Spring Equinox 2009. Volume 14 No.

The Plum Creek Chronicles

By Bethanie Walder and Dan Funsch

Inside…
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie
Walder. Page 2
The Plum Creek Chronicles, Pages 3-5
Get with the Program: Restoration and
Transportation Program Updates.
Pages 6-7
Odes to Roads: Undemocratic Din (part
two), by Ted Williams. Pages 8-9
DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder.
Pages 10-11
Wildlands CPR’s 2008 Annual Report.
Pages 12-14
Regional Reports & Updates. Page 15
Biblio Notes: ORV impacts on Sand
Dune and Beach Habitats, by Beth
Gibson. Pages 16-18
New Resources. Page 19
Citizen Spotlight on Tim Clarke, by
Laurel Hagen. Pages 20-21
Around the Office, Membership Info.
Pages 22-23

Visit us online:
Photos (clockwise from top left): the scenic Swan Valley (Wildlands CPR); wildlife on the road (Marcel Huijser);
a Swan subdivision (Wildlands CPR), and; one of Plum Creek’s square-mile clearcuts (Northwest Connections.)
wildlandscpr.org

— story begins on page 3 —

 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551

Restoring Watersheds Through Stimulus Funding www.wildlandscpr.org

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wildland

ecosystems by promoting watershed restoration
W e’ve been working round-the-clock since mid-November to promote the Forest Ser-
vice Legacy Roads program as a critical component of any final stimulus package.
Some days we thought we had a great chance at success, and other days seemed rather
through road removal, preventing new wildland
road construction, and stopping
off-road vehicle abuse.
grim. In the end, we landed somewhere in the middle.

What we proposed Director

Bethanie Walder
We developed a $500 million proposal to fund the Legacy Roads program for 2 years,
at $250 million per year. More than 100 groups and retired agency staff, from all over the Development Director
country, endorsed the proposal. We then submitted it to key Congressional offices in the Tom Petersen
House and Senate.
The original House bill included some report language that mentioned the Legacy Science Coordinator
Roads program by name as an example of a good program for stimulus dollars. Unfor- Adam Switalski
tunately, that language didn’t make it into the final House bill or the final conference bill.
However, after much education Congress did include the word “decommissioning” in the Legal and Agency Liaison
explicit list of how Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CIM) funds and Sarah Peters
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Construction funds could be spent. Congressional
staff are starting to understand that road decommissioning is a smart way to bring green Montana State ORV
jobs to rural communities. Coordinator
Adam Rissien
What Congress adopted
Utah State ORV
The final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President
Coordinator
Obama on February 17, included $650 million to the Forest Service for CIM, and $180 mil- Laurel Hagen
lion to the BLM for construction (in addition to other funds those agencies received). The
agencies were given 30 days to obligate the funds. The Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service and numerous other entities also received funds for restoration and maintenance/ Washington State
improvement. Representative
Sue Gunn
The Forest Service CIM money can be used for nearly any type of road maintenance,
in addition to other facilities maintenance and improvement, like fixing visitor centers. Program Associate
The Senate initially requested that the FS spend $380 million of the CIM funds on roads
Cathrine L. Walters
and trails; though that language didn’t make it into the final bill, it does provide an idea
of how they may allocate the funds. The bill’s purpose is to create jobs, but it also directs
that these funds be focused on improving natural resources. With no clear direction, the Restoration Research
agency could invest a lot of money maintaining or even upgrading roads that really aren’t Associate
needed anymore. Josh Hurd

What’s next Journal Editor

Dan Funsch
Wildlands CPR put together an urgent letter to the acting Under Secretary of Agricul-
ture and other Forest Service officials the day after the bill was signed, again endorsed by Interns & Volunteers
the groups who supported the initial proposal, requesting critical sideboards for spend- Greg Peters, Geoff Fast, Beth Gibson, Owen
ing the roads/trails money. We explicitly asked that they spend it on Legacy Roads type Weber, Stuart Smith
projects to provide green jobs in rural communities by decommissioning unneeded roads
and stormproofing needed roads. We also requested that they use a portion of the funds to Board of Directors
identify the minimum road system and prioritize roads for reclamation. Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish,
We know they’ll spend some of the money on good projects, but they’ll also spend William Geer, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd,
some on projects we won’t like. While we should fight those bad projects aggressively, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben
let’s work to highlight and promote the good ones, and give the agencies a pat on the back
where they deserve one. This can be a good second step for Legacy Roads, and if we can
help the agency create green jobs while restoring watersheds, we can continue to advance
our case for long-term, sustained funding for road decommissioning. © 2009 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

The Plum Creek Chronicles
By Bethanie Walder and Dan Funsch

Editor’s Note: some scenes have been slightly dramatized to fit your newsletter

Prologue: April 2008 Act One

The camera pans across a forest checkerboarded
with clearcuts, focusing in on a realtor’s SUV as it
winds along a dirt road between Plum Creek and
Forest Service lands in western Montana…
The news broke in Missoula, MT that Plum
Creek Timber Company had been engaged in
secret negotiations with the Department of Ag-
riculture regarding the terms of their many road
easements with the Forest Service. The ease-
ments were giving Plum Creek heartburn as they
contemplated subdividing and selling off up to
2 million acres (of their 8 million acres nation-
wide) for high value homesites in the expanding
wildland-urban interface.
The question on everyone’s mind: did the
easements allow access for residential develop-
ment, or for resource management (ie. timber
harvest) only? Some in the Forest Service and
many in local government supported the latter
interpretation - thus the secret negotiations. If
Plum Creek prevailed, significant ecological,
economic and social impacts were certain in the
communities where the company most wanted
to divest.
Over the next eight months a diversity of
public and private interests came together to
prevent Plum Creek’s interpretation, in a perfect
storm of protest. In addition to Plum Creek and
the Forest Service, a full cast of characters had
roles to play:
Featuring: Plum Creek, Mark Rey, and some top level Forest
Service officials
The camera pans across faces in a dimly lit, smoke-filled room. The drinks
are flowing, there’s laughter in the air, and a pile of paperwork on the table…
The parties agree to language clarifying that the easements across
national forest land do, in fact, allow Plum Creek to sell off prime “real es-
tate” for residential development. The Forest Service gets a guarantee that
they won’t be responsible for fire-fighting costs to protect the new homes.
Amidst backslapping and handshaking, the deal is agreed to, in theory.
Act Two
Featuring: the Missoula County Commissioners/attorneys,
Senator Tester, and conservation organizations
The camera reveals a collective jaw-dropping expression from the Missoula
County Commissioners as they catch wind (and some rancid cigar smoke) of
the negotiations…
The commissioners inform Senator Jon Tester, who orders Mark Rey
to fly to Missoula and meet with the commissioners. Rey comes to the
meeting but will not release any significant information about what he and
Plum Creek have been cooking up. News accounts of the meeting and se-
cret negotiations are negative, but the story gets little play outside of Mis-
soula. The county files a Freedom of Information Request with the Forest
Service, seeking more detail. Rey chuckles all the way home, while Senator
Tester makes a formal request for a GAO investigation.

• US Department of Agriculture
Undersecretary Mark Rey
• Montana Senators Jon Tester and
Max Baucus
• The Government Accountability Office
(GAO)
• Missoula County Commissioners and
County Attorneys
• Other County Commissioners in Montana
• Social investment firms
• Conservation organizations
• Conservation lawyers

— continued on page 3 —
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 3
 The Plum Creek Chronicles
— continued from page 3 —

Interlude
Featuring: Sen Max Baucus, conservation organizations, Plum
Creek
The camera’s frame is filled with a signature… that of Senator Max Baucus. It
zooms out to include the other players…

Following years of not-quite-so-secret negotiations, Senator Max Baucus in-

cludes funding in the 2008 Farm Bill that would allow The Nature Conservancy
and other land trusts to buy more than 300,000 acres of Plum Creek’s Montana
holdings. The proposal is critically needed to prevent wholesale development
of vital habitat. The timing, however, is not ideal in light of the revelations
about Plum Creek’s backroom dealings over road easements. An article in the
Washington Post covers both issues together. Baucus and conservationists
work hard to clarify that the land exchange/buyout is separate from the ease-
ment fiasco.

Montanans seem equally excited and alarmed about the proposal – which
has a $510 million price tag (only partly funded by the Farm Bill). Should it
happen, Plum Creek will be laughing all the way to the bank – after all, they
never paid for the land in the first place (they came to own it as a result of the
19th century railroad land grants). While the majority of Montanans seem to
want this land to be converted to public ownership, few can disguise their frus-
tration over the fact that Plum Creek will make millions from the deal.

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

Scene One:
Entire square mile sections of Plum Creek land
Meanwhile, back at the ranch… images of suits and ties, bifocals and head have been heavily logged (above - photo courtesy
scratching fill the screen… of Northwest Connections). Below, the Swan River
meanders through the valley, Wildlands CPR photo.
The county, Tester’s office and the GAO are completing their due diligence
to challenge the disastrous easement negotiations. Conservationists want
to engage, but decide to remain behind the scenes, as Missoula County and lium brings in Newground Social Invest-
the Senator are doing a good job making Plum Creek look bad in the media. ment in Seattle, which has engaged in
Nonetheless, conservationists work with their own lawyers to identify potential other dealings with Plum Creek, and the
challenges to any final renegotiation of the easements. Any litigation must wait two firms launch a shot across Plum
until the easements are finalized. There must be something else conservation- Creek’s bow. The mere mention of their
ists can do while they wait for the case to ripen… plan attracts more negative media at-
tention to Plum Creek. Plum Creek and
Scene Two: the shareholders trade letters back and
forth over several months, culminating
The camera cuts to a classic scene: conservation staffers at a happy hour party… in a final decision by the investment
scribbling on cocktail napkins… firms to file a formal shareholder resolu-
tion. Wildlands CPR provides the firms
Fortuitously, staff from Wildlands CPR and the Clark Fork Coalition end up with the bulk of the information needed
at a small party with representatives from Trillium Asset Management, a social to continue with these actions.
investment firm. They cook up a plan to launch a shareholder action against
Plum Creek to pressure the firm into withdrawing from the negotiations. Tril-

4 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

Act Four Epilogue
Featuring: Plum Creek, Missoula County, Forest Service, Senator The camera catches a glimmer of
sunlight in the forest; a fisherman casts
Tester, GAO a line to trout in a clear stream; an older
couple stroll quietly down a forest trail…
In dramatic fashion, the halls of Congress are backlit, and the cameras capture a press
conference… Everyone’s asking what happened,
and those interviewed are consistent
The GAO releases their preliminary findings, which clearly question the legality in their message: It was a full-court
of the proposed Plum Creek/USDA easement renegotiation. Tester continues to press. No matter where Plum Creek
press Mark Rey. The Forest Service releases the tiniest trickle of relatively use- turned they were resisted: Missoula
less information to Missoula County from their long-ago filed FOIA request. Plum County, federal legal analysis, public
Creek and the Forest Service hold a series of meetings in different counties. At the opinion, even some of their sharehold-
Missoula County meeting Plum Creek unveils a new strategy of subterfuge, stating ers. It’s likely that there was no one
that the county doesn’t have to sign the blanket renegotiation if they don’t want act, on its own, that led Plum Creek to
to. Instead, Plum Creek considers using the new easement language as a template back down. It took a lot of different
and applying it on a case-by-case basis. You can almost read their minds with this people, engaging in very different ways,
approach – they’ll just go where people aren’t paying attention and apply the rene- to surround Plum Creek and force them
gotiated easements without controversy. The media coverage continues to paint to drop their plans. External factors
Plum Creek in a very bad light, but it also continues to be mostly focused in the like a crashing real estate market and
local paper, The Missoulian. the shift to a new Presidential Adminis-
tration didn’t hurt either, though only
Act Five Plum Creek can say why they finally
pulled the plug.
Featuring: the entire cast The costs of losing this one would have
been astronomical from a conserva-
On-screen, a series of tightly-edited shots: a bustling newsroom; a bulldozer moving
tion perspective. But the battle isn’t
earth; men in suits shaking hands…
over and many of the ecological threats
still exist. Plum Creek’s withdrawal
On New Years’ morning The Missoulian includes yet another above-the-fold
just means that the status quo remains
story about the Plum Creek renegotiations. The headline is a brutal welcome to
intact. Plum Creek can continue selling
2009 and does not bode well for those who care about the environment: “Rey to
parcels of land for development and the
make decision on Plum Creek road access.” A few days later, on a Sunday, The
individual buyers can negotiate with
Washington Post runs a lengthy article about the easement issue, and Rey’s pending
the Forest Service on a case-by-case
decision. It is a follow up to their summer article that looked at both the easement
basis. Many renegotiated easements
renegotiation and the Baucus/Nature Conservancy/Plum Creek land deal. The ar-
are likely to fly under the radar and
ticle is good, but seems to be too little, too late, as Rey practically guarantees he’ll
never be challenged. It’s one more
sign the deal before leaving office.
example of the nature of conservation
battles, which often involve ephemeral
About face: The first real work day of the year (January 6) is half over when
wins and permanent losses. While this
Plum Creek drops a bomb to the Missoula County Commission, declaring that they
is an enormous victory, it may still be
are pulling out of the renegotiation deal. The county commissioners, activists and
ephemeral.
many others rejoice that this part of the fight with Plum Creek is over. The follow-
ing day The Missoulian has one more front page story proclaiming Plum Creek’s
That said, by preventing the whole-
withdrawal. The Washington Post also runs a follow-up.
sale renegotiation of these easements
to allow for development, the county,
the Senators’ offices, conservation
groups and other interested parties
have ensured that there is at least some
possibility for a vigorous review of
easements in each case.

In other words, stay tuned

for the sequel!

At left, another home for sale in the wildland-

urban interface. Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 5

Program Updates, Spring 2009
Thank You Marnie!

F or the past nine years, our restoration program has been led both fear-
lessly and creatively by Marnie Criley. In mid-2008 Marnie informed us
that she was ready to move on, and that she would be leaving Wildlands
CPR at the end of the year. Even though we had about six months to get
used to the idea, it’s still pretty strange not having her as an official part of
the Wildlands CPR team. As we continue to adjust, we thought we’d take
this opportunity to share with you, our members and readers, the amazing
story of what Marnie started with, what she built and where our program
is as a result of her work,

It was January 2000, we had just finished a major push to press the
Forest Service to change off-road vehicle management, and the roadless
rule was about to be finalized. Wildlands CPR had been involved at the
inception of the roadless campaign, and as it grew into a major DC-based
effort, we complemented the endeavor with a focus on place-based road
restoration. By the time the rule was adopted, people understood that
wildland roads can be quite damaging. We created a full-time position,
enabling us to aggressively expand our emphasis on watershed restoration
through road removal. Within a short time, Marnie directed Wild-
lands CPR toward research into the economics
Marnie was working as a restoration practitioner with her partner and socio-political aspects of watershed restora-
Mark, but she had a very strong policy background. She and Mark had tion through road removal. She became a key
attended several Wildlands CPR workshops, most of the time ending up as participant in the national effort to develop a
de-facto instructors to Forest Service participants. Marnie was clearly per- set of restoration principles, building alliances
fect for the job, and apparently she thought so, too, because she took it! with partners in the community-based forestry
movement. Marnie helped many understand
that restoration could result in win-win situa-
tions and move us away from tiresome jobs vs.
the environment arguments, and
she oversaw the development
of a formal economic analysis
of the jobs creation benefits of
road decommissioning. Today
it seems everyone is jumping on
the green jobs bandwagon, but
Marnie blazed a trail those many
years ago. We’ve expanded on
and promoted the results of that
first report (Investing in Com-
munities, Investing in the Land)
ever since, with Marnie becom-
ing a sought-after expert in
As a direct result of Marnie’s efforts, road decommissioning is much more common than in the past. developing high-skill, high-wage,
Here, before (above) and after photos of a restored road in Rye Creek, Bitterroot national Forest, Montana. green restoration jobs.
Photos by Byron Williams, US Forest Service.

6 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

 While the agency was beginning to engage
in watershed restoration through road decom-
missioning, there were a lot of false starts
around the country. So, Marnie developed
another project to identify what works and what
doesn’t in road decommissioning. The result
was an extremely valuable report including a
fantastic flow chart to help agency staff imple-
ment socio-politically acceptable road decom-
missioning programs on national forests. If they
could head off opposition, and even more impor-
tantly, build public support, then, theoretically,
the agency would be able to implement better
restoration programs. This report and several
others became known as our “road removal tool-
box.” Now we needed to get the toolbox into the
right hands . . .
Since our inception, Wildlands CPR had
implemented citizen workshops to teach people
how to document roads in the field, work with
the agency to change road management, etc.
And while we had invited agency staff to our
road decommissioning workshops, our focus
was still on the general public. Marnie took
our workshops in an entirely new direction,
identifying agency staff as a prime audience. In
1.5 years, more than 100 agency staff attended
workshops that Marnie coordinated, all focused
on the toolbox. Staff from Forest Service regions
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 all attended. Wildlands CPR has
since led trainings in both our restoration and
ORV programs for more than 300 agency staff.
Marnie brought a diverse array of talents to the
organization.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009
Marnie’s experience in the woods — and working with wood — helped Wildlands CPR
establish credibility in the restoration debate.
During all this time, Marnie was engaged in many state and national ef-
forts to combine labor and environmental advocacy – especially as a result
of the economics/jobs work she had been doing. In 2006, she got more
heavily involved in Montana restoration, after our board finally relaxed
their “don’t focus so much on Montana” rule. Marnie worked with the
Montana governor’s office and Wildlands CPR became an original cospon-
sor, along with the MT AFL-CIO, of the Governor’s Restoration Summit in
June 2006. More than 300 business, tribal, conservation, university and
government representatives participated in this meeting. Just this fall the
governor held a follow up meeting focused on building a restoration work-
force in Montana, and Marnie presented at that as well.
As an outcome of the governor’s 2006 summit, Marnie began coor-
dinating a group of summit participants from industry, labor, university,
timber, conservation and hunting communities to promote recommenda-
tions from the 2006 summit. We began calling this ad-hoc group Restore
Montana, and Marnie was the unofficial leader of the pack. We set an
agenda for the 2007 MT legislature, and when all was said and done, we
ended up with $34 million in new state funding for restoration, the creation
of a state office of watershed restoration, and a new messenger, Gover-
nor Schweitzer, on the importance of building a restoration economy in
Montana. During 2007, Marnie also took a leadership role with a group of
agency staff, timber, hunting and conservationists who were developing a
set of restoration principles for Montana.
This review includes just some of the big projects that Marnie has
been involved in, but throughout the past 9 years, she’s been helping Wild-
lands CPR grow into the diverse, respected organization that we are today.
When Marnie left Wildlands CPR at the end of 2008, she did so with one
primary goal in mind – to turn Restore Montana into an effective organiza-
tion promoting a restoration economy in the state of Montana. She’s got a
board of directors (which includes Wildlands CPR E.D. Bethanie Walder),
she’s in the process of raising money, and she’s got a vision for how to
move forward. Restore Montana is a coalition effort, and Wildlands CPR
will continue to be a big part of it. We hope this brief review of Marnie’s
impact on Wildlands CPR provides a small token of our thanks for all her
hard work with us. Marnie, we wish you all the luck in the world — we
hope you’re as successful at this next endeavor as you were with Wild-
lands CPR — we’ll miss you!
7
Undemocratic Din
By Ted Williams
Editor’s Note: This is the second part of this essay; we printed the first half in the last issue of
The RIPorter (13.4). The essay appeared in its entirety in Forest Magazine in summer 2008, but
was written in the late 1990s. The places of employment and/or titles of some of the characters
have since changed.
C arrying the ORV industry’s gas—
and venting it—is the BlueRibbon
Coalition, a group dedicated to keeping
public land accessible to ORV us-
ers. The coalition has acquired major
funding from Yamaha, Honda, Polaris,
Ski-doo and Horizon, and lists among its
members scores of motor-head clubs,
with names like the Missouri Mud-
ders, and a host of firms and cartels,
including the Western States Petroleum
Association, American Forest & Paper
Association, Boise Cascade, Idaho
Cattle Association, Committee for
Public Access to Public Lands, Idaho
Mining Association and Northwest Min-
ing Association. Cofounder and director
Clark Collins defines the roadless rule
proposed by the Clinton administration
and squashed by Bush as a plot by the
“GAGs” (green advocacy groups, which
he has also referred to as “hate groups”
and “nature Nazis”).
Motorcycle traffic eroded this fragile soil.
Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
“Basically, ORVs ran me out
of Michigan”
— Colonel George Buchner
8 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009
Also supporting and promoting the
BlueRibbon Coalition has been the Out-
door Channel, the first full-time cable
network with a programming focus on
hunting and fishing and which reaches
11 million homes across the nation. It
has included the coalition among its
website links to “conservation” organi-
zations and given it plenty of airtime to
tub-thump for motorization and priva-
tization of public land. Jake Hartwick,
the Outdoor Channel’s executive vice
president, says that “wise-use groups
are defending the very foundation of
our system” and that “environmental
groups are advocating the complete
abolition of private-property rights.”
But not all sportsmen are so easily
seduced, and when you strip away the
mirrors, gongs, water and dry ice, Col-
lins becomes a little man in a Wizard of
Oz suit. In the BlueRibbon Coalition’s
home state of Idaho, the Fish and Game
Department reports that at least 86 per-
cent of elk hunters find that encounters
with motorized vehicles detract from
their outdoor experience. Fewer than 5
percent of the members of the Montana
Wildlife Federation (composed basically
of hunters and anglers) own ORVs, and
the group has asked the Forest Service
to close all roads that don’t service full-
size vehicles.
 Jim Posewitz, director of Orion—
the Hunter’s Institute, a Montana-based
sportsmen’s group, says: “The presence
of ATVs on public hunting grounds will
probably be one of the largest con-
tributors to loss of hunting opportunity
that we’ve yet experienced. It puts the
animals at a disadvantage. It violates
the security that wildlife once had in
difficult terrain. The Forest Service and
BLM have decided to disenfranchise
the people who have followed the law
and empower those who have violated
it. Those of us who have participated in
nonmotorized use have no way to stake
a comparable claim.”
The BlueRibbon Coalition blames
the unpopularity of ORVs on the be-
havior of “bad apples,” and maybe it’s
right. But because the new machines
can go where there is no enforcement,
bad apples proliferate. Evaluating the
“600cc mountain line” snowmobiles
for SnoWest Magazine, Steve Janes of
the SnoWest test crew filed this report:
“In the four days of riding in Quebec,
we estimate that we violated around
652 laws or regulations. But since our
crew’s motto was ‘If you can’t break
parts, break laws,’ we acted naive and
‘wandered’ off the groomed trails in
search of test areas.”
The 500 combat missions flown by
Colonel George Buchner over Vietnam
didn’t prepare him for ORV combat in
Michigan, where the machines have
done an estimated $1 billion worth of
Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009
damage, tearing up ground cover so
badly that utility poles were falling over.
Where Lake Huron collects the Au Sable
River system, Buchner found trespass-
ing ATV operators popping wheelies
in his private trout stream. When he
demanded their names, one rider
dismounted and attacked him, breaking
his nose. When he fenced his posted
stream and property, ORV operators cut
the wire and pulled the stakes. When he
reinforced the stakes with cement, they
knocked them down. When he and the
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
successfully pushed for a state ORV
policy of “closed unless posted open,”
he received death threats and had
his streetlights shot out, his mailbox
smashed, his driveway seeded with bro-
ken glass, the eight-strand fence on his
Christmas tree farm cut in eighty-eight
places, and his wife run over.
“Robin was screaming,” he says,
“and the guy calmly cranked up his
machine and finished running over her.
A few bad apples? Or an integral part of off-
He’d come through multiple barriers, road culture? Photo courtesy of BLM.
multiple posted signs, three fences and
a gate. She had a hematoma extending
the length of her leg.”
“Basically, ORVs ran me out of
Michigan,” Buchner told me from his
where motorized vehicles don’t belong.
Arizona home.
Their noise is undemocratic—like
second-hand smoke. They need to be
But in the end the problem comes
removed from our wildest and best pub-
down not so much to the nature of ORV
lic land—not because regulations can’t
users as to the nature of their vehicles.
control them (although they can’t),
ORVs are designed to go “off road,”
not because most people hate them
(although they do), but because they
intrude and usurp. Snowmobile din now
penetrates five miles into the backcoun-
try of our first national park. Winter
visitors are having trouble hearing the
geysers, and elk and bison are being
driven from the forage of open mead-
ows and the shallow snow of thermal
areas, which they desperately require.
In order for ORV operators to do their
thing, everyone else, including wildlife,
must cease doing theirs—at least in
part.
Some people can’t enjoy our public
lands without ORVs. But when there’s
no escape from them, the rest of us
can’t enjoy our public lands either.
— Ted Williams is a freelance writer
specializing in conservation and the
environment. He is editor-at-large of
Audubon and conservation editor of Fly
Rod & Reel.
9
Can the Forest Service “Rightsize” the National
Forest Road System?
By Bethanie Walder
Road Access Strategies (Most likely scenario - 2% Loss in Purchasing Power)

I n the midst of this economic downturn, the term

“rightsizing” is often considered a euphemism for
layoffs and downsizing. Reflecting on all the layoffs as a
100%

90% 89,600 89,600 294,630

result of our current recession, I got to thinking about
80%
much needed reductions in the bloated Forest Service
road system as an opportunity for “rightsizing.” 70% Closed
Miles
In recent conversations, meetings, and some 60%
High
publications, the Forest Service has hinted at the 50%
220,180 278,390 Clearance
possibility of rightsizing the road system as well. Miles
But as I reflect on the past eight years and review 40%
Passenger
more recent documents and conversations, I’m Car Miles
30%
increasingly concerned that their idea of rightsizing
is fatally flawed. 20%
64,561
10% 69,910

An Opportunity Missed 0%
11,700 20,499

Existing Condition Maintain Open Road Access Reduce Access Proportionately

The Forest Service (FS) was given an optimal Graphics here & below adapted from T. Moore 2007, unpublished draft report.
tool for rightsizing their road system in 2001, when
the outgoing Clinton administration (after years
of study) adopted the long-term transportation policy. It called for the agency
to determine a “minimum road system” necessary to meet the needs of forest
Playing With Words
users and resource managers. And while it offered great potential, the rule was
In October 2007 Undersecretary of
eclipsed by its contemporary, the roadless rule.
Agriculture Mark Rey provided a written
response to several Senators who had
Unfortunately, in applying the roads policy, the FS Washington office decid-
inquired about Forest Service road manage-
ed to limit analysis of its road system to only those roads suitable for passenger
ment. He explained that the agency would
vehicles; the agency turned a blind eye to roads that were closed or roads open
reduce roads open to the public because of
to high clearance vehicles. As a result, most forests decided they needed all of
funding constraints: “We will make forest-
their “roads.”
by-forest annual road maintenance deci-
sions in a manner that reduces availability
Years passed, funding for road decommissioning ebbed and flowed, and
of roads to public traffic and also reduces
only a handful of forests (or districts) took the time to analyze and identify a
the standards of the roads that are made
minimum road system. Outside of those few forests it became clear that there
so available, to miles of road and levels of
was little motivation to begin systematically dismantling the world’s largest
road service that are sustainable at current
road system. Meanwhile, the road maintenance backlog grew exponentially, and
budget levels.”
many passenger vehicle roads crossed over maintenance “tipping points” and
were reclassified as high clearance roads.
At around the same time, the agency
was completing some national road assess-
Good ments, apparently for the Office of Manage-
High
Investment Need

ment and Budget and for the Office of the

Road Condition

Inspector General. One of their draft re-

ports, “Rightsizing the Forest Service Road
Fair Medium System,” made it into the final Environmen-
tal Impact Statement on Idaho roadless
areas in 2008. Apparently a final copy was
never released (at least not one that we
Poor Low can access), but the charts and information
Time contained in the report are rather alarming.

10 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009


Plugged culverts are just one symptom of an ailing road
system. Photo courtesy of BLM.
The report’s bottom line: The FS road
system is too big, the bulk of the maintenance
backlog is on passenger vehicle roads, and by
downgrading these to lower capacity roads,
the agency can reduce the backlog. The report
assumes the road system will stay the same size
over time; it does not recommend decommis-
sioning any roads. This is particularly hard to
understand, since the agency is engaging in road
decommissioning, albeit at a small level, all over
the U.S. Instead, to work within their budget
they recommend closing up to 80% of the roads
now open to passenger vehicles. Taken from
the report, these charts (see figure at left) show
funding scenarios and how those might play out
on the ground.
Road Size: Right or Wrong?
The Forest Service doesn’t really seem to have a plan for rightsizing
their road system. Instead they appear focused on keeping the system the
same size, but reclassifying some roads to reduce maintenance require-
ments and hence, theoretically saving money. Though this might be a
reasonable solution on paper, it could be disastrous ecologically. Here’s a
sample of the potential fallout:
• Increased erosion and sedimentation
• Increased likelihood of blocked fish passage from unmaintained or
under-maintained culverts
• Increased risk of mass wasting related to catastrophic culvert failures
or other road blowouts
• No reductions in habitat fragmentation
• Increased spread of weeds and other invasive species
• Increased threat of off-road vehicle trespass from ML 2 roads
Rightsizing the road system by removing roads on-the-ground, as well
as on paper, will provide real and lasting benefits to wildlife, water resourc-
es, American taxpayers and local workers. Eight years ago, when the FS
adopted that long-term transportation policy, the agency determined that
a minimum road system would have 25-40% fewer roads than the current
system. But somewhere along the line the agency forgot all about that, and
many line officers decided they just had to keep every single existing road
in their system. So here we are, nearly a decade later, with a growing bud-
get deficit and a growing ecological crisis. The agency’s draft proposal for
“rightsizing” might solve the immediate budget problem, but it will result
in even greater long-term costs from the road failures and ecological dam-
age that will be inevitable as maintenance is ignored. Perhaps that’s why
the draft Rightsizing the Road System report never made it into final form?

How can the agency refer to this as “rightsiz- Loss in Passenger Car Access
ing” the road system? Just for argument’s sake, 100,000
let’s pretend that the FS was rightsizing like an
93,600
auto manufacturer might. The workforce could Graphic
represent different types of roads as defined by adapted
90,000
85,022 from
Maintenance Level (ML): managers represent-
Miles

85,000 82,163 81,871

T. Moore
ing roads open to the public (ML 3-5); factory 2007,
80,000 79,763
workers representing high-clearance vehicle (ML unpublished
2) roads; and janitorial staff representing closed draft report.
76,000 75,000
(ML 1) roads. If the company did as the FS is 70,000 74,000
doing, they wouldn’t lay anyone off, but would 69,910
instead downgrade them to jobs with fewer ben-
efits. They might cut management positions by 60,000
80% and move these managers into the factory
1991

1997
1998

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

and janitorial staff. While this might cut their

overall costs, it probably wouldn’t help them
be successful, in fact, it would probably do the
opposite.
In 2006, according to the FS’s annual Road
Accomplishment Reports, they were only able
to maintain 36% of their roads to standard. If
they reclassify 50,000 miles of passenger vehicle
roads to high clearance roads, they could then
claim, without any increase in funding, that they
are maintaining the bulk of their roads to stan-
dard. But they won’t have changed anything on
the ground, nor secured any new funding. The
road system is an ecological nightmare that gets
worse every day as maintenance is delayed again
and again because of a lack of funding.
With hefty stimulus funding barreling their way, the Forest Service has
an opportunity to invest wisely in three key benefits (ecological improve-
ment, green-job creation, and long-term future taxpayer savings). Or, they
may choose to spend these funds to upgrade roads that are no longer
needed, creating jobs now but increasing long-term ecological and fiscal
costs. We’re pressing hard for the agency to stop shuffling papers and
hiding the maintenance problem, and to get busy truly rightsizing our road
system.
Citation
Moore, T. 2007. [unpublished draft]. National Forest System Road Trends,
Trends Analysis Submitted to Office of Management and Budget.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engineering
Staff,Washington Office, Washington, DC.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 11

 Wildlands CPR 2008 Annual Report
In 2008 Wildlands CPR led national conservation
efforts to secure increased funding for watershed
restoration on public lands. We also continued to
play a strong leadership role in the campaign to stop
off-road vehicle abuse on national forests. For fifteen
years now, Wildlands CPR has identified strategic
solutions to intractable conservation, transportation,
and restoration problems on public lands. 2008 was no
exception, with real on-the-ground success in both our
transportation and restoration programs.

Tangible results of Wildlands CPR’s mission: a road is removed.

Photo by Adam Switalski.

Watershed Restoration Restoration Program Accomplishments

Our restoration program had two
emphases in 2008 – engaging in pilot
projects to build a restoration economy
in the state of Montana and securing
national funds for watershed restora-
tion on public lands. We spent the early
part of the year working with the Forest
Service to ensure they spent their ~$40
million in Legacy Roads and Trails Reme-
diation Initiative money (Legacy Roads)
effectively and appropriately. Concur-
rently, we worked to ensure the Legacy
Roads program was funded in FY 2009
and beyond.
Here in the region, Restoration Pro-
gram Coordinator Marnie Criley contin-
ued her leadership role in on-the-ground
activities with the Montana Forest Resto-
ration Committee and Restore Montana.
At the national level, Wildlands CPR’s
Washington Field Rep Sue Gunn acted
as the Campaign Coordinator for the
Washington Watershed Restoration
Initiative (WWRI) and related national
efforts. In addition, our Restoration
Research Associate, Josh Hurd, began a
year-long project to identify the regula-
tory and policy changes needed to build
a sustained, robust restoration sector of
the economy.
• Expanded program with two new staff: Sue Gunn at ½ time and Josh Hurd at ¾
time.
• Provided support and oversight to the Forest Service for implementing the $39.4
million Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRRI), including:
• Presented the Washington Office of the Forest Service with a national report
of road decommissioning needs and recommendations on how to spend LRRI
funds.
• Reviewed the distribution of LRRI funds and challenged projects that didn’t
meet Congressional intent; several inappropriate projects were pulled and
replaced.
• Promoted LRRI to regional and national media, with numerous newspaper and
television reports that focused on LRRI implementation and green-jobs.
• Developed a multi-faceted approach to advocate for LRRI funding from multiple
sources:
• Worked with congress on “dear colleague” letters in the house and senate sup-
porting LRRI funding and green jobs.
• Implemented a strategy for stimulus funding for LRRI that was incorporated by
national environmental and sporting organizations and other diverse partners.
(More than 100 groups and individuals directly endorsed our proposal.)
• Secured language in the stimulus bill that ensures the Forest Service can
spend a portion of their funds on road decommissioning (finalized in 2009).
• Promoted on-the-ground restoration in Montana through leadership of the Mon-
tana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) and Restore Montana.
• Completed our fourth year of citizen monitoring of road removal on the Clearwater
National Forest – began final assessment of multi-year data with statistically signifi-
cant information about wildlife use of roads.
• Developed a set of watershed restoration/road removal resources for tribes and
posted this information on a new section of our website.
• Co-sponsored two critical restoration/stewardship summits.
• Recruited speakers and participants for the Pacific Rivers Council/WWRI wa-
tershed restoration symposium in Tacoma, WA in April
• Participated in the steering committee for Sustainable Northwest’s Western
Stewardship Summit in Bend, OR in September. Presented at or chaired numer-
ous panel discussions.

12 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

ORVs
Wildlands CPR is heavily engaged in the Forest Service’s
national travel planning process. Our ORV state coordina-
tors in MT and UT (Adam Rissien and Laurel Hagen) worked
tirelessly to influence travel planning on their priority forests.
They also established many new partners and expanded public
support for stopping off-road vehicle abuse. Our Legal Liaison,
Sarah Peters, assisted activists throughout the nation in legal
efforts surrounding travel planning and road management.
And our Staff Scientist Adam Switalski partnered with the Wild
Utah Project to publish a report on Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for off-road vehicle use on forested ecosystems. The
BMPs, along with our earlier report on effective enforcement
strategies, are another example of Wildlands CPR’s focus on
providing real-world solutions to difficult land management
problems.
Adam Switalski prepares a group of students to assist with Wildlands
CPR’s monitoring effort.

Off-Road Vehicle Program Accomplishments

• Published and distributed ~1000 copies of BMPs for Off-Road Vehicles in Forested
Ecosystems, in conjunction with Six Strategies for Success: Effective off-road
vehicle management on public lands, to Forest Service, Park Service and Bureau of
Land Management staff. Several thousand additional copies of both reports have
also been downloaded from our website.
• Distributed nearly 5000 copies of the coffee-table book Thrillcraft.
• Helped with two congressional oversight hearings on off-road vehicle management.
Identified witnesses and key questions. Our enforcement report was highlighted in
the hearings as a critical resource for land managers.
• Provided extensive support to the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition and Montanans
for Quiet Recreation.
• Coordinated meetings with rural Utahns and the governor
of Utah regarding challenges with motorized recreation and
promotion of non-motorized recreation. This resulted in fa-
vorable press in the Salt Lake Tribune, including a statement
by the Governor that the effects of off-road use in southern
UT are “abominable.”
• Provided leadership and strategic support to numerous
organizations in Montana working to develop enforcement
legislation for the 2009 legislative session.
• Participated in a three-day field meeting with top level Forest
Service staff and a variety of motorized and non-motorized
recreationists. Coordinated conservation comments to the
interim final trail classification guidelines.
• Partnered with The Wilderness Society’s Recreation Planning
Program to provide leadership to activists throughout the
west on national forest travel planning.
• Settled a lawsuit with the National Park Service over off-
road vehicle management in National Parks. The settlement
identified pilot parks where new reporting methods will be
tested, and it guaranteed that parks that have not undertaken Technological improvements have changed the nature of off-road
planning for off-road vehicles (where such use is allowed), will transportation, making Wildlands CPR’s work all the more important in
complete the needed planning. protecting natural resources. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

— Annual Report continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 13

 Wildlands CPR 2008 Annual Report
— continued from previous page —

Additional Accomplishments Organizational Development

• Took a behind the scenes leadership role in challenging Plum Creek Tim-
ber Company’s efforts to develop a new road easement agreement with
the Forest Service nationally – which would have facilitated Plum Creek’s
sale of lands in the wildland urban interface.
• Worked with several organizations to prepare for possible litigation
against any final agreement.
• Partnered with Clark Fork Coalition (MT), Newground Social Investing
(WA), and Trillium Asset Management (MA/ID) to develop a share-
holder’s action requesting that Plum Creek cease the negotiations.
On January 5, 2009, Plum Creek pulled out.
• Upgraded our website and electronic communications tools, including
significant expansion of our electronic newsletter, The Dirt.
• Published a leather-bound collector’s edition of our book (and accompa-
nying woodcut engravings), A Road Runs Through It, which was signed by
all 26 of the living authors.
Wildlands CPR continues to be supported by
foundations and individuals. We’d like to thank
the following for their support for our work in
2008: Bullitt, Cinnabar, Firedoll, Harder, Horizons,
Maki, National Forest, New-Land, NW Fund for the
Environment, Page, and 444 S Foundations. In ad-
dition, we extend a huge thank you to all those in-
dividuals who provided us with financial support
to complete our projects. Our successes are your
successes, and they always will be. Thank you!

2008 Financial Report

2008 Income: $ 547,218.23
2008 Expenses: $ 571,093.42

Income In-Kind Donations

& Services $ 21,161.42

Contract Income

Expenses
Contributions & $16,500
Other
Membership
$15,238 Grants
$63,960
$451,521
Org. Development
$48,726 Admin. & Fundraising
$49,473

Note: The figures used in this report have yet

to be audited, so they are subject to change.
Transportation Restoration
$268,273 $204,621

14 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

9th Circuit Win for Grizzlies
Swan View Coalition, Friends of the Wild Swan, and
Wildlands CPR won a victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Ap-
peals against the Flathead National Forest in a dispute over
road management. The Flathead’s Resource Management Plan
(RMP) requires it to maintain areas for grizzly bears where
motorized travel is restricted. In these areas, when the needs
of grizzly conflict with other management options, the RMP
states that the grizzly should win.
However, in its implementation of a post-fire salvage plan,
the Flathead NF left several roads open to motorized use with-
out evaluating the resulting conflict with the requirements es-
tablished in their management plan. On January 9, 2009, the
9th Circuit over-ruled a previous decision made by District
Judge Malloy and told the Flathead to go back and re-analyze
that decision, with the needs of grizzly in the forefront.
FS Trail Classification Update
In mid-December, Wildlands CPR and several other
groups provided comments on interim final directives the
Forest Service issued in October to address how recreational
trails are managed. These directives, while positive overall,
also had a few zingers buried in their depths. We’re still wait-
ing to see whether the FS listens to any of our suggestions to
apply common sense to this guidance.
These directives provide no direction for how trail
maintenance and upgrade projects are to comply with NEPA
and public involvement, leading to a very real concern that
trails will be upgraded, either to a higher standard trail for the
same use or from a nonmotorized to a motorized trail, with-
out environmental analysis and without public involvement.
Another worrisome change included a definition for a
Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV), which further conflates the
non-existent difference between the FS definition for a road
and a trail. UTV is a term created by the ORV industry to
indicate vehicles where passenger and driver ride side by
side and that has a steering wheel like a regular automobile.
These vehicles were already covered under the FS definition
for “four wheel drive vehicle” and as such there was no need
for a new definition. Adding this definition advances the FS
further down a slippery slope of trying to accommodate each
new addition to the ORV arsenal.
Wildlands CPR will be closely watching for the final ver-
sion of these directives to determine if the Forest Service has
fixed these, and other problems, and we’ll let you know what
we find out.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009
Court Blocks Alaska Road
The Federal District Court of Alaska ruled in February
that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) failed to
consider a full range of alternatives when considering the
Juneau Road and Ferry Project. For the project to move
forward, Judge Sedwick specifically required that the Alaska
Department of Transportation (DOT) and FHWA consider an
alternative to improve ferry service using existing ferries and
terminals. The 50 mile, $374 million road was planned to link
Alaska’s capital with the interior.
The court ruling states: “The [Final Environmental Impact
Statement’s] omission of such an alternative is particularly
troublesome in light of the agencies’ awareness that such an
alternative was the ‘first obvious alternative‚’ and had the
fewest environmental impacts, and the fact that the communi-
ties who stand to benefit the most from the Project explicitly
requested the agencies to focus on improving ferry transpor-
tation within Lynn Canal.”
This means that road construction through Berners Bay
will not commence this summer, nor any time soon. Governor
Palin and the State now have three choices: (a) appeal the
court’s decision; (b) revise the EIS according to the district
court’s instructions, or; (c) scrap the project altogether. Gov.
Palin seemed ambivalent about the proposed road, and now
must decide to either throw more good money after bad or to
scrap the road and put the state’s money to better use.
Visit www.seacc.org/issues/transportation for the full
decision.
The planned road would have crossed dozens of active avalanche
shutes. Photo courtesy of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council.
15
 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 15,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. 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.

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts on Sand Dune

and Sandy Beach Habitats
By Beth Gibson

Introduction
Sand dunes and sandy beaches contend with surf spray,
storms, wind, and other extreme conditions. These coastal
areas also face unique challenges related to population
growth, climate change, and urban development and sprawl
– more than half the U.S. population lives in coastal areas.
And while these habitats and the flora and fauna that inhabit
them are robust, they are also vulnerable to the impacts of
human recreation and development. In fact, the coastal zone
is home to more than one third of U.S. federally listed species.
In this paper, I review the negative impacts on sand dunes
and sandy beach habitats from off-road vehicles (ORVs)
including cars, trucks, and other vehicles driven off the main
road.

Vegetation Dune vegetation can be extremely sensitive to physical disturbance.

Godfrey and Godfrey (1981) found ORV traffic to have
substantial negative impacts on dune plant species. They
subjected three plant communities to 50 vehicle passes. Not
only were plants trampled and damaged by the traffic, but
they were also slow in recolonizing ORV tracks after traf-
fic had ceased. Some quickly growing plants, such as those
that specialize in colonizing new areas, were able to recover
relatively rapidly. Other slow growing plants and those that
reproduce by seed did not recover as quickly. For example,
lichen cover was found to be extremely fragile.
ORVs also churn up and dry out the organic drift lines
(the high point of material deposited by waves). Plant seeds
deposited at these organic drift lines often develop into
mature plants over time, but Godfrey and Godfrey (1981)
found that ORV traffic trampled seedlings and made the soil
unsuitable for growth, thereby retarding the natural cycle of
plant colonization and the formation of foredunes (a ridge
of irregular sand dunes partially covered with vegetation).
Rickard et al. (1994) examined the impact of ORVs on vegeta-
tion growth by comparing two dune sites in South Africa: a
pioneer vegetation zone and a climax shrubland. Both sites
were damaged by ORV traffic, but the pioneer vegetation was
able to rapidly recolonize while climax shrubland was much
slower in its regrowth. An important consideration for these
areas is once vegetation has been killed by ORV traffic the
bare tracks are also vulnerable to wind erosion.
Photo by Bethanie Walder.
Physical Impacts
Schlacher and Thompson (2008) found beach traffic
caused widespread and significant physical disturbance
to sandy beaches: large areas of the beach were rutted by
vehicle tracks, ORVs compacted and displaced significant
volumes of sand down shore, and in general, traffic disturbed
the drift line, foredunes, and backshore (area of shore lying
between the average high-tide mark and the vegetation).
Anders and Leatherman (1987) examined ORV impacts
on the coastal foredunes of Fire Island in New York. Here
beach grass assists in promoting sand accumulation; this
accumulation creates a broad foredune that helps dissipate
storm wave energy. In ORV impacted areas the beach grass
was eliminated, thereby inhibiting sand accumulation. The
end result was a steeper foredune profile that did not dis-
sipate wave energy as effectively as the natural dune face,
creating a greater potential for beach erosion (Anders and
Leatherman, 1987).

16 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

 Fauna
Birds
Dune and beach dwelling birds tend to nest in or around
the dunes above the high water mark. Since most beach
traffic is concentrated at or below the high water mark, nests
may be relatively safe from vehicle disturbance. However,
once chicks hatch, they move from their nests to the inter-
tidal zone where they feed and roost. This puts them directly
in the path of ORV traffic. Both Watson et al. (1996) and
Melvin et al. (1994) found the feeding and roosting behavior
of various bird species [whitefronted plovers (Charadrius
marginatus), damara terns (Sterna balaenarum), African black
oystercatchers (Haematopus moquini), and piping plovers
(Charadrius melodus)] to coincide with the main ORV driv-
ing areas. Specifically, Melvin et al. (1994) found that ORV
use, even at very low levels (5-10 vehicle passes per day), is
enough to threaten unfledged piping plover chicks and adults
during brood rearing periods.
Turtles
ORV traffic negatively impacted Loggerhead turtle
(Caretta caretta) hatchlings (Hosier et al. 1981). ORV ruts
created difficult terrain for turtle hatchlings to negotiate on
their journey from nest to sea. On flat, water-smoothed beach
surfaces turtles could orient themselves toward the surf
phototactically (using light intensity in order to determine
the way to the water), but on a bumpy terrain turtles found
their way toward the water less directly. This time-consum-
ing, indirect route left turtles more exposed to the elements
and vulnerable to predators.
Invertebrates and other beach dwelling
organisms
Invertebrates make up a large part of the fauna popula-
tion of sandy beaches (Schlacher et al. 2008a). In monitoring
the overlap between invertebrate habitat zones and areas of
ORV traffic, Schlacher and Thompson (2007) found the major-
ity of the invertebrates they sampled (65%) lived in areas of
vehicle traffic. Ghost crabs (Ocypode cordimana) construct
and live in beach burrows during the day and are mostly ac-
tive at night. Schlacher et al. (2007b) conducted a number of
experiments to evaluate ORV impacts on crab populations.
When crabs left their burrows at night there was a high mor-
tality rate due to night ORV driving. They found beaches with
fewer ORVs had higher crab populations. In addition, crabs
buried farther below the sand were more protected from
crushing than those shallowly buried.
Finally, the surf clam (Donax deltoids) was also adversely
affected by ORV traffic on beaches in Australia. As the num-
ber of vehicle passes increased, so too did the number of
clams killed (Schlacher et al. 2008).
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009
Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
Management Recommendations
Any management strategy considered or implemented
must take into account myriad factors from environmental
to recreational to economic. From a conservation perspec-
tive all ORV traffic should be eliminated from sand dunes and
sandy beach ecosystems. In the event this is not feasible,
other options are available that can mitigate ORV impacts.
Mitigation strategies include: seasonal closures during bird
breading periods; only allowing riding on designated routes;
limiting driving during times of high water; and prohibiting
night beach driving especially on beaches where there is
night activity among fauna. There should also be manda-
tory vehicle registration and educational programs. And in
areas with damage, sand dunes should be rehabilitated and
stabilized.
A study by Celliers et al. (2004) outlined an integrated
coastal management system to determine which coastal
areas were suitable for ORV use. Their management strat-
egy concentrated ORV use in small pockets, leaving other
areas of the coast free from harmful impacts. Celliers et al.
(2004) developed seven attributes that determine if areas are
too vulnerable to allow ORV use. This system gives manag-
ers baseline criteria that unequivocally protect areas from
ORV use. Though this system was applied to a specific area
of South Africa, it can be modified and used as a model for
coastal land managers in other parts of the globe.
Conclusion
Off-road vehicle use on sandy beach and sand dune
habitats exists within economic, environmental, and social
contexts. Off-road vehicle recreation has economic and
social benefits and drawbacks. It also negatively impacts the
flora, fauna, and physical landscape of these areas. It is es-
sential that integrated, thoughtful, and site-specific manage-
ment programs be implemented to mitigate and prevent ORV
impacts to sand dune and sandy beach ecosystems.
— Beth Gibson is a graduate student in Environmental Studies
program at the University of Montana.
— references on next page —
17
 — continued from previous page —

References
Anders, F. & S. Leatherman. 1987. Effects of off-road vehicles
on coastal foredunes at Fire Island, New York, USA.
Environmental Management 11(1): 45-52.

Celliers, L., T. Moffett, N.C. James, & B.Q. Mann. 2004. A

strategic assessment of recreational use areas for
off-road vehicles in the coastal zone of KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management 47: 123-
140.

Godfrey, P. & M. Godfrey. 1980. Ecological effects of off-road

vehicles on Cape Cod. Oceanus 23: 56-67.

Hosier, P., M. Kochhar, & V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle

and pedestrian track effects on the sea-approach
of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental
Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
Conservation 8(2):158-161.

Melvin, S., A. Hecht, & C. Griffin. 1994. Piping plover

mortalities caused by off-road vehicles on Atlantic coast
beaches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(3): 409-414.
Rickard, C.A., A. McLachlan, & G.I.H. Kerley. 1994. The effects
of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on dune vegetation
in South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management 23: 225-
247.
Schlacher, T., J. Dugan, D. Schoeman, M. Lastra, A. Jones, F.
Scapini, A. McLachlan, & O. Defeo. 2007a. Sandy beaches
at the brink. Diversity and Distributions 13: 556-560.
Schlacher, T., L. Thompson, & S. Price. 2007b. Vehicles versus
conservation of invertebrates on sandy beaches:
quantifying direct mortalities inflicted by off-road
vehicles on ghost crabs. Marine Ecology 28: 354-367.

Schlacher, T. & L. Thompson. 2007. Exposure of fauna to

off-road vehicle traffic on sandy beaches. Coastal
Management 35: 567-583.

Schlacher, T. & L. Thompson. 2008. Physical impacts

caused by off-road vehicles to sandy beaches: Spatial
quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier
island. Journal of Coastal Research 24: 234-242.

Schlacher, T., L. Thompson, & S. Walker. 2008. Mortalities

caused by off-road vehicles (ORVs) to a key member
of the sandy beach assemblages, the surf clam Donax
deltoides. Hydrobiologia 610: 345-350.

Watson, J. J., G. I. H. Kerley, & A. McLachlan. 1996. Human

activity and potential impacts on dune breeding birds in
the Alexandria coastal dunefield. Landscape and Urban
Planning 34: 315-322.

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

18 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

New Report Available on New Mexico ORVs

A partnership of state agencies has released The Senate

Joint Memorial 40 Report on off-road vehicle recreation
in New Mexico. The report acknowledges a need for the state
to “move toward better management of off-road vehicle recre-
ation.” It also recognizes that the Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management lack the resources and authority to man-
age off-road vehicle recreation for the entire state.

A few of the topics addressed in the report:

• User conflicts. The report notes that user conflicts tend
to be “one-sided, with motorized recreationists being less ad-
versely affected and other public land users more adversely
affected.” It also notes that user conflicts can “impact ranch-
ing as a traditional way of life as well as an economic aspect
of New Mexico, and affect riparian areas, rangeland, and other
natural resources.”

• Enforcement. The report acknowledges that roughly
half of ATV and motorcycle riders prefer to ride off of desig-
nated routes, and that simply designating specific routes for
off-road vehicles is not successful without adequate enforce-
ment.
As noted in the report, enforcement of road closures is often
problematic. Here, a closure sign prooves to be an ineffective barrier
to off roaders.Wildlands CPR file photo.

• Natural Resource Issues. The report discusses the im-

pacts from ORV recreation on soils, vegetation, wildlife, habi-
tat, riparian areas and hydrologic flows. It notes that “Proper-
ly sited and engineered trails reduce impacts and require little
maintenance but such trails are almost non-existent.”

• Safety. The report reviews the dangers of off-road

vehicle recreation, especially for children, and concludes
“ATV riding is the most dangerous sport for children – 62%
more dangerous than football and 110% more dangerous than
snowboarding.”

Among the report’s recommendations: a safety and re-

sponsibility media blitz; working with responsible ORV users
to help solve problems; coordinating statewide enforcement;
and managing off-road vehicle education and training.

The report was authored by New Mexico’s Energy, Miner-

als and Natural Resources Department and the Department of
Game and Fish in partnership with the Department of Agri-
culture, The Range Improvement Task Force, and the Tourism
Department.
Trail widening due to off road vehicle use on the Gash Creek trail,
Bitterroot NF, Montana. Photo by Adam Switalski. For a copy, please visit: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/
main/sjm40/SJM40report-01-07-09.pdf

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 19


Spotlight on Tim Clarke & the Boulder Community
Alliance
By Laurel Hagen
I first heard about Tim Clarke and the Boulder
Community Alliance (BCA) through South-
ern Utah’s excellent rumor mill. “The Boulder
Town Council did WHAT?” I shrieked. This first
response only got more enthusiastic as I sorted
out truth from rumor.
Some background: the tiny town of Boul-
der, Utah perches on the edge of Utah’s fabled
Escalante desert, occupying the green space
where the aspens and rushing creeks of Boulder
Mountain meet an ocean of bare sandstone. The
story I’ve always heard (so I’ll assume it’s true)
is that Boulder was the last town in the lower 48
to have electricity, and got its mail by mule until
the 1950s because there was no road. The Boul-
der Mail Trail, now a favorite for backpackers,
dips into hidden canyons, traverses cliff walls,
and climbs ledges via tottering stacks of rocks.
That trail was my first introduction to the area;
Outskirts of the town of Boulder, Utah. Photo by Laurel
Hagen.
20
The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the
awesome citizens and organizations we work with,
both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to
cathy@wildlandscpr.org.
Tim Clarke surveys the landscape from his porch. Photo by
Laurel Hagen.
tramping across a high white plateau in the June heat, I came
to a cliff and saw the neat green irrigated fields of Boulder
Town. I decided they were a hallucination. But a good one.
As I got to know Boulder in later years, its culture stood
out as remarkably as its setting. With a population of about
250, Boulder seems made up mostly of Mormon ranching
families, transplanted outfitters and shopkeepers, and eccen-
tric homesteaders and artisans. Boulder’s people have made
efforts to keep the town’s culture whole, despite residents’
differing backgrounds. Everyone I’ve met there expresses
deep appreciation for the land and the community, often
within the first five minutes of our conversation.
The first splash of what would become the Boulder
Community Alliance had the feel of another good hallucina-
tion. Here’s what happened: In the spring of 2006, the County
Commission published a set of maps and brochures calling
the county “ATV Trails Headquarters.” The maps showed
numerous ATV routes that had not before been advertised
that way, as well as a few routes that illegally invited ATVs
into protected lands. Boulder Town itself was at the nexus of
several routes.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009
 The residents of Boulder objected to these
plans, which were entirely new to them. As BCA
tells it, “within 48 hours over 130 residents,
property owners and friends of Boulder had
signed on to a petition that we presented to the
County Commissioners.” The Boulder Town
Council unanimously passed a motion ad-
dressed to the County Commission. Part of the
motion stated:

“There are several types of tourism and they do not

necessarily coexist… We do not feel that our area of
interest and impact stops at the Town borders. Our
community members -- including businesses who
presently have a substantial base in non-motorized
tourism, cattle ranchers whose existence depends
upon range lands and watersheds, and residents
who have stayed on or moved in to enjoy the peace
and quiet of this rural lifestyle — feel that any ATV
promotion in the east side of Garfield County is to our
detriment… We also feel that this policy [allowing
children on ATVs on a paved road] was instituted
solely to facilitate the ATV promotional agenda of
cross-county travel, allowing that agenda to override
common sense.”

This event spurred Boulder Community

Foundation [which sponsors BCA] to incor-
porate and gain non-profit status. The orga-
nization’s mission included a variety of local
community-based projects as well as issues of
regional concern affecting the community, such
as the projected increases in motorized tourism.
Tim Clarke was the only paid staffer (working up
to half-time).
Tim, still the Executive Director and only
staff member of the Boulder Community Alli-
ance, was also on the Town Council when the
ATV trails issue came up. A landscape architect
from the UK, Tim and his artist wife Scotty
moved to Boulder more than ten years ago.
While building their own house on a small piece
of land among the pinyon pines and sandstone
hills, Tim and Scotty settled into the life of the
town. Tim joined the Town Planning Commis-
sion, becoming the chair, and was elected to the
Town Council. Though now no longer a Coun-
cilor, Tim remains active in local projects, like
designing and helping to construct a gathering
place at the town center. All that is in addition to
running BCA, of course.
Tim’s dry humor, low-key common sense,
and ability to gracefully walk a fine line have
earned him the respect and friendship of people
throughout southern Utah. Under his supervi-
sion (and that of BCA’s board of directors) BCA
has taken on a wide range of projects. They’ve
started a farmer’s market, a local oral history
Aspen grove on Boulder Mountain. Photo by Laurel Hagen.
project, and a newsletter and website called “The Sage
Page” that won awards at the annual Utah Tourism con-
ference. In partnership with other Utah groups, BCA has
worked extensively on several public lands projects in the
Escalante River Basin, such as watershed restoration and
beaver reintroduction on Boulder Mountain. In partnership
with Wildlands CPR, BCA has done extensive work on the
Dixie National Forest travel planning process, including
training locals to perform fieldwork, hiring a student intern
for route surveys, and collecting local knowledge about the
history and impacts of the road system on Boulder Moun-
tain. BCA also printed a brochure promoting the benefits of
quiet recreation in the Escalante River Basin. The group is
currently in the process of dividing into two linked entities:
BCA will focus primarily on in-town and cultural issues;
and the Escalante River Basin Initiative (ERBI) will focus on
regional and public lands issues. ERBI, or the “Basinheads,”
have already partnered with allies in nearby towns to ad-
dress regional issues from a rural Utah perspective.
Tim and his work with BCA are a sign of what I hope
is the future of rural Utah’s environmental movement, and
he’s the kind of activist I aspire to be: a settler who com-
mits wholeheartedly to the culture and place of his home,
putting his heart and hard work into it. We are very grate-
ful to Tim and the community of Boulder for showing the
way forward, and giving us hope for good things to come.
You can read more about BCA at www.bouldercommu-
nityalliance.org

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 21

T he sun is shining in the middle of
February – not a common occurrence
in Missoula, but a reminder that the Spring
Equinox is just around the corner. It’s been
a crazy winter as we and other activists
adjust our strategies and consider new op-
portunities in light of the changing of the
guard in Washington DC. There’s been a lot
of change here in our office as well – read on
for more details…

Good-bye and good luck!

After nearly a decade running our
restoration program, Marnie Criley has left
Wildlands CPR to try to make one of our
pet projects, Restore Montana, a full-blown
organization. To learn more about Marnie’s
work in the past, and what’s coming up in
the future, check out our program updates
on pages 6-7. Charity Lake in the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area. Wildlands CPR photo.

It was short and sweet and we’re sorry

it had to end, but Franklin Seal is no longer
our communications coordinator. He did a fantastic job upgrading many aspects of Thanks
our electronic communications, especially our website and e-newsletter, The Dirt.
He pressed us to think outside the box and to actively expand our work and media We’d like to thank everyone who
efforts. We’ll miss you Franklin, and we wish you the best of luck in your next donated to our annual gifts campaign
endeavor! for 2008 – we raised just about $25,000.
We’re delighted with the results of the
campaign, especially considering that
Welcome! this was in the midst of a presidential
In the last issue, we announced the departure of long-time board member Greg election and a growing recession. If you
Fishbein, who bumped up against our 6-year term limit. We’re now delighted to haven’t donated yet but you’d like to,
introduce new board member Crystal Mario. After a distinguished career with such it’s never too late – we can always use
high-profile companies as Adobe Systems, Inc. and Xerox Imaging Systems, Crystal your support. Thanks, too, to everyone
tired of spending her life in airports and hotel rooms. She started Rivanna Natu- who has renewed their membership
ral Designs in 2001 with a simple goal: to provide safe, meaningful, and rewarding during the past few months – again, sup-
employment for recently-arrived refugees and others who need a second start or an port from individuals like you is critical
opportunity to learn new skills. Rivanna uses sustainably harvested or reclaimed to our success.
wood and recycled glass to create the clocks, plaques, pens, and desk accessories
for sale through the company’s online store. While Crystal isn’t directly engaged We would also like to thank the
with restoration or transportation issues, she’s been engaged in environmental and Firedoll, Harder, Horizons and 444S
other progressive issues for a long time, and she’s an extremely successful busi- Foundations and Patagonia for their
nesswoman. We are really looking forward to having her expertise and perspective generous grants to support our trans-
as part of Wildlands CPR’s team! portation and restoration programs. We
appreciate it!

Get The Road-RIPorter Online

With this issue of The RIPorter we’re introducing a new electronic
version of the entire quarterly journal, broken out into individual articles.
If you’d like to help us reduce postage and printing costs, please e-mail
cathy@wildlandscpr and ask to receive The RIPorter online instead of by mail
(or you can receive both).

22 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

 Support Wildlands CPR Today!
We’ve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

• Reducing Overhead
Monthly giving puts your contribution
directly into action and reduces our
administrative costs. The savings go to
restoring wildlands and building a more
effective network.
• Making Your Gift Easier
Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your
credit card or bank statement will con-
tain a record of each gift; we will also
send a year-end tax receipt for your
records.
• Our Promise To You
You maintain complete control over
your donation. To change or cancel
your gift at any time, just write or give
us a call.

Name
Phone
Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership: Individual/Family Organization Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Electronic Funds Transfer Credit Card Pledge
from Checking Account

$5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other $10/Month (minimum) $20/Month other

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

from my checking account once per month. Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

Signature
CSC Number: ________________ *(see below)
Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confiden-
tial. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or Expiration date: _____________________________
the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

Signature: __________________________________________
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation, * The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is
please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of
check to the address below. a credit card (usually in the signature field).

Please send this form and your payment option to:

Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 Thank you for your support!

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009 23

 Montana afternoon. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Mangement.
Non-profit Organization
US POSTAGE
PAID
MISSOULA MT, 59801
PERMIT NO. 569

The road running through this

meadow is nothing more than a
potholed portal for bad ideas, a
puncture wound that won’t heal,
allowing human fallibility to flow
unchecked into the delicate heart
of healthy land.

— Guy Hand, “Pining for an Oak

Meadow” from A Road Runs
Through It.

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