Summer Solstice 2009. Volume 14 No.

Wildlands CPR Issues New Report

Inside… on Forest Service Road Management
By Greg Peters and Sarah Peters (no relation)
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie
Walder. Page 2
Wildlands CPR Issues New Report on
Forest Service Road Management,
by Greg Peters and Sarah Peters.
Pages 3-5
Policy Primer, by Vera Smith and Sarah
Peters. Pages 6-7
Get with the Program: Restoration and
Transportation Program Updates.
Pages 8-9
DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder.
Pages 10-11
Odes to Roads: The Spirit of
Restoration, by Thomas R.
Petersen. Pages 12-13
Citizen Spotlight on Kim Erion, by
Cathrine Walters. Pages 14-15
Biblio Notes: Mitigating the Impacts
of Roads as a Climate Change
Adaptation Strategy, by Adam
Switalski and Liane Davis. Pages
16-18
Regional Reports & Updates. Page 19
Field Notes, by Adam Switalski. Pages
20-21
Around the Office, Membership Info.
Pages 22-23
The state of National Forest System roads does not resemble an idyllic drive down a backcountry road.
Rather, images of erosive damage are common, exacerbated by a chronic lack of maintenance. Photos
Visit us online: courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

wildlandscpr.org
— story begins on page 3 —
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

Travel Planning and Legacy Roads,

(406) 543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by

Connecting the Dots… promoting watershed restoration that improves
fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and
enhances community economies. We focus on
reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads

I
n mid-March, Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 to fund federal and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.
government operations for the remainder of fiscal year 2009 (through September). The
bill included important provisions on travel planning and Legacy Roads. First, it provid- Director
ed an additional $50 million to the Forest Service for the FY 2009 Legacy Roads program. Bethanie Walder
Second, it included report language (see Policy Primer, p. 6-7) that directed the Forest
Service to implement, on each national forest, a science-based roads analysis (as intended Development Director
since 2001) to determine the minimum road system needed to meet resource management Tom Petersen
and recreation needs. Wildlands CPR had promoted both of these and we were extremely
pleased to see a 25% increase in Legacy Roads funding nationally for FY 2009. Science Coordinator
Adam Switalski
In early May, Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell provided testimony to the House and
Senate Interior Appropriations committees on the FY 2010 budget. In her verbal testimony Legal and Agency Liaison
to the House committee she praised the Legacy Roads program, explaining that it was Sarah Peters
popular throughout the agency and had been quite successful. In addition, Chief Kimbell
spoke about the Forest Service component of President Obama’s FY 2010 budget proposal. Montana State ORV
For the first time ever, the President’s budget included Legacy Roads explicitly – at the Coordinator
same level as FY 2009 - $50 million. In addition, Obama unveiled three new Forest Service Adam Rissien
“Presidential Initiatives,” focused on: effectively budgeting for wildfire; conserving new
lands, and; protecting the national forests.
Utah State ORV
In her testimony, Kimbell linked travel planning and Legacy Roads work to each other Coordinator
Laurel Hagen
by reiterating one of Obama’s sub-priorities, to: “implement travel management plans
with an emphasis on decommissioning unnecessary roads.” Kimbell explained this as an
appropriate connection by pronouncing: “The National Forest System has a transporta- Restoration Campaign
tion system that is not suited to its modern needs and requires realignment to “right-size” Coordinator
the system for the future.”  We consider it a victory when the Forest Service Chief adopts Sue Gunn
our language about “right-sizing” the forest road system. Similarly, it’s a victory that both
Program Associate
the Chief and the President are explicitly discussing the need to decommission unneeded,
ecologically damaging roads in their budget plans for FY 2010. The real victory, however, Cathrine L. Walters
will be to get the agency to move from words to action.
Restoration Research
This will be challenging, however. As explained in our Policy Primer (p. 6-7), the For- Associate
est Service recently released new travel planning directives that provide four loopholes Josh Hurd
so national forests can avoid ever having to undertake the formal analysis necessary to
identify that minimum road system. As a result, Wildlands CPR and many of our partners Journal Editor
have been meeting with Forest Supervisors, Regional Foresters, the Chief’s office and even Dan Funsch
the Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture to discuss this issue.
Interns & Volunteers
In these meetings, we’ve explained the opportunities that would be wasted if the Greg Peters, Owen Weber, Stuart Smith
agency doesn’t undertake full travel planning, including analyzing and identifying the mini-
mum road system as soon as possible. Once those minimum systems are identified, and Board of Directors
roads are prioritized for reclamation, then it will be much easier for the agency to allocate Amy Atwood, Jim Furnish,
any new watershed restoration funds (e.g. Legacy Roads). William Geer, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd, Crystal
Mario, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben
Wildlands CPR will continue to lead national efforts to advocate for Legacy Roads and
similar watershed restoration funds. We’ll also work to ensure that funding and policies
are well-matched and mutually beneficial. Unfortunately, the Forest Service hasn’t yet
been able to truly connect the dots between travel planning and Legacy Roads. Perhaps
sending them some nice new “sharpie” markers might help them along in the process? © 2009 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009

 Wildlands CPR Issues New Report
on Forest Service Road Management
By Greg Peters and Sarah Peters (no relation)
O
ften referred to as “the largest road
building entity in the world,” the Forest
Service boasts a road system of nearly
380,000 miles that cut across national forest
lands. The agency also acknowledges a mini-
mum of 60,000 miles of additional roads that are
not “formally” in their system, but that do exist
on the land. Wildland roads degrade clean drink-
ing water; fragment wildlife habitat; create vec-
tors for the spread of non-native, invasive weeds;
severely damage fisheries and hunting oppor-
tunities; and otherwise impact national forest
resources. While some of these roads provide
needed access for resource management and
others provide recreational access, the agency
has far more roads than it needs or can man-
age. The result: an oversized, under-maintained,
unaffordable, and ecologically destructive road
system. It took the agency nearly 100 years to
build all these roads (mostly for logging), and it
is likely to take just as long to reduce the road
system back down to a manageable size.
With such a vast road system, and so much
potential for ecological damage, Wildlands CPR
set out in 2005 to conduct a formal assessment
of the Forest Service road system and its man-
agement. We sent a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request to the Forest Service asking for
documents relating to the road system and the
methods the agency uses to manage and track
that system in the 85 western national forests.
After nearly two years of litigation and negotia-
tion, the information arrived, and we are now
finalizing a report about the agency’s road man-
agement strategies and its failure to effectively
protect America’s natural resources.
Reviewing all of the FOIA information
together paints a picture of a management ap-
proach oriented to transportation rather than
land and resource management. By focusing
administrative protocols on safety and road
miles maintained, the Forest Service impedes its
own mission, which is “…to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests
and grasslands to meet the needs of present
and future generations” (US Forest Service
2009). The agency should re-focus on identifying
and mitigating the negative effects of the road
system. The following sections provide more
insight into the key documents we reviewed.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009
Which way to the well-maintained Forest Service road system?
Photo courtesy of BLM.
Our primary analysis focused largely on:
• Annual Road Accomplishment Reports (RARs)
• Implementation of the 2001 and 2005 roads and transporta-
tion management rules
• INFRA database of road status/management
Key findings in the report:
• The agency’s management has resulted in:
• Declining biodiversity, degraded fisheries, threatened water
supplies, fragmented habitat, and serious resource damage.
• Lost access: travel routes available for passenger cars have
dropped from 93,000 miles in 1995 to 69,000 miles in 2006,
though access for high clearance vehicles has increased.
• Decreased maintenance of roads: the Forest Service main-
tains roughly 15-20% of its road system annually and only
20-30% of roads meet their assigned maintenance levels.
• Increased resource damage: many national forests (Olympic,
Gifford Pinchot, Flathead, Clearwater) have suffered cata-
strophic road failures due to severe storms resulting in im-
paired fisheries and loss of habitat. Streams are also harmed
by the cumulative impacts of chronic sedimentation.
• Road Accomplishment Reports (RARs) – which act as the primary
annual tracking system for road management – are budget driven
documents that have little accountability and transparency, nor
do they track ecological issues.
• The agency’s 2001 Roads Rule and 2005 Travel Management
Rule have been underfunded and not fully implemented.
• The Forest Service’s infrastructure database, INFRA, is an unwieldy,
inaccurate, problem plagued system that does a poor job of tracking
the road system. Few if any protocols exist to guarantee accuracy
and there are no mechanisms to track changes to the system.
• The Forest Service does not have a comprehensive, formal, ac-
countable methodology for effectively managing its road system
and ensuring that it is having only minimal impacts on the pub-
lic’s natural resources.
— continued on page 4 —
3
 — continued from page 3 —
Road Accomplishment Reports
Each forest completes a RAR every year, detailing maintenance and
management based on mileage and cost. But RARs do not link tracked
actions to on the ground activities, so there is no way to discern environ-
mental benefits or costs. Just prior to publishing our report, we learned of
a separate database (that we did not receive) that links road management
spending to watershed issues, but apparently that database also fails to
document actual road impacts, mitigation or restoration needs. Appar-
ently in FY 2008 some data from these two databases was combined, but
we do not have that information.
The RARs that we reviewed showed significant discrepancies in road
accounting from year to year. They also highlighted the limited amount
of maintenance the agency is able to accomplish. For example, between
the end of FY 2002 and the start of FY 2003 (essentially from one day to
the next), 1063 miles of road disappeared in Region 1 (Northern Region).
Similarly, between 2002 and 2003, the Intermountain Region (Region 4) lost
1,748 miles, only to add 1,690 miles between the end of 2003 and the start
of 2004. While not all examples were this egregious, the inconsistencies in
the RARs are numerous and highlight a lack of knowledge about how many
miles of roads the agency has, where they are, and how they are managed.
According to the RARs nationally, the Forest Service had approximately
380,000 miles of roads on its system in 2001. Over the next six years, they
decommissioned roughly 4,000 miles while adding about 5,000 miles—
so, the 2007 total should be 381,000 miles, yet the 2007 RARs report only
375,000 miles. What happened to the other 6,000 miles? Are they still
there? Is the agency managing them?
Perhaps more significantly, passenger vehicle access decreased nearly
25% from 1995 through 2007 – now totaling ~69,000 miles of roads. The
Forest Service estimates that about 80% of road use occurs on only 20%
of the roads – mostly the passenger vehicle roads. Yet the agency does
not have the funding to maintain those roads to standard, so they have
been letting passenger roads “degrade” to lower maintenance levels. This
theoretically saves money (road maintenance on passenger vehicle roads
costs an average of $5000/mile, while road maintenance on high clearance
vehicle roads averages $500/mile), but it also has the potential to increase
wildlife, fisheries and clean water impacts, which cost money to mitigate.
It also means that if the agency wants to upgrade these roads back to pas-
senger vehicle standards it will be very expensive, as roads degrade dra-
matically over time when they are not maintained (see RIPorter v14, #1).
Now there’s something you don’t see every day! A grader doing routine
maintenance on a Forest Service road. Photo courtesy of BLM.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009
Roads Rule
In January 2001, the Forest Service adopted
a national Roads Rule. The intent was to identify
a fiscally and ecologically sustainable minimum
road system that meets both resource man-
agement and recreational access needs. The
agency estimated this minimum system would
be between 146,000 – 186,000 miles smaller than
the current system, and that it would take 20-40
years to achieve that new equilibrium. However,
the agency has repeatedly adopted new direc-
tives reducing the requirements for compliance
with the 2001 Roads Rule, and postponing,
indefinitely, the identification and implementa-
tion of a minimum road system. Most forests,
for example, have analyzed only their passenger
vehicle roads and found that most are needed in
the minimum system. By failing to examine their
lower-grade roads, they have been unable to
identify a minimum system that is meaningfully
smaller than the current system. It appeared,
with the 2005 adoption of the Travel Manage-
ment Rule, that the Forest Service would finally
begin long-term comprehensive planning for
travel management, but that effort was seg-
mented (see Policy Primer, pages 6-7), further
postponing the identification and implementa-
tion of a minimum system.
INFRA
These problems are further complicated
by the Forest Service roads database, INFRA.
INFRA is an unwieldy, incomplete, problem-
plagued database that fails to accurately track
the Forest Service road system and its impacts.
INFRA focuses on road mileage, road surface
types, vehicle types allowed, and maintenance
levels, yet it fails to document related resource
issues. This provides another example of the
agency’s transportation rather than resource
management orientation. For example, no
INFRA data fields indicate whether a road is in
need of maintenance, when it was last physically
inspected, or its distance from a water source.
There is no field to link a road to its National En-
vironmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, making
it nearly impossible to ascertain when, if ever, a
road’s environmental impacts were evaluated.
Few, if any, protocols exist to assure accuracy,
which causes numerous problems such as
incomplete and ad hoc tracking of deferred
maintenance costs. Without archival data, it’s
impossible to understand how management has
changed over time. For example, was a passen-
ger vehicle road downgraded to high clearance,
or was it always that way. In addition, because
there’s no tracking, even “corrections” to the
database could, over time, result in significant
changes on the ground without any environmen-
tal analysis.
 The Downhill Slide in Road Maintenance

Percent of Road System Maintained

Road Mileage Maintained

INFRA also tracks road maintenance levels, which are subject to — Sarah Peters is Legal Liaison for Wildlands
change without notice and may not reflect the original design or purpose CPR; Greg Peters is a contract researcher who
of a road. For example, maintenance levels have been changed in the past will also be heading up Wildlands CPR’s Citizen
(e.g. switching a road from passenger level travel to high clearance vehicle Monitoring program on the Clearwater National
travel) at least in part, to reduce the fiscal burden of the road maintenance Forest this summer.
backlog (at least on paper). Finally, INFRA data can be difficult to connect
with GIS layers, and when connected sometimes proves to be an inac-
curate representation of conditions on the ground (i.e. roads that do not
exist in INFRA are mapped in the GIS layer, or vice versa).

Conclusion
As the largest road-builder in the world, the Forest Service has as-
sumed a management style more akin to a transportation agency than
a resource management agency. The result: a bloated road system that
is ecologically damaging and fiscally irresponsible. The Forest Service
needs to establish a new direction for the 21st century that incorporates
road management in an environmental rather than transportation/access
framework. By doing so, they can identify and implement a right-sized
road system that is both ecologically and economically sustainable over
What’s around the corner for the Forest Service’s road
the long-term. management program? That’s yet to be determined.
Photo courtesy of BLM.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009 5

Forest Service Issues Long Awaited Travel
Management Directives
By Vera Smith and Sarah Peters

J
ust as this, the final year of the four-year travel
planning initiative began, the Forest Service is-
sued a series of guidance documents — known
as ‘directives’ — providing detailed instructions to
Forest Supervisors on how to go about travel plan-
ning. Unfortunately, portions of these directives run
contrary to regulatory requirements as they relate to
road and trail management, as well as the 2001 Road-
less Rule.

A Maze of Loopholes
The directives generally offer a logical process
for planning a motorized transportation system, but,
frustratingly, also provide a series of loopholes, that
when applied in concert, allow forests to dodge the
most basic of planning responsibilities. The basic
process outlined in the directives includes a detailed,
science-based analysis of all motorized roads and
The loopholes in the Management Directives are literally big enough to drive a
trails on the forest, and might (we’ll talk about this
truck through. Photo courtesy of BLM.
more in Loophole 3) result in a final product that
identifies a minimum system of routes necessary for
the “administration, utilization, and protection” of
the forest. (“Use travel analysis (FSM 7712; FSH 7709.55, ch.
20) to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and Loophole 2
efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protec- The directives say that any forest that has finished its
tion of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1).” (7703.12 (1))) motorized route designations can make subsequent designa-
tion decisions without ever having to conduct a broad-scale
Common sense would dictate that forest managers analysis of the motorized transportation system. (FSM
should first identify the needed and unneeded roads, and sec- 7712(4)) So, once exempt, always exempt.
ond designate which of the needed roads are open to motor-
ized public use. But after taking a closer look at the loopholes
the Forest Service wrote into these directives, it seems that Loophole 3
political desires, rather than common sense, played the lead- The directives say that forests do not have to identify the
ing role in their creation. minimum necessary road system as part of the exercise of de-
ciding where motorized vehicles can drive (see, for example,
FSM 7712(2) separating travel analysis to identify a minimum
Loophole 1 system from travel analysis to identify roads and trails appro-
The directives say that forests need to conduct a sci- priate for motorized use). In other words, it would be accept-
entific and fiscal analysis to guide travel planning, but then ex- able to designate every road for motorized travel without first
empt any forest that has already begun the planning process — or, in some cases, ever — deciding which subset of roads
from having to do so. (FSM 7712(1)) At the time the direc- are necessary and which are not. This is analogous to making
tives went into effect in January, 113 of 155 forests had at a a meal without knowing how many people you will be feeding,
minimum issued notices to solicit public input on a proposed what time they want to eat, or what dietary restrictions they
action or had compled travel planning by issuing an MVUM, may have.
effectively exempting themselves from the requirement to
comprehensively review each motorized system route before
proposing it for inclusion on a final map.

6 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009

Loophole 4
The directives say that forests do not actually have to
take a comprehensive look at all of their roads when iden-
tifying the minimum necessary road system. Instead, the
directives provide an exemption for forests that completed
this examination for their Maintenance Level (ML) 3-5 roads
(passenger vehicle roads) in response to the first regula-
tion, issued in 2001, requiring determination of the minimum
road system. (FSM 7712(7)) However, approximately 82%
of national forest roads are ML 1 (closed roads, not suitable
for passenger vehicle use) or ML 2 (high-clearance vehicle
roads). Only a handful of forests completed an analysis of all
ML 1-5 roads, with most forests focusing primarily on ML 3-5
roads. And, not surprisingly, they decided that they needed
to keep most of the roads they analyzed. Those forests that
did assess their lower-volume roads tended to find many
roads that were causing significant environmental impacts
and were no longer needed. It’s these roads that should be
decommissioned in order for the Forest Service to implement
a “minimum road system.” But, as a result of these directives
and the manner in which most forests are implementing the
2005 travel management rule, whether or not these roads
should remain in the system likely will never be analyzed.
The very real on the ground effect of this seemingly inno-
cent exemption is staggering. Almost 57 percent, or 214,000
miles, of the nearly 375,000 miles of system roads are desig-
nated to be maintained for high clearance vehicle use, while
another 25 percent, or 93,000 miles, are managed as closed to
all vehicular traffic. Furthermore, these roads are the most
likely to fail, the least likely to be maintained to appropriate
standards, and as a result, the most environmentally harmful.
It seems that political desires,
rather than common sense, played
the leading role in creating the
Management Directives.
Another Blow to Inventoried Roadless
Areas
The directives make it clear that the Forest Service be-
lieves they can legally designate — and potentially construct
— “trails” in roadless areas that can accommodate full-sized
vehicles such as hummers, jeeps, and SUVs. While the 2001
Roadless Rule itself allows motorized use in Inventoried
Roadless Areas (IRAs) and provides for the construction of
new trails as long as motorized use does not conflict with the
IRA characteristics, it specifically prohibits construction or
designation of new roads in these special areas.
The directives re-state the ambiguous definition of a trail
that is contained within 36 CFR 212.1 (“A route 50 inches or
less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified
and managed as a trail.” FSM 2353.05) rather than taking the
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009
By defining a trail as “A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over
50 inches wide that is identified and managed as a trail,” the Directives
invite motorized trail use by off-road vehicles of nearly any size. Photo
courtesy of BLM.
opportunity to clarify the physical differences between a road
and a trail on the ground. Instead, they add an additional
category of trail, those open to “all motor vehicles, includ-
ing both highway-legal and non highway-legal vehicles.” FSM
7711.3(5)(c).
If a route can accommodate a full-sized vehicle the size
of a hummer (or as small as a passenger car), which, as we all
know, is a highway-legal vehicle, it is a road as far as envi-
ronmental effects are concerned whether it is called a road
or not. As such, the allowance to construct these motorized
“trails” in roadless areas undermines the fundamental func-
tion of the Roadless Rule, which is to disallow the construc-
tion of roads in roadless areas.
Conclusion
Recognizing the importance of travel planning, Congress
included specific report language in the Omnibus Appropria-
tions Act of 2009 directing the Forest Service to conduct a
scientific-based roads analysis for all maintenance level roads,
and to identify roads for decommissioning in order to achieve
the minimum road system:
“The Committees on Appropriations expect that each
individual National Forest or Grassland will comply fully
with all travel management regulatory requirements,
particularly the science-based analysis in 36 CFR 212.5
(b)(1), the identification of unneeded roads in 36 CFR
212.5(b)(2), and the criteria for designation in 36 CFR
212.55(a) and (b). The Committees expect the Forest
Service to identify priorities, and associated resource
requirements, to fully comply with the regulatory require-
ments of 36 CFR 212.5(b) (1) and (2).” 155 Cong. Rec.
H2089-01 at H2110. (Feb. 23, 2009).
This language directs the agency to comply with all travel
management regulations as it spends money on recreation
management. The language provides activists with an oppor-
tunity to re-engage the Forest Service to ensure they identify
their minimum road system as part of travel planning, and
that’s just what we’re doing now.
7
Program Updates, Summer 2009
O
pportunities are bright for For-
est Service road-related restora-
tion with the influx of money
into the economy from the Federal
Stimulus bill and the Omnibus Appro-
priations Act. Our Restoration Cam-
paign Coordinator, Sue Gunn, has been
identifying opportunities to expand
the Legacy Roads program through
new funding mechanisms. In addition,
her work to raise awareness about the
importance of right-sizing the bloated
Forest Service road system is starting
to catch fire.
In mid-May President Obama
released his proposed Fiscal Year 2010
budget, including $50 million in funding
for Legacy Roads. In addition, Obama’s
budget identified three Forest Service
“presidential initiatives,” one of which
mentions road decommissioning as
a priority. Forest Service Chief Gail
Kimbell provided testimony to a House
Interior Appropriations committee and
highlighted the Legacy Roads program
as something appreciated by agency
staff, while also emphasizing the impor-
tance of right-sizing the road system.
While the agency had previously men-
tioned the concept of “right-sizing” on
occasion, it’s now becoming common
language at the highest levels!
With all this funding comes a need
to make sure the agency is spending the
money well. In May the Forest Service
released their final reports on FY 2008
Legacy Roads funding. Just as we were
finalizing this issue of the RIPorter they
released both the 2009 Legacy Roads
projects and the bulk of the roads
projects funded with stimulus funds. In
8 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009
Restoration Program
Wildlands CPR is gearing up for another field
season monitoring the effects of road removal
on the Clearwater National Forest. Photo by
Adam Switalski.
expectation of these many new proj-
ects, however, Wildlands CPR’s staff sci-
entist Adam Switalski finalized a citizen
monitoring protocol for Legacy Roads
and other similar projects. Check out
the new monitoring forms in the Field
Notes section on pages 20-21.
Wildlands CPR co-sponsored a res-
toration practitioner workshop with the
Nature Conservancy near Astoria, Or-
egon. The workshop, “Improving road
systems in the context of watershed
restoration,” was a terrific success,
including attendees from numerous
national forests, Oregon Department
of Forestry, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, other nonprofits,
and private consultants. Following the
workshop, attendees got their boots
dirty with a site visit to watershed res-
toration and road reclamation projects
at The Nature Conservancy’s Ellsworth
Creek Preserve. As one Forest Service
participant said after the workshop, “I
would like to ditto what others have
said regarding last week’s meeting. It
was informative and highly interactive.
A fantastic session — time well spent.”
Adam is also gearing up for the
busy summer field season on the Clear-
water National Forest and has hired our
stellar contract employee Greg Peters
as a fulltime staffer to be his eyes, ears,
and legs on the ground collecting data.
Restoration Research Associate
Josh Hurd has completed final drafts
of the six reports that will make up his
“Political Economy of Watershed Resto-
ration Series.” The reports cover such
topics as: public perceptions about
watershed restoration, business/regula-
tory/funding environments of water-
shed restoration, creating a restoration
trade association and more. We expect
the final reports will be published in
early July.
Wildlands CPR staff members
Bethanie Walder, Sue Gunn, and Sarah
Peters participated as panelists at the
26th annual Public Interest Environmen-
tal Law Conference, held in Eugene in
March. Panel topics included restoring
watersheds while providing green jobs
and off road vehicle issues.
 Transportation Program
S
taff in the Transportation Program
have been extremely busy. Adam
Rissien, Montana ORV Coordina-
tor, organized two ski trips into the
West Sapphire Wilderness Study Area
as part of his work on the Beaverhead
Deerlodge National Forest. In late
May, in part as a result of information
gathered on these trips, Wildlands CPR
filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service
challenging their snowmobile grooming
program in this area. Adam also met
with Regional Forester Tom Tidwell to
discuss how national forests in Mon-
tana have fared in their efforts to incor-
porate subpart A of travel planning (see
ABC’s of Travel Planning, The RIPorter
13.1) into their final travel plans. This
meeting was a follow up to Congres-
sional direction to the Forest Service
to ensure that all national forests were
completing subpart A and undertak-
ing a science-based analysis to identify
their minimum road system as part of
travel planning.
Adam also worked with hunt-
ers and anglers in Montana to try to
strengthen ATV licensing requirements
in the state. Unfortunately that effort
didn’t make it all the way through
Montana’s legislature this year. On the
enforcement side, however, Wildlands
CPR updated our sold-out off-road vehi-
cle enforcement report, “Six Strategies
for Success.” The new report is avail-
able online at: http://www.wildlandscpr.
org/2009-update-six-strategies-success.
In early May, off-roaders organized an illegal ride through the Paria River
to protest BLM rules restricting motorized travel to roads only.
Photo by Laurel Hagen.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009
Utah ORV Coordinator Laurel Ha-
gen got her feet wet in the Paria River,
in Utah’s Grand Staircase Escalante
National Monument. She helped
several rural residents set up a picnic
as a counter-protest to an illegal ride
through the river. Managed by the
BLM, the Paria River is, on paper at
least, off limits to vehicular travel. But,
on May 9 about 120 off-road vehicles
drove illegally up the rare riparian
habitat of the protected Paria. Vehicle
drivers were protesting the BLM’s an-
nouncement that it would start enforc-
ing a years-old ban on off-roading in the
canyon. While stinky machines roared
through the river bed, Laurel and other
peaceful protestors picnicked on the
river banks, some with signs asking ev-
eryone to “Respect the Law.” It remains
to be seen what, if anything, happens to
those who illegally drove through the
river, though the BLM was there watch-
ing the event. For a full background on
the story, check out Laurel’s blog post
at http://www.wildlandscpr.org/blog/
report-paria-river-protests.
And back at the ranch, Legal
Liaison Sarah Peters worked closely
with Contract Researcher Greg Peters
(no relation) assessing the mountains
of information we received from the
Forest Service as part of our 2005 FOIA
request. The cover story includes most
of the information from the Executive
Summary of that report. We’ll post the
full report and associated data to our
website in late June or early July.
Wildlands CPR
On the Radio
Development Director Tom Peters-
en starred on a local NPR program
entitled “The Write Question,” and
sounded like he might have missed
his calling as a radio personality. As
editor of our book, “A Road Runs
Through It,” Tom discussed the
background and inspiration behind
the book, as well as introducing
our collector’s edition to a broader
audience. You can listen to his
interview from a link on our blog
at http://www.wildlandscpr.org/
blog/wcprs-tom-petersen-montana-
public-radio on April 27.
Support this work through
Montana Shares
Wildlands CPR is a member group
of Montana Shares, a partnership of
Montana-based non-profit groups
devoted to improving the quality of
life in the communities throughout
the state.
The 15th Annual Montana Shares
raffle benefits Wildlands CPR, and
you get a chance to win one of 13
fabulous prize packages, including 6
great getaways that include lodging,
dining, recreation and more.
Go to Wildlands CPR’s website to
enter: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/
montana-shares
9
Shifting the Paradigm on Wildlife Mitigation
and Transportation…
By Bethanie Walder
A
fter graduating from college, a friend and I spent
three months traveling around the United States
backpacking in national parks and forests. Early in
the trip, while still on the east coast (I believe in New Jersey
visiting friends, not public lands), we laughed out loud when
we saw a highway sign that read “deer overpass” or some-
thing like that. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it
was clear that it referred to some type of wildlife bridge or
underpass. We thought the concept was ridiculous… how
would a deer know where the bridge was? Little did I know
that just five years later I’d be working on these issues, or
that I’d eventually marry a wildlife biologist whose research
focuses on mitigating transportation infrastructure, including
“deer overpasses,” underpasses and other tools.
Now, nearly 20 years later, I’d guess that most people
have the same reaction my friend and I did when we saw that
sign. Some probably laugh out loud and think it’s ridiculous.
Some probably think it’s a waste of money, unless perhaps
they’ve hit a deer, elk or moose while driving. And while safe-
ty (avoiding animal/vehicle crashes) seems to be the main
reason that the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA)
and state Departments of Transportation (DoTs) have begun
considering wildlife mitigation, such measures also benefit
wildlife by reconnecting fragmented habitat.
Though wildlife mitigation has come a long way in
the last two decades, it’s still an anomaly, with mitigation
structures like overpasses and underpasses the exception
rather than the rule, at least in this country. It seems we have
neither the political will nor the necessary planning to fully
incorporate wildlife mitigation into new transportation spend-
ing. Advocates worked hard, for example, to promote a “one
percent for wildlife” measure as part of the stimulus package.
It would have dedicated 1% of transportation funding to wild-
life mitigation, but it wasn’t included in the final bill.
10
Holland’s longest wildlife overpass, “Crailoo” near Hilversum, is 800m
long and 50m wide at the narrowest parts. It crosses a two lane road,
railroad tracks and a railroad yard. Photo © Marcel Huijser.
Keeping Up With the Joneses
Other countries have embraced wildlife mitigation in a
much more holistic way. The Netherlands, for example, is
knee-deep in the implementation phase of a nationwide plan
to reduce the impact of transportation infrastructure on
wildlife. In April my husband and I spent a few weeks cycling
around the countryside photographing newly installed mitiga-
tion measures — we could barely pedal a kilometer without
encountering some type of structure. The transportation and
environment departments in Holland have been implement-
ing mitigation plans for years, and wildlife mitigation is now
abundant.
The Dutch have decided to make their transportation
infrastructure as permeable to wildlife as possible within the
context of a national prioritization plan, and they’re succeed-
ing. Some structures serve dual purposes, allowing both peo-
ple and wildlife to cross busy roads, but most are for wildlife
alone. And the measures don’t just focus on ungulates (roe
deer, red deer and wild boar) — they address everything from
small mammals to amphibians and reptiles. Formal ceremo-
nies mark the opening of new bridges. A few years ago the
Queen christened what is probably the longest wildlife bridge
in the world. Such events help educate the public and build
support for creative ways to reduce our impacts on nature.
At left, a tunnel provides safe passage for smaller animals.
Photo © Marcel Huijser.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009
 What’s more, Dutch mitigation for wildlife is a priority
independent of road construction or reconstruction. If a road
presents a problem for wildlife, its effects are mitigated if it
falls within the prioritization plan. And while no measure can
stop roadkill entirely, the impacts of transportation infra-
structure can be reduced significantly. The Dutch plan also
includes restoration activities. We had the good fortune, on
one of our hikes, to find a heap of broken chunks of pavement
that hadn’t yet been hauled away. It was a removed road,
complete with an interpretive sign explaining why the road
was being removed and what wildlife would benefit.

Sure, The Netherlands is a country of just 17 million

people, with a land base about the size of Vermont and New
Hampshire combined, making it easier to implement a com-
prehensive mitigation strategy. But while it would be more
costly and complicated to implement such a strategy in this
country, it could be done. Wouldn’t it be grand if we could
make the same type of paradigm shift that has happened
there? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if state DoTs and the FHWA
incorporated mitigation as an integral component of road
management, not an extra to consider only when funding is
available? Wouldn’t it be amazing if we mitigated for all types
of species and not just those that cost us money when we
crash into them?
What We Know
The scientific body of knowledge about mitigation has
grown tremendously. Multi-year monitoring from Banff
National Park in Canada, for example, has shown how wildlife
use of bridges and tunnels increases over time. Had research-
ers stopped collecting data after just a few years folks would
assume that the structures were not useful for animals like
grizzly bears, but bears have learned to use these cross-
ings over time. But again, wildlife mitigation of this sort is
not common practice here, and both activists and wildlife
biologists often have to pressure transportation officials to
consider it.
Holland’s concern for wildlife extends far beyond charismatic megafauna.
Photo © Marcel Huijser.
Here in western Montana, the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes fought hard with the FHWA and Montana De-
partment of Transportation (MDT) to get wildlife structures
considered when US 93 north was being analyzed for recon-
struction. The tribes pressed the agencies to rethink the proj-
ect, and they succeeded (See RIPorter Vol.7 No.0, 2002). The
50+ mile section of rebuilt road will have more than 40 wildlife
crossings (underpasses, extended bridges and one overpass)
when complete. Many structures are already in place, with
deer, coyotes, bobcats, black bears, elk, raccoons, otters,
mountain lions, even house cats taking advantage.
At Wildlands CPR our emphasis is on watershed and
wildlife habitat restoration, not mitigation, with a focus on
low-volume roads, not highways. But the two are related
and land managers should take a more proactive approach
towards linking highway mitigation with watershed/ecosys-
tem restoration in the adjacent wildland habitats. We have
the know-how to get large and small animals alike across the
road without getting killed, but they have to have somewhere
to go when they get there. In addition, we need the political
and societal will to invest in both mitigation and restoration
at a large scale. Other countries have figured out how to do
it. Some states are becoming leaders in this country as well,
but too much still depends on having the right people in the
right place at the right time.

Imagine a future where wildlife and aquatic mitigation

and restoration are the norm, rather than the exception;
where transportation planners actively consider native
ecosystems, wildlife, and even pedestrians and cyclists at
the primary stages of a project, not as an afterthought. That
would be a seismic shift in thinking. Wouldn’t it be fun to feel
that earth move under our feet?

Bethanie Walder atop the pile that was a road.

Photo © Marcel Huijser.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009 11

The Spirit of Restoration
By Thomas R. Petersen

C
hristopher Peters of the Seventh Generation Fund, a
non-profit group working for native people’s issues, Editor’s Note: This essay is presented in two parts, with
says we cannot restore the land, the physical makeup
Part One presented here and Part Two to run in our
of the landscape, without also restoring the spirit of the land.
Autum Equinox issue.
To native peoples, “All things have life – rocks, trees, animals,
and humans. The earth, mother of us all, has life.” Judeo-
Christian religions tend to see the natural world as separate
from the spiritual world: though they certainly appreciate
the snow, and six rock cairns, small piles of limestone placed
rich sunsets, high mountains, and the sight of deer bounding
at intervals around the perimeter of the Wheel.
across a field, these parts of the physical world are viewed
more as the work of spirit and not spirit itself.
My son Evan, nine at the time, moved into the stiff wind,
clockwise around the fenced perimeter of the Wheel, shuffling
Can we restore the spirit of a place? Can we restore the
in the deep powder. He paused at each of these peripheral
spirit of a place once smothered in roads?
cairns and sprinkled sage and cornmeal with gloved hands.
The tokens barely reached the ground. The wind stole his of-
***
ferings and blew them across the face of the Wheel. It was an
age-old ritual not his own, but he understood as much as any
On the Fourth of July, two feet of snow covered our view
of us did: we were told we would be guests in the presence
of the twenty-eight stone spokes radiating from a central
of living spirits and we were there to attempt to honor and
rock-piled hub of the Medicine Wheel, sitting at 9,680 feet
mingle with those spirits.
elevation high in the Big Horn Mountains of northeastern
Wyoming. All we could see was the central hub rising above
A sacred site to native peoples, the Medicine Wheel was
built sometime between A.D. 1200 and 1700, but its makers
and purpose remain a mystery. Some claim it was built as
an astronomical observatory, used as a calendar to mark
the alignment of the sun, stars, and celestial bodies with the
spokes of the Wheel. Others say the early Plains tribes built
the Wheel, its twenty-eight spokes being the exact number
of poles or rafters used in the Sun Dance enclosures of the
Cheyenne, Sioux, and Crow. Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce
is said to have fasted at the Wheel, and Crows still remem-
ber the vision quest of Red Plum, their early chief, when he
received eagle feathers and medicine at the Wheel to protect
his people from harm.

Evan and I had trudged three miles through the deep

snow to the Medicine Wheel on a winding road, recently
improved to allow easier driving access (when there weren’t
summer snow storms) all the way to the Wheel. Our hike in
paralleled a 10,000-year-old travois trail, part of which was
destroyed improving the road. As often happens in road
development, increased access resulted in increased travel,
and in this case resulted in an increase in the number of visi-
Offerings adorn the fence surrounding the Wheel. Photo by Steve Dutch.

12 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009

tors. In the past the Wheel had not been commonly
known to the non-native world. In 1988 only 10,000
people visited this national historic landmark;
after the road was improved, the number soared to
70,000 in 1992.

And how would you say the spirit of the land

fared? Thirty feet away from this sacred site were
a makeshift parking lot and a port-a-potty. Teepee
rings in the area were vandalized or stolen. A seven-
foot-high, barbed-wire fence with a locked gate was
built around the Wheel to protect it from souvenir
hunters who had stolen some of the spoked Wheel’s
stones. Thousands of tourists had circled the fence
for a view, and a six-inch-deep pathway-trench was
the result. Direct access to the Wheel was even re-
stricted to native people during ceremonial events,
who had to submit a written request for a key to the
locked gate.

The day Evan and I visited the Wheel, the fence

The Medicine Wheel site. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
was adorned with traditional native offerings of rap-
tor feathers, sun-bleached bone, and streaming bou-
quets of brilliant yellow, indigo blue, and blood red
ribbons. But clinging next to these offerings I saw
big plastic drink cups, cigarette lighters, and spent
condoms, “offerings” of another kind representing
whatever a careless tourist could quickly grab from And how would you say the spirit of the land
his or her nearby car, and tie onto the fence.
fared? Thirty feet away from this sacred site were
Disturbed by the desecration, a coalition of a makeshift parking lot and a port-a-potty.
native peoples asked the Forest Service, the agency
responsible for national landmarks, to close the
last mile and a half of the road to the Wheel and let
visitors approach the Wheel on foot. The hope was
that this would deter casual visitors, reduce visitor
numbers, and therefore reduce the environmental
and spiritual impacts to the Wheel.

This proved to be the case: after the last sec-

tion of the road was closed, only 30,000 visitors
came in 1993, in contrast to the 70,000 the year
before. In 1994 only 15,000 visitors made the trek on
foot the last mile and a half. It seemed it was easy
access by car, not cultural interest, that drew so
many non-natives to the Wheel.

The Seventh Generation Fund says more about

sacred sites and the spirit they believe is there:
“The destruction of these areas, or any significant
alterations to their pure or pristine nature, adverse-
ly impacts the spiritual effectiveness of the area or
the ability of Native people to access the energy
there, whether, for example, through the use of cer-
emonies or vision quests.” In this belief, restoring
these sacred sites renews the ability of the land to
speak to all who are attentive enough to hear.

— Thomas R. Petersen is Wildlands CPR’s

Development Director.
Road approaching the Medicine Wheel. Photo by Steve Dutch.

— to be continued —
Look for Part Two in our next issue.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009 13

 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.

Citizen Spotlight on Kim Erion of LKE Corporation

By Cathrine Walters

A
t a very young age, Kim Erion often travelled with her family
through the Columbia River Gorge, and became absolutely smitten
with its every extreme. Kim and her husband (and business part-
ner), Jim, have now lived near the Mt. Hood National Forest on the edge of
Green Mountain together for almost eighteen years and enjoy the view out
their window to Oregon’s Crown Point. Her roots run deep here — where
she was born and raised — and her love and respect for the land shines
through in their company’s watershed restoration work.

Kim and her husband both started out as self-employed entrepre-

neurs. Jim went into farming and construction, building subdivisions. He
also completed early restoration work on Mount St. Helens following the
1980 eruption. Kim went to college and ran a tailoring business, but since
starting their own company, LKE Corporation, tailoring has turned into
more of a hobby.

In the beginning the two pieced together a sole proprietorship in con-

struction.  Kim did the bookkeeping and went out on parts runs. In 1993,
they incorporated: “We did driveways, streets and subdivisions, and we
subcontracted with large companies on major highway projects. But ev-
erything was build, build, build, cut, cut, cut, steal, steal, steal, and cheat,
cheat, cheat.  It was a full time job filing liens against dishonest developers
and general contractors.”

They decided to bid on a road decommissioning job, where she dis-

covered her passion for repairing the land: she was walking along replant-
ing rhododendrons and ferns into the middle of the restored road. It was
not required by the contract, but she said it just felt right. On their early
projects, Jim usually operated the bulldozer and excavator, but when he
left to remove a culvert a few miles away she hopped on the excavator and
found instant bliss! She truly enjoyed the feeling of healing the land.
Kim has learned much about taking roads apart.  “You have to know
how trees fall, be aware of the dangers, be respectful to Mother Nature,
and most of all, be humble! You have to know that machines can do good
or harm. You have to be able to read the woods and know which snag
might help the stream and which one should house a vole or osprey.”
Restoration work takes her, her husband and daughter, and their
extended crew throughout California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana
and South Dakota, carrying out challenging restoration contracts with
many different agencies.  After restoring much of their own land, they
started completing jobs for the state, county and federal government in
1996. “We love the travel; the diversity of the contracts and agencies, the
local work forces… mostly it is just being together as a family, the rush of
bidding a new area, and the challenge of planning innovative techniques
that leave our customers pleased with an extraordinary job.”
Photo courtesy of Kim Erion.
Typically, Jim and the crew complete the
first phases of projects: removing large fills,
culverts and bridges. Kim then stays behind to
complete the final landscape re-contour, “natu-
ralize the engineered plan,” inspect the final job,
and take photos. She often works alone while
the crew works different areas. But working
alone, camping for days, hours from the nearest
gas station, is nirvana to Kim since she enjoys
being out of the fast lane.
She recalls one incident while working alone
one day on a grizzly bear habitat restoration
project near the Canadian border. “Jim and the
crew were at least three miles away.  I finished
up a full recontour with the excavator, shut
the machine down and started walking down

14 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009

the road back to base camp about a mile away.
Suddenly I heard a crash above me! A bear
dropped down onto the road right in front of me
and grunted loudly. I could feel his breath on
my face! Instantly, I threw my arms up, holding
my hard hat and lunch cooler into the air, and
grunted back equally as loud! He grunted twice
and dropped off the road out of sight.” The bear
didn’t smell bad, she recalls, and it didn’t seem
aggressive.  She walked calmly back to camp and
sat for a moment, then realized that she had wet
her pants.  “I cried for about a minute, and then
realized what a gift I was given: first, not to be
eaten, but second, to look into its eyes and feel
its breath on my face.  It’s a smell I will never
forget and a moment that builds character into
who I am each day!”

Kim has lost count of the miles of full road

recontours that she has done, but estimates it’s
in the hundreds all over Oregon, Washington
and Idaho. “Pretty darn close to a thousand
miles of roads, and thousands of acres of wet- Photo courtesy of Kim Erion.
lands also,” she humbly admits.

Kim and her husband work with other con-

servation groups like Ducks Unlimited, Fish First
and Oregon Trout. They are active in multiple
chapters, attend state fundraisers and put much
of their business profit back into conservation.
You have to be able to read the woods
Jim has been involved with Ducks Unlimited and know which snag might help the
for more than 20 years, ever since he grew up
under the Pacific Flyway, directly witnessing the stream and which one should house a
diminishing flocks of ducks and geese as well as
the decline in salmon in the Columbia and Lewis
vole or osprey.
Rivers.

It is difficult for Kim to answer what her

most successful restoration project is be-
cause all the jobs they do are precious. She
has worked with many amazing scientists and
specialists over the years and her intensity
and dedication for the work has not changed.
But she does recall a few memorable locations
along the Olympic, Yosemite and Gifford Pinchot
National Forests.

Even with the economic crisis, LKE Corpora-

tion is busy now and plans to be into the future.
They have hired more workers this year than
ever before and the growing interest in restora-
tion work has allowed Kim to choose quality
people who are as deeply passionate as her to
do the right thing on the ground.

She loves her work and is grateful her fam-

ily can be together every day on the job. “Our
daughter, now 16, grew up learning not to waste
anything, to utilize each resource, to repair and
reconstruct with respect, to appreciate every-
thing and be thankful.  Restoration has been our
way of life.”
Photo courtesy of Kim Erion.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009 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.

Mitigating the Impacts of Roads as a Climate Change

Adaptation Strategy
By Adam Switalski and Liane Davis

Introduction
Climate has changed throughout the history of our planet and
species have adapted and persisted over time (Noss 2001). Unlike
previous periods of climatic change, though, many species’ ability to
adjust has been severely constrained by anthropocentric alterations
of many ecosystems, such as habitat loss and fragmentation. It is
these additional environmental stressors that make climate change
such a challenge for biodiversity conservation. But while humans
have increased the conservation challenges associated with climate
change, we can also help to alleviate them.

Roads are a ubiquitous feature across North America that have

greatly modified aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. In this paper we
discuss how forest roads and their associated impacts are compound-
ing the threats of climate change on fish and wildlife and how decom-
missioning and upgrading some forest roads can improve ecosystem
resiliency and foster species’ ability to adjust to changing environ-
mental conditions.

Climate change impacts on fish and wildlife
There is high certainty that air temperature is increasing around
the world (CCSP 2008). In general, stream temperatures are expected
to rise as a result of increased air temperatures and decreased ther-
mal mixing from snowmelt (Mote et al. 2003). As stream temperatures
rise, it is likely that several streams and rivers that currently support
salmonids and other cold-water species may become inhospitable,
as critical temperature thresholds are breeched (Keleher and Rahel
1996). Such changes are likely to alter distributions, as fish adapted
to cool and cold water must migrate in search of more suitable water
temperatures (Eaton and Scheller 1996). Furthermore, extreme fluxes
in stream temperature may produce thermal barriers that impede fish
migration and constrict their range (Bartholow 2005).
Climate change is also predicted to alter stream flows (both peak
and low), but impacts will vary based on elevation and snowpack
contributions (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007). Reduction of summer
and fall stream flows and consequent reductions in the length of the
overall stream network during the summer dry season are also likely
to limit food and habitat availability for juvenile rearing. Increased
forest die-back resulting from fire and/or pathogens may further
increase stream temperatures by reducing streamside vegetation
cover, but also may increase summer low flows in the short-term due
to decreased uptake of water by vegetation (Potts 1984); however, the
magnitude and duration of such effects is not well understood.
The evidence for global climate change is irrefutable. These
photos show the retreat of Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Top photo taken in 1941
(courtesy of U.S. Geological Service) and bottom photo taken
in 2004 (by Bruce Molnia, USGS).
An increase in climatic variability is also pre-
dicted, resulting in more frequent, extreme storms
and increasing intensity of precipitation (Groisman
et al. 2005). Increases in high-intensity precipitation
and winter flooding pose several significant risks
to fish. For example, increased flooding can scour
salmon redds, destroying the eggs (Lisle 1989).
High flows can also flush rearing juvenile salmonids
downstream before they are ready to migrate, poten-
tially disrupting their biochemical and physiological
development (Shirvell 1994). Another likely out-
come of increased flooding and heavy precipitation
is an increase in mass-wasting events (e.g., land-
slides). Such incidents increase the amount of fine
sediment in streams, which has been strongly and
negatively correlated to salmonid health, growth,
and survival (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).

16 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009

 Wildlife also face threats driven by temperature and precipitation patterns
and changes in disturbance regimes, including changes in food availability, habi-
tat, and distribution of competitors and prey (Janetos et al. 2008). For example,
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) food sources may be dramatically altered. In
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, grizzly bears depend on winter-killed carrion
as a key springtime food. However, recent modeling exercises have predicted a
decline of winter-killed carrion due to a substantial reduction in late winter snow-
pack (Wilmers and Getz 2005). Additionally, climate change is predicted to reduce
the availability of the highly-nutritious white-bark pine (Pinus albicaulis) seeds
by accelerating the rate of the white pine blister rust fungus (Cronartium ribicola)
spread, competitive replacement by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and increasing
frequency of stand-replacing wildfires (Koteen 2002).

Intersection of roads and climate change

Climate change is exacerbating the many human-caused impacts that are
already leading to species decline. One of the most common and far-reaching an-
thropogenic features on the landscape is roads. Roads can affect aquatic systems
by increasing stream peak flows by impeding water infiltration and expanding the
drainage network (Wemple et al. 1996), increasing surface runoff carrying sedi-
ment to streams (Sugdon and Woods 2007), and triggering landslides from culvert Converting roads to trails, as in this project on
or road failures that transport large amounts of sediment and debris to streams Montana’s Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
(Swanston 1991). Roads can also block or disrupt natural transport of materials Forest, can help mitigate the impacts of climate
such as large wood into streams (Furniss et al. 1991), which is critical to salmonid change. Photo by Adam Switalski.
survival because it increases in-stream habitat complexity and provides off-channel
areas of refugia during high flow events (Bilby and Bisson 1998).

Several studies have also documented deleterious impacts of roads on terres-

trial wildlife. One simple, but major impact of roads on wildlife is that they facilitate
human access. For example, roads allow access to remote grizzly bear habitat re-
sulting in avoidance of roads by bears (Mace et al. 1999). In the context of climate
change, roads can also adversely affect wildlife habitat by fragmenting landscapes,
altering wildlife movement, and acting as a vector for invasive species and plant
pathogens (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Cumulatively, the presence of roads often One of the most well documented
leads to avoidance and a reduction in available habitat. impacts of climate change on wild-
life is a shift in the ranges of species
(Parmesan 2006). As animals migrate,
Road decommissioning and upgrading as a climate landscape connectivity will be increas-
change adaptation strategy ingly important (Holman et al. 2005).
The impacts of climate change and roads on aquatic and terrestrial systems Decommissioning roads in key wildlife
will likely be intensified by their interactions and cumulatively pose more serious corridors will improve connectivity and
threats to many species than either would alone. One adaptation strategy that be an important mitigation measure to
directly benefits resiliency of many species is decommissioning and upgrading of increase resiliency of wildlife to climate
forest roads. When roads are decommissioned the old roadbeds are ripped and change.
often recontoured to enhance water infiltration (Switalski et al. 2004). Additionally,
culverts are removed and natural stream connections and transport processes are
restored. This practice lessens risks associated with landslides, erosion of fine
Conclusion
While climate change is the great-
sediment, and intensification of peak flows (Madej 2001).
est threat of our age, we have the
ability to help fish and wildlife adapt
Decommissioning and upgrading roads and thus reducing the amount of fine
to predicted changes. Roads are a
sediment deposited on salmonid redds can increase the likelihood of egg survival
major stressor in the environment and
and spawning success (McCaffery et al. 2007). In addition, this would reconnect
decommissioning and upgrading them
stream channels and remove barriers such as culverts. Decommissioning roads in
has the potential to increase ecosystem
riparian areas may provide further benefits to salmon and other aquatic organisms
resiliency.
by permitting reestablishment of streamside vegetation, which provides shade and
maintains a cooler, more moderated microclimate over the stream (Battin et al. 2007).
— Adam is Wildlands CPR’s Science
Coordinator and Liane is the Ellsworth
For wildlife, road decommissioning can reduce the many stressors associated
Creek Ecologist for The Nature
with roads. Road decommissioning restores habitat by providing security and food
Conservancy.
for wildlife. Preliminary results suggest that black bear (Ursus americanus) use
decommissioned roads extensively in central Idaho (A. Switalski in prep.). In addi-
tion to providing early successional foods, such as huckleberries, decommissioned
roads when seeded with native species can reduce the spread of invasive species
(Grant et al. in review).

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009 17

 — continued from previous page —
References
Bartholow, J.M. 2005. Recent water temperature trends in
the Lower Klamath River, California. Journal of Fisheries
Management 25: 152-162.
Battin, J, M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb,
K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts
of climate change on salmon habitat restoration.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 104: 6720–6725.
Bilby, R. E. and P. A. Bisson. 1998. Function and distribution of
large woody debris in Pacific coastal streams and rivers.
in Naiman, R. J. and R. E. Bilby (eds.). River ecology
and management: Lessons from the Pacific coastal
ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York.
CCSP (Climate Change Science Program). 2008. The effects
of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water
resources, and biodiversity in the United States. A
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp.
Eaton, J.G., and R.M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate
warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United
States. Limnology and Oceanography 41(5): 1109-1115.
Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee, 1991. Road
Construction and Maintenance. Pages 297-324 In: W.
Meehan (Ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland
Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats,
Special Publication 18, American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Grant, A, C. Nelson, and T.A. Switalski. Restoration of native
plant communities after road decommissioning in the
Rocky Mountains: effect of seed mix composition & soil
properties on vegetatative establishment. Restoration
Ecology. In review.
Groisman, P.Y., R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, G.C.
Hegerl, and V.N. Razuvaev. 2005. Trends in intense
precipitation in the climate record. Journal of Climate
18(9): 1326-1350.
Hamlet A.F., and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Effects of 20th
Century Warming and Climate Variability on Flood Risk
in the Western U.S. Water Resources Research 43.
Holman, I.P., R.J. Nicholls, P.M. Berry, P.A. Harrison, E.
Audsley, S. Shackley, and M.D.A. Rounsevell. 2005. A
regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the
impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the
UK. Part II. Results. Climatic Change, 71, 43-73.
Janetos, A., L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Meyerson,
B. Peterson, and R. Shaw. 2008. Biodiversity. In:
The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land
Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the
United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research. Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp.
Keleher, C.J., F.J. Rahel. 1996. Thermal limits to salmonid
distributions in the rocky mountain region and potential
habitat loss due to global warming: a geographic
information system (gis) approach. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 125:1-13.
18
Koteen, L. 2002. Climate change, whitebark pine, and grizzly
bears in the greater yellowstone ecosystem. Pages
343-414 in S.H. Schneider and T.L. Root, eds. Wildlife
Responses to Climate Change – North American Case
Studies. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Lisle, T.E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition
in spawning gravels, North Coast California. Water
Resource Research 25: 1303-1319.
Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger.
1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in
western Montana. Conservation Biology 13 (2): 367-377.
Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following
removal of forest roads. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 26: 175-190.
McCaffery, M., T.A. Switalski, and Lisa Eby. 2007. Effects of
road decommissioning on stream habitat characteristics
in the South Fork Flathead River, Montana. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 553-561.
Newcomb, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of
suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 11: 72-82.
Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time
of rapid climate change. Conservation Biology 15(3): 578.
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses
to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637-669.
Potts, D.F. 1984. Hydrologic impacts of a large-scale
mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae
Hopkins) epidemic. Water Resources Bulletin 20: 373-377.
Shirvell, C.S. 1994. Effect of changes in the streamflow on the
microhabitat use and movements of sympatric juvenile
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook
salmon (O. tshawytscha) in a natural stream. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 51:1644-1652.
Sugden, B.D., and S.W. Woods, 2007. Sediment Production
From Forest Roads in Western Montana. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA)
43(1):193-206.
Swanston, D.N. 1991. Natural processes. Pages 139-179 In:
W.R. Meehan, (ed) Influences of Forest and Rangeland
Management on Salmonid Habitat. American Fisheries
Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland.
Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce,
and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road
removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
2(1):21-28.
Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological
effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities.
Conservation Biology 14: 18-30.
Wilmers, C.C., and W.M. Getz. 2005. Gray wolves as climate
change buffers in Yellowstone. PLoS Biology 3(4): 571-576.
Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. Channel network
extension by logging roads in two basins, western
Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32(6) 1195-
1207.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009
FS Announces
Stimulus Projects
In early June, the Forest Service announced
a list of projects to be funded with its share of
the federal economic stimulus package. The
agency is receiving $1.15 billion in stimulus fund-
ing, and their project list includes 106 projects
in 31 states. Of the total funds, about $228
million will be used for road maintenance and
decommission and watershed restoration. With
an estimated $10 billion backlog in road mainte-
nance the funds are a small, but significant, step
towards addressing the problem.
In an article published in the L.A. Times,
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that the
projects should improve access to forestlands,
boost public health and safety and preserve
natural resources throughout the country. “The
rehabilitation of roads will improve water quality
by reducing sediments in nearby streams and
help to restore natural resources and habitats
for fish in areas impacted by deterioration and
erosion of road surfaces,” Vilsack said.
Obama Moves to Protect
Roadless Areas
In late May the Obama administration announced a yearlong order to
prevent new road construction and development in Inventoried Roadless
Areas. The order requires Forest Service officials to seek approval for any
such projects from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.
President Clinton issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in 2001;
it halted development on nearly 60 million acres of national forest. The
rule was supported by conservationists, but challenged by several state
governments (including Idaho) and the timber industry. Two federal
courts ruled on the issue — one upholding the rule and one striking it
down. Both of those decisions have been appealed and the Supreme Court
may end up hearing the case.
Meanwhile, President Bush undercut the rule by exempting some ar-
eas from protection (including much of Alaska’s Tongass NF), and by allow-
ing states to set their own roadless development rules. The current order
will now effectively block planned timber sales in the Tongass, but Idaho
national forests are essentially exempt because the state has adopted its
own roadless area plan.

Five Western states will receive more than

half the total funds. Here is a breakdown of what
we know:

Idaho 16 projects $44 million

Oregon 31 projects $32 million
Montana 23 projects $31.5 million
Washington 25 projects funding?
California 21 projects funding?

The majority of the projects in these states

fall into two main categories: road decommis-
sioning and/or maintenance; and fuels reduction
and wildfire protection. Other project types
include: watershed, ecosystem and fire restora-
tion; noxious weeds & invasive species; repairing
and maintaining county roads & bridges; jobs
programs, and green infrastructure; education
programs; and, fish passage.

Wildlands CPR will be monitoring these proj-

ects and will provide tools for citizens to ensure
that the money is well spent (see our Field Notes
in this issue).
Tree planters will be busy with the new stimulus projects. Photo by Adam
Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009 19

Legacy Roads Citizen Monitoring
By Adam Switalski

C
ongress has created a dedicated fund to help improve the Forest Service’s As updated project lists become
crumbling road system while restoring ecosystem health. The Legacy Roads available in 2009 and beyond, we will
and Trails Remediation Initiative (Legacy Roads) funds projects to decommis- add them to this sidebar.
sion unneeded forest roads, and perform critical maintenance and culvert upgrades
on needed forest roads. For many years, this work has been neglected, resulting in In the spreadsheet, tabs on the
a road maintenance backlog estimated at between $5 and $10 billion. The under- bottom depict different Forest Service
maintained roads have reduced forest access and damaged fish and wildlife habitat regions. For example, the Pacific North-
and clean drinking water supplies. west is Region 6. Once you open that
tab you will see a spreadsheet showing
With millions of dollars dedicated to Legacy Roads each year, we want to en- the type of project that each forest has
sure that the Forest Service is using Legacy Roads money as directed by Congress planned for FY2008, as well as project
to restore our forest watersheds while maintaining access into popular forest areas. costs.
Citizen monitoring is one way to do this.
Using the spreadsheet, categorize
In this edition of Field Notes we outline some basic monitoring techniques that each project expense into the following
can be conducted in the office and/or in the field to help improve the effectiveness categories:
of restoration on our national forests. The amount and scale of monitoring is up to • Trail repair or maintenance
your group. • Road repair or maintenance (includ-
ing aggregate placement)
• Aquatic organism passage (AOP)
Step 1: Look at distribution of money to projects National Environmental Policy Act
The first step in monitoring Legacy Roads is to download a list of Forest Ser- (NEPA) analysis or design
vice Legacy Roads projects in your area from Wildlands CPR’s project database, • Aquatic organism passage (AOP)
found here: • Road decommissioning NEPA analysis
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roads-funding-fy08-region-totals or design
• Road decommissioning
On the right sidebar you will find an Excel file entitled: • Data entry, reporting, or monitoring
Totals_for_FY08_0.xls
This information can then be
entered into another spreadsheet and
put into a graph to get a general idea
of what percent of the funding is being
spent on road maintenance rather than
restoration (for example see Table 1).

While Congress did not tell the For-

est Service how to distribute the funds
between road decommissioning, culvert
repair and critical maintenance, they
did allow that the entirety of the 2008
funds and 80 percent of the 2009 funds
could be spent on road decommission-
ing. Each forest, however, will allocate
the money differently between the al-
lowable categories. For example, while
the Olympic and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forests have 52 and 57 percent
of their budgets allocated for road de-
commissioning respectively, the Gifford
Pinchot has only 14 percent dedicated
toward road decommissioning.
Members of a University of Montana class pitch in as Citizen Monitors on the
Clearwater National Forest. Photo by Adam Switalski.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009

 Additionally, the Gifford Pinchot
is spending 71 percent toward road Table 1. Percent of FY 2008 Legacy Roads funds allocated
repair and maintenance. This could
be a red flag that Legacy Roads money
toward different projects on the Olympic National Forest.
is not being spent in accordance with
Congressional direction. Similarly, Data entry, reporting, Trail repair or
few California national forests spent or monitoring maintenance Road repair or
funds on decommissioning, but in some 1% 7% maintenance
instances this may be because they re- 5%
ceived ample state funds for decommis-
sioning needs. Therefore, the results of Design for aquatic
this coarse-scale analysis will give you organism passage
an opportunity to meet with your forest (AOP)
to discuss their prioritization more ef-
5%
fectively.

Step 2: Identify a restoration or

maintenance project Road
Once you have determined the Decommissioning Aquatic organism
amount of money going toward decom- 52% passage (AOP)
missioning, culvert re-pair/upgrade, and
27%
road maintenance work on your local
forest, it is time to identify an individual
project to monitor. Again, using the
downloaded spreadsheet, find an on- Design for road
the ground project that is of interest
decommissioning
either because of ecological concerns
or because there is a large economic 4%
investment by the forest. For example,
the Olympic National Forest is allocat-
ing $615,000 to the Flat Stewardship
and Flat Fall Out road decommissioning
project where 7.8 miles of roads are go-
ing to be decommissioned. This is over half their budget and may provide a great
opportunity for citizen monitoring.

Step 3: Obtain contract/NEPA documents for project

Once you have identified what project you are interested in monitoring, you
should contact your local Forest Service office to obtain the contract and/or NEPA
documentation for the project to identify the ecological concerns and prescription
for treatment. In this document you should be able to determine, for example, why
the road was slated for decommissioning or why a culvert is being upgraded. You
should also obtain detailed maps of the project area.

Step 4: Begin field monitoring

Now it’s time for fun! With the background work taken care of, it is time to go
into the field and see what the restoration work looks like first-hand. You will want
to bring data sheets (citizen monitoring cover sheet, photo data sheet), a clip-
board, pen, and digital camera. A GPS unit is helpful for locating sites and to record
the location of photos. With these instruments alone and some training you should
be able to determine if the road was decommissioned according to the prescrip-
tion. Additionally, you will be able to identify if there have been any major prob-
lems with the work. For example, there may be culverts that were not removed, or
areas where weeds have taken over. With information like this we can get a better
idea of the success of these efforts and provide the Forest Service with important
information to improve their practices.

Datasheets for Legacy Roads citizen monitoring can be found online at:
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roads-citizen-monitoring Collecting data in the field. Photo by Adam
Switalski.
— Adam is Science Coordinator for Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2009 21

S
pring is finally in the air, with bluebirds nesting in the green hills around town
and rivers chock full and muddy with runoff. We’ve been off and running on
numerous projects as well, and we expect to complete three over the next few
weeks. For more details, read on…

New Reports Available

Six Strategies for Success FOIA Report
This winter we rehired contract
researcher Michele Archie to update
our ORV enforcement Report, “Six
Strategies for Success.” The new
report includes everything from
the 2007 report, plus dozens of new
examples and tactics. Incorporating
information from a host of state laws
and studies completed over the past
two years, the updated Six Strategies
report provides even more useful in-
formation than the original, and will
be an excellent resource for promot-
ing new and improved enforcement
strategies. It’s available electroni-
cally only; to download a copy, go to:
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/2009-
update-six-strategies-success
Political Economy of
Contract researcher Greg Peters
is finalizing a long-awaited analysis of
Watershed Restoration
Wildlands CPR’s Restoration Re-
the information we received in 2007
search Associate Josh Hurd has spent
from our 2005 Freedom of Informa-
the last year completing a cutting-edge
tion Act request to the 85 western
analysis of the political economy of
national forests. We expect to have
watershed restoration. The result is a
the full report and several resources
six-part report that covers topics rang-
published on our website shortly
ing from the regulatory and funding en-
after this Road-RIPorter hits your
vironments of watershed restoration, to
inbox. For a sneak preview, check
public perceptions about, and economic
out our cover story! Greg finished the
benefits of, watershed restoration. In
project just in time to start running
addition, he reviewed financial mecha-
our Citizen Science program on the
nisms for funding such work and the im-
Clearwater National Forest for the
portance of creating a restoration trade
summer – thanks Greg!
association. We’ll be posting all of these
reports on our website by mid July.

Have you checked out our website lately???

In case you haven’t, you should – we’ve been updating it almost daily with the
latest news and opinions related to roads, restoration and off-road vehicles. To
keep up to date, go to our home page and check out the section called “Related
News.” We highlight the most interesting news stories from around the US (and
sometimes the world) related to watershed restoration and off-road vehicles. We’re
also posting to our blog 3-4 times a week, with analysis of news stories, updates and
analysis on agency actions, photo reports and more. Here’s a few sample headlines
from the past few weeks to give you a sense of what you can find: Citizen science
at work on the Clearwater National Forest; Report from the Paria River (about the
ORV protest ride up Paria Canyon in UT); First FS stimulus projects posted; Closing
roads for griz doesn’t have to be controversial; and lots more.

Thanks
Wildlands CPR wants to extend a big thank you to the Yellowstone to Yukon
Conservation Initiative, Mountaineers, Brainerd, Cinnabar and Norcross Founda-
tions, and Patagonia for grants to support our work. In addition, we also want to
send a big thanks to Kathi Nickel and Cindy Jimmerson for setting up several fund-
raisers for Wildlands CPR this spring and summer – you two are awesome!!! Many
thanks, too, to all of you who’ve sent in donations during the past quarter – we
can’t do all this critical work without your help!
Photo by Paul Shively.

22 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 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
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, Summer Solstice 2009 23

 A near-full moon rises over the desert. Photo by Laurel Hagen.
Non-profit Organization
US POSTAGE
PAID
MISSOULA MT, 59801
PERMIT NO. 569

“The National Forest System

has a transportation system
that is not suited to its modern
needs and requires realignment
to ‘right-size’ the system for the
future.”
— Forest Service Chief Gail
Kimbell

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