truck was like their Statue of Liberty. Obviously for those guys...to stand on the veranda, smoke a cigar, have some fine cognac and to see their truck across the stream there...that’s special. That’s incentive.” I wonder whether coal executives might like to see a crusher dangled tastefully from a cliff at the end of some access road they had completed. Or maybe a necklace of chainsaws draping a bluff, for timber corporation managers. Something for incentive. Or as a small reward.

August 9, 2000 It’s evening, and we’re back in Cordova after floating several days down Copper River from Chitina to the Delta. My husband O’B, David Titcomb of Eyak Preservation Council, and I are paddling three kayaks across Eyak Lake. We enter an inlet where sockeye are dead or quietly drifting, their dark red, muscular lives coming to a successful end. Young fish are feeding on their elders who have finished. Silence.

I wonder whether coal executives might like to see a crusher dangled tastefully from a cliff at the end of some access road they had completed.

Earlier in the day, Lankard had met us, excited, at our float trip take-out. He had heard reports that coho, the season’s next spawners, were now entering Copper River Delta. I wonder how soon they’ll arrive at this inlet, and this quiet drifting. We beach our kayaks and hike up a wet, faint track past several levels of a waterfall. Salmonberries and blueberries dangle beside us, and slide down our throats. We lie on our backs in the moss and wait. Dinner that night at Titcomb’s home is coho and a deep green salad. Aurora borealis pulse silently in the sky at 1:30 a.m.

August 10, 2000 About to fly home to Eugene, Oregon, I pick up the August 2000 issue of Alaska Business in the Cordova airport, and read one of its lead articles titled, “The Corporate Retreat: An Alaska Adventure.” It’s about the booming market for “adventure travel” to places like Alaska, for corporate executives: lodges; personal fishing boats fitted with electronic fish-finders; cabins “historically used by cannery workers, but now retrofitted to a quiet luxury;” and groomed nature hike routes. The article features Chuck Baird, an Alaskan marketer for this industry. He recalls a trip for Ford executives his company helped arrange at Yes Bay lodge on “pristine” Cleveland Peninsula near Ketchikan in southeastern Alaska. To create a “lasting impression,” the trip coordinators barged a new Ford truck to the remote site and parked it on a rocky, scenic point, 60 miles away

Late in the afternoon, we’re flying south above the Willamette Valley, where I live. Dark green, sinuous lines can be seen in the agricultural fields: ghosts of creek meanders. Not too long ago, Willamette Valley was thick with wetlands, braided creeks and rivers. Ninety-nine percent of these wetlands are now gone. The coho I ate on Copper River and Eyak Lake are now extinct throughout most of Oregon and Willamette Valley. Copper River Delta is how this valley once was: wild and mostly roadless, with waterfowl, bears, and wolves. Further south and almost home, we fly over Findley Wildlife Refuge, bought in the 1964 from private landowners and farmers as a refuge for dusky Canada geese, a large, dark subspecies of Branta canadensis. Three months from now they’ll be arriving here, one of their few winter homes, from their only summer home: the still wild, still mostly roadless Copper River Delta. Some connections remain. We are sustained. Holy world. — Mary O’Brien, Ecosystem Projects Director for Science and Environmental Health Network, is a founding and current member of Wildlands CPR’s Board of Directors. Eyak Preservation Council can be reached at [email protected], 907/424-5890, or P.O. Box 460; Cordova, AK 99574. The Copper River Delta Coalition can be reached through Scott Anaya at [email protected], or 907/258-4808.

Track of the great bear. Mary O’Brien photo.

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

9

Documenting the Environmental Impacts of Motorized Vehicle Use — Survey Protocol The Road Impact Documentation Process This protocol summary and the revised Photo Record Form reprinted here are designed to provide for the thorough, systematic, and replicable collection of data documenting the environmental impacts of motorized use. The photo form is one of three we typically use for field data collection — for copies of all three forms please go to our website. We encourage you to modify our forms as needed to make them as useful for your circumstances as possible. Any feedback on the forms will be much appreciated - we will continue to revise them so they are as useful as possible. The survey process is straightforward. You follow an assigned route for its entire length, or a specified portion of the entire length. You document every motorized route you find that starts at or crosses your assigned route (including all spur routes). You fill out a Route Form for every route you find (contact Wildlands CPR for Route Forms). Additionally, you take photographs of every route you find, important features of that route (e.g., closure devices), and sites where motorized use has resulted in environmental impacts. The form attached here is a shortened version of the photo form.

Filling Out the Photo/Impact Form Fill in one line of the Photo Record Form for every photograph you take, when you take it. Use as many Photo Record Forms as necessary to fully document every route you inventory. Fill out the top of the form each time you start a new form. The “Area” is the name of the area (e.g., popular name for a proposed Wilderness area) you are documenting. The “USGS quad” is the name of the topographic field map you are using. ♦ Column 1 (Photo #). Fill in the photo number. The number is made up of your complete initials, the film roll number, and the frame number. For example, GWB-36-4 represents the fourth frame of the 36th roll of film that George W. Bush took. Also write this number on the field map in the location where it was taken with an arrow showing the direction it was taken. Later, you will write this number on the back of each photograph you took. You will also put the roll in an envelope labeled with your name, the date, and area name, and the enclosed photo numbers. ♦ Column 2 (Photo Direction). Indicate which direction you faced when you took the photograph. ♦ Column 3 (Route #). Fill in the number from the field map that corresponds to the route you are documenting. This number should be printed on the field map somewhere along the route. ♦ Column 4 (Width). Indicate the width (in feet) of the route at the point you took the photograph. Measure this distance with a tape measure; do not simply guess. ♦ Columns 5 (Erosion). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. ♦ Column 6 (Vegetation). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. ♦ Column 7 (Exotics). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. ♦ Column 8 (Water). Fill in the appropriate number from the key at the bottom of the Photo Record Form. ♦ Fill in the Additional Comments section with any additional information on your photographs or what you observed. ♦ Fill in the Surveyor Information at the bottom of the Photo Record Form on every form you fill out.

Taking Photos ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

♦

A picture is worth a thousand words, so if in doubt, take a photo. If your survey is intended, in part, to document all motorized routes in your area (e.g., a roadless area boundary survey), then take photographs at the beginning, middle, and end of every motorized route, as well as at every junction. Take photographs where routes change from constructed or maintained to unconstructed or unmaintained. Take photos of every location where a motorized route travels through a waterway. Take photographs of all significant environmental damage caused by motorized vehicle use. Take photographs of sites where damage is less significant but appears to be new or increasing. Environmental damage includes soil erosion, collapsing streambanks, high-marking or hill-climbing damage, crushed or trampled vegetation, significant rutting, mud holes or other altered hydrology, and the like. Where appropriate, include an object in the photo to help indicate scale (e.g., a foot, a yardstick).

Conclusion We cannot overemphasize the importance of conducting your field surveys in a manner that is systematic, thorough, and precise. In some cases it will be crucial that people uninvolved with the original survey effort be able to precisely replicate your fieldwork. Moreover, the strength of legal and other claims may rest on the data you collect. Thus your data must be as accurate as possible; fully document all of the impacts of motorized activity on the ground, but don’t exaggerate or embellish. Thanks for your help with this critical project. For a copy of our complete field inventory protocol or forms, please contact Wildlands CPR or go to our website. And keep us posted on your results!

10

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Motorized Vehicle Environmental Impact Documentation Report — PHOTO RECORD FORM — Name: ___________________________________ Date: __________________ Day of Week/Time: ______________________ Area: ______________________ USGS Quad: _______________________ Township/Range/Section: _____________________ National Forest/BLM area: _______________________ Photo #

photo direction

route #

width (in feet) erosion (status of worst erosion):

veg. (vegetation damage): exotics (presence of exotic plant species): water (within 100' of a waterway):

width

erosion

Ranger District:_________________________ veg.

exotics

water

comments

erosion negligible, surface is stable with no ruts (1) some surface flow on route, shallow wheel ruts (2) overland surface flow channeled down route (3) live stream channeled down route (4) significant soil loss and/or soil movement on route (5) none (1), yes (2), severe (3) no (1), yes (2), severe (3), uncertain (4) no (1), yes (2)

Additional Comments:

Surveryor Information Name Phone Number

Date

Questions? Contact Wildlands CPR, P.O. Box 7516, Missoula, MT 59807, [email protected], (406) 543-9551

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

11

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.

Firelines as a Wildfire Suppression Tactic: What Are the Ecological Effects? — Danielle Gardner Wildfire is an essential ecological process. Yet when fundamental components of an ecosystem are out of balance, the occurrence of wildfire may fall out of balance as well (though large, stand-replacing fires have always occurred). The summer of 2000 demonstrated this, as millions of acres of public and private land in the western United States burned. Many are naturally concerned with the ecological, economic and social impacts of these fires. Few question, however, the ecological consequences of the aggressive tactics fire suppression agencies use to control them. These agencies employ a variety of techniques, but one of the most ecologically scarring is the construction and continuing presence of fire lines.

Construction and Function Employed in fire suppression since the 1950s, fire lines are built to mimick natural breaks in flammable plant matter like lakes and rivers (Green 1977). When no natural break exists, firefighters construct one by removing all plant matter, as well as the top layer of organic soil, in a wide swath (Ward 2000). This width can range from a few feet to 500 feet or more; the length also ranges from a few feet to many miles. Smaller fire lines are typically constructed by crews with hand tools, while larger lines are made with bulldozers. And while these are general parameters, real fire situations include variables that influence fire line construction, such as safety, topography, available suppression resources, fire behavior and conditions, and suppression goals (Karkenan 2000).

Ecological Impacts The National Environmental Policy Act does not apply to fire suppression tactics since they are employed in emergency situations, therefore, decisions made by fire managers determine the extent of environmental impacts (Karkenan 2000). The severity of these impacts, then, depends upon the approach of each fire suppression team (Stromaier 2000). In general, however, the construction and presence of fire lines causes a myriad of ecological disturbance: erosion and sedimentation; micro-climate alteration; introduction of exotic species and disease; change in water flow; scarring; and increased soil thawing in permafrost. In the Banskia Woodlands of western Australia, researchers found that fire lines were associated with 72 percent of Phytophthora cinnamomi fungus infestations - an association greater than that of any other type of woodland disturbance (Shearer and Dillon 1996). In Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, researchers found that plant species’ similarity between areas containing fire lines and undisturbed regions was only 59 percent (Taylor and Gibbons 1985). The fire line disturbance introduced Mycorrhizae, a non-native fungus, which in turn invited other exotic species that depend on Mycorrhizae for nutrient absorption. The fire lines in this region, some constructed thirty years ago and still visible, also were found to disrupt water flow and marsh drainage, “possibly reducing hydroperiods and aggravating dry season droughts.” In a permafrost region of Alaska the soil beneath fire lines had thaw depths up to five times the thaw depths in undisturbed regions (Viereck 1981). This increased thaw layer caused erosion, siltation, subsidence, and gullying, and encouraged invasive wet-habitat species. These three examples, from very different regions, show various ways ecosystems can be disrupted by fire lines. However, further research is needed to illuminate the effects of fire lines on the great variety of regions in which they are constructed.

Two Montana Fires from Summer 2000

Firefighters digging a hand line to create a fire break. USFS photo.

12

The Upper Ninemile Fire burned in a roaded region of the Lolo National Forest about 25 miles northwest of Missoula, Montana near the town of Superior. In efforts to contain this 17,817 acre fire approximately 101 miles of fire line were constructed, including three miles of hand line, 55 miles of bulldozer line, and 43 miles of existing unmaintained roads that were re-opened for fire suppression (Upper Ninemile Complex Incident Management Team 2000). The lines varied in width from a few feet to four hundred feet, and all were typically cleared down to mineral soil (Ward 2000).

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Conclusion

Fire lines can leave lasting scars, like this one within the Selway-Bitterrot Wilderness. Glenn Marangelo photo.

The Monture Fire burned in a roadless region of the Lolo National Forest, about 15 miles east of Seeley Lake, Montana. No human community was directly threatened, fire suppression resources were scarce, and the fire was located in proposed wilderness, therefore, suppression was much less aggressive. Only about three miles of fire line were constructed to contain this 23,800 acre fire: one and a half miles were hand lines a few feet wide, and one and a half miles were bulldozer lines approximately eight feet wide, both down to mineral soil (Monture-Spread Ridge Fire Incident Management Team 2000; Olleg 2000). These two fires illustrate how varied fire suppression tactics can be. The ecological impacts from the fire lines constructed at the Monture Fire were relatively minimal, while those from the Upper Ninemile Fire were more severe. In fact, it may take many years for the Upper Ninemile Fire to recover ecologically, not only from the fire but also from the disturbance of aggressive fire line construction.

MIST and Rehabilitation The U.S. Forest Service implemented Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) guidelines to encourage greater sensitivity to the potential ecological impacts of fire suppression (USDA and Forest Service Northern Region 1993). MIST guidelines are suggested to fire personnel whenever suppression tactics are implemented (Karkenan 2000). They are required only in Wilderness and even then they may be superseded if the safety of communities or firefighters is threatened (Ward 2000). Although inconsistently enforced and subordinate to FS fire management objectives, MIST guidelines are based on sound “minimum-impact” principles and represent a positive shift in Forest Service policy. Another positive policy development is the practice of rehabilitating fire lines after the danger of fire has passed. The goal of rehabilitation is “to mitigate or eliminate environmental resource impacts caused by the fire suppression effort and restore the area to as natural an appearance as possible” (Christopher et al. 2000). Typically, the policy for fire lines includes re-seeding with native seed mixes and covering with some of the removed vegetation. Just as with the construction of fire lines, the thoroughness and quality of the rehabilitation depends on each fire crew’s technique (Stromaier 2000). Also, some rehabilitation may be postponed or even abandoned due to inclement weather or lack of resources. Despite these inconsistencies, the rehabilitation policy may be helpful in reducing some of the ecological impacts of fire lines.

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Humans have been suppressing wildfires for over a hundred years, and while we have succeeded in part, we are now dealing with the unintended consequences of those policies. Ecosystems are suffering invasions of exotic species and forests are loaded with unburned fuel. These conditions, along with extreme weather, create severe fire seasons like the summer of 2000. As the interface between humans and wild areas also increases, our response to fire grows more aggressive. The cost of fire suppression, rising fifteen percent annually, illustrates the challenge fire suppression agencies face in their responsibility to protect our resources and communities (Riley-Thron 2000). In this social and political climate, it is difficult to question fire suppression; yet one question must be asked: is it acceptable to further degrade our wild regions? We know fire lines provide a seedbed for exotic species and disease, alter micro-climates, and cause erosion, sedimentation, and gullying. But the research on these effects has only just begun. As we see more fire seasons like those of last year, our fire suppression efforts must match that severity with sensitivity. Only then will we be doing our best to maintain the ecological integrity of our already overburdened public and private lands. — Danielle Gardner is a master’s student in Environmental Studies at the University of Montana. Editor’s Note: In conjunction with Danielle’s research, Wildlands CPR intern Jen Dacy investigated the effectiveness of fire lines. Her research raised many significant questions. If you’re interested in a Master’s or PhD research project on this topic, please contact our office for more information.

Bibliography Christopher, R. et al. Sept. 8, 2000. Upper Ninemile Complex Suppression Rehabilitation Plan. Ninemile, Plains, and Superior Ranger Districts, Lolo National Forest, Montana. Green, L.R. April 1977. Fuelbreaks and other Fuel Modification for Wildland Fire Control. Agricultural Handbook No. 499. Library of Congress. Karkenan, S. Oct. 2000. Head of Fire Operations, Lolo National Forest. Personal Communication. Monture-Spread Ridge Fire Incident Management Team. Sept. 2000. Monture-Spread Ridge Fire Update. http:// www.fs.fed.us/rl/lolo/fire-info/ninemile/complex-status.htm. Olleg, B. Dec. 2000. Monture Ranger District Fire Management Officer. Personal Communication. Riley-Thron, Karin. 2000. The Best Fire Season Ever. Cascadia Times. Sept.-Oct. 5(3): 15-16. Shearer, B.L. and Dillon, M. 1996. Impact and Disease Centre Characteristics of Phytophthora cinnamomi Infestations of Banksai Woodlands on the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Australian Journal of Botany. 44(1): 79-90. Stomaier, D. Dec. 2000. United States Forest Service Content Analyst. Personal Communication. Taylor, D.L. and Gibbons, R.R. 1985. Use of Fire Plows in a Marsh. Fire Management Notes. 46(3): 3-6. Upper Ninemile Fire Incident Management Team. Sept. 2000. Upper Ninemile Complex Fire Update. http://www.fs.fed.us/rl/ lolo/fire-info/ninemile/complex-status.htm. USDA and Forest Service Northern Region. 1993. Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics Pamphlet. Viereck, L. A. 1981. Effects of Fire and Fire Lines on Active Layer Thickness and Soil Temperature in Interior Alaska. Fourth Canadian Permafrost Conference, Calgary, Alberta: 123-135. Ward, L. Dec. 2000. Ninemile Ranger District Fire Management Officer. Personal Communication.

13

DePaving the Way — continued from page 3 —

On Off-Road Vehicles While Bosworth was overseeing the development of the long-term Roads Policy, he was simultaneously engaged in a three-state, two-agency planning process to address off-road vehicles. Simply abbreviated the “tri-state process,” the Forest Service and BLM have been engaged in a massive environmental impact statement to analyze the potential closing of 26 million acres (in Montana, North and South Dakota) to cross-country travel by off-road vehicles. On January 5, 2001, the same day the FS released both the final Roadless Policy and the final Roads Policy, the FS northern region also released a decision-notice on the tri-state policy. At first glance it sounds exciting. But much to the chagrin of Montana environmental activists, and to the detriment of the land, the policy would not stop cross-country travel because it allows off-road vehicle use to continue on all “existing” routes. The Forest Service, unlike the BLM, has a system of roads and trails that they have theoretically analyzed for environmental impacts. Over the years, however, many routes that are not on that system have sprung up on the ground. Montana activists have argued, since the first day we found out about the tri-state process (in 1998), that any ORV plan needs to close all non-system/unclassified routes until they are mapped and analyzed to determine if they should be open. The tri-state process would legitimize these routes, making it virtually impossible to close them. This is antithetical to the concept of forest planning and NEPA. For example, no one would argue that it was legal to build a mine on National Forest lands without permission, and then expect to continue operating that mine since it’s already there. Yet this is exactly the argument people make regarding user-created routes. “They’re already there, why can’t we drive on them?” Dale Bosworth decided that approach made sense. In fact, even before Bosworth was tapped to become Chief, the FS had said they considered the tri-state process to be a model for off-road vehicle planning nationwide. To bring that point home just a few weeks ago, five forests in Arizona announced they were starting a joint off-road vehicle planning process. What can we learn from Bosworth on off-road vehicles? That, similar to the roads policy, he has some good ideas that are mired in his propensity to maintain the status quo.

Conclusion Dale Bosworth led the development of a mostly good national transportation policy; whether he will have the political capital to ensure its implementation is another question. As road and off-road vehicle activists, Bosworth brings us certain opportunities but also presents challenges for improving forest management under the Bush Administration. Former FS Chief Mike Dombeck created important momentum towards conservation and restoration within the Forest Service. Bosworth seems partial to maintaining the status quo, so perhaps inertia would keep the Forest Service moving in the right direction. But he also seems wary of rocking the boat, and as such, will probably act as an amenable employee to George Bush. Though Bosworth may be the best Forest Service chief we can get under Bush, will that be remotely good enough to protect our national forests?

14

New Resources for Road-Rippers In March, the California Wilderness Coalition released a report, entitled “Off-Road to Ruin,” highlighting the effects of dirtbikes, snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles on the California landscape. Hundreds of thousands of these vehicles travel California’s backcountry each year. When irresponsibly used or improperly managed, they damage sensitive soils, degrade critical wildlife habitat, trespass onto private property and closed areas, and shatter the quiet of the great outdoors. The report contains a series of case studies that document an array of problems throughout California’s backcountry. “Off-Road to Ruin” also presents a fifteen-point plan for creating a more balanced and fair off-road vehicle policy in California. The recommendations in the plan include minimizing damage to California’s landscape, reducing conflicts between motorized recreationists and other public land users, and reducing illegal riding and trespass into wilderness areas. The plan includes suggestions for federal reform as well as state legislative and administrative reform. Among the suggestions are designating and mapping legal riding routes, monitoring the effects of off-road vehicles, protecting undesignated wilderness, creating uniform soil and habitat protection standards and increasing funding for conservation and law enforcement. For a copy of the report, please send $15 to: attn: Off-Road to Ruin California Wilderness Coalition 2655 Portage Bay East, Suite 5 Davis, CA 95616

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Membership and Order Information Printed Materials

On-Line Resources

Road-Ripper's Handbook ($20.00, $30 non-members) —A comprehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides listed below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gathering Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and more! Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($5, $8 non-members) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmental laws, road density standards & Forest Service road policies. Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($5, $8 non-members) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background on the National Park System and its use of roads, and outlines how activists can get involved in NPS planning. Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-members) —By Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in BLM decision-making processes. Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8 non-members) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reducing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an extensive bibliography. Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($5, $8 nonmembers) —By Scott Bagley. Provides technical information on road construction and removal, where and why roads fail, and how you can effectively assess road removal projects. Trails of Destruction ($10) —By Friends of the Earth and Wildlands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This report explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal funding for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.

Visit our Web Site: www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR. You’ll find educational materials, back issues of The Road-RIPorter (including all our bibliography, legal and field notes), and current action alerts. Also at the site, we’ve got a link to an ORV Information Site with an interactive map-based database on each National Forest’s ORV Policy. Now available on our site: Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Updated Jan. 2001) — Contains approx. 6,000 citations — including scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrological effects, and other information on the impacts of roads. Subscribe to our on-line list-serves. Check the boxes below on the member form and receive Skid Marks and/or our Activist Alert over E-Mail.

Refer a friend to Wildlands CPR! Send us the names and addresses of friends you think may be interested in receiving membership information from Wildlands CPR.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM I want to join (or renew my membership with) Wildlands CPR: $250 $30 standard

$100

$50 business

$15 low-income

Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications: Qty:

Title/Price Each:

Total:

/ Other

/ Type of Membership:

Individual

Organization

/ Name

Total of all items: Affiliation Address

Phone/E-mail Please send this form and your check to: Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter May/June 2001

Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item; for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item. International Membership — $30 Minimum . All prices in U.S. Dollars Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk. Check here to receive our new ORV and road E-mail newsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks. Check here for our E-mail Activist List. Please remember to include your e-mail address!

15

Visions...

The end of the road! Marnie Criley photo.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 And I thought I woke and my mother was standing there And my heart broke as the ribbons in her hair Turned into highways surrounded and swirled Like a crown come down around a not so perfect world

— Joan Baez, the dream song The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper.