Road RIPorter 7.4

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 7.4

1/24

Inside

Check out our website at:www.wildlandscpr.org

The Quarterly Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing RoadsWinter Solstice 2002. Volume 7 # 4

See article on page 3

Steinacher: Reclaiming a Road and a Culture,by Rene Stauffer. Pages 3-5

Odes to Roads: Old Road, BeleagueredWilderness,by Melissa Walker. Pages 6-7

Policy Primer: Special Use Recreation Permits,by Lisa Philipps. Pages 8-9

Legal Notes: When No Action Is No Excuse, byDan Funsch. Pages 10-11

Biblio Notes: The Ecological Impacts ofMountain Biking, by Jason Lathrop.Pages 12-14

Activist Spotlight: Cliff Eames. Page 15

Depaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder.

Page 16-17

Get with the Program: ORV and RoadsProgram Updates. Pages 18-19

Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 20-21

New Resources. Page 22

Steinacher:

Reclaiming a Road and a CultureBy Rene Stauffer, Karuk Tribe of California

Reclaiming a road and a culture: the Karuk Tribe has embarked on an ambitious roadrestoration project in the Steinacher area of northern California. Photo courtesy of the

Karuk Tribe.


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 20022

2002 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]

Director

Bethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

ORV Policy CoordinatorJacob Smith

Roads Policy CoordinatorMarnie Criley

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

NTWC GrassrootsCoordinator

Lisa Philipps

Program AssociateJennifer Barry

NewsletterDan Funsch & Jim Coefield

Interns & VolunteersLeslie Hannay, Brooke Hughes, Jason Lathrop,

Teresa Walsh

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

Greg Munther, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,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 Soul, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,

Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands CCCCCenter for PPPPPreventing RRRRRoads

Iread an interesting article on my way home from Washington, DC in late October about changing demographics and voting in the interior west. The article looked atwhite upper middle-class flight, especially from California, into urban and rural areas

in Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho and other intermountain states. Initial expecta-tions were that the mountain states would become more politically balanced. Instead,the opposite occurred, as wealthier (and fiscally conservative) people moved in andbrought their voting habits with them. The article didnt go beyond fiscal issues, but Icant help but wonder if those same people might not be more environmentally con-cerned than many of the representatives they elect. And if thats true, then has theconservation community been missing the boat with their nearly exclusive focus onDemocratic candidates and legislators?

Once upon a time, Theodore Roosevelt staked out the environmental high groundfor the Republican Party. But the Republicans have moved so far away from environ-mental protection that those with conservation (or other progressive values) can onlybe distraught over an election that gave Republicans full control of Congress. Whilesome issues will remain partisan, it is time to make the environment a bi-partisan ornon-partisan issue again. The partisan politics of national conservation organizationsappear to reinforce the political divide over the environment; it may be more effectiveto de-politicize conservation issues.

It is painfully clear that we cant count on Democrats, or their leaders, to do this.More importantly, we shouldnt. But we should enlist the voting public to ensure thatRepublicans and Democrats alike will protect the planet. So how can conservationistsreconnect with the Republican Party and make them more responsive to the averageAmerican, who is described in survey after survey as environmentally concerned? Thefirst place may be Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP), a group trying to

bring environmental issues back into the mainstream of their party (visit www.rep.org).Perhaps a second step is to look to those American immigrants into the intermountainwest. Conservation organizing could focus on building relationships with those whoshare our values, no matter what party they belong to. Jeb Bushs rush to protect theenvironment in Florida makes it clear just what an important issue conservation can beto Republicans, if they think their seats depend on it.

Another step we can take is to encourage our own members to become moreinvolved in the politics of place in their own communities. Groups like the Montana-based Center for Environmental Politics (visit www.cfep.org) are doing just this.

So what has this got to do with off-road vehicles and roads? Just about everything.While it is imperative that we protect the Arctic Refuge and Rocky Mountain Front fromenergy development, we can also use roads and off-road vehicles as a public rallying

cry. Many polls show that most Americans dont like off-road vehicles, the advertise-ments that promote them, or the damage they cause. We need to harness this energy atthe grassroots level, with the transplants to the interior west, or with the people mostaffected by off-road vehicle trespass private property owners. Concurrently, Wild-lands CPR is working with local communities to promote resource-based jobs in wild-land restoration through road removal. Road removal can provide high wage, highskilled jobs in economically depressed resource dependent communities. If the Republi-cans are all about jobs, then lets help make those jobs restorative instead of extractive.

The conservation communitys current tactics and continuing reliance on Demo-crats to protect the environment arent working. Its time for conservatives to think likeconservationists again.

By Bethanie Walder


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2002 3

continued on next page

Steinacher:

Reclaiming a Road and a CultureBy Rene Stauffer, Karuk Tribe of California

Road decommissioning on the Karuk Reservation beganwith a community commitment to respect ecological valuesand develop sustainable economic solutions. Photo by Amy

Chadwick.

Traditional sacred hunting and fishing grounds of the KarukTribe once included more than one million acres throughoutthe northwestern region of what is now California. Tribal

Ancestral Lands encompass 4,000 square miles along the mid-Klamath

and Salmon Rivers, 95% of which now overlap with the Klamath andSix Rivers National Forests. It is in the heart of this remote region,center of the Karuks cultural world, that the Forest Service con-structed the Steinacher road thirty years ago. Originally built toaccess timber, the Steinacher is now the focus of the Karuk Tribeseffort to revitalize a struggling economy and restore the regionsnative fisheries.

The Karuk Tribe is the second largest tribe in California, withtribal membership exceeding 3,000. In 1994 they signed a government-to-government protocol agreement to manage the overlap of tribalancestral lands with national forests, and are now working withfederal agencies to implement an ambitious road decommissioningproject.

Background

Since the 1850s, the region has been managed primarily forresource extraction, including mining and timber. These activitieshave severely degraded anadromous fish habitat in the MiddleKlamath River, the last major stronghold of summer Steelhead andspring Chinook in the Klamath River basin. These watersheds are inimminent danger due to sedimentation from:

geologically complex, highly fractured metamorphic rock and

easily weathered granitic material on steep topography with

highly erosive soils; numerous large landslide complexes;

under-maintained and high-density road systems ranging

from 3.2 to 4.3 miles/sq. mi.;

impaired water quality from upriver agricultural sub-basins

and from reduced forest canopy resulting in high tempera-tures and nutrient loading; and

frequent and widespread wildfires.

Dispersed communities depend on the naturalresources of these watersheds for their economicand cultural lives. Unfortunately, however, theeconomy of the mid-Klamath region has beendevastated by the decline of the timber and fishingindustries. There was a 72% decline in timberharvest between 1989 and 1997, ranging from 12billion board feet to 3.5 billion board feet extractedannually. As a result, approximately 1,200 jobs havebeen lost in the region since 1987. Unemploymentis 87% in the Native American community and 67%

across the region.

The remote rural area makes it difficult torecruit and retain a qualified workforce. TheKlamath National Forest recently lost twentynatural resource positions, while the Six RiversNational Forest lost twenty-seven. As the largestemployer in the mid-Klamath River region, thisdownsizing has a great impact on the localeconomy and the Karuk Tribe.


4/24


continued from page 3

Decommissioning Steinacher

In 1996, during the development of the SpringChinook Recovery Plan, the Klamath National

Forest, the Karuk Tribe and other collaboratingagencies identified a need for road decommission-ing - and ranked the Steinacher Road as thehighest priority. Its decommissioning is even moresignificant considering it was built as a maincorridor for accessing timberbetween 1969 and 1971. TheSteinacher was constructed indecomposed granitic soils, whichhave a high risk of erosion. As aresult, the road contributedsignificant sediment to Steinacherand Wooley Creeks, and eventu-ally the Lower Salmon River.

These watersheds have beenclassified as Tier I Key Water-sheds in the Northwest Forest Plan and otherplanning documents. Reducing sediment will helpconserve and protect native and at-risk fishhabitat, and contribute to species recovery,especially in lower Wooley Creek and the lowerfour miles of the Salmon River.

The roads original length of 7.3 miles endedabruptly at the Marble Mountain Wildernessboundary. As a first effort in 1997, a Forest Servicecontractor partially decommissioned approxi-mately 2.2 miles, but the Klamath NF discontinued

restoration efforts due to lack of funds.

Then in 1998, the Karuk Tribe and the KlamathNational Forest entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding to share resources, funding and

staff to continue the decommissioning. The KarukTribe secured funds from the EPAs Non-Point

Sources program to provide storm-proofing andprescription planning until significant restorationfunds were secured for the remainder of thedecommissioning.

In 1999, the Karuk Tribe initiated Phase II ofthe decommissioning. Over two years the KarukTribe and the Northern California Indian Develop-ment Council have secured over $1 million fromseven different funding sources outside the ForestService to finish decommissioning the remaining5.2 miles of road. The non-federal funding camefrom the California Department of Fish and Game,National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and theNorthern California Indian Development Council.Federal funding came from the Bureau of IndianAffairs, the EPA Non-Point Source program, the US

Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and in-kind service.

Restoration Training Program

With assistance from the Northern CaliforniaIndian Development Council, the Karuk Tribeinitiated a Comprehensive Watershed RestorationTraining and Implementation Program for tribalmembers and staff. This program was developedto educate participants in watershed restoration.The overall goal is to establish a Tribal RestorationDivision to employ watershed restoration special-

ists and offer apprenticeships completing restora-tion work on projects throughout the AncestralTerritory. Sixteen tribal members were trained inheavy equipment operation, prescription planningand surveying, and supervising project sites; thetribal members have completed their initialapprenticeship while earning family wages. TheForest Service and the Karuk Tribe have estab-lished a relationship that is facilitating watershedrestoration and economic development.

Reducing sediment will help conserveand protect native and at-risk fish

habitat, and contribute to species

recovery...

Heavy equipment operators work to re-establish landcontours in the Steinbacher project area. Photo courtesy ofthe Karuk Tribe.


5/24


One of the largestcrossings had 72,000cubic yards of fill,

which took three field

seasons to excavate.

Due to insufficient revenue in 2000, the Tribeswere only able to conduct winter maintenance andmonitoring. But since the 2001 season, the Tribeand FS have spent almost $2 million dollarsdecommissioning the Steinacher Road and devel-

oping prescription plans for future road decommis-sioning projects in the East Ishi Pishi Units.

First, in 2001, the Karuk Watershed Restora-tion Program completed its third year of develop-ment. Five agencies provided grants totaling$551,964 for the Steinacher DecommissioningProject: US Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs,Tribal Environmental Protection Agency, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration and theNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Approxi-mately $100,000 in grant funding from the BIAWatershed Restoration Program and TEPA Non-Point Source Program was expended in out-year(November-May) planning for future projects inthe East Ishi Pishi Unit and for the final phase ofthe Steinacher Decommissioning Project.

Then, in 2002, just under $1.2 million wassecured for the remaining work on the SteinacherRoad. The fill volume from crossings and swalesmoved to stable areas measured approximately148,000 cu. yds. for this final field season alone.One of the largest crossings had 72,000 cu. yds. offill, which took three field seasons to excavate.

Some local people whose livelihoods werealtered after the reduction of logging have op-posed the project. These people hope logging will

return to the area and they ask, Why take theroads out if were going to use them again? Othersthink they should be allowed to use the old roadsto hunt or gather basket materials, plants andmushrooms. But in reality, most old roads areinaccessible due to landslides or overgrown brushand trees. The Tribe is working to educate citizensabout road decommissioning.

Beyond Steinacher

What are the future plans for the Tribes

restoration program? The team will be moving tothe East Ishi Pishi Watershed area, where manysub-watersheds are of critical concern and areconsidered impaired by the Northwest ForestPlan and the Clean Water Act. These watershedsinclude Ti, Irving, Rogers and Unkonom Creeks,which contain high levels of sediment and threatenwater quality within the Klamath River system.Cool water from the sub-watersheds of East IshiPishi is important for maintaining water quality inthe Klamath River - anadromous fish depend onlow water temperatures.

Approximately 64 miles of road in the Ishi

Pishi area are candidates for road decommission-ing, and roughly 8.5 miles are to be converted totrails - these proposed actions will take over fiveyears to complete. The Tribe has already securedfunding from the Tribal EPA Program, the BIA, andthe Northern California Indian DevelopmentCouncil to develop a prescription plan for thepriority roads. Additionally, the Tribal WatershedRestoration Program is developing funding tobegin decommissioning roads in cooperation withthe USFS in the summer of 2003.

The Karuk Tribes Watershed RestorationTraining Program and the implementation of

restoration techniques have been an outstandingsuccess. In addition, the fact that people learnedto do this work in unusually complex and danger-ous conditions is remarkable. The members of theteam are extremely proud to have completed atask as difficult as Steinacher and to know theyhave had a hand in restoring part of their Ances-tral Land.

Rene Stauffer is Watershed RestorationCoordinator for the Karuk Tribe.

Straw is often used to stabilize exposed soils. Photo byAmy Chadwick.


6/24


Old Road, Beleaguered WildernessBy Melissa Walker

Listen to the names: Chopped Oak, Cherry Log, Goose Island,Snake Nation, Stanley Mill, Big Creek, White Path, Aska,Cartecay, Pisgah, and Tickanetley. These tiny unincorporated

communities are all accessible by roads Rock Creek Road, BigCreek Road, Turniptown Creek Road, Big Chicken Creek Road, andDoublehead Gap Road named for streambeds they follow, theremains of old settlements, and passes known in these parts as gaps.These sparsely populated rural settlements lie inthe Chattahoochee National Forest, which containsten individual Wildernesses Blood Mountain,Brasstown Bald, Cohutta, Ellicott Rock, Mark Trail,Raven Cliffs, Southern Nantahala, Tray Mountain,and Rich Mountain that together comprise almost100,000 Wilderness acres. Judged against theextensive western Wildernesses with acreages in thehundreds of thousands, the land-island Wilder-nesses of the Chattahoochee National Forest aresmall indeed. Judged by the lushness and diversity of the plant life,they are bountiful, substantial storehouses of momentous value.

The 9,649 acres of the Rich Mountain Wilderness are coveredwith a rich, black loam that gives the area its name. On ridges andslopes one finds basswood, ash, and black cherry, trees commonlyfound in the eastern Blue Ridge only in high, rich coves. The fecun-

dity of the soil and over 60 inches of rain each year account forextensive biodiversity and extravagance of the wild flora, and also

attracted settlers to clear and cultivate appropri-ate sites. The Balds, like Tickanetley Bald andBig Bald, are relatively treeless mountaintops, onecovered with a meadow of grasses and wildflow-ers, the other heath-studded with mountain laureland the reddish orange flame azalea. The colorwas so intense that when he first saw it in bloom,

the 18th century naturalist William Bartramthought the woods were on fire.

The spectacular display of wildflowers in thespring brings many hikers to the part of theAppalachians known as the Blue Ridge. Those whocome to revel in the early flush of bloom before the

trees leaf out enjoy unimpeded views of themountains, but only a small fraction of the crowdswho invade these hills in search of botanicalwonders make it to the Rich Mountain Wilderness,where there are no maintained trails. Those whowant to explore this fertile world in depth willneed a compass and a topographical map.

In spite of the areas relative sparse use, thewilderness is under siege, and its rare biologicalwealth is in jeopardy. What threatens the Rich isnot hunters or campers or fishermen. It is notpoor management, invasive species, or fire. Theenemy is all too familiar. Its name is road Old

Road to be exact and it forms the northernboundary of the Rich Mountain Wilderness.

To understand this dreaded peril, let me takeyou on a journey. Imagine you live in the heart ofAtlanta, Georgia and that from time to time youlong to escape the noise and rush of the city into aquiet place where black bear, deer, and grouse aremore numerous that people. You wake very earlyone Saturday morning in the spring with a hanker-ing for the wild, a feeling that to resist puts yourspirit in peril. You study topo maps of the moun-

Those who want to explore this fertileworld in depth will need a compass

and a topographical map.

The lush undergrowth of Rich Mountain. Photo by David Govus.


7/24


tainous areas less than a hundred miles from thecity and choose a place youve never been before.You get out your backpack and fill it with food andgear to sustain you for two days.

By 8:00 am you are speeding up Interstate 75,and in less than half an hour you turn off on a fourlane that takes you past Jasper, Talking Rock, andEllijay. At Cherry Log, you turn right on RockCreek Road that borders the Rich MountainWildlife Management Area and parallels RockCreek. Unfolding to the south is the roadless ColdMountain area and beyond that the Rich MountainWilderness. You drive another few miles of what is

now a dirt road and at nine-thirty you leave yourcar in a small parking area at Stanley Gap. Fromthere you follow a rutted, rocky, almost impassablesingle lane road for half a mile to the boundary ofthe wilderness. There you disappear into the wild.

Not so early that same morning four youngmen in Gainesville, Georgia throw a cooler of beerin the back of a truck and hitch up a trailercarrying two all terrain vehicles (ATVs). Aroundnoon they too park at Stanley Gap, but they have avery different agenda from the one that broughtyou to this place. Out for a joy ride, they plowalong Old Road drinking beer and yahooing as

they go. When the road is too rough they veer intothe adjacent undergrowth, tearing up the land,destroying vegetation, and terrifying birds andsmall mammals nesting nearby. When they emptya can of beer, they toss it into the bushes. They donot even know names of plants they kill anddegrade: trientes borealis (starflower), veradimviride (false hellebore), and heraculum maximum(cow parsnip). Among the diverse species oftrillium found here are colonies of the rare trilliumsimile and trillium flexipes. Less rare, but stilluncommon are trillium luteum and trillium

grandiflorum . Facilitating these destructiveincursions into the wilderness is the Old Road. TheATVs tear through Stanley Creek and the headwa-ters of several other trout streams, muddying andsilting the waters as they go. After reachingHorsepen gap, Old Road runs along a high ridgeline, and from there the annoying whine of theirfour-wheelers is audible over most of the oncequiet Wilderness.

As I write these words, I am looking at aphotograph taken in the spring of 2002 of a largeancient colony ofgrandiflorum that has beenplowed through, chewed up, and left for dead bymarauding ATVs. Staring at such senselessdevastation, defenders of wildness might betempted to give up the effort to protect andpreserve this threatened place, or they might bemoved to confront the public agencies that aremandated by law to save wild places. Wherewilderness is at stake, the choice between diggingin for a fight or running away from conflict is achoice between life and death. As with my ownpersonal wellbeing, I choose life. My weapons are

words. My arsenal is the law. This brings me back to an old enemyof wildness, the Old Road.

For years environmentalists in Georgia have tried to close theOld Road. Attempts in the past have been unsuccessful becausenobody seems to know for sure who owns it. The Forest Servicepasses the buck by claiming that the road, which runs entirelythrough wooded national forest lands from one end to the other,belongs to the county. Gilmer county indeed contends that it owns

the road although the county doesnt maintain the road and has noproof of ownership. Nor does the road appear on the countys roadmap. Now Old Road has become a hot item among ATV clubs and iseven described in glowing detail on some of their websites. But itappears that legal action may have a chance to break up this im-passe. If the road can be closed, the Cold Mountain roadless area,

which lies on the other side of the road from the Rich MountainWilderness, could become an addition to the wilderness. A wilder-ness and all that make it wild are at stake.

Melissa Walker is Vice-President of National Wilderness Watch/Chair ofGeorgia Wilderness Watch, and author of Living on Wilderness Time(September 2002).

Send letters to the Chattahoochee/Oconee National Forest urgingclosure of the road to Alice Carlton/Acting Forest SupervisorC.O.N.F./1755 Cleveland Hwy/Gainesville Georgia.

Out for a joy ride, they plow along Old

Road drinking beer and yahooing asthey go... When the road is too rough

they veer into the adjacent

undergrowth...

A user-created road splits off from the main Old Road, into the undergrowth.Photo by David Govus.


8/24


9/24


NEPA and Appealing a Permit Decision

Once you learn of a planned event, it is helpful to persuade theForest Service and BLM to prepare an Environmental Assessment(EA). An EA will force the agency to take the required hard look atthe impacts associated with the event, including impacts to sensitivespecies, water quality, vegetation, soils, and public safety. In mostcases the agency will claim that the event is of such short duration(often two or three days) that it will have few impacts. In manyinstances the agency even neglected to publish a Categorical Exclu-sion (CE) for an event. For example, the Forest Service was permittingthe Buffalo Peaks Hill Climb in Colorado annually for 10 years beforelocal landowners and businesses complained loudly enough, pushingfor some form of NEPA analysis. After five years of CEs, the ForestService was finally forced to do an EA last year. As a result, evidencesurfaced that the event was in violation of several environmentalregulations; it will now be held only every other year and with strongmitigation and monitoring.

If you or a place you care about are adversely affected by a finaldecision concerning a special recreation use permit, you can appealthat decision. While the appeal is pending, however, the decisionremains in effect unless there is an emergency stay of action granted

by the Secretary of the Interior (on BLM lands) or the RegionalForester (on Forest Service lands). The authorizing officer, usuallythe District Ranger for the Forest Service and the Land Manager forthe BLM, has the authority (even after a permit is issued) to stop theevent at any time, if necessary to protect public health, public safety,or the environment(43 CFR 8372.5a).

If any person violates the permit regulations, they are subject tocriminal penalties of a maximum $1,000 fine and/or 12 monthsimprisonment. Violations include a failure to obtain a permit orviolating the stipulations or conditions of a permit. The person mayalso be subject to civil action for unauthorized use of the publiclands or related waters and their resources, or violations of thepermit terms or stipulations (43 CFR 8372.0-7(b)(2)). In this case the

full value of the resources damaged or lost or the amount necessaryto restore those resources can be recovered. The responsible agencycan also cancel the permit if the permit holder, in an action related tothe permit, violates any federal or state law or regulations concern-ing the conservation or protection of natural resources, the environ-ment, endangered species or antiquities (43 CFR 8372.5(f)).

Problems and Solutions withPermits

We have frequently observed agency failures torehabilitate damage and take corrective action inthe face of blatant natural and cultural resourcedegradation after off-road vehicle events. Often, asmentioned above, events occur without a permit.Spectators also often damage the land surroundingthe raceway as much if not more than race partici-pants. In some cases spectators bring their ownoff-road-vehicles to the events and are hyped bythe atmosphere into riding them irresponsibly.

As one solution, the agencies may try movingthe event to a different location every other year tolet the land recover. Instead of protecting onearea this usually results in two degraded areas.

To find out where events are occurring visitthe web sites, bulletin boards and other informa-tion sites for off-road vehicle users. Get on the

mailing lists for your local clubs. Most of the time,the agencies are not informing the public as towhen these events are happening. Once you learnof an event, investigate:

Determine if the event is being held on

private, state, Forest Service or BLM lands.

Ask the appropriate agency if they have

issued a permit.

Evaluate the permit to ensure that it was

properly issued with public notice (news-paper, Federal register).

If the event occurs, be there. Take pictures

of resource damage and any other permitor other violations (but be careful not tobe too obvious). Make sure you carefullylabel all photos and date them. Observeand note any plant or animal species thatare being affected by the event as well asany damage to soil and water.

Make copies of all the documentation and

be ready to present it as evidence to theagency for not holding the event in thefuture or for changing the terms of thepermit and mitigation.

For more information on Special Recreation Permitscontact Lisa Philipps at [email protected]

Special use recreation means different things todifferent people. Wildlands CPR file photo.


10/24


On September 16, 2002 the 9th Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled in favor of conservationists on a lawsuit challenging a Montana

timber sale. The ruling was authored by JudgeDorothy Nelson and supported two importantclaims made by the plaintiffs, one each from theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and theEndangered Species Act (ESA). On the plaintiffsother claim, involving the National Forest Manage-ment Act (NFMA), the court sided with theplaintiffs on a procedural issue but with the ForestService on substance. The NEPA claim in particu-lar was tied specifically to road density issues.

BackgroundThe case, Native Ecosystem Council v.

Dombeck [304 F.3d 886, 2002 WL 31051552 (9th Cir.2002)], was brought by Montanas Native Ecosys-tems Council and the Bear Creek Council againstthe U.S. Forest Service (FS) and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS). They challenged theDarroch-Eagle timber sale, a proposed 2.1 millionboard foot sale on 226 acres. The sale was one ofabout a dozen slated to provide receipts to pay forthe Congressionally authorized Gallatin landexchange. In sum, the sales are referred to as theGallatin II sales.

As with most of the other Gallatin landexchange sales and like many other nationalforests, the Gallatin made a temporary, site-specific forest plan amendment exempting the salefrom the forest plan road density standards.Plaintiffs argued that this violated NEPA and NFMA,and they also argued that the sale violated the ESAby failing to consider a nearby sheep grazingallotment when considering the sales effects ongrizzly bears.

NEPA ClaimsThe Forest Service must disclose cumula-

tive effects of site-specific road density

standard amendments

In the most significant victory of this case, thecourt ruled that NEPA is required even where theFS maintains the environmental status quo.Plaintiffs argued that the FSs decision to selltimber triggered an obligation under the forestplan to close roads sufficient to bring the current

excessive road density into compliance with forestplan road density standards.

The FS argued that leaving the roads openmerely maintained the current environmentalstatus quo, so no NEPA analysis was required. TheCourt held that the FS should have done NEPA onits affirmative decision not to close the roadsnecessary to comply with the Forest Plan. Basi-cally the Court determined that a written decisionto maintain a given management regime on theground requires actual analysis.

Specifically, the Court required the FS to

assess and disclose the potential cumulativeenvironmental effects of routinely making site-specific Forest Plan road density standard amend-ments to allow timber sales that would otherwiseviolate the Forest Plan standards. This holdingmay have important implications in other caseswhere the Forest Service is making forest planamendments in order to excuse its continuingfailure to comply with forest plan standards:

When No Action is No Excuse

Court Finds Status Quo Not Good Enough on GallatinBy Dan Funsch with assistance from Jory Ruggerio

Waiving road density standards for a timber sale, a common practice, becamethe subject of litigation on the Gallatin National Forest. Wildlands CPR file

photo.


11/24


The Forest Service also ar-gues that its adoption of the roaddensity waiver does no more thanmaintain the status quo of roaddensity on the timber sale site, andthat NEPA documentation is notrequired for actions that lack anyphysical impact on the environ-ment. We reject this argument as itignores the fact that, absent theroad density waiver, the Forest Ser-vice would be required to closenine to eleven miles of road follow-ing the timber sale. The adoptionof the amendment will have physi-cal environmental effects, whichmust be analyzed in any environ-mental review of the proposed ac-tion. Native Ecosystems Councildecision at p. 13953, n. 3.

While the court upheld the plaintiffs conten-tion in this regard, essentially holding that theEnvironmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the

FS was inadequate, it stopped short of requiring aseparate, full NEPA review document (such as anEnvironmental Impact Statement) to address thecumulative impacts of the entire series of GallatinII road amendments.

The plaintiffs had also argued that the deci-sion to amend the Forest Plan predated the EA,and therefore violated NEPA. The court disagreed,and upheld the agency on this point.

ESA ClaimAnalysis areas may not be delineatedbased solely on pre-existing political or

administrative boundaries

In Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp.2d 121, 126 (D.C. 2001), the D.C. Cir. Court ex-plained why delineating an ESA analysis area toonarrowly precludes agencies from complying withthe ESA obligation to ensure that federal activitieswill not jeopardize an endangered species. How-ever, the Defenders Court also noted in a badfootnote that agencies are entitled to morediscretion in preparing biological assessments(BA) than in preparing biological opinions.

The Native Ecosystems Council Court foundthat the FSs adoption of a pre-defined administra-tive unit as the ESA analysis area for effects ongrizzly bears was arbitrary absent specific analysisin the record demonstrating why such an adminis-trative unit actually encompassed the area withinwhich effects on grizzlies would occur. Thisholding seems to counter the bad footnote andextend the rule set out in Defenders of Wildlife v.Babbitt to cases where only a BA is prepared.

NFMA ClaimsThe Bad News: Its hard getting traction on

NFMA substantive requirements.

Plaintiffs had argued that the FS violatedNFMA by amending the Forest Plan to allow forhigher road densities. They pointed to the lack ofa cumulative assessment of road density amend-

ments, and also argued that those amendmentsconstituted a significant change to the Forest Plan.The court disagreed, and held that NFMA does notrequire a cumulative assessment of the signifi-cance of all Gallatin II proposed (road density)amendments. The court also found that theDarroch-Eagle road density amendment was not asignificant change to the overall Forest Plan.

The Good News: Exhaustion of remediessatisfied when underlying factual issues

raised on appeal

The court ruled that the plaintiffs administra-

tive appeal was adequate where it raised thefactual issues underlying plaintiffs claims, eventhough plaintiffs counsel framed the legal theoriesrelated to those factual issues differently duringthe formal litigation. Requiring more might undulyburden those who pursue administrative appealsunrepresented by counsel, who may frame theirclaims in non-legal terms rather than precise legalformulations. (Native Ecosystems Councildecision at p. 13958.)

ConclusionWhile very few lawsuits result in across-the-

board victories for conservationists, this case isboth significant and valuable to activists fightingfor lower open road densities on National Forests.The Forest Service is clearly required to assess thecombined impacts of open roads, including thosethat simply remain open by virtue of a Forest Planamendment.

A dozen timber sales are slated to help pay for the GallatinLand Exchange. Photo by Amy Chadwick.


12/24


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.

Many environmentalists and conservation biologists enjoyriding mountain bikes. Mountain biking is often perceived asa low-impact pursuit, more like hiking, backpacking, and

paddling than motorized four-wheeling or dirt biking. However, thereactually isnt much evidence to support this intuition.

There is currently a lack of scientific literature comparing theeffects of mountain biking and other recreational uses on naturalsystems (Thurston et. al., 2001). While the effects of recreation

generally have been well studied, the extent to which mountain bikingaffects natural systems relative to other forms of recreation has beenstudied only superficially (Knight, pers. comm.).

In recent years, the sport of mountain biking has boomed inpopularity. The BLM reports that an estimated 13.5 million mountainbicyclists visit public lands each year to enjoy the variety of trails.(BLM, 2002). Important questions about mountain bikes remain forconservationists and land managers in adopting appropriate landmanagement policies: Do mountain bikes impact ecosystems differ-ently than hiking? What kinds of impacts do mountain bikes have?Should special impacts by mountain bikers be considered whendevising management strategies?

The impacts of non-motorized recreational use on ecologicalsystems can be divided into three categories: trampling, mechanical

destruction of ground level vegetation; erosion, the mechanicalmobilization of sediment; and wildlife disturbance, disruption ofanimal ecosystems by human presence. This article reviews thecurrent literature on the impact of mountain biking recreation onecosystems.

TramplingTrampling studies examine the impact of recreational use on

vegetation through the mechanical application of force on plants.Terence Yorks of Utah State University has developed a general modelfor understanding the varying impact of different modes of travel onvegetation:

Land Impact = ((weight + output acceleration) x swath)).

The amount of damage inflicted on vegetation can be understoodas a function of the energy released. In the above equation, outputacceleration is defined as vehicle power divided by its mass. Swathis the width of the vehicles track (tire, foot, or track) multiplied by itslength of travel (Yorks, 2000). This methodology provides an analyticframework for examining the amount of energy transmitted to plantstructures by various modes of travel. Using this comparativeanalysis, mountain bicyclists have more impact than hikers, but arecomparable to hikers in impact when compared to motorized vehicles(Yorks, 2000). Much of the higher impact of mountain bikes relativeto hikers comes from the longer distance typically traveled, andsubsequently larger swath.

There are some problems with this method ofquantifying impact, particularly when evaluating aspecific user type in a specific area. For example, ithas been shown that motorcycles actually widentrails less than horses when going downhill(Weaver et. al., 1978), though Yorkss frameworkwould demonstrate that motorcycles have moreimpact. This is explained by the fact that walkers

(human or animal) must check their speed as theyproceed downhill by generating friction with theground surface. Wheel-driven vehicles can checktheir speed by using brakes, without applying ashearing force to the ground surface.

Despite some limitations in modeling localeffects, Yorkss framework is supported overall byhis 1997 meta-analysis of the 400 extant citationsexamining the effects of foot and vehicle impacts onvegetation. According to Yorks (2000), the weight,power, and swath equation that was presented hereis consistent with long term observations ofvegetation, soil, and pavement changes followingland use.

The only published direct comparison of hikingand mountain bikings trampling effects on untram-meled vegetation was conducted by Thurston andReader (2001) in Boyne Valley Provincial Park,Ontario. Applying experimental treatment passes ofvarying intensity to a series of test plots in adeciduous forest, they concluded that mountainbikes and hikers do not do significantly differ intheir effect on plant stem density, species richness,or soil exposure. Cole and Bayfield (1993), however,assert greater standardization of study design andterminology is needed.

The Ecological Impacts of Mountain BikingBy Jason Lathrop

Courtesy of Terrance Yorks, Utah State UniversityDepartment of Forest, Range & Wildlife Sciences.


13/24


ErosionStudies of erosion tend to focus on the effects of recreational use

on existing trails, including trail widening through destruction ofvegetation. Since many mountain bike riders stay on the trail, suchstudies may be of relevance.

Past studies have found that different user groups do indeedaffect trails and adjacent vegetation differently. Weaver and Dale(1978) showed that hikers, motorcycles, and horses have differentimpacts on trails through meadow and pine forest. In general, they

found that hikers have the least impact followed by motorcycles, thenhorses. However, motorcycles tend to deepen trails more than horseswhen traveling uphill and on grasslands (Weaver and Dale, 1978).

Wilson and Seney (1994) applied experimental passes to varioussites on an existing trail system in the Gallatin National Forest ofMontana and, simulating rainfall, measured sediment erosion. In theonly study that specifically includes mountain bikes in such compari-sons, they found that horseback riders mobilize more sediment thando mountain bikers, motorcycles, or hikers. However, they also founda slightly greater mobilization of sediment caused by hikers comparedto off-road bicycles, suggesting the pounding action of feet or hoovesmay have a more erosive effect than a wheeled form of travel.

The available literature suggests that different user groups causedifferent levels of trail erosion (Weaver et al, 1978). Wilson et al (1994)

reported that mountain bikes have no greater impact on trails than dohikers and motorcyclists and have less impact than horses. However,given the little available information, further study seems warranted.

Wildlife DisturbanceThe presence of human recreation in wildlife habitat, whether

motorized or non-motorized, has an effect on animals living in thatarea. Through flushing, increased stress, and disruption of breedingand feeding cycles, humans can diminish the health of animal popula-tions (Knight 1995). While a great deal of literature exists on the effectof human recreation on animals, few researchers have examined theeffects of mountain bikers and other user classes (Knight, pers.comm.).

Taylor (2001) examined the differential effects of hikers and

mountain bikers on several species, including bison, mule deer andpronghorn antelope, on Utahs Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake.Taylor (2001) observed a negative relationship between animal bodysize and flushing response, but found no difference in likelihood offlushing caused by mountain bikers and hikers. Regular flushing andharassment imposes energetic burdens on animals, disrupts feeding

and breeding, increases mortality, and reducespopulation health. However, because short-termbehavioral changes are more easily studied, there isless data on the effect of recreation on long-termpopulation health. (Knight, 1995)

Stake (2002) looked at the impacts of mountainbiking activity on golden-cheeked warblers at FortHood, Texas, a military training area. This study

was able to examine a wildlife population beforeand after the opening of a mountain biking park.They reported no impacts from mountain biking onwarbler territory density, return rates, or agestructure (Stake, 2000).

Another effect mountain bikes can have onanimals is direct mortality caused by collision.There is no literature on this topic, however,anecdotal evidence suggests that small mammalsand reptiles are vulnerable to impact and notuncommonly killed. (A. Switalski, pers. comm.).

Conclusions and Future Research

NeedsAs a non-motorized recreational use, mountain

biking has so far received little scrutiny by conser-vationists and biologists when compared tomotorized use. While the studies discussed abovesuggest that mountain biking does not have agreater impact on some aspects of ecological healththan other non-motorized user groups, to datethere is not a sufficient body of data to support thisconclusion. However, much anecdotal evidencesuggests that there may be negative impactsincluding erosion and wildlife disturbance.

There are some problems inherent in applyingall of these study designs to management. Forexample, while Taylor (2001) concluded that

pronghorn antelope do not have a greater likeli-hood of flushing with each single encounter,mountain bikers typically travel much farther pertrip, therefore exposing wildlife to more total stressper recreational visit. Experimental tramplingstudies currently do not take into account speed,braking technique, and other elements of mountainbicyclist behavior. Unless such factors are takeninto account, these experiments will be limited intheir applicability to real-world mountain bikingsituations.

As mountain biking increases in popularity andimproved equipment and technique enable trailbicyclists to extend their presence further into

wildlife habitat, the potential for negative impact ontrails and wildlife will increase. Proper managementof wildland systems, and ensuring their ecologicalhealth, will require more data and a clearer scien-tific understanding of the impacts of mountainbiking.

Jason Lathrop is a graduate student inenvironmental studies at the University of Montanaand a recovering journalist. He has written forOutside, Mungo Park, ABCNews.com, and The NewYork Times Sunday Magazine.Photo by Mark Alan Wilson.


14/24


ReferencesBureau of Land Management 2002. Letter inviting involvement in the

development of a new National Mountain Bicycling Action Plan.

Cole D.N. and N.G. Bayfield. 1993. Recreational trampling of vegetation:standard experimental procedures.Biological Conservation 63: 209-215.

Fairbanks, W.S. Distribution of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapraamericana Ord) on Antelope Island State Park, USA, before andafter establishment of recreational trails.Nature Areas Journal22(4):277-282.

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.). 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists:Co-existence Through Management and Research. Island Press,Washington D.C.

Stake, M. M. 2000. Impacts of Mountain Biking Activity on GoldenCheeked Warblers at Fort Hood, Texas. In: Endangered SpeciesMonitoring and Management at Fort Hood Texas: 2000 AnnualReport, Fort Hood Project, The Nature Conservancy of Texas, FortHood Texas, USA.

Taylor, A. 2002. Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated VisitorPerceptions at Antelope Island State Park Utah, Masters Thesis,Colorado State University Department of Fishery and WildlifeBiology.

Thurston, E. and R.J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of experimentally appliedmountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of deciduous

forest.Environmental Management. 27(3): 397-409.

Weaver, T. and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles,and horses in meadows and forests.Journal of Applied Ecology15:451-457.

Wilson, J.P. and J.P. Seney. 1994. Erosional impact of hikers, motorcycles,and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana.Mountain

Research and Development. 14(1): 77-88.

Yorks, T.P. et. al. 1997. Toleration of traffic by vegetation: life formconclusions and summary extracts from a comprehensivedatabase.Environmental Management. 21(1): 121-131

Yorks, T.P. 2000. Should People or Machines Have Equal Rights, anautomated Web presentation available at http://cc.usu.edu/~olorin/vehicles/index.htm

continued from last page

All types of recreation have environmentalimpacts; deciding when and where theseimpacts are appropriate is a social and

political question. Photo courtesy of SwanView Coalition.


15/24


16/24


Collaboration: A Conundrum for

ConservationistsBy Bethanie Walder

Collaboration is all the rage these days. Nonmotorized recre-ation advocates have sat down at the table with motorizedrecreationists to discuss where off-road vehicles should and

shouldnt be allowed on National Forests. Conservationists andloggers have sat down to discuss what areas to protect and whatareas to cut. All sorts of stakeholders and interest groups have cometogether in small collaborative processes throughout the country, tolook at community-based approaches to resource protection andextraction.

The rise in advocacy for and promotion of environmentalcollaborative processes appears to be an attempt to prevent litiga-tion. Community forestry advocates interested in collaboration maybe trying to protect jobs; while those conservationists whovesupported collaboration may be trying to prevent ecological trainwrecks (e.g.jobs/owls in the Pacific Northwest, or road removal/grizzly bears in Montanas Flathead Valley). It is critical to note,however, that collaboration is a highly contentious and divisive issueamong conservationists. While collaborative processes have resultedin some interesting approaches to conservation, they have not, in theend prevented litigation. Perhaps collaboration can only be effectivewhen litigation remains a real component of the process. This articleexamines just that question, as well as how advocates of collabora-tion may attempt to pre-empt the litigation component.

In a legal article discussing collaborative processes as a newapproach to environmental protection, attorney Bradley Karkkainenexplains the two ways that collaboration and litigation generallyinterface with each other.

Litigation or the threat of litigation may some-times be a deal-breaker, blocking creative and collabo-rative problem-solving processes if potential partici-pants calculate that negotiated outcomes can bestruck down in the courts, so that the game is notworth the candle.

In other cases, however, litigation or the threatof litigation may play an important and constructive

background role in creating incentives for parties toparticipate in the kinds of collaborative processes Idescribe here, and in policing the outer boundariesof agreements already reached.

While Karkkainen recognizes that litigation can sometimesimpede environmental protection, he also recognizes that it might becritical to making collaborative processes work. From the conserva-tion perspective, the threat of litigation may be most important inthat it creates a level playing field. In most situations, the peoplewho come to the table will have unequal power. If big timber,conservationists and local workers are all sitting at the table with the

Forest Service, conservationists will be in a weakerposition if legal requirements are not kept on thetable. Similarly, if conservationists and off-roadvehicle users come together to discuss whatroutes to leave open and what routes to close,conservationists will have less power without thelaw behind them. It seems clear that legal rulesand tools can help make collaborative processesmore viable. (Anecdotally, for example, President

Clintons Northwest Forest Plan was an effort toget logging moving again after it was shut downbecause of a lawsuit over the spotted owl. ThatForest Plan led to community discussions over itsimplementation and how to provide jobs in thewoods where timber could no longer be cut. Thelitigation forced some of that collaboration.)

In October 2001, a group of nearly eightypeople representing everything from ForestService and BLM managers, to CongressionalRepresentatives, to timber industry managers,local workers, foundations and conservationistscame together in Red Lodge, Montana to discuss

collaborative processes. The gathering gave birthto an effort to give collaborative processes an edgein agency decision-making. The participantsapproved a straight-forward set of policy recom-mendations intended to position collaboration asthe preferred alternative for resolving resourcemanagement issues involving multiple public andor private sector stakeholders (Red LodgeWorkshop website www.redlodgeworkshop.org).The attendees at the Red Lodge workshop go on tosay that to accomplish this:


17/24


18/24


Roads Program UpdateWinter 2002-03

By Marnie Criley, Roads Policy Coordinator

Economic StudyThe Center for Environmental Economic Development (CEED)

has completed their preliminary draft of The Economic Benefits of aNational Forest Road Removal Program. We submitted comments forthe final version, which should be completed in early 2003, and wehope to use the findings to secure additional funding and go more in-depth. Marnie has discussed the study with a wide variety of peopleand believes there will be a tremendous amount of interest in thefindings, particularly among rural communities and labor.

Restoration PrinciplesThe Principles are finally complete and we are currently in the

process of getting endorsements. We probably wont release thempublicly until January, but they are already getting a fair bit of use.The Principles can be viewed on American Lands Alliances web pageat www.americanlands.org/restoration_principles.doc

Restoration Field ToursMarnie recently attended two days of restoration field tours on

the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. Attendees in-cluded local folks from Lewis and Skamania counties: commissioners,union folks, economic development leaders, loggers, foresters,restoration practitioners, forest service personnel and environmen-talists. Most of the projects we looked at were thinning (there wasone stream restoration and one road removal project), but it wasquite instructive. Attendees tried to come up with positive solutions

aimed at watershed and community restoration and we think thistour is a model Wildlands CPR could utilize elsewhere.

Roads Analysis ProcessAlison Hanks, Wildlands CPRs summer intern, completed her

survey of where National Forests are with the Roads Analysis Processand how seriously road removal is being considered. She had in-depth conversations with about 15 forests across the country andasked them a series of questions, formulated in part through ourmembers. Alison compiled her results into a white paper and a tri-fold brochure that we will mail to members and distribute at events.

Forest Practitioners Annual MeetingApproximately 120 forest practitioners from around the countryattended this four-day event to discuss issues regarding working inthe woods, from labor policy to national fire plan to techniques forroad removal. Yes, roads played a large part. Marnie co-led a roadremoval workshop on the first day of the meeting and Bethaniefacilitated a discussion titled The 400,000 mile question: roadremoval and maintenance on national forests. NNFP has about 450members nationally, as well as several regional centers, and we hopeto work with them more in the future. For more information on NNFPgo to www.nnfp.org.

Transportation Policy issuesThe Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21) will be up for reauthorizationduring the 108th Congress. The new act will becalled TEA-3; it is the appropriations bill for allhighway/transportation projects for the next 4years (or longer). It will determine what shapehighway projects take and what issues theyconsider. Deb Kmon at American Wildlands andMarnie are generating interest in TEA-3 and willhave an initial strategy session soon.

Bethanie gave a presentation at the AmericanWildlands law conference on national transporta-

tion policies (both federal lands and federalhighways). Finally, Wildlands CPR Board memberMary OBrien alerted us to Senator Max Baucus(D-MT) transportation bill that would eliminate theNEPA provision to consider all reasonablealternatives in highway projects. For more info,contact Marnie at the Wildlands CPR office.

Science ProgramAdam Switalski, Wildlands CPRs science

coordinator, continues to develop our scienceprogram and supply our library with articles onroads, road removal, and off-road vehicles. Adam

provides activists with resources and informationto fight road construction and limit off-roadvehicles ranging from the impacts of snowmo-biles on air/water quality to the effects of roads ontropical biodiversity. Adam is drafting a list ofquestions that will guide scientists in developingroad removal research. This November heattended the Carnivores 2002 conference spon-sored by Defenders of Wildlife. Internationalleaders on carnivore research were there andAdam provided many of them with information onroad removal research.

Photo by Amy Chadwick.


19/24


ORV Program UpdateWinter 2002-03

By Bethanie Walder

By the time this reaches your doorstep, Wildlands CPR shouldhave available two new resources regarding off-road vehicles. Thefirst, a set of comment templates for dealing with travel plan revi-sions and off-road vehicle projects. Second, we hope we will havehired someone to replace Jacob Smith, who is leaving Wildlands CPRafter five years as our ORV Policy Coordinator.

Since Jacob is leaving, we thought wed use the ORV ProgramUpdate this month to thank him for his tremendous work in creatingand implementing what we think is the strongest ORV program in thecountry. He got his start in off-road vehicle work by developing thebackground for the Biodiversity Legal Foundation (BLF) lawsuit for aYellowstone National Park winter (snowmobile) management plan.(Yes, the very petition that eventually led to all the Yellowstonesnowmobile controversy, management proposals, litigation, counter-litigation, news reports, etc.) But most people may not realize thatwhen we hired Jacob in January 1998, he was the first environmentalstaff person in the country dedicated to working exclusively on off-road vehicles (though he worked for us only halftime that first year,splitting his allegiances between Wildlands CPR and BLF). By the endof that year he had developed aggressive plans for putting off-roadvehicles on the national environmental agenda, by working with bothnational environmental organizations and with the media.

In November 1998 Wildlands CPR partnered with Friends of theEarth to host the first national environmental meeting on off-roadvehicles, in Boulder, CO. Over 50 conservationists attended thatmeeting, representing local, regional and national conservationorganizations. Out of that meeting Jacob developed plans for moving

the off-road vehicle issue nationally. He started leading workshopsaround the country and acted as a direct consultant to dozens anddozens of activists engaged in off-road vehicle battles. He developeda series of off-road vehicle monitoring field data sheets, and contin-ued to update and disseminate our scientific and legal resources onoff-road vehicles. But perhaps most significant was his dedication todeveloping a rule-making petition to the Forest Service, requesting acomplete overhaul of their off-road vehicle management system. Wepartnered with The Wilderness Society to complete and promote thepetition. Over 100 grassroots, regional and national organizationssigned onto the rulemaking petition, which was filed in December of1999, and catalyzed the creation of the Natural Trails and WatersCoalition. Jacobs involvement with Natural Trails has continued,and their presence has been critical in making off-road vehicles a

national environmental issue with the public and the media.

As Natural Trails has taken over some of the national media andgrassroots work, Jacob and Wildlands CPR have focused more onForest Service follow-up (after the petition), direct consultations withactivists, and litigation. Throughout this entire time, Jacob hasprovided insightful and critical explanations of national and regionalpolicies that affect off-road vehicles. He was also on the inside trackin developing the Southern Rockies Forest Network - a coalition ofconservation groups that took on off-road vehicles as one of its topthree priorities. And at some point while continuing to work on all ofthis, Jacob and a couple of friends found the time to start an entirely

new conservation organization, the Center forNative Ecosystems (CNE). It is to CNE that we arelosing him now, as Jacob will be leaving WildlandsCPR to be CNEs fulltime Executive Directorbeginning in January 2003 and theyre lucky tohave him!

Throughout the last five years, Jacob has beenahead of the curve in tracking and acting on issuesof national significance, like the BLM national weedmanagement planning process that came into playlast year. He has worked closely with environmen-tal lawyers, grassroots activists, agency folks andothers throughout the country who are engaged inthe off-road vehicle issue. (Hes been mistaken for

both a lawyer and a scientist, neither of which ishis true collegiate background its reallyreligious studies!) Hes also consistently helped uskeep our office atmosphere fun, regaling us withtales from river trips, opera and symphonysoundfests, hiking adventures, pool-playingescapades and his latest hobby - being a radio d.j.

While the person we hire will have someenormous shoes to fill, Jacobs replacement willalso have an opportunity to re-craft the off-roadvehicle program, as it will be going through somesignificant transitions. Wildlands CPR is finalizing anew strategic plan and re-visioning our off-road

vehicle work in light of the success of the NaturalTrails and Waters Coalition. We cant thank Jacobenough for his dedication to this issue, his commit-ment to conservation work nationally and locally,and his critical insights and perceptions about theimportant battles in which Wildlands CPR shouldengage. If youll miss him as much as we will,dont hesitate to let him know what a tremendous,fantastic and amazing job hes done!!

THANKS Jacob and best of luck in the adven-tures that await you!

Thanks Jacob! Well miss you.


20/24


21/24


22/24


23/24


24/24

Wildlands Center forPreventing RoadsP.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAIDMISSOULA MT, 59801

PERMIT NO. 569

File photo.

A society of machine owners has atendency to think that it has a final

right to everything it runs over, whether

it is woodland, sand, or water.

John Hay, Bird of Light

Road RIPorter 7.4

Documents

Transcript of Road RIPorter 7.4