Road Riporter 14.1 Spring Equinox 2009

Spring Equinox 2009. Volume 14 No. 1

The Plum Creek Chronicles By Bethanie Walder and Dan Funsch

Inside… A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 The Plum Creek Chronicles, Pages 3-5 Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation Program Updates. Pages 6-7 Odes to Roads: Undemocratic Din (part two), by Ted Williams. Pages 8-9 DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder. Pages 10-11 Wildlands CPR’s 2008 Annual Report. Pages 12-14 Regional Reports & Updates. Page 15 Biblio Notes: ORV impacts on Sand Dune and Beach Habitats, by Beth Gibson. Pages 16-18 New Resources. Page 19 Citizen Spotlight on Tim Clarke, by Laurel Hagen. Pages 20-21 Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23

Visit us online:

Photos (clockwise from top left): the scenic Swan Valley (Wildlands CPR); wildlife on the road (Marcel Huijser); a Swan subdivision (Wildlands CPR), and; one of Plum Creek’s square-mile clearcuts (Northwest Connections.)

— story begins on page 3 —

wildlandscpr.org

Restoring Watersheds Through Stimulus Funding

W

e’ve been working round-the-clock since mid-November to promote the Forest Service Legacy Roads program as a critical component of any final stimulus package. Some days we thought we had a great chance at success, and other days seemed rather grim. In the end, we landed somewhere in the middle.

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wildland ecosystems by promoting watershed restoration through road removal, preventing new wildland road construction, and stopping off-road vehicle abuse. Director Bethanie Walder

What we proposed We developed a $500 million proposal to fund the Legacy Roads program for 2 years, at $250 million per year. More than 100 groups and retired agency staff, from all over the country, endorsed the proposal. We then submitted it to key Congressional offices in the House and Senate. The original House bill included some report language that mentioned the Legacy Roads program by name as an example of a good program for stimulus dollars. Unfortunately, that language didn’t make it into the final House bill or the final conference bill. However, after much education Congress did include the word “decommissioning” in the explicit list of how Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CIM) funds and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Construction funds could be spent. Congressional staff are starting to understand that road decommissioning is a smart way to bring green jobs to rural communities.

What Congress adopted The final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Obama on February 17, included $650 million to the Forest Service for CIM, and $180 million to the BLM for construction (in addition to other funds those agencies received). The agencies were given 30 days to obligate the funds. The Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and numerous other entities also received funds for restoration and maintenance/ improvement. The Forest Service CIM money can be used for nearly any type of road maintenance, in addition to other facilities maintenance and improvement, like fixing visitor centers. The Senate initially requested that the FS spend $380 million of the CIM funds on roads and trails; though that language didn’t make it into the final bill, it does provide an idea of how they may allocate the funds. The bill’s purpose is to create jobs, but it also directs that these funds be focused on improving natural resources. With no clear direction, the agency could invest a lot of money maintaining or even upgrading roads that really aren’t needed anymore.

What’s next Wildlands CPR put together an urgent letter to the acting Under Secretary of Agriculture and other Forest Service officials the day after the bill was signed, again endorsed by the groups who supported the initial proposal, requesting critical sideboards for spending the roads/trails money. We explicitly asked that they spend it on Legacy Roads type projects to provide green jobs in rural communities by decommissioning unneeded roads and stormproofing needed roads. We also requested that they use a portion of the funds to identify the minimum road system and prioritize roads for reclamation. We know they’ll spend some of the money on good projects, but they’ll also spend some on projects we won’t like. While we should fight those bad projects aggressively, let’s work to highlight and promote the good ones, and give the agencies a pat on the back where they deserve one. This can be a good second step for Legacy Roads, and if we can help the agency create green jobs while restoring watersheds, we can continue to advance our case for long-term, sustained funding for road decommissioning.

2

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

Development Director Tom Petersen Science Coordinator Adam Switalski Legal and Agency Liaison Sarah Peters Montana State ORV Coordinator Adam Rissien Utah State ORV Coordinator Laurel Hagen Washington State Representative Sue Gunn Program Associate Cathrine L. Walters Restoration Research Associate Josh Hurd Journal Editor Dan Funsch Interns & Volunteers Greg Peters, Geoff Fast, Beth Gibson, Owen Weber, Stuart Smith Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William Geer, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben

© 2009 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

The Plum Creek Chronicles By Bethanie Walder and Dan Funsch

Editor’s Note: some scenes have been slightly dramatized to fit your newsletter

Prologue: April 2008

Act One

The camera pans across a forest checkerboarded with clearcuts, focusing in on a realtor’s SUV as it winds along a dirt road between Plum Creek and Forest Service lands in western Montana…

Featuring: Plum Creek, Mark Rey, and some top level Forest Service officials

The news broke in Missoula, MT that Plum Creek Timber Company had been engaged in secret negotiations with the Department of Agriculture regarding the terms of their many road easements with the Forest Service. The easements were giving Plum Creek heartburn as they contemplated subdividing and selling off up to 2 million acres (of their 8 million acres nationwide) for high value homesites in the expanding wildland-urban interface. The question on everyone’s mind: did the easements allow access for residential development, or for resource management (ie. timber harvest) only? Some in the Forest Service and many in local government supported the latter interpretation - thus the secret negotiations. If Plum Creek prevailed, significant ecological, economic and social impacts were certain in the communities where the company most wanted to divest. Over the next eight months a diversity of public and private interests came together to prevent Plum Creek’s interpretation, in a perfect storm of protest. In addition to Plum Creek and the Forest Service, a full cast of characters had roles to play:

The camera pans across faces in a dimly lit, smoke-filled room. The drinks are flowing, there’s laughter in the air, and a pile of paperwork on the table… The parties agree to language clarifying that the easements across national forest land do, in fact, allow Plum Creek to sell off prime “real estate” for residential development. The Forest Service gets a guarantee that they won’t be responsible for fire-fighting costs to protect the new homes. Amidst backslapping and handshaking, the deal is agreed to, in theory.

Act Two Featuring: the Missoula County Commissioners/attorneys, Senator Tester, and conservation organizations The camera reveals a collective jaw-dropping expression from the Missoula County Commissioners as they catch wind (and some rancid cigar smoke) of the negotiations… The commissioners inform Senator Jon Tester, who orders Mark Rey to fly to Missoula and meet with the commissioners. Rey comes to the meeting but will not release any significant information about what he and Plum Creek have been cooking up. News accounts of the meeting and secret negotiations are negative, but the story gets little play outside of Missoula. The county files a Freedom of Information Request with the Forest Service, seeking more detail. Rey chuckles all the way home, while Senator Tester makes a formal request for a GAO investigation.

• US Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey • Montana Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) • Missoula County Commissioners and County Attorneys • Other County Commissioners in Montana • Social investment firms • Conservation organizations • Conservation lawyers

— continued on page 3 —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

3

The Plum Creek Chronicles — continued from page 3 —

Interlude Featuring: Sen Max Baucus, conservation organizations, Plum Creek The camera’s frame is filled with a signature… that of Senator Max Baucus. It zooms out to include the other players… Following years of not-quite-so-secret negotiations, Senator Max Baucus includes funding in the 2008 Farm Bill that would allow The Nature Conservancy and other land trusts to buy more than 300,000 acres of Plum Creek’s Montana holdings. The proposal is critically needed to prevent wholesale development of vital habitat. The timing, however, is not ideal in light of the revelations about Plum Creek’s backroom dealings over road easements. An article in the Washington Post covers both issues together. Baucus and conservationists work hard to clarify that the land exchange/buyout is separate from the easement fiasco. Montanans seem equally excited and alarmed about the proposal – which has a $510 million price tag (only partly funded by the Farm Bill). Should it happen, Plum Creek will be laughing all the way to the bank – after all, they never paid for the land in the first place (they came to own it as a result of the 19th century railroad land grants). While the majority of Montanans seem to want this land to be converted to public ownership, few can disguise their frustration over the fact that Plum Creek will make millions from the deal.

Act Three Featuring: conservation organizations/lawyers; social investment firms

Scene One: Meanwhile, back at the ranch… images of suits and ties, bifocals and head scratching fill the screen… The county, Tester’s office and the GAO are completing their due diligence to challenge the disastrous easement negotiations. Conservationists want to engage, but decide to remain behind the scenes, as Missoula County and the Senator are doing a good job making Plum Creek look bad in the media. Nonetheless, conservationists work with their own lawyers to identify potential challenges to any final renegotiation of the easements. Any litigation must wait until the easements are finalized. There must be something else conservationists can do while they wait for the case to ripen…

Scene Two: The camera cuts to a classic scene: conservation staffers at a happy hour party… scribbling on cocktail napkins… Fortuitously, staff from Wildlands CPR and the Clark Fork Coalition end up at a small party with representatives from Trillium Asset Management, a social investment firm. They cook up a plan to launch a shareholder action against Plum Creek to pressure the firm into withdrawing from the negotiations. Tril-

4

Entire square mile sections of Plum Creek land have been heavily logged (above - photo courtesy of Northwest Connections). Below, the Swan River meanders through the valley, Wildlands CPR photo.

lium brings in Newground Social Investment in Seattle, which has engaged in other dealings with Plum Creek, and the two firms launch a shot across Plum Creek’s bow. The mere mention of their plan attracts more negative media attention to Plum Creek. Plum Creek and the shareholders trade letters back and forth over several months, culminating in a final decision by the investment firms to file a formal shareholder resolution. Wildlands CPR provides the firms with the bulk of the information needed to continue with these actions.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

Act Four

Epilogue

Featuring: Plum Creek, Missoula County, Forest Service, Senator Tester, GAO

The camera catches a glimmer of sunlight in the forest; a fisherman casts a line to trout in a clear stream; an older couple stroll quietly down a forest trail…

In dramatic fashion, the halls of Congress are backlit, and the cameras capture a press conference… The GAO releases their preliminary findings, which clearly question the legality of the proposed Plum Creek/USDA easement renegotiation. Tester continues to press Mark Rey. The Forest Service releases the tiniest trickle of relatively useless information to Missoula County from their long-ago filed FOIA request. Plum Creek and the Forest Service hold a series of meetings in different counties. At the Missoula County meeting Plum Creek unveils a new strategy of subterfuge, stating that the county doesn’t have to sign the blanket renegotiation if they don’t want to. Instead, Plum Creek considers using the new easement language as a template and applying it on a case-by-case basis. You can almost read their minds with this approach – they’ll just go where people aren’t paying attention and apply the renegotiated easements without controversy. The media coverage continues to paint Plum Creek in a very bad light, but it also continues to be mostly focused in the local paper, The Missoulian.

Act Five Featuring: the entire cast On-screen, a series of tightly-edited shots: a bustling newsroom; a bulldozer moving earth; men in suits shaking hands… On New Years’ morning The Missoulian includes yet another above-the-fold story about the Plum Creek renegotiations. The headline is a brutal welcome to 2009 and does not bode well for those who care about the environment: “Rey to make decision on Plum Creek road access.” A few days later, on a Sunday, The Washington Post runs a lengthy article about the easement issue, and Rey’s pending decision. It is a follow up to their summer article that looked at both the easement renegotiation and the Baucus/Nature Conservancy/Plum Creek land deal. The article is good, but seems to be too little, too late, as Rey practically guarantees he’ll sign the deal before leaving office. About face: The first real work day of the year (January 6) is half over when Plum Creek drops a bomb to the Missoula County Commission, declaring that they are pulling out of the renegotiation deal. The county commissioners, activists and many others rejoice that this part of the fight with Plum Creek is over. The following day The Missoulian has one more front page story proclaiming Plum Creek’s withdrawal. The Washington Post also runs a follow-up.

Everyone’s asking what happened, and those interviewed are consistent in their message: It was a full-court press. No matter where Plum Creek turned they were resisted: Missoula County, federal legal analysis, public opinion, even some of their shareholders. It’s likely that there was no one act, on its own, that led Plum Creek to back down. It took a lot of different people, engaging in very different ways, to surround Plum Creek and force them to drop their plans. External factors like a crashing real estate market and the shift to a new Presidential Administration didn’t hurt either, though only Plum Creek can say why they finally pulled the plug. The costs of losing this one would have been astronomical from a conservation perspective. But the battle isn’t over and many of the ecological threats still exist. Plum Creek’s withdrawal just means that the status quo remains intact. Plum Creek can continue selling parcels of land for development and the individual buyers can negotiate with the Forest Service on a case-by-case basis. Many renegotiated easements are likely to fly under the radar and never be challenged. It’s one more example of the nature of conservation battles, which often involve ephemeral wins and permanent losses. While this is an enormous victory, it may still be ephemeral. That said, by preventing the wholesale renegotiation of these easements to allow for development, the county, the Senators’ offices, conservation groups and other interested parties have ensured that there is at least some possibility for a vigorous review of easements in each case.

In other words, stay tuned for the sequel!

At left, another home for sale in the wildlandurban interface. Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

5

Program Updates, Spring 2009 Thank You Marnie! F

or the past nine years, our restoration program has been led both fearlessly and creatively by Marnie Criley. In mid-2008 Marnie informed us that she was ready to move on, and that she would be leaving Wildlands CPR at the end of the year. Even though we had about six months to get used to the idea, it’s still pretty strange not having her as an official part of the Wildlands CPR team. As we continue to adjust, we thought we’d take this opportunity to share with you, our members and readers, the amazing story of what Marnie started with, what she built and where our program is as a result of her work, It was January 2000, we had just finished a major push to press the Forest Service to change off-road vehicle management, and the roadless rule was about to be finalized. Wildlands CPR had been involved at the inception of the roadless campaign, and as it grew into a major DC-based effort, we complemented the endeavor with a focus on place-based road restoration. By the time the rule was adopted, people understood that wildland roads can be quite damaging. We created a full-time position, enabling us to aggressively expand our emphasis on watershed restoration through road removal.

Within a short time, Marnie directed Wildlands CPR toward research into the economics and socio-political aspects of watershed restoraMarnie was working as a restoration practitioner with her partner tion through road removal. She became a key Mark, but she had a very strong policy background. She and Mark had participant in the national effort to develop a attended several Wildlands CPR workshops, most of the time ending up as set of restoration principles, building alliances de-facto instructors to Forest Service participants. Marnie was clearly perwith partners in the community-based forestry fect for the job, and apparently she thought so, too, because she took it! movement. Marnie helped many understand that restoration could result in win-win situations and move us away from tiresome jobs vs. the environment arguments, and she oversaw the development of a formal economic analysis of the jobs creation benefits of road decommissioning. Today it seems everyone is jumping on the green jobs bandwagon, but Marnie blazed a trail those many years ago. We’ve expanded on and promoted the results of that first report (Investing in Communities, Investing in the Land) ever since, with Marnie becoming a sought-after expert in developing high-skill, high-wage, As a direct result of Marnie’s efforts, road decommissioning is much more common than in the past. green restoration jobs. Here, before (above) and after photos of a restored road in Rye Creek, Bitterroot national Forest, Montana. Photos by Byron Williams, US Forest Service.

6

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

While the agency was beginning to engage in watershed restoration through road decommissioning, there were a lot of false starts around the country. So, Marnie developed another project to identify what works and what doesn’t in road decommissioning. The result was an extremely valuable report including a fantastic flow chart to help agency staff implement socio-politically acceptable road decommissioning programs on national forests. If they could head off opposition, and even more importantly, build public support, then, theoretically, the agency would be able to implement better restoration programs. This report and several others became known as our “road removal toolbox.” Now we needed to get the toolbox into the right hands . . . Since our inception, Wildlands CPR had implemented citizen workshops to teach people how to document roads in the field, work with the agency to change road management, etc. And while we had invited agency staff to our road decommissioning workshops, our focus was still on the general public. Marnie took our workshops in an entirely new direction, identifying agency staff as a prime audience. In 1.5 years, more than 100 agency staff attended workshops that Marnie coordinated, all focused on the toolbox. Staff from Forest Service regions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 all attended. Wildlands CPR has since led trainings in both our restoration and ORV programs for more than 300 agency staff.

Marnie’s experience in the woods — and working with wood — helped Wildlands CPR establish credibility in the restoration debate.

During all this time, Marnie was engaged in many state and national efforts to combine labor and environmental advocacy – especially as a result of the economics/jobs work she had been doing. In 2006, she got more heavily involved in Montana restoration, after our board finally relaxed their “don’t focus so much on Montana” rule. Marnie worked with the Montana governor’s office and Wildlands CPR became an original cosponsor, along with the MT AFL-CIO, of the Governor’s Restoration Summit in June 2006. More than 300 business, tribal, conservation, university and government representatives participated in this meeting. Just this fall the governor held a follow up meeting focused on building a restoration workforce in Montana, and Marnie presented at that as well. As an outcome of the governor’s 2006 summit, Marnie began coordinating a group of summit participants from industry, labor, university, timber, conservation and hunting communities to promote recommendations from the 2006 summit. We began calling this ad-hoc group Restore Montana, and Marnie was the unofficial leader of the pack. We set an agenda for the 2007 MT legislature, and when all was said and done, we ended up with $34 million in new state funding for restoration, the creation of a state office of watershed restoration, and a new messenger, Governor Schweitzer, on the importance of building a restoration economy in Montana. During 2007, Marnie also took a leadership role with a group of agency staff, timber, hunting and conservationists who were developing a set of restoration principles for Montana.

Marnie brought a diverse array of talents to the organization.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

This review includes just some of the big projects that Marnie has been involved in, but throughout the past 9 years, she’s been helping Wildlands CPR grow into the diverse, respected organization that we are today. When Marnie left Wildlands CPR at the end of 2008, she did so with one primary goal in mind – to turn Restore Montana into an effective organization promoting a restoration economy in the state of Montana. She’s got a board of directors (which includes Wildlands CPR E.D. Bethanie Walder), she’s in the process of raising money, and she’s got a vision for how to move forward. Restore Montana is a coalition effort, and Wildlands CPR will continue to be a big part of it. We hope this brief review of Marnie’s impact on Wildlands CPR provides a small token of our thanks for all her hard work with us. Marnie, we wish you all the luck in the world — we hope you’re as successful at this next endeavor as you were with Wildlands CPR — we’ll miss you!

7

Undemocratic Din By Ted Williams

Editor’s Note: This is the second part of this essay; we printed the first half in the last issue of The RIPorter (13.4). The essay appeared in its entirety in Forest Magazine in summer 2008, but was written in the late 1990s. The places of employment and/or titles of some of the characters have since changed.

C

arrying the ORV industry’s gas— and venting it—is the BlueRibbon Coalition, a group dedicated to keeping public land accessible to ORV users. The coalition has acquired major funding from Yamaha, Honda, Polaris, Ski-doo and Horizon, and lists among its members scores of motor-head clubs, with names like the Missouri Mudders, and a host of firms and cartels, including the Western States Petroleum Association, American Forest & Paper Association, Boise Cascade, Idaho Cattle Association, Committee for Public Access to Public Lands, Idaho Mining Association and Northwest Mining Association. Cofounder and director Clark Collins defines the roadless rule proposed by the Clinton administration and squashed by Bush as a plot by the “GAGs” (green advocacy groups, which he has also referred to as “hate groups” and “nature Nazis”). Motorcycle traffic eroded this fragile soil. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

“Basically, ORVs ran me out of Michigan” — Colonel George Buchner

8

Also supporting and promoting the BlueRibbon Coalition has been the Outdoor Channel, the first full-time cable network with a programming focus on hunting and fishing and which reaches 11 million homes across the nation. It has included the coalition among its website links to “conservation” organizations and given it plenty of airtime to tub-thump for motorization and privatization of public land. Jake Hartwick, the Outdoor Channel’s executive vice president, says that “wise-use groups are defending the very foundation of our system” and that “environmental groups are advocating the complete abolition of private-property rights.” But not all sportsmen are so easily seduced, and when you strip away the mirrors, gongs, water and dry ice, Collins becomes a little man in a Wizard of Oz suit. In the BlueRibbon Coalition’s home state of Idaho, the Fish and Game Department reports that at least 86 percent of elk hunters find that encounters with motorized vehicles detract from their outdoor experience. Fewer than 5 percent of the members of the Montana Wildlife Federation (composed basically of hunters and anglers) own ORVs, and the group has asked the Forest Service to close all roads that don’t service fullsize vehicles.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

Jim Posewitz, director of Orion— the Hunter’s Institute, a Montana-based sportsmen’s group, says: “The presence of ATVs on public hunting grounds will probably be one of the largest contributors to loss of hunting opportunity that we’ve yet experienced. It puts the animals at a disadvantage. It violates the security that wildlife once had in difficult terrain. The Forest Service and BLM have decided to disenfranchise the people who have followed the law and empower those who have violated it. Those of us who have participated in nonmotorized use have no way to stake a comparable claim.” The BlueRibbon Coalition blames the unpopularity of ORVs on the behavior of “bad apples,” and maybe it’s right. But because the new machines can go where there is no enforcement, bad apples proliferate. Evaluating the “600cc mountain line” snowmobiles for SnoWest Magazine, Steve Janes of the SnoWest test crew filed this report: “In the four days of riding in Quebec, we estimate that we violated around 652 laws or regulations. But since our crew’s motto was ‘If you can’t break parts, break laws,’ we acted naive and ‘wandered’ off the groomed trails in search of test areas.” The 500 combat missions flown by Colonel George Buchner over Vietnam didn’t prepare him for ORV combat in Michigan, where the machines have done an estimated $1 billion worth of

damage, tearing up ground cover so badly that utility poles were falling over. Where Lake Huron collects the Au Sable River system, Buchner found trespassing ATV operators popping wheelies in his private trout stream. When he demanded their names, one rider dismounted and attacked him, breaking his nose. When he fenced his posted stream and property, ORV operators cut the wire and pulled the stakes. When he reinforced the stakes with cement, they knocked them down. When he and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs successfully pushed for a state ORV policy of “closed unless posted open,” he received death threats and had his streetlights shot out, his mailbox smashed, his driveway seeded with broken glass, the eight-strand fence on his Christmas tree farm cut in eighty-eight places, and his wife run over. “Robin was screaming,” he says, “and the guy calmly cranked up his machine and finished running over her. He’d come through multiple barriers, multiple posted signs, three fences and a gate. She had a hematoma extending the length of her leg.” “Basically, ORVs ran me out of Michigan,” Buchner told me from his Arizona home. But in the end the problem comes down not so much to the nature of ORV users as to the nature of their vehicles. ORVs are designed to go “off road,”

A few bad apples? Or an integral part of offroad culture? Photo courtesy of BLM.

where motorized vehicles don’t belong. Their noise is undemocratic—like second-hand smoke. They need to be removed from our wildest and best public land—not because regulations can’t control them (although they can’t), not because most people hate them (although they do), but because they intrude and usurp. Snowmobile din now penetrates five miles into the backcountry of our first national park. Winter visitors are having trouble hearing the geysers, and elk and bison are being driven from the forage of open meadows and the shallow snow of thermal areas, which they desperately require. In order for ORV operators to do their thing, everyone else, including wildlife, must cease doing theirs—at least in part. Some people can’t enjoy our public lands without ORVs. But when there’s no escape from them, the rest of us can’t enjoy our public lands either.

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

— Ted Williams is a freelance writer specializing in conservation and the environment. He is editor-at-large of Audubon and conservation editor of Fly Rod & Reel.

9

Can the Forest Service “Rightsize” the National Forest Road System? By Bethanie Walder

I

n the midst of this economic downturn, the term “rightsizing” is often considered a euphemism for layoffs and downsizing. Reflecting on all the layoffs as a result of our current recession, I got to thinking about much needed reductions in the bloated Forest Service road system as an opportunity for “rightsizing.”

Road Access Strategies (Most likely scenario - 2% Loss in Purchasing Power) 100% 90%

89,600

89,600

294,630

80% Closed Miles

70%

In recent conversations, meetings, and some publications, the Forest Service has hinted at the possibility of rightsizing the road system as well. But as I reflect on the past eight years and review more recent documents and conversations, I’m increasingly concerned that their idea of rightsizing is fatally flawed.

60%

An Opportunity Missed

10%

50%

220,180

High Clearance Miles

278,390

40%

Passenger Car Miles

30% 20%

0%

64,561 69,910 11,700 Existing Condition

Maintain Open Road Access

20,499 Reduce Access Proportionately

The Forest Service (FS) was given an optimal Graphics here & below adapted from T. Moore 2007, unpublished draft report. tool for rightsizing their road system in 2001, when the outgoing Clinton administration (after years of study) adopted the long-term transportation policy. It called for the agency to determine a “minimum road system” necessary to meet the needs of forest users and resource managers. And while it offered great potential, the rule was In October 2007 Undersecretary of eclipsed by its contemporary, the roadless rule. Agriculture Mark Rey provided a written response to several Senators who had Unfortunately, in applying the roads policy, the FS Washington office decidinquired about Forest Service road manageed to limit analysis of its road system to only those roads suitable for passenger ment. He explained that the agency would vehicles; the agency turned a blind eye to roads that were closed or roads open reduce roads open to the public because of to high clearance vehicles. As a result, most forests decided they needed all of funding constraints: “We will make foresttheir “roads.” by-forest annual road maintenance decisions in a manner that reduces availability Years passed, funding for road decommissioning ebbed and flowed, and of roads to public traffic and also reduces only a handful of forests (or districts) took the time to analyze and identify a the standards of the roads that are made minimum road system. Outside of those few forests it became clear that there so available, to miles of road and levels of was little motivation to begin systematically dismantling the world’s largest road service that are sustainable at current road system. Meanwhile, the road maintenance backlog grew exponentially, and budget levels.” many passenger vehicle roads crossed over maintenance “tipping points” and were reclassified as high clearance roads. At around the same time, the agency was completing some national road assessGood ments, apparently for the Office of ManageHigh ment and Budget and for the Office of the Inspector General. One of their draft reports, “Rightsizing the Forest Service Road Fair System,” made it into the final EnvironmenMedium tal Impact Statement on Idaho roadless areas in 2008. Apparently a final copy was never released (at least not one that we Low can access), but the charts and information Poor contained in the report are rather alarming. Time

10

Investment Need

Road Condition

Playing With Words

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

Road Size: Right or Wrong?

In 2006, according to the FS’s annual Road Accomplishment Reports, they were only able to maintain 36% of their roads to standard. If they reclassify 50,000 miles of passenger vehicle roads to high clearance roads, they could then claim, without any increase in funding, that they are maintaining the bulk of their roads to standard. But they won’t have changed anything on the ground, nor secured any new funding. The road system is an ecological nightmare that gets worse every day as maintenance is delayed again and again because of a lack of funding.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

Loss in Passenger Car Access 100,000 93,600 90,000

85,022 85,000

82,163

80,000

81,871 79,763

76,000

75,000 74,000 69,910

70,000

Graphic adapted from T. Moore 2007, unpublished draft report.

2005 2006

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1998

60,000 1997

How can the agency refer to this as “rightsizing” the road system? Just for argument’s sake, let’s pretend that the FS was rightsizing like an auto manufacturer might. The workforce could represent different types of roads as defined by Maintenance Level (ML): managers representing roads open to the public (ML 3-5); factory workers representing high-clearance vehicle (ML 2) roads; and janitorial staff representing closed (ML 1) roads. If the company did as the FS is doing, they wouldn’t lay anyone off, but would instead downgrade them to jobs with fewer benefits. They might cut management positions by 80% and move these managers into the factory and janitorial staff. While this might cut their overall costs, it probably wouldn’t help them be successful, in fact, it would probably do the opposite.

Rightsizing the road system by removing roads on-the-ground, as well as on paper, will provide real and lasting benefits to wildlife, water resources, American taxpayers and local workers. Eight years ago, when the FS adopted that long-term transportation policy, the agency determined that a minimum road system would have 25-40% fewer roads than the current system. But somewhere along the line the agency forgot all about that, and many line officers decided they just had to keep every single existing road in their system. So here we are, nearly a decade later, with a growing budget deficit and a growing ecological crisis. The agency’s draft proposal for “rightsizing” might solve the immediate budget problem, but it will result in even greater long-term costs from the road failures and ecological damage that will be inevitable as maintenance is ignored. Perhaps that’s why the draft Rightsizing the Road System report never made it into final form?

1991

The report’s bottom line: The FS road system is too big, the bulk of the maintenance backlog is on passenger vehicle roads, and by downgrading these to lower capacity roads, the agency can reduce the backlog. The report assumes the road system will stay the same size over time; it does not recommend decommissioning any roads. This is particularly hard to understand, since the agency is engaging in road decommissioning, albeit at a small level, all over the U.S. Instead, to work within their budget they recommend closing up to 80% of the roads now open to passenger vehicles. Taken from the report, these charts (see figure at left) show funding scenarios and how those might play out on the ground.

Miles

Plugged culverts are just one symptom of an ailing road system. Photo courtesy of BLM.

The Forest Service doesn’t really seem to have a plan for rightsizing their road system. Instead they appear focused on keeping the system the same size, but reclassifying some roads to reduce maintenance requirements and hence, theoretically saving money. Though this might be a reasonable solution on paper, it could be disastrous ecologically. Here’s a sample of the potential fallout: • Increased erosion and sedimentation • Increased likelihood of blocked fish passage from unmaintained or under-maintained culverts • Increased risk of mass wasting related to catastrophic culvert failures or other road blowouts • No reductions in habitat fragmentation • Increased spread of weeds and other invasive species • Increased threat of off-road vehicle trespass from ML 2 roads

With hefty stimulus funding barreling their way, the Forest Service has an opportunity to invest wisely in three key benefits (ecological improvement, green-job creation, and long-term future taxpayer savings). Or, they may choose to spend these funds to upgrade roads that are no longer needed, creating jobs now but increasing long-term ecological and fiscal costs. We’re pressing hard for the agency to stop shuffling papers and hiding the maintenance problem, and to get busy truly rightsizing our road system.

Citation Moore, T. 2007. [unpublished draft]. National Forest System Road Trends, Trends Analysis Submitted to Office of Management and Budget. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engineering Staff,Washington Office, Washington, DC.

11

Wildlands CPR 2008 Annual Report In

2008 Wildlands CPR led national conservation efforts to secure increased funding for watershed restoration on public lands. We also continued to play a strong leadership role in the campaign to stop off-road vehicle abuse on national forests. For fifteen years now, Wildlands CPR has identified strategic solutions to intractable conservation, transportation, and restoration problems on public lands. 2008 was no exception, with real on-the-ground success in both our transportation and restoration programs. Tangible results of Wildlands CPR’s mission: a road is removed. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Watershed Restoration Our restoration program had two emphases in 2008 – engaging in pilot projects to build a restoration economy in the state of Montana and securing national funds for watershed restoration on public lands. We spent the early part of the year working with the Forest Service to ensure they spent their ~$40 million in Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative money (Legacy Roads) effectively and appropriately. Concurrently, we worked to ensure the Legacy Roads program was funded in FY 2009 and beyond. Here in the region, Restoration Program Coordinator Marnie Criley continued her leadership role in on-the-ground activities with the Montana Forest Restoration Committee and Restore Montana. At the national level, Wildlands CPR’s Washington Field Rep Sue Gunn acted as the Campaign Coordinator for the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative (WWRI) and related national efforts. In addition, our Restoration Research Associate, Josh Hurd, began a year-long project to identify the regulatory and policy changes needed to build a sustained, robust restoration sector of the economy.

12

Restoration Program Accomplishments • Expanded program with two new staff: Sue Gunn at ½ time and Josh Hurd at ¾ time. • Provided support and oversight to the Forest Service for implementing the $39.4 million Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRRI), including: • Presented the Washington Office of the Forest Service with a national report of road decommissioning needs and recommendations on how to spend LRRI funds. • Reviewed the distribution of LRRI funds and challenged projects that didn’t meet Congressional intent; several inappropriate projects were pulled and replaced. • Promoted LRRI to regional and national media, with numerous newspaper and television reports that focused on LRRI implementation and green-jobs. • Developed a multi-faceted approach to advocate for LRRI funding from multiple sources: • Worked with congress on “dear colleague” letters in the house and senate supporting LRRI funding and green jobs. • Implemented a strategy for stimulus funding for LRRI that was incorporated by national environmental and sporting organizations and other diverse partners. (More than 100 groups and individuals directly endorsed our proposal.) • Secured language in the stimulus bill that ensures the Forest Service can spend a portion of their funds on road decommissioning (finalized in 2009). • Promoted on-the-ground restoration in Montana through leadership of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) and Restore Montana. • Completed our fourth year of citizen monitoring of road removal on the Clearwater National Forest – began final assessment of multi-year data with statistically significant information about wildlife use of roads. • Developed a set of watershed restoration/road removal resources for tribes and posted this information on a new section of our website. • Co-sponsored two critical restoration/stewardship summits. • Recruited speakers and participants for the Pacific Rivers Council/WWRI watershed restoration symposium in Tacoma, WA in April • Participated in the steering committee for Sustainable Northwest’s Western Stewardship Summit in Bend, OR in September. Presented at or chaired numerous panel discussions.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

ORVs Wildlands CPR is heavily engaged in the Forest Service’s national travel planning process. Our ORV state coordinators in MT and UT (Adam Rissien and Laurel Hagen) worked tirelessly to influence travel planning on their priority forests. They also established many new partners and expanded public support for stopping off-road vehicle abuse. Our Legal Liaison, Sarah Peters, assisted activists throughout the nation in legal efforts surrounding travel planning and road management. And our Staff Scientist Adam Switalski partnered with the Wild Utah Project to publish a report on Best Management Practices (BMPs) for off-road vehicle use on forested ecosystems. The BMPs, along with our earlier report on effective enforcement strategies, are another example of Wildlands CPR’s focus on providing real-world solutions to difficult land management problems.

Adam Switalski prepares a group of students to assist with Wildlands CPR’s monitoring effort.

Off-Road Vehicle Program Accomplishments • Published and distributed ~1000 copies of BMPs for Off-Road Vehicles in Forested Ecosystems, in conjunction with Six Strategies for Success: Effective off-road vehicle management on public lands, to Forest Service, Park Service and Bureau of Land Management staff. Several thousand additional copies of both reports have also been downloaded from our website. • Distributed nearly 5000 copies of the coffee-table book Thrillcraft. • Helped with two congressional oversight hearings on off-road vehicle management. Identified witnesses and key questions. Our enforcement report was highlighted in the hearings as a critical resource for land managers. • Provided extensive support to the Bitterroot Quiet Use Coalition and Montanans for Quiet Recreation. • Coordinated meetings with rural Utahns and the governor of Utah regarding challenges with motorized recreation and promotion of non-motorized recreation. This resulted in favorable press in the Salt Lake Tribune, including a statement by the Governor that the effects of off-road use in southern UT are “abominable.” • Provided leadership and strategic support to numerous organizations in Montana working to develop enforcement legislation for the 2009 legislative session. • Participated in a three-day field meeting with top level Forest Service staff and a variety of motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Coordinated conservation comments to the interim final trail classification guidelines. • Partnered with The Wilderness Society’s Recreation Planning Program to provide leadership to activists throughout the west on national forest travel planning. • Settled a lawsuit with the National Park Service over offroad vehicle management in National Parks. The settlement identified pilot parks where new reporting methods will be tested, and it guaranteed that parks that have not undertaken Technological improvements have changed the nature of off-road planning for off-road vehicles (where such use is allowed), will transportation, making Wildlands CPR’s work all the more important in protecting natural resources. Photo by Laurel Hagen. complete the needed planning.

— Annual Report continued on next page — The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

13

Wildlands CPR 2008 Annual Report — continued from previous page —

Additional Accomplishments

Organizational Development

• Took a behind the scenes leadership role in challenging Plum Creek Timber Company’s efforts to develop a new road easement agreement with the Forest Service nationally – which would have facilitated Plum Creek’s sale of lands in the wildland urban interface. • Worked with several organizations to prepare for possible litigation against any final agreement. • Partnered with Clark Fork Coalition (MT), Newground Social Investing (WA), and Trillium Asset Management (MA/ID) to develop a shareholder’s action requesting that Plum Creek cease the negotiations. On January 5, 2009, Plum Creek pulled out. • Upgraded our website and electronic communications tools, including significant expansion of our electronic newsletter, The Dirt. • Published a leather-bound collector’s edition of our book (and accompanying woodcut engravings), A Road Runs Through It, which was signed by all 26 of the living authors.

Wildlands CPR continues to be supported by foundations and individuals. We’d like to thank the following for their support for our work in 2008: Bullitt, Cinnabar, Firedoll, Harder, Horizons, Maki, National Forest, New-Land, NW Fund for the Environment, Page, and 444 S Foundations. In addition, we extend a huge thank you to all those individuals who provided us with financial support to complete our projects. Our successes are your successes, and they always will be. Thank you!

2008 Financial Report 2008 Income: 2008 Expenses:

Income Contributions & Membership $63,960

Contract Income $16,500

$ 547,218.23 $ 571,093.42

In-Kind Donations & Services $ 21,161.42

Other $15,238

Grants $451,521

Expenses Org. Development $48,726

Note: The figures used in this report have yet to be audited, so they are subject to change.

14

Transportation $268,273

Admin. & Fundraising $49,473

Restoration $204,621

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

9th Circuit Win for Grizzlies

Court Blocks Alaska Road

Swan View Coalition, Friends of the Wild Swan, and Wildlands CPR won a victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against the Flathead National Forest in a dispute over road management. The Flathead’s Resource Management Plan (RMP) requires it to maintain areas for grizzly bears where motorized travel is restricted. In these areas, when the needs of grizzly conflict with other management options, the RMP states that the grizzly should win.

The Federal District Court of Alaska ruled in February that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) failed to consider a full range of alternatives when considering the Juneau Road and Ferry Project. For the project to move forward, Judge Sedwick specifically required that the Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) and FHWA consider an alternative to improve ferry service using existing ferries and terminals. The 50 mile, $374 million road was planned to link Alaska’s capital with the interior.

However, in its implementation of a post-fire salvage plan, the Flathead NF left several roads open to motorized use without evaluating the resulting conflict with the requirements established in their management plan. On January 9, 2009, the 9th Circuit over-ruled a previous decision made by District Judge Malloy and told the Flathead to go back and re-analyze that decision, with the needs of grizzly in the forefront.

FS Trail Classification Update In mid-December, Wildlands CPR and several other groups provided comments on interim final directives the Forest Service issued in October to address how recreational trails are managed. These directives, while positive overall, also had a few zingers buried in their depths. We’re still waiting to see whether the FS listens to any of our suggestions to apply common sense to this guidance. These directives provide no direction for how trail maintenance and upgrade projects are to comply with NEPA and public involvement, leading to a very real concern that trails will be upgraded, either to a higher standard trail for the same use or from a nonmotorized to a motorized trail, without environmental analysis and without public involvement.

The court ruling states: “The [Final Environmental Impact Statement’s] omission of such an alternative is particularly troublesome in light of the agencies’ awareness that such an alternative was the ‘first obvious alternative‚’ and had the fewest environmental impacts, and the fact that the communities who stand to benefit the most from the Project explicitly requested the agencies to focus on improving ferry transportation within Lynn Canal.” This means that road construction through Berners Bay will not commence this summer, nor any time soon. Governor Palin and the State now have three choices: (a) appeal the court’s decision; (b) revise the EIS according to the district court’s instructions, or; (c) scrap the project altogether. Gov. Palin seemed ambivalent about the proposed road, and now must decide to either throw more good money after bad or to scrap the road and put the state’s money to better use. Visit www.seacc.org/issues/transportation for the full decision.

Another worrisome change included a definition for a Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV), which further conflates the non-existent difference between the FS definition for a road and a trail. UTV is a term created by the ORV industry to indicate vehicles where passenger and driver ride side by side and that has a steering wheel like a regular automobile. These vehicles were already covered under the FS definition for “four wheel drive vehicle” and as such there was no need for a new definition. Adding this definition advances the FS further down a slippery slope of trying to accommodate each new addition to the ORV arsenal. Wildlands CPR will be closely watching for the final version of these directives to determine if the Forest Service has fixed these, and other problems, and we’ll let you know what we find out.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

The planned road would have crossed dozens of active avalanche shutes. Photo courtesy of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council.

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.

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts on Sand Dune and Sandy Beach Habitats By Beth Gibson

Introduction Sand dunes and sandy beaches contend with surf spray, storms, wind, and other extreme conditions. These coastal areas also face unique challenges related to population growth, climate change, and urban development and sprawl – more than half the U.S. population lives in coastal areas. And while these habitats and the flora and fauna that inhabit them are robust, they are also vulnerable to the impacts of human recreation and development. In fact, the coastal zone is home to more than one third of U.S. federally listed species. In this paper, I review the negative impacts on sand dunes and sandy beach habitats from off-road vehicles (ORVs) including cars, trucks, and other vehicles driven off the main road.

Vegetation Godfrey and Godfrey (1981) found ORV traffic to have substantial negative impacts on dune plant species. They subjected three plant communities to 50 vehicle passes. Not only were plants trampled and damaged by the traffic, but they were also slow in recolonizing ORV tracks after traffic had ceased. Some quickly growing plants, such as those that specialize in colonizing new areas, were able to recover relatively rapidly. Other slow growing plants and those that reproduce by seed did not recover as quickly. For example, lichen cover was found to be extremely fragile. ORVs also churn up and dry out the organic drift lines (the high point of material deposited by waves). Plant seeds deposited at these organic drift lines often develop into mature plants over time, but Godfrey and Godfrey (1981) found that ORV traffic trampled seedlings and made the soil unsuitable for growth, thereby retarding the natural cycle of plant colonization and the formation of foredunes (a ridge of irregular sand dunes partially covered with vegetation). Rickard et al. (1994) examined the impact of ORVs on vegetation growth by comparing two dune sites in South Africa: a pioneer vegetation zone and a climax shrubland. Both sites were damaged by ORV traffic, but the pioneer vegetation was able to rapidly recolonize while climax shrubland was much slower in its regrowth. An important consideration for these areas is once vegetation has been killed by ORV traffic the bare tracks are also vulnerable to wind erosion.

16

Dune vegetation can be extremely sensitive to physical disturbance. Photo by Bethanie Walder.

Physical Impacts Schlacher and Thompson (2008) found beach traffic caused widespread and significant physical disturbance to sandy beaches: large areas of the beach were rutted by vehicle tracks, ORVs compacted and displaced significant volumes of sand down shore, and in general, traffic disturbed the drift line, foredunes, and backshore (area of shore lying between the average high-tide mark and the vegetation). Anders and Leatherman (1987) examined ORV impacts on the coastal foredunes of Fire Island in New York. Here beach grass assists in promoting sand accumulation; this accumulation creates a broad foredune that helps dissipate storm wave energy. In ORV impacted areas the beach grass was eliminated, thereby inhibiting sand accumulation. The end result was a steeper foredune profile that did not dissipate wave energy as effectively as the natural dune face, creating a greater potential for beach erosion (Anders and Leatherman, 1987).

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

Fauna Birds Dune and beach dwelling birds tend to nest in or around the dunes above the high water mark. Since most beach traffic is concentrated at or below the high water mark, nests may be relatively safe from vehicle disturbance. However, once chicks hatch, they move from their nests to the intertidal zone where they feed and roost. This puts them directly in the path of ORV traffic. Both Watson et al. (1996) and Melvin et al. (1994) found the feeding and roosting behavior of various bird species [whitefronted plovers (Charadrius marginatus), damara terns (Sterna balaenarum), African black oystercatchers (Haematopus moquini), and piping plovers (Charadrius melodus)] to coincide with the main ORV driving areas. Specifically, Melvin et al. (1994) found that ORV use, even at very low levels (5-10 vehicle passes per day), is enough to threaten unfledged piping plover chicks and adults during brood rearing periods.

Turtles ORV traffic negatively impacted Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) hatchlings (Hosier et al. 1981). ORV ruts created difficult terrain for turtle hatchlings to negotiate on their journey from nest to sea. On flat, water-smoothed beach surfaces turtles could orient themselves toward the surf phototactically (using light intensity in order to determine the way to the water), but on a bumpy terrain turtles found their way toward the water less directly. This time-consuming, indirect route left turtles more exposed to the elements and vulnerable to predators.

Invertebrates and other beach dwelling organisms Invertebrates make up a large part of the fauna population of sandy beaches (Schlacher et al. 2008a). In monitoring the overlap between invertebrate habitat zones and areas of ORV traffic, Schlacher and Thompson (2007) found the majority of the invertebrates they sampled (65%) lived in areas of vehicle traffic. Ghost crabs (Ocypode cordimana) construct and live in beach burrows during the day and are mostly active at night. Schlacher et al. (2007b) conducted a number of experiments to evaluate ORV impacts on crab populations. When crabs left their burrows at night there was a high mortality rate due to night ORV driving. They found beaches with fewer ORVs had higher crab populations. In addition, crabs buried farther below the sand were more protected from crushing than those shallowly buried. Finally, the surf clam (Donax deltoids) was also adversely affected by ORV traffic on beaches in Australia. As the number of vehicle passes increased, so too did the number of clams killed (Schlacher et al. 2008).

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

Management Recommendations Any management strategy considered or implemented must take into account myriad factors from environmental to recreational to economic. From a conservation perspective all ORV traffic should be eliminated from sand dunes and sandy beach ecosystems. In the event this is not feasible, other options are available that can mitigate ORV impacts. Mitigation strategies include: seasonal closures during bird breading periods; only allowing riding on designated routes; limiting driving during times of high water; and prohibiting night beach driving especially on beaches where there is night activity among fauna. There should also be mandatory vehicle registration and educational programs. And in areas with damage, sand dunes should be rehabilitated and stabilized. A study by Celliers et al. (2004) outlined an integrated coastal management system to determine which coastal areas were suitable for ORV use. Their management strategy concentrated ORV use in small pockets, leaving other areas of the coast free from harmful impacts. Celliers et al. (2004) developed seven attributes that determine if areas are too vulnerable to allow ORV use. This system gives managers baseline criteria that unequivocally protect areas from ORV use. Though this system was applied to a specific area of South Africa, it can be modified and used as a model for coastal land managers in other parts of the globe.

Conclusion Off-road vehicle use on sandy beach and sand dune habitats exists within economic, environmental, and social contexts. Off-road vehicle recreation has economic and social benefits and drawbacks. It also negatively impacts the flora, fauna, and physical landscape of these areas. It is essential that integrated, thoughtful, and site-specific management programs be implemented to mitigate and prevent ORV impacts to sand dune and sandy beach ecosystems. — Beth Gibson is a graduate student in Environmental Studies program at the University of Montana.

— references on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

17

— continued from previous page —

References Anders, F. & S. Leatherman. 1987. Effects of off-road vehicles on coastal foredunes at Fire Island, New York, USA. Environmental Management 11(1): 45-52. Celliers, L., T. Moffett, N.C. James, & B.Q. Mann. 2004. A strategic assessment of recreational use areas for off-road vehicles in the coastal zone of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management 47: 123140. Godfrey, P. & M. Godfrey. 1980. Ecological effects of off-road vehicles on Cape Cod. Oceanus 23: 56-67. Hosier, P., M. Kochhar, & V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track effects on the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental Conservation 8(2):158-161. Melvin, S., A. Hecht, & C. Griffin. 1994. Piping plover mortalities caused by off-road vehicles on Atlantic coast beaches. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(3): 409-414. Rickard, C.A., A. McLachlan, & G.I.H. Kerley. 1994. The effects of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on dune vegetation in South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management 23: 225247.

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

Schlacher, T., J. Dugan, D. Schoeman, M. Lastra, A. Jones, F. Scapini, A. McLachlan, & O. Defeo. 2007a. Sandy beaches at the brink. Diversity and Distributions 13: 556-560. Schlacher, T., L. Thompson, & S. Price. 2007b. Vehicles versus conservation of invertebrates on sandy beaches: quantifying direct mortalities inflicted by off-road vehicles on ghost crabs. Marine Ecology 28: 354-367. Schlacher, T. & L. Thompson. 2007. Exposure of fauna to off-road vehicle traffic on sandy beaches. Coastal Management 35: 567-583. Schlacher, T. & L. Thompson. 2008. Physical impacts caused by off-road vehicles to sandy beaches: Spatial quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier island. Journal of Coastal Research 24: 234-242. Schlacher, T., L. Thompson, & S. Walker. 2008. Mortalities caused by off-road vehicles (ORVs) to a key member of the sandy beach assemblages, the surf clam Donax deltoides. Hydrobiologia 610: 345-350. Watson, J. J., G. I. H. Kerley, & A. McLachlan. 1996. Human activity and potential impacts on dune breeding birds in the Alexandria coastal dunefield. Landscape and Urban Planning 34: 315-322.

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

18

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

New Report Available on New Mexico ORVs A

partnership of state agencies has released The Senate Joint Memorial 40 Report on off-road vehicle recreation in New Mexico. The report acknowledges a need for the state to “move toward better management of off-road vehicle recreation.” It also recognizes that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lack the resources and authority to manage off-road vehicle recreation for the entire state. A few of the topics addressed in the report: • User conflicts. The report notes that user conflicts tend to be “one-sided, with motorized recreationists being less adversely affected and other public land users more adversely affected.” It also notes that user conflicts can “impact ranching as a traditional way of life as well as an economic aspect of New Mexico, and affect riparian areas, rangeland, and other natural resources.” • Enforcement. The report acknowledges that roughly half of ATV and motorcycle riders prefer to ride off of designated routes, and that simply designating specific routes for off-road vehicles is not successful without adequate enforcement.

As noted in the report, enforcement of road closures is often problematic. Here, a closure sign prooves to be an ineffective barrier to off roaders.Wildlands CPR file photo.

• Natural Resource Issues. The report discusses the impacts from ORV recreation on soils, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, riparian areas and hydrologic flows. It notes that “Properly sited and engineered trails reduce impacts and require little maintenance but such trails are almost non-existent.” • Safety. The report reviews the dangers of off-road vehicle recreation, especially for children, and concludes “ATV riding is the most dangerous sport for children – 62% more dangerous than football and 110% more dangerous than snowboarding.” Among the report’s recommendations: a safety and responsibility media blitz; working with responsible ORV users to help solve problems; coordinating statewide enforcement; and managing off-road vehicle education and training. The report was authored by New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and the Department of Game and Fish in partnership with the Department of Agriculture, The Range Improvement Task Force, and the Tourism Department. Trail widening due to off road vehicle use on the Gash Creek trail, Bitterroot NF, Montana. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

For a copy, please visit: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ main/sjm40/SJM40report-01-07-09.pdf

19

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].

Spotlight on Tim Clarke & the Boulder Community Alliance By Laurel Hagen

I

first heard about Tim Clarke and the Boulder Community Alliance (BCA) through Southern Utah’s excellent rumor mill. “The Boulder Town Council did WHAT?” I shrieked. This first response only got more enthusiastic as I sorted out truth from rumor. Some background: the tiny town of Boulder, Utah perches on the edge of Utah’s fabled Escalante desert, occupying the green space where the aspens and rushing creeks of Boulder Mountain meet an ocean of bare sandstone. The story I’ve always heard (so I’ll assume it’s true) is that Boulder was the last town in the lower 48 to have electricity, and got its mail by mule until the 1950s because there was no road. The Boulder Mail Trail, now a favorite for backpackers, dips into hidden canyons, traverses cliff walls, and climbs ledges via tottering stacks of rocks. That trail was my first introduction to the area;

Tim Clarke surveys the landscape from his porch. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

tramping across a high white plateau in the June heat, I came to a cliff and saw the neat green irrigated fields of Boulder Town. I decided they were a hallucination. But a good one. As I got to know Boulder in later years, its culture stood out as remarkably as its setting. With a population of about 250, Boulder seems made up mostly of Mormon ranching families, transplanted outfitters and shopkeepers, and eccentric homesteaders and artisans. Boulder’s people have made efforts to keep the town’s culture whole, despite residents’ differing backgrounds. Everyone I’ve met there expresses deep appreciation for the land and the community, often within the first five minutes of our conversation.

Outskirts of the town of Boulder, Utah. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

20

The first splash of what would become the Boulder Community Alliance had the feel of another good hallucination. Here’s what happened: In the spring of 2006, the County Commission published a set of maps and brochures calling the county “ATV Trails Headquarters.” The maps showed numerous ATV routes that had not before been advertised that way, as well as a few routes that illegally invited ATVs into protected lands. Boulder Town itself was at the nexus of several routes.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

The residents of Boulder objected to these plans, which were entirely new to them. As BCA tells it, “within 48 hours over 130 residents, property owners and friends of Boulder had signed on to a petition that we presented to the County Commissioners.” The Boulder Town Council unanimously passed a motion addressed to the County Commission. Part of the motion stated: “There are several types of tourism and they do not necessarily coexist… We do not feel that our area of interest and impact stops at the Town borders. Our community members -- including businesses who presently have a substantial base in non-motorized tourism, cattle ranchers whose existence depends upon range lands and watersheds, and residents who have stayed on or moved in to enjoy the peace and quiet of this rural lifestyle — feel that any ATV promotion in the east side of Garfield County is to our detriment… We also feel that this policy [allowing children on ATVs on a paved road] was instituted solely to facilitate the ATV promotional agenda of cross-county travel, allowing that agenda to override common sense.” This event spurred Boulder Community Foundation [which sponsors BCA] to incorporate and gain non-profit status. The organization’s mission included a variety of local community-based projects as well as issues of regional concern affecting the community, such as the projected increases in motorized tourism. Tim Clarke was the only paid staffer (working up to half-time). Tim, still the Executive Director and only staff member of the Boulder Community Alliance, was also on the Town Council when the ATV trails issue came up. A landscape architect from the UK, Tim and his artist wife Scotty moved to Boulder more than ten years ago. While building their own house on a small piece of land among the pinyon pines and sandstone hills, Tim and Scotty settled into the life of the town. Tim joined the Town Planning Commission, becoming the chair, and was elected to the Town Council. Though now no longer a Councilor, Tim remains active in local projects, like designing and helping to construct a gathering place at the town center. All that is in addition to running BCA, of course. Tim’s dry humor, low-key common sense, and ability to gracefully walk a fine line have earned him the respect and friendship of people throughout southern Utah. Under his supervision (and that of BCA’s board of directors) BCA has taken on a wide range of projects. They’ve started a farmer’s market, a local oral history

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

Aspen grove on Boulder Mountain. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

project, and a newsletter and website called “The Sage Page” that won awards at the annual Utah Tourism conference. In partnership with other Utah groups, BCA has worked extensively on several public lands projects in the Escalante River Basin, such as watershed restoration and beaver reintroduction on Boulder Mountain. In partnership with Wildlands CPR, BCA has done extensive work on the Dixie National Forest travel planning process, including training locals to perform fieldwork, hiring a student intern for route surveys, and collecting local knowledge about the history and impacts of the road system on Boulder Mountain. BCA also printed a brochure promoting the benefits of quiet recreation in the Escalante River Basin. The group is currently in the process of dividing into two linked entities: BCA will focus primarily on in-town and cultural issues; and the Escalante River Basin Initiative (ERBI) will focus on regional and public lands issues. ERBI, or the “Basinheads,” have already partnered with allies in nearby towns to address regional issues from a rural Utah perspective. Tim and his work with BCA are a sign of what I hope is the future of rural Utah’s environmental movement, and he’s the kind of activist I aspire to be: a settler who commits wholeheartedly to the culture and place of his home, putting his heart and hard work into it. We are very grateful to Tim and the community of Boulder for showing the way forward, and giving us hope for good things to come. You can read more about BCA at www.bouldercommunityalliance.org

21

T

he sun is shining in the middle of February – not a common occurrence in Missoula, but a reminder that the Spring Equinox is just around the corner. It’s been a crazy winter as we and other activists adjust our strategies and consider new opportunities in light of the changing of the guard in Washington DC. There’s been a lot of change here in our office as well – read on for more details…

Good-bye and good luck! After nearly a decade running our restoration program, Marnie Criley has left Wildlands CPR to try to make one of our pet projects, Restore Montana, a full-blown organization. To learn more about Marnie’s work in the past, and what’s coming up in the future, check out our program updates on pages 6-7.

Charity Lake in the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area. Wildlands CPR photo.

It was short and sweet and we’re sorry it had to end, but Franklin Seal is no longer our communications coordinator. He did a fantastic job upgrading many aspects of our electronic communications, especially our website and e-newsletter, The Dirt. He pressed us to think outside the box and to actively expand our work and media efforts. We’ll miss you Franklin, and we wish you the best of luck in your next endeavor!

Welcome! In the last issue, we announced the departure of long-time board member Greg Fishbein, who bumped up against our 6-year term limit. We’re now delighted to introduce new board member Crystal Mario. After a distinguished career with such high-profile companies as Adobe Systems, Inc. and Xerox Imaging Systems, Crystal tired of spending her life in airports and hotel rooms. She started Rivanna Natural Designs in 2001 with a simple goal: to provide safe, meaningful, and rewarding employment for recently-arrived refugees and others who need a second start or an opportunity to learn new skills. Rivanna uses sustainably harvested or reclaimed wood and recycled glass to create the clocks, plaques, pens, and desk accessories for sale through the company’s online store. While Crystal isn’t directly engaged with restoration or transportation issues, she’s been engaged in environmental and other progressive issues for a long time, and she’s an extremely successful businesswoman. We are really looking forward to having her expertise and perspective as part of Wildlands CPR’s team!

Thanks We’d like to thank everyone who donated to our annual gifts campaign for 2008 – we raised just about $25,000. We’re delighted with the results of the campaign, especially considering that this was in the midst of a presidential election and a growing recession. If you haven’t donated yet but you’d like to, it’s never too late – we can always use your support. Thanks, too, to everyone who has renewed their membership during the past few months – again, support from individuals like you is critical to our success. We would also like to thank the Firedoll, Harder, Horizons and 444S Foundations and Patagonia for their generous grants to support our transportation and restoration programs. We appreciate it!

Get The Road-RIPorter Online With this issue of The RIPorter we’re introducing a new electronic version of the entire quarterly journal, broken out into individual articles. If you’d like to help us reduce postage and printing costs, please e-mail cathy@wildlandscpr and ask to receive The RIPorter online instead of by mail (or you can receive both).

22

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2009

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, Spring Equinox 2009

* 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

Montana afternoon. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Mangement.

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

The road running through this meadow is nothing more than a potholed portal for bad ideas, a puncture wound that won’t heal, allowing human fallibility to flow unchecked into the delicate heart of healthy land. — Guy Hand, “Pining for an Oak Meadow” from A Road Runs Through It.

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