Road Riporter 11.3 Autumn Equinox 2006

Autumn Equinox 2006. Volume 11 No. 3

Investing in the New Restoration Economy By Breeann Johnson and Marnie Criley

From rehabilitating forest roads, to restoring wetlands, to removing dams, restoration can play a significant role in building strong local economies. Photo credits (from left): Scott Bagley, George Gentry, Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Inside… Investing in the New Restoration Economy, by Breeann Johnson and Marnie Criley. Pages 3-5

Field Notes: The Road Hydrologic Impact Rating System, by Ron Malecki. Pages 12-13

Get with the Program: Restoration, Transportation, & Science Updates. Pages 20-21.

Citizen Spotlight: Jim Bensman, by Cathy Adams. Pages 6-7

Biblio Notes: Comparing Linear Development Effects on Wildlife, by Sharon Mader. Pages 14-16

Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 8-9

New Resources. Page 17

Policy Primer: Transportation Management Rule, by Tim D. Peterson. Pages 10-11

Odes to Roads: A Plague on All Your Forests, by Ted Williams. Pages 18-19

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org

T

he Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) made headlines in August with a new economics report: “The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy: A $730 Billion Annual Contribution to the U.S. Economy.” (http://www.outdoorindustry.org/pdf/FinalOutdoorRecreationReportEC.pdf) What is “active outdoor recreation?” According to OIA, it includes hiking, biking, boating, camping, fishing, hunting, snowsports, and wildlife watching. Basically, it’s another name for non-motorized recreation. In addition, Winter Wildlands Alliance also released a report in August (see New Resources – p. 17) entitled “Winter Recreation on Western National Forest Lands: A Comprehensive Analysis of Motorized and Non-Motorized Opportunity and Access.” The two reports together provide an interesting perspective on public lands recreation. First, motorized recreationists argue that their form of recreation is an economic boon to communities. While this might be true, it doesn’t mean that active outdoor recreation is less of a boon. In fact, the OIA report shows that non-motorized recreation likely stimulates more economic activity at a national level than motorized recreation, though it does not make a direct comparison. The report cited direct sales of $289 billion per year related to active outdoor recreation, with $441 billion generated through the multiplier effect. Even if you discount the multiplier and only count sales of gear, transportation, lodging, etc., the impact is still profound. The entire movie/video economic sector, for example, generated only $80 billion during the same period. Second is the question of access. The Winter Wildlands report reveals that 70% of national forest land in the 11 western states is open to snowmobiling. Two-thirds of the remaining land is designated wilderness, leaving only about 10 million non-wilderness acres designated for non-motorized recreation (keep in mind that wilderness lands are difficult to access in winter conditions). Furthermore, the report finds that only 8% of groomed winter trails are for non-motorized recreation, even though active winter recreation accounts for 28% more visits than motorized winter sports. Taken together, these reports make clear that active outdoor recreation generates more revenue and appeals to more users than motorized recreation. While the economic data is compelling, it would be a shame if land managers strove to increase dividends for public and private profit. Instead, they must protect the entirety of our natural resources (not just recreational access) for current and future generations. On access, we commend Winter Wildlands for acknowledging the potential conflict with resource protection. Their report concludes that “protection of wintering wildlife and critical winter habitat should prevail over all recreation use, whether motorized or non-motorized.” Few recreational access organizations have taken such strong, public positions in favor of resource protection over access. In recent years, the outdoor industries that profit from active outdoor recreation have become more active in promoting protection of public lands. It’s up to us to make sure that the values they seek to protect are based not just on the economy, but also on ecology.

The Wrangell Mountains in Alaska. Photo by Dianne Taliaferro, National Park Service.

2

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 Anna Holden, Noah Jackson Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson, Sonya Newenhouse, Patrick Parenteau 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

© 2006 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Investing in the New Restoration Economy By Breeann Johnson and Marnie Criley

T

his past June some 300 people attended the Montana Governor’s Restoration Forum in Billings, Montana. Co-sponsored by Wildlands CPR, the forum brought together a diverse group including conservation, public land agency, labor, business, scientific, tribal, and community leaders, all for the purpose of exploring opportunities for building a restoration economy in the state of Montana. Montana’s Governor Brian Schweitzer says that the state can be a national, if not world leader in creating a sustainable restoration economy that is good for Montana’s land, water and communities. Wildlands CPR also believes that Montana can be a model for comprehensive ecological restoration that heals our natural areas and brings good jobs to rural communities.

What Do We Mean By Restoration? Here in Montana we want to go beyond just ecological restoration. Storm Cunningham, one of the forum’s keynote speakers and author of a book entitled The Restoration Economy: The Greatest New Growth Frontier, speaks about a much broader revitalization effort that needs to occur. The world, he writes, faces a trio of braided crises: one of constraint – a recognition that the world has finite resources; one of corrosion – the wearing down and out of our built environment and infrastructure; and one of contamination – the poisoning of the natural systems that provide us with life’s necessities: air, water, soil, and food. Storm asserts that the restoration economy should address urban, rural and ecological restoration needs under one umbrella, and he believes Montana is a great place to develop an integrated revitalization strategy for sustainable economic growth. Tying the biological, societal, and economic aspects of restoration together allows for an incredible diversity of restoration approaches, participants, and opportunities. Wildlands CPR has joined the Revitalization Institute’s Partner Network. For more information go to www. revitalizationinstitute.com. So, how do we create this restoration economy? There are several important considerations — including statewide coordination of restoration efforts, better branding of the concept of restoration, and developing guiding principles — but to build a strong, diverse and sustainable economy the first thing you need to do is invest. In preparation for the Governor’s Forum, Wildlands CPR commissioned a report on funding sources for restoration work. Breeann Johnson, an intern for Wildlands CPR, researched and wrote Opportunities for Investing in Restoration Work in Montana. Marnie presented this report at the Restoration Forum during a break-out session entitled,

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Vegetation returns on a decommissioned road in the Cedar River watershed, source of drinking water for Seattle, WA. Photo by Adam Switalski.

“Building Local Business through Restoration.” What follows is an overview of the report. The full report is at www.wildlandscpr. org/Restoration/RRresources.htm. For further details about the Governor’s Restoration Forum, to view Wildlands CPR’s power-point presentation, and to read a summary of all of the breakout sessions held during the forum, visit the forum’s homepage at www.restorationforum.mt.gov.

How Do We Fund Ecological Restoration? While this report focuses on ecological restoration, the funding opportunities we discuss could be utilized for a comprehensive revitalization approach. We highlighted three key areas of potential funding and funding models: the initiative and referendum process, restoration funding in other western states, and funding sources and resources readily available.

The “I & R” Process Montana is one of 24 states in the U.S. that has an initiative and referendum process. California has long used the I & R process to garner funds for various purposes, but the state has been particularly successful in using the I & R process to generate funds for ecological restoration. Two significant ballot initiatives were Proposition 40 and Proposition 50 that passed during the 2002 elections. Proposition 40 leveraged $2.6 billion in bonds, part of which was allocated for the protection of waterways and coastal areas and the preservation of open space. Proposition 50 leveraged $3.44 billion in bonds to fund a variety of water projects, many of them aimed at waterway protection, preservation, improvement, and conservation.

— continued on next page — 3

— continued from page 3 — Utilizing the I & R process shows promise for several reasons. For one, the I & R process offers citizens the opportunity to participate in direct democracy by supporting and organizing ballot drives and by voting in or turning down initiatives. Another benefit of the process is the ability to educate the voting public about an issue; this can be beneficial even if the ballot drive is unsuccessful because it can raise awareness of an issue that previously did not have broad recognition. There can be drawbacks to the I & R process, such as special interest involvement or low voter turnout and these factors need to be weighed when considering a ballot drive. However, the I & R process can be just one of many tools Montanans can use to garner funds for restoration work.

Flood Damage Comparison in the Lost Johnny Watershed The decommissioning and reclaiming of one of three road crossings subjected to the same high water flow incident shows the difference restoration makes.

Examining Funding Models and Restoration Efforts in Other Western States Montana and California are not the only western states taking steps toward more cohesive plans to restore lands and protect resources; many other western states have been working in this same direction.

Crossing #1. Sixty foot wide washout of West Side Road 895 at Lost Johnny Creek due to debris plugging the large culvert. Photo by Keith Hammer.

New Mexico has been active in the last several years in regard to forest restoration. The Community Forest Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 2000, provides cost-share grants to stakeholders for forest restoration on public lands in New Mexico. In 2003 the New Mexico state legislature passed the Watershed Restoration Act. This act did not allocate funds for restoration, but it did require that the state design a watershed restoration strategy. To that end the state has designed the Forest and Watershed Health Plan, implemented in 2005. New Mexico also recently released its Forest Restoration Principles document. These principles are designed to provide a “zone of agreement” for industry, conservation organizations, land management agencies, and scientists when developing forest restoration projects; the goal being to reduce the need for litigation and to provide common language for all involved. Arizona has initiated similar forest restoration efforts. In July of 2004 the state released a document entitled Guiding Principles for a New Economy Based on Forest Restoration. This document includes what the state feels is necessary to sustain a viable restoration economy, such as tourism, recreation, other community and economic benefits, collaboration and inclusiveness, reasonable predictability and a reasonable level of risk for businesses, and prioritization of investments in local and regional Arizona-based forest products industries. While the Principles do not authorize the allocation of funds for restoration projects, they do lay out a sort of road map for what shape and direction projects should take. Both Washington and California use gas tax revenue in unique ways. In Washington State, HB 1698 helped reallocate funds generated from state gas taxes more equitably between motorized and non-motorized recreational uses. The new funding formula allocates more monies to trail maintenance and facilities that are accessed by non-motorized recreational users, proportionate to the amount of gas taxes paid by non-motorized recreational users. Explicitly this bill deals

4

Crossing #2. Washout of Lost Johnny Road 895B by Otila Creek due to rocks and debris plugging the modest size culvert, resulting in the creek shifting course and washing out the road. Photo by Keith Hammer.

Crossing #3. No damage was done to the decommissioned/ reclaimed crossing of Lost Johnny Creek by Road 11024 because the road fill had been removed from near the stream, allowing the stream to widen and dissipate its erosive force. Photo by Keith Hammer.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

with fairness. Implicitly this bill supports forest and watershed protection because non-motorized uses of public lands typically do less ecological harm than do motorized uses. In California, the OHV Grant Program, funded mostly from fuel taxes calculated to have come from off-road vehicles, provides grants for restoration and rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes and recreation areas. Each of the above states’ efforts are examples of ways Montana could go about pursuing cohesive restoration efforts and starting a restoration economy in the state. While Montana cannot leverage ballot initiatives near the size California can, California provides many lessons in how initiatives can be crafted, pursued, and presented to the public. New Mexico and Arizona both offer examples of defining parameters for restoration work and bringing a diversity of stakeholders to the table. Washington has a model for how existing funding methods can be reexamined to more appropriately benefit citizens and natural resources. Examining what we are doing in our own state and seeing what has worked for our western neighbors can help contribute to Montana’s success with its restoration efforts.

Other Funding Sources For those currently pursuing restoration work in Montana or elsewhere, there are an ever-growing number of resources available to them. Our report highlighted some of the most readily available resources for funding and assistance. These sources include Wildlands CPR’s updated Funding Sources for Road Decommissioning Projects report, the Catalog for Federal Domestic assistance (http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda. html), specific federal program websites like the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Canaan Valley Institute’s Funding Sources for Highlands Action Plan. For full details on these and other funding resources please see our full report at www.wildlandscpr.org/Restoration/PRresources.htm.

Just a Beginning The key now is to build on the Restoration Forum’s momentum and move from word to deed. Some of those deeds include: 1. Compile a list of current restoration funding sources being used in the state and examine what other avenues the state could pursue for further funding (e.g. legislative efforts, incentive programs) 2. Establish a set of statewide restoration principles that take into account Montana’s diversity of forestlands, grasslands, rivers, streams, fisheries, and wildlife.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Fighting weeds along a decommissioned road in Cedar River, WA. Photo by Adam Switalski.

3. Prioritize restoration needs across the state and provide agreed upon language that would help diverse constituencies work together on restoration projects. 4. Establish a governor’s restoration task force or advisory council that could help prioritize restoration projects and act as a clearinghouse of information on funding sources and other restoration-related resources such as technical assistance and training opportunities. 5. Initiate collaborative restoration and revitalization projects that provide family-wage, local jobs while restoring our natural and built environment. With the support of the state’s governor, Montana seems poised to launch a comprehensive restoration economy that could go beyond other state-level efforts. Montana’s vision for a restoration economy combines ecological restoration and urban/rural revitalization into one comprehensive program. This approach will bring together ranching and farming interests, urban and rural community interests, and grassland, watershed and forest interests. This vision is also powerful in that it coordinates workforce and labor issues with environmental issues, and combines both with university research and monitoring programs that can enable Montana to become the intellectual center for restoration and revitalization in the U.S. A Montana restoration economy probably won’t solve all of Montana’s ecological or economic concerns, but with such broad-based support, the restoration vision deserves our attention and action. While our funding report is in no way comprehensive, it is a good starting point and hopefully a catalyst for generating further ideas, much like the restoration forum itself. We welcome your comments and ideas on the report. Please contact Marnie Criley with these comments at 406.543.9551 or marnie@wildlandscprorg. —Breeann Johnson is a graduate student at the University of Montana. An aspiring environmental lawyer, she is particularly concerned with the use of and access to water in the west, particularly in relation to tribal treaty obligations. Marnie Criley is the Restoration Program Coodinator for Wildlands CPR.

5

The Citizen 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. Please e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to [email protected].

Citizen Spotlight on Jim Bensman By Cathy Adams

W

hen Jim Bensman started at Heartwood 13 years ago, the fledgling environmental organization was just getting off the ground. Heartwood had only been around for a couple of years, but it was taking hard stands on forest protection and off-road vehicles, and Bensman admired the group’s effectiveness. Heartwood grew out of a series of meetings in southern Illinois between forest activists from three other Midwestern states. This group recognized that their individual efforts to protect local forests could be combined as part of a larger regional effort to protect and restore the biological diversity of hardwood forests. They sought to build broadbased mainstream support for ending logging in the region’s public forests, and in 1991 their mission to protect the hardwood forests of America’s heartland was born. As Forest Watch Coordinator, Jim spends most of his time fighting the U.S. Forest Service over timber sales and off-road vehicle use. His days are filled with writing comments and appeals and hitting the pavement, talking with citizens and spreading Heartwood’s message. Working out of his home office in Alton, IL, Jim is Heartwood’s most senior staffer, with years of experience in public lands litigation and national forest policy.

6

“I was always interested in environmental stuff,” Jim says. “I was active with the Sierra Club and there was just something about trees…I always liked them.” Jim’s interest in forest protection was piqued in the late 1970’s while he was studying biology at Southern Illinois University. Around that time the Department of Conservation proposed logging projects in the state’s parks, and the agency was planning to log one of his favorite forests near his home. “I was not happy,” Jim remembers. “I was a follower back then. I went to meetings and protests… then the Sierra Club sued the Forest Service over it [state park logging] and I skipped classes to go watch the trial, it was very exciting.”

The case ended up in the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled that the Forest Service couldn’t log state parks. Jim’s interest quickly shifted from his studies at SIU and he became more involved in environmental activism. He remembers the date it all began: “It was on April 8, 1985 that I became a forest activist.” That year he heard the Sierra Club was holding a meeting regarding an upcoming forest plan for southern Illinois’ Shawnee National Forest. Before the meeting he called up the Sierra Club’s Midwest office to get information on forest plans so he’d be better prepared to ask intelligent questions. The Sierra Club sent him a copy of “National Forest Planning: The Conservationist’s Guide.” Jim used the book to figure out what forest plans were all about. He became so involved that

Photo courtesy of Jim Bensman.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

as a volunteer for the Sierra Club he wrote a 300 page administrative appeal to a plan that would allow logging in the Shawnee. Ten years later on September 25, 1995 Jim and the Sierra Club won their lawsuit on the Shawnee National Forest Plan. The lawsuit put a halt to all timber sales in the Shawnee until the FS drafted a new management plan for the forest that better addresses the impact of logging. In the midst of this ten-year legal battle, Jim led an effort to push for wilderness designation on the Shawnee NF. It ultimately succeeded, resulting in the Illinois Wilderness Act of 1990; signed into law on November 28, 1990 by George H.W. Bush. The movement set a record for the shortest time from the introduction of a wilderness bill to its final passage. Seven areas within the Shawnee—totaling 26,266 acres—were designated as wilderness. In 1993 Jim joined Heartwood and has been involved in many lawsuits regarding off-road vehicles and timber sales ever since. He says one of his greatest off-road vehicle accomplishments on the Shawnee involved the Handicap ATV Program. “The Forest Service was giving out permits to go anywhere in the forest,” he says. Jim didn’t think allowing offroad vehicles to travel throughout the forest was acceptable use due to the impacts and issues the machines create in the forest. So he sued the Forest Service and won. There has been no legal off-road vehicle use (except for handicapped use) allowed on the Shawnee for more than 10 years. Jim believes his proudest accomplishment came in 1998 when he appealed a timber sale on the Mark Twain National Forest near the Irish Wilderness Area. It took four administrative appeals before the Forest Service finally backed off the project. “The Forest Service was claiming that the Mark Twain needed wind storms and tornadoes to

Garden of the Gods. Photo by Jim Bensman.

manage the timber,” Jim explains. “But since [tornados] don’t happen here, [the Forest Service claimed it] needed to log the forest to mimic the natural occurrence. It was approved, but before the ink could dry a tornado came through.” Jim declared that the Forest Service didn’t need a timber sale now that a tornado had done the work, but the agency countered that a salvage sale was now in order. Once again, Jim appealed and filed a lawsuit and the case went to court. “It was just me against five other attorneys, and I won,” he says with pride. Jim says his success came from a little critter that inhabits the Mark Twain and surrounding forests: the Indiana bat. “The Indiana bat is an endangered species that likes big trees…the ones the Forest Service likes to cut down,” he says. Jim says a Forest Service decision made in 1997 on the Daniel Boone and Mark Twain National Forests halted logging on thousands of acres across the region in order to protect the endangered rodent. It was the Indiana bat that helped him win the case. Jim has learned that success comes from getting in front of a judge and telling it like it is: “I’m 7-0 in court without an attorney,” he admits. “I’m completely self-taught in the realm of forest law.” Asked if he’s had any failures he replies, “There are always failures, that’s

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

life. But winning even half the time is outstanding!” Jim has been an outspoken opponent of off-road vehicle use on the national forest lands. Recently the agency wanted to open portions of the Mark Twain to off-road vehicles as a test, but it hasn’t released a draft environmental impact statement yet, and it has been a few years since the proposal. Rest assured, Jim Bensman will keep a keen eye out for it. In addition to his professional activism, Jim also serves as committee chair for the Shawnee National Forest where he attends monthly meetings and works towards protecting the forest. He also serves on the Sierra Club National Forest Protection and Restoration Committee that oversees Sierra Club’s work on all national forests. Jim says he plans to continue to fight for forest protection with Heartwood for a long time. “Heartwood is effective. I could get a job that pays more, but I’d rather have a rewarding job where I can go somewhere in the woods and see the work I’ve done.” When Jim isn’t out protecting the forests he likes to enjoy them by hiking, canoeing, backpacking, biking and “geo-cacheing.” For Jim, being out in the woods is sometimes all the inspiration he needs. —Cathy Adams is the Wildlands CPR Program and Membership Associate.

7

Precautionary Restoration:

A Little Humility Goes a Long Way By Bethanie Walder

“D

o No Harm!” These three words were the main thing I was thinking about at the end of a restoration presentation in June in Billings, Montana. Dr. Dan Spencer had just spent an hour defining “restoration” for a group of businesspeople, state and federal agency staff, and conservationists at the Montana Restoration Summit. It was a great lecture, which set the stage for good discussions later in the day about how to implement restoration programs throughout the state. His definition: “An intentional activity that initiates and accelerates recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability.” Dr. Spencer talked about his “hopeful and humble” vision for restoration – with ecological integrity as the bottom line. His vision makes sense, and the idea of humility, by default, led me back to a paradox I’ve long considered – the application of the Precautionary Principle to restoration. The principle, in its simplest form, guides people to be humble with nature, to mirror the physician’s Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm.” But what if restoration activities, like road removal, are invasive, aggressive, or even harmful in the short term? How do we apply the precautionary principle and humility to restoration? First, let’s consider the definition of the Precautionary Principle: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” (as cited in Myers 2002). Because we know that roads cause significant impacts to wildlands, watersheds and wildlife, we believe that removing roads is good, even if there is a short-term impact. We’ve compiled all the research on this topic, but the data is slim, so some real scientific uncertainty remains regarding the pros and cons of restoring watersheds by removing roads. So does that mean that based on the precautionary principle, we should not remove roads? Does scientific uncertainty dictate that we should avoid road removal – even if the limited evidence that does exist suggests it will lead to cleaner water and healthier habitat? Perhaps the best resource on this topic is the website of the Science and Environmental Health Network. The folks there have been working to promote use of the precautionary principle in U.S. and international policy for nearly a decade. Former Wildlands CPR board member Mary O’Brien use to work at SEHN and she’s a leading expert on the precautionary principle — a few years ago she and I debated this topic over lunch, questioning how to apply the principle to the emerging field of restoration. SEHN also had this debate, and went back to the source of the precautionary principle, the German term “Vorsorge.” One of the more literal translations of Vorsorge is “forecaring.” The original idea, later translated into English as the “Precautionary Principle,” was much broader than just precaution. According to Carolyn Raffensperger, the Executive Director of SEHN, “Forecaring means not only stopping damage before it happens but cleaning up our messes now and not leaving them for the future.

8

Culverts washed out by high water. Photo by Keith Hammer.

This is restoration. By restoration, I mean it in two senses, to restore biological systems and processes to health and to restore humans to a right relationship with the rest of the world” (Raffensperger 2000). So it seems that the idea of restoration is at the core of the precautionary principle. It is not just about preventing harm, it is also about promoting harmony. Medical practices provide a good analogy: surgery and chemotherapy are aggressive and invasive ways to treat cancer, but for many patients, they are the primary methods for restoring physical health. The short-term effects may be awful, but, at least in many cases, the long-term benefits outweigh them. Road removal is a sort of surgery or chemotherapy for wildlands. It will likely cause some sedimentation of streams. It may displace some wildlife in the short term. It requires big machines and heavy equipment, and it’s expensive. But without it, we are likely to witness much more significant and longer-term impacts to streams and wildlife. So now that we’ve determined that the precautionary principle supports restoration, how do we apply it? The precautionary principle has been broadly defined to include four key elements: goal setting; reversing the burden of proof; alternatives analysis; and democratic decision-making (Multinational Monitor 2004). It just so happens that these four elements apply readily to the field of restoration, making it easier to see how the precautionary principle in its broadest sense is completely consistent with restoration activities.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Goal setting

Conservationists, land managers and scientists have long argued about the specific goals of different “restoration” projects. While some argue that restoration should return ecosystems to a previous condition, others, like Dr. Spencer, argue that restoration should create functioning, dynamic, diverse, resilient ecosystems. If our goal is to restore such ecological integrity, then our actions will incorporate activities like removing roads, dams, weeds and cows. On the other hand, if our goal is to prevent forest fires, our actions will likely focus on logging as a primary tool. Regardless, it is critical to set the goal up front if we are to implement effective, humble restoration.

Reversing the burden of proof

Many argue that removing impediments to functioning ecosystems (like roads or dams) will cause more harm than good, and that the costs of such actions outweigh the benefits. Reversing the burden of proof means that those who are skeptical about road removal would have to provide evidence to support their argument that the ecosystem would be in a better condition with roads intact. Opponents of road removal have yet to provide any ecological evidence; instead they have focused on economic and access issues – claiming that removing roads is too expensive and reduces access. Evidence like that does not meet the test of a reversed burden of proof.

Alternatives Analysis

If we set a goal of recreating functioning, dynamic and resilient ecosystems, there are numerous activities that may (or may not) get us there. We might consider removing roads or riparian livestock grazing, thinning forest stands that have become thick and fire-prone, or removing invasive, non-native weed species. We might choose a combination of these, and more. We would consider all of these alternatives in light of our knowledge of how that ecosystem works. If the goal, however, is just fire reduction, then we would likely choose only one alternative. By setting a restoration goal up front, we can influence the types of actions that are appropriate under the precautionary principle. In light of scientific uncertainty, the results of restoration efforts need to be monitored and compared with the results of other methods.

Democratic decision-making

Public lands restoration must, by definition, be open to public participation. Democratic decision-making does not simply mean that the majority wins. It does mean that the public is involved in setting restoration goals, determining what types of alternatives should be considered for meeting these goals, and determining the best way to apply and monitor the chosen alternatives. Public participation is not limited to those who live in the immediate surroundings, but to all the owners of the public lands.

Conclusion

While the precautionary principle might sound like something that would force restoration practitioners to slow down, and perhaps even stop some activities in the name of preventing harm, it does exactly the opposite. The precautionary principle, especially within the context of forecaring, promotes restoration as a way of making the environment healthier. The precautionary principle directs activists, land managers and others to consider restoration within a strategic and proactive context, such that any activities, and the possible harm they might cause, are measured against the long-term benefit they hopefully bring to the landscape and its inhabitants. As the field of wildland restoration grows, practitioners, land managers and activists will experience both failures and successes. The four main elements of the precautionary principle provide a context within which we can implement humble and hopeful restoration projects — projects that really do restore ecological integrity to our wildlands.

Citations

Multinational Monitor. 2004. Precautionary Precepts: The Power and Potential of the Precautionary Principle: An interview with Carol Raffensperger. Multinational Monitor (25:9); http://multinationalmonitor. org/mm2004/09012004/september04intervi ewraffen.html. Myers, Nancy. 2002. The precautionary principle puts values first. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Policy 22(3) 210-219. Raffensperger, Carol. 2000. “The Precautionary Principle as Forecaring: Hopeful Work for the Environmental Health Movement.” Transcript from a speech given at the “Taking Back our Food, Farms and Playgrounds Conference.” Mount Alverno Conference Center, Redwood City, CA. October 6-8, 2000. (http://www.sehn.org/ forecaring.html). Ponderosas in the Twin Sisters Inventoried Roadless Area in the Colville National Forest. Photo courtesy of Conservation Northwest.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

9

The Policy Primer is a column designed to highlight the ins & outs of a specific road or off-road vehicle policy. If you have a policy you’d like us to investigate, let us know!

Transportation Management Rule; Schedule for Implementation and Clarifying Direction By Tim Peterson

O

n June 8, 2006, several months after releasing their new rule, “Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use,” the Forest Service published a schedule for its implementation by 2010. And while changes to the Forest Service Manual and Handbook (necessary for implementing the rule) have still not been released for comment, Chief Dale Bosworth included guidance to help national forests begin the process. Additionally, Washington staff hosted trainings this spring for Forest Service employees clarifying how individual ranger districts should implement the rule. The chief’s interim direction contains some hopeful points, addressing some major concerns Wildlands CPR has with the Travel Management Rule. The schedule and clarifying direction can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/.

Interim Direction The chief issued two key interim directives that strengthen the rule, related to game retrieval, dispersed camping, and cross-country travel.

• Dispersed camping and game retrieval “The responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain designated routes solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or big game retrieval. Such designations represent site-specific decisions associated with specific roads and trails or road or trail segments, rather than a blanket exception to the rule. Designations under 36 CFR 212.51(b) will be applied sparingly to avoid undermining the purposes of the rule…” (emphasis added). This is a positive clarification, and could preclude district or forestwide exemptions to the cross-country travel prohibition for game retrieval. It could also preclude the exemption of massive 600-foot wide corridors

along designated routes for dispersed camping (a huge source of resource damage). The forests should apply these exemptions with great care, and rather than endorsing off-route travel for dispersed camping, the agency should determine which dispersed campsites are appropriate, and then designate the spurs to those sites as a part of travel management planning. Exemptions for game retrieval should be avoided wherever possible, as cross-country motorized use degrades habitat and wildlife security. Many forests have already banned game retrieval via cross-country motorized travel, and most hunters have been pleased at the improved hunting prospects. Simply stated, fewer motors equal better hunting opportunities.

• Cross-country travel Clarifying direction on designating “open areas” is also positive, stating that: “Designated areas should have natural resource characteristics that are suitable for cross-country motor vehicle use or should be so significantly altered by past actions that motor vehicle use might be appropriate. While there is no specific acreage limitation, areas should not be large or numerous. They are intended as specific designations covering small places with clear geographic boundaries, rather than entire landscapes” (emphasis added). While we would argue that areas that have been “significantly altered by past actions” should be allowed to rest and regenerate, this is also a positive clarification.

Staff Trainings Existing Forest Service Management Status as of January 2006 105 million acres on national forests generally open 46 million acres on national forests with motor vehicles restricted to existing routes 44 million acres on national forests with motor vehicles restricted to system routes 66 million acres open to cross-country motor vehicle use (on open) forests 386 thousand miles NFS road (287 thousand miles open to motor vehicles) 125 thousand miles NFS trail (32 thousand miles open to motor vehicles)

10

Trainings for agency staff also clarified the new rule’s implementation, covering topics from process overview and NEPA compliance to law enforcement, signing and funding. The Forest Service noted that the trainings, based on the as-yet unreleased Forest Service Manual and Handbook revisions, represented a “smorgasbord of choices — not formal direction.”

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

• Travel Analysis Guidance includes a new process called Travel Analysis, which would broaden the existing Roads Analysis process (where the transportation system is analyzed to determine the minimum acceptable road network) to include motor vehicle use on routes and in areas. The unreleased directives will also streamline the current Roads Analysis process. The trainings stress that a full inventory of all unauthorized user-created routes is not required, recognizing that full route inventories are costly and time-consuming and they “imply legitimacy of user-created routes.” The training courses affirm that the Chief expects planners to “engage in an open, collaborative process for travel planning and route designation.” The materials further clarify: “we want public involvement at each step of the process, not cursory involvement at one or two discrete places” (emphasis added). They suggest that the planning unit “contact user groups, environmental groups, and motorized and non-motorized recreation groups, including those outside the local area” (emphasis added). This is a key point, as many travel planning processes rely too heavily on the input of local motorized recreationists at the expense of other visitors. National forest lands are owned by all Americans, and we urge the agency to consider the input of local, regional and national conservation and quiet use organizations.

• National Environmental Policy Act In regard to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, the training materials state that: “adding a user created route to the forest transportation system is a site-specific travel management decision that must be fully evaluated in the associated NEPA document… A proposal that may have a significant impact requires an EIS… Proposals that would “substantially alter the character of an Inventoried Road-

less Area of 5,000 The six steps of travel management planning acres or more” normally require 1. Compile existing travel management direction. an EIS. (FSH 2. Assemble resource and social data. 1909.15, Sec. 3. Use travel analysis to identify proposals for change. 20-6)… Analysis 4. Environmental analysis and decision-making. must consider 5. Publish motor vehicle use map. past, present, and reasonably 6. Implement, monitor and revise. foreseeable future actions, including actions taken on non-NFS lands and routes that are not under Forest Service jurisdiction, e.g. county roads.” The trainings also direct that the Forest Service “must consider cumulative effects, regardless of the packaging and scope of the proposed action…Cumulative effects analysis cannot be avoided by segmenting a single proposal into small packages” (emphasis added). In terms of scope and scale, “the focus should be on what we need, not everything that’s ever been attempted…” “All too often, unmanaged user-created routes have been given undue legitimacy as travel plan revision begins. If the route was not constructed for a distinct purpose in compliance with NEPA, it should not be considered part of the ‘existing managed system.’” Planners are also urged to “develop proposed changes to the transportation system that enjoy broad support and avoid serious environmental issues” (emphasis added). We applaud this statement, and look forward to its faithful execution on the ground.

• Monitoring The trainings also clarified some troubling language found in the rule related to monitoring. The Forest Service must monitor for “compliance, mixed use [such as full-size vehicles and ATVs on the same route], resource impacts, new unauthorized routes, condition surveys for roads, trails and areas, [and for] concentrated use” (emphasis added). The text of the rule gave the impression that only designated routes and areas needed monitoring, and the inclusion of the requirement to monitor for new unauthorized routes is welcome.

• Emergency Closures Finally, the trainings correctly note that area closures related to “considerable adverse effects and temporary emergency closures do not require public involvement and overrides designation for the short term.” Such closures are accomplished by the line officer with a special order.

Conclusion Wildlands CPR is dedicated to assisting conservationists with travel planning on national forests over the next four years. This will be a busy time, and we encourage folks to get involved early and often. So far, representation from non-motorized recreationists in travel management planning has been low, and more of us urgently need to become involved. Remember, designating routes for off-road vehicles doesn’t just affect motorized users; it effects quiet users as well. Please visit www. wildlandscpr.org or contact [email protected] for more information on off-road vehicle monitoring, assembling a citizen’s alternative, or getting involved in your local travel planning process. —Tim Peterson is Wildlands CPR’s Transportation Policy Coordinator.

Off-road vehicles leave their marks in the Wasatch Cache National Forest. Photo by Dan Schroeder, Ogden Sierra Club.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

11

A New Way to Look at Forest Roads: the Road Hydrologic Impact Rating System (RHIR) By Ron W. Malecki

O

ne of the greatest impacts of roads and (especially motorized) trails is their effect on the hydrology of natural landscapes, including the flow of surface and ground water and nutrients. These hydrologic effects are responsible for changes to geomorphic processes and sediment loads in roaded areas (Luce and Wemple 2001).

Assessing Roads

I developed the Road Hydrologic Impact Rating (RHIR) system to provide a summary of forest road data and to compare forested ecosystems throughout the intermountain West. Forest roads are generally characterized as narrow, not covered with asphalt, lightly traveled, and remote (Forman and Alexander 1998). The RHIR system falls between a qualitative environmental index and a quantitative, data-intensive procedure to assess the impacts of forest roads. The RHIR form (see next page) provides a means to summarize and rate selected habitat variables. For each variable, levels are categorized as excellent, good, fair, or poor, with a corresponding score. The scores are added to give an overall rating ranging from 0-110, with zero being the worst and 110 being the best. Variables in the RHIR were based on the following metrics: road features, verge conditions, mass movements, and use. I selected variables that could be easily measured and used to identify features that may require management. Precise definitions, and optimum levels based on a composite of several sources, are described below: • Width – The width of the road/trail from verge to verge, or the actual road size. A mean value of < 1 m is optimal. • Gradient – The difference in road elevation divided by distance between measuring points. Steeper gradients concentrate surface runoff, create gullies and increase erosion. • Cut Slope Gradient – Cut slope erosion is related to soil stability and the amount of subsurface water intercepted by the road cut. Cutslope gradient may be the most influential site factor affecting mass movements. • Fill Slope Gradient – Fillslope erosion is also related to soil stability and the amount of subsurface water that is intercepted by the road cut. Fillslope failures are the most common road-related mass movements and are directly related to this gradient. • Verge Zone – Width of the verge zone comprised of contiguous undisturbed vegetation. A vegetated verge provides overstory, scatters runoff, and reduces sediment transport. • Surface Material – Composition of the roadbed in gravel, sand, silt, and/or clay. Fine sediments are detrimental to aquatic systems due to highly erodible tendencies and ease of transport. • Construction Method – Most forest roadbeds consist of the soil materials from which they were cut. On improved roads, an overlay of gravel is put down to decrease rutting, decrease surface runoff speed, and limit erosion. • Use – The type of use: recreational use from mountain

12

bikers, horseback riders, and off-road vehicles; or industrial use from heavy logging or mining vehicles. • Overstory Vegetation – Vegetation intercepts precipitation, reduces soil impacts, and helps maintain an open pore structure at the soil surface, promoting infiltration and inhibiting runoff and erosion (Manning, 1997). • Density – Forman and Alexander (1998) propose road density (in km/km2) as a useful index of roads’ effects on faunal movement, population fragmentation, human access, hydrology, and fire patterns. For hydrologic effects, such as altered groundwater, the road density maximum is 2-3km/km2. However, for a naturally functioning landscape with large carnivores, the maximum is 0.6km/km2. • Erosion – All of the above listed items are factors that influence th degree of erosion. Erosion can lead to stream sedimentation which can greatly impact aquatic health.

Conclusion

Assessing all the impacts of roads is difficult, and many of their far-reaching influences are still to be observed, studied, or considered. While the RHIR system does not address all conditions or road/trail types encountered, inherent biases will be consistent, so a rating can provide a relative basis for comparison over time. Another value of this index is that variables with a poor rating are isolated and can be targeted for management. This index should not stand alone but should be used in conjunction with all available information to arrive at conclusions about the forest road network. Road removal projects have been undertaken to restrict motorized access, increase hillslope stability, minimize erosion, restore natural drainage patterns, protect endangered plants and wildlife, and restore aquatic and wildlife habitat (Switalski et al. 2004). Road removal and recontouring can be the simplest and best option for the full recovery of hydrologic function within a watershed.

Literature Cited

Forman, R., and L. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231. Luce, C.H., and B. Wemple. 2001. Introduction to Special Issue on hydrologic and Geomorphic Effects of Forest Roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, 111–113 Manning, J.C., 1997. The Applied Principles of Hydrology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 21–28. — Ron Malecki is a graduate student in Environmental Studies at the University of Montana. For a full copy of his report, plese visit: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/roads/road_resources.htm.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Road Hydrologic Impact Rating System score sheet ROAD: ______________________

Station: ______________

Quantitative Rating: _______

GPS DATA: UTM Zone: ____ UTM Coordinates E: __________ N: _________

Elevation: _________

Personnel: ________________________________________________

Date: ____________

Rating Item

Excellent (10)

Good (8)

Fair (4)

Poor (0)

Width (m)

Road/trail very narrow < 1 m

Road/trail relatively narrow (1-3m)

Road/trail moderately narrow (3-5m)

Road/trail relatively wide (>5m)

16-30%

>40%

Gradient (%)

Score

0-5%

6-15%

Cut Slope Gradient

Cut slope not present (0m)

Cut slope very minor (<1m)

Cut slope relatively Cut slope very pronounced (1-3m) pronounced (>3m)

Fill Slope Gradient

Fill slope not present (0m)

Fill slope very minor (<1m)

Fill slope relatively Fill slope very pronounced (1-3m) pronounced (>3m)

Verge Zone

Surface Material Construction Method Use Overstory Vegetation

Verge well protected, buffer wide (>10m)

Verge zone Verge zone protected, buffer disturbed and moderate (5–9.9m) narrow (1–4.9m)

Verge zone disturbed and very narrow < 1 m

Fine sediments are Fines are present but Fines common rare or absent but limited (10-20% (21-60% (<10% of road/trail) of road/trail) of road/trail)

Fines extensive (>61% of road/trail)

≥ 3 inch gravel

< 3 inch gravel

Compacted soils

Bare soils

No use

Hiking/walking

Mt. biking horseback

Heavy trucks 4x4 off road ORV/logging vehicles

Closed canopy (100% cover)

Density

Single road or trail

Erosion

No erosion

Canopy common Occasional canopy (>80-99% cover) (>40-79% cover)

Canopy rare (0-39% cover)

Single road/trail Multiple roads/trails Multiple roads/trails with branching (>2-3km) (<2-3km) spur road/trail Limited .2-.5 m Moderate (0.2-0.5m of road) (0.51-1.0m of road)

Extensive (>1.0m of road)

Qualitative Ratings: Excellent (> 80); Good (60 to 80); Fair (20 to 60); Poor (< 20).

Road/Trail Widths: _____

_____

Mean Road/Trail: Width _____

_____

_____

_____

Transect Spacing _____

_____

Total Score: __________ _____

_____

_____

_____

Station Length _____

Road/Trail Condition: (check one) _____ New _____ Degraded _____ Overgrown _____ Slumped _____ Slides Surrounding Habitat: Woodland Wetland Grassland Grazed Land

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Riparian

Other (specify): __________

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.

Comparing the Ecological Effects of Linear Developments on Terrestrial Mammals By Sharon Mader

R

oads and the human activities associated with them have profound impacts on wildlife. Roads, however, are not the only human intrusion that cuts through natural landscapes. Many other linear barriers mar the natural landscape, including trails, electrical power lines, oil and gas pipelines, and railways. According to Lyon et al. (1985), the linear development itself typically does not cause a disturbance response; it’s the human presence on it that causes problems, therefore the level of use must be assessed and evaluated. Foreman (1995) determined that some linear features could be positive and some negative in terms of wildlife impacts: they can provide habitat, serve as conduits for travel or seriously impact wildlife by becoming barriers or sinks that negatively affect wildlife travel and mortality.

How do linear developments affect wildlife?

Photo courtesy of Wilderness.net.

There have been a significant number of comprehensive studies conducted to assess the impacts of paved roads, but much less has been written about the impacts of dirt roads and trails on wildlife. There are even fewer studies that directly compare the diverse species-specific impacts that emerge along this spectrum of linear features. Jalkotzy et al. (1997) described possible wildlife disturbances within distinct categories to help assess potential impacts within the spectrum of linear barriers. These categories are as follows:

2. Social Disruption

1. Individual Disruption

This refers to wildlife disruption that occurs in the immediate vicinity of a linear feature. Although all linear developments can cause problems, roads probably have the greatest impact on wildlife populations (Foreman et al. 2003). Largerranging, more sensitive species are most affected by roads in sometimes not so obvious ways. Wolves, for example, are sensitive to road activity near their natal dens and these disturbances can cause wolves to move pups to less-disturbed areas (Chapman 1977). The effects of trails on wildlife can have similar negative impacts. In general, smaller linear barriers tend to be less disruptive because they usually have narrower rights-of-way, more curvilinearity and less intense human use (Foreman 1995). Large carnivores tend to be quite sensitive to human presence on trails. Both grizzly bears and black bears avoided trails and tended to maintain an average distance of 274m from trails. Avoidance distances by bears increased to

14

883m of trails in areas that were more heavily used (Kasworm 1990). Mountain lions were found to adopt a greater degree of nocturnal feeding behavior in order to avoid humans on trails (Jalkotzy et al. 1997).

This is considered any change to the social structure of a population that results from a linear barrier. Changes can include displacement into habitat areas already occupied by other animals of the same species, changes in group structure, or mortality in different age classes as a result of the linear feature (Foreman 1997). Again, these impacts vary significantly for different species and can therefore be difficult to quantify in terms of general impacts on wildlife when comparing and contrasting roads and trails.

3. Habitat Avoidance

When wildlife avoid habitat because of linear barriers or the activities associated with them, habitat can be lost or not used to its full potential (Jalkotzy et al. 1997). Elk tend to avoid habitat close to roads, particularly in areas where they are hunted (Czech 1991). In northwest Montana, grizzlies avoided habitats within 274 m of trails (Kasworm 1990). Mace (1996) found that grizzly bears in the Swan Mountains of Montana appeared to move away from trails during spring, summer, and autumn. They concluded that grizzly bears had become negatively conditioned to human activities and avoided what would otherwise have been valuable habitat. In general, the impacts of trails depend on the types of activities and frequency of use (e.g., hiking, snowmobiling, biking).

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Studies revealed a broad variation among species in their response to human presence and specific recreational activities on trails.

4. Habitat Disruption or Enhancement

Linear developments can disrupt habitat by introducing exotic plants, and pollutants like dust, salt and vehicle emissions (Foreman 1995). Habitat can also be altered when vegetation is removed for road construction or when new plants or grasses are planted in highway right-of-ways. Whether these human activities disrupt or enhance a particular habitat can usually be linked to the width of the linear feature. The effects of habitat disruption on wildlife are probably small when compared with the effects of habitat avoidance (Jalkotzy et al. 1997).

5. Direct or Indirect Mortality

Direct mortality is a result of the road itself (e.g. wildlifevehicle collisions or powerline collisions/electrocutions), while indirect mortality can result when roads or trails provide greater access for hunting, trapping, and poaching. A report compiled by Hellmund Associates cited research where aggressive bird species were observed following trails and displacing other sensitive species, resulting in increased predation on songbirds and other neotropical birds. Changes to the area surrounding a trail can have impacts that extend for hundreds to thousands of feet and are referred to as the trail distance effect (Hellmund Associates 1998).

6. Population effects

These are defined as wildlife populations suffering losses as a direct result of linear developments. Roads and vehicles can have a tremendous negative impact on terrestrial vertebrates, but seem to have less impact on overall population size (Foreman and Alexander 1998). There are many information gaps that make it difficult to assess the impacts of roads, but there is growing evidence that linear developments can affect the distribution, movements, and overall populations of wildlife species (Jakotzy et al. 1997). For example, there is concern that development within the petroleum and forest industries has impacted woodland caribou populations (James et al. 2000). Also, studies found that desert bighorn sheep fail to utilize 20-35% of suitable habitat in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, as a result of human activity and this habitat avoidance has resulted in a decreased population (Papouchis et al. 2001). Another potential impact is the displacement of wildlife to areas with greater risk of predation (Papouchis et al. 2001). The presence of humans on trails and roads can also lead to increased stress on wildlife populations and disrupt wildlife behavior (Vohman 2002).

How do we measure the cumulative impacts of linear features? Cumulative effects of roads, trails, and other linear barriers on wildlife should be measured through a cumulative effects assessment (CEA) and utilize geographic information systems (GIS). Fairbanks and Tullouse (2002) urged managers to incorporate research findings on wildlife into GIS mapping to help assess the impacts of proposed linear developments. The three main ways to measure the cumulative

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Road activity can cause wolves to move their natal dens to less-disturbed areas. Photo by George Wuerthner.

impacts of linear features are: 1) measure road densities, 2) assess road/trail design, and 3) conduct an ecological evaluation prior to development (Hellmund Associates 1998).

Existing systems for evaluating road/trail impacts on a landscape level

After reviewing existing literature to identify a viable system for comparatively evaluating and weighting the impacts of roads and trails, I discovered three systems (two of which have specific evaluative measures). The first included in the Arc Wildlife Services study presented a model developed by Weaver (1986) for assessing impacts on large carnivores or other sensitive species that tend to avoid linear developments. The second system provides a set of assessment tools to evaluate impacts on small mammals (Joslin et al. 1999). The third provides a weighted system based on flight distances to compare and contrast reactions of wildlife to a variety of trail uses (Hellmund Associates 1998). It would be ideal to have a system that includes all elements, species and factors in one, however, since species’ needs and reactions to linear development are often dramatically different, it may be more appropriate to use a series of weighted systems in order to best represent the big picture impacts of a proposed road or trail. It seems safe to infer from the research that the larger and more significant the linear feature and the greater the density of developments within area, the greater the impacts on wildlife. It is also evident from the research that the cumulative effects of all linear intrusions (roads, trails, seismic lines, power lines, rail lines) should be considered collectively to truly grasp the overall effects on the diverse species that inhabit any given ecosystem. Only when we consider the overall density of roads and trails, taking into account the zones of avoidance for multiple species, will we glimpse the ecological impacts of our choices. Perhaps by doing so in a meaningful way, decision-makers will choose to limit new linear features or realign human travel routes in a way that will provide meaningful ecological benefits to wildlife populations. —Sharon Mader has been a life-long environmental activist and is currently an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Montana. You can see Sharon’s full study at http:// www.wildlandscpr.org/roads/road_resources.htm.

— References follow on next page — 15

References Chapman, R.C. 1977. The Effects of Human Disturbance on Wolves. M. Sc. Thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Czech, B. 1991. Elk behavior in response to human disturbance at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. Applied Animal Behavior, SCI. 29(1-4):26977. Fairbanks, S.W., R. Tullous. 2002. Distribution of Pronghorn on Antelope Island State Park, Utah, USA, Before and After Establishment of Recreational Trails. Natural Areas Journal 22: 277-282. Forman, R.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Forman, R.T., L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29: 207-31. Hellmund Associates. 1998. Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind: A Handbook for Trail Planners by Trails and Wildlife Task Force, Colorado State Parks. 50 pp. Jalkotzy, M.G., P.I. Ross and M.D. Nasserden. 1997. The Effects of Linear Developments on Wildlife: A Review of Selected Scientific Literature. Prepared for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Arc Wildlife Services, ltd., Calgary. 115 pp. James, A. R., A.K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of Caribou and Wolves in Relation to Linear Developments, Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1):154-159.

Joslin. G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307 pp. Kasworm, W.F., T. L. Manley. 1990. Road and Trail Influences on Grizzly Bears and Black Bears in Northwest Montana, International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:79-84. Lyon, L.J., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edge, J.D. Jones, D.W. McCleerey. 1985. Coordinating Elk and Timber Management: Final Report of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study 1970-1985. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 53 pp. Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zurring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395-1404. Papouchis, C.M., F.J. Singer, W.B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Human Recreation, Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):573-582. Vohman, E.C., Effects of Roads and Trails on Wildlife and Ecosystems, Prepared for High Country Citizen’s Alliance. Weaver, J., R. Escano, D. Mattson, T. Puchlerz, and D. Despain. 1986. A cumulative effects model for grizzly bear management in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. In:Glen P. Contreras and Keith E. Evans (compilers). Proc. Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. P. 234-46.

Photo copyright Tim Peterson; idiomImages.com.

16

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Book Review Last Great Wilderness: The Campaign to Establish the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, by Roger Kaye. Published by the University of Alaska Press, 1-888-252-6657. Hardcover, 300 pages, black and white and color photos. After fighting to protect the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge from oil drilling for the past quarter-century, defenders of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge need few reminders of its storied values. Yet many of us know all too little about the long, hard-fought campaign to first establish the refuge, and how that struggle informs our own today. That will now change with publication of Roger Kaye’s absorbing new book, Last Great Wilderness, the first in-depth examination of that epic conflict. Kaye documents the important roles that Wilderness Society president Olaus Murie and his wife Mardy played, as well as the work of Wilderness Act Author Howard Zahniser, Sigurd Olson, Stewart Brandborg, Conservation Foundation president Fairfield Osborn, and even Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Last Great Wilderness shows how the effort to establish the Refuge influenced other national wilderness battles at the time, including the eightyear struggle to pass the 1964 Wilderness Act. Roger Kaye is well-suited to tell this story. He has worked as a wilderness specialist and pilot for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Arctic Range for over twenty years. A PhD in wilderness studies, he has extensively researched and written about the Arctic Refuge and the wilderness concept. Richly illustrated, his account is at once a highly readable story and an authoritative history of the wilderness movement during the postwar era.

the national wilderness movement is as strong if not stronger today than in 1960. Last Great Wilderness will inspire all of us and better equip today’s defenders of the Arctic Refuge and other wild places.

—Book Review by Kevin Proescholdt

To Order the book: Visit www.uaf.edu/uapress or call toll free: 1-888-252-6657, 312 pages, color and black and white photos, $29.95 cloth. You can also order it from your local bookstore or Amazon.com.

Winter Wildlands Publishes New Report on Winter Recreational Access U.S. Forest Service surveys estimate that backcountry skiers and snowshoers outnumber snowmobiles by 28 percent in winter visits to national forest lands in the West, yet those skiers and snowshoers have far less access and opportunity than their motorized counterparts according to a winter recreation report released recently by Winter Wildlands Alliance. The report, “Winter Recreation on Western National Forest Lands,” covers national forest lands in the 11 Western Snow Belt states and breaks out on a forest-byforest and state-by-state basis the numbers of motorized and non-motorized winter visits along with miles of groomed winter trails and total backcountry acres open and closed to snowmobiles. You can download the report at: http://www.winterwildlands.org/resources/ reports/WWA_WinterRecreation.pdf or contact Winter Wildlands Alliance at 208.336.4203 to order a free hard copy of the report.

The values the Arctic Refuge has come to represent—cultural, recreational, spiritual, and ecological—are as meaningful for us as they were a half-century ago. The importance of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Jason and Cyrus Kiely enjoying the backcountry ski trails in the Lolo National Forest, MT. Photo courtesy of the Kielys.

17

A Plague on All Your Forests By Ted Williams This essay originally appeared in the April 2006 Fly Rod & Reel magazine. Our edited version is reprinted with permission of the author. Bill Geer, quoted toward the end of the article, is a member of Wildlands CPR’s Board of Directors.

I

f you want to locate the best fishing in our national forests, find the logging roads; then go somewhere else. Road building is the federal government’s single most destructive land-management practice. Roads are mortality sinks for all manner of fish and wildlife. They fragment habitat; they cause landslides; they block fish migration with their frequently impassible culverts; they serve as delivery systems for silt that bleeds off clearcuts; they provide conduits for invasions of cowbirds and invasive exotic plants. Consider Deer Creek in Idaho’s Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Because it is in part of the forest that, until recently, was officially roadless, Deer Creek runs cold and clear, and it ripples with big Yellowstone cutts — one of the most beautiful and ephemeral essences of the American West and recently petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. So pristine was Deer Creek that, in August 2003, a Forest Service survey crew determined that it should be used as the standard of excellence, “a reference area for comparison to streams impacted by various land uses.” The survey team went on to recommend “that activities not be allowed which would reduce the quality of fish and amphibian habitat in the drainage.”

Native trout depend on clean, cold water. Fishing the St. Joe River, in the heart of wild Idaho. Photo by George Wuerthner, courtesy of Wilderness.net.

18

That recommendation certainly is in keeping with the Forest Service’s stated “fish mission” for the 150,000 stream miles and 2.5 million lake acres we’ve entrusted it with: “World-class fishing depends on world-class habitats, and the US Forest Service together with other federal, state and local partners, is working hard to protect, restore and enhance your streams and lakes.” Well, not really. Deer Creek, along with other pristine trout streams in the Sage Creek Roadless Area, had been protected by President Clinton’s roadless rule. Last August — two months after the Bush administration rescinded that rule — Deer Creek became the first victim of the administration’s substitute, which relies on “local control” for roadless-area management. In Idaho, dominated by timber and mining interests and with more roadless national forestland than any state other than Alaska, that’s like asking two racoons and a hen to vote on what to have for lunch. A major road was punched into the Deer Creek watershed for the benefit of J.R. Simplot Company, which will now drill 25 exploration holes and, if it finds the phosphate its geologists say is there, will expand its open-pit strip mine for another 6.5 miles-through the Deer Creek drainage and the drainages of Manning, Wells Canyon, and upper Crow creeks, all prime cutthroat habitat. How did we get from a “roadless rule” that protects trout streams to one that sacrifices them? The story starts in the late 1990’s when a young, utterly aberrant bureaucrat was running the US Forest Service. His background was not in timber extraction but in fishing, guiding, teaching and fisheries biology. His name was Michael Dombeck, and he understood what no chief before or since has understood — that the most valuable resource produced by our national forests is water. Dombeck also understood that the best of that water comes from the healthiest woods, woods undefiled by roads, and that there aren’t a lot of that kind left. In fact, only 58.5 million acres — two percent of the American landscape — were designated by his agency as “roadless,” meaning they were greater than 5,000 acres and lacked the major, highspeed logging-truck highways taxpayers buy for timber companies. There were all kinds of smaller roads that allowed vehicular access by sportsmen. Roadless areas are roadless for an excellent reason; they were the places Big Timber didn’t want to go — the steep, infertile, icy, fragile, water-rich, trout-filled places. In fact, the national forests themselves were acquired because the timber industry didn’t want them. Even today, after the industry has high-graded its own holdings, the national forests contribute less than five percent of the nation’s lumber and pulp. If all national forest logging ended tomorrow, our economy wouldn’t flinch, and private-land operators would be spared subsidized timber sales that drive down fair-market value of their logs.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Dombeck, like every other thinking conservationist, concluded that the last thing our national forests needed was more major roads, especially in areas greater than 5,000 acres where none exist. So in January 1999, as part of a modern “transportation policy” for his agency, he proposed an 18-month moratorium on road building in 130 national forests. The industry, accustomed to doing whatever it pleased on our national forestland, was apoplectic. In separate, ultimately unsuccessful, actions the State of Idaho and the Wyoming Timber Industry Association sued in federal district court. In the most extensive and wide-ranging environmental review in the history of federal rule making, the Forest Service held 600 hearings in 37 states and collected 2.5 million public comments, 96 percent supportive. A poll by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia, revealed that 84 percent of America’s hunters and 86 percent of America’s anglers favored keeping roads out of roadless areas. It was by far the most popular rule ever hatched by a federal resource agency. On January 12, 2001, largely on the strength of that public commentary, President Clinton issued the Roadless Area Conservation Policy directive that ended virtually all logging, roadbuilding and coal, gas, oil and other mineral leasing in 58 million acres of our last best forestland. Then George W. Bush became President. To run the Forest Service as Undersecretary of Agriculture, he selected Mark Rey who, as a timber-industry lobbyist and later as a staffer for forest subcommittee chair Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), had dedicated himself to increasing the cut on our national forests. Immediate revocation of an initiative as popular as the roadless rule would have been politically costly. So the Bush White House set about administering daily drops of arsenic. First, it put the rule on hold for two months; then it refused to defend it in court. It even aided and abetted the plaintiffs by gushing about the timber industry’s imagined woes — this despite the pledge to Congress by John Ashcroft, taken under oath during his confirmation hearings as attorney general, that he would defend the rule as the “law of the land.” The Bush administration officially killed the roadless rule on May 5, 2005, replacing it with a rule that gives Rey power to decide what roadless areas, if any, get protected but meanwhile invites the governors of each state to do the Forest Service’s work for it — that is, commit to an expensive, tedious and perhaps ultimately pointless exercise in which state employees gather data, do inventories, dispense information and hold public hearings. Forest supervisors and regional foresters have been quietly contacting governors and urging them to forget about making recommendations for roadless-area protection and just let the Forest Service deal with it in its planning process. Some states, however, understand that “local control” is a euphemism for business as usual. Local control, after all, is why our national forests are already sliced and diced with 383,000 miles of roads — enough to circle the globe 15 times. The attorneys general of California, New Mexico and Oregon responded to Rey’s subterfuge by suing the Bush administration, charging that by replacing the roadless rule with a state-by-state petition process the Forest Service violated NEPA. On the other hand, Idaho’s elected officials — most notably Sen. Larry Craig and Governor Dirk Kempthorne — are positively giddy about the demise of roadless protection. This seems odd because the state’s 9,322,000 acres of roadless national forestland is keeping imperiled fish and wildlife vital to the state’s economy on the planet and, at least in some cases, off the Endangered Species List. For example, Idaho’s roadless areas contain 68 percent of the state’s remaining bull trout habitat, 74 percent of the chinook salmon habitat, 74 percent of the steelhead habitat, 58 percent of the cutthroat habitat, and 48 percent of the redband rainbow trout habitat. And these areas produce the biggest and most elk and deer.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Photo by Eric Engbretson, courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service.

With a few notable exceptions America’s sportsmen have been strangely silent on roadless area protection, despite the fact that about 85 percent of them want it. Unfortunately, many of these exceptions are among the 15 percent who don’t want it. They include officials of make-believe conservation organizations such as the Ruffed Grouse Society (who obtain major financing from the timber lobby by whooping it up for roads and clearcuts at every opportunity) and outdoor writers who imagine that Clinton’s rule was a conspiracy to separate their butts from their four-wheelers (despite the fact that roadless areas have plenty of off-road-vehicle access) and thereby allocate to predators the game they otherwise would have shot. In the early 1980’s, when Bill Geer of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership was directing the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, he instructed his biologists to look for environmental factors that limited the size and number of deer. They found that the most important factor by far was road construction. “And in those days,” he recalls, “we promoted as many roads as the Forest Service.” So Geer had his agency do an about face and start closing roads. It proved to be the best thing he could have done for anglers and hunters. I asked Geer why sportsmen keep working against their own interests — letting groups like the NRA and the Ruffed Grouse Society speak for them on roadless protection, voting in a president and legislators who cheerfully sacrifice fish and wildlife for the convenience of their campaign contributors. He couldn’t answer the question, but I liked his response: “I’ve had this theory ever since I was director in Utah. You could tell hunters and anglers that ‘tomorrow we’re going to round you up and shoot you,’ and they’d piss and moan about it all night long, and next morning they’d be lined up waiting to get shot.” — Ted Williams is a freelance writer specializing in conservation and the environment. He is editor-atlarge of Audubon, conservation editor of Fly Rod & Reel, and sits on the Council of Chiefs of the Outdoor Writers Association of America.

19

Restoration Program Update The Restoration Program has generated some great success this summer. Here in Montana Marnie Criley, Wildlands CPR Restoration Program Coordinator, presented intern Breeann Johnson’s report, Opportunities for Investing in Restoration Work in Montana, at the Montana Governor’s Restoration Forum held in Billings. Approximately 300 people attended the forum, which Wildlands CPR co-sponsored and helped organize. For more information on the forum and Breeann’s research, see our cover story in this issue of The Road-RIPorter. Across the region, the Hells Canyon Collaborative is moving forward with our first project. Wildlands CPR brought Dr. Fraser Shilling to the June collaborative meeting to talk about the Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) tool. Fraser’s presentation made clear that EMDS would be useful in conducting travel planning for the entire HCNRA. For now, we’ll begin to inventory and decommission 73 miles of roads in the upper Imnaha River drainage that should have been closed 10 years ago to reduce road densities for wildlife habitat. Local residents, collaborative members, and 20 students of Whitman College Professor Phil Brick’s class inventoried the road system at the end of August. From this inventory we will prioritize needed road removal and work with the agency to put local contractors to work restoring the watershed. On the national front, Marnie attended the National Forest Restoration Collaborative’s Forest Service Briefing on July 25 in Washington DC. Six members of the collaborative met with eight Forest Service program leaders to discuss collaborative restoration. Several program leaders expressed real interest in pursuing more comprehensive restoration projects. Along these same lines, Marnie organized a presentation by Cindy Swanson on the Forest Service Region 1 Integrated Restoration Strategy. This is a promising proposal that could become a national model for prioritizing comprehensive restoration work.

Flathead National Forest Wildlands CPR Science Coordinator, Adam Switalski, and Marnie spent some time this summer focused on habitat connectivity restoration in the Swan Valley, MT. The LaSalle Adams Fund awarded Wildlands CPR and Northwest Connections (NWC) two years of funding to improve grizzly bear habitat connectivity in this valley west of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. A legacy of intensive road building and logging has left much of the valley in a degraded state. Community members and students are helping collect data to determine restoration priorities for the Forest

20

Citizen scientists reset wildlife tracking plates as part of a monitoring project. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Service. Adam modified a road survey form that citizen scientists are using to collect the data. With the help of Northwest Connections, Wildlands CPR has lead two monitoring field trips in the Swan this summer. To volunteer in the Swan Valley contact Jessie Lund at: [email protected].

Clearwater National Forest Adam continues to work with Anna Holden (volunteer coordinator) on the Clearwater citizen science program. We now have a dozen remotely-triggered cameras and eight track plates monitoring wildlife use of removed and open roads. Citizen monitors have been collecting photos and tracks of bears and other wildlife. Additionally, they have been conducting vegetation surveys, measuring erosion, and collecting stream invertebrates. Adam and Anna recently attended the Society for Conservation Biology meeting in San Jose, CA. Anna gave a presentation on this project while Adam presented on wildlife and road removal on the Flathead National Forest, MT. To volunteer on the Clearwater National Forest and see some of the amazing restoration work there, contact Anna at: [email protected].

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Transportation Program Update Just before press time, comments were due on the Forest Service’s proposed changes to the National Trail Classification System. Comments are being reluctantly accepted, only after the Backcountry Horsemen of America sued. The proposal contains some troubling provisions, including suggesting that planners examine opening maintenance level one roads (closed to vehicles, but retained on the transportation system for long-term management) to motorcycles. This ill-advised direction would threaten wildlife security, soils, and could lead to offroute use and proliferation of new unauthorized user-created routes. With enforcement already lacking, opening closed roads where law enforcement vehicles have no access would create an impossible law enforcement situation. Further, proposed changes to FSM 2309.18, 2.32a 6 direct that “User needs for differing distances and experiences can be accommodated by providing cutoffs on a system of loop trails.” This could lead to a vast system of new connectors and cutoffs that would make our forests more raceway than respite. Interestingly, whenever the word “need” refers to a user group, it refers directly to motorcycle use. Fifty-seven organizations signed onto our comments, which you can view in full at http:// www.wildlandscpr.org/about_us/OrgUpdates/ index.htm. Let’s hope they take a moment to consider the “needs” of other users as well, not just dirt bikers.

NTWC Update Wildlands CPR Forest Campaign Coordinator Jason Kiely made a presentation to the new national recreation director for the Forest Service, Jim Bedwell, and the agency’s regional recreation directors charged with overseeing travel planning. The Coalition is working more and more closely with member and partner groups. Jason collaborated with non-profit PR firm Resource Media to develop and brief members on effective messages to use during travel planning processes. Wildlands CPR and other Coalition leaders helped pay for this message development. When the agency released the travel planning schedule and stats on the miles and acres affected by ATVs, dirt bikes, and 4X4s, Jason distributed this information widely. Building on this, Jason has developed an online database to help Coalition members, partners and funders assess and track which organizations are working on a given travel plan and in what capacity; what’s at stake for each plan; and what the political landscape is for each planning process.

With Forest Service and BLM travel planning beginning and in progress across the nation, we stand ready to assist our conservation partners with advice, data, training, monitoring information, and citations on scientific and policy issues related to roads, off-road vehicles and transportation. Please contact [email protected] for more information.

Information requests Adam continues to provide citizens, activists, scientists, and managers with scientific information on roads, road removal, and off-road vehicles (ORVs). Information was provided to the Center for Biological Diversity, Forest Guardians, the Nez Perce Tribe, Western Transportation Institute, Conservation Northwest, the Wilderness Society, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Nature Conservancy, Western Environmental Law Center, and other concerned citizens.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

Photo by Adam Switalski.

21

More Ways to Support Wildlands CPR

A

fter big fire scares in July, August turned out to be a surprisingly cool and wet month (relatively speaking), so we’ve all been enjoying the Montana summer. Nonetheless, there are quite a few fires burning around the state and the west, as the consequences of global warming begin to bear on an annual basis. These changes in the weather highlight the importance of protecting and restoring wildlands – which offer resiliency against the changes that are to come over the next decades. Wildlands CPR is in the midst of that work – promoting watershed restoration and working to stop off-road vehicle abuse of wildlands. This summer we’ve been busy getting the word out about our new book: A Road Runs Through It: Reviving Wild Places. Several of the book’s essayists have offered to host readings in their local communities. As those are scheduled, we’ll be sure to contact Wildlands CPR members in the area. Speaking of which, thanks very much to Katie Alvord for coordinating the first such reading, in Ketchum, ID. Katie is co-founder of Wildlands CPR and also wrote one of the essays in the book. She did a double-promotion, reading from A Road Runs Through It and from her book, Divorce Your Car. We’d especially like to thank our stellar summer intern Marlee Ostheimer. Marlee’s work focused on new grants research as well as book promotion. Her efforts made an enormous difference in getting initial copies of the book out the door to decision-makers, funders and other interested parties, as well as press and book announcements. Thanks so much Marlee — it was great sharing the office with you all summer.

Wildlands CPR is part of two annual workplace-giving campaigns, the Combined Federal Campaign and Montana Shares.

Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) As the world’s largest and most successful workplace giving campaign, each year more than 300 CFC campaigns raise millions of dollars. Pledges made by federal civilian, postal and military donors support non-profit organizations providing health and human service benefits throughout the world. Wildlands CPR is a qualifying charity in the 2006 campaign from September 1 – December 15; our CFC number is #2380, or find us under “Conservation and Preservation Charities of America” in the CFC brochure.

Montana Shares – Montana workplace-giving Montana Shares is a partnership of Montana-based nonprofits devoted to improving the quality of life in communities throughout the state. Member groups promote and protect Montana’s human, animal, cultural and natural resources. Wildlands CPR is a member group of Montana Shares. An employee of ANY business in Montana can choose to make a payroll deduction contribution to Wildlands CPR. See your Human Resource coordinator, or the Montana Shares website, www.montanashares.org.

Thank you!

In addition to promoting the book, we’ve been busy preparing for our annual gifts campaign. To those of you who have already received letters from us — please know that your support during this campaign makes a huge difference to our programs. Thanks, in advance, for your contributions and donations to our work. A big thank you, as well, to the Lazar, Maki, Norcross, and Weeden Foundations for generous grants to support our work! Photo by Dan Schroeder, Ogden Sierra Club.

22

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2006

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, Autumn Equinox 2006

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

Aerial view of the Mollie Beattie Wilderness, Alaska. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish & WIldlife Service.

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

If you want to locate the best fishing in our national forests, find the logging roads; then go somewhere else. — Ted Williams

(see Odes to Roads, page 18)

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