road riporter 8.2

The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing RoadsSummer Solstice 2003. Volume 8 # 2

— See article on page 3 —

Trading Roads for Jobs

Reinvesting in Jobs, Communities and ForestsBy Dan Ihara and Marnie Criley

Removing roads on the Clearwater National Forest. Photo by Scott Bagely.

Inside…

Check out our website at:

www.wildlandscpr.org

Trading Roads for Jobs. Pages 3-5

Get with the Program: Restoration and ORV ProgramUpdates. Pages 6-7

Legal Notes: Court Rejects Bush Administration’sRush for Oil Development, by Steve Bloch.Pages 8-9

Policy Primer: Recreational Trails Program Update,by Lisa Philipps. Pages 10-11

Odes to Roads: Here’s Sand in Your Eye, by JanDeBlieu. Pages 12-13

Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 14-15

Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 16-17

Biblio Notes: Erosion at Stream Crossings, by MaryAnn Madej. Pages 18-19

Activist Spotlight: Sungnome Madrone. Page 20

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 20032

© 2003 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works toprotect and restore wildland ecosystems bypreventing and removing roads and limiting

motorized recreation. We are a nationalclearinghouse and network, providing citizens

with tools and strategies to fight roadconstruction, deter motorized recreation, and

promote road removal and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) [email protected]

www.wildlandscpr.org

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

Restoration ProgramCoordinator

Marnie Criley

Transportation PolicyCoordinator

Bridget Lyons

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

NTWC GrassrootsCoordinator

Lisa Philipps

Program AssociateJennifer Barry

NewsletterDan Funsch & Jim Coefield

Interns & VolunteersMaureen Hartmann, Shay O'Brien-Ugaldea,

Beth Peluso

Board of DirectorsKaren Wood DiBari, Greg Fishbein, Dave Havlick,Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Sonia Newenhouse,

Mary O'Brien, Matt Skroch, Ted Zukoski

Advisory CommitteeJasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,

Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, LorinLindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,

Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,

Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

Wildlands

Center for

Preventing

Roads

By Bethanie Walder

It seems like only yesterday that candidate Bill Clinton said, “it’s the economy,stupid!” But that refrain has finally made it into the strategic framework of manyconservationists, including Wildlands CPR. With this issue of the newsletter, we are

releasing our first of hopefully several reports regarding economic issues related toroads and off-road vehicles. This report in particular looks at opportunities to incorpo-rate road removal into rural economies, and help move those economies from resourceextraction to restoration. Eventually we hope to expand this work in two ways: first toprovide more site-specific information about road removal - on a forest by forest or evencounty by county basis; and second to look into motorized vs. non-motorized recre-ational activities and their economic impacts and benefits.

Our report was prepared by the Center for Environmental Economic Development(CEED), with Dan Ihara acting as the principle investigator. CEED spent months collect-ing information on Forest Service road removal programs throughout the country. Theycompared costs and benefits of road removal and clearly addressed some of the broadscale economic questions regarding development of a road removal workforce. Theirreport focuses on the potential impacts and benefits of fully implementing the roadremoval component of the Forest Service long-term transportation plan. This plan callsfor up to 186,000 miles of road removal over the next 20 years.

This preliminary economic analysiswill be critical to conservationists’ effortsto balance the playing field regardingeconomics and the environment. Ratherthan the age-old jobs vs. the environmentdebate, this information enables us tospeak more effectively about jobs and theenvironment. In addition, understandingthe economic implications and especiallythe economic benefits of our work canhelp us expand our partnerships morebroadly. The report also shifts the focusaway from more contentious debates overforest thinning as a method of restoration.

Combined with the recent release ofthe Restoration Principles (see page 17),the economics report provides a glimpseinto a new management approach torestoration. Road removal is a viablemanagement option for restoration onforestlands, deserts, and wetlands -publicly or privately owned. Nonetheless,over the past few years, conservationistshave been playing an increasingly difficultgame of defense. It is our hope that thisreport, and others to follow, will offerpositive opportunities for new conserva-tion approaches that combine jobs,economics and environment into acomprehensive package for wildlandmanagement through restoration.

Arrowleaf balsamroot blooms are a sure sign ofspringtime in the Rockies. Photo by GeorgeWeurthner.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2003 3

— continued on next page —

Trading Roads for Jobs

Reinvesting in Jobs, Communities and ForestsBy Dan Ihara and Marnie Criley

Early January 2000 was a good time for roadlessareas and road removal. The Forest Servicefinalized a new policy to protect roadless areas

and to promote better road management. But whenBush took office on January 22, 2001, the first thinghe did was write an order that indefinitely postponedthe implementation of the roadless rule pendinglitigation outcomes. At the same time, he delayedimplementation of the long-term transportationpolicy by six months. In December 2002, theroadless rule was partly reinstated by the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals. Prior to that, in May 2001,the long-term transportation policy went into effect.That policy calls for removing up to 186,000 miles ofroads over the next 20-40 years. It even states thatunroaded acreage might increase by 5-10%. So whatwould happen if this policy were really implementedand what would it take to get there?

In the fall of 2002, Wildlands CPR hired theCenter for Environmental Economic Development toanswer just that question. They studied the economic benefits andcosts of a national road removal program on the National Forests.(The executive summary and full report will be available on ourwebsite by July 1, 2003.) They found that with some additionalappropriations dedicated to road removal, the US Forest Servicecould put a lot of people to work removing roads over the next twentyyears and beyond. Not only would this provide much-needed jobs,but it would save significant amounts of taxpayer money that’s nowused to clean up sedimentation and other damage from roads.Equally important, it would go a long way towards restoring damagedecosystems, too.

For the purposes of the study, gating and other forms of blockingroad entrances do not constitute road removal if hydrologic concernsremain. But any combination of the following treatments does:• revegetation and waterbarring;

• removing fills and culverts;

• establishing drainageways and removing unstable roadshoulders; and,

• full obliteration by recontouring and restoring natural slopes.

The study compares the cost of removing sediment from a streamto the cost of removing sediment before it ends up in the stream (ie.removing the road/fill). The one-time road removal expense averaged$1.00 to $3.50 per cubic yard, while the ongoing sediment mitigationaveraged $7.70 per cubic yard. In other words, the cost of removingsediment from waterways is significantly higher than the cost of prevent-ing it from eroding in the first place. And while the numbers may notseem significant, if you multiply by the hundreds, thousands andsometimes hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sediment locatedat stream crossings along roads, the savings become profound.

CEED’s study uses a conceptual frameworkinvolving five forms of capital: constructed,natural, human, social and cultural capital. Con-structed capital includes the stock of buildings,tools and equipment, inventories of goods, and“infrastructure” facilities of all sorts includingenergy, water, transportation, and so forth. Naturalcapital includes stocks of natural resources andfunctional components of ecosystems and theirinteraction from which flow goods (natural re-source harvests) and services (climate regulation,gas exchange, purification of water and air, and soforth). Human capital includes the accumulation ofindividual abilities, skills and experience that serveas the basis for human productivity in all its forms,both within labor markets and in households andvolunteer activities. Social capital represents thestock of “civic virtues” and networks of civicengagement, community involvement, reciprocitynorms, and trust essential to the function ofdemocratic societies (and essential to vibranteconomies as well). Cultural capital refers to thebody of stories, visions, and myths shared bypeople and providing the framework for howpeople view the world and their proper role in it(Hackett, 2001).

In addition to addressing these different formsof capital, CEED also looked at numerous casestudies throughout the U.S. where road removal isactually taking place.

Wildlands CPR road removal workshop in the Dragoon Mountains of Arizona.Photo by Bethanie Walder.


Mile-by-mile and job-by-jobFocusing on the 446,000 miles of National Forest System

(NFS) roads and unclassified roads in National Forests, thestudy defines three basic road decommissioning programalternatives. The first two are based on existing options forthe long-term transportation plan, while the third is proposedby the study.

1. The “Status Quo” Road Decommissioning Programfor NFS roads would decommission 2,500 miles of road a yearover the next 40 years (with an additional 2,500 miles becom-ing impassable per year due to lack of maintenance);

2. The Critical Funding Road Decommissioning Program for NFSroads would decommission 7,000 miles of road a year over the next 20years; and,

3. Complete Unneeded Road Removal Program involves anactive road decommissioning program (ripping, waterbarring,removing culverts, and recontouring) directed at the 186,000 miles ofunneeded roads associated with the Status Quo Program over a 20year period.

A very rough, first approximation of the employment impact of anational road removal program was derived from an “analyses of the1995 Resource Planning Act Program [which] showed that about 33jobs economy wide are supported per $1 million expenditure onbuilding and maintaining roads [and that the] case can be made thatremoving existing roads and restoring the land underlying themwould support roughly the same rate of employment” (Clearwater NF,Roads Analysis). The job creation estimates are “economy wide” andinclude indirectly created jobs such as those related to manufacturingof heavy equipment used in road decommissioning. For example, thestudy identifies dozens of tasks that can be done by both heavyequipment operators (bulldozers and excavators), and others (e.g.,engineers, GIS techs, road obliteration inspectors, revegetation).

One ongoing road removal program in Washington state presentsan excellent example of saving money while restoring habitat andproviding jobs. The Cedar River and Tolt watersheds outside ofSeattle provide the majority of the drinking water to that city — their

water remains untreated. The city has now closedaccess to the Cedar River watershed and is remov-ing approximately 10 miles of road per year at acost of $30,000 per mile. To meet their goal ofremoving 200 miles over the next 20 years, they willspend approximately $6 million. The alternative isbuilding a multi-million dollar water filtrationfacility with ongoing facility costs thereafter.Instead, they’ll end up with a restored watershedand continuing clean water for a lower cost.

As another example from a different perspec-tive, consider the relationship between the KarukTribe and the Six Rivers National Forest in northernCalifornia. An EPA report notes that, “Over thelong term, more than 2,000 miles of road through-out the Karuk’s ancestral territory will needdecommissioning or significant upgrading andremediation of mining impacts” and that “Buildingthe tribe’s capability to play an appropriate role inecosystem management is the only means bywhich ecosystem restoration, cultural survival, andcommunity prosperity will be achieved.” TheKaruk Tribe is completing their first major roadremoval project (see The RIPorter 7:5)

CEED’s overall study estimated that roadremoval costs would vary from several thousand to

Trading Roads for Jobs— continued from previous page —

Program Name Total Miles* Miles/Yr $/mile Annual Cost Jobs/year(in millions)

1. “Status Quo” 50,000 2,500 $ 7,500 $18.75 619

2. “Critical Funding” 140,000 7,000 $ 7,500 $52.50 1733

3. “Complete URR” 186,000 9,300** $10,000 $93.00 3069* Over twenty years** With a greater proportion of road obliteration and more thorough road decommissioning treatments.

Comparison of Road Removal Options

An excavator at work decommissioning a road. Wildlands CPR filephoto.


several hundred thousand dollars per mile. Theyproject that the Forest Service, in partnership withlocal communities, could provide significant jobsputting the forests back together. These jobs couldincrease economic returns for those communities,as fisheries and terrestrial habitat would berestored, mitigation and maintenance costs wouldbe reduced, and wildland recreation opportunitieswould be improved. If the jobs are to truly helprestore communities, then they must be qualityjobs, not just another round of boom and bustopportunity, and the government must fundtraining programs. The Alliance for SustainableJobs and the Environment has defined quality jobsas having the following characteristics:

1. family wage, fully trained, journeyman level(careers);

2. certified training and apprentice with skillsstandards and curricula;

3. a safe healthy workplace;4. year-round jobs (duration, stability, tenure,

mixed contracting); and,5. trained pools of contractors to bid on

stewardship style.

For full economic benefits to continue flowingover time, the Forest Service must not only reduceits road system through a dedicated program ofroad removal, but it must begin to fully maintain itsremaining road system. A full road removalprogram will require significant funding fromCongress to ensure that workers receive excellenttraining in this difficult work (the study envisionsapproximately $5 million/year for training and $5million/year to coordinate diverse stakeholdersand agencies) — as well as funding to employ thoseworkers after they’ve been trained. An effectiveroad removal program must be directly paired witha full maintenance program for the roads thatremain. This program will provide continuedemployment for newly trained and veteran heavyequipment road workers.

ConclusionThe pioneering road removal work in Northern

California and the Pacific Northwest broughttogether diverse constituencies and revitalizedlocal economies; there is every reason to believe anational road removal program could do the samein rural communities throughout the country.

As this report shows, a national road removalprogram could reduce future maintenance costs,increase human capital, and build communities’capacities to collaborate. At the same time itbuilds natural capital by improving water quality,habitat, recreation and other benefits. It providesus with a rare opportunity to turn our country’sroad problems into a valuable national asset.

Heavy equipment was essential for removing roads in Redwoods National Park.Wildlands CPR file photo.

Report RecommendationsInclude:

• In addition to the $93 million annually in the pro-posed Complete Unneeded Road Removal ProgramAlternative, $5 million annually would be allocatedfor road decommissioning related training and $5million for building communities’ capacity to coordi-nate their diverse stakeholders and agencies.

• Road decommissioning training should be integratedwith other ecosystem restoration training. Thesuggestions of the Western Council of IndustrialWorkers regarding implementation should beconsidered.

• Individuals and organizations in communities nearNational Forests should be encouraged to investi-gate their National Forests’ Roads Analyses, whichwere completed January 13, 2003. Several indi-vidual national forests have made their RoadsAnalyses available on their websites. In particular,individuals and organizations should identify criticalroads at high risk of becoming impassable andwhich are associated with significant environmentalimpacts. Participatory research by the variousstakeholders in communities near national forestsshould be encouraged and organized.

• After FY 2004, the report suggests that funding becommitted for five year blocks of time to individualnational forests. This may be an effective way toencourage individual national forests to more quicklydevelop and implement road decommissioningcomponents as part of their overall Road Manage-ment plans.


Restoration Program Update

Summer 2003

By Marnie Criley, Restoration Policy Coordinator

Road Removal Workshop in Missoula/

Clearwater National ForestOn June 6-7, Wildlands CPR joined the National Network of Forest

Practitioners, National Forest Foundation and Redwood CommunityAction Agency to sponsor a road reconstruction and removal work-shop tailored to contractors, operators, restorationists and agencypersonnel. Thanks to funding from the National Forest Foundation,Sungnome Madrone, a twenty year veteran of road removal andrestoration work in northern California, led the workshop. Day 1covered road reconstruction and removal opportunities, funding forroad restoration, contract models, and the economic benefits of roadremoval. Day 2 was spent on the Clearwater National Forest discuss-ing techniques and cost estimation. The road removal crew for theNez Perce Tribe led the Clearwater field trip. Thirty-five peopleparticipated, including representatives from seven different nationalforests, numerous contractors, and conservation activists. The mixof people led to lively discussions and a thorough critique of theClearwater program. More importantly, it opened doors for morecollaboration between the agencies, conservationists and contrac-tors.

Restoration PrinciplesThe Restoration Principles (see page 17) were peer reviewed and

published in the March 2003 issue of Ecological Restoration. Theywere also publicly released in late May. Endorsed by more than 100groups, the principles are now being used to develop region/ecosys-tem specific principles that can be tested on the ground. TheCalifornia Wilderness Coalition recently issued a report doing justthis. The principles were two years in the making — following ourfirst restoration summit in Spring 2000.

This March, we co-hosted the third annual summit in Ashland,OR, and it was our most successful to date. Participants spent anentire day in the field looking at restoration projects and discussinghow the conservation community, forest practitioners and commu-nity forestry groups can find common ground on restoration. On thelast day we focused on opportunities to work together — funding andappropriations topped the list. Many environmental and communityforestry groups have already been working together to find moremoney for restoration, but we hope to broaden that relationship.Marnie will be involved in this work. The restoration steering commit-tee is now setting up regional summits for next year.

Labor and the EnvironmentMarnie continues working with two different groups to build

relationships with labor unions. As co-chair of the Alliance forSustainable Jobs and the Environment’s Restoration Working Group,Marnie attended their annual meeting in April and is working withthem to promote the new economics report. She’s also working withthe Missoula Blue-Green Alliance; both groups will be taking a closelook at our economics report as we work together to rebuild ruraleconomies and restore public lands.

Science ProgramAdam and five other scientists have finished a

first draft of “Watershed benefits from roadremoval: review and prospectus.” This papersummarizes what research has been conducted onroad removal and identifies glaring gaps in ourknowledge of this emerging field. After a few moreedits, they will submit this article to “Frontiers inEcology and the Environment,” the EcologicalSociety of America’s new interdisciplinary journal.Additionally, along with general duties of answeringinformation requests and attaining the most recentroads and ORV research, Adam has been workingon developing research projects on road removal.Specifically, he is working with scientists todevelop projects that measure if wildlife is re-sponding to road removal.

Clearwater National ForestThe Clearwater road removal assessment

conducted by Watershed Consulting, LLC has beensubmitted for publication in Ecological Restoration.Adam, Marnie and Mark Vander Meer recentlypresented the findings at a conference in Calgarytitled Making Science, Making Change, put on bythe Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiativeand Wilburforce Foundation (who funded thestudy).

Out in the field at the Clearwater road removal workshopJune 7th. Photo by Adam Switalski.


Transportation Program Update

Summer 2003

By Bridget Lyons

Photo courtesy of Buffalo FieldCampaign.

Using an auger to decompact desert roads.Photo by Bethanie Walder.

A few years ago, the “travel planning” process was virtuallyunheard of. Public lands agencies evaluated their road and trailsystems as part of their regular forest plan or resource plan revisionprocess, and few citizens got involved. The variety, accessibility, andpopularity of recreation opportunities have increased, however - andso have the numbers of people using roads and trails on public lands.This increase has resulted in more opinions, making it challenging foragencies to grapple with the development of their transportationsystem while simultaneously managing timber, wildlife, mineralextraction, and water resources. Consequently, many forests andBLM resource areas have opted to separate the travel planningprocess from the overall forest plan or RMP revision process. Wild-lands CPR’s transportation program has been largely focused on thisprocess of late. Here’s a little of what Bridget has been working on....

Travel Planning PrimerThis booklet, expected to be ready this summer, is designed to

guide place-based, quiet-use oriented groups through the travelplanning process. It includes a description of the travel planningprocess, suggestions on how to formulate travel planning goals,details on how to get involved in the agency process, and a thoroughexamination of political organizing, including working with diverseallies. The appendices of the primer will contain sample commentletters, monitoring forms, and other useful documents. All of theseresources are available now; call Bridget if you can’t wait until theprimer is published!

Comments and AppealsThe Arizona Five Forests ORV Plan. This draft ORV plan, released

in late April, is intended to guide ORV use on the Kaibab, Coconino,Prescott, Tonto, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona.The draft wisely calls for banning cross-country ORV travel andrestricting travel to designated routes on these lands. Unfortunately,no process or timeline for designating these routes is included, andcontinued use of user-created routes will be permitted until thedesignation process is completed. Wildlands CPR will be workingwith local groups to advocate for a more effective designated routespolicy through this process. A copy of the DEIS is available atwww.fs.fed.us/r3/ohv, and comments are due on June 13.

Motorized recreation comments. Wildlands CPR has beenhelping a number of other organizations by submitting comments orcrafting road and motorized recreation language for comment letters.Some of the projects with which we assisted include a road proposalin Alaska, two forest plan revisions, an RMP revision, a NationalMonument plan, and a coalbed methane development project.

We’ll keep you posted on all of these issues as they develop. Feelfree to email Bridget ([email protected]) is you have anyquestions or want to hear more about any of this work.


In a decision that the New York Times heraldedas one of the country’s two most importantenvironmental victories of the year, a federal

district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in Decem-ber 2002 that the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) violated the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) when it authorized the Yellow Catseismic project. Because of this decision, the BLMnow will have to complete a proper environmentalreview before authorizing any additional seismicoperations in the project area. The decision alsocreates a precedent requiring agencies to assessthe impacts of energy development equipment onthe land. This was the first time a federal court hashad the opportunity to review a Bush administra-tion-sponsored oil exploration project.

BackgroundThe BLM had approved a request by the

world’s largest seismic exploration company,WesternGeco, to explore for oil and gas in theDome Plateau region outside of Moab, Utah, (justeast of Arches National Park), also known as theYellow Cat project area. The project area encom-passed more than 23,000 acres of spectacularwildlands - including proposed wilderness; theregion also provides habitat for several threatenedor endangered species, including the black-footedferret, the bald eagle and the Mexican spotted owl.Exploration was to be done using vibraseis (popu-larly know as “thumper”) trucks — 60,000 poundvehicles which cause immense impacts upon theland.

After the plaintiffs won a temporary stay of theBLM’s decision to approve the Yellow Cat project, adivided panel of the Interior Board of Land Appealsupheld BLM’s decision in late August 2002. Afterlearning that WesternGeco was planning to returnand finish the project in September, the SouthernUtah Wilderness Alliance, along with the NaturalResources Defense Council, The Wilderness Societyand the Sierra Club (we’ll refer to all the groupscollectively as SUWA) filed a lawsuit in federaldistrict court in Washington, D.C. to challenge theproject.

In late October, the court issued a preliminaryinjunction temporarily blocking the WesternGecoproject so that it could consider the environmentalgroups’ claims. On December 20, 2002, the courtagreed with SUWA that BLM, by approving theexploration activity, had violated NEPA.

What’s the Hurry?

Court Rejects Bush Administration’s Rush for

Oil and Gas at Arches N.P.By Steve Bloch

Editor’s Note: Wildlands CPR is keeping an eye on the Bush administration’s plans forenergy development, because with resource extraction comes a maze of roads andtraffic impacts. The seismic testing case described below was a major victory for road-free wild places. For more information on seismic testing and its related road and ORVimpacts, please see The RIPorter 7(1):16-17.

Thirty-ton “Thumpers” like this one can devastate fragile desert soils.Photo courtesy of Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA).


Plaintiffs’ ClaimsAttorneys for SUWA successfully argued that

the BLM relied on an inadequate environmentalassessment (EA) that failed to consider alternativesto the proposed seismic project. SUWA alsoprovided evidence that the project would causesignificant impacts to the human environment. Inparticular, SUWA noted that WesternGeco usedthumper trucks to criss-cross sensitive desert soils,while vibrating the ground at regular intervals torecord seismic information about oil deposits.Thumper trucks cause the same type of damage asoff-road vehicles do in arid environments - theyravage fragile cryptobiotic soils and cause ecologi-cal damage from which it can take as many as 300years for the desert to recover. Because the courtconcluded that the BLM had failed to analyze anyalternatives to the proposed action, it did not ruleon the adequacy of the analysis of the ecologicaldamage thumper trucks cause, but these impactsare mentioned in the decision. The BLM appealedthe court’s decision but chose to dismiss theappeal last month.

Leaving ruts over a foot deep, oil and gas exploration invites severe erosionproblems. Photo courtesy of SUWA.

Just the BeginningThe Bush Administration has been pushing federal land managers to “fast-track”

development on public lands across the West, allegedly to bolster U.S. energy security.Last year, the BLM released a blueprint memo outlining their strategy to open up publiclands for oil and gas exploration and drilling. In another memo, released earlier in 2002,the BLM told federal land managers in Utah that oil and gas lease applications cominginto the agency should be considered “priority number one.” With this mandate inplace, we can expect this case and other energy cases to be regularly tested in courtover the next couple of years.

SUWA and its conservation partners were represented by SUWAstaff attorney Steve Bloch, NRDC senior staff attorney Sharon Buccino,and Katherine Meyer & Tanya Sanerib from the D.C. based law firm ofMeyer & Glitzenstein. Please see the “Legal Notes” section of Wild-lands CPR’s website (www.wildlandscpr.org) for a copy of this deci-sion.

— Steve Bloch is a staff attorney with the Southern Utah WildernessAlliance.

A road (on right) leads up to a drilling platform alongMontana’s Rocky Mountain Front, which is also targetedby the Bush Administration for oil and gas develpment.Photo by Bill Cunningham.

Photo courtesy of SUWA.


The Policy Primer is a columndesigned to highlight the ins &outs of a specific road or Off

Road Vehicle policy. If you havea policy you’d like us toinvestigate, let us know!

Recreational Trails Program UpdateBy Lisa Philipps

RTP In Review...In 1998, the Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

was re-authorized until the year 2003. As part of the“Transportation Equity Act (TEA),” RTP provides$50 million annually to the states to develop andmaintain recreational trails and trail-relatedfacilities for non-motorized and motorized uses.Each state administers its own program, usuallythrough a State resource or park agency, anddevelops procedures to solicit and select projects.State Recreational Trail Advisory Committeesassist with the program. For each state’s particularstate trails administration contact, go to:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rtpstate.htm

The funds can be used for these activities (RTPLegislation, 23 U.S.C. 206):

A - Construction of new trails,B - Acquisition of easements or private property;C - Maintenance and restoration of existing trails;D - Purchase or lease of trail equipment/facilities;E - Educational programs and outreach;F - Rehabilitation of trails and trailside facilities.G- Acquisition of easements and fee simple title

to property for recreational trails orrecreational trail corridors.

It is important to note that RTP funds may notbe used for planning. For example, the ColoradoState Parks committee denied a $62,000 request bythe Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition(COHVCO) to fund the development of their“People’s Choice Alternative for Recreation” for theGrand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison (GMUG)Forest Plan revision.

Since 1993, states have funded more than 5,500 recreational trailor hiking projects with $180 million in federal funds. Project sponsors(typically ORV or hiking clubs) have contributed more than $180million in value toward these projects in cash, materials, and ser-vices, making a total of $360 million spent on trails. In-kind contribu-tions appear to have a significant impact on which projects areaccepted. For example, in 2001, a total of $173,744 was granted to 11snowmobile-related projects through a cooperative program betweenColorado State Parks and the Colorado Snowmobile Association —$50,000 of the total came from separate funding through statesnowmobile registra-tion fees.

RTP requires thatstates use 30 percent oftheir funds for motor-ized trail uses, 30percent for non-motorized uses, and 40percent for “diverse,”or multiple-uses. Insome cases multiple-use trail funding goesto motorized/non-motorized uses. Inother cases it goes tomultiple-motorizeduses or multiple-non-motorized uses. In thewest, this is dispropor-tionately spent onmotorized develop-ments; in the east it’sthe opposite.

Editor’s Note: In the past few years there has been a landslide of applicationssubmitted by off-road vehicle organizations for Off Road Vehicle (ORV) project fundingunder the Recreational Trails Program (RTP). The resulting funds, combined withmoney from state ORV registration funds, are allowing off-road-vehicle riders to “buyaccess” to public lands and displace human-powered recreation. In spite of this grimreality, there are ways we can divert these funds and stop bad RTP projects. This articlewill review how RTP works and discuss strategies for halting the creation of newmotorized trails. For background on the RTP, see The RIPorter 7.3.

Soil damage on an ATV trail in the White RiverNational Forest. Photo by R. Compton.


States may provide grants to private organizations or to munici-pal, county, state, or federal agencies. Projects may be on public orprivate land, however, projects on private land must have writtenassurance of public access. Some private organizations are going toland managers and “suggesting” that they submit proposals to thestate trails committee. In Idaho, for example, there is a proposal todesignate a 450-mile ATV trail through the Wood River Valley. IdahoState Parks admits this is a very attractive proposal as it will usesome of the state’s $816,000 trails budget and additional funding fromthe Idaho State OHV registration fund. At a time when land managersare scraping the bottom of their barrels to continue even their basicprograms, this is like candy.

For more details on RTP funding, go to: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrail.htm

How We Can Influence the RTP ProcessOne of the most powerful tools we have to address a project is

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). All RTP projects arerequired to comply with NEPA.

The RTP Interim Guidance (1999) outlines the program’s generalenvironmental requirements: “Documentation of compliance with theNEPA and other environmental statutes, regulations, and ExecutiveOrders must be provided as part of an authorized project under theRTP..... However, each project must be reviewed to assure that it doesnot have a significant impact on the environment.”

In addition, the language within the environmental requirementsfor RTP states:

(e) Environmental Benefit or Mitigation—To the extent practi-cable and consistent with the other requirements of this section, astate should give consideration to project proposals that provide forthe redesign, reconstruction, non-routine maintenance, or relocationof recreational trails to benefit the natural environment or to mitigateand minimize the impact to the natural environment. - RTP Legisla-tion: 23 U.S.C. 206.

As an advocate for public lands, you can keep an eye on projectsto ensure that NEPA analysis is being adequately completed anddocumented.

Who Is Responsible For NEPA

Compliance?The federal agency must provide the guidance and oversight for

proper NEPA compliance for RTP projects. The language in thestatute states, “This section shall not relieve the Federal official of hisor her responsibilities for the scope, objectivity and content of theentire statement or of any other responsibility under 42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.”

All those involved with the Recreational Trails Program mustcomply with NEPA. Most states have included an environmentalcompliance section within the application form that all projectsponsors must fill out. This alerts project sponsors to the fact thatenvironmental compliance is one of the criteria that must be met inorder to receive federal and state project approval. No project canreceive federal approval or money until NEPA has been satisfied.

State Advisory CommitteesActivists can also have considerable influence

in the grant making process with the trails commit-tees. States are required to establish a “trailsadvisory committee,” representing both motorizedand non-motorized trail users, which meets at leastonce a year. These meetings provide opportunitiesfor citizens to get involved in the decision-makingprocess. In addition, many states ask for volunteersto review and provide input into the projectproposals. Activists should keep track of when thistakes place. Typically the projects will be sent forreview in the fall, and decisions made in December.Contact your state trails committee (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rtpstate.htm). Tellthe State Trails Administrator that you are veryinterested in the allocation of your state’s fundstowards recreation projects. Let them know youwant to preserve and encourage non-motorizedrecreation opportunities. Ask to be put on theirmailing list to receive a state trails newsletter andbecome involved in the grant review process.Attend the public meetings that the trails commit-tee holds and become acquainted with their boardand process. Lastly, plan on submitting your owngrant proposals for projects that encouragerestoration and/or non-motorized uses.

In conclusion, the RTP program is providing asource of money to agencies at a time when moneyis scarce. Off-road vehicle organizations are furthersweetening their proposals with volunteer staff at atime when agencies are facing staff shortages.These same organizations are also adept at“selling” their proposals under the guise of educa-tion and promoting responsible riding. We must bejust as effective in our pursuit of RTP funding forenforcement or restoration as well as non-motor-ized project funding. For more information contactBridget Lyons, Wildlands CPR TransportationPolicy Coordinator or Lisa Philipps, Natural Trailsand Waters Grassroots Coordinator.

ORV users are not shy about pursuing RTP funding toestablish ORV recreation areas. Photo courtesy of GrandCanyon Trust.


Here’s Sand in Your Eye —

Driving Plovers from the BeachBy Jan DeBlieu

he bridge over Oregon Inlet stretches above asluicing channel and, on the north edge, a fan ofbeach that climbs slowly out of volatile Atlanticwaters. In winter I love to ride over the bridge,looking east to the pounding surf for which NorthCarolina’s Outer Banks are known. The sandy curlis deserted then, or nearly so. I have the sense thatI am looking down on a landscape as wild as anyleft in the East.

But come spring, everything changes. Onweekends trucks crowd fender to fender along thewaterline, white rod holders fastened against theirgrills like shiny teeth. Anglers cast all manner oflures into the waves. Children careen back andforth on four-wheelers, weaving in and out of thetruck traffic. Any semblance of wildness is van-quished.

And this is just the beach that’s visible fromthe road.

Inlets attract fish, and fishermen. So does CapeHatteras, jutting far into the sea. Locally the curlingspit that forms the tip of the cape is known as thePoint. On virtually any day of the year the beach atthe Point is lined with trucks, each nosed up to thetide line. It is one of the most heavily usedstretches of shoreline in North America. Whetheror not it is suffering biologically depends on whoyou ask.

In the past few years a heated argument hasbroken out between surf fishermen and thebiologists at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.For decades these two interests have engaged inverbal shoving matches for control of the beacheswithin the national park. Each year when biologistsclose areas of the beach where shorebirds nest,fishermen complain. Mostly, though, the protestshave been blustery but polite.

Enter the piping plover. You can probablyguess where this is going to go; it’s an old, tiredstory. Two years ago, in response to a law suit filedby the Defenders of Wildlife, park biologistsdesignated Cape Hatteras-including Oregon Inlet,Cape Point, and other popular fishing spots-as“critical habitat” for the plover, which is threatenedin North Carolina and endangered in the GreatLakes. Some of the Great Lakes birds use CapeHatteras as a wintering ground. The designation ofcritical habitat was merely a procedural change.Biologists didn’t alter the way they managed beachnesting areas. Nor did they increase the amount ofterritory that was closed to driving. They weresimply complying with a stipulation spelled out bythe Endangered Species Act.

Nonetheless, when anglers read the criticalhabitat regulations, they were dismayed to see thatthe park service now had the power to close wideareas, and not just to motorized vehicles. If needbe, the regulations said, officials could even keeppedestrians off the beach.

“They’re going to close the beach!” The crywent up from fishing club to fishing club. “They’regoing to close the beach!” Overnight a remotepossibility became fact: The park service wants todeprive us of our lifelong custom. No, it’s morethan that, dammit. It’s our birthright. Fishermenhave been driving the beach here for generations.

There was, the anglers decided, only one thingto do. Sue. Sue their butts, before they try to keepeveryone off the Point and away from the inlets.And so in February a group known as the CapeHatteras Access Preservation Alliance filed suit to

T

File photo.


overturn the critical habitat designation. They werejoined by the Boards of Commissioners in the twocounties that comprise Hatteras and Ocracokeislands.

One of the main reasons I love living on theOuter Banks is the wild west feel, the atmosphereof man-and-woman against the elements. Fishing isan integral part of that. Before there was muchtourism on the islands, there was fishing. Beforethere was a reliable highway down Hatteras Island,people rode the beach. It’s no exaggeration to saythat beach driving is part of the culture.

I have friends on both sides of the lawsuit. I’vetalked with people about it, a lot. Even so, I wasn’tprepared for the ferocity of opinion I encounteredone day in a tackle shop on Hatteras Island.

I had gone into the shop to drop off somebrochures for a coastal environmental group. Iintroduced myself to the shop owner, a burly manwith a thick black beard, and asked if he’d put outthe brochures.

He looked me up and down as if assessing notmy sexuality, but my political leanings. “I’m notgoing to have anything to do with your group,” hegrowled, “until I find out how you stand on oneissue.”

I assured him that we are not in favor ofbarring vehicles from the beaches. (Neither is thepark service, but I didn’t mention that.)

We chatted for a few minutes about business,and how a ban on beach driving would bankrupthis shop. “But,” I ventured, “you’ve been here along time. There are lots more trucks on the beachthan there used to be. Do you think there needs tobe some form of control?”

He scowled. “Sounds like you’re talking aboutpermits for beach driving.” He shook his head,hard, and stuck out his chin. I couldn’t help beingimpressed with his size and lavish whiskers. “Youknow what’s happened up at Assateague Island? Ifyou show up to fish on the beach at 6:30 in themorning, you have to wait in line until someoneelse comes off. That’s what happens with permits.”

“This is the only place left where you can fishwithout getting some sort of permission from thegovernment. And by God, we’re going to keep itthat way.”

The debate about beach driving is about basicfreedoms, perhaps, but something more, too. Itseems to me that the anglers’ intense response tothe possibility of restrictions springs from some-thing deeper than a desire to fish where they want,when they want. I think it’s a reaction to thewhittling away of the place they once knew by evermore people, ever more development. They’re

feeling hemmed in. So they cling to one of the fewthings that has remained the same: their power todrive the beach without rules.

But the wildlife of the Outer Banks is sufferingfrom the same overcrowding. A friend who worksfor the park service points out that shorebirds arevisitors to the Outer Banks, too. Don’t they have aright to some undisturbed space?

Some conservationists believe driving shouldbe banned, and the beaches left entirely for thebirds. But that’s too easy. A ban would eliminate acultural aspect of Outer Banks living that isimportant not just to the local economy, but to theresidents’ attachment to the landscape. Weshouldn’t underestimate the importance of that. Ifwe are to make any headway in the fight forconservation, we must work with people in ruralcommunities who share our love for nature. Weneed to find ways to honor their attachment to theland.

There need to be restrictions on beach driving.I’m not knowledgeable enough to know what formthey should take. I do know that adopting a hardstance, left or right, will only prolong the screamingmatch. Whatever happens with the lawsuit, it’s myhope that mycolleagueshere will lookfor creativeways to tapinto the surfcasters’ lovefor the naturalworld. I’mconvinced it’sthere, close tothe surface,waiting to rise.It’s the onething we allshare, living aswe do on theedge of theearth.

— Jan DeBlieu is the author of three books aboutpeople and nature, including Wind, which won theJohn Burroughs Medal for Distinguished NaturalHistory Writing. She has lived on the Outer Banksand written about the islands for 18 years.

The debate about beach driving isabout basic freedoms, perhaps, but

something more, too.

Photo courtesy of Dan Funsch.


Democracy and the Environment on the

Chopping Block— Bethanie Walder

Apparently, the Forest Service would ratherthat citizens simply stay out of theirdecision making process. Photo by LizTanke.

In this era of eroding civil liberties, I often wonder whether I andother conservation activists shouldn’t put aside our issues for themoment and work to ensure that the governmental institutions in

this country maintain some semblance of democracy. Indeed, theBush Administration, Forest Service and US Congress have focusedmany of their recent attacks on conservationists. While we implementtrusted strategies to protect the environment (e.g. organizing citizens,writing comments, litigating as appropriate, bringing mismanagementand environmental attacks to the attention of our elected officials),the Forest Service, Congress and the Bush Administration are chang-ing the rules. It has become all too clear that the conservationcommunity must not only protect the natural environment, but alsothe political environment in which we live, play and work — anenvironment founded on democratic principles that are beingsquandered in the name of corporate profits.

The majority of proposed changes apply to the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws that regulate citizen involve-ment and citizen oversight of federal agencies. But laws like thePatriot Act also affect citizen participation in government as a whole,and that, too, affects conservation activism. While most of themeasures discussed here have not yet been implemented — thewheels are in motion for drastic and disturbing changes.

NFMA, NEPA and Categorical

ExclusionsIn late November, the Forest Service (FS) proposed new regula-

tions to implement the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Theproposal limits public comment on forest planning, precludes judicialreview of agency plans, and makes forest plan standards and guide-lines non-binding and voluntary. To put this into a roads perspective,some of the most important work mitigating road impacts relies onbinding road density standards. To exceed those standards, the FSmust amend their forest plan (see The RIPorter 7(3); legal notes).Without these road density standards, most road removal andprevention efforts in the west will become significantly more difficult(most eastern forests currently don’t have road density standards).

The new regulations also allow forest plans to be categoricallyexcluded from environmental review under NEPA. As a result, thepublic may not be allowed to propose or promote our own alterna-tives for analysis. When categorical exclusions were developed underthe National Environmental Policy Act, they were designed to excluderoutine maintenance and other noncontroversial managementdecisions from analysis. To apply them to Forest Plans in theirentirety - documents to which all other management decisions on theNational Forests are tiered - is utterly nonsensical and completelycounter to NEPA’s intent.

In December 2002, the Forest Service proposednew appeals regulations limiting how Americanscan comment on public land management. Thesechanges impose severe restrictions on what can beappealed. Prior to appeals, they allow the ForestService to arbitrarily dismiss whatever publiccomments they think are not “substantive” andthereafter deny legal standing to the citizens whosubmitted those comments. In addition, theappeals changes remove the “stay of implementa-tion” of projects under appeal. So if a group doeslitigate to stop a project, unless they get a courtinjunction the project may be completed andtherefore no longer considered relevant by thecourt — even if the Forest Service was wrong.Changing the appeal regulations will only result inless meaningful citizen participation — and quitepossibly more litigation.

In early January 2003, the Forest Serviceproposed expanding categorical exclusions ofcertain timber sales, road building and salvagelogging. This proposal also included language toallow categorical exclusions to be used in combina-tion - a practice that courts repeatedly have foundillegal under current regulations.

In early 2002, the Forest Service decided todiscount what it called “technically similar com-ments” (e.g. petitions and postcards) by groupingthose and counting them as one. In other words, if


If we want to protect nature, we mustbecome more engaged in the fight to

protect democracy.

500,000 people submit pre-printed postcards, their commentswould be counted as only one total comment on that topic.While one might be able to understand their rationale, itdisempowers citizens who want to comment on issues ofconcern, but who do not have an encyclopedic understandingof the proposed project.

In a further attack against public participation, in lateApril 2003 the FS announced it would no longer consider e-mail messages as legitimate public comments on ForestManagement Plans, Amendments and Revisions. This is astraightforward attempt to undermine what has become ademocratic means of communication — the internet. Manyconservation organizations have developed e-mail systemsthat help concerned citizens generate comments and thensubmit them electronically. According to the new rules, eventhough these are individualized comments, they will nolonger be considered.

The Healthy Forests and Restoration Act

of 2003In mid-May 2003, the US Congress passed the Healthy Forests and

Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904 - also known as the McInnis Bill).This bill would implement President Bush’s “Healthy Forests Initia-tive.” Among its provisions are numerous attacks on the publicparticipation rights of American citizens. First, the bill eliminates theNEPA requirement that the FS or BLM consider alternatives to itsproposed actions. The agencies could conduct large-scale loggingprojects without considering or analyzing any alternatives. HR 1904would also abolish citizens’ statutory right to appeal Forest Servicehazardous fuels projects by repealing the Appeals Reform Act of 1992.

Even more significantly, and further reducing the checks andbalances set up by the framers of the constitution, HR 1904 wouldrestrict the right of Americans to seek judicial relief from illegalagency actions. Sections 106 and 107 of the bill reverse the balanceof harms that now define judicial actions — specifically regardingtemporary restraining orders and permanent and preliminaryinjunctions for “hazardous fuels” projects. These changes requirejudges to give weight to agency claims regarding a project’s impactseven if citizens present clear evidence of harm to water quality,endangered species or other concerns. Remember too, that agenciesaren’t required to analyze alternatives under earlier provisions of theact.

The combination of a lack of analysis and limited judicial reviewwould make it nearly impossible to stop damaging projects. Inaddition, no longer would there be any outlet for that damage to beaired publicly. The judicial sections of the bill limit the time judgeshave to review cases, which could result in the automatic expirationof injunctions that have been issued. In a bizarre twist, the bill wouldalso require agency officials to report to four different congressionalcommittees whenever a judge renews an injunction, which in effect,could intimidate judges and the agencies.

ConclusionWhile the Forest Service and Congress are

busy rewriting the rules of engagement (perhapswe should call them the rules of exploitation),numerous other efforts are underway that willaffect conservationists and ordinary citizens alike.One of significance is a series of statewide effortsto make citizen advocacy on behalf of the environ-ment (and numerous other issues that affectcommerce) a crime. The second is the proposedPatriot Act II. A bill that would curtail civil libertieseven more dramatically than the first Patriot Act, itcurrently includes a provision that could affectmembers of advocacy organizations. For example,if the government defines a particular environmen-tal group as a “terrorist” organization, they couldseize the names of all members and investigatethose members as well. If this doesn’t limitpersonal freedom, freedom to assemble, freespeech and free thought, what does?

While citizens sit idly by, this government isactively dismantling the principles on which ourcountry was founded. If we as conservationistswant to protect nature - especially in the face ofsuch severe threats, we must become moreengaged in the fight to protect democracy. Simi-larly, we must engage the members of our organiza-tions and others to become active in the politics ofthis country. The efforts of the Bush Administra-tion to demonize and marginalize citizens engagedin protecting liberty and freedom for all people(not just multi-national corporations) can onlysucceed within a complicit society. We must workto ensure that this government remains account-able to its citizens, not its corporate sponsors - bymore actively combining political and environmen-tal advocacy.

Many thanks to American Lands Alliance forinformation about changes in NFMA, CE regulations,and HR 1904.

The Bush Administration’s loyalty, or royalty, has never been inquestion. Photo by George Wuerthner.


Roadless Bill Introduced In Congress

On June 5, U.S. Representatives Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) andJay Inslee (D-WA), along with 150 cosponsors, introduced bipartisanlegislation to codify the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule,which generated over 2.2 million comments when it was proposed,protects 58.5 million acres of National Forest land from most commer-cial logging and roadbuilding.

After President Clinton issued the rule, it was challenged in IdahoDistrict Court by the Boise Cascade Corporation and other loggingand snowmobile interests. The District Court enjoined the rule, andthen upon taking office, the Bush administration issued an interimdirective blocking its implementation. But after conservationistsappealed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction lastmonth. In addition the Bush Administration has now announced itsintention to allow its interim directive to expire.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration is planning 49 timber salesin Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, a forest that the administrationproposed for exemption from the rule. Undersecretary Mark Rey haspublicly signaled the administration’s intent to alter the rule, havingsaid that an amended rule could be expected “within a few months.”These impending threats to the integrity of the rule have made thelegislative effort especially critical. Currently, there are 386,000 milesof roads on National Forest lands, and nationally there is an 8.4 billiondollar backlog of road repairs.

BLM Plan Opens Algodones

Dunes To ORVs

In a final plan released on May 23, the BLMopened up the majority of California’s AlgodonesDunes to off-road vehicles. Before the new planwas created, this area was managed under asettlement agreement between the BLM, off-roadvehicle groups, the Center for Biological Diversity,Sierra Club, and Public Employees for Environmen-tal Responsibility. This agreement protectedroughly half of the area for wildlife and scenic non-motorized recreation, in addition to allowing over106 square miles of unlimited off-road motorizedtravel.

The new plan allows for a significant increasein off-road vehicle use, adds new vendor areas,increases carrying capacity, and removes a require-ment that motorized recreationists have to pass anecological awareness test before traveling insensitive areas. It also removes protection for thedesert tortoise, one of several endangered speciesin the Algodones Dunes. A recent U.S. Fish andWildlife Report found that another endangeredspecies in the area, Peirson’s Milkvetch, is threat-ened primarily because of off-road vehicle activity -its recovery is not expected under the new plan.The conservation areas in the Algodones Duneswill remain closed for another month while legalprotests are being filed. The Center for BiologicalDiversity and Public Employees for EnvironmentalResponsibility intend to challenge the plan incourt.

Conservation Groups Intend Moose Post-

Fire Project Lawsuit

Wildlands CPR has joined three other conservation groups in anotice of intent to file a lawsuit over portions of the Moose Post-FireProject that fall short of Flathead Forest Plan standards for restoringwatersheds and wildlife habitat. The lawsuit would not challenge thesalvage logging already underway in the Big Creek area. It would forcethe agencies to comply with Flathead Forest Plan standards formanaging roads and their effects on threatened grizzly bear, lynx andbull trout.

The groups, including Friends of the Wild Swan, Swan ViewCoalition, and Alliance for the Wild Rockies, point out that implement-ing road management standards currently is pumping over $2 millioninto the local economy and creating some 140 jobs reclaiming roadsand restoring watersheds. The Moose Project would reclaim 56 of the417 miles of road currently slated for reclamation on the Flathead.The groups cite Flathead and Lolo National Forest statistics showingroad reclamation is worth an average of $5,000 per mile and that onejob is created for every three miles of road reclaimed.

Big Creek, a key bull trout spawning stream, has been listed bythe State of Montana as “impaired” due to logging and road buildingsince 1992, long before the Moose Fire of 2001. Big Creek is also listedby the Flathead National Forest as “functioning at unacceptable risk”due to too many roads — it has yet to meet Flathead Forest PlanAmendment 19 road density requirements for wildlife.

File photo.


On May 21, 121 local and national organiza-tions unveiled the “Citizen’s Call for EcologicalRestoration: Forest Restoration Principles andCriteria.” The Restoration Principles are the resultof a two-year bridge-building effort betweenconservation groups, community forestry advo-cates and restoration practitioners to developagreement on a common sense, scientifically-basedframework for restoring our nation’s forests.

The Restoration Principles serve as a nationalpolicy statement to guide sound ecological restora-tion. They clearly define principles and criteria inorder to evaluate proposed forest restorationpolicies and projects. By including social andeconomic criteria, the Restoration Principles alsobridge the gap between what’s good for the landand what’s good for communities and workers.

The Restoration Principles stand in starkcontrast to the so-called “Healthy Forests Restora-tion Act of 2003” passed recently by the U.S. Houseand the Bush administration’s “Healthy ForestInitiative” (HFI). Instead of restoring NationalForests, these measures limit citizen participationand undermine environmental laws in order toincrease logging and road building, creating aneven greater need for restoration in the future.

The so-called HFI and the House bill purport torestore forest health, but the focus remains onlogging and “thinning” forests. This represents thesame failed management of past decades, nowbeing advanced under the guise of “hazardous

Announcing the Citizen’s Call for Ecological Restoration:

Forest Restoration Principles and Criteria

fuels reduction” and “forest health.”During a period of significant change in forest policies at the

federal, state and local level, the Forest Restoration Principlesestablish a vision for restoring natural ecosystems and a sustainablerelationship with the land. They reject the pseudo-science, failedeconomics, and erosion of public participation that underlie current“healthy forests” measures. The Principles and Criteria provide anessential tool for stakeholders and decision-makers at all levels toevaluate, critique, improve, support or reject a proposed project orpolicy. All parties are invited to endorse and utilize this document.

Marnie Criley, Wildlands CPR’s Restoration Program Coordinator, is aco-author of the Principles. If you have any questions please contact herat [email protected]

The Forest Restoration Principles represent a new approach to managing ourNational Forests. They emphasize restoration and sustainability rather thancontinued resource extraction. Photo by Liz Tanke.

Montana Shares Raffle

To enter this year’s raffle, simply fill out, clip and return these tickets to Wildlands CPR!(Suggested donation is $10 per ticket — make checks payable to Montana Shares)

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Ticket Seller and Organization

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Ticket Seller and Organization

Wildlands CPR is a member of Montana Shares, a federation of 38 Montana-based nonprofits that cooperatively fundraise through workplace giving pro-grams. The Montana Shares raffle helps fund Montana Shares, which in turn,helps fund Wildlands CPR. Last year Montana Shares raised over $200,000 fornon-profits throughout the state.

This year’s raffle prizes range from guided boat trips to lodging at MontanaBed and Breakfasts to Patagonia outerwear. The drawing is September 6th. A fulllist of prizes is posted on our web site, www.wildlandscpr.org. Please contact ouroffice to purchase tickets: 406-543-9551.

Thanks to all of you who purchased tickets last year!


Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlightssome of the scientific literature in our 6,000 citation

bibliography on the ecological effects of roads.We offer bibliographic searches to help activistsaccess important biological research relevant toroads. We keep copies of most articles cited in

Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Erosion at Stream Crossings:

The Case for RestorationBy Mary Ann Madej, Ph.D.

IntroductionWildland roads are a major source of sediment in many water-

sheds. Although sedimentation is a natural process in many aquaticsystems, large amounts can greatly impair the integrity of a water-shed. For example, suspended sediments can negatively impactsalmonid fisheries through direct mortality, hindering the develop-ment of eggs and larvae, disrupting natural movements and migra-tion, and reducing food organisms (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).Inadequate drainage structures on roads are a common cause oferosion, so if a road is no longer needed, removal of culverts throughroad decommissioning is recommended.

Literature ReviewSeveral studies conducted in northern California address erosion

and sedimentation from failed culverts. Best et al. (1995) examined111 stream crossings on unpaved logging roads. They found thatstream diversions at road crossings are the most important causes offluvial erosion in the watershed. Such diversions typically occurwhen a culvert plugs and flow is diverted down the inboard ditchinstead of breaching the road fill. Diversions are more prone to occuron insloped roads with inboard ditches than on outsloped roads. Themost important factor in determining the probability of streamdiversion is the gradient of the road at the point of crossings, anddiversions are more common on steeper roads. There were 15 streamdiversions noted in the study, and these diversions produced 64,000metric tons of sediment. This volume was much greater than thevolume of road fill in the 15 crossing prisms, and illustrates the factthat the total erosion due to problems at a stream crossing must beconsidered, not just the immediate problems associated with breach-ing the road fill at a crossing.

In addition to erosion due to stream diversions, 43 culvertsplugged and caused erosion of road fill at the stream crossings. Somecrossings were rebuilt and failed again, resulting in 52 total failures.These failed crossings contributed 11,200 metric tons of sediment,and had an average failure size of about 200 metric tons. In manycases the amount eroded from the crossing was greater than theamount of road fill in the prism because of incorporation of nativematerial through bank erosion and knickpoint retreat.

Klein (1987) surveyed 24 stream crossings immediately followingculvert removal and again after winter flows caused some erosion ofthe decommissioned crossings. Post-rehabilitation erosion waspositively correlated with stream power, and inversely related to theboulder and cobble content of the stream bank materials. Averageincision of the newly excavated streambed was 0.8 m3 per meter ofchannel length. (Average width of stream channel was not listed, norwas surface erosion measured in this study.)

Bloom (1998) surveyed 86 decommissionedroad crossings before and after a 12-year recur-rence interval storm in the Bridge Creek basin,northern California. A total of 117,500 cubic yardsof fill had been excavated from these streamcrossings during restoration work. In the 1997storm, decommissioned stream crossings yieldedan average of 5 cubic yards of erosion (much lessthan what would have eroded if the road fill hadbeen left in place and the culvert failed).

Madej (2001) examined 207 road crossings inRedwood National Park that had been decommis-sioned during the previous 20 years. Bank erosion,channel incision and mass movements weremeasured at each road crossing (measurements didnot include surface erosion or rilling). A total of220,000 m3 of fill had been excavated from thecrossings (which could be considered potentialsediment input if the road prisms had not beendecommissioned), and 10,500 m3 of sedimenteroded from the crossings since decommissioning.The crossings eroded a median volume of 23 m3

since the crossings were excavated. A few troublecrossings produced the most sediment (20 % of thecrossings produced 73% of the sediment). Becausemany of these crossings were removed in the earlydays of the restoration program, erosion wasprobably higher than we would expect in current

The potential for gullyerosion, slides and failuresis much greater when roadsintersect waterways.Wildlands CPR file photos.


day excavations with more experienced staff. Channel incision andbank erosion were the most common forms of post-treatment erosionin crossings. The volume eroded was positively correlated withstream power and the volume of road fill excavated (i.e., the moreroad fill that had to be excavated, the more bare slopes were exposedto erosive forces and subsequently they showed higher erosionrates). Surface treatments of the bare slopes varied, from no treat-ment to heavy mulching.

Without treatment, roads can eventually fail and contributesediment to streams. Based on an inventory of 330 km of untreatedroads in a northern California basin, Weaver and Hagans (1999)estimated past road-related sediment delivery to be 720 m3/km ofroad, and future potential sediment delivery without road treatmentto be an additional 820 m3/km, for a total of 1540 m3/km. In a similarstudy based on 140 km of untreated roads in the Redwood Creekwatershed (G. J. Bundros and B. R. Hill, unpublished data, 1997) pastand potential sediment delivery from roads was reported to be 1450m3/km of road. By removing culverts and restoring natural drainagepatterns, restorationists have removed the risk of stream diversions(discussed previously under the Best (1995) study). None of the 207excavated crossings examined in the Madej (2001) study had diver-sions or debris torrents related to road treatment. Although roadrestoration in Redwood National Park did not completely preventsediment production from removed roads, it did substantially reducethe long-term sediment risk from abandoned roads.

Furniss and others (1998) examined the effects of the 1996Oregon/Washington flood events on road-stream crossings in threephysiographic regions. Fill erosion was found at 49% of the failedcrossings, and diversion of streams occurred at half the failedcrossings, resulting in erosion of the ditchline and road surface, andgullying of the sidecast road fill. In addition, 69% of the diversionsleft the originating watershed and delivered runoff to an adjacentwatershed and stream. Cascading failures occurred where streamdiversions were routed to adjacent crossing structures, causing themto fail.

ConclusionThese studies were conducted in the Pacific Northwest, but many

of the results can be applied to other wildland roads. The studiesshow that when culverts fail (through hydraulic exceedance, pluggingby woody debris or sediment, or destruction by debris torrents, forexample) the amount of erosion may exceed the volume of materialwithin the road prism overlying the culvert because of off-site effects.Also, based on many field observations, when the road prism iseroded, most commonly channel incision does not stop at the top ofthe culvert, but extends to the natural channel bottom. The culvertmore frequently acts as a large roughness element that induces scouralong the stream banks and channel bed rather than acting aschannel armor to prevent further erosion. Although many problemswith drainage structures are preventable through proper road design(construction of rolling dips to prevent diversions, for example) andregular maintenance (especially the use of storm patrols), culvertscan still plug with debris and fail. Road decommissioning removesthe threat of culvert failure. The removal of culverts during decom-missioning does not prevent all erosion from the crossing site, butwith adequate mulching and implementation of best managementpractices we have found that post-rehabilitation erosion is much lessthan the erosion associated with unmaintained culverts.

— Mary Ann Madej is with the USGS-Western Ecological ResearchCenter.

ReferencesBest, D. W., H. M. Kelsey, D. K. Hagans, and M. Alpert.

1995. Role of Fluvial Hillslope Erosion and RoadConstruction in the Sediment Budget of GarrettCreek, Humboldt County, California. Chapter Min U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper1454. Geomorphic Processes and AquaticHabitat in the Redwood Creek Basin,Northwestern California. K.M. Nolan, H.M.Kelsey, and D.C. Marron, eds.

Bloom, A. L. 1998. An assessment of road removaland erosion control treatment effectiveness: Acomparison of 1997 storm erosion responsebetween treated and untreated roads inRedwood Creek Basin, northwestern California.MS Thesis. Arcata, CA. Humbolt State University.

Bundros, G. J. and B. R. Hill. 1997. Unpublished data.Redwood National Park. Arcata, California.

Furniss, M. J., T. S. Ledwith, M. A. Love, B. C. McFadinand S. A. Flanagan. 1998. Response of Road-stream Crossings to Large Flood Events inWashington, Oregon, and Northern California.U.S. Forest Service San Dimas Technology andDevelopment Center Report 9877-1806. 14 p.http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road/w-r-pdf/floodeffects.pdf

Klein, R. D. 1987. Stream channel adjustmentsfollowing logging road removal in RedwoodNational Park. Arcata CA: National Park Service;Redwood National Park WatershedRehabilitation; Technical Report No. 23. 38 p.

Madej, M. A. 2001. Erosion and sediment deliveryfollowing removal of forest roads. Earth SurfaceProcesses and Landforms. Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.175-190.

Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effectsof suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems.North American Journal of Fisheries Management.11:72-82.

Weaver, W. E. and Hagans, D. K. 1999. Storm-proofingforest roads. In: Proceedings of theInternational Mountain Logging and 10th PacificNorthwest Skyline Symposium. Sessions, J. C.and W. C. Chungs, (eds.) Oregon StateUniversity Department of Forest Engineeringand the International Union of ForestryResearch Organizations. Corvallis, Oregon.

Installing sediment traps on a road restoration project.Photo by Bethanie Walder.


The Activist Spotlight shares the stories of some ofthe awesome activists we work with, both as a

tribute to them and as a way of highlightingsuccessful strategies and lessons learned. Please

email your nomination for the Activist Spotlight [email protected].

Spotlight on Sungnome Madrone

Sungnome Madrone has felt connected to nature since childhood:he remembers finding joy in the worms, willow thickets, gardensand orchards of his backyard in Dubuque, Iowa as a young boy.

When his family relocated to Southern California in the 1950’sSungnome witnessed orange grooves being mowed down to makeroom for housing tracks. Disturbed by what he saw, the beginnings ofactivism began to stir in him. Indeed, a career path involving thenatural world won out over a curiosity in Catholicism: after spending6 days studying to be a priest, it became clear to Sumgnome that theseminary was not for him. Instead, he enrolled at Humboldt StateCollege (HS) in Eureka, California to study forests and natural re-sources (he says he retains that missionary zeal but pours it into hisactivist work!).

At Humbolt State Sungnome was influenced by Dr. Rudy Becking,an eminent redwood ecology scientist and the only professor in theHS forestry department teaching the ecological approach of European(or all-aged) forestry rather than the western model of even-agedforestry. Dr. Becking was studying the world’s tallest trees and had,along with several students, started an off-campus group called theEmerald Creek Committee (ECC).

Sungnome spent the following years working with the ECC to stopdevastating logging and expand Redwood National Park. Harmfullogging roads nearly always accompany logging, and soon Sungnomebecame more and more interested in the question of what to do withthese massive disturbances after expanding the park. Then in 1977,the year before the expansion, the park’s first road decommissioningpilot projects began. As Sungnome points out, this was the birth ofthe watershed restoration movement in this country.

Today Sungnome is co-director of Natural Resources Services(NRS), a division of Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA),based in Humboldt County, California. NRS provides assistance towatershed groups throughout the region, focusing on natural re-sources restoration, trail planning and construction, and non-motorized transportation planning. NRS collaborates with local,regional, state and national networks like the National Network ofForest Practitioners. Sungnome himself is a forest practitioner andLicensed Landscape Contractor.

RCAA’s current restoration work in Humboldt Redwoods StatePark (the Park) is a partnership with the State Water Board andprivate heavy equipment contractors, and exemplifies their excellentcollaborative work. The Park approached RCAA to help secureadditional funding beyond the state budget allotment. The NRS staffwrote a proposal with RCAA doing the primary work (which includedtraining and community based education), and the state funded theproject for $511,000 with state water and watershed restorationbonds.

Efforts like this take patience and perserverence. After a two-year bureaucratic process to get the proposal approved, it took NRSthree and a half years to survey, map, and determine site prescrip-

tions — they are finally ready for work to begin. Itwill take two years to finish, and after a monitoringprogram has been designed and carried out, theproject will have spanned nearly ten years.

How does Sungnome keep up his stamina forsuch long-range and detailed work? His colleague,Ruth Blyther at RCAA, says it’s his extraordinarydedication: “Sungnome lives and breathes hiswork. He is always thinking of how to integrateprojects, extend the budgets and get more workdone. Sungnome is a quick thinker, he likes to solvedifficult problems, and excels in crisis managementscenarios. He is an eternal optimist and manages topull off projects that most people would walk awayfrom. He never takes no for an answer.”

Sungnome has his own advice for folks wantingto get into this work. He recommends startingsmall, doing pilot projects, building success fromthere, and leveraging dollars in creative ways. Headds, “work on ego-system management as muchas eco-system management. Give thanks daily!”Thanks to you, Sungnome for your steadfastdedication to restoration work!

Photo by Adam Switalski.


In mid-May the board and staff met in the Tom Minor Basinnear Yellowstone National Park for our annual board andstaff retreat. We had a great weekend of strategy building,

brainstorming and program development. Many, manythanks to Mary Anne Mott and Herman Warsh for theirgenerosity in providing lodging and food at the B-Bar Ranch.It was a great place to meet and certainly stimulated intensediscussion about our programs.

We’re thrilled to have three new board members joiningWildlands CPR and we’d like to introduce them here.

Greg Fishbein joined our board in early March. He’s beena member of Wildlands CPR for several years, during whichtime he’s been an international environmental and businessconsultant. Just last year, Greg joined the staff of The NatureConservancy in Washington DC. There he manages theBusiness Consulting Group, which supports senior NatureConservancy managers in the US and overseas as theynegotiate complex conservation transactions. Greg served asan aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan on internationaltrade, budget and economic policy issues in 1986 and 1987.He has a B.A. in Economics from Dartmouth College and anM.B.A. in Finance from the Wharton School. Greg will bringsome business savvy to our board - something that we’vebeen looking for as we implement our strategic plan.

We are also delighted that Matt Skroch became a board memberin early May. Matt is the Field Director for the Tucson-based SkyIsland Alliance, a regional conservation organization that integratesgrassroots organizing with conservation biology to protect andrestore native biological diversity in the Sky Island Region of theSouthwest. Matt also serves on the board of directors and as theSoutheast Arizona Representative for the Arizona Wilderness Coali-tion. He has worked on road removal techniques and policy for fiveyears and he advocates for sound transportation policy in theSouthwest. He has initiated many volunteer-led road obliterationprojects on the Coronado and Gila National Forests, developed acitizen’s wilderness proposal for the Coronado National Forest, andorganized the longest running volunteer wildlife track count in the US.Matt received his B.S. in wildlife biology from Iowa State University.He also serves on an environmental advisory committee for Congress-man Raul Grijalva.

Sonya Newenhouse is our most recent addition, joining the boardin mid-May. Because of our quest to reach out to more people, we areparticularly excited about Sonya’s work with urban transportationissues and communications. Sonya is president of Madison Environ-mental Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm that providesresearch, planning and communication services using interdiscipli-nary approaches. Prior to that, she created WasteCap Wisconsin, anonprofit organization providing waste reduction and recyclingassistance to businesses. Dr. Newenhouse received her Ph.D. from theUW-Madison, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies in 1997. She

also has a B.A. from Michigan State University,Business School. Sonya currently serves on theCity of Madison Solid Waste Advisory Committee, isVice Chair of WasteCap Wisconsin Board of Direc-tors, and is an active member of the TransportationCommittee for Downtown Madison, Inc. Two yearsago she divorced her car and travels by bike andbus to reduce her output of CO2 emissions.

A big welcome to Greg, Matt and Sonya -—we’re looking forward to sharing your energy andenthusiasm for addressing road and motorizedrecreation issues.

On a different note, many thanks to theYellowstone-to-Yukon mini-grant program for asmall grant to enhance a road restoration projecton the Clearwater National Forest. And a partingthank you to Shay O’Brien-Ugaldea for the fantasticwork she did during an internship this winter andspring. Shay worked with Tom Petersen, ourdevelopment director, researching new fundingopportunities for everything from scientificresearch to videos. Thanks Shay — we’ll miss you!

Photo courtesy of Buffalo Field Campaign.


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

receiving membership information from Wildlands CPR.

Web UpdatesMonitoring and Survey Materials

We’ve updated the monitoring and survey section of ourwebsite. All of our current monitoring sheets are now availableon one page, most with accompanying instructions for how touse them. If you’re working on a summer monitoring programon the public lands near you, please check out our resources atwww.wildlandscpr.org/

RS 2477For more information about what’s happening with RS 2477

please check out our website. Click on the homepage link to theRS 2477 page — there you’ll find information about the latestpolitical maneuverings regarding RS 2477, as well as links toother critical web resources to address RS 2477 challenges. Ifnew RS 2477 claims are cropping up in your neighborhood,please contact Bridget, our Transportation Policy Coordinator.

Mini-grants AvailableAre you a member of the Natural Trails and Waters Coali-

tion? If so, you’re eligible to apply for a limited pool of mini-grant funding for fighting off-road vehicle abuses. For moreinformation contact Lisa Philipps, Grassroots Coordinator forthe Coalition. Lisa’s based in the Wildlands CPR office, or youcan email her at [email protected].

New Resources

Hand tools commonly used in road removal. Photo by Bethanie Walder.

Wildlands CPR

Publications

— To order these publications, use theorder form on next page —

Road-Ripper’s Handbook ($20.00, $30.00 non-members) — A comprehensive activist manualthat includes the five Guides listed below, plusThe Ecological Effects of Roads, GatheringInformation with the Freedom of InformationAct, and more!

Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Forests ($5,$8 non-members) — By Keith Hammer. How-toprocedures for getting roads closed andrevegetated, descriptions of environmental laws,road density standards & Forest Service roadpolicies.

Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Parks ($5, $8non-members) — By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo.Provides background on the National ParkSystem and its use of roads, and outlines howactivists can get involved in NPS planning.

Road-Ripper’s Guide to the BLM ($5, $8 non-members) — By Dan Stotter. Provides anoverview of road-related land and resource laws,and detailed discussions for participating inBLM decision-making processes.

Road-Ripper’s Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($5, $8non-members) — By Dan Wright. Acomprehensive guide to reducing the use andabuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes anextensive bibliography.

Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal($5, $8 non-members) — By Scott Bagely.Provides technical information on roadconstruction and removal, where and why roadsfail, and how you can effectively assess roadremoval projects.

Trails of Destruction ($10) — By Friends of theEarth and Wildlands CPR, written by Erich Picaand Jacob Smith. This report explains theecological impacts of ORVs, federal funding formotorized recreation on public lands, and theORV industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.


Membership and Order Information

Memberships

AddressCity, State,

Zip

Phone Email

NameOrganization

Name

Joining Wildlands CPR increases our member base — whichincreases public awareness, citizen activism, and political clout —

and increases the dollars to get our work done.All members receive an annual subscription to The Road-RIPorter.

Yes! I want to help revive and protect wild places bybecoming a Wildlands CPR member(or by renewing my membership)

Type of Membership: OrganizationIndividual

Publications

Please send this form and your payment option to:Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:

Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:

Total of all items:

/

/

/

Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.50 per item;for Canadian orders, add $6.50 per item.

International Membership — $30 Minimum. All prices in U.S. DollarsAsk about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

Check here to receive our ORV and road emailnewsletter, “Skid Marks,” every few weeks.

Check here for our Email Activist List.Please remember to include your email address.

Check here if you are interested in helpingto distribute The Road-RIPorter in your area.

Check here for our RIP-Web non-paperoption. Get the RIPorter online before it getsprinted. Please include your email address.

I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated abovefrom my checking account once per month. Please include a voided

check. All information will be kept confidential.

Instead of annual member dues, a monthly donation can be automati-cally withdrawn from your checking account. A monthly donation willdo two things: it adds up quickly to a major contribution, and it allows

Wildlands CPR to make long-term plans.

Payment Option #1:Monthly Giving

Payment Option #2:Annual Membership Dues

I have enclosed my tax-deductible Wildlands CPRmembership contribution of:

Signature

Payment Option #3:Give online via your credit card.

Go to www.wildlandscpr.org/join_us/index.html

$500

$1,000 $250

$100 $30 standard

$50 family

other

$15 living lightly

$5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other

Thank you for your support!

In order to increase our membership, Wildlands CPRoccasionally exchanges member’s names with like-

minded conservation organizations. If you do not wantyour name traded, please check here.


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

Wildlands Center for Preventing RoadsP.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAIDMISSOULA MT, 59801

PERMIT NO. 569

“OHV use alone affects moreimperiled species than loggingand logging roads combined.”

— Dale Bosworth,U.S. Forest Service Chief

April 22, 2003

road riporter 8.2

Documents