Road RIPorter 7.2

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 7.2

1/24

A Monumental Challenge:

Managing ORVs in OurNewest National MonumentsInside

Check out our website at:www.wildlandscpr.org

The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing RoadsSummer Solstice 2002. Volume 7 # 2

By Lisa Philipps

A Monumental Challenge,

by Lisa Philipps. Page 3-6

Regional Reports, Page 7

Policy Primer: Recreational Trails Program,

by Maureen Hartman. Page 8-9

Legal Notes: Categor ically Excluded,

by Derek Goldman. Page 10-11

Depaving the Way: The Newest Threat ,

by Bethanie Walder. Page 12-13

Get with the Program: ORV and Roads ProgramUpdates. Page 14-15

Odes to Roads: A Reasoned Rant,

by David Petersen. Page 16-17

Biblio Notes: Helicopter Impacts on Wildli fe

by Emily Yeomans. Page 18-20

Activist Spotl ight : Sally Grimes. Page 21

Around the Offi ce & New Resources. Page 22

The Presidentia l Proclamations establ ishing our newest National Monuments started but didntfinish the job of protecting these national treasures. Paria River canyon in the VermillionCliffs National M onument. Photo by Lisa Philipps.

See arti cle on p ag e 3


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 20022

20 02 W ildlands CPR

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works toprotect and restore wildland ecosystems by

preventing and removing roads and limitingmotorized recreation. We are a national

clearinghouse and network, providing citizens

with tools and strategies to fight road

construction, deter motorized recreation, andpromote road removal and revegetation.

Main OfficeP.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807

(406) [email protected]

Colorado Office Jacob SmithPO Box 1365

Paonia, CO [email protected]

Director

Bethanie Walder

Developm ent Director

Tom Petersen

ORV Pol icy Coor dina tors

Jacob Smith, Tom Platt

Road s Pol icy Coord inator

Marnie Criley

Science Coor din ato r

Adam Switalski

NTWC Grassroots

Coordinator

Lisa Philipps

Program Associate

Jennifer Barry

New slet ter

Dan Funsch & Jim Coefield

Interns & Volunteers

Derek Goldman, Allison Hanks, Leslie Hannay,Brooke Hughes

Board of DirectorsKatie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari, Dave Havlick,

Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,Dan Stotter, Ted Zukoski

Advisory Comm ittee

Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,

Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, LorinLindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,

Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,Michael Soul, Steve Trombulak, Louisa

Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands CCCCCenter for PPPPPreventing RRRRRoads

While President Bush basks in the glow of bombs falling on Afghanistan, he contin-ues to undercut, overturn and subvert hard-won environmental protections insti tutedbefore his rule. And significantly, it seems that Bush is acting against the will of theAmerican people. On two issues of parti cular concern, motor ized recreation in theNational Parks and roadless area protection, Bush has been nothing but atrocious. Butby the time this newslett er lands in your mailbox, two new bills should have beenint roduced in Congress to bri ng some power back to the people. Fir st is a bill to imple-ment the roadless policy. Second is a bill t o implement t he Yellowstone snowmobileban. Both are policies that were adopted by agencies under the Clint on Administ rationafter years of public comment and scientific review, and t hen almost immediatelycircumvented and effectively overt urned by Bush.

In both cases, Bush reopened a completed process for fur ther study and review. Inbot h cases, the process had been ongoing for at least th ree years and the agencies hadgiven the publi c extensive opportunity to comment. And the publi c had responded.Over one million people commented on the roadless rule - many requesting evenstronger protection than what the Forest Service was proposing. Over 65,000 peoplecommented on the proposal to phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. Inboth cases, an overwhelming majori ty support ed the agencies proposals - proposalsthat were grounded in sound science and the mission of t he agencies to p rotect theland.

By restarting these processes and asking for public comment again, Bushdisempowered the people who had already responded. But people commented again,pour ing another mil lion responses into the Forest Servi ces mailbox, and they stil lsupport ed roadless protection by over 90%. (The latest Yellowstone comment periodwas closed as thi s issue went to press.) With no for ward movement from Bush, Con-gress took over and int roduced a bill to codi fy the roadless rule - the bil l had 180original cosponsors! Similarly, Congress will intr oduce a bill to enact t he snowmobile

ban. Legislati ve action i s challenging (and even if t hese bil ls were to pass, its unli kelyBush would sign them), but it can re-invigorate the public and provide a real out let forpubli c sentiment - rather than conti nually sending lett ers to agencies who are barredfrom li stening by their commander -in-chief.

Photo by John McCullah.


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2002 3

A Monumental Challenge:Managing ORVs in Our Newest National Monuments

By Lisa Philipps

continued on n ex t pag e

I believe there are certain places humankind simply cannot improve upon -places whose beauty and interest no photograph could capture, places you simplyhave to see for yourself. We must use this time of unparalleled prosperity to ensure

people will always be able to seethese places as we see them today.

President William Jefferson Clinton

Ihad unpacked my gear and was starting to unroll my tent when Ipaused to li sten to what sounded like a solo clarinet, or no...it wasdeeper, more like an oboe. I looked around for the source of this

pr ivate musical serenade. This was hard ly t he environment for somelone musician to be practicing his woodwinds. Saguaro cactusreached their gangly arms and legs to a cloudless sky, the tangledbranches of gnarled ironwood t rees embraced pair s of desert spar -rows, as they awaited cool night breezes. Everywhere I looked wasthe quiet beauty of the desert at dusk. Here was a sti llness, a peace, astark cont rast to the urban cit ies of Phoenix and Tempe less than 50miles away. I was embraced by the statuesque saguaro cacti thatreach to heights of 30 feet and more. As I wandered the sands throughthese gentle giants of the desert, I felt a quiet ancient presencerelatively untouched by humans. But who was teasing my senses withthat music? It got louder as I got closer to one especially large,wrinkled, many-limbed, saguaro. This giant showed his age with manyanimal holes and t wisted l imbs. Looking closer, I noti ced the saguarowas almost entir ely hollowed out. I had found my mystery magician.The slight breeze had turned the cactus into a natural desert flute!Laughing to myself, I knew I had wit nessed fir st hand what few people

have the oppor tunit y to experience in our hecti c modern worl d. I wasin a tr easured place, I was in one of Americas newest nationalmonuments, Ironwood National Monument, Ar izona.

The Antiquities Act and the Nationa l

Monu ment Fa irnes s Act

The Antiquities Act of 1906 declares:

The President of the United States is authorized in hisdiscretion, to declare by public proclamation historiclandmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and otherobjects of historic or scientific interest that are situated uponthe lands owned or controlled by the United States to beNational Monuments, and may reserve as a part there ofparcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall beconfined to the smallest area compatible with proper care

and management of the objects to be protected.

Between 1906 and 2001, 14 US President s haveused t he Act t o proclaim 118 National Monuments.The only th ree who did not use it were PresidentsNixon, Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Monumentsrange in size from 1 acre (For t Matanzas, Flor ida)to 10,600,000 acres (Yukon Flats, Alaska), and manyNational Parks were initi ally protected as monu-ments, including the Grand Canyon.

President Clinton established many of thenations newest National Monuments by Presiden-tial proclamation, and almost all were designatedon Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.

These new monuments have raised the ire of theBush Administ ration, which i s calli ng for less landprotecti on, not more. Recent designations havealso infuriated western Republicans in Congress,who claim that they lock up mill ions of acres ofland and ignore local sentiment.

In an effort to limi t the Presidents discretionto protect land, the House Resources Committee onMarch 20, 2002 approved H.R. 2114, the NationalMonument Fairness Act. This bil l amends theAntiqui ties Act of 1906 to requir e the President tosolicit public comment and consult with a statesgovernor and congressional delegation at least 60days before creating any National Monument.However, it sti ll would not require Congressionalapproval. This measure is a solution in search of aproblem all of the new monuments were desig-nated on land already under federal management.The bill has not yet been discussed on t he Housefloor and no companion has been introduced in theSenate. Nonetheless, acti vists are watchi ng toensure the bill does not advance.

A stately saguaro cactus in the new Ironwood National Monument. Photo by LisaPhilipps.


4/24


Ma na gement Plann ing

On April 24, 2002 the Department of Interiorlaunched planning periods for 11 of the nationsnewest National Monuments (see sidebar on page13). Advisory councils are being established formany monuments includ ing Carr izo Plain National

Monument in California, and Canyons of theAncients in Colorado. Conservationists areworking to ensure that the public participates inadopting management plans and that publi cconcerns are not overshadowed by specialinterests such as oil and gas developers.

As part of the planning process, the Depar t-ment of Inter ior is looki ng at re-designating someof the new monument boundaries to addressresource extraction and motor ized recreation. Inno instance does the Interi or Department seeminterested in expanding prot ections, only inlimi ting t hem, from reducing the acreages withinthe boundaries, to promoti ng continued oil and

gas development . Key among the threats however,is t he issue of off-road vehicle recreation.

Off Roa d Vehicles in th e New

Monuments

President Clinton proclaimed the new monu-ments to ensure people will always be able to seethese places as we see them today. However,several of them are already suffering impacts thatare not consistent wi th t hat proclamation; almostall are being damaged by off-road vehicles. Damagecan be significant in sensitive desert washes,which are vital wildlife habitat in the arid west.For example, in the Ironwood Forest Monument inArizona the BLM found that off-road vehicle use inwashes degrades habitat for desert t or toise,pygmy owls as well as a host of other species...The effects, [of wash running] (soil compaction,erosion, vegetation destructi on, distur bance,accidental death, deliberate poaching), areimmediate and long-lasting.

The proclamations that established most ofthe new monuments recognize the threats posedby unlimi ted off-road vehicle use. They prohibi tmotor ized and mechanized vehicular use off roadsexcept for emergency and administr ative pur -poses, providi ng an excellent opport unit y forpubli c lands acti vists. The monuments language,if imp lemented, provides the basis for an effecti veban on cross-countr y t ravel by off-road vehicles.

Furt her, by stating that mot ori zed use must occur onl y on roads, it isconsistent wit h the goals of the Natur al Trails and Waters Coaliti on(which includes Wildl ands CPR). The new National Monumentscould become a model for effective off-road vehicle management on

publi c lands, but only if the BLM analyzes the road system anddesignates (t hrough an open and environmentally appropr iateprocess) which r oads, routes or t rails ORVs can tr avel on, whil eprohibiting vehicles from all others.

As par t of t he planning process, each monument wi ll conduct afull inventor y of tr anspor tation facilit ies on the ground. While it isimpor tant to understand where unauthor ized routes are causingdamage, it is equally cri ti cal that these user-created routes not beconsidered part of the road system. Only those travel ways thatmeet t he definition of a road, ser ve a purpose author ized by procla-mation, and are analyzed through NEPA should be included in theroad system. The discretionary maps will be the basis for tr avelmanagement in the full management plans. The following monu-ments provide examples of the challenges and oppor tuni ties facing

conservationists as they push to cr eate models of good, rather t hanbad, motorized management.

Specific Cha llenges in the New Monum ents

Casca de-Siskiyou (Oregon)The southern port ion of the monument is bisected by the

Schoheim Jeep Trail (SeeRIPorter5.4). The Soda Mountain Wilder -ness Council describes the Trail as a long and ugly scar t hat wasbulldozed from Pilot Rock to Agate Flat. It dumps sediment int oclear st reams, disrupts t he natur al hydrol ogy of the region and,before monument designation, was subject to chroni c off roadvehic le abuse. While the designation closes the Schoheim trail ,ill egal trespass stil l cont inues.

Santa Rosa/ San Jacinto (Cal i fornia)The monument was created by an Act of Congress in 2000, and i s

located wit hin t he vast Califor nia desert ecosystem,which already suffers from t remendous off-roadabuse in places like Algodones Dunes. The BLMdoes not have enough law enforcement personnel inthe monument t o prevent i llegal off-road vehicle usein areas that have been closed protect w ild life,plants and other natural resources. In fact, activistshave observed ill egal dir t b ike and ATV use withinsight of t he BLM field office.

Utahs Governor Leavitt has proposed National Monument status forpart of the San Rafael Swell. Photo by Cole Trusty.

Several of the new monum ents are a lready

suffer ing impa cts tha t a re not consis tent

w ith (the Presid ents) procla ma tion; alm ost a ll

a re being da ma ged b y off-roa d vehicles.

continued fr om p age 3


5/24


Ironw ood Nationa l Monument

(Arizona)Ironwood National Monument

has already delved int o the plan-ning process and wil l provide usefulexperience and tools for planning inall t he monuments. A comprehen-sive travel inventory is beingcompleted by the University of

Arizona: every road, trail, path anddivot on the ground is beingmapped. Ironwood cur rently has nodesignated ORV rout es, but muchuse of ORVs both on countyroads and user-created routes. Intheor y, inventories are good they let us know what the situationis on the ground. They should not,however, be used to legitimizeresource scars into t ravelways orroads. For these inventor ies toprove useful, two thi ngs areimportant. Conservationists andlocal landowners must ensure thatthe inventory accurately representsthe tr avelways on the ground.Further, user-created routes andother non-roads must not be addedto the travel plan without adequateenvironmental analysis. The cruxof the issue will be how t he BLMdecides to define a road; currentlythere is no universal definiti on.

San Rafael Sw ell (Uta h) - An Anoma lyProtect ion of the magnificent San Rafael Swell

region of southern Utahs redrock countr y has longbeen contr oversial. More than a milli on acres areproposed for wilderness in Americas RedrockWilder ness Act. The Swell i s also an area ofint ense off-road vehicle use. A recently releasedBLM plan would legitimize many user-createdrout es and allow off-road vehicle use to cont inue inwilderness qualit y lands. Breaking ranks withRepublican distaste for National Monuments, UtahGovernor Mike Leavitt (R) has proposed thatPresident Bush designate a portion of the SanRafael Swell as a National Monument. At 620,000acres, the monument would incl ude nearly half theSwell lands proposed for wi lderness. The Presi-dent has given the go ahead for a 90-day study,after which he could designate a monument.

The bad news is that Leavit ts proposal failsto mention reducing ORV use and may suggest thatthe BLM transportation plan be adopted for themonument, thus author izing both user -createdroutes and highly questionable RS 2477 claims.Thus, in th is instance, a monument proclamationcould undermine potential wilderness designation.Given that t he Antiqui ties Act is about enhancingprotection, the current San Rafael Swell proposal ishardly consistent with either t he intent or spirit ofother monuments. Perhaps Governor Leavitt isntbreaking ranks at all.

Nat iona l Monum ents a re a Legacy

It wil l be up to t he American public to ensure that NationalMonuments are effecti vely protected duri ng the current planningprocess. This wil l mean getting out on the ground and monit oringmotor ized use, inventor ying roads, routes and ot her t ravelways, andactively par tici pating in t he land management planning process fromstart to finish. Motorized users will cert ainly be participating to tr yto maintain their use of these lands. Quiet recreationists, conserva-tioni sts, birders, horseback riders and all other ci tizens who careabout prot ecting and restor ing dynamic, functioning habitats shouldfind t he time to fully engage in th is process and make their voicesheard.

At the end of a long day, I find myself leisurely hi king up from t heAgua Fria River in the Agua Fria National Monument. I am pondering

the pict ures I saw impri nted on the dark basalt ic walls below.Dancing deer, horned, alien-like men, and mythical j ackalope cr itt erswere immortally scratched int o the walls almost 1000 years ago. Thepict ures are in stark contr ast to modern-day graffiti scratch ings onthe interstate underpass less than a mil e away - modern day graffiti isabout gang names and self-promotion. The rock art of the ancientsdepicted the world around t hem, and how people interacted anddepended on this world. I ponder why we are so concerned withourselves and preserving the proof of our own existence, and sounconcerned with t he world around us. Monuments dedicated to

continued on n ex t pag e


6/24


natural and human history have an uncertainfuture as land managers and polit icians grapplewith how these special treasures will be managedfor future generations. With active citizen involve-ment, perhaps we can move beyond recreationalexploitation to tr ue land prot ection in these specialplaces.

Lisa Philipps is Grassroots Coordinator for the

Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. Whe n she s not

out hiking in the m onum ents, she works out of the

Wildlands CPR office in Missoula.

Listed here with the date of their Presidential Proclamation.

Unless otherwise noted they are managed by the BLM.

Agua Fria, AZ (Jan. 11, 2000)

Anderson Cottage, Washington, DC (July 7, 2000)- managed

by the National Park Service

Buck Island National Monument U.S. Virgin Islands

(expansion; Jan. 17, 2001)- managed by the U.S. Fish

and Wildl ife Service

Cali for nia Coastal (Jan. 11, 2000)

Canyons of the Ancients, adjacent to Mesa Verde National

Park, CO (June 9, 2000)

Carr izo Plain National Monument, CA (Jan. 17, 2001)Minidoka Internment National Monument, ID (Jan. 17,

2001)

Cascade-Siskiyou, OR (June 9, 2000)

Craters of the Moon, ID (expansion; Nov. 9, 2000)

Giant Sequoia Nati onal Monument , CA (Apr il 15, 2000)-

managed by t he U.S. Forest Service

Grand Canyon-Parashant Nati onal Monument, AZ (Jan. 11,

2000)

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT (Sept.

18, 1996)Hanford Reach, WA (June 9, 2000)- managed by t he

National Park Service

Ironwood Forest, AZ (June 9, 2000)

Pinnacles Nati onal Monument , CA (expansion; Jan. 11,

2000)- managed by the National Park Service

Pompeys Pil lar National Monument, MT (Jan. 17, 2001)

Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, NM (Jan.

17, 2001)

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument ,

CA (Oct. 24, 2000)

Sonoran Desert National Monument, AZ (Jan. 17, 2001)

Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, MT (Jan. 17,

2001)

U.S. Virgin Island Coral Reef National Monument (Jan. 17,

2001)- managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Vermilion Cliffs, AZ (Nov. 9, 2000)

The new monuments protect thousands of acres in the desertsouthwest. Photo by Cole Trusty.

continued fro m p age 3

What You Can Do

Inventor y and mo nitorEnsure that cit izen monitor ing of off-road

vehicle impacts i s shared wi th the agency andorganize new inventori es where needed. For moreinformation on setting up monitoring programscontact wild landscpr@wild landscpr.org.

Get Involved in the Planning ProcessScoping begins in May and June 2002 for most

monuments, wit h draft plans due out in t he fall.Contact your local BLM office at www.blm.gov/nl cs/or go to t he Wilderness Society webpage at ht tp://www.wilderness.org/standbylands/national_monuments.htm and follow the link t oABBY, a planning tool. Here you will find detailson the monuments and also sample letters. Contact

Lisa Phi lipps at lisa@natur altr ails.org or Scot tKovarovics at [email protected] for a copyof draft scoping comments.

Media / Letters to the EditorThe Arizona Republic has published several

editor ials on the future of National Monuments inArizona. Wri te letters to the editor in your commu-nit y urging protecti on of these natur al treasures.Rampant ORV use and road networks are simplynot compatib le with National Monuments.

Our Nations NewestNational Monuments


7/24


Road Access DeniedIn Absaroka-BeartoothWilderness

In an Apr il 2 rul ing, U.S. Magist rate JudgeRichard W. Anderson of Billings, MT rejected alandowners lawsuit to const ruct 8.6 miles of newroad to reach a pr ivate parcel deep withi nMontanas Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Area.The Judge ruled that existing tr ail and helicopteraccess to t he landowners propert y was adequateto permit use of the property while preserving the

pri stine and pr imit ive nature of the wilderness.

The court rul ing was in response to a lawsuitfiled in December 2000 by t he Absaroka Trust , atrust established by Livingston, MT resident JamesSievers. The Trust sought t he proposed road to logand mine a 120-acre inholding property, and toconstruct and operate a hunting and fishing lodge.In its lawsuit, the Trust asked the Cour t t o orderthe Forest Service to permit road construction andto require the taxpayers to pay all construct ioncosts, estimated at between $150,000 and $1.7million.

The ruling, if upheld by a distr ict j udge, couldhave implications in simi lar cases around t hecountr y. When you buy land in a wi lderness area,you shouldnt expect to dr ive to it , much less havethe taxpayers subsidize your road access, saidBob Ekey, of The Wilderness Society, one of thegroups that joined the suit.

Hansen Files Trail BillBill would designate 350 miles of ORVroutes in Utah

House Resources Chairman Jim Hansen int roduced a bil l March14, 2002 to establish the James Hansen /Shoshone National Recre-ation Trail on approximately 350 miles of existing off-road vehicleroutes on Utahs Wasatch-Cache National Forest and adjacent BLMlands. Human-powered recreation would only be allowed if compat-ible with motor ized use giving motor ized users exclusive use of anarea where hikers, bicycl ists, equestri ans and other qui et users willdare not venture.

The legislation would undermine ongoing land use planning forthe Wasatch-Cache National Forest, i ncluding the NEPA process and aTravel Management Plan, due out th is Fall.

According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, elk, bear,and moose thr ive in t he area. A recent study commissioned by theU.S. Fish and Wildli fe Serv ice found 36 animal and 18 plant species atri sk that use thi s rugged terr ain. If designated, this motor ized routesystem poses a serious thr eat t o their continued viabilit y.

Plans for the trail system do not stop here. According to anart icle on the utahtr ails.com ORV website, the tr ail . . . will ultimatelypermit the preser vation of OHV travel and recreation throughout theState of Utah from border to bor der. Several addi tional pieces of thepuzzle . . . remain to be negotiated and designated. All the pieces areneeded to complete the Governor s vision of a recreation enabled

state, for the advantage and use by it s citi zens and visitor s, be theynational or international.

What You Can DoContact your representatives and ask them to oppose Hansens

bi ll , H.R. 3936. Tell them it would undermine the NEPA process andyears of scientific study, and ask them to stri ke the language allowingnon-motor ized use only when it is compatib le with mot ori zed use.

Shell Mountain, just outside the Absaroka-BeartoothWilderness. Photo by Jim Coefield.

Roadless Bill Introduced

On June 5th Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chairmanof t he House Science Commit tee, joined Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) toint roduce legislation to p rotect 59 mill ion acres of national forestroadless wildlands. The bill cod ifies the Roadless Initiative approvedby President Clinton, but ci rcumvented by the Bush administ ration.At press time, the bill had 175 co-sponsors.

The legislation would protect about 30 percent of t he 192 mill ionacres administered by the Forest Serv ice. The remainder is alreadyopen to logging and mining, and includes more than 380 thousandmiles of roads.


8/24


The Policy Primer is a column

designed to highlight the ins &

outs of a specific road or ORV

policy. If you hav e a policy youd

like us to investigate,

let us know!

The Tilted Playing Field:Understanding the Federal Recreational Trails Program

By Maureen Hartman

What is the recreational tra ils

program a nd how does i t work?

The Recreational Trail s Program is a federalgrant program that p rovi des money to states fortr ail build ing and maintenance projects, constr uc-tion of tr ail-related facili ties, and tr ail user educa-tion programs for both motorized and non-motor ized uses. Originally authori zed by Congressin 1991 as the Nati onal Recreational Trail s FundingProgram (also known as the Symms Act), it wasreauthorized in 1995 as the Recreational TrailsProgram (RTP) under the Transpor tation Equit yAct for the 21st Centur y.

Money for t he program is allocated by Con-gress to the U.S. Department of TransportationsFederal Highway Administration (FHWA), whichthen distributes the funds to individual states.Each state creates it s own State Recreational TrailAdvisory Committ ee to assist wi th t he program.

This Advisory Committ ee must have both mot or-ized and non-motor ized user representation inorder for the state to be eligible for federalfunding. There is no mandate under the RTP toensure public participation beyond the advisorycommitt ee struct ure, but state and federal statutesmay establish broader public participationstandards for specific types of projects.

How much money is allocated ?

Under t he Transpor tation Equity Act, Con-gress has author ized $50 milli on dol lars to t he RTPfor each of the years 2000-2003. Once statesreceive the money, they distr ibute it t o federal,

state, and private entit ies for recreational t railprojects. While states can distri bute th is moneyaccording to t heir specific program rules, at least88% of the funds must be used on actual trail ortrail-related projects. The other 12% can be usedfor administr ative costs and environmentalprot ection, education, and safety.

Funding from the Recreational Trails Programcan pay for up to 80% of a project. Other federalfunds (from a federal agency project sponsor) canprovi de more, however, the total federal fundingcannot exceed 95%. The remainder of pro jectfunding must come from a non-federal source.

Regardless of the total funding a state re-

ceives, they are required to spend 30% on motor-ized recreation, 30% on non-motorized recreation,and 40% on projects for diversifi ed trail uses(projects that benefit multiple trail users). Diversi-fied projects may benefit both mot ori zed and non-motor ized users either separately or simul ta-neously, in some cases til ti ng the diversifi ed trailcategory in favor of motor ized use interests.

How do es RTP fund ing differ

between states?

States choose an agency to administer theprogram and federal funding. Some choose theirpark agency wh ile others select t heir Depart mentof Transportation. Half of the annual RTP money isdistr ibut ed evenly among the states whil e theother half is distributed propor tionally accordingto the estimated off-road recreational fuel use ineach state. Off-road fuel use is the amount of fuelconsumed for recreational purposes by snowmo-biles, all-terr ain vehicles, off-road motorcycles, andoff-road li ght t rucks, as determined by r esearchcarri ed out by the Oak Ridge National Laboratoryin 1999.Citizen advisory committees decide how to allocate funds

under the trails program. File photo.


9/24


What types of projects are funded?

Permissible uses of funds apport ioned to astate for a fiscal year include:

(a) Maintenance and restoration of existingtrails;

(b) Development and rehabili tation oftr ailhead and trailhead facilit ies and tr ail linkagesfor recreation tr ails;

(c) Purchase and l ease of recreational tr ailconstruction and maintenance equipment;(d) Construct ion of new recreational trails...

(exceptions wit h regard t o federal lands);(e) Acquisit ion of easements or property for

trails;(f) State administr ative costs for the RTP;(g) Operation of educational programs to

promot e safety and environmental prot ectionrelated to trails. (ht tp:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/envir onment /fundrec.htm and 23 U.S.C. 206).

While the use of RTP funds for law enforce-ment is not permit ted, law enforcement safety

programs may be incorporated into RTP educa-tional programs, and law enforcement personnelmay use faciliti es constr ucted through RTPfunding.

What does the program sa y about

environmental compliance?

State agencies responsible for administeringthe Recreational Trails Program are directed todevelop their own procedures and criteria forselecting projects. States must submit an annualprogram document wit h a list of selected projectsto the FHWA div ision office for authori zation, after

the funds have been appor tioned and obl igationauthori ty has been provided. Funds are onlyobligated when a project i s author ized.

The enabling legislation for the RTP states that[ t] o the extent pr acticable and consistent withthe other requirements of th is section, a stateshould give consideration t o project proposalsthat pr ovide for the redesign, reconstruct ion, non-rout ine maintenance, or relocation of recreationaltrails to benefit the natural environment or tomiti gate and minimize the impact to the naturalenvir onment (23 U.S.C. 206(e)) .

The RTP Interim Guidance (1999) outlines theprograms general environmental requirements

(available at ht tp:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/environ-ment/r tp9908.pdf). The int erim guidance requiresstate documentation of compli ance with theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) andother environmental statut es, regulations, andExecuti ve Orders. While many RTP projects mayqualify for Categorical Exclusions under NEPA (24CFR 771.117), each project must be reviewed t oassure that i t does not have a significant impact onthe environment. Independent cit izen oversight ofindividual projects will help ensure that suchreviews take place.

Recrea tiona l Tra ils Progra m

projects in your sta te

The Recreational Trails Program offersbenefits to bot h motor ized and non-motor ized trailusers. However, it i s impor tant t o note thatmotorized recreation advocates in Congresscrafted the original legislation and tailored it t oprovide ample motorized recreation opportunities.

The Federal Highway Administrations RTP websiteoffers state-by-state breakdowns of current andproposed RTP funded pr ojects and prov idescontact information for state agencies administer-ing RTP funds. Advocates of non-motor izedrecreation must maintain strong representation onstate advisory boards and track individual projectsfunded th rough the Recreational Trails Program t oensure that mot ori zed uses do not dominatefunding allocations. For assistance or informationon how to deal with specific projects in your state,please contact the Wildl ands CPR ORV Program(tplatt @wild landscpr.org).

For additional information on t he Recreational

Trail s Program, see the Federal Highway Adminis-tr ation RTP web page at ht tp:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrail.htm.

Maureen Hartman is a graduate student in

Environmental Studies at the University of Montana.

Getting involved in the best way to ensure thatfunds are spent on quiet recreation. Photo by Bil lCunningham.


10/24


The US Forest Servi ce recentl y proposed asignificant revision t o Chapter 30 of the Environ-mental Policy and Procedures Handbook - theagencys rules for implementing the NationalEnvi ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) [FSH 1909.15].The revision, called an interim d irecti ve, wouldallow the agency to uti lize a broader appli cation ofthe categorical exclusion (CE) t o avoid pr epari ngan Environmental Assessment (EA) for certainprojects. Its most dangerous aspect would permitan agency offi cial t o invoke a CE even when

extraordinary circumstances are present. You canview the full t ext of the agencys Notice of Pro-posed Interim Directive in the Federal Register at66 FR 48412-48416.

NEPA BackgroundUnder NEPA, Congress charged the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) wit h the task ofpromulgating r ules and regulations to implementthe act. The Forest Service, and all other federalagencies, must follow these regulations and drafttheir own NEPA guidelines consistent with t hem.As part of their work, t he CEQ defined a categori -cal exclusion as, a category of actions which do

not indi vidually or cumulati vely have a significanteffect on the human envir onment... and for wh ich,therefore, neither an environmental assessmentnor an environmental impact statement is re-

qui red.... [ 40 CFR 1508.4] . This regulati on wascreated t o reduce unnecessary delay in undert ak-ing rout ine activit ies, such as paint ing a govern-ment building, or mowing a lawn. However, thi ssection also provides for extraordinary circum-stances, when a normally excluded action mayhave a significant environmental effect. In thesesituations, the agency must conduct an EA todetermine the significance of any envir onmentalimpact. There are currently a minimum of sevenextraordinary circumstances defined by the USFS,

such as the presence of steep slopes, inventoriedroadless areas, and threatened or endangeredspecies [1909.15 30.3(2)].

Implica tions of the Interim DirectiveUnder t he proposed redefiniti on of extr aordi-

nary cir cumstances [30.3 and 30.5], an agencyofficial could decide that no significant environ-mental effect would result from a planned project,even if a condit ion cur rentl y defined as an extr aor-dinary cir cumstance exists. The official couldsubsequently i ssue a CE, in essence making asignificance determination wi thout completing anEA and Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI).

Since NEPA was int ended to establi sh a process fordetermining significance, thi s seems to contr adictthe intent of Congress. Fur thermore, issuing CEson a case-by-case basis is an oxymoron, since CEsare categori es of actions by definit ion [ 40 CFR1508.4] .

The revision notice states that t he intent ofthese rule changes is to facilitate consistentinterpretation and applicati on of NEPA require-ments.... [66FR 48412]. But how can issuing CEson a case-by-case basis engender consistency? Infact, weakening a guideline for land managers willresult i n less consistent application of CEs. This

inexorably leads to the conclusion that thedrafters of this notice are either short sighted ordeceiving the public about their intent.

Another proposed change, although subtle, isvery import ant. In the current handbook, extraor-dinary cir cumstances are not l imit ed to the sevenspecific ci rcumstances listed. The Handbookrevisions would change 30.3(1)(b), 30.3(2) and30.5 by deleting t he phrase incl ude, but are notlimited to, in effect narrowing the definition ofthese extraordinary circumstances.

Categorically ExcludedForest Service Looks to Streamline NEPABy Derek Goldman

Under the new rules, more road building on steep slopes wouldescape N EPA analysis. Photo by J. McCullah.


11/24


The proposed interim directive would ad-versely affect pub lic par tici pation in Forest Servicemanagement decisions in two ways. First, theHandbook changes would result in a hi gherpercentage of acti ons falling under categoricalexclusion - actions that are currently subject t o anEA. With a CE, the only oppor tunit y for publi cinvolvement i s during the scoping process,whereas an EA provides for a comment period, aswell as the opport unity for an administrativeappeal of a decision and FONSI. Once the decisionmemo for a categorically excluded action i s issued,cit izens only r ecourse is to file a lawsuit.

The proposed Handbook revisions in thenoti ce would have another subtle, yet drasticimpact on public participation in decision-making -the agency pr oposes to delete the scopingphr ases from 30.3(3) and 30.5. Upon carefulexamination of t hese paragraphs, one th ingbecomes apparent: t he USFS int ends to go throughthe moti ons of scoping, but will no longer neces-sari ly consider t he issues raised in relation toextraordi nary ci rcumstances, and whether or not

to p repare an EA or EIS. This impl icit intent toignore concerns raised by the public dur ingscoping is outrageous. While the CEQ regulationsonly requi re scoping for an EIS, the Services ownHandbook specifically demands scoping for ALLproposed actions [FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10]. Infact, one of the listed pur poses of scoping is toascertain significant environmental concerns [FSH1909.15 11; 40 CFR 1501.7]. The agencys owndefiniti on of scoping is, The procedure by whichthe Forest Service identifi es import ant issues anddetermines the extent of analysis necessary for aninformed decision on a proposed action. Scoping isan integral part of the environmental analysis.

[FSH 1909.15 05].

Judicia l Review of Ca tegorical

ExclusionsUntil ver y recentl y, there has been lit tle

judicial review of the use of categorical exclusions.When cases have been brought for th, cour ts haveexamined them in t wo di fferent ways: under thearbit rary and capricious standard of t he Admin-ist rat ive Procedur es Act; or as an agency NEPAdecision simi lar to a FONSI.1 Almost all cases citeMarsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council , 490U.S. 360, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 104 L. Ed.2d 377 (1989), in

which the Supreme Court limited NEPA judicialreview to whether or not t he agency has taken ahard look at environmental consequences. If so,then cour ts have generally extended deference tothe agencys decision.

There is a small, but potent suppl y of case law(particularly in the 7th and 9th Circuits) regardingthe i llegal use of a categorical exclusion by afederal agency. If a proposed action differs fromthe category under which it s CE was issued, thencour ts have generall y demanded an EA or EIS. See

Mississippi ex rel. Moore v. Marsh, 710 F. Supp.1488 (S.D. Miss. 1989). Courts have also set asideCEs when extr aordinary circumstances exist.Rhodes v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 785; 1998 U.S. App.,

Washington Trails Association v. Unit ed StatesForest Servi ce 935 F. Supp. 1117 (W.D. Wash. 1996),Jones v Gordon 792 F. 2d 821 (9th Cir. 1986),Cali fornia v. Cal. Coastal Commission, 150 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001), Bensman v. USFS, 984F.Supp. 1242 (W.D. Mo. 1997).

ConclusionThe USFS proposed interim directive appears

to have been crafted specifically to circumventcourt rul ings requir ing an EA when extraordinar ycircumstances are present. By seeking to expandits abili ty to invoke a categorical exclusion, andthereby implement more environmentally destr uc-

tive projects on publ ic lands, the Service shows ablatant disregard for the intent of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act.

Derek Goldman is a graduate student in

Environmental Studies at the Univ. of Montana, and

a summer intern at Wildlands CPR.

Footnotes1 Sheldon, K and M. Squi llace (1999) The NEPA

Lit igation Guide, American Bar Assoc.Publishing: Chicago, IL.

Under the Forest Service proposal, habitat forsensitive species may no longer trigger preparation ofan environmental assessment. File photo.


12/24


From Walking to WinnebagosBy Bethanie Walder

ecreational development and use is fastbecoming the single greatest cause ofenvironmental degradation on publi c lands,and part icularl y the National Forests. Dont

get me wrong, logging, mini ng and energy develop-ment wont di sappear - the Bush Administ ration istr ying desperately to re-invigorate these industries- especially logging and natural gas extraction. Buton the whole, the balance of impacts is quicklyshifting from resource extr action to recreation.After all, as resource extr action declined over t helast decade, the Forest Serv ice searched for a newmandate; it found its calling in promoting motor-ized, pr ivatized, industri al recreation.

So is the conservation community ready tofight this shift to high infrastructure, high cost andhigh impact recreation? Two issues in part icularhave captured activist s attention: t he RecreationFee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), andmotor ized recreation. The increased infrastr uc-tures required of bot h Fee Demo and mot ori zedrecreation result i n cascading economic andecological problems, from habitat destruction toperverse incentives for development. But whilethese two issues are very clearly part of the sameproblem, they are being addressed in isolation.

Activi sts could and should be worki ng moreclosely together t owards a long-term goal to endthe pri vatization, commercialization and motor iza-tion of our public lands.

Fee DemoJune 15, 2002 was a National Day of Action t o

Protest Fee Demo and its attendant ecological andeconomic problems. At the heart of the problem,Fee Demo is basically a goods-for -services system,and those who pay to play wi ll expect somethi ngmore than pretty vi ews in return for their money.But what they get in return wi ll have profoundecological impacts. Big infrastr ucture, includi ngfull-servi ce campgrounds, gondolas to the tops ofmountains, souvenir shops, guided t ours, fancy

outhouses and smooth paved roads could be likelyadditions to the National Forests under Fee Demoand i ts counterpart - private/public partnerships.

In additi on, economists are promoting scaledfees commensurate wit h use, so hiking and bird-watching may cost less than off-road vehicle use.Sounds fair enough, but these scaled fees create aperverse economic incenti ve for t he Forest Servi ceto promote the higher fee, higher impact uses. Inresponse to criticism, the FS is changing the feedemo program by charging fees for i nfrastruct uresand limi ting fees where fewer services are pro-vided. While limit ed in scope, these changes may

take the wind out of the sails of much of theopposition.

For nearly a centur y, the Forest Serv ice haseffectively sold publ ic resources to the highestbidder. Recreation is no different, and the highbids w ill demand excess infrastr ucture, excessmotors, and excess noise. They wil l also fosterpotentially inappropriate relationships withprivate industr y. But will they maintain theoversight and author ity needed to manage recre-ational development and its impacts on NationalForests? Our experience wit h logging, mining andenergy development suggests not. With recre-

ation, the Forest Service has an oppor tunit y tobreak the mold, but it appears they are headeddown the same old path. Motor ized recreationprovi des a timely and cri tical example.

R

How much would you pay for a day on the river? Photo by BillCunningham.


13/24


Motorized RecreationWe tend to thi nk of motor ized recreation i n

terms of di r t bi kes and off-road vehicles, but it alsoincludes winnebagos and other RecreationalVehicles (RVs), passenger vehicles, and new

motor ized toys that havent yet hit the market. Thefact is, motor ized users require a developed infr a-structure, or t hey create it t hemselves. Does thatinfrastr ucture and use belong on the NationalForests any more than full serv ice campgrounds andsouvenir shops? With t his perspective, we can see how the issue isanalogous to Fee Demo in t he recreation debate. For example, theForest Service has asked the Federal Highway Administration forhundreds of millions of doll ars per year to upgrade and pave almost70,000 miles of forest roads. Why? Simply because they get the mostrecreational use.

Unfortunately, road infrastructure isnt the only thing likely tochange on the National Forests. Instead of setting a cont rol led,purposeful agenda for appropr iate and ecologically sensitive recre-ation management on National Forest lands, the Forest Serv ice hasadopted a passive, reacti ve approach to th is challenge. The manage-ment of off-road vehicles is a case in point : for t he most part , FSmanagement plans histor ically r elied on terrain to limit ORV activit y.But as technology advanced, terrain became a challenge, not a limit,and off-road vehicle use is now rampant t hroughout t he forests.Similarly, other motor ized toys have been developed t hat t he agencyisnt prepared to deal with , from motor ized skateboards and

snowboards to personal gyrocopt ers. Its not upto t he Forest Servi ce (or any other publ ic landmanagement agency) to provide a place for everyrecreational activit y imaginable, but t he agencydoes not seem willing or able to draw clear l inesabout what is appropriate and what isnt . Existingtoys are changing everyday - snowmobiles are nowused to cross lakes and r ivers and some have evenbeen conver ted for use on grass. With thesetechnological changes and without appropr iatecontrols, we will see continuing degradation of t heNational Forests, degradation of the habitatcontained within t hem, loss of water quality, andultimately a loss of wild places.

Fee demo and motori zed recreation bot hdisplace other recreationi sts and as human-powered recreationists seek solit ude and quietfrom the motor ized masses, they wi ll come int ocompetit ion wit h the wild life that have already fledmotor ized playgrounds. The setting will be ourdesignated Wilderness, the only areas spared fromrecreational insanity. Many Wilderness Areas weredesignated because of their scenery and recreationvalue, and since then have, out of necessit y,become ecological r efugia for w ild life, though thehabitat they provi de is often subpar.

Of course there is a place for r ecreation onpubli c lands, but at t his point in time the ForestService has not defined what is or is not appropri -ate recreation. Nor have they attempted to controlinappropr iate recreation. The agency is tooblinded by dollar signs to do anything but promotemotor ized, high cost, high impact recreation. Inrealit y, however, all management of t he NationalForests should be based on maintaining the

ecological health and resiliency of t he land.Activities that do not impair the land should bepermit ted, whether they are motor ized ornonmotor ized. But we also have phil osophicalreasons to maintain pr imit ive, undevelopedrecreational oppor tunit ies on public lands. Privatelands, private parks and ot her p laces alreadyprovide recreational infrastructure for people whoare seeking a controlled, developed and comfor t-able exper ience. The National Forests should notbe converted for such use.

As resou rce extra ct ion decl ined, the

Fores t Service sea rched for a new

ma nda te; i t fou nd its ca lling in

promot ing motorized , p r ivat i zed ,industr ia l recreat ion.

Next time you go out to your N ational Forest,dont forget to bring quarters for the toll. Photoby Mark Alan Wilson.


14/24


Roads Program UpdateSpring 2002

By Marnie Criley, Roads Policy Coordinator

First, the Roads Program would like to welcomeAdam Switalski as Wildlands CPRs new Science

Coordinator. With the addit ion of Adam, the RoadsProgram looks to further diversify its work. WhileAdam will focus on our scientific understanding ofroad removal, Marnie will conti nue to work onsocio-economic issues as a way to build a broaderconstituency for road removal. As part of this work,we will commission an economic study of t hebenefits of road removal.

Econom ic Study of Roa d Remova lWildlands CPR is accepting proposals for a

study t o explore the job creation and other eco-nomic benefits of ecologically-sound road removalon National Forests (NF). We recognize that road

closure statistics are unknown and the economicbenefits and non-market impacts of road removalvary between regions. However, we believe th isstudy, combined with other region-specific studies,could be extremely beneficial in promot ing roadremoval as a key component of forest restorati on.

BackgroundThere are over 400,000 miles of roads on NF

lands, and their environmental impact i s becomingwell understood. Beginning to grapple with t heprob lem, in January 2001 the Forest Service (FS)adopted the National Forest System Road Manage-ment Str ategy (Roads Policy). This new policy sets

the cour se for managing the road system. It callsfor a shift from developing transportation tomanaging the road system within the capabilit ies ofthe land the agency hopes to expand unroadedareas by 5-10% by decommissioning up t o 100,000miles of roads. We hope our economic study wi llbolster the FSs direction, and encourage other landmanagers (Bureau of Land Management, State andprivate landowners) to develop their own roadremoval programs.

Economic costs of road systemCurr ently there is an $8.5 - $10 bil lion deferred

maintenance backlog of road work, such as culvert

replacement, on NF lands, and the FS can onlyafford to maintain approximately 20% of their roadsystem each year. This lack of road maintenance,reconstruct ion and removal has led to heavysediment loading in aquati c systems, harming notonly fisheries but also water qualit y and communitywater supplies. Road-related landslides have led toloss of homes and lives. Roads also impact huntingand fishing, which in many states provide hugerevenues. Finally, the cost of eradicating invasiveweeds, which are spread via roads and motorizedrecreation, is one we still havent grasped.

Economic b enefits of roa d remo valDecision-makers and land management agencies are finally

recognizing the need to restore National Forests, but so much of thecurrent conversation is focused on th inning and fuels reduction t hatthe ecological and economic benefits of a comprehensive roadremoval program have been largely ignored.

Investing in ecologically sound road removal and restorationholds significant potential for r ural communit ies, the broader timberdependent wor kforce and society as a whole. Road removal canprovi de long-term qualit y employment to residents of rural communi-ties. A study by the University of Oregons Ecosystem WorkforceProgram shows that r oad related jobs tend t o have a more localworkforce than other for ms of ecosystem management work. Jobscreated th rough road removal could also avoid the inherent conflict sthat have plagued many communit ies focusing on commercialresource extraction as a means to create local jobs.

Study GoalsThe goals of the study are to:1. Demonstrate and quantify the market and non-market eco-

nomic costs and benefits associated with road removal and restora-tion.

2. Provi de the basis for a credible b lueprint for t he economictransition of rural communities by reprioritizing Forest Servicebudgets to pursue ecologically sound forest restor ation through roadremoval;

3. Demonstrate to local and national decision-makers the jobcreation potential of road removal and restoration. This study can beused to suppor t shifting federal resources towards a landscaperestoration agenda focused on road removal; and

4. Identify strategies and recommendations for shifting ForestService resource emphasis towards road removal and involvi ng localcommunities and t he associated workforce.

For more information and a complete Request For Proposals,contact Marnie Criley at the Wildlands CPR office. Deadline forproposals is July 5.

Restoring roads will put people to work. Photo by Bethanie Walder.


15/24


ORV Program UpdateSpring 2002

By Tom Platt, ORV Policy Coordinator

Uncomp a hgre Nat iona l Fores t Tra vel

Man agement PlanAfter extensive citizen par ti cipation and review,

Colorados Uncompahgre National Forest TravelPlan has been released. The March 1, 2002 Recordof Decision i s precedent setti ng for i ts proposedforest-wide area closure eliminating all cross-countr y motori zed travel. A key element of thearea closure is the plans extensive inventory ofboth existing roads and user created motori zedtravel routes.

Cross-countr y t ravel bans are a cruci al elementof the program advocated by Wildlands CPR - therestr icti on of all mot ori zed t ravel t o NEPA-analyzedand designated forest roads. However, whi le the

Uncompahgre plan is an improvement over p revi-ous Forest Service effort s, it sti ll fails to address theserious problem of rapidly proliferating user-created travelways outside of the designatedsystem road and tr ail inventory. While Wild landsCPR opted not to challenge the plan in favor ofallowing the cross-countr y tr avel closure to takeeffect, we are not satisfied t hat t he Uncompahgrehas fulfilled it s legal and ecological obl igation toprot ect forest resources from off road vehicledamage. Therefore, we are working wit h localgroups to follow developments on theUncompahgre, as well as tracking upcoming TravelPlan revisions on other forests. We will cont inue to

push for l imit ing motor vehicles to designatedroads and for full environmental impact analysis ofnon-system, user-created motorized travelways.

Resto re Nat ive Ecosys tems

Alternat ive Prepa red for BLMA coaliti on of ci tizen organizations has devel-

oped the Restore Native Ecosystems alternative forinclusion into the Bureau of Land Managements 16-state invasive species management Envi ronmentalImpact Statement process. The groups are workingto ensure that prevention of weed invasion andleast-impact cont rol methods are adopted by theagency in it s programmatic proposal for addressing

prob lems with invasive species and for est fuelbuild-up in the western states and Alaska. Wild-lands CPR is part icipati ng in the cit izen alternativedevelopment by prov iding resources and policydirection t hat addresses the ecological impacts ofroads and off road vehicles in the spread of inva-sive, non-nati ve plant species. We were alsoactively involved in bringing together this workinggroup. Research has shown that motor ized vehicle

tr avel accelerates invasive species spread in several ways. Weedseeds are dir ectly t ransport ed over long distances when they are

picked up and carr ied in the undercarr iage of motor vehicles. Soildistur bance and compaction from off road vehicle tr avel prov idesfavorable locations for weed seeds to gain a foothold in new habit at.Road construct ion and road corr idor s are significant disturbancesthat offer weeds the oppor tunit y to colonize new areas. Finally, fireassociated with motor vehicles and increased human access alongwild land roads creates significant native plant community distur-bance and opens broad regions of habitat t o weed invasion.

The Restore Native Ecosystems citizen coalition is developing astrategy for public outreach in order to expand public understandingabout the EIS and invasive species management on BLM lands, and tofacilitate publ ic part icipati on once the EIS is released for publi ccomment (projected for October 2002). For addit ional information onthe Restore Native Ecosystems Alternative or to become involved

with the coalit ion, visit the American Lands Alliances web site athtt p://www.americanlands.org/blm_weeds_plan.htm.

Dixie Na tiona l Fores t Law suitThe 10th Circui t Cour t of Appeals in Denver has upheld a lower

cour t r uling in favor of the Forest Servi ce for it s decision to close 89miles of roads and tr ails to motor ized vehicles on the Dixie NationalForest. The April 25th r uling affirmed the discretion of t he agency toban travel where adverse ecological impacts are occurr ing, andrejected the claim by t he Shared Access Alliance, a Utah of f roadvehicle group, which argued t hat t he Forest Servi ce failed t o showdamage resulting from mot or vehicles. The Cour ts opinion statedthat [ c]ommon sense alone suggests that a haphazard system ofroads in close proximit y to lakes would li kely be a significant cause of

erosion, and t here is no dispute that agency personnel documentedsignificant visibl e effects of lake sedimentation from t he roads onBoulder Top.

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alli ance and several other environ-mental organizations (incl uding Wildlands CPR) intervened on behalfof the Forest Servi ce to suppor t t he road closures. Steve Bloch,counsel for SUWA, commented after the rul ing, Federal agenciesshould take heart from [ t] his decision and move forward on theirplans to protect Utahs spectacular landscapes from the damage ORVscan cause.

Banning cross-country motorized travel will help protect key resourceson the Uncompahgre. Photo by Bethanie Walder.


16/24


Road Huntin Aint No Huntin ATallA Reasoned Rant

By David Petersen

s a conservationist, natur alist and, as one of myless-understanding neighbors terms it, our

local wildlife idiot, I see no contradiction inpoint ing out t hat Im also a lifelong hunter.

Nor am I alone in thi s apparent cont radict ion. Yalesociobiologist Stephen Kellert , Americas leading

researcher in the area of human attit udes towardnature, categorizes a minor it y segment of hunt ers,at least 20 percent, as having a strong nature/naturalistic orientation. As such, they/I/wecomprehend and embrace nature on an ecologicalscale and constantly ponder the conundrum ofkill ing and eating the very creatures we so love.From my neo-animistic point of view, there is nooxymoron here: Death feeds li fe; life feeds ondeath; thats how nature works. Respect, empathyand reciprocity are the keys to moral compatibilityin this ancient bloody arena. Done right, there isno more natur al, thus moral, human-naturerelationship than hunting.

Done wrong, hunting is a hor ror show. And fartoo often, it is done wrong. Sadly, for everynature hunter, there are at least two of the t ypeKeller t classifies as dominionist ic/ sports. These

mostly ur ban and suburban weekend warr iorsknow or care woefully lit tl e about nature, ecosys-tem dynamics or t he animals they hunt. (The onlyother faction of American culture to score asdismally low on Kellert s nature knowledge t estsas the sport s, ir onically, were their animal r ightscounterpar ts!) Worse, a growing number of t heseclueless shooters, bowing to our consumer cul tureand the outdoor marketing industrys dictum t o

abandon t heir lungs, legs and heart s in favor ofengines, wheels and banality, undertake most oftheir hunt ing with their butt s planted firmly onthe seats of off-highway vehicles (4x4 pickups,SUVs and ATVs) and view wildlife as little morethan moving targets and potential tr ophies. True

hunters are embarrassed and angered by thewords, actions and myopic, self-serving poli tics ofthese armed motorheads, who cruise back-roadsand il legally off -road in search of easy targets andunearned bragging rights, and who leave uglyecological, spiritual and public-opinion footprintsever ywhere they go, though their boot s rarelytouch the ground.

As one crusty old outfitter friend once put i t,Road hunti n aint no huntin atall.

For an example of the harassment and harmthat roads and their human cargo bring to wild life

not only but t-bound hunters but so-callednonconsumptive (no such critt er exists) motor -ized recreationi sts as well lets consider theimpacts on a popular, tough and adaptable biggame species thats been the subject of i ntenselong-term stud ies in relation to road impacts: theelk.

On heavily roaded landscapes, elk findthemselves lethally sandwiched between almostceaseless harassment by motorized invaders,especially during hunting season, and decreasedhidi ng cover. The b ig four surv ival essentials forelk and other wild life are food, water, cover androom t o roam. Unrestri cted legroom is essential toelk (a highly mobile and migrator y species) notonly to meet the first t hree needs through all theseasons but to allow females to shop around forthe fit test males to father their young. In heavilyroaded and logged habitat and roading andlogging are sinister t wins t his essential freedomto roam is bought by elk at the usuri ous price ofgreatly increased stress and greatly reducedsurv ivabili ty. Either way, move or sit t ight, thewapiti lose. Moreover, researchers point out thatelk and other wild life often suffer stress and

A

On heavi ly roaded la ndsca pes , e lk find

themselves le thal ly sand w iched

betw een almost ceaseless hara ssment

by motoriz ed invad ers . . . and

decrea sed hiding cover.


17/24


behavioral di sruption due to conti nual motor izedtr affic noise the growl and engine-ratt le of dieselOHVs, the mosqui to-whine of ATVs and snowmo-biles even should t hey escape such dir ectharassment as being shot at and chased around.

Ostensibly t o reduce the ri sks to elk ofproposed new roads and timber sales, the ForestService employs a vul nerabilit y paradigm calledthe Blue Mountain Habitat Effectiveness Model.This rule of thumb, developed via studies con-ducted in the fecund forests of the Pacific North-west, proclaims that good elk habitat consists of60 percent forage (with for age generally anderroneously considered to be satisfied by clear-cuts) and 40 percent cover. But t he radicallyvary ing quality of forage and cover across all themany western states occupied by elk is insuffi-ciently addressed. Cow-burned clear-cuts and aridrangelands offer r adically inferior forage (not onlyin calori es per acre, but i n digestib ili ty andnutrition-essential variety) compared to moist,ungrazed riparian corridors or aspen understory.Likewise, the harsh ar tifi cial edges between clear-

cuts or r oad-cuts and standing timber do notequate to r ich natural ecotones; quite the oppo-site, both in fact and ecological effect, as preemi-nent conservation biol ogist Dr. Michael Soul andothers have demonstrated.

The Blue Mountain model goes on to specifythat elk cover should consist of 20 percent hiding,10 percent thermal, and 10 percent either t hermalor hidi ng cover. In yet another omniscient agencydict um, effective hidi ng cover i s decreed to bevegetation capable of hid ing 90 percent of astanding adult deer or elk from the view of ahuman at a distance equal to or less than two-

hundred yards. Which leaves one to wonder: Isthat w ith the naked eye ... or through a ri flescope?

Such substantially hypot hetical models anddefiniti ons would be laughable if t hey werent sotragic for the animals they purport to pr otect. Andeven t hese obviously inadequate minimums havetraditionally been subverted when they threaten to

interfere with bureaucratic business as usual.According to retired Montana USFS biologist JackLyon: We had a lot of trouble recognizing thedisti nct difference between habitat effectivenessand habit at securi ty for a while. Many wildli febiologists would say, No [ the 60/40 model] doesntnecessarily provide security, but district rangerswould say, Yes it does; we need to get the cut out .I cant describe how rash the interpretations were.

And it was very cl ear why the interpretations came about, and itdidnt have a damn thing to do wi th elk. (Quoted inBugle, the

journal of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.)

Another former USFS biologist , Alan Chr istensen, specialized inelk vulnerability. Summarizing his career findings and feelings (also in

Bugle), Christensen says flatly: Roads are the single biggest problemon the landscape for elk. Its well documented and everything elsepales in comparison.

Citi ng long-term studies in Idaho, Christensen points out thatbull elk survival and average age (t hat is, t rophy status) decreaseradically wit h increased road access. It s simple biology and com-mon sense. Roads are the delivery system for people to invadehabitat. If a w ild life population is weakened by land managementdecisions in t his case motorized access youll have higherlosses from everyt hing: winterki ll, predation, hunt ing, accidents and

disease.

This is no liberal t ree-hugger voodoo. It is scientificallydocumented, personally observable fact. Even the most thoughtl essroad hunt er should be able to understand that if you want some elkto hunt, first you need some elk. And to have and keep elk andparticularly t o produce t rophy bull s you need viable habitat t osupport and shelter them, in all seasons and over the long term. And

roads and clearcuts have been proven to weakenand, too frequently, utterl y destroy elk habitatviability.

And so it is that by attacking the integrity ofwild life habitat in pursuit of a personal passion for

effortless motor ized access everywhere mouth-ing the greed-head w ise use li e We can have itall all too many sport smen, sit ting all too

comfort ably on their motorized butts, rumbling blit hely along (andoften ill egally off) tens of thousands of miles of publi c-lands byways,are pissing on their own best interests.

David Petersen resides year-round in a little cabin on a big

mountain in southwestern Colorado. Davids dozen books include the

anthology A Hunters Heart: Honest Essays o n Blood Sport (Henry Holt)

and Heartsblood: Hunting, Spirituality, and W ildness in Am erica ( Island

Press).

Wapiti in its home. W ild lands CPR file photo.

True hunters a re embarra ssed a nd a ngered by

the w ord s, actions a nd myop ic, self-ser ving

pol i t ics of these a rmed moto rheads .


18/24


Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights

som e o f the scien tific 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 o ffice library.

Chop-ChopThe Impacts of Helicopter Recreation on WildlifeBy Em ily Yeom ans

Remember the days of sweating and climbingup steep slopes to gain spectacular views andreli sh the sounds of silence? Silence is not soeasily won these days, even in remote wilderness.With the aging and relatively affluent baby-boomermarket, helicopter recreation is one of the fastestgrowing types of wilderness adventure. Heli-skiing, heli-hiking, heli-site seeing, and heli-fishing

are all forms of helicopter r ecreation and alongwith the increase in human activit y in wi lderness,they raise concerns about impacts to wild lifepopulations.

A Varied ResponseHelicopt er distur bance of wild animals may

cause physiological and/or behavior al responsesthat compromise the animals surv ival, growth andreproduct ive fit ness, abili ty to r aise young, energybudgets, and habit at use. Behavioral responses inanimals vary among individuals wit hin a speciesand between species types; these variations maybe due to di fferences in temperament, sex, age,prior experience with aircraft, or other factors(McKechnie and Gladwin 1994). One relationshipis clear between aircraft and behavioral responses:the closer the aircr aft the greater the probabili tythat t he animal wil l respond, and the greater theresponse.

Accidents HappenAccidental injur y of animals that panic and

run from aircraft is a common concern of biolo-gists. Occasionall y animals, especiall y youngungulates, wil l run into objects or fall and gettr ampled while fleeing from aircraft.

Repr od uctive StressAircraft distur bances can cause reproductive

losses by alteri ng patterns of attendance to young(National Park Service 1994). Both mammals andbirds leave their young or eggs exposed to p reda-tor s and the elements when they run or fly awayfrom aircraft.

Ener gy Los s

Panic reactions and escape responses to overflights can beenergeti cally expensive to animals for two reasons. First, feedinganimals nearly always stop ingesting food when distur bed, whichmeans a decrease in energy int ake. Second, disturbed animalsusually run or otherwise move away from aircr aft, thus increasingtheir energy expendi ture (National Park Serv ice 1994). Increasedenergy expendit ures can reduce the rate of survi val and reproducti on(Albr ight and Kunstel 2001). Disturbance from overfl ights couldcause sensitive animals to abandon their habit ats. However, moreresearch is needed on t he long-term effects of helicopter distur-bances.

Associated Impa ctsHelicopt er recreation raises concern not only about the impact

of helicopters t hemselves but also about associated increases inrecreation. Heli-skiing is concentrated in upper-elevation terrain,where goats, caribou, elk, and brown bears occupy habi tat . In 1997, ahuman-triggered avalanche in the Chugach Mountains of Alaska killeda female Brown Bear and her two cubs while hibernating. Likewise,the increase in heli-hiking is taking more people to histor ically low-use areas like high alpine or tundr a. Alpine habitat i s extremelyfragile and cannot suppor t such use at h igh levels; by br inging ingroups by helicop ter, the numbers and degree of distur bance willincr ease. Trampled alp ine vegetation causes increased stress onwild life - mountain goats and sheep are part icularl y vulnerable to thi stype of disturbance because criti cal habitat is already in shor t

W hat goes up . . . must have impacts on wildlife. Photo by BillCunningham.


19/24


supply. There are also concerns related to t wo aspects of brownbear/ helicopt er/recreational conflict s (ADF&G 1992). Fir st, mostindividual bears flee approaching helicopters in a full run. If helicop-ter activ ity were frequent, bears would most likely move away from alocale (ADF&G 1992). The second concern is for the direct humanint rusion int o brown bear habit ats. Hiking in alpine terrain increasesthe risk of gri zzly/human conflicts. Such conflicts will r esult in moregrizzlies being destroyed in the name of public safety.

Case StudiesBecause helicopter recreation i s relatively new, review of the

lit erature found few studi es that specifically examine the effects ofhelicopt er recreation on wild life. However, many studi es haveexamined the responses of w ildl ife to mechanized recreationalactivit ies and human disturbances. Therefore, the major it y ofstudies lend themselves to drawing conclusions about the impacts ofhelicopter recreation.

Perching or nesting birds may flush when disturbed. A study ofbald eagles elici ted r esponses from over 40% of eagles when helicop-ters appr oached at distances of under 3,050m (Watson 1993). InAlaskas Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, heli flights have causedflight/ fright behavior in t undra swans and snow geese, and swanshave abandoned nests due to t he distur bance (Albright and Kunstel2001). Presence of young in t he nest increased tenacity. Eagles,presumably defending their young, did not flush until encountersunder 30m (Watson 1993). What seems to be no distur bance and alack of response to human activ iti es may actually be a form of nestdefense (Watson 1993). Even if adul ts do not flush, regular disrupt ionof nesting acti vit ies by aircraft or other human activit ies (i.e. hiking,skiing, etc.) coul d result in reduced brood ing and feeding of young.This may lead t o r educed att entiveness and nest failure (Watson 1993).

A rather significant study in 1982 by Ann Gunn looked at Cariboubehavior, range use patterns, and shor t-term responses to helicopterlandings on the Beverly Calving Ground. The study included anexperimental distur bance with eight phases: approach, turn, descent,wind-down, shutdown and ground activit y, wind-up, take-off, and lastaudib le (Gunn 1982). Gunn found that there were relati vely moreoccasions than expected when caribou exhibi ted maintenance

behaviors or behavioral responses to t he helicopter (Gunn 1982).For example, Caribou responded to t he helicopter by galloping andtrott ing during the turn phase. The results from the experimentallandings showed t hat t he cows and calves were readily displaced andtheir activit y patterns interrupted even by landing at a distance of300-2200m away from them. Overall, the study found t hat helicopt erlandings withi n several hundred meters of early post-calving groupsor aggregations of caribou wil l 1) di srupt ongoing maintenanceactivit ies; and 2) elicit behavioral responses that lead to displace-ments from the immediate range to distances of, at l east, 1-3km.

A study in 1987 by biologists from NorthernArizona Universit y investigated whether helicopteractivities in Grand Canyon National Park affectedthe feeding behavior of bighorn sheep (Stockwelland Bateman 1991). They found that in thepresence of helicopters, sheep were taking in lessenergy and expending more. Specifi cally, sheepspent 14% less time feeding dur ing the spring and42% less in the winter. Meanwhile, the sheepwalked 50% more while feeding (McKechnie andGladwin 1994).

Conclusion & RecommendationsThere is a general consensus in t he lit erature

that helicopter tr affic is more disruptive thanfixed-wing overflights (Watson 1993, Albright andKunstel 2001, Harr ington and Veitch 1991, Belangerand Bedard 1989). The literature indicates thatflight altit ude, noise output , speed, and approachpattern are the most important factors in deter-mining an animals reaction to an overflight(McKechnie and Gladwin 1994). Review of currentlit erature and information suggests the following

regulations to miti gate impacts of helicopt errecreation:1) Zoning of wild lands to assure that cr iti cal

habitats and opportunities for non-motorizedrecreation are not lost t o industr ial, commercialrecreation or inappropr iate private uses.

2) Any action requiring permitted helicopteractivit ies (i.e. helicopter flight seeing, glacierlandings, etc.) should have above ground levelflight restr ict ions imposed and enforced. Scientificresearch indicates a 2 km above ground level no-flyzone to completely avoid harassment of wild life.

3) Minimum distance guidelines of 300m foraircraft flying over sheep, goat, and caribouhabitat. Aircr aft should keep a quarter of a miledist ance from eagles nests.

4) Knowledge of species in an area that couldbe affected by helicop ter recreation should beobtained. Flight paths and landing sites should beestablished to minimize contact wit h wild life andshould avoid surpr ising (i.e. popping over cli ffs) orfly ing direct ly at animals. The seasons, habit atranges, and specific periods when consequencesof disturbance are part icularl y high (i .e. breedingseason) should also be considered when pl anningflight paths.

5) When planning management strategies aprecautionary approach should be taken and focusshould be on the reactions of the most sensitive

species.

Emily Yeomans is a graduate student in

Environmental Studies at the Univ. of Montana and a

longtime outdoor educator who h as see n the effects

of helicopter recreation first hand.

For Emilys complete report on th is topi c, goto the Wildlands CPR website resources page.

References on p ag e 20

A view of elk from the air notice they are fleeing. File photo.


20/24


References continued fro m p age 19

Albright , J. and M. Kunstel. 2001. A Research Repor t for the JacksonHole Conservation All iance. Jackson, WY.

Anderson, D. E., O.J. Rongstad, W.R. Mytton. 1990. Home-range changesin raptors exposed to increased human activity levels in

southeastern Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(2):134-142.Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Responses of staging greater snow

geese to human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Managem ent53(3):713-719.

Bunnell , F.L., D. Dunbar, L. Koza, and G. Ryder. 1981. Effects ofdisturbance on the product ivit y and numbers of white pelicans inBritish Columbiaobservations and models. Colonial Waterbirds4:2-11.

Callanan, L. 1993. Heli-hiking in the bugaboos. Forbes 151:166-170.Cassirer, E. F., D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk Responses to

disturbance by cross-country skiers in Yellowstone National Park.Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:375-381.

Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999.Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican Spot ted Owls. Journal of

Wildlife Management63:60-76.Ferguson, M.A.D., and L.B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic skiing on

distribution of Moose and Elk in Elk Island National Park, Alberta.Canadian Field-Naturalist96(1):69-78.

Gladwin, D.N., D.A. Asherin, and K.M. Manci. 1987. Effects of AircraftNoise and Sonic Booms on Fish and Wildli fe: Results of a Survey ofU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species and EcologicalServices Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcher ies and Research Centers.NERC-88/30. U.S. Fish and Wildl . Serv., National Ecology ResearchCenter, For t Coll ins, CO. 24pp.

Gunn, A. 1983. Caribou Behavior, Range Use Patt erns, and Shor t-TermResponses to Helicopter Landings on the Beverly Calving Ground,N.W.T. Yellowkni fe Wildli fe Service, Northwest Terri tor ies,Renewable Resources.

Harr ington, F.H. and A.M. Veitch. 1991. Shor t-term impacts of low-leveljet fighter training on Caribou in Labrador. Arctic 44(4):318-327.

Hilderbrand, G.V., L.L. Lewis, J. Larr ivee, and S.D. Farley. 2000. Adenning brown bear, Ursus arctos, sow and two cubs killed in anavalanche on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist114(3):498.

Johnson, B. 1977. The effects of human disturbance on a population ofharbor seals. In Environmental Assessment of the AlaskanContinental Shelf, 422-431. Annual Repor ts of PrincipalInvestigators for the Year Ending March 1977, Vol. 1, Receptors-Mammals.

Jope, K. L. 1985. Implications of grizzly bear habit uation to hikers.Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:32-37.

Knight, R.L., and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists:

Coexistence through Management and Research. pp. 51-156.Island Press.Krausman, P.R., B.D. Leopold, and D.L. Scarbrough. 1986. Desert mule

deer response to aircraft. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:68-70.Lit tl e, J.B. 1999. Quiet! The sounds of nature are harder to hear.

Wilderness 21-25.MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and

behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance.Journal of Wildlife Management46:351-358.

Maffly, Brian. 2000. Forest Service Upholds Copter-Ski Ruling. Salt LakeTribune, Jan. 6th, 2000.

Maffly, Brian. 2000. Compromise on Heli-SkiingPleases Nobody. Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 3rd,1999.

McKechnie, A. and D. Gladwin. 1994. Helicopters

and Wildlife. Rotor and Wing 32-33.Mil ler, F.L., E. Broughton, and A. Gunn. 1988.

Mortality of Migratory Barren-Ground Caribouon the Calving Grounds of the Beverly Herd,Northwest Terr itories, 1981-83. Ottawa:Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No.66.

National Park Service. 1994. Repor t to Congress:Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on theNational Park System. Denver Service Center.

Phil lips, G.E. and A. W. Alldredge. 2000.Reproductive success of elk followingdisturbance by humans during calving season.

Journal of Wildlife Management64(2):521-530.

Stockwell , C.A., G.C. Bateman, and J. Berger. 1991.Conflicts in nat ional parks: a case study ofhelicopters and bighorn sheep time budgets atthe Grand Canyon. Biological Conservation56:317-328.

Thiel, R.P., S. Merril l, and L.D. Mech. 1998. Toleranceby Denning Wolves, Canis lupus, to HumanDisturbance. Canadian Field-Naturalist112(2):340-342.

Titus, K. 1992. Letter to the USDA Forest Service.Alaska Depart ment of Fish and Game. Douglas,AK.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Finalenvironmental impact statement for the

Wasatch Powderbird Guides permi t renewal.Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake Cit y,UT and Unita National Forest, Provo, UT. pp.3-35-3-40.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. HelicopterLandings in Wilderness: Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement. Alaska Region, TongassNational Forest. Chatham, Stikine, andKetchikan Areas. RM-MB-340a.

Watson, J.W. 1993. Responses of nesting bald eaglesto helicopter surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin21:171-178.

Wilson, S.F. and D.M. Shakleton. 2001. Backcountr yRecreation and Mountain Goats: A Proposed

Research and Adaptive Management Plan.Wildlife Research Group, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, BC.

Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist . 1988. Behaviorresponses and reproduction of mule deer,Odocoileus hem ionus, does followingexperimental harassment with an all-terrainvehicle. Canadian Field-Naturalist102:425-429.


21/24


The Activist Spotlight is a new feature for The Road-

RIPorter. Our intention is to share the stories of som e

of the awesom e activists we w ork with, both as a

tribute to them and as a way of highlighting

successful strategies and lessons learned. Please

email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight to

jenbarry@wildla ndscp r.org.

When Sally Grimes was an undergraduate studying OutdoorRecreation and Resource Management, to her the phrase outdoorrecreation meant solely human-powered recreation. The thought ofmotor s in the wilderness didnt cross her mind. It wasnt unti l sheinterned with the Ameri can Hiking Society t hat the reality of off-roadvehicles and their threat to peace and quiet shocked her int o actionto protect the natural outdoor experience from motorized recreation.Sally, a cur rent Boise, Idaho resident, grew up in Indiana. The need tobe outside was ingrained in Sally at a very young age, (she has aphotograph of her father hiking in a Midwestern forest, carr ying heron his back) and these days, life just doesnt seem quit e right unlessshe can get outside every day and take a hike, kayak a ri ver, climb acrag, or sit and simply l isten to the wind.

As Director of Winter Wildlands Alliance, Sally campaigns onbehalf of wint er human-powered recreationists, who seek a quiet,

peaceful outdoor exper ience. A year and a half ago ski groups fromCalifornia, Colorado, Nevada and Idaho came together to solve acommon prob lem: snowmobiles had taken over publi c lands andskiers were running out of places to enjoy wint er. Through this init ialcoaliti on, Winter Wildlands was born i t has since expanded toinclude snowshoers, snowboarders, backcountry and nordic skiers.

Sally observes that the percepti on of mult iple-use differs fromthe national to the regional or local level. National policy makersunderstand that mult iple-use does not mean shared use not allrecreati onist s have to coexist on the same piece of land. So whenlocal forest rangers resist setting aside areas for human-poweredrecreation, Sally and her ski groups approach them with l etters fromnational Forest Serv ice representatives in hand. Peer-to-peerpressure can be very effective.

The human-powered recreationists who get i nvolved wi th WinterWildlands do so to prot ect a qualit y outdoor experience and topreser ve the land, wild life, and natural sights and sounds. And whilethese people love the land, many do not r ealize that l aws exist t oprot ect their values. A large part of Sallys work is educating peopleabout Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and the Code of FederalRegulations 36CFR295.2-295.6, which state that off-road vehicle usemust be planned to p rot ect land and other resources, promot e publicsafety, and minimize conflict s with other uses.

Even with the law on their side, skiers have found that closingareas to snowmobiles takes a savvy mix of media work, outreach andpol it ical pressure. For example, when skiers in Nevada wanted toclose Tahoe Meadows to snowmobiles (an area historically usedsolely for human-powered recreation) they found the FS not at all

receptive, so they documented user confl ict s by photographingsnowmobiles side by side with kids tr ying to ski. Next, they gatheredletters from skiers vowing they no longer felt safe skiing at TahoeMeadows. When the FS was sti ll not r eceptive, the skier-activ istsinterested t he Reno Gazette by bri nging photographs, copies of thelaws, and skier testimonials. Once in the publ ic eye, the ForestService began to squir m, but wit h not hing changing at Tahoe Mead-ows, the skiers took their case to Washington, DC. After learning that2,000 constituents wanted to see Tahoe Meadows returned to skiers,Senator Reeds office called t he FS, and it wasnt l ong before theTahoe Meadows Ranger announced the area would be closed tosnowmobiles.

Often by the time people have discoveredWinter Wildlands, they are frustrated, disill u-sioned, and dont know what to do next. WinterWildlands turns that frustration i nto motivation.Jesse Logan of the Logan Backcount ry SkiersAlliance in Utah puts it t his way: Sally lets youknow that you are not alone in your concern aboutloss of winter wild lands and solitud

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wildlands-cpr
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Road RIPorter 7.2

Documents