Road Riporter 13.3 Autumn Equinox 2008

Autumn Equinox 2008. Volume 13 No. 3

From New Mexico to the Caribbean:

A story of road decommissioning, marine biology and the future of watershed restoration. By Bryan Bird

Inside… A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 2-3 From New Mexico to the Caribbean, by Bryan Bird. Pages 4-6 Regional Reports & Updates. Page 7 DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder. Pages 8-9 Citizen Spotlight: Wayne Jenkins, by Cathrine L. Walters. Pages 10-11 Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation Program Updates. Pages 12-13 Policy Primer. Pages 14-15 Biblio Notes: Paving Paradise, by Shannon Donahue. Pages 16-18 New Resources. Page 19 Heavy equipment is put to work restoring roads in the Santa Fe National Forest, part of the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP). Photo by John Dixon, US Forest Service.

Odes to Roads, by Greg Peters. Pages 20-21 Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

— story begins on page 4 —

Check out our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org

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

The Dangers of Playing with Fire The Bush Administration played with fire last year when it cut the Forest Service’s 2008 fire-fighting budget from $1.6 billion to $1.2 billion. In early August, with nearly 2 hot, dry months still remaining in the agency’s fiscal year, the Forest Service had already overdrawn its fire account. To deal with the problem, Forest Service Chief Gail Kimball announced that the agency would transfer $400 million from other programs to cover the shortfall. The consequences of this transfer are significant, and the impacts will be felt in many National Forest System and maintenance programs. In the last ten years, fire suppression has gone from about 15% of the Forest Service’s budget to about 50%. The $1.2 billion they had budgeted for FY ’08 is already nearly half of the annual budget – making it extremely difficult for the Forest Service to manage anything but fire. Early this year, Congress provided supplemental fire funding but clearly it wasn’t enough. Five primary factors put the agency in this position: • • • • •

Increased fire severity and frequency due to climate change (drought, increased insect infestations, etc.); Fuels build-up from past fire-suppression; Rapid and extensive development in the wildland urban interface – dramatically increasing the amount of private property at risk from wildfire; Inability of Congress or the Administration to create a separate, viable and reasonable funding source for wildland fire fighting, and; Contracting out firefighting responsibilities adding overhead costs previously not absorbed by the agency.

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 Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator Sarah Peters Communications Coordinator Franklin Seal Montana State ORV Coordinator Adam Rissien Utah State ORV Coordinator Laurel Hagen Program Associates Cathrine L. Walters Restoration Research Associate Josh Hurd Journal Editor Dan Funsch Interns & Volunteers Geoff Fast, Aaron Kindle, Greg Peters, Cassidy Randall Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben

This year, fire lookouts watched as the agency’s fire-fighting budget went up in smoke. Photo by Dan Funsch. © 2008 Wildlands CPR

2

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Fire has become more expensive to control because of these factors, and as a result the Forest Service has lost some of their capacity to use fire as a management tool. But fire is still a critical component of many functioning ecosystems, whether we’ve built houses in them or not, and the agency needs to find a way to keep this tool in its toolbox. Fire isn’t the only management problem the agency is facing, but with constant budget shortfalls, and increasing firefighting costs, it is eating up the funding needed for other resource issues. Roads for example, cause significant short and long-term impacts to forest ecosystems. More than half a million roads cut through national forests, bleeding sediments into drinking water supplies, fragmenting wildlife and aquatic habitat, spreading invasive pests and pathogens, and damaging fisheries. Increasingly severe and frequent pacific storms cause tens of millions of dollars worth of damage nearly every year, much of that from massive road failures. In 2007, Wildlands CPR and the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative worked with Congress, the Forest Service and others to promote a new funding mechanism for dealing with old, failing, expensive and ecologically-damaging forest roads. This resulted in the 2007 Omnibus Appropriations bill including $39.4 million for the new Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRRI). The LRRI provided funding to every region of the Forest Service to fix ailing forest roads by upgrading culverts (to restore fish passage) or performing critical maintenance. It also provided long overdue and much needed funding for restoring watersheds by removing unneeded forest roads. But $40 million is just a drop in the bucket – the Forest Service has a road maintenance backlog of approximately $10 billion.

Area of high burn intensity in the 2007 Wyman Gulch fire (Montana). Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Restoring a road in Colorado’s Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. Photo by Wendy Magwire, US Forest Service.

Now even this limited funding is in jeopardy. The LRRI funds are just one of numerous accounts being raided to cover the fire-fighting shortfall. Some regions estimate that the initial $400 million transfer will take approximately half of the LRRI funds allocated to their region. But many LRRI projects had matching funds, so the agency risks losing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in matching funds from public and private partners. The Forest Service cannot manage their lands effectively when forced to operate in this fashion. They cannot commit to restoration, mitigation or even planning projects when they don’t know if funding will be available for the duration of the year. They cannot commit to contractors, jeopardizing local jobs. They cannot commit to partners who bring matching funds to the table to do important work. Fire is not the only ecological or economic challenge the Forest Service is facing. If the agency doesn’t fix its crumbling road system, starting with the reclamation of unneeded roads, we will end up with severely damaged fisheries, degraded drinking water, and the loss of access to public lands from road failures. In previous years, Congress has paid the Forest Service back for money it had to borrow to fight fires but time is running out on this congress and it looks bleak for another supplemental appropriation to reimburse the Forest Service for this year’s fire transfers. Earlier this year legislation was introduced in the House to create separate fire-fighting accounts, so the agency could have a reliable budget. The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act) (H.R. 5541), though far from perfect, could ease the burden if it passed. So would zoning regulations to prevent more exurban growth; prescribed fire to reduce fuel loading; investment in community “fire-proofing” in the wildland urban interface; thinning in the interface; and numerous other approaches. Instead nearly all of the money is being poured into suppression. The Forest Service has a lot more “fires” to put out than those that actually involve heat and flame. Unstable, under-maintained roads are like rotting foundations waiting to collapse when the next big storm comes through. Thousands of miles already have, and thousands more will. And the damage can be more costly than that caused by fires. If we can provide more than $1 billion/year for fire-fighting, then it seems we could also provide at least $500 million/year for the Legacy Roads Initiative to begin erasing the $10 billion road maintenance/management backlog. But without a rational mechanism to fund comprehensive fire management (including prescribed fire), and full funding for other resource management needs, the Forest Service might as well just change its name to the Fire Service.

3

From New Mexico to the Caribbean:

A story of road decommissioning, marine biology and the future of watershed restoration. By Bryan Bird

T

en teenagers struggle with snorkeling gear in the warm tropical waters of the Florida Keys. They giggle and sputter as they swim in the ocean, several for the first time ever. The kids are 1,000 miles from La Gallina, their rural community of 900 people in the mountains of northern New Mexico. The crystalline, blue ocean of the Caribbean is a world of difference from the majestic conifer forests 6,000 feet above sea level. The students of Coronado Middle School are attending a marine science camp partly because of a watershed restoration partnership in New Mexico funded jointly by the U.S. Forest Service and WildEarth Guardians. The collaborators, including the Acequia del Medio Association (an irrigation group), NM Wildlife Federation, NM Department of Game and Fish, Coronado Middle School and Cordova Logging Inc., are in the second year of a four year, $450,000 road closure and decommissioning project. The goals of the restoration work are to restore watershed function, return natural fire to fire-dependent forests, and bring much needed jobs and income to forest-based communities. Because roads have been shown to negatively impact soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat, meeting approved road densities is critical for forest and watershed restoration efforts to be complete and effective.1 Also because roads lead to increased human access and the associated fire ignitions, decreasing road density in wildlands can be an effective tool for re-establishing more natural fire regimes (seasonality and frequency). A legacy of logging in northern New Mexico, especially in the productive mixed conifer forests at mid-elevations, has left its mark on the landscape — in high road densities. The Santa Fe National Forest has the highest road density of any forest in the Southwest Region. The road density exceeds that recommended by the Department of Interior of 1.5 km/km2 (2.5 mi/mi2) for properly functioning watersheds. The Coyote Ranger District has road densities as high as 4 mi/mi2 or nearly twice the standard for some management areas in the forest management plan (LRMP). The project area lies in the

4

Jemez Mountains, New Mexico, in the area of the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) project. Photo courtesy of WildEarth Guardians.

Lower Rio Chama Watershed, where assessments have identified roads as one of three primary factors contributing to stream sediment delivery that violates Clean Water Act standards. In 2005 the Santa Fe National Forest, north of the city of Santa Fe and spanning both sides of the Rio Grande in the Jemez and Sangre de Cristo mountains, signed an administrative decision authorizing the decommissioning of 355 miles of road and closure of another 111 miles in order to bring the Coyote Ranger District into compliance with the LRMP standards. As the agency’s non-fire fighting budget plummets, the very best intentions can be ineffectual. Just as our National Forest System most needs funds for ecological restoration and maintenance, it suffers from a war-like mentality on fighting fire and that’s where the money goes (see story on pages 2-3). But, thanks to Senator Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) understanding of the ecological needs of our national forests and his vision for an economic future for forest workers here in the “Land of Enchantment,” small-scale, grassroots forest restoration projects are flourishing with little controversy. The Community Forest Restoration Act of 2000 (Title VI, Public Law 106-393) appropriates $5 million annually in New Mexico through the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) and directs the Secretary to convene a technical advisory panel to evaluate proposals that may receive funding. Key requirements for funding include: diversity of stakeholders; wildfire threat reduction; ecosystem restoration, including non-native tree species reduction; reestablishment of historic fire regimes; reforestation;

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

preservation of old and large trees; increased utilization of small diameter trees; and the creation of forest-related local employment. To date, the CFRP program has funded 102 projects in 17 counties for a total investment of $37.8 million, creating approximately 464 jobs. WildEarth Guardians’ CFRP project was slow getting started, as staff from WildEarth Guardians navigated the Forest Service bureaucracy and archeological surveys were necessary before heavy equipment could

The original goal of the project was to decommission or close 20 miles of road, but at the current pace, the collaborators hope to accomplish closer to 90 miles.

begin ripping and re-contouring roads. WildEarth Guardians also had a reputation with the Forest Service and local communities that took time to overcome. But since the federal grant was awarded in 2006, 15 miles of road have been decommissioned or closed and 15 more miles are on deck. Now that the kinks have been worked out of the process and a productive working relationship established with the Forest Service, the collaborators expect to accomplish much more over the next two years. The original goal of the project was to decommission or close 20 miles of road, but at the current pace, the collaborators hope to accomplish closer to 90 miles.

In the meantime, five contractors from the local community have been hired for archeological surveys, heavy equipment operation, scientific monitoring and re-seeding, providing work for people that might normally have to commute long-distances. In return for their time and efforts monitoring forest structure, soil characteristics, and revegetation, the students from the northern New Mexico were paid a stipend. They chose to use the stipend in part to pay for a trip to Florida where they were able to test their scientific monitoring skills in a very different environment as well as participate in activities impossible at home, like snorkeling.

The Future for Forests The future of forest and watershed restoration looks bright. In 2008, legislative work by Norm Dicks (D-WA) in Congress generated firsttime funding to the Forest Service for the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRRI). The LRRI provided $39.4 million for the Forest Service to address some of the problems created by the legacy of logging roads in our national forests. The money can be used for critical maintenance and restoration work, particularly where forest roads create risks to water quality and threatened or endangered wildlife species. In New Mexico and Arizona, over $3 million was awarded for activities that included restoring

— continued on next page —

Road 171 on the Coronado National Forest, before (left) and one year following (above) decommissioning. Photos by John Dixon, US Forest Service.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

5

— continued from previous page —

75 miles of stream habitat, decommissioning 22 miles of unauthorized road, and improving 517 acres of watershed. Some of this money was used on the Santa Fe National Forest. The FY09 Interior Appropriations bill may provide up $70 million in funding for the Legacy Roads and Trail Remediation Initiative. In 2008, Senator Bingaman and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) re-introduced the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (S. 2593/ H.R. 5263), which would establish a program to select and fund projects that restore forests at a landscape-scale through a process that encourages collaboration, utilization of the best available science, local economic development, and leveraging local resources with national and private resources. A vision of long-term, sustainable forest restoration economies where commodities, if any, are subordinate is taking shape. Of all the resources that forests produce, water may be the most important: stream flow from forests provides two-thirds of the nation’s clean water supply.2 As we rediscover the original mission of our National Forest System - securing favorable water supplies - as well as its obvious value in a world of rapidly changing climate, congressional efforts like those of Senator Bingaman and Representatives Dicks and Grijalva are all the more important. Perhaps in the not too distant future, forestbased communities will see strong economies anchored in the highest value to society of their surrounding forest lands. Long-term, sustainable jobs and income are a real benefit of investing in the restoration and maintenance of forests to foster their ecosystem services, including water quality and quantity.

Coronado Middle School students prepare for a day monitoring in the field. Photo by Bryan Bird.

Footnotes

1 For a complete review see Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 1999, End of the Road. The Adverse Ecological Impacts of Roads and Logging: A Compilation of Independently Reviewed Research. 2 National Research Council 2008. Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape. Committee on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management, National Research Council of the National Academies. July 2008

Back in Gallina, the Coronado Middle School students have returned to their scientific monitoring of the road closure and decommissioning. Perhaps the most rewarding outcome of the CFRP project has been working with these motivated youth. The kids have learned systematic ecological monitoring skills in forestry, wildlife, botany, and soil sciences that they may carry on to a career or just remember fondly, but their contribution to clean water and a healthy watershed will persist long into the future. — Bryan Bird is Wild Places Program Director at WildEarth Guardians in Santa Fe, NM. He lives at the edge of the Santa Fe National Forest in the Galisteo Watershed, a tributary of the Rio Grande.

6

River crosses a meadow near the project area in the Jemez Mountains, NM. Photo courtesy of WildEarth Guardians.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

LRRI To Do List, or Not

WGA Adopts Roads Policy

As reported elsewhere in this newsletter the Forest Service has unfortunately turned to the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRRI) budget to make up funding shortfalls in their fire fighting budget (see Down the Trail, pages 2-3). Were this not the case, the agency would have accomplished much in this first year of the LRRI program.

At its meeting this summer, the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) adopted a resolution and policy statement promoting a “sustainable” roads system and calling on the Forest Service to remove roads that cause environmental damage.

Just how much? In July, Wildlands CPR received data from the Forest Service describing intended uses of the initial LRRI funding. That data revealed an ambitious agenda for 2008, including: • • • • • • • • •

Construct or reconstruct 407 stream crossings to restore fish passage; Restore or enhance 581 miles of stream habitat; Improve 236 miles of passenger car roads and 908 miles of high clearance vehicle roads; Maintain 529 miles of passenger car roads maintained and 999 miles of high clearance vehicle roads; Decommission 303 miles of roads; Construct or reconstruct 66 bridges; Maintain 1165 miles of trails to standard; Improve 618 miles of trails to meet standards, and; Improve a minimum of 60,831 acres of watershed (several regions did not report the acres of improved watersheds).

Much of the stream habitat restoration and watershed improvement would come as a direct result of road decommissioning and culvert upgrades. This list explains both scheduled actions and their restorative effects. This would have been an impressive first step towards the comprehensive stewardship of our national forest watersheds. While ideally there would have been more miles of roads planned for decommissioning, this still would have been a great start toward dramatically reducing the impacts roads have on water, fisheries and wildlife.

The resolution states that existing national forest system roads should be restored and maintained so they are in compliance with federal and state clean water and species protections laws. It also calls for an inventory of federal forest system roads, taking into account the needs for fish and wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, timber and mining and fire suppression/mitigation. In addition to an inventory, the sustainable roads program called for by the Governors should identify roads still needed and ensure they are upgraded to modern construction standards (including standards for fish passage), and identify roads no longer needed or causing environmental damage for decommissioning. The WGA also called for a funding strategy with financing alternatives outside the Federal Highway Trust Fund to bring the roads system into compliance with federal and state clean water and species protection laws within 15 years. Finally, the WGA requested the Forest Service provide an annual update on progress toward a sustainable roads system, measuring the percent of roads in compliance, percent of fish blockages fixed, percent of roads decommissioned, number of miles of fish habitat newly accessed, and improvements in water quality. Wildlands CPR and other conservation organizations had pressed to have road removal included in the resolution.

However, because some LRRI funds have been withdrawn for fire-fighting efforts, we do not know how much progress the agency will make on this list. Wildlands CPR will monitor their progress and report on LRRI accomplishments in future editions of the Road Riporter. Wildlands CPR partners with the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative to advocate on behalf of this initiative.

Former road converted to a trail on Montana’s Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

7

Removing Dams and Roads By Bethanie Walder

I

t was a cold morning, a thin layer of snow on the ground, but the skies were blue and promising. We joined dozens of other people, quickly making our way up the icy road to a small bluff overlooking the confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers, on the eastern edge of Missoula, Montana. When we arrived, we found hundreds already there, crowding along the edge. The air was electric, kids were sitting atop their parents’ shoulders craning to see; everyone waiting, anticipating the big moment. For 100 years, the Milltown Dam blocked the confluence of these two rivers, providing much needed electricity long ago, but also preventing fish from moving upstream and downstream through the dam. For almost that entire period, this timber crib dam also acted as a barrier to hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of heavy metals and otherwise contaminated sediments, preventing them from reaching the rest of the Clark Fork River. The sediments were the result of tailings from the Butte and Anaconda mining districts 114 miles upstream. The entire 114 mile stretch constitutes the largest superfund cleanup site in the United States. And all those toxic sediments were perched behind an earthen dam of questionable stability. People have been concerned about the dam, and the sediments trapped behind it, for decades. The Environmental Protection Agency had once considered and rejected a plan to remove the dam. Then, during the winter of 1996, a massive ice jam broke loose and traveled down the Blackfoot, taking out bridges, floodplain houses and everything else in its way. It was headed straight for the Milltown Dam. Authorities called out the National Guard and conducted a major drawdown of the reservoir to make room for the ice. While the ice stirred up the sediments, it spared the dam. One result of the drawdown, however, was that the contaminants released in the process caused huge fishkills. But it was only after this terrifying alarm that the federal and state government started to realistically consider removing the dam.

8

Arial views of the dam’s powerhouse (above) and the confluence at the time of the breach (left). Photos courtesy of Judy Matson, Clark Fork River Technical Advisory Committee (CFRTAC). Pilot Gary Matson. Study after study was completed to develop a plan for removing this dam without releasing all the toxins into the river (or having them pile up at the next dam, 100 miles away, in Thompson Falls, MT). Plans were drawn and redrawn. Controversies arose and were settled. Other controversies arose and weren’t settled — hard feelings remain because the toxic sediments are now being removed and sent by railroad back toward Butte, to join other toxic waste from the old copper mining operation. Nonetheless, for those of us on the bluff that day, there was only a sense of euphoria. After digging through the crowd, we found a spot with a view. The old electric house from the dam site had been removed months before. They had also dug and lined an enormous bypass channel to allow the Clark Fork River to flow outside of the contaminated sediments and past the dam. That bypass fed into a small, new channel that directly skirted the dam itself. A small

temporary dam (basically a big pile of dirt) blocked that new channel. It appeared that one scoop from an excavator would move everything and reunite the Blackfoot and Clark Fork rivers. All sorts of political bigwigs were down at the dam site making speeches. They talked about how this $100 million project is restoring water quality, fisheries and recreational opportunities. They also talked about restoration as a great tool for creating well-paying jobs. In Montana, as elsewhere, investing in restoration pays off both ecologically and economically. We waited as the restoration team raised the water in the reservoir to a higher level so it would flow as they needed it to. There was no dynamite, no explosion. But after a while, the excavator moved into place. It started taking bites out of the temporary dam. It took a lot more than one bite for the water to start flowing.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

All of a sudden, a trickle of water began flowing down the new channel, around the dam. Then that trickle turned to a torrent, and the torrent to a flood. Initially, after the water started really flowing, things were a little anticlimactic. It wasn’t as extraordinary as I thought it would be. But then, as I looked out over the old reservoir, saw the current forming in the formerly still water, and saw the bypass channel pulling water away from the reservoir, chills went right through me.

At some point in the future, kids and adults alike will be playing in the park that will be built on the old dam site, while wild fish swim by, unaware that an enormous barrier blocked the passage of their ancestors. Right now, as I write this, bears, mountain lions, fishers, elk, moose and deer, to name a few, are walking along reclaimed roads, reoccupying habitat that their ancestors didn’t have access to. If we play our cards right, we can continue to reclaim roads, remove dams, re-invigorate rural economies, and restore a tapestry of interconnected, healthy, dynamic wildlands and watersheds. The thought of the restored landscape future generations can inherit from us sends chills right through me.

Road removal may not be as exciting or exhilarating as dam removal, but its benefits are just as important. We found other friends, people who had driven from around Montana to see this historic event. We drank champagne and toasted to free flowing rivers, to the determination of the Clark Fork Coalition (a fantastic local river organization) and other advocates who pressured the state and federal governments to remove this toxic threat and restore this river. We toasted watershed restoration and dam removal. A few hours later, the bypass channel looked like a proper river. One hundred years of dam-age, reversed, seemingly, in just a few hours. But it will still take a few years to remove all of the sediments and restore the land. It will take years for the Clark Fork River below the dam to flush out the toxins that did get into the river as the dam was bypassed, but the quantity was profoundly lower than what would have entered and destroyed this river if the dam had burst. In the meantime, however, the two rivers are running free, and we’re on our way to cleaner, healthier water. Road removal may not be as exciting or exhilarating as dam removal, but its benefits are just as important. I’ve sat and watched excavators remove roads before, and it, too, gives me chills. While it’s sad to think that we’ve caused so much damage to the land in the past, it is so inspiring to know that we can fix what we’ve broken. Removing the Milltown Dam is fixing one big mess that we inherited. Removing roads is fixing a lot of small messes that we inherited.

Confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers: on the day of the breach (3/28/08 - above), and two months later (left). Photos courtesy of Michael Kustudia / CFRTAC.

A confluence restored; summer 2008. Photo courtesy of Michael Kustudia / CFRTAC. Pilot Gary Matson.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

9

The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the awesome citizens 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].

Q & A with Wayne Jenkins, Executive Director of Georgia Forest Watch By Cathrine L. Walters

1. Tell me a little bit about yourself: where you’re from, where you live, family, pets, what you do to enjoy the outdoors... I was born in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia but was raised in Norfolk, one of the state’s largest cities. I moved to the extreme southern Appalachians of northern Georgia in 1976 seeking a land-centric life rather than an urban one. I had $20 in my pocket and the good graces of friends I had made on a visit a few years before. I eventually settled onto an organic farm, married Lori and raised two children who have since grown and moved to Colorado and Alaska. Early on while still single I would hike, fish and camp in the beautiful Chattahoochee National Forest. I became aware of the expanding clearcutting and road building programs on the forest and the damage being done to trout streams and rare plant communities. While hiking with Lori one day we had a life-affecting experience of returning to a favorite grove of giant white pines along Mountaintown Creek and finding the area devastated by clearcutting. Shock, anger and dismay eventually coalesced into action for figuring out what we could do to stop this destructive practice. 2. What is your professional background? I come from the School of Hard Knocks. And while I have no formal education beyond high school I am a voracious reader on topics that interest me. Over the last 5-6 years, access to the internet and email has re-shaped and accelerated my learning approach, mostly in a positive way. 3. How are you involved with Georgia Forest Watch? I am presently the Executive Director. I started with the group in the mid 1990’s as a volunteer wanting to stop clearcutting, then worked as a volunteer district leader. I took on the responsibility to oversee a single district, ground-truthing scoping documents and responding to the NEPA process. I have also been a board member of GFW, and a hired consultant for 12 weeks, when I wrote a report on illegal ATV activity across the Chattahoochee National Forest in 2001-2002. 4. Why GFW? Why stay involved with that organization for so many years? Because we get things done. We helped bring a halt to clearcutting in 1996 with our successful appeal of Sierra vs. Martin, and the forest is better for that ruling. The leadership and members are a great bunch of Georgians united in their concern for this beautiful and diverse forest, plus we have a lot of fun!

10

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest. Photo by Larry Winslett.

5. Why are transportation issues in your state important? We have a road base of over 1,200 miles of forest roads on 865,000 acres, and the agency does not have the budget to maintain these roads. Although the forest plan says roads for permanent closure should be identified, that is not being done. The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest is considered an “urban” forest with Atlanta’s burgeoning 5 million souls about an hour away; therefore recreational use of all types is huge. We have a big problem with illegal ATV use but the agency is working to address the problem with GFW pushing and supporting that effort. We do not really have much in the way of illegal cross-country 4-wheel vehicle problems.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

6. I understand GFW had a recent success battling ORVs, can you please describe that success? The old Anderson Creek OHV Area was permanently closed. For many years we worked to stop illegal abuse of this area in northern Georgia on the Blue Ridge Ranger District. Motorized recreation was not appropriate on these steep highly erodible slopes. Silt was bleeding into trout streams, and the vehicles negatively affected wildlife and other forest users. 7. Why/how was your campaign successful? I believe the agency people are beginning to view illegal ATV use as a real threat to streams and wildlife habitat and other recreational uses. Rehabilitation of areas is also expensive on their budgets. It was not always so. For years our volunteer district leaders and members have been reporting widespread illegal ATV activity to agency folks. In early 2002 we issued a detailed report, partially funded by National Trails and Waters Coalition, using a Wildlands CPR protocol, on some of the illegal ATV use occurring on public lands in Georgia. This was well received by the media and with mixed emotions by the agency but they had to admit they had a problem. Anderson Creek, though a legal OHV Area, was completely out of control and became one of our focus areas. Our volunteers just kept going back to the area and reporting the situation to Forest Service folks and making the case. Over time it became obvious that the streams were becoming degraded and something had to be done. I believe the agency felt at some point we might bring a Clean Water Act complaint against them. 8. What did you learn from it? Don’t give up! You can work with the agency on an issue if you are willing to focus and set other issues aside for the moment. There are folks in the agency that have similar concerns about protecting the resource, but they need a constituent base to back them up in order to do the right thing, especially in the face of a political hot-potato like the ATV issue in Georgia.

Wayne Jenkins, Georgia Forest Watch Executive Director. Photo by Michael Griffith.

13. Where do you find your inspiration for your work? In the forest. Also, it is a real blessing to find the “right livelihood,” work that I believe in with good, caring people. When you can point to an inventoried roadless area or general forest stand that you know you had a hand in protecting, or improved or halted a bad management proposal, then success feels concrete. It is hard and slow in Georgia to create the kind of progress our public lands and their owners deserve, but if people will work together for a common goal, patiently, then good work can be accomplished.

9. How does the bulk of your work get accomplished? (employees vs. volunteers) We have a staff of four, including a forest ecologist, plus we work with 12 key district leaders, our members and many other partner groups. The GFW board guides the organization’s structure and programs so it’s really a team effort, at the root of which lies everyone’s passion for our forests. 10. What does the future hold for you with Georgia Forest Watch? Well, the future’s a risky thing to predict. The leadership for GFW is on top of the newest slate of issues like climate change, alternative energy on public land issues, etc. We will continue working at the ground level through NEPA, collaboration, and relationship building with the agency for better management outcomes on the forest. The present forest plan has a restoration, forest health and wildlife management focus which of course can be used as a screen for getting out the cut but we will be there to push for sound forestry with a commonsense ecological approach. As for me, personally, I take it one day at a time. I guess I’ll keep on working with GFW for as long as they’ll have me or I find something more fun to do. Georgia Forest Watch works to protect places like this in the ChattahoocheeOconee National Forest. Photo by Lori Martell.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

11

Program Updates, Autumn 2008 Restoration Program

W

ildlands CPR staff are working to increase the number of on-the-ground road removal projects on public lands across the country by securing the funds needed to do the work. We’ve been pushing to increase funding for the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRRI) – ideally up to $70 million in FY 2009 (the initial allocation for this new program was $39.4 million in FY 2008 for road removal and culvert upgrades). With full funding the Forest Service could restore a minimum of 60,000 acres of terrestrial habitat, and nearly 600 miles of stream habitat throughout the US. To learn more about other specific benefits, check out the summary on page 7 or visit our website. Sue Gunn, our Washington Field Representative, coordinates the campaign to secure this funding and improve LRRI implementation. She ensures that the public and elected representatives are aware of the program’s benefits, its financial need, and opportunities for expansion. Sue also provided technical assistance for a formal resolution of the Western Governor’s Association favoring increased road removal funding for next year and beyond. The resolution, sponsored by Washington, Oregon and Idaho, passed during the Association’s annual meeting this summer (see report on page 7). Restoration Program Coordinator Marnie Criley continues her work with the state and diverse partners to expand the ad-hoc Restore Montana coalition into an independent organization. Restore Montana will act as a clearinghouse for ecological restoration, including watershed restoration road removal. Along with this work and implementing recommendations from the 2006 Governor’s restoration forum (which we cosponsored), Marnie also continues to work with the new State Restoration Coordinator to advance watershed restoration and a restoration economy in Montana. As such, Marnie will be speaking at Filling a Void: Growing Montana’s Restoration Workforce in October – a one-day restoration forum being put on by the Governor. Marnie has also been working closely with Sustainable Northwest, American Lands Alliance and several other organizations to organize the upcoming Western Stewardship Summit. She will participate on two panels and one round-table discussion at the Summit, while Sue will also give a presentation. Here in Montana, Wildlands CPR staff are pursuing another restoration opportunity. The Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Lands are preparing to purchase approximately 320,000 acres of logged Plum Creek Timber Company lands to protect them from residential development. If the deal goes through, it will present a rich assortment of possibilities for watershed and forest restoration both before and after those lands are

12

Fisher caught on film by a remote camera installed on a restored road, Clearwater National Forest. Wildlands CPR file photo.

turned over to public ownership. Wildlands CPR staff, including Marnie and Restoration Research Associate Josh Hurd, are working with interested parties to identify opportunities and funding mechanisms for that work. In promoting current and future road removal, it helps to cite the success of past projects. However, measuring that success takes a lot of work — currently the primary focus of Wildlands CPR Staff Scientist Adam Switalski. He has spent much of the summer hiring, training and working with new field staff in Montana and Idaho in an effort to document and publicize research on the positive effects of road removal on wildlife habitat. Early in the field season, our remote motion-triggered cameras captured a fisher and a bobcat on removed roads in the Clearwater. During past years, we’ve captured mountain lion, moose, bear, elk, and even a wolf on film during our monitoring studies. We’ve been working with the Nez Perce Tribe and the University of Montana on this project, and the Forest Service is taking the data seriously, using our monitoring results to understand appropriate and potentially inappropriate treatments to improve wildlife habitat.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Transportation Program

W

ildlands CPR focuses on positive solutions to public land management challenges related to restoration and transportation. And while it’s relatively easy to identify solutions in the restoration program, it is sometimes more difficult in the off-road vehicle program. That said, Wildlands CPR’s Enforcement Report and Best Management Practices for off-road vehicles in forested ecosystems are critical proactive tools for managers engaged in travel planning. We’ve distributed more than 1000 copies of the BMPs and Enforcement Report to land managers throughout the U.S., with thousands more downloaded online. Numerous agency offices have contacted us for more copies as they ramp up their travel planning efforts. Unfortunately, proactive approaches don’t always work. Montana ORV Coordinator Adam Rissien and Legal/Agency Liaison Sarah Peters have been knee deep in travel planning all summer. Things ramped up here in Montana when the Custer National Forest released their proposed travel plan for the Pryors Mountain District. Adam and Sarah have been working with the Pryors Coalition, Montana Wilderness Society Eastern Chapter and a local Audubon chapter to challenge the Pryors plan, including submitting an appeal and participating in an appeal resolution process. Adam has also expanded his work with the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Bitterroot National Forests as they respectively begin and continue travel planning.

In Utah, Wildlands CPR Off-road Vehicle Coordinator Laurel Hagen’s year-long effort to discover and organize representatives of small rural communities across the state has begun to bear fruit. A group representing six rural communities, loosely organized as the Rural Utah Conservation League, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and his public lands staff about a variety of conservation issues unique to small towns, including off-road vehicle abuse. The group also met with the Utah Office of Tourism as well as the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune. The Tribune, long a friend to conservation issues, has editorialized three times denouncing bad ORV plans in southern UT since Laurel and her colleagues met with them. This fall, Laurel is helping solidify and formalize this new coalition.

Adam worked with Lisa Philipps (former Wildlands CPR staffer) to help coordinate summer monitoring with members of the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition. Lisa worked with them to document more than 22 trails affected by abuse. She also partnered with the Bitterroot Backcountry Horsemen on a National Trails Day trail maintenance event, made presentations to local bird watching, climbing and mountain biking groups and held accountability sessions with Forest Service staff regarding their ongoing and probably illegal promotion of ORV activities inside an existing area protected as a Wilderness Study Area. In other travel planning outreach outside of MT, Sarah facilitated an important day-long Travel Planning meeting in Flagstaff, AZ that put key staff representing each national forest within Arizona in the same room with staff from a broad cross-section of Arizona conservation groups. The number one message Forest Service planners heard from the conservation groups concerned allowances for game retrieval. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF) apparently has been pushing for an across-theboard loophole in all Forest Service travel plans within the state to give hunters virtually unlimited rights to drive cross country and off the trail — anywhere — so long as they claimed they were in the process of retrieving game. Fortunately, some AZ forests are pushing back and planning to ban cross-country travel for game retrieval. Another hot topic during the meeting was the concern that many forests are not doing adequate Travel Analysis, something required in the 2007 Travel Management Proposed Directives (still in draft form). Though the AZ forests claim they are doing Travel Analysis, only one forest has made their analysis publicly available, despite repeated requests from the conservation groups in Arizona for that information.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Wildlands CPR seeks to curb illegal and inappropriate off-road vehicle use. A hiker surveys damage in a canyon near Moab, Utah. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

13

Motor Vehicle Use Maps By John Meyer and Jack Tuholske

I

n 2005, the Forest Service finalized what is commonly known as the Travel Management Rule. Among other things, the rule requires forest officials to publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).1 The MVUM displays National Forest System routes (roads and trails) and areas designated as open to motorized travel. Once these designations are identified on an MVUM, motor vehicle use off these designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited.2 This article will explain the different ways in which MVUMs are published, why MVUMs are important, and how organizations can establish standing to challenge the agency on travel route designations using a MVUM.

The Publication Process

The Travel Management Rule (TMR) mandates that forest officials produce an MVUM, at either the ranger district or forest-wide level, illustrating the specific routes and areas open to summer off-road vehicle use. One method of MVUM publication, commonly known as the “MVUM First” approach, is used when no changes to management direction (regarding route designations) are proposed.3 In this case, forest officials can forego NEPA analysis and public participation, but they must have restricted travel to previously designated routes across either the forest or ranger district.

true, the agency could use the “MVUM First” approach to put user-created routes onto the MVUM without NEPA analysis or public scrutiny. However, under the Travel Management Rule, it is likely that a MVUM is legally challengeable, because it marks the “consummation of the agency’s decision-making process,” and determines rights or obligations from which legal consequences will flow.4 According to the TMR: “Motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited once the designations are identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM).” 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.

Alternatively, the Forest Service may want to make changes to route designations, in which case any proposed changes would need to go through the travel planning process, subject to NEPA (and public participation).

Why MVUMs Are Important

MVUMs are important because their publication completes the route designation process. Under the new TMR, restrictions on off-road vehicle use do not go into effect until the MVUM is published. MVUMs are legally significant because they can be challenged in court if the agency adds or extends routes on an MVUM without public participation and NEPA analysis. Before the TMR, forest maps were not legally challengeable because they were not “final agency actions.” Instead, maps were considered to be a display of past administrative decisions. As such, legal challenges had to attack the site-specific decision to open or close an area to travel. Sometimes these decisions were made in a forest plan, but many times there was a separate site-specific decision. This has all changed under the TMR. It is possible that the agency will claim that MVUMs cannot be challenged in court, saying that they are like the old forest maps in that they do not represent a decision, but simply display past decisions. If this were

14

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Legal consequences flow from the publication of the MVUM. A recent court case out of Montana addressed this idea when it said that “the MVU Map designations are legally enforceable…”5 The court cited 36 C.F.R. § 261.13 for support. The regulation states: “After designations have been identified on a motor vehicle use map, it is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on National Forest System lands in that administrative unit or Ranger District other than in accordance with those designations.” In sum, MVUMs are important under the new Travel Management Rule because they can be used to challenge the agency if it attempts to alter the route designations without NEPA analysis and public scrutiny. This is an important departure from past practices and forest users should appreciate the importance of the new Motor Vehicle Use Maps.

Standing

Before an MVUM can be challenged in court, plaintiffs must establish standing. Organizations will have little trouble establishing standing if they have individuals with standing at the earliest stages in the administrative process. While a showing of standing is not required for administrative appeals, it is a required element of legal action. Potential plaintiffs are wise to make sure at least one member of a group has standing. Plaintiffs will need to submit affidavits or other evidence showing, through specific facts, that one or more of their members would be “directly affected apart from their special interest in the subject.”6 The “key requirement” for the purposes of standing is “that the plaintiff have suffered his injury in a personal and individual way.”7 For challenges to motorized use decisions, the standing is best met by involving persons who use the area in question for recreation such as wildlife observation, quiet, beauty or other appropriate reasons. The more specific and

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Photo by Dan Funsch.

Furthermore, the proposed Forest Service Handbook (FSH) states, “[t]he motor vehicle use map completes the designation process.” Proposed FSH 7709.55 (p. 15)(emphasis added). These two statements support the idea that MVUMs mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process because completion of the MVUM is the final step before any prohibition on ORV use goes into effect.

detailed the use of the area by potential plaintiffs, the easier it will be to rebut a standing challenge. Standing allegations would include: • • • • • •

•

Identification of the trail or area at issue; Dates (approximate is fine) when you have visited the area; Why you enjoy the area (wildlife, quiet recreation etc.); That the ORV decision under challenge harms your recreation and aesthetic use of the area because it permits motorized use without proper analysis; That you are a member of the plaintiff organization; That the failure of the Forest Service to comply with NEPA (or other statute) undermines good government and denies you the opportunity to provide information and to understand and assess the effects of government action; That your injuries would be addressed in part by government compliance with the law.

Conclusion

Motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails and areas is prohibited once the designations are identified on a Motor Vehicle Use Map. MVUMs are important for forest users because they can be used to challenge the agency when it designates routes in a way that is not in accord with the Travel Management Rule. Organizations that want to challenge the agency over route designations should have at least one member that uses the trails in question to establish standing for court purposes. — John Meyer is a third year student at Vermont Law School and is wildly passionate about MVUMs. — Jack Tuholske has practiced law for 23 years, with an emphasis on public lands and natural resource litigation. He also teaches law at Vermont and Montana law schools.

Footnotes 1 2 3 4 5

36 C.F.R. § 212.56 36 C.F.R. § 212.56; 36 C.F.R. § 261.13. 36 C.F.R. § 212.52 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177 (1997). Montana Wilderness Association v. McAllister, 2007 WL 4564175 at *9 (D. Mont. 2007). 6 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 563. 7 Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 104, 154 F.3d 426, 433 (D.C.Cir. 1998).

15

Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 15,000 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.

Paving Paradise: The Ecological Effects of Road Improvement By Shannon Donahue

A

s the human population grows, our wildlands face threats from increased access for recreation and resource extraction, subdivision for residential and commercial development, and movements to pave and improve many of our secondary and tertiary roads. Road improvements include paving, widening, and/or other methods. While paving may afford conveniences that satisfy commercial and residential demands, such improvements increase the detrimental ecological impacts of roads including direct effects such as fragmentation and loss of secure wildlife habitat (Forman & Alexander, 1998), increased vehicle-wildlife collisions (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000), constructionrelated wildlife mortality (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000), changes in groundwater flow and stream morphology (Malecki, 2005), spread of wildfire (Pew & Larsen, 2001) and invasive species (Gelbard & Belnap, 2003; Trombulak & Frissell, 2000), and increased chemical pollutants that leach into our watersheds and harm flora and fauna (National Research Council, 2005; Tromulak & Frissell, 2000; Forman & Alexander, 1998).

Vehicle-wildlife collisions

Vehicle collisions with wildlife present danger for both humans and wildlife, and economic losses in the form of vehicle damage, health care for human injuries, and loss of revenue attached to hunting of game species (Schwabe & Schuhmann, 2002; Langley et al., 2006; Gordon et al., 2004). By the end of the 20th century, vehicle collisions with wildlife replaced hunting as the leading direct cause of mortality in terrestrial vertebrates (Forman & Alexander, 1998). Leblond et al. (2007) identify road improvement as a major contributing factor to the growing rate of vehicle-wildlife collisions. As early as the 1970s, it was found that small mammals had higher mortality with increased traffic and speeds (Oxley et al., 1974). Studies in Brazil found higher rates of roadkill following road paving (Coehlo et al., 2005; Bueno et al. 2005). Also, an upgraded road in Australia resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of road-killed Tasmanian devils and eastern quolls (Jones, 2000).

Increased human access due to road improvements intensifies all of the above problems, leading to degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity (Ledec & Posas, 2003). Human contact with wildlife is also increased, posing threats to both wildlife and human safety (Herrero et al., 2005; Benn and Herrero, 2002; Herrero, 2002). In this article, I review how road paving and improvements can lead to increased ecological impacts.

While roadkill is the most obvious wildlife threat associated with road improvements, roads’ other impacts are ecosystem-wide. Photo © Marcel Huijser.

16

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Wildfire

Human access often increases the levels of accidental and intentional ignition of wildfires (Brosofske & Cleland, 2007). Pew and Larsen (2001) found that the occurrence of humancaused wildfire was highest along roads and railroads, but that the rate of ignition dropped off with distance from human infrastructure, and dramatically more with distance from unimproved roads than from paved roads.

Increasing access to wild places puts wildlife, ecosystems, and human communities at risk. Bighorn sheep cross Montana’s Rock Creek road. Photo © Marcel Huijser.

The barrier effect: road avoidance and habitat fragmentation

Despite the wide-ranging effects of roads on a landscape level, most transportation engineers consider only the ecological effects on the land occupied by the road itself and the narrow verge immediately flanking it (Forman, 2000). Forman and Alexander (1998) report that road width and traffic density determine the intensity of the “barrier effect” that results in avoidance of roads by wildlife, leading to habitat fragmentation and dividing existing populations into smaller, isolated metapopulations. Metapopulations are more susceptible to stochastic extinction due to genetic isolation and increased pressure on resources, while habitat fragmentation impedes recolonization (Noss et al., 1996; Forman and Alexander, 1998). Elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), gray wolves (Canis lupus), mountain lions (Puma concolor), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), American marten (Martes americana), wolverines (Gulo gulo), and other mustelids are all known to avoid roads (e.g., Ward, 1976; Frederick, 1991; Dickson et al., 2005; Dussault et al., 2007), especially those with higher speeds and volumes, making them highly susceptible to the barrier effect. Carnivores are especially sensitive to roads and human development, presenting wider implications for the ecosystem because top carnivores can regulate populations of prey species that may become overpopulated in their absence (Weaver, 2001).

Spread of invasive species

Roads facilitate the spread of invasive and exotic species through seeds carried along vehicles and the air turbulence caused by passing vehicles, both problems that increase as greater numbers of vehicles travel on roads once they are improved (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000; Forman & Alexander, 1998; Gelbard & Belnap, 2003). Road improvements increase the degree of clearance and allow more penetration of sunlight, increasing the edge effect of existing roads (Noss, 1995). The area covered by invasive plant species such as knapweed tends to be wider along paved roads than unimproved roads (Gelbard & Belnap, 2003).

Chemical pollutants

Paved roads leach chemical pollutants both from the paving materials and from deposition of exhaust and tire rubber from the vehicles that travel them (Forman & Alexander, 1998; National Research Council, 2005). Asphalt roads leach carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) from both car exhaust deposition and asphalt that are harmful to highway workers as well as flora and fauna and leach into the watershed (Sadler et al. 1997). Nitrogen oxide and ozone from vehicle exhaust damage plant life and pollute the atmosphere (Forman & Hersperger, 1996).

Conclusion

Road improvements exacerbate the negative ecological effects of the existing road system by increasing access, traffic speed and volume, and contributing to higher levels of pollutants produced by paving materials and vehicle traffic. Transportation-related mortality, road avoidance, and airborne dust can be reduced with lower speed limits, and unimproved roads can be maintained safely and effectively by adding gravel when needed and possibly through dust abatement strategies, although dust coating can damage plant life, attract wildlife to roads, and leach into groundwater (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2006; Lux, 2002). — Shannon Donahue is a University of Montana Environmental Studies graduate student.

— references on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

17

— continued from previous page —

References Benn, B. and S. Herrero. 2002. Grizzly bear mortality and human access in Banff and Yoho National Parks. Ursus 13: 213-221. Brosofske, K.D., & D.T. Cleland. 2007. Factors influencing modern widlfire occurrence in the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 31(2): 73-84. Bueno, A., S.C.S. Belentani, and M.C. Ribeiro. 2005. Wildlife road mortality in Triângulo Mineiro, southeastern Brazil. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil. Coelho, I.P, A. Kindel, and A. Coelho. 2005. Vertebrate road-kills in two highways crossing the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve in southern Brazil. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 15-19, Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil. Dickson, B.G., J.S. Jenness & P. Beir. 2005. Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1): 264-276. Dussault, C., J. Ouellet, C. Laurian, R. Courtois, & L. Breton. 2007. Moose movement rates along highways and crossing probability models. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7): 2338-2345. Forman, R.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 14(1): 31-35. Forman, R.T., & H.A. Hersperger. 1996. Road ecology and road density in different landcapes, with international planning and mitigation solutions. In: Transportation and wildlife: reducing wildlife mortality and improving wildlife passageways across transportation corridors. Gary Evink et al. (Ed.), Proceedings from the Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar. Federal Highway Administration, FL-ER 58-96. pp 1-23. Forman, R.T., & L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231+C2. Frederick, G.P. 1991. Effects of forest roads on grizzly bears, elk, and gray wolves: A literature review. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Montana. 49 pp. Gelbard, J., & J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invations in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2): 420-432. Gordon, K.M., M.C. McKinstry, & S.H. Anderson. 2004. Motorist response to a deer-sensing warning system. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(2): 565-573. Herrero, S. 2002. Bear Attacks: their causes and avoidance, revised edition. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press. Herrero, S., T. Smith, T.D. DeBruyn, K. Gunther, & C. Matt. 2005. From the Field: Brown Bear Habituation to People-Safety, Risks, and Benefits. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 362-373.

18

Langley, R.L., S.A. Higgins, & K.B. Herrin. 2006. Risk factors associated with fatal animal-vehicle collisions in the United States, 1995-2004. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 17(4): 229-239. Leblond, M., C. Dussault, J. Ouellet, M. Poulin, R. Courtois, & al., e. 2007. Electric fencing as a measure to reduce moose-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(5): 1695-1703. Ledec, G., & P. Posas. 2003. Biodiversity conservation in road projects: Lessons from World Bank experience in Latin America. 8th International Conference on Low-Volume Roads. Reno, NV, USA. Lux, C. 2002. The North Fork Road: Possible maintenance alternatives and landowner opinions. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://www.gravel.org/articles/LuxReport. pdf Malecki, R.W. 2006. A New Way to Look at Forest Roads: the Road Hydrologic Impact Rating System (RHIR). RoadRIPorter 11(3): 12-13. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Dust suppression on unpaved roads. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp National Research Council. 2005. Assessing and managing the ecological impacts of paved roads. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press. Noss, R. F. 1995. The ecological effects of roads or The road to destruction. Unpublished report. Wildlands CPR. Noss, R.F., H.B. Quigley, M. Honrocker, T. Merrill, & P.C. Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10: 949-963. Oxley, D.J., M.B. Fenton, and G.R. Carmody. 1974. The ecological effects of roads on populations of small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11: 51-59. Pew, K., & C. Larsen. 2001. GIS analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of human-caused wildfires in the temperate rain forest of Vancouver Island, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 140: 1-18. Sadler, Ross and C. Delamont, P. White and D. Connell. 1997. Contaminants in soil as a result of leaching from asphalt. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, 68: 71-81. Schwabe, K.A., & P.W. Schuhmann. 2002. Deer-vehicle collisions and deer value: an analysis of competing literatures. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 609-615. Trombulak, S., & C. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18-30. Ward, A.L. 1976. Elk behavior in relation to timber harvest operations and traffic on the Medicine Bow Range in south-central Wyoming. Proceedings of the ElkLogging-Roads Symposium, 16-17 December 1975 (pp. 32-43). Moscow, Idaho, USA: Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Weaver, J.L. 2001. The Transboundary Flathead: A critical landscape for carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. WCS Working Papers No. 18, July 2001 .

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

New Web Resources Assist Native American Tribes Wildlands CPR’s website has a new page dedicated to helping Native American Tribes engage in road removal. Geared towards collaboration and partnering with conservation groups and the Forest Service, the site offers a wealth of resources in one place. Interested staff members and tribal governments will find reports on the Karuk/Six Rivers partnership, the Nez Perce/Clearwater partnership, funding sources, partnering organizations, collaborative resource management and restoration web sites, pertinent scientific reports documenting the beneficial aspects of road removal, policy analysis, Legacy Roads and Trails project analysis, and other useful information. Providing opportunities for tribes to network with each other and with the broader conservation community is crucial to fostering the types of collaborations needed to restore our nation’s forests. This web page provides these networking opportunities and is designed to be continually updated and relevant. It fills an important niche in watershed restoration through road removal by explicitly addressing the needs of tribes and their natural resource departments. Check it out at www.wildlandscpr.org/tribal and let us know what you think. Please also forward any additional materials that should be posted there to [email protected] with “tribal resources” in the subject line or body of the e-mail.

Photo by Dan Funsch.

The American West at Risk: Science, Myths, and Politics of Land Abuse and Recovery — Howard G. Wilshire, Jane E. Nielson and Richard W. Hazlett. Oxford University Press 2008.

Beginning in the 1970s, Howard Wilshire was one of the first scientists to seriously measure the impacts of off-road vehicles. He’s continued to study the impacts of these vehicles over the years, in addition to studying other impacts to western landscapes. This spring he and two others released “The American West at Risk.” The book covers forestry, grazing, agriculture, mining, off-road vehicle use, roads and pipelines and more. And it doesn’t exclusively discuss the problems and impacts, it also discusses opportunities to protect and restore western public lands.

As it says in the introduction, “The ‘West’... was also a land of rich soils, bountiful fisheries, immense, dense forests, desert wonders, and spartling streams. It is no myth that the western states were America’s treasure house. ... Much of what we have done to these magnificent lands opened them to devastating erosion and pollution. ... “The how and why of these risks- the past and impending losses-are the theme of this book, along with proposals, strategies, hopes and even fantasies about how to salvage what is left and rebuild western lifelines.” (emphasis in original). The 640 page hardcover book is available on line and retails for $35.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

19

Pockets of Roads in a Great Sea of Wildness By Greg Peters

G

rowing up, I never really noticed them. It happens to us all. Certain parts of the landscape drift by without our acknowledgement. We utilize them, depend on them, require them, and we do it automatically, our need hardly registering in our busy, cluttered minds. They’re simply part of the landscape, like trees, rocks, lakes, and mountains; they are there and we don’t give them a second thought. But with the right opportunities, the right timing, the right perspective, suddenly we can’t help but notice them, and they are no longer a subtle part of the landscape we have so long known. They are instead the most dominant and shattering aspect of the world we know so well. After I graduated from college, I moved to Alaska. I had grown up in Maine, a wild and remote state by its own right, but felt drawn West. I ended up in Anchorage for a year and then for two more years in a cabin in the woods, five miles from a small

ski town called Girdwood. In a two week vacation, you can drive almost every road in the state. It isn’t hard. From Anchorage you can drive south or north. That’s it. If you go south, it’s two hundred miles down the Kenai Peninsula to the ocean. If you go north, the highway splits, skirts mountains and lakes and meets again in Fairbanks. I drove all of those roads in two short summers. In the entire state, roughly 600,000 square miles, there are only 14,400 miles of roads. All these roads — local, county, state, highway, Forest Service, National Park Service, paved, dirt, and jeep trail — all of them total just 14,400 miles. Montana, where I live now, has more than 73,000 miles of roads including the Forest Service roads that snake for thousands of miles through our public lands. Maine, where I grew up, has 23,000 miles of roads, all built without the helpful hand of the U.S. Forest Service. Both states’ land areas added together comprise just 1/5 of Alaska, yet they offer 82,000 additional miles to drive. It is humbling and powerful to live in a place that has so few roads. I think it is the single largest difference between Alaska and the Lower 48. Here in Montana we have towering mountains, grizzly bears, wolves, and pristine lakes by the hundreds. We have glaciers and seemingly endless forests, wild rivers and far flung locales — you just have to hop in your car and drive a few hours to see them. In Alaska however, you have to walk. Granted there is an historic and fabled bush pilot industry that can whisk you to the most remote corners of the state, but these flights cost money — a lot of money. From the heart of Anchorage, it takes twenty minutes to get to the edge of town, and from there you can shoulder your bag and never cross another road

One of Alaska’s emblematic species, the barren ground caribou, is particularly sensitive to roads and the disturbances they accommodate. Photo © Marcel Huijser.

20

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

or trail for the rest of your life. It’s an incredible feeling. To live on the edge of such a large, intact landscape bridges the gap between the one-hundred and fifty years of roaded and roadless that separates the Lower 48 from its wild past. Suddenly, all the technology, advanced suspension, horsepower, and power steering in the world don’t make the next ridge any easier to summit. Suddenly, the only thing that matters is the strength of your legs and the capacity of your lungs.

It’s easy to go for a drive and come back a thousand miles later. But that ease has come with an incredibly steep price.

The last summer I lived in Alaska, I lived in Cordova, a remote fishing town on the south end of Prince William Sound. No roads in or out. I lived on the fishing boat in the harbor and walked to town when I needed to. While you could bring a car onto the ferry, I had parked my truck at a friend’s house in Valdez and had ridden carless to Cordova. I’d never lived in a place that you couldn’t drive to, and I left feeling like it was probably my most favorite place on earth. Occasionally we’d borrow our skipper’s old Subaru and drive the fifty miles out of town to the river and glacier that cut us off from the rest of Alaska. We’d get out, watch the ice calving, turn around and drive home. Being so totally disconnected from the rest of the world fans the embers of real independence. You feel isolated but capable, alone but empowered, small but resilient. When there are no roads, there are no excuses. You have to get the right parts to fix whatever’s broken the first time. You measure twice; you write everything you might ever need on a long list and staple it to your pants. You can’t forget and if you do, you go without. It’s the best way I’ve found of recalibrating what’s truly important and what’s not.

— Montana, North Dakota, and the Idaho panhandle — the Forest Service alone has built 55,000 miles of roads. It is unlike anything I had ever seen. You can spend your life in those national forests, winding from valley to ridge and never touch the same dirt twice. The farthest you can get from a road in the lower 48 is in Yellowstone and it’s about twenty miles — you can still see and hear the lights from the highway. Down here, it’s easy to shoot to the store, to the movies, to a restaurant. It’s easy to go for a drive and come back a thousand miles later. But that ease has come with an incredibly steep price. Its cost is borne by the shattered landscape, the watersheds, the fish and the wolves. They suffer the most and have no voice to make their suffering heard. As I fly in and out of Missoula, traveling here or there, it makes me sad to watch as the landscape unfolds beneath the jet; I see not pockets of roads in a great sea of wildness, but rather pockets of wildness in a great sea of roads. — Greg Peters was born in Maine way back in 1978. After graduating from college in St. Louis, Missouri he headed to Alaska and worked in Americorps for two years teaching Adult Education and English as a Second Language. Since returning to the “Lower 48,” he’s worked as a janitor, ski instructor, and organic farmer, and is currently pursuing his master’s degree in Environmental Studies at the University of Montana.

When I moved to Montana, the first thing that truly struck me as different was the incredible number of roads. I could leave my house in my truck and drive forest roads to Canada, Idaho, or Washington without touching the paved variety. In Region 1

While both states boast stunning scenery, Montana views are more often obscured by roads. Here, a road divides a lake and leads to painted turtle mortality in the Ninepipe Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

21

Limited Edition Raffle As a special fundraiser for Wildlands CPR, we’re raffling off a Limited Edition of the anthology, A Road Runs Through It.

H

ere in Montana we’ve been enjoying one of the most temperate, fire- and smokefree summers in recent memory. It’s been delightful, and we’ve even gotten lots of work done despite the great weather! Turns out, however, that even though there aren’t many fires burning here, the fires in California and elsewhere have basically bankrupted the Forest Service for the remainder of the fiscal year (through September 30), and they’ve had to raid money from many other programs to pay for fire, including our favorite, the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative. To learn more about that, check out the story on pages 2-3. To hear more about what’s been going on here, read on:

Annual Gifts Campaign

Wildlands CPR is in the midst of our annual gifts campaign and WE WANT YOU to participate. Our goal: $40,000 from donors like you, to help us continue to promote successful, solution-oriented restoration and transportation strategies. We know it’s the middle of an important election cycle and many of you are probably contributing to that. We know the economy is down, gas prices are up and discretionary spending on conservation may not be your top priority. But Wildlands CPR is doing fantastic work because of contributions from people like you. We’re a unique organization that is helping to define effective conservation strategies for the 21st century. Your donations are well invested and will reap significant returns for public lands and waters — so thanks for keeping us in mind, and giving as generously as you can this fall — it makes it possible for us to continue these important programs! And a special thanks to all of you who have already contributed!

Why we love interns…

Greg Peters has been working with us for the past year as an intern on several different projects. We owe him a huge thanks for all the work he’s done over the past year, especially this summer when he was working fulltime. Last year, Greg took the lead on distributing Thrillcraft. He handled the project extremely well, and in just over six months, Greg worked with more than 100 groups to distribute almost every one of the 5000 books that was granted to Wildlands CPR. He also worked with those same groups to distribute ~11,000 brochures that graphically expose the impacts of off-road vehicle recreation on public lands. This summer, Greg started a new project, resulting in a tribal road removal resources section of our website.

22

• Tickets are $50 apiece • Only 250 tickets will be sold • Retail Price of the Set: $1,000 • Drawing held Friday, November 7th (need not be present to win) Each Limited Edition Set (only 50 were created) consists of a signed, leather bound book with a matching numbered set of six original wood engravings created exclusively for the book by Montana artist Claire Emery, handsomely packaged in a matching leather clamshell box. The Title Page is signed by all 26 living contributors including Annie Proulx, Peter Matthiessen, David Quammen, and Barry Lopez. Get tickets at www.wildlandscpr.org — or, send a check to Wildlands CPR at PO Box 7516, Missoula, MT 59807.

For more information, check out the new resources on page 19, or visit the tribal resources page on our website. Also check out his wonderful essay on pages 20-21. We’ve been absolutely delighted to have Greg in the office for the past year, and we’ll look forward to any opportunities we get to keep working with him.

FYI

Remote cameras are pretty fun… for the past four years, we’ve been working with the University of Montana, the Nez Perce Tribe and the Forest Service to monitor the effectiveness of road removal on the Clearwater National Forest. We’ve gotten great photos of moose, bear, deer, elk, and even mountain lions and a wolf over the years. This summer we got our first pictures of a fisher and bobcat hanging out (not together) in recently restored habitat. It’s been great to see how many wild species will come back when you invest the money to provide habitat for them. For more information about the restoration program, check out our program updates on pages 12-13.

Thanks

A big thanks to the Northwest Fund for the Environment, the National Forest Foundation and the Maki Foundation for grants to support our restoration program. And again, thanks to all of you who make individual contributions to renew your membership or to donate to our annual gifts campaign — it makes a huge difference, we couldn’t do it without you!

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

Support Wildlands CPR Today!

We’ve made supporting 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: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account $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

Payment Option #2: Credit Card Pledge

$10/Month (minimum)

$20/Month

other

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express Credit Card Number: _________________________________ CSC Number: ________________ *(see below)

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.

Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: __________________________________________

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation, 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

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

* 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! 23

Iceberg Lake, Glacier National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.

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

Driving wheeled vehicles, and constructing roads to support them, comes close to topping the list of humankind’s most environmentally damaging activities. — Howard Wilshire, Jane Nielson, and Richard Hazlett, American West at Risk; 2008

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