Autumn Equinox 2008. Volume 13 No.

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 Odes to Roads, by Greg Peters. Pages
Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP). Photo by John Dixon, US Forest Service. 20-21
Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages
22-23

Check out our website at:

— story begins on page 4 — www.wildlandscpr.org
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org

The Dangers of Playing with Fire

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
The Bush Administration played with fire last year when it cut the Forest Service’s
construction, deter motorized recreation, and
2008 fire-fighting budget from $1.6 billion to $1.2 billion. In early August, with nearly 2 promote road removal and revegetation.
hot, dry months still remaining in the agency’s fiscal year, the Forest Service had already
overdrawn its fire account. Director
Bethanie Walder
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 Development Director
consequences of this transfer are significant, and the impacts will be felt in many National Tom Petersen
Forest System and maintenance programs.
Restoration Program
In the last ten years, fire suppression has gone from about 15% of the Forest Service’s Coordinator
budget to about 50%. The $1.2 billion they had budgeted for FY ’08 is already nearly Marnie Criley
half of the annual budget – making it extremely difficult for the Forest Service to manage Science Coordinator
anything but fire. Early this year, Congress provided supplemental fire funding but clearly Adam Switalski
it wasn’t enough.
Legal Liaison/Agency
Five primary factors put the agency in this position: Training Coordinator
Sarah Peters
• Increased fire severity and frequency due to climate change (drought, increased
insect infestations, etc.); Communications Coordinator
• Fuels build-up from past fire-suppression; Franklin Seal
• Rapid and extensive development in the wildland urban interface – dramatically
increasing the amount of private property at risk from wildfire; Montana State ORV
• Inability of Congress or the Administration to create a separate, viable and reason- Coordinator
able funding source for wildland fire fighting, and; Adam Rissien
• Contracting out firefighting responsibilities adding overhead costs previously not
absorbed by the agency. 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 For-
est Service has lost some of their capacity to use
fire as a management tool. But fire is still a criti-
cal 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 short-
falls, 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 habi-
tat, 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 pro-
mote 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 Initia-
tive (LRRI). The LRRI provided funding to every
region of the Forest Service to fix ailing forest
roads by upgrading culverts (to restore fish pas-
sage) 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 mainte-
nance 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 short-
fall. 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, jeopar-
dizing 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 mon-
ey 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 legisla-
tion 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 regula-
tions to prevent more exurban growth; prescribed fire to reduce fuel load-
ing; investment in community “fire-proofing” in the wildland urban inter-
face; 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 pro-
vide at least $500 million/year for the Legacy Roads Initiative to begin eras-
ing 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 crys-
talline, 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 decommissio-
ning 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 commu-
nities.
Because roads have been shown to nega-
tively impact soil, water quality, and wildlife ha-
bitat, 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 asso-
ciated fire ignitions, decreasing road density in
wildlands can be an effective tool for re-establi-
shing more natural fire regimes (seasonality and
frequency).
A legacy of logging in northern New Mexi-
co, 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 manage-
ment plan (LRMP). The project area lies in the
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 decommis-
sioning of 355 miles of road and closure of another 111 miles in order to
bring the Coyote Ranger District into compliance with the LRMP stan-
dards. 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 controver-
sy. The Community Forest Restoration Act of 2000 (Title VI, Public Law
106-393) appropriates $5 million annually in New Mexico through the Col-
laborative 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;

4 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 invest-
ment 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.
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
In the meantime, five contractors from the
local community have been hired for archeologi-
cal surveys, heavy equipment operation, scien-
tific 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 charac-
teristics, 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 resto-
ration looks bright. In 2008, legislative work by
Norm Dicks (D-WA) in Congress generated first-
time 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 crea-
ted 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 —
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 Congress-

man 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. Coronado Middle School students prepare for a day monitoring in the field.
Photo by Bryan Bird.
Of all the resources that forests produ-
ce, 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
Footnotes
1 For a complete review see Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
System - securing favorable water supplies - as 1999, End of the Road. The Adverse Ecological Impacts of Roads and
well as its obvious value in a world of rapidly Logging: A Compilation of Independently Reviewed Research.
changing climate, congressional efforts like 2 National Research Council 2008. Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest
those of Senator Bingaman and Representatives Landscape. Committee on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management,
Dicks and Grijalva are all the more important. National Research Council of the National Academies. July 2008
Perhaps in the not too distant future, forest- <http://dels.nas.edu/dels/reportDetail.php?link_id=5402>
based 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.

Back in Gallina, the Coronado Middle School

students have returned to their scientific moni-
toring of the road closure and decommissioning.
Perhaps the most rewarding outcome of the
CFRP project has been working with these moti-
vated 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. River crosses a meadow near the project area in the Jemez Mountains, NM. Photo
courtesy of WildEarth Guardians.

6 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008

LRRI To Do List, or Not
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 fund-
ing 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.
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 (sev-
eral regions did not report the acres of improved water-
sheds).
Much of the stream habitat restoration and watershed
improvement would come as a direct result of road decom-
missioning 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 wa-
tersheds. 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.
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.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008
WGA Adopts Roads Policy
At its meeting this summer, the Western Governors’ Asso-
ciation (WGA) adopted a resolution and policy statement pro-
moting a “sustainable” roads system and calling on the Forest
Service to remove roads that cause environmental damage.
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 for-
est 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 pro-
gram 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 sys-
tem, 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 improve-
ments in water quality.
Wildlands CPR and other conservation organizations had
pressed to have road removal included in the resolution.
Former road converted to a trail on Montana’s Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest. Photo by Adam Switalski.
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 electric-
ity 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 be-
hind 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 mas-
sive 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 ma-
jor 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 remov-
ing the dam.
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 re-
moved and sent by railroad back toward
Butte, to join other toxic waste from the
old copper mining operation. Nonethe-
less, 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 by-
pass fed into a small, new channel that
directly skirted the dam itself. A small
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.
temporary dam (basically a big pile of
dirt) blocked that new channel. It ap-
peared that one scoop from an excava-
tor 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 mil-
lion 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.

8 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 an-
ticlimactic. 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 pull-
ing 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 re-
claimed 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 wild-
lands 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 Confluence of the Clark Fork
organization) and other advocates who and Blackfoot Rivers:
pressured the state and federal govern- on the day of the breach
ments to remove this toxic threat and (3/28/08 - above), and
restore this river. We toasted watershed two months later (left).
restoration and dam removal. Photos courtesy of Michael
Kustudia / CFRTAC.
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. A confluence restored;
summer 2008.
Road removal may not be as excit- Photo courtesy of Michael
ing or exhilarating as dam removal, but Kustudia / CFRTAC.
its benefits are just as important. I’ve Pilot Gary Matson.
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.

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
cathy@wildlandscpr.org.

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 return-
ing 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 ed-
ucation 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.
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest. Photo by Larry
3. How are you involved with Georgia Forest Watch? Winslett.

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 Chat-
tahoochee 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!
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 support-
ing that effort. We do not really have much in
the way of illegal cross-country 4-wheel vehicle
problems.

10 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 al-
ways 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 be-
coming 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 lead-

ership 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 get-
ting 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 Chattahoochee-
Oconee 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 pro-
gram’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), Mar-
nie 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 Restora-
tion 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 pan-
els and one round-table discussion at the Summit, while Sue will also give a
presentation.
Here in Montana, Wildlands CPR staff are pursuing another restora-
tion 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 interest-
ed 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 appropri-
ate 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 transporta-
tion. 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 Man-
agement Practices for off-road vehicles in forested ecosystems are critical
proactive tools for managers engaged in travel planning. We’ve distrib-
uted 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, includ-
ing 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 com-
munities, 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 conser-
vation issues unique to small towns, including
off-road vehicle abuse. The group also met with
the Utah Office of Tourism as well as the edito-
rial board of the Salt Lake Tribune. The Tribune,
long a friend to conservation issues, has editori-
alized 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 presen-
tations to local bird watching, climbing and mountain biking groups and
held accountability sessions with Forest Service staff regarding their ongo-
ing 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-the-
board 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 retriev-
ing 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 Wildlands CPR seeks to curb illegal and inappropriate
made their analysis publicly available, despite repeated requests from the off-road vehicle use. A hiker surveys damage in a
canyon near Moab, Utah. Photo by Laurel Hagen.
conservation groups in Arizona for that information.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008 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 desig-
nated 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 designa-
tions using a MVUM.
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 challenge-
able, because it marks the “consummation of the
agency’s decision-making process,” and deter-
mines rights or obligations from which legal
consequences will flow.4 According to the TMR:

“Motor vehicle use off designated roads, trails

The Publication Process and areas is prohibited once the designations
The Travel Management Rule (TMR) mandates that forest officials are identified on a motor vehicle use map
produce an MVUM, at either the ranger district or forest-wide level, illus- (MVUM).” 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.
trating 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.

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 partici-
pation).

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 analy-
sis.

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. Some-
times 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 chal-
lenged 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

 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

Photo by Dan Funsch.

MVUMs mark the consummation of the agency’s
decision-making process because completion of
the MVUM is the final step before any prohibi-
tion on ORV use goes into effect.

Legal consequences flow from the publica-

tion of the MVUM. A recent court case out of
Montana addressed this idea when it said that
“the MVU Map designations are legally enforce-
able…”5 The court cited 36 C.F.R. § 261.13 for detailed the use of the area by potential plaintiffs, the easier it will be to
support. The regulation states: rebut a standing challenge. Standing allegations would include:

“After designations have been identified on a
motor vehicle use map, it is prohibited to pos-
sess 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 impor-
tant 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 earli-
est stages in the administrative process. While a
showing of standing is not required for adminis-
trative 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 “di-
rectly 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
• 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 opportu-
nity to provide information and to understand and assess the effects
of government action;
• That your injuries would be addressed in part by government compli-
ance 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 36 C.F.R. § 212.56
2 36 C.F.R. § 212.56; 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.
3 36 C.F.R. § 212.52
4 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177 (1997).
5 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).

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008 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 Vehicle-wildlife collisions
s the human population grows, our wild-
lands face threats from increased access
for recreation and resource extraction,
subdivision for residential and commercial
development, and movements to pave and im-
prove 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 resi-
dential 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 colli-
sions (Trombulak & Frissell, 2000), construction-
related wildlife mortality (Trombulak & Frissell,
2000), changes in groundwater flow and stream
morphology (Malecki, 2005), spread of wild-
fire (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; Tromu-
lak & Frissell, 2000; Forman & Alexander, 1998).
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 contribut-
ing 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 im-

provements intensifies all of the above prob-
lems, 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 human-
caused 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 unim-
proved roads than from paved roads.

Increasing access to wild places puts wildlife, ecosystems, and human communities at
Chemical pollutants
Paved roads leach chemical pollutants both
risk. Bighorn sheep cross Montana’s Rock Creek road. Photo © Marcel Huijser.
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
The barrier effect: road avoidance and habitat carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH’s) from both car exhaust deposition and
fragmentation asphalt that are harmful to highway workers
as well as flora and fauna and leach into the
Despite the wide-ranging effects of roads on a landscape level, most
watershed (Sadler et al. 1997). Nitrogen oxide
transportation engineers consider only the ecological effects on the land
and ozone from vehicle exhaust damage plant
occupied by the road itself and the narrow verge immediately flanking it
life and pollute the atmosphere (Forman & Her-
(Forman, 2000). Forman and Alexander (1998) report that road width and
sperger, 1996).
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. Meta-
populations are more susceptible to stochastic extinction due to genetic
Conclusion
Road improvements exacerbate the negative
isolation and increased pressure on resources, while habitat fragmentation
ecological effects of the existing road system by
impedes recolonization (Noss et al., 1996; Forman and Alexander, 1998).
increasing access, traffic speed and volume, and
contributing to higher levels of pollutants pro-
Elk (Cervus elaphus), moose (Alces alces), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos),
duced by paving materials and vehicle traffic.
gray wolves (Canis lupus), mountain lions (Puma concolor), Canada lynx
Transportation-related mortality, road avoid-
(Lynx canadensis), American marten (Martes americana), wolverines (Gulo
ance, and airborne dust can be reduced with
gulo), and other mustelids are all known to avoid roads (e.g., Ward, 1976;
lower speed limits, and unimproved roads can
Frederick, 1991; Dickson et al., 2005; Dussault et al., 2007), especially those
be maintained safely and effectively by adding
with higher speeds and volumes, making them highly susceptible to the
gravel when needed and possibly through dust
barrier effect. Carnivores are especially sensitive to roads and human
abatement strategies, although dust coating can
development, presenting wider implications for the ecosystem because
damage plant life, attract wildlife to roads, and
top carnivores can regulate populations of prey species that may become
leach into groundwater (Missouri Department of
overpopulated in their absence (Weaver, 2001).
Natural Resources, 2006; Lux, 2002).

Spread of invasive species — Shannon Donahue is a University of Montana

Environmental Studies graduate student.
Roads facilitate the spread of invasive and exotic species through
seeds carried along vehicles and the air turbulence caused by passing ve-
hicles, 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 inva-
sive plant species such as knapweed tends to be wider along paved roads
than unimproved roads (Gelbard & Belnap, 2003).

— 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). Road-
RIPorter 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 Elk-
Logging-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 conserva-
tion 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 partner-
ship, the Nez Perce/Clearwater partnership, funding sources,
partnering organizations, collaborative resource manage-
ment 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 cru-
cial to fostering the types of collaborations needed to restore
our nation’s forests. This web page provides these network-
ing opportunities and is designed to be continually updated
and relevant. It fills an important niche in watershed restora-
tion through road removal by explicitly addressing the needs Photo by Dan Funsch.
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 info@wildlandscpr.org with “tribal
resources” in the subject line or body of the e-mail.

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 ve-
hicles. He’s continued to study the impacts of these vehicles
over the years, in addition to studying other impacts to west-
ern 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 land-
scape drift by without our acknowledgement.
We utilize them, depend on them, require them, and
we do it automatically, our need hardly register-
ing 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
One of Alaska’s emblematic species, the barren ground caribou, is particularly
sensitive to roads and the disturbances they accommodate. Photo © Marcel
Huijser.
20
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, Na-
tional 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 includ-
ing the Forest Service roads that snake for thou-
sands 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
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.
— 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, wind-
ing 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 wild-
ness in a great sea of roads.

— Greg Peters was born in Maine way back in 1978.

The last summer I lived in Alaska, I lived in After graduating from college in St. Louis, Missouri
Cordova, a remote fishing town on the south end of he headed to Alaska and worked in Americorps for
Prince William Sound. No roads in or out. I lived on two years teaching Adult Education and English as
the fishing boat in the harbor and walked to town a Second Language. Since returning to the “Lower
when I needed to. While you could bring a car onto 48,” he’s worked as a janitor, ski instructor, and
the ferry, I had parked my truck at a friend’s house organic farmer, and is currently pursuing his master’s
in Valdez and had ridden carless to Cordova. I’d degree in Environmental Studies at the University of
never lived in a place that you couldn’t drive to, and Montana.
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 calv-
ing, 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 every-
thing 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.

When I moved to Montana, the first thing that

truly struck me as different was the incredible num-
ber of roads. I could leave my house in my truck
and drive forest roads to Canada, Idaho, or Washing-
ton 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


H
ere in Montana we’ve been enjoying one
of the most temperate, fire- and smoke-
free 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 else-
where have basically bankrupted the Forest Ser-
vice 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, includ-
ing 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 partici-
pate. Our goal: $40,000 from donors like you, to
help us continue to promote successful, solu-
tion-oriented restoration and transportation
strategies. We know it’s the middle of an impor-
tant 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 impor-
tant 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
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.
• 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 match-
ing numbered set of six original
wood engravings created exclu-
sively 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 For-
est 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 in-
formation 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
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.
• Making Your Gift Easier
Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your
credit card or bank statement will con-
tain 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: Payment Option #2:

Electronic Funds Transfer Credit Card Pledge
from Checking Account

$5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other $10/Month (minimum) $20/Month other

I/we authorize Wildlands CPR to deduct the amount indicated above

from my checking account once per month. Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

Signature
CSC Number: ________________ *(see below)
Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confiden-
tial. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or Expiration date: _____________________________
the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

Signature: __________________________________________
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation, * The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is
please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of
check to the address below. a credit card (usually in the signature field).

Please send this form and your payment option to:

Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 Thank you for your support!

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2008 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.