Road Riporter 10.4 Winter Solstice 2005

Winter Solstice 2005. Volume 10 # 4

The Long-Anticipated Forest Service ORV Rule By Tim Peterson

Photo courtesy of Forest Service.

Inside…

Odes to Roads, by Janisse Ray. Pages 8-9

The Long-Anticipated Forest Service ORV Rule, by Tim Peterson. Pages 3-5

Get with the Program: Restoration & Transportation Program Updates. Pages 10-11

Legal Notes: Eldorado ORV Routes Closed, by Ronni Flannery. Pages 6-7

Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 12-13

Biblio Notes: Mycorestoration on Decommissioned Roads, by Joseph Trudeau. Pages 14-16 Regional Reports. Pages 17-19 Citizen Spotlight: Keeping the Southern Rockies Wild, by Cathrine Adams. Pages 20-21 Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org

O

ver the past few months, Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA) has been in the news repeatedly for his anti-environmental proposals. His concerted effort to rewrite the Endangered Species Act is just the tip of the iceberg. This fall he also made headlines by proposing to sell off 15 national parks to help pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. While Pombo said this was just a “conversation starter,” he can’t say the same about his most recent shenanigans. In November, Pombo inserted a provision into a budget reconciliation bill to allow any individual or corporation to stake a mining claim on federal land and then outright purchase that land for as low as $1000/acre. Pombo’s provision would amend the 1872 Mining Act; a similar provision used to be included in the act, but was rescinded in 1994. That provision required you to prove there were minerals within your claim before you could take ownership of the land. Pombo’s proposal requires no such proof. You can stake a claim for mining practically anywhere, and then, whether or not it contains any minerals, you can purchase the land and make private what is now public land. There has long been an aggressive group opposed to the concept of public lands who would like to see most, if not all public lands privatized. This movement gained steam during the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of the 1970s, but fizzled, until people like Pombo became their new champions. Interestingly, their rhetoric is now focused on increasing revenue to the debt-ridden U.S. treasury. Unfortunately, the Congressional representatives proposing to sell public lands to address the national debt are the same people who are exacerbating that debt by cutting taxes, increasing defense spending and decreasing social spending. In the name of fiscal responsibility then, the Bush Administration has implemented all sorts of new policies that cripple public oversight of public lands, if not outright privatizing them. For example, land management agencies have been required to study which jobs could be outsourced to the private sector. Indeed, many have already been transferred. The Bush Administration has pushed hard to privatize land management, increase private fees for public land use, and otherwise change the way we think of public lands and the public trust. While some of these actions resulted in a well-deserved backlash from the public, we’ve been all too silent on others, especially the more insidious actions like recreation access fees and privatization of services. Nonetheless, the Pombo provision is one of the most blatant attempts to privatize public lands in a long time, and it was inserted into the bill with no debate. Now, as this Road RIPorter heads to the printer, it’s up to a Senate/ House conference committee to allow the provision to stand, modify it, or strip it from the bill. Public lands in this country are our national natural heritage. We had the foresight, as a nation, to set aside these areas as common land for the American people. We did so to provide clean water, to protect scenic and wildlife resources, and to provide sustainable sources of natural resources. Nonetheless, we are experiencing a resurgence of both covert and overt efforts to privatize our public resources. If we sell them now for a onetime gain, we will be selling off the natural inheritance of all future Americans. Representative Pombo, and anyone who supports his provision, should be ashamed of themselves.

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

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and promote road removal and revegetation. Director Bethanie Walder Development Director Tom Petersen Restoration Program Coordinator Marnie Criley Science Coordinator Adam Switalski NTWC Forest Campaign Coordinator Jason Kiely Transportation Policy Coordinator Tim Peterson Program Assistant Cathy Adams Newsletter Dan Funsch & Marianne Zugel Interns & Volunteers Katherine Court, Sonya Germann, Anna Holden, Laura McKelvie, Jennifer Scott Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Karen DiBari, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Cara Nelson, Sonya Newenhouse Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach, Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

Tushar Mountains proposed wilderness. Photo by Tim Peterson.

2

© 2005 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Long-Anticipated Forest Service ORV Rule Fizzles on Protection By Tim Peterson

Overview

T

he long-awaited off-road vehicle planning rule began as a well-intentioned effort to address one of the four key threats outlined by Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth in a speech in January of 2004: unmanaged recreation. “Each year, the national forests and grasslands get hundreds of miles of unauthorized roads and trails due to repeated cross-country use. We’re seeing more erosion, water degradation, and habitat destruction. We’re seeing more conflicts between users. We have got to improve our management so we get responsible recreational use based on sound outdoor ethics,” the Chief relayed to a meeting of the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise. The rule is already long overdue. Presidents Nixon and Carter recognized the threats to public lands from unmanaged off-road vehicle use in the 1970s — more than thirty years ago. They issued two Executive Orders (#11644 and #11989) that guide offroad vehicle use to this day. They clearly state: “(1) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the public lands. (2) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. (3) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses…” But, the final rule not only lacks the teeth it needs to effectively deal with the explosive growth in offroad vehicle abuse on our national forests, it seems to de-claw the Executive Orders themselves. In addition, the agency decided to keep the old rules for snowmobiles, while this rule applies to wheeled off-road vehicles.

Opportunities

The final rule does take some positive steps by establishing use maps (see sidebar on page 4), by not requiring that every renegade route be mapped (and therefore, legitimized) as a precursor to route designations, and by shifting management away from largescale cross-country use.

State and federal agency staff discuss motorized vehicle use on the Blue Mountain OHV Trail, Wallowa-Witman National Forest. Photo courtesy of Forest Service.

Cross Country Travel

The new rule would close Forest Service land to offroute cross-country travel, except in small and limited areas. Currently, 69 million acres, roughly one-third of the land managed by the Forest Service, is open to crosscountry travel. That’s right — ride in any direction, over any species, through any habitat — and it’s legal, if morally indefensible. The rule set out to address cross-country travel and other off-road vehicle concerns, but fell short in many ways. In particular, the new rule may allow many user-created, renegade routes to be designated without requiring site-specific analysis, and it could make it more difficult to address resource impacts and minimize user conflicts. More importantly, the agency left open two key loopholes large enough to drive a fleet of off-road vehicles through, if district rangers choose to leave those loopholes open. First, although the rule requires national forests to close most land to cross-country use, it delays the action until the forest — or even a ranger district — revises its travel plan, and it sets no timeline for revisions (though the Chief says he expects Supervisors to complete this work in four years). This could mean many more years of legalized renegade and cross-country use. Second, the rule also includes a provision allowing forest managers to permit dispersed camping and/or game retrieval off designated routes. While every forest won’t choose to do this, it is allowed under the new rule and offroad vehicle users will push hard for such provisions. It

— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

3

— continued from page 3 — is possible the agency will include some sidebars on such authorizations in the guidance they are now preparing to help managers implement the rule.

Specific Problems

Inconsistencies with the Executive Orders

The new rule reinterprets the Executive Orders’ mandate significantly, by directing agency staff to designate routes “with the objective to minimize” impacts of off-road vehicles instead of simply designating routes “to minimize” those impacts. By changing this language, the agency went from a mandatory obligation to minimize impacts to an unquantifiable objective. This could be interpreted to mean that the agency no longer has a legal obligation to minimize impacts, and it certainly does not satisfy the intent of the Executive Orders. The new rule also allows off-road routes to be reopened if their considerable adverse effects are “mitigated,” where the Executive Orders require that such effects must be “eliminated” before use can be allowed again. The Forest Service maintains that mitigation and elimination are synonymous by arguing that “mitigation of adverse effects has the net effect of elimination of adverse effects . . .” Mitigation, however, is defined as lessening or moderating the severity of an impact, not eliminating it. This again removes clarity and enforceability from the plain language of the Executive Orders.

Scope of Implementation

The rule allows off-road vehicle route designation to occur at a scale smaller than forest-wide, leading to potentially serious problems with consistency within and across Forest Service boundaries. The Forest Service’s stated goal is to make off-road vehicle rules more consistent nationally, but if units as small as individual Ranger Districts are allowed to plan on their own, the results can’t help but be inconsistent. If one Ranger completes designations in his/her district, and the adjacent Ranger does not, the inconsistency remains even within a single forest.

Transportation Use Maps While the new off-road vehicle rule has numerous problems that make its ultimate effect on the ground questionable, the Forest Service did take a big step with one aspect. In what could be considered a paradigm shift, the agency has shifted the burden of responsibility for knowing where it’s legal to ride from the agency to the user. Up until now, almost all off-road vehicle routes have been signed on the ground: some forests post signs on closed routes, others post signs on open routes. If a closure sign was vandalized or removed, then the next person driving by could honestly say they thought the route was open. In the new system, the agency will treat offroad vehicle use as it treats fishing and hunting (except for the licensing requirement). If someone wants to ride their off-road vehicle on national forest lands, they will be required to get a transportation “use map” to learn where it is legal to ride. If they are riding where it is not allowed according to the map they will be violating the transportation restrictions, regardless of whether or not there is a sign on the ground. We applaud this long-overdue shift of the burden of responsibility from signage to use maps, though we recognize that some signage on the ground could still be helpful. This change should make enforcement of illegal riding somewhat easier, if and when the agency invests more significantly in enforcement.

Game Retrieval and Dispersed Camping

Damage resulting from unmanaged off-road vehicle use on the Lassen National Forest. Photo courtesy of Forest Service.

4

One of the most troubling provisions in the rule gives individual forests the authority to waive the cross-country travel ban for game retrieval and/or dispersed camping. Dispersed camping exemptions allow vehicles to drive 300 feet off any route to reach a campsite, no matter if it would require crossing meadows, wetlands, riparian corridors, or streams themselves. While dispersed camping occurs yearround, it tends to be heavy during hunting season. Similarly, off-road vehicle users often create renegade routes by driving to their kill-site to retrieve an animal. Where such exemptions are granted, renegade routes could proliferate. In addition, this exemption could open up relatively secure habitat to increased hunting pressure if game doesn’t have to be packed out by foot or horse.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

trails, while 39% did so on their most recent excursion. Of the dirt bike riders surveyed, 38.1% prefer to ride off established trails, while 50% did so on their most recent excursion. A study in Colorado found that “ . . . knowing that going off trail is not ‘correct’ OHV behavior, as many as two-thirds of adult OHV users go off the trail occasionally.” The study concludes: “In a ‘nutshell,’ it is our premise that further information and education per se – will not result in substantial behavioral change” (emphasis in original). Such a pervasive problem demands more enforcement on the ground, not simply “education.”

Conclusion Off-road vehicle riders skirting nonmotorized vehicle notice. Photo by Dan Schroeder, Sierra Club, Ogden Chapter.

Site-Specific Analysis

An important component of off-road vehicle planning is site-specific analysis. If land managers don’t know when or why a route was established, what destination it serves, what condition it’s in, what level of use it receives, and what soils and habitats are affected, they don’t have the information they need to make informed decisions about travel management. Unfortunately, the new rule both limits monitoring requirements and fails to clarify when site-specific analysis is required as part of the designation process. This could lead to wholesale designation of routes with little or no analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Sadly, this exact scenario is currently playing out on the Fishlake National Forest in Utah, where motor-loving planning staff has neglected adequate analysis in favor of digitizing every track anyone has ever ridden, then proposing more than 400 new miles of unclassified routes for “open” designation. The rule’s failure to require site-specific analysis consistent with NEPA will likely result in a number of lawsuits contending inadequate analysis.

Enforcement

The new rule includes some provisions that will make enforcement easier on the ground. But it also relies heavily on ethics education by the Forest Service and self-policing of off-road vehicle riders while neglecting enforcement and oversight. According to a Utah State University survey, nearly half of riders prefer to ride “off established trails.” Of the ATV riders surveyed, 49.4% prefer to ride off established

New Rule Resources To help you understand the new rule, we’ve set up a webpage with links to relevant articles: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/orvs/ORVpolicy. htm. This website includes links to a summary analysis and a detailed section-by-section analysis of the rule. In addition, you can view our press release at: http://www.wildlandscpr. org/fsrules.htm

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

The new Forest Service travel management rule has some key problems that need fixing if the Service is serious about addressing unmanaged recreation. Many of these changes could be made at the regional level, for example, by discouraging the use of exemptions for game retrieval and dispersed camping. Regional Foresters should require site-specific, route-by-route analysis of every path considered for designation. Forests should conduct comprehensive forest-wide travel planning, addressing the designation of both motorized routes and non-motorized trails. If appropriate lands are available, forests should design compact and enforceable networks of off-road vehicle routes, and the extent of the designated route network should be limited to the level of funding for enforcement, monitoring, and maintenance — fewer dollars results in less management capacity and, therefore, should be matched with fewer places where off-road vehicle use is allowed. National leadership for the Forest Service has missed a rare opportunity get control of a runaway problem. The new rule does not reflect the legal mandate of the Executive Orders and does not demonstrate political support for better agency management. In effect, Washington leadership has actually made it more challenging for responsible Forest Supervisors to ensure the promotion and protection of quiet forests, healthy watersheds, abundant wildlife and intact native systems. Nonetheless, the rule does allow for local discretion and public involvement. Environmental advocates and a broad swath of potential allies — including hikers, hunters, horseback riders, ranchers, and forest neighbors — may be able to awaken agency leadership among District Rangers, Supervisors and Regional Foresters. As administrations come and go, land managers closer to the land will have to make and live with decisions about public land uses, impacts, and conflicts. They will make these decisions as individual forests and ranger districts begin to implement the rule by crafting travel plans and designating off-road vehicle routes. During this critical period, Wildlands CPR will provide grassroots activists and organizations with the strategies, materials, and messages to rally the vast majority (a majority that does not rely on motors to explore and use the forest) to stand up and speak up for the values and benefits of quiet, nonmotorized, wild landscapes. — Tim Peterson is our new Transportation Policy Coordinator.

5

Eldorado ORV Routes Closed by Court By Ronni Flannery

M

ore than 700 miles of user-created routes have been closed to motorized vehicles on the Eldorado National Forest in California as a result of a lawsuit brought by the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Center for Biological Diversity, and California Wilderness Coalition. The usercreated routes will remain closed at least until the Forest Service demonstrates compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), at which point it is possible that some will be opened for legal, authorized use.

Case Background The suit challenged several related actions concerning off-road vehicle management in the Eldorado National Forest. [Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, et al. v. John Berry, et al., No. Civ. S-02-325 LKK/JFM (E.D. CA 2005).] Located in the heart of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in central California, the Eldorado contains more than 786,000 acres of forestlands with extremely diverse topography, soils, vegetation, and habitats. The forest provides habitat for numerous endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife species, and includes portions of the Pacific deer herd critical winter range. The forest is also a popular area for a wide range of recreational uses. Used by motorized recreationists year-round, the forest contains hundreds of miles of roads and routes open to motorized use. A variety of non-motorized activities compete with motorized use, including hiking, horseback riding, mountain bike riding, hunting, and fishing.

In 1989, the Forest Service adopted the Eldorado Forest Plan, which reversed management direction to limit motorized travel to designated routes and areas. According to the plan, only those routes designated in a forest-wide off-road vehicle plan would be open to motorized use. The agency did, in 1990, create such an off-road vehicle plan, but it simply incorporated existing routes, roads, and tracks that had been used by offroad vehicles. Moreover, the Forest Service did not conduct a separate NEPA analysis for the ORV Plan, but rather “tiered” the plan to the Forest Plan’s EIS. The Forest Service Chief, responding to numerous Forest Plan appeals, subsequently directed the Eldorado to conduct an environmental analysis of the motorized routes designated in the 1990 ORV Plan by May 1997, but the agency never complied. Over the years, the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation and others spent countless hours urging the Forest Service to satisfy its NEPA obligations, and otherwise advocated for responsible management of off-road vehicles. During this time, the organizations documented extensive damage throughout the forest resulting from motorized use of the user-created, unanalyzed routes.

Summary of the Court’s Rulings

Closing user-created routes helps protect fragile alpine meadows in the Eldorado National Forest. Photo by Karen Schambach.

6

In 2002 Plaintiffs filed suit against the Forest Service for its mismanagement of motorized use throughout the Eldorado National Forest. In early 2005, the District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order resolving the Plaintiffs’ legal claims. The Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor on several claims, including that the Service violated NEPA by: 1) Failing to conduct any environmental analysis under NEPA before adopting the 1990 ORV Plan; 2) Limiting the geographical scope of the cumulative impacts analysis in the Rock Creek Recreational Trails Plan Environmental Impact Statement (“Rock Creek EIS”) to the Rock Creek area;

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

3) Failing to adequately describe or discuss “other activities” that might contribute to the Rock Creek EIS’ analysis of cumulative impacts to the Pacific deer herd; and 4) Failing to mention or analyze at all in the Rock Creek EIS the cumulative impacts that grazing allotments in the Eldorado National Forest might have on the Pacific deer herd. As relief for these legal violations, the Court ruled that the 1990 ORV Plan be withdrawn and that by December 31, Gerle Creek, Eldorado 2007, the Forest Service issue an EIS and National Forest. Photo by record of decision on a new off-road vehiJoseph Dougherty/ecology.org. cle plan that complies with all applicable laws and regulations. In the interim, the Court ruled that all private party motorized use be restricted to system motorized roads and routes. The Court also ordered the Forest Service to supplement its EIS for the Rock Creek Area ORV Plan in accordance with the Court’s earlier ruling on the merits.

Challenge to Forest-wide ORV Plan Plaintiffs’ central challenge in the lawsuit concerned the Forest’s 1990 ORV Plan, which authorized motorized use on designated routes throughout the forest. Plaintiffs claimed that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to conduct a forest-wide environmental review of that plan. The Court agreed with the conservation groups that the agency had illegally adopted and implemented the Plan by failing to conduct a separate forest-wide analysis of the Plan’s environmental impacts. The Court rejected the agency’s claim that it should be permitted to satisfy its NEPA obligations by doing “priority” reviews on an areaby-area basis, rather than conducting a forest-wide analysis. Out of 16 off-road vehicle areas within the forest, the only area-wide plan the agency had actually completed since the ORV Plan went into effect was the Rock Creek ORV Plan, which plaintiffs also successfully challenged in the lawsuit. The Court ruled that because the creation and implementation of the ORV Plan was clearly a major federal action, and because “tiering” to the Forest Plan EIS without also conducting a project-level EIS was not proper under the law, the Plan violated NEPA. The Court further reasoned that because the agency itself chose to create and implement a forest-wide off-road vehicle plan, the Forest Service was required to examine the environmental impacts of each and every route on a forest-wide basis.

Related Rulings The Court also agreed with Plaintiffs that the Forest Service conducted a deficient cumulative effects analysis for the Rock Creek ORV Plan, as summarized above. Unfortunately, the Court did not agree with Plaintiffs that the Rock Creek ORV Plan failed to designate routes in accordance with the “minimization criteria” contained in federal regulations and Executive Or-

Stream bank erosion caused by off-road vehicles travelling on user-created routes. Photo by Karen Schambach.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

ders 11644 and 11989. Plaintiffs had argued that the government’s own analysis contained alternatives that admittedly minimized impacts to a greater degree than the alternative chosen, while still providing motorized recreational opportunities, and that its failure to select such alternatives was a failure to comply with the minimization criteria. But the Court concluded that while minimizing environmental damage from off-road vehicles was a mandatory duty, the government had a great deal of discretion to decide how to accomplish this.

Claims by Intervenors Representing Motorized Interests Lastly, the Court rejected a claim made by off-road vehicle riders’ organizations that the Forest Service, in adopting the Rock Creek Plan, had evaluated an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives by failing to consider an alternative with a motorized route density greater than that established by the Forest Service. The Court questioned whether the intervenors (whose plain purpose was to seek plans that have a more significant impact on the environment) should be allowed to sue under NEPA (whose purpose is to preserve and protect the environment), and in the end determined that that the agency did all it was required to do under the law.

Significance of the Case The case represents a victory for organizations that have been working tirelessly to rein in mismanagement of off-road vehicles on the Eldorado National Forest. One of the most significant aspects of the case is that the judge required that all user-created routes be closed unless and until they are analyzed under NEPA to determine whether or not they can be added to the system. The Forest Service has recently published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the motorized route designation process, and the Plaintiffs will fully participate in this public process. The case stands for the proposition that motorized route designation requires an analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the motorized routes. The case also suggests that off-roaders are on shaky ground when they attempt to use environmental laws to expand destructive motorized use. — Ronni Flannery is an attorney in Missoula, Montana handling a wide range of public interest issues, with a concentration on environmental law. Ronni, and Keith Wagner of the law office of J. Williams Yeates (Sacramento), represented the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation and its partners.

7

Road-bed by Janisse Ray

P

eople wonder why I’d make such a fuss about a road. It’s only a couple miles of Georgia dirt, after all, and bad dirt at that. The clay gets slick as pig-grease in wet weather. In dry, the road’s so worn and dusty that after a car passes, some of the road rises like a congregation of drifters and wanders over to the house where I live. The house most people would bulldoze and hire a contractor to rebuild: it’s full of holes. Haggard molecules of roaddust crawl into the house through its cracks and holes. I’m always dusting the road off the tables and shelves, and blowing it off rows of books, and off the seashells and fossils and turtle backs we collect as if we run a museum instead of a farm. Still it gathers in little dust-ponds, and I blow and sweep, and haul the road back out where it belongs, old dirty nuisance. And the way the road grips and shakes the GMC when I drive the halfmile to the highway is enough to alienate a person. The truck is 33 years old and the old road is hard on it. Flakes of rust shake loose until they rain down and pepper the cab. Entire chunks of the truck are missing, and I know where they are. That damn road is like a sad vagrant, the way it insinuates itself in my life. When a scrubbed man wearing slacks and a pressed collared shirt that looked bought in some Atlanta department store twenty years prior showed up at the farm, waving a piece of paper in his hand like a little white truce-flag, I could have offered him a cool glass of water. I could have apologized for not having a pitcher of sweet tea chilling in the Frigidaire (disrespecting the memory of all my mothers and grandmothers). But the man hadn’t come to see me. I didn’t own a foot of the land that interested him, along the road -- not

8

even an inch -- and my signature on his paper was as worthless as a ticket to last week’s movie. No, he needed my Uncle Percy, heir to everything closest to my grandmother’s heart. Uncle Percy’s mother was my grandmother. I would come to occupy her house, and be my uncle’s neighbor. The day the well-dressed man showed up, Uncle Percy was sitting on the steps of his mobile home. I would watch the man get out and stand under that guileless water-oak’s upraised and weakening limbs, holding the paper smooth and protected from the wind. I saw everything from my front porch, behind the azaleas that had grown taller than my head. The man, who had just arrived by the road, would have greeted Uncle Percy as if he’d known him all his life. Because he had. They had been raised together as boys, closest neighbors; had attended the same country school and the same Baptist church; had been made to chop cotton, dip turpentine and slop hogs. Except Uncle Percy graduated at sixteen and joined the Air Force, and the neighbor boy grew up and married and moved off and worked for some corporation up in Atlanta, where he raised his children. The neighbor had decided to run for county commissioner, having come back to his backwards little county with ideas about progress. He was elected. Now he had papers but they weren’t church papers nor was the man trying to get elected. Whatever it was, of course Uncle Percy would sign. In the early 1800s, Wilson Baxley migrated to Appling County, Georgia, from North Carolina. The indigenous people, the Creeks, had been stripped of their landholdings in the coastal plains of Georgia, and had been herded south to Florida and west to Oklahoma. White settlers began to move in. They created roads along old trading routes and between settlements. The northern

Sitting on the old Hilton Baxley Road, Janisse and her mother display a quilt they made. Photo by Janisse Ray.

part of Appling County, Georgia that is named Spring Branch Community was settled in the mid-1800s by the Baxleys, the Branches, the Carters, and the Moodys. My people. At first, Hilton Baxley Road, where I live, was a two-path road, wide enough for a team of oxen. Then it was wide enough for a car. Then two cars. Then a tractor and a car. When my mother was raised on the family farm, starting in 1939, she walked on Hilton Baxley Road to school, to church, and to Little Ten Mile Creek, where her brothers swam. When I was a girl in the late 1960s, the bridge over the creek was still wooden, without guardrails, a rattling affair of loose beams and boards, through which the meandering brook could be seen. As a girl I spent most Saturdays at my grandmother’s house. Gnarled and sapsucker-pocked crabapple trees grew out by the road, from which we gathered sharply sweet pomes. Few cars passed. After the letter carrier arrived, and left, I could retrieve the mail. Sometimes Uncle Bill drove his cows along the road, from one pasture to another. Sometimes a cow and her heifer got lost and, unable to find the herd, came bawling along the road. As an adult, I came to despise roads. They meant fragmentation of the native landscapes I loved, death to

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Tree removal along Hilton Baxley Road in preparation for paving. Photo by Janisse Ray.

the fauna. They meant mortality to our already-numbered black bears and panthers and indigo snakes. In our national forests, roads were bulldozed into beautiful forests, and next the forests were destroyed. Salamanders trying to cross roads on rainy nights, migrating to ponds to breed, were smashed. In the natural history of roads, human passage evolved from path to trail to trace to way to lane to road, but at some point the meaning of the word “road” changed. As long as humans perambulated, we had no need for a thoroughfare wider than our swinging arms. As long as we rode horses, we had no need for roads wider than a team. Roads connected people to each other, threads through wilderness. Then, “road” was a verb meaning “to join.” Now, it connotes “divide.” In our past one hundred years of life in this country, since the Model T was created in 1908 following invention of the automobile in Europe, our roads have ever widened, until they became great swaths piercing landscapes. The widest road I have ever seen was in Los Angeles, about 24 lanes, each wide enough for a tractor-trailer, twelve going one way and twelve the other. Dividing everybody from everybody. Each person in his or her own car, divided.

Hilton Baxley Road as it appears after levelling. Photo by Janisse Ray.

We have gone crazy for roads. In the twenty years of my adult life, I have seen roads forced through salt marshes, through neighborhoods, through forests, through coastlines, through prairie and scrub. I’ve seen roads made into highways, and highways into superhighways. What I love is movement on the smallest of scales. I love footpaths and trails and little boats on rivers. When I moved into my grandmother’s farmhouse, however, I fell in love with the beautiful red road that ran alongside my home. Daily I watched the road and I watched what traveled upon it. Appling is a poor county and doesn’t have a lot of money to pave every road in the county. But if you get elected county commissioner, you get to name one road you’d like paved, and it doesn’t have to be the worst road. It doesn’t have to be washed out or corrugated or closed because of a faulty bridge, and it doesn’t have to be well populated. You can live on a pretty good road with only four or five other houses on it, and if you’re county commissioner, you get to butter your own bread. And if you talk nice enough, everybody will sign the papers you need signed. Except my mother. She wouldn’t sign. She had come to own the house along the road where I lived, and although my Uncle Percy signed, my mother wouldn’t. So we wrote letters to the neighbors and to the editor of the paper that said, “A paved road is not progress.” We took the case to court and my shy, angelic mother had to stand in front of a brusque judge and tell him why she opposed the roadpaving. The county left a check for us

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

at the probate judge’s office, thinking we wanted money for our little strip of land, but we let the check lie. We didn’t want money. We wanted to preserve the old-growth longleaf pines lining the road, and the rural character of the farm, and the peace and sanctity of the countryside. I couldn’t imagine covering that wonderful, old, omnipotent dirt – my great-grandparents had walked on it, do you understand that? – with asphalt. “When I turn off the highway, coming home, I hope it always will be onto a cool, tree-shaded, clean road made of Georgia clay and sand,” I wrote. We met with the road department and saved the old-growth longleafs. I have become increasingly bitter about the ignorance of the federal Department of Transportation, state highway departments, and county road supervisors. I am convinced that a road-building lobby as organized and destructive as the development lobby is driving the manic road-building going on in our nation. Most roads are wasteful. Most are unnecessary. Dare me to say it – all are contrary to environmental ethics, and all are enemies of wild America. Paving the road by the farm is part of an American idea of progress that is quickly becoming outdated, losing its context and its potency. Paving makes possible more and faster traffic, and more comfortable traffickers – hence more fossil fuels. What do I need to say to my neighbor so that he sees the futility in road-building? What can I say that will ignite him to be thinking beyond petroleum? Come in, my neighbor, my countryman. You have come walking the red road through moonlight to my door. Let’s rinse the dust off the glasses and pour a noggin of moonshine, to toast our ancestors who also sat together in prophecy of this night, they who still walk the roadbed invisible in their suits. Let’s talk while we can, before we too join them walking there. — Janisse Ray is a naturalist, an environmental activist, and a winner of the 1996 Merriam Frontier Award. She has written Ecology of a Cracker Childhood and Wild Card Quilt: Taking a Chance on Home and is a nature commentator for Georgia Public Radio. This essay is excerpted from a longer piece in A Road Runs Through It: Reviving Wild Places, a Wildlands CPR anthology to be published by Johnson Books in early summer 2006.

9

Transportation Program Update

W

ildlands CPR welcomes Tim Peterson to the role of Transportation Policy Coordinator. Jason Kiely has been placed on detail with the Natural Trails & Waters Coalition where he serves as the Forest Campaign Coordinator. One of Tim’s first assignments was to serve up a thorough analysis of the new Forest Service regulations on off-road vehicles — see this issue’s cover story. In support of the Utah Three-Forest Coalition, Tim and Jason contributed to comments on the Fishlake ORV Route Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Further, Jason and Wildlands CPR Science Coordinator Adam Switalski participated in a day-long strategic planning meeting for the Three-Forest Coalition and a separate meeting with the Utah Quiet Forests Coalition working on the Wasatch Plateau. We also met with the Wild Utah Project to begin developing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for off-road vehicles. Staff scientist Adam Switalski provided model BMPs from our library, and he will help them develop these BMPs and get them peer-reviewed. The BMPs will be relevant far beyond Utah when finished. We continue to work closely with national allies, grappling with the threat of politically tinged and commercially motivated management policies drafted by the National Park Service (NPS). If adopted as written, the policies would redefine the overarching duty of the agency by weakening longstanding legal mandates that emphasize the agency’s responsibility for preserving America’s natural heritage. For example, the proposed policies would increase the allowance of high-impact activities such as off-road vehicle recreation, and muddy the water on what type of management should be required for such activities if they are allowed. In addition to responding to a barrage of policy action at the national level, the Transportation Program assisted grassroots conservationists from around the country and places as distant as Spain and Brazil. Closer to home, Adam is working with several University of Montana students who will be researching a variety of topics for Bibliography Notes in The Road RIPorter.

NTWC Update On November 2, the Forest Service announced their final regulations governing travel management, with a focus on designating offroad vehicle routes to curb impacts caused by cross-country travel (see cover story). The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition staff in Wildlands CPR’s office coordinated a national response to the rule. As part of our response, coalition staff members provided timely information, analysis, and outreach materials to more than 300 Coalition members and other grassroots groups. Outreach to reporters and editorial boards resulted in more than 125 news articles. The Coalition’s assessment of the rule was reflected in a majority of these articles, including those written by the Associated Press, USA Today,

10

Hellgate High School students help Wildlands CPR monitor local streams. Photo by Adam Switalski.

New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and scores of regional and local newspapers. The Denver Post and Salt Lake Tribune have both written and editorialized on the rule in a way that also reflects the Coalition’s assessment. Immediately after the rule’s release, former US Forest Service Deputy Chief Jim Furnish and Wildlands CPR Executive Director Bethanie Walder met with Forest Service officials to discuss the revised regulations and agency plans for implementation. Jim has since followed-up by meeting with Associate Deputy Chief Fred Norbury and conducting outreach to congressional staff. Sometime in early 2006, the Forest Service expects to conduct internal trainings for land managers on how to implement the new rules through travel planning and route designation. The Chief has already called on forests to ensure public participation in these planning processes and has advanced collaboration as a method for involvement. The Coalition will make substantial contributions to build grassroots capacity in the coming year. January through July of 2006, the Coalition will partner with the University of Virginia’s Institute for Environmental Negotiation to provide workshops on effective collaboration for travel planning and off-road vehicle designations. The Coalition anticipates inviting conservationists, off-roaders, diverse allies, and agency staff to eight workshops limited to about 25 people each. The Coalition is currently searching for a new Director. Please visit www.naturaltrails.org for information on the position.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Restoration Program Update

M

arnie has been traveling this fall, attending conferences and presenting on the importance of wildland road removal. In September she attended the annual meeting of the National Network of Forest Practitioners, held in Appalachian, Ohio, where she presented on two panels: collaboration and restoration jobs. Marnie spoke about Wildlands CPR’s numerous collaborative efforts, including our work with the Lolo National Forest, our collaborative work in Hells Canyon, and the National Forest Restoration Collaborative. Marnie was the only person on the panel from the environmental community, so she provided a unique and well-received perspective. The restoration jobs panel looked at the important role restoration jobs can play in the economy, as well as some of the hardships that restoration workers face, including low wages. Other travels have included a Sierra Club/Wilderness Society sponsored forest planning workshop in Salt Lake City where Marnie presented on transportation planning; the Inland Northwest Restoration Conference, where she presented Adam and Katherine Court’s poster on citizen monitoring in the Clearwater National Forest; and a road removal workshop in Enterprise, Oregon that was sponsored by the Nez Perce Tribe and aimed at getting the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest excited about road removal. Several folks from the Hells Canyon collaborative attended.

This winter, Wildlands CPR is excited to have intern Josh Hurd on board. Josh will be working with grassroots groups around the country to raise road removal as an issue in forest planning. Also, Wildlands CPR is still looking for a Native American intern to complete our tribal/national forest project. If you know anyone who might be interested, please have him/her contact Marnie Criley at Wildlands CPR.

Citizen Science on the Clearwater National Forest Staff scientist Adam Switalski continues to oversee our citizen science project in Idaho, working closely with University of Montana graduate student Katherine Court. After concluding summer fieldwork, Katherine is now putting together the data collected by citizen scientists. Soon the data and analysis will be available online at: www.clearwaterroads.com. Katherine and Adam presented their monitoring program at the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET) in San Diego, CA. As Katherine finishes up her masters, Adam welcomes a new graduate student, Anna Holden, to organize more citizen scientists and continue the program. She is training with Adam and has already met with local high school teachers to engage their classes. We look forward to working with Anna and all the folks she recruits to monitor decommissioned roads on the Clearwater National Forest.

University of Montana students participate in Wildlands CPR citizen science projects, assessing road impacts on Idaho streams. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

11

A Look at Agency Off-Road Management By Bethanie Walder

D

uring the last five years we’ve seen more attention paid to off-road vehicle management from the three major federal land management agencies [National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (FS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)]. Some of this attention was a reaction to conservationist pressure (e.g. rulemaking petitions submitted to the Park Service and Forest Service in 1999), while some was in recognition of the improved technology and increasing impacts of off-road vehicles on public lands. While the three agencies all seem to understand that off-road vehicles are an increasing threat to the resources they manage, they have taken vastly different approaches to addressing this threat. This article compares their respective approaches.

Photo courtesy of Forest Service.

Executive Orders and Enabling Legislation

Off-road vehicles are managed on all public lands under the direction of the Executive Orders (EOs) signed by Presidents Nixon and Carter in 1972 and 1977. EOs 11644 and 11989 require public land managers to minimize damage from off-road vehicle recreation and to ensure that such use does not conflict with other uses of public lands. In addition, each agency is also guided by an Organic Act (the law that established the agency) and other laws (Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, etc.). The Forest Service Organic Act (1897), the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960), and the National Forest Management Act (1976), generally grant the FS a “multiple use” mandate, theoretically requiring a sustainable supply of resources such as timber, grazing, mining, clean water, wildlife and recreation. The BLM is bound by a similar mandate under the Federal Lands Policy Management Act (1976). In contrast, the Park Service’s Organic Act (1916) requires the agency to protect natural resources, leaving then unimpaired for future generations. The NPS has been relatively true to this mandate, though they have allowed some very significant developments in concentrated areas within the parks.

12

Recent Approaches to Off-road Recreation Bureau of Land Management

Of these three agencies, BLM was the first to undertake an agency-wide study and consider national action on the off-road vehicle threat. A February 2000 report (“Land Use Planning for Sustainable Resource Decisions - Backlog of Planning Needs Keeping Pace with a Changing Nation”) submitted to Congress articulated the need to revise BLM’s Land Use Plans to address off-road vehicle problems, which it says included: “…continued widespread resource damage affecting other uses such as grazing and wildlife, fragmentation of T&E habitats, a reduction in air and water quality, and visitor use conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users...” Following the report, BLM spent a year analyzing off-road vehicle recreation and management. The result, a National OHV Strategy (January 2001), was unhelpful. While it described off-road vehicle recreation, conflicts and problems, it did not provide any strategy for action. Existing regulations could provide a means for effective management, but they aren’t enforced. At best, the OHV Strategy made it clear that the BLM should revise their regulations, Handbook and Manual, but none of these revisions have occurred. Until meaningful changes are implemented, BLM lands will continue to absorb the bulk of the impacts from off-road vehicles. While the agency has restricted off-road vehicles to designated routes in new national monuments like Grand Staircase Escalante and Missouri Breaks, approximately 90% of the total BLM land area is open to cross-country travel by off-road vehicles.

Forest Service

While cross-country travel is out of control on BLM lands, the Forest Service is making an effort to rein it in. In November 2005, the FS released their final rule to overhaul off-road vehicle regulations nationwide; a key provision will restrict most offroad vehicle use to designated routes. The agency currently has approximately 69 million acres open to cross-country travel. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth set the stage for this new rule in an Earth Day speech in 2003 where he pointed to increasing problems with off-road vehicle use (Managing the National Forest System: Great Issues and Great Diversions):

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

“We’re seeing more and more erosion, water degradation, and habitat destruction. We’re seeing more and more conflicts between users. We’re seeing more damage to cultural sites and more violation of sites sacred to American Indians. And those are just some of the impacts. We’re going to have to manage that by restricting OHV use to designated roads, trails, and areas.” The FS rulemaking was also motivated by requests from FS field staff for more assistance in addressing off-road vehicle problems. In addition, Wildlands CPR led more than 100 groups in submitting an off-road vehicle rule-making petition in late 1999. While the new rule is a step in the right direction, the agency left most of the hard work to managers on the ground, while securing no additional funding to support it. More importantly, the FS rule reinterprets the Executive Orders in such a way as to render them almost meaningless. For example, where the EOs required the elimination of impacts, the new rule only requires mitigation. Nonetheless, the new rule does have some redeeming features in addition to prohibiting most cross-country travel. It would, for the first time ever, shift the responsibility for knowing where to ride from the agency to the rider. Once routes are designated and maps published, riders will have to determine where they can legally ride. Posted “open” or “closed” signs will no longer be the primary form of route designation (because vandalism to those signs is such a problem). This is a long overdue and much needed shift in off-road vehicle management philosophy. The Forest Service is now in the process of updating their management handbook and manual to provide more specific standards and guidelines for managers to implement the rule. They will publish revisions in the Federal Register for public comment, most likely in early 2006.

National Park Service

Off-road vehicle use is typically managed on a case-by-case basis in the parks, with some NPS units having off-road vehicle provisions in their enabling legislation, and other units categorically prohibited from allowing off-road vehicles. Nonetheless, where off-road vehicles are allowed, they must comply with the same Executive Orders that govern all offroad vehicle use. In 1999, the Bluewater Network led a coalition of more than 50 groups (including Wildlands CPR) to file a rule-making petition with the Park Service to overhaul their management of off-road vehicles. The Park Service denied the petition in November 2005 and several petitioners (Bluewater, Wildlands CPR and National Parks Conservation Association) filed a lawsuit in response. According to an internal survey conducted as a partial response to the petition, more than 90 NPS units reported illegal off-road vehicle use. Of these, more than 70 units reported that the illegal use adversely affects natural and cultural resources and creates conflicts among visitors. For example,

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Evidence of illegal motorized use of a trail. Photo by Dan Schroeder, Sierra Club, Ogden Chapter.

managers of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail called illegal offroad vehicle use one of their “most pernicious management problems.” One of the responses to the internal survey illustrates the extent of the problem: “At Joshua Tree, we have a fragile desert environment. The illegal [off-road vehicle] traffic causes scars in the desert floor that take many years to heal if at all. Fragile plants are torn up and destroyed.... The endangered Desert Tortoise dens are run over and damaged by [offroad vehicle] traffic.... [W]e do not have the staff to patrol these remote areas...” In October 2005 the Park Service released new draft management policies that would affect every aspect of park management, including off-road vehicles and snowmobiling. Unfortunately, the draft policies remove all specific references to off-road vehicle Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, and also remove guidelines for designating off-road vehicle use. There is no clear justification for this policy rewrite, other than as a compromise to an even more terrible revision by a Department of Interior political appointee (Paul Hoffman). This represents a disturbing development for the national parks.

Conclusion

The Park Service and BLM have both conducted studies of the impacts of off-road vehicles within their boundaries, though neither agency has undertaken any meaningful action to address problems. The Forest Service did not conduct a formal study to identify problems (though numerous advocacy groups have), but they did revise off-road vehicle regulations through a rulemaking process that took nearly two years. The Park Service’s proposed policy revisions address all aspects of park management, but took only a few short months. All these agencies have consistently stated that they lack sufficient funding to enforce their regulations and monitor the impacts of offroad vehicle use. This is a systemic problem and the agencies should cooperate to increase their management capacity. It is likely that the national parks will be held to a higher standard than our FS and BLM lands, but while these three land management agencies operate under different legal constraints, they could adopt policies that are at least synchronous. All three must base their minimum management standards on EOs 11644 and 11989, ensuring that off-road vehicle use does not impact natural resources or interfere with other uses of public lands. With off-road vehicle use growing (the FS estimates that more than 36 million off-road vehicles are now in use in the United States), and technology improving to the point where these vehicles can travel practically anywhere, it is high time that all three agencies adopt policies to ensure that off-road vehicle abuse of public lands will stop. It’s time they applied their mandates for protecting the land to more formally and realistically address off-road vehicle problems and to ensure that they are protecting natural resources for future generations.

13

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Evaluating the Use of Mycorestoration on Decommissioned Roads in Arizona By Joseph Trudeau

W

hile restoration scientists have established protocols to guide the process of road ripping, little research has been done to assess the effectiveness of these procedures in restoring ecosystem processes (Switalski et al. 2004; Elseroad 2003). The Society for Ecological Restoration defines a restored ecosystem as self-sustaining in structure and function, resilient to normal ranges of stress and disturbance, and able to interact with contiguous ecosystems (SER 2002). A road that is merely ripped and then left to recover on its own may not meet these criteria. Luce (1997) concluded that ripping leads to a temporary and marginal improvement in hydrologic and ecological function.

Fungi and Roads Mycorrhizal fungi form important relationships with over 90% of the plants on Earth, whereby the fungus receives photosynthates from the plant while the plant benefits through

Saprophytic fungi were evaluated for their potential to aid restoration efforts of decomissioned roads. Photo by Joseph Trudeau.

14

improved water relations and nutrient uptake, and protection from pathogens (Allen 1991). Saprophytic fungi are primary decomposers of dead organic material, and their underground vegetative structure, called mycelium, is important in nutrient transfer, soil stability, and ecosystem function (Hunt and Wall 2002; Setala and McLean 2004). Road construction and subsequent use removes organic matter and leaves a compacted mineral surface devoid of fungal propagules (Amaranthus and Trappe 1993; Harvey et al. 1979). Decommissioned roads, ripped or not, are also lacking in fungi that complete essential processes such as nutrient cycling and plant community support (Morman and Reeves 1979; Reeves et al. 1979). In theory, then, effective road restoration may utilize fungal inoculum to assist plant and microbial communities to achieve pre-disturbance conditions. There have been only limited explorations of the possibilities of using fungal inoculum in ecosystem restoration. Johnson (1998) examined the effects of mycorrhizal inoculation on a weedy non-mycorrhizal plant (Salsola kali) and a perennial mycorrhizal plant (Panicum virgatum) in an abandoned mine setting. Results indicated that plots with mycorrhizal inoculum resisted invasion by the exotic weed and enhanced the growth of the perennial native grass, but manipulating conditions to favor mycorrhiza formation (addition of soil organic material) may be more cost effective than the expensive process

of inoculation. Stamets and Sumerlin (2003) have used fungal inoculum to restore roads in the Pacific Northwest. In a practice they call “mycofiltration,” saprophytic and mycorrhizal fungi are inoculated into mulch to accelerate decomposition and provide the improved conditions offered through mycorrhizal associations. Advantages of this technique include sediment containment, moisture enhancement, habitat recovery, soil structural improvements, and aesthetic enhancement (Stamets and Sumerlin 2003). There has never been a rigorous study done to evaluate the use of fungal inoculum in road restoration in a southwestern ponderosa pine forest. The purpose of this study was twofold: to evaluate the effect of mycorrhizal inoculum on plant establishment and abundance on a closed and ripped road in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest, and to evaluate the efficacy of saprophytic fungal inoculum in colonizing ponderosa pine mulch.

Experimental Design In August, 2004, three logging roads at approximately 7400’ elevation in a ponderosa pine/gambel oak forest 6 miles west of Flagstaff, Arizona were selected for the experiment. The roads were built to facilitate a 2003 timber sale and were closed and ripped by September 2003. The roads were flat (02% slope), with low canopy cover and clayey soils of basaltic origin.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Upon each road, five 11m long by 2m wide experimental blocks were installed end-to-end in succession. Blocks were divided into four 1.5m by 2m plots with 1m by 2m buffers between each plot, resulting in 2m long buffers between blocks. Four treatments were assigned to the plots: A) control, B) mycorrhizal inoculum C) mulch + mycorrhizal and saprophytic inoculum, and D) mulch. All plots were seeded with a native seed mix consisting of Elymus elymoides, Festuca arizonica, Muhlenbergia wrightii, and Lupinus argenteus. Ponderosa pine woodchips (mulch) were applied to a depth of ~4 inches after seeding. The mycorrhizal inoculum was “Mycogrow Micronized Endo-Ecto Seed Mix” and the saprophytic inoculum was the “dowel spawn” of the species Hypholoma capnoides.

Results Vegetation Response

We collected data in mid-October, 2004, two months after application, and mid-October, 2005, 14 months after application, identifying each species and counting every plant. In 2004, Treatment B plots (those with only mycorrhizal inoculum) had the highest abundance of grass seedlings, but controls had the highest species richness. In both cases the differences between those two non-mulched treatments were insignificant. In 2005, after a full year, control plots had the highest richness and

abundance for all species, though not significantly more than Treatment B. Mulched plots (Treatments C and D) had significantly lower species richness, grass seedling abundance, and total species abundance in both years (ANOVA P<0.001). While mulched plots (Treatments C and D) suppressed the establishment of most species, oak seedlings preferred them over nonmulched (Treatments A and B) (ANOVA P=.0157), and did especially well on one of the roads.

Fungal Response

In 2004, 70% of inspected dowels showed successful survival and colonization, but by 2005 only 34% showed signs of success. The inoculum on one of the roads was vigorously colonized by a resident soil fungus, and there was 0% survival by 2005. The two roads that did better were examined more critically for resident soil fungi. Sixtyeight percent of sampled subplots that had been inoculated were colonized by resident fungi, and 60% of mulch-only plots were colonized. There were no relationships between success of inoculation and presence of resident fungi.

Discussion The results of this study provide little support for fungal inoculation of ripped roads in Arizona ponderosa pine forests at this time. The mycorrhizal inoculum appeared to have no effect on plant establishment in mulched or nonmulched plots. Johnson (1998) used

soil from a nearby location as a source of fungal inoculum and had success, and Bagley (1999) suggested using local soil to prevent introducing exotic fungi. It is likely that the inoculum in the present study simply died as it was not adapted to local conditions. Also, St. John (1996, 1998) noted that inoculum placed on the soil surface will have less chance of working than inoculum that is buried. In this study inoculum was lightly raked into the soil and it probably was not deep enough. Future trials with powdered inoculum would benefit from adding it at the time of ripping to increase mixing in deeper soils. As plant roots tend to be most dense near the surface, any deeper than 8 inches for the inoculum is not advised. Mulch had a strong inhibitory effect on plant growth, except for favoring the sprouting of oak seedlings. The reduced understory plant establishment is unfortunate, but in terms of permanently restoring roads, oaks may be a more effective plant. As they mature, they will become natural barriers to vehicle passage, contribute to organic soil creation with their annual leaf fall, and their roots will be effective at loosening the compacted soil of the road. Since the majority of mulched plots became colonized by fungi that already existed in the soil or nearby, the inoculation of the saprophyte was unnecessary. That the mulch was colonized by local fungi is a testament to the ubiquitous nature and effective life history of nature’s most important degrader of wood. Those interested in trying this idea in different regions should consider locating or developing inoculum that is adapted to the environmental conditions of their region. Until aggressive regional strains of mycorrhizal or saprophytic fungi can be cultured and produced for distribution, like in the Pacific Northwest, these methods will remain less effective at restoring roads than spreading local soils and mulch and then allowing local fungi to colonize naturally. — Joseph Trudeau is a Research Assistant at the Ecological Restoration Institute and a student at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.

Montoring test plots of fungi inoculum on decomissioned roads in Arizona. Photo by Joseph Trudeau.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

15

References Allen, M.F. 1991. The ecology of mycorrhizae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amaranthus, M.P. and J.M. Trappe. 1993. Effects of erosion on ecto- and VA mycorrhizal inoculum potential in soil following forest fire in southwest Oregon. Plant and Soil. 150(1): 41-49. Bagley, S. 1999. Desert road removal: Creative restoration techniques. The Road Rip-porter. 4(4): 12-13. Elseroad, A.C., P.Z. Fule, and W.W. Covington. 2003. Forest road revegetation: effects of seeding and soil amendments. Ecological Restoration. 21(3): 180-185. Harvey, A.E., M.J. Larsen, and M.F. Jurgensen. 1979. Comparative distribution of ectomycorrhizae in soils of three western Montana forest habitat types. Forest Science. 25(2):350-358. Hunt, H.W. and D.H. Wall. 2002. Modeling the effects of loss of soil biodiversity on ecosystem function. Global Change Biology. 8(1): 33-51. Johnson, N.C. 1998. Responses of Salsola kali and Panicum virgatum to mycorrhizal fungi, phosphorous and soil organic matter: implications for reclamation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 35: 86-94. Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology. 5(3): 265-270.

Moorman, T. and F.B. Reeves. 1979. The role of endomycorrhizae in revegetation practices in the semiarid west. II. A bioassay to determine the effect of land disturbance on endomycorrhizal populations. American Journal of Botany. 66(1): 14-18. Reeves, F.B., D. Wagner, T. Moorman, and J. Kiel. 1979. The role of endomycorrhizae in revegetation practices in the semi-arid west. I. A comparison of incidence of mycorrhizae in severely disturbed vs. natural environments. American Journal of Botany. 66(1): 1-13. Setala, H. and M.A. McLean. 2004. Decomposition rate of organic substrates in relation to the species diversity of saprophytic fungi. Oecologia. 139(1): 98-108. Society for Ecological Restoration Science & Policy Working Group. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org/. Stamets, P. and D. Sumerlin. “Mycofiltration: A novel approach for the bio-transformation of abandoned logging roads.” Retrieved from http://www.fungi.com/ mycotech/roadrestoration.html (6 March 2004). St. John, T. 1996. Mycorrhizal inoculation: advice for growers & restorationists. Hortus West. 7(2): 1-4. St. John, T. 1998. Mycorrhizal inoculation in habitat restoration. Land and Water September/October:17-19. Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 21-28.

Fishhook Cactus. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

16

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

‘Bridges to Nowhere’ Going Nowhere for Now During final consideration of a budget bill, Republicans in Congress this fall pulled out the dedicated funding for Alaska’s infamous “bridges to nowhere” (see The RIPorter v. 10.3 for background). By simply granting the $442 million to the state for general transportation assistance, however, they left open the possibility that state officials could decide to build the two bridges. The bridges are planned for remote areas near Ketchikan and Anchorage; one is a mile long, the other nearly two miles. Alaska officials claimed the bridges would bring growth while budget watchdog and conservation groups called them boondoggles. Both areas are already accessed by frequent ferry service.

Petition Wins Road Closure At the behest of a petition circulated by environmental groups, the Forest Service has tentatively agreed to decommission a road used to access illegal trails in Wyoming’s Medicine Bow National Forest. The petitioners include the Wyoming Wilderness Association, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, Wildlands CPR and High Country Citizens’ Alliance. The petition calls for ending off-road use on three routes to more effectively deter unauthorized motorized use. The illegal routes and part of the closed road would then be restored. In response to the damage caused by off-road vehicles, the Forest Service had already placed obstacles such as boulders and fences at trail access points. These proved ineffective in preventing damage to stream beds, vegetation, and wildlife, as they are skirted by off-road vehicle users. The Forest Service has also proposed increased law enforcement and seasonal closures to further limit access. A final decision will be made after public hearings and additional study.

ATV Safety On October 14th the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety for children. As the federal agency with jurisdiction over these products, the CPSC could take strong action to reduce deaths and injuries caused by ATVs, especially those suffered by children under 16 years old. The Consumer Federation of America believes that any comprehensive solution must also include strong state laws setting minimum age limits for ATV riders, requiring licensing, registration, and training, and prohibiting passengers. The Federation further advocates that:

Invasive weeds were the consequence of illegal off-road vehicles on this meadow. Photo by Dan Schroeder, Sierra Club, Ogden Chapter.

•The CPSC should issue a mandatory rule prohibiting the sale of adult-size ATVs for use by children under age 16; •The CPSC should not promote a new generation of larger, faster and more powerful ATVs for older children (the so-called "transitional ATV"); •The CPSC should evaluate the current ATV training program and determine why such a low percentage of ATV riders obtain training; and, •The CPSC should require that information from CPSC’s Annual Report on All-Terrain Vehicle-Related Deaths and Injuries be communicated to all ATV buyers.

Take Action! The CPSC will take comment on the ATV safety rulemaking through December 16. For more information, visit http://www.cpsc. gov/businfo/frnotices/fr06/atv1.html, www.naturaltrails.org, or www.consumerfed.org.

— more updates on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

17

More Regional Reports & Updates Conservation Groups Challenge the Park Service’s Off-Road Vehicle Management In November, Wildlands CPR joined co-plaintiffs Bluewater Network, a division of Friends of the Earth and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in filing a lawsuit against the National Park Service and the Department of Interior. The lawsuit follows up on a rule-making petition that was submitted by these parties and others requesting significant changes in off-road vehicle management throughout the parks. Unfortunately the Park Service denied that petition, while at the same time documenting significant impacts from off-road vehicles throughout the Park System. The lawsuit challenges the agencies’ failure to protect the parks from off-road vehicle impacts. In 2004, the Park Service conducted an internal survey of all national park sites. The 256 responses available to the plaintiffs demonstrate that off-road vehicles are causing widespread damage in America’s national parks. More than 90 Park units reported evidence of illegal off-road vehicle use, with the bulk of those parks also reporting that the use was causing significant impacts to cultural and natural resources. Park managers reported that off-road vehicle use is harming archaeological sites at the Grand Canyon; tearing up hiking/horseback trails at Olympic National Park; crushing animal burrows in Arches and Canyonlands national parks; and facilitating fossil poaching at Badlands National Park, as well as negatively affecting the experiences of other visitors.

Management Policy Revisions for the National Park Service Taking its cue from an Interior Department political appointee, the National Park Service (NPS) has proposed new management policies that, if adopted, would redefine the overarching duty of the agency. The policies would weaken longstanding legal mandates for preserving America’s natural heritage. For example, the proposed policies would increase the allowance of high-impact activities such as off-road vehicle recreation, and muddy the water on how to manage such activities where they are allowed. NPS management policies are typically revised every ten to fifteen years. The Park Service last revised the policies in 2001, nonetheless, the Department of Interior decided to do so again, and Undersecretary of Interior Paul Hoffman oversaw a nearly 200-page rewrite. That rewrite was leaked to the press in late August, just 2 days before Hurricane Katrina hit; it would have had catastrophic impacts on the integrity of our entire national park system and it was quickly denounced by the Park Service. Still, the Park Service was compelled to engage in a rewrite of their own, and on October 17 they released a new set of draft policies. These new policies cause many of the same problems that the Hoffman policies would have, but they are couched in more obtuse language, making them seem less harmful. Conservationists and parks advocates have nicknamed the draft policies, Buffalo in Badlands National Park. Photo courtesy “Hoffman Lite.”

The draft management policies would diminish park protection and boost commercialism as priorities for the National Park Service. The draft policies reduce protections for proposed wilderness within the park system, by allowing more recreational and other development within proposed wilderness. The national parks have millions of acres of lands that are managed as wilderness but have not been designated by Congress. The ambiguity in the new rules will make it harder to protect and easier to exploit the parks through motorization, privatization and commercialization. Conservationists and other national park advocates are asking the Park Service and Department of Interior to abandon this rewrite.

Take Action! The Park Service is accepting public comments on the revisions until February 18, 2006. To comment on the draft, read it online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/waso and send feedback by e-mail to [email protected] or by mail to Bernard Fagan, National Park Service, Office of Policy, Room 7252, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.

Talking points: •The mission of the National Park

Service is to preserve unimpaired for future generations the resources of our national parks. This revision could have devastating impacts on park resources. •The latest draft eliminates restrictions against the interference with the “atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscapes”, which will make it easier for motorized recreation to expand within park boundaries. •The latest draft changes off-road vehicle management, making it much less clear where and when such use should be restricted. •Other weakened policies include those that protect air quality, control livestock damage, and preserve park water rights.

of National Park Service.

18

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Groups File Suit to Challenge Bush Roadless Rule A group of about 20 environmental organizations has joined the states of Oregon, California, and New Mexico in filing suit against the Bush administration over its new forest roadless rule, seeking reinstatement of the rule adopted by the Clinton administration. The Bush rule invites Governors to petition the Secretary of Agriculture for protections that were guaranteed under the Clinton-era, widely supported ban on road construction in roadless areas. State petitions may or may not be granted. Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of local, regional, and national conservation organizations. In Colorado, hundreds gathered for a public meeting to discuss the future of roadless areas, the first of eight to be held by the Roadless Area Review Task Force. This bipartisan, 13-member body was created by the state legislature and will take public comment from Coloradoans before making a recommendation to Gov. Owens. Meanwhile, a petition submitted by Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski — requesting that states retain the option of adopting the 2001 Roadless Rule — has been rejected by the Department of Agriculture. It was Kulongoski’s effort to protect Oregon’s two million roadless acres from development. A letter from Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey suggested that the petition was rejected, in part, due to Oregon’s participation in the lawsuit against Bush’s roadless plan. Because the 2001 Roadless Rule was struck down by a Wyoming federal court, Rey said that its reinstatement was not a possibility. He did imply that if Oregon withdrew from the lawsuit, the Department would be willing to “engage...in a good faith discussion of protection for roadless area values in Oregon.” Kulongski is evaluating the letter and its proposal. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire also submitted a similar petition, seeking the freedom for states to adopt the 2001 Roadless Rule. Gov. Gregoire has said the state is also considering joining the lawsuit against the Bush Administration.

Take Action! Join the Citizen Roadless Petition Drive American Lands Alliance, the Heritage Forests Campaign and other partner organizations have launched a citizen petition drive to request that the Bush administration reinstate the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule that limited logging and road-building on nearly 60 million acres of national forests. The petition will be filed under the auspices of the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows citizens to request that the government, issue, amend, or revoke federal rules. Please visit http://www.net.org/petition.php to sign the petition. The petition will be presented to President Bush and the Department of Agriculture. Additionally, a copy of the petition will be delivered to your Governor.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

New Resources Guide to Transportation Planning in Northern Rockies American Wildlands recently released a new guide for citizens interested in addressing highway transportation issues and making highways safer for wildlife and people. The guide is available from their website: http://www.wildlands.org/publands/ cit%20guide%20final2.pdf The guide explains the transportation planning process in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and the relevant laws, policies and science citizens can use to influence transportation decision-making. Although the information is regional in nature, much can be applied outside of the Northern Rockies. The guide covers the following topics: •Effects of Highways on Wildlife, •Transportation Systems and Management, •Planning Process, •Role of Citizen Participation, •Tools For Making Your Case.

Wildlands CPR Road and ORV Database Updated! Wildlands CPR has recently completed an update of our road and off-road vehicle online database. The database now exceeds 12,000 citations documenting the physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. In the U.S. alone, there are 6 million kilometers of public roads and over 36 million registered off-road vehicles. We compiled this bibliography to help people access relevant scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrologic effects, and other up-to-date information on the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles. Many thanks to Noah Jackson and Bob Jaffe for compiling the database and making it web-accessable. Check it out at www.wildlandscpr.org.

A Guide to Engaging Allied Voices Earlier this year, the United Forest Defense Campaign released an excellent guide for activists working to engage non-traditional, diverse allies in conservation work. This new guide offers direction for developing partnerships with many types of constituencies. As stated in the introduction, “In reality, the conservation community is not monolithic or elitist. Our community is made up of hunters, anglers, people of faith, businesspeople, scientists, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, and many, many others. We do reflect broad public values, yet that is not how our message often comes across.” For a copy, contact Anne Martin at American Lands Alliance: [email protected]..

19

The Citizen/Organizational Spotlight shares the stories of some of the awesome activists and organizations we work with, both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and lessons learned. This issue we focus the spotlight on an organization for the first time. Please email your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to [email protected].

Keeping the Southern Rockies Wild

Spotlight on Vera Smith of Colorado Mountain Club By Cathy Adams

S

ince its beginnings in 1912, the Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) has tirelessly worked for remote, wild and quiet places in the southern Rocky Mountains. The organization played a critical role in designating Rocky Mountain National Park and Dinosaur National Monument, and in passing the Wilderness Act. The Club continues its contribution by working for permanent protection of the last remaining roadless areas and the ecological integrity of their region. The organization works to bring people together who care deeply about mountains, recreation, conservation, education and bringing the quiet experience back to the backcountry. Vera Smith, Conservation Director for CMC, says what their organization does is very important in today’s economic climate. “Recreation is the foundation of the Rocky Mountain West. Amenity-based recreation is fundamentally important to everyone in the Rocky Mountains. People want to play on the public lands of the western United States. Recreation is the public land use today that involves the most participants and requires the most acreage, and although it can provide a lot of benefits, if left unmanaged, it creates a lot of problems.” Vera worked to develop three major programs to help combat problems associated with recreation abuse. The first, Preserving Wildness, focuses on permanent protection for vulnerable roadless areas. The second program, Restoring the Quiet Experience, works to bring outdoor users like anglers, hunters, bikers, hikers and others together to preserve and restore quiet places in the backcountry. Lastly, the Balancing Recreation and the Environment program works to find a balance between recreation and natural resource protection, to ensure the sustainability of a treasured backcountry experience for Coloradans now and in the future.

20

Vera Smith at Colorado Mountain Club headquarters. Photo courtesy of Colorado Mountain Club.

Vera says the best way to accomplish CMC’s goals is to make sure people understand that protecting lands for recreation and wildness is important to their state. “We have been successful in getting the message out that there is a need to preserve wild places,” she says. In her six years with CMC, they have helped pass five wilderness bills, averaging about one every year with two more ‘in the hopper’ now. Vera added that a higher level of awareness and an infusion of resources are needed, or CMC could lose the battle. CMC works with the Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at all levels, with the media, and with state and federal elected officials. The organization’s work with the FS included years of work on the off-road vehicle Rule and on regulation policy. Vera says many groups work synergistically. In particular, Wildlands CPR helped by playing a role in developing the quiet use movement with CMC and has worked hand in hand with the organization on the off-road vehicle Rule. CMC is building a citizen movement for quiet use by holding gettogethers every year for citizens from around the region. In October, at CMC’s third annual “Quiet Commotion” conference, participants learned skills from national experts, enabling them to effectively advocate for the protection of quiet non-motorized experiences in the places they treasure.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

In addition to networking opportunities and field trips to public lands, Quiet Commotion gave local activists a chance to explore strategies, exchange ideas, and recharge their energy on the issues. CMC works to educate citizens by leading trips that center around a traditional backcountry experience in an undeveloped landscape. Participants can enjoy a quiet experience in the wilderness while learning about the importance of protecting the habitat and its species. Eventually, CMC decided they wanted to branch out and build a statewide presence to reach citizens in other Colorado communities. As Director, Vera opened two more CMC offices in Colorado, in Carbondale and Grand Junction, to focus on conservation. Vera explained that with more offices “you can have staff involved in communities. And since we work on land, and land is fundamentally local, you need an understanding of local needs and issues. Being able to operate locally and regionally also helps to bring about policy decisions.”

“I think we need to restrict ORV use to places where the land can handle it…unfortunately, it may occur 30 years too late. We will suffer the cost of losing species and ecosystem function, and we will suffer the cost of trying to restore those places.” -Vera Smith, Conservation Director, CMC CMC is currently working on the new FS ORV Rule and implementation of the Region 2 off-road vehicle strategy. CMC will urge the Forest Service to take a detailed look at how it can protect the quiet experience in Colorado. The organization is also working with the BLM on travel management. According to Vera “off road vehicles are the biggest obstacles to preserving our wild lands, from extreme jeeps to dirt bikes.” The battle is not about off-road vehicle use per se, but rather the fact that it is largely unmanaged, without control or restriction. “Off road vehicle use is not a typical environmental issue that people think about, but it is one of the most important issues in the West that any organization can work on.”

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Off-road motorists. Photo courtesy of Forest Service.

Vera says we need to keep damaging recreation out of wildlife corridors and protect key places that still have wildness. Fortunately, all three of CMC’s programs work together to achieve this; when you protect wildness, you restore the quiet experience and balance recreation. One way to restrict off-road vehicle use, Vera offered, would be to create zones with routes that are constructed to handle the intense use. Before beginning her fight for the West, Vera started her non-profit career managing a soup kitchen in Philadelphia and operating a homeless advocacy organization. After receiving her masters in Land Resources from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, she worked as a geologist and restoration specialist for the National Park Service in Utah. Her desire to develop a conservation program brought her back to the non-profit world and to Colorado to work with CMC. From a resource management background, joining CMC opened Vera’s eyes to the intensity of recreation politics. The recreation industry was very new to her when she started six years ago. Her job is program development, figuring out where CMC is going and obtaining the resources to get there. Vera doesn’t think the work is being done fast enough. “I think we need to restrict off-road vehicle use to places where the land can handle it…unfortunately, this may occur 30 years too late. We will suffer the cost of losing species and ecosystem function, and we will suffer the cost of trying to restore those places.” When looking to the future, Vera says, “We need to paint a picture of what people are losing. The saddest part of all is that we are losing big chunks of our landscape not even for a good reason — more from an absence of management and leadership than anything else.” She hopes that new leaders will emerge, and talk to local land managers and elected officials about quiet use and the need to restrict off-road vehicles. Talk to your friends and family while you’re gathered around the table this holiday season, and let them know how important wild places are to you and what they can do to help preserve our wild lands. Contact Vera Smith at 303-996-2746 or [email protected] if you are interested in volunteer opportunities or to join CMC’s conservation alert list serve. A quiet use list serve is also available by contacting Aaron Clark at [email protected]. — Cathy Adams is the Wildlands CPR Program and Memebership Associate.

21

I

t’s been an extremely busy season here at Wildlands CPR. In addition to preparing for and responding to the final off-road vehicle rule released by the Forest Service (see cover story), we’ve been tracking new draft management policies released by the Park Service. Organizing and participating in forest planning workshops, regional gatherings and national strategy meetings also filled our plate this fall. In the midst of all that, we found time to hire a new staff person at Wildlands CPR, and to bring aboard a new graduate student for our citizen monitoring program on the Clearwater National Forest. Wildlands CPR is very pleased to welcome Tim Peterson as our new Transportation Policy Coordinator (not to be confused with our Development Director, Tom Petersen). Tim is taking over Jason Kiely’s old position. Jason is still working out of our office, but he is now the Forest Campaign Coordinator for the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition. Tim has spent the last eight years conducting road and off-road vehicle monitoring around the Colorado Plateau, including a three-year roadless/wilderness inventory for Utah Forest Network. He comes to us most recently from southern Utah where he has been working with Red Rock Forests. We couldn’t have asked for a new person with more relevant experience.

ing Wildlands CPR’s methods and programs on the ground. We’ll miss you both and we can’t thank you enough for your commitment to and work on behalf of Wildlands CPR. We also want to thank everyone who has contributed financially to Wildlands CPR during the last quarter. For starters, a big thank you to the Harder, New Land and Flintridge Foundations for their generous grants to support our work. And thanks too, to those of you who make year-end contributions through our Give Thanks Campaign (or just because you’d like to make a year-end contribution). We greatly, greatly appreciate your support—we couldn’t do it without you!

Thank you 2005 Annual Gifts Campaign Donors

A

hearty thank-you to all donors in Wildlands CPR’s 2005 Annual Gifts Campaign! At press time we’ve received more than $20,000, and we know donations will continue until year’s end to help us reach our $32,000 goal. We appreciate the strong support to help us promote the restoration of natural areas through road removal, and curb off-road vehicle abuse. Thank you again! And if you’ve made a pledge but haven’t sent in your donation yet, please do so soon!

We are also pleased to be working with Anna Holden, an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Montana. Anna is recruiting and training volunteers for our citizen science monitoring project on the Clearwater National Forest, in partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe. Welcome to Anna, and a big thank you to Katherine Court, who started the project last year, developed the protocols, and spent almost every weekend this summer with local folks collecting field data. Katherine will be finishing up her master’s thesis this winter. Wildlands CPR wants to extend a very big thank you to outgoing board members Karen Wood DiBari and Matt Skroch. Karen has served very energetically on the board for the past six years, as our president for the last two. During this time, she helped reconfigure the way the board engages in Wildlands CPR’s work in a very productive way. Matt has been a critical partner for us through his work with Sky Islands Alliance, providing an important model for implement-

22

Missoula’s “Tuesday Hiking Group” hikes along a restored road on a field trip with Wildlands CPR. Photo by Sharon Dill.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Join Wildlands CPR Today!

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

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program • Reducing Overhead

• Making Your Gift Easier

Monthly giving puts your contribution directly into action and reduces our administrative costs. The savings go to restoring wildlands and building a more effective network.

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your credit card or bank statement will contain a record of each gift; we will also send a year-end tax receipt for your records.

• Our Promise To You You maintain complete control over your donation. To change or cancel your gift at any time, just write or give us a call.

Name Phone Street Email

City, State, Zip

Type of Membership:

Individual/Family

Organization

Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Credit Card Pledge

$10/Month (minimum)

$20/Month

Payment Option #2: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account other

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express Credit Card Number: _________________________________

$5/Month

$10/Month

$20/Month

other

I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated above from my checking account once per month.

Signature

CSC Number: ________________ *(see below) Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: __________________________________________ * The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a credit card (usually in the signature field).

Thank you for your support! The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2005

Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confidential. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership donation ($30 standard membership, or more), please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the address below. Please send this form and your payment option to: Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 23

Western Yucca Forest. Photo courtesy of U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

“Maybe we just need to figure out how to find satisfaction and inspiration and beauty in ways that don’t ride roughshod over our neighbors or have us motoring frantically past the flameorange leaves of autumn maples.” — Dave Havlick A Road Runs Through It, (in press)

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