Autumn Equinox 2009. Volume 14 No.

The Political Economy of Watershed Restoration

By Josh Hurd

Protecting water quality through restoring watersheds has always made good
economic sense. Now, it’s become politically feasible as well. Photo above by Adam
Switalski, at right by Dan Funsch.

— story begins on page 3 —

Inside…
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie
Walder. Page 2
The Political Economy of Watershed
Restoration, by Josh Hurd.
Pages 3-5
DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder.
Pages 6-7
Odes to Roads: The Spirit of Restoration,
Part Two, by Thomas R. Petersen.
Pages 8-9
Legal Notes, by Mike Anderson.
Pages 10-11
Get with the Program: Restoration and
Transportation Program Updates.
Pages 12-13
Field Notes, The Economic Impacts of Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 19-21
the 2008 Legacy Roads & Trails
Around the Office, Membership Info.
Remediation Initiative in Idaho and
Pages 22-23
Montana, by The Wilderness Society.
Pages 14-15
Biblio Notes: A Review of the Impacts of
ORVs on Soil, by Adam Switalski and Visit us online:
Allison Jones. Pages 16-18
wildlandscpr.org
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551

A Watershed Speech
www.wildlandscpr.org

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by

“Our shared vision must begin with a complete commitment to restoration. Restoration,
for me, means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources while
making our forests far more resilient to climate change.”
— US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack.
promoting watershed restoration that improves
fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and
enhances community economies. We focus on
reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads
and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.

With these words, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack set out a new vision for
national forest management — one that harkens back to the foundation of the Forest Director
Service more than 100 years ago, with a primary focus on protecting water resources. Bethanie Walder

While his speech did stray into the more familiar topics of hazardous fuel reduc-
tion, fire danger, insects, and other “timber management” issues, it was refreshing that in Development Director
this era of climate change he chose water and watershed health to set the context of his Tom Petersen
remarks. It seems that it really may be a new vision for the agency.

Roads, it turns out, are one of the biggest contributors to water quality problems Science Coordinator
on our national forests. Vilsack wasn’t afraid to mention this, nor was the person who Adam Switalski
introduced him, Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA).

As part of his introduction, Dicks touted some of the initial successes of the Forest Legal and Agency Liaison
Service’s Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (see many previous RIPorters). Sarah Peters
Legacy Roads has provided $90 million in the last two years to protect and restore clean
drinking water and endangered fisheries habitat by fixing culverts and performing other
critical maintenance on needed roads, while decommissioning unneeded roads. While Montana State ORV
Legacy Roads continues, the agency is beginning to look at their road system in a differ- Coordinator
ent way, acknowledging both its oversized capacity and the profound ecological effects Adam Rissien
the system has, especially in light of the multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Even
former FS Chief Gail Kimbell acknowledged the need to “rightsize” the forest road system
in testimony provided to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees this spring.
Restoration Campaign
And we must note that Vilsack did explicitly state that, “In many of our forests, Coordinator
restoration will also include efforts to improve or decommission roads, to replace and Sue Gunn
improve culverts, and to rehabilitate streams and wetlands.” So there it is, in black and
white – road decommissioning will be part of the future of national forest management. Program Associate
Cathrine L. Walters
The agency is on the verge of moving in a new direction. They’ve been there before
and then fallen back into their same old ruts. But by taking the bull by the horns at
the beginning of his tenure, Vilsack has the potential to push the Forest Service into an
Journal Editor
agency focused on watershed restoration at its core. Speeches alone won’t make that
happen. He must pressure new FS Chief Tom Tidwell to translate vision into reality by Dan Funsch
providing the structure and capacity to build a new Forest Service for the 21st Century —
one that focuses on restoring watershed health and water quality, especially in light of Interns & Volunteers
climate change.
Adam Bender, Heather McAdams, Greg Peters,
Stuart Smith
We can only hope that there’s a brand new beginning for the Forest Service that im-
mediately builds from the words Vilsack used at the end of his speech:
Board of Directors
“But I return again to the simple act that we Americans often take for granted every Amy Atwood, Jim Furnish,
day: turning on those water faucets. The clean water that emerges is made possible in William Geer, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd, Crystal
large part by the stewardship of our working rural land and our forests in particular. My Mario, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben
hope, and I trust you share it, is that together we can foster a greater appreciation in
this country for our forests and that all Americans, regardless of where they live, see the
quality of their lives, and the quality of their forests as inseparable.” © 2009 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

The Political Economy of Watershed Restoration
By Josh Hurd
Editor’s Note: This is an Executive Summary from Wildlands CPR’s report.
For a copy of the full report, or each of the six individual reports, go to:
www.wildlandscpr.org/resources.

W
atershed restoration provides much more to society than just
clear streams, clean drinking water, healthy aquatic and terres-
trial wildlife, and thriving forests. It also constitutes an increas-
ingly important part of rural and urban economies. Restoration employs
thousands of Americans, many from declining extraction-based sectors of
the economy, in well-paying jobs. It often increases long-term community
vitality and quality of life. Watershed restoration presents a rare “win-win”
situation to conservation and business communities. As such, an expan-
sion of the ecological restoration sector of the economy is in the nation’s
best interest.

Unfortunately, relatively little research has been done on the water-

shed restoration sector of the economy. Important questions remain un-
answered. What does the public think about watershed restoration? Who
funds most current restoration projects? What policy changes are needed
to expand the restoration economy? Wildlands CPR undertook an ambi-
tious yearlong research project to help provide some answers, culminating
in the publication of six reports:

1. Perceptions of Watershed Restoration;

2. Economic Benefits of Watershed Restoration;
3. Characteristics of Watershed Restoration Funding;
4. Innovative Financial Mechanisms to Fund Watershed Restoration;
5. Business and Regulatory Environments of Watershed Restoration;
and
6. Possibilities of Forming an Ecological Restoration Trade Associa-
tion.
These reports are an important first step in building up knowledge
about various aspects of the watershed restoration economy. This execu-
tive summary discusses the findings of each of the six reports, and con-
cludes with a summary of the most important recommendations.
What is Watershed Restoration?
Ecological restoration activists, scientists, and practitioners debate
about what actually constitutes proper restoration. The Society for Eco-
logical Restoration’s definition is:
Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of
an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.
This leaves much room for interpretation and goes beyond watersheds
to include all ecological restoration. For our research, we deemed a project
or activity restoration-related if it seemed to fit the spirit of the Society for
Ecological Restoration’s definition, especially as applied to watersheds.
Some management activities are controversially labeled as restoration, and
we purposefully avoided these contentious issues. We deemed a project
watershed-related if the project was designed to affect the terrestrial and
aquatic components that impact large or small watersheds. This could
include, for example, projects to restore free-flowing rivers through dam
removal; projects to reduce stream sedimentation through road removal;
in-stream restoration activities; mining reclamation that would reduce or
As the first major U.S. city to undertake a
comprehensive watershed restoration effort, Seattle
focused on the Cedar Creek watershed, from which
much of the city’s drinking water flows. Photo by
Adam Switalski.
prevent acid mine-drainage; etc. We did not
include projects that dealt exclusively with for-
est stand manipulation to address forest struc-
ture or fuel hazard reduction, as these projects
do not typically consider watershed benefits as
their primary purpose.
In addition, urban resource management
and watershed restoration may be integrally re-
lated. For example, Maryland has a program that
taxes household sewer connections in order to
pay for sewage treatment plant upgrades. While
this project in and of itself may not be watershed
restoration, the project is part of a much larger
watershed-level effort to restore the Chesapeake
Bay. One major component of the restoration
program in the Chesapeake is pollution preven-
tion, to ensure that the water entering the bay
is as clean as possible. Thus we deemed the
Maryland subprogram as a watershed restora-
tion activity because its ultimate purpose was to
enhance the watershed.

— continued on page 4 —

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009 3

 — continued from page 3 —
Public Perceptions of Watershed
Restoration
Understanding public perceptions of watershed restora-
tion is critically important to ensure public support for resto-
ration activities. The public elects officials who have political
sway in implementing projects. They vote on bond measures
and other restoration funding mechanisms. They also can
vociferously oppose projects. We conducted research into
how the public perceives watershed restoration activities in
order to better address these issues, reaching the following
conclusions:
• Among Americans’ environmental concerns, clean
drinking water is at the top of the list. Accordingly,
they are also concerned about healthy lakes, rivers,
and streams;
• While almost 70% of Americans support watershed
restoration, an even greater number — 90% — are
concerned about healthy lakes, rivers, and streams;
and
• People are primarily concerned about their local en-
vironments and are most motivated to support local
watershed restoration efforts.
Economic Characteristics and Benefits of
Watershed Restoration
People often misunderstand watershed restoration as an
activity with no product. This misunderstanding is predict-
able given the complex economic nature of restoration
activities. Therefore, it is critical to understand both how
watershed restoration fits within an economic framework and
the general economic benefits arising from restoration. Our
research found the following:
• Watershed restoration is subject to market factors
that make its goods and services difficult to trade in
traditional economic markets. This usually results
in the government acting as the primary provider
of watershed restoration. The demand comes from
society as a whole, since restored watersheds are a
public good;
• Measured by damage caused, willingness to pay, po-
litical referenda, averted expenditures, travel costs
incurred, and changes in housing values, researchers
consistently conclude that watershed restoration
has significant economic benefits; and
• Watershed restoration projects have other economic
benefits as well, directly and indirectly employing
many people and potentially contributing to the
long-term viability and growth of communities.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009
A former road in the Cedar Creek watershed, ten years after its
restoration. Photo by Adam Switalski.
Characteristics of Watershed Restoration
Funding
Because so few traditional markets exist for the products
that arise from healthy watersheds, local, state, and federal
governments fund the majority of restoration efforts. Howev-
er, little research exists on how these governments go about
funding this work. By understanding funding mechanisms and
trends in their use, the public can become better informed
about how to increase funding for restoration activities. Our
research concluded:
• State and local governments usually provide the
majority of funds for major watershed restoration
projects, although the federal government does
significantly contribute;
• A large variety of funding mechanisms provided by
different levels of government typically fund large-
scale and consistently viable restoration projects;
and
• A heavy reliance on issuing debt (e.g. bonds) to pay
for restoration activities may change how govern-
ments fund watershed restoration in the future.
Innovative Financial Mechanisms to Fund
Watershed Restoration
The watershed restoration sector of the economy needs
more funding sources. Even though various levels of govern-
ment already fund—directly or indirectly—the majority of
restoration work, these financial and regulatory mechanisms
do not achieve the level of restoration that the country
needs for a more sustainable natural environment and for a
sustained, long-term restoration sector of the economy. We
investigated possible financial recommendations and reached
the following findings:
 • Funding mechanisms differ according to whether • A trade association would be best equipped to allevi-
liable parties exist that have caused or continue ate the significant gap of knowledge that still exists
to cause the environmental damage that requires on the ecological restoration sector of the economy;
restoration; and
• A variety of innovative and promising funding op- • Restoration firms must perceive that the benefits of
tions exist, including mitigation banking, taxes on joining a trade association would outweigh the time
damaging activities, tax increment financing, special and money it costs them.
governmental districts, resort taxes, and surcharges
on retail goods; and
• Future national climate change legislation has the
Recommendations
potential to fund watershed restoration activities.
These research findings on the various aspects of the res-
While the science and economics behind whether
toration sector of the economy yielded many recommenda-
carbon offsets can fund watershed restoration is un-
tions. The following five items are among the most important:
certain, the potential does exist to fund restoration
through adaptation and mitigation monies.
• Environmental activists should develop talking
points and formalize a public relations campaign
Business and Regulatory Environments of to better inform the public about the connection
between restoring watersheds and clean drinking
Watershed Restoration water;
• To ensure financial stability, the restoration sector
The watershed restoration economy would not exist
of the economy needs multiple new funding sources
without the private businesses that implement restoration
that should be at local, state, and national levels and
work. Without robust growth and revenue generating op-
consist of multiple different mechanisms;
portunities, expanding and mainstreaming the restoration
• Government agencies should consider implementing
economy is unlikely. Therefore, it is prudent to analyze what
streamlined and coordinated watershed restoration
the business environment of watershed restoration is like,
permitting processes;
what helps and hinders it, and what precipitates long-term
• Government agencies should enact a wider variety
economic viability within the sector. This analysis yielded the
of permit shields for properly designed watershed
following results:
restoration projects; and
• Businesses that engage in ecological restoration
• Preliminary evidence shows that watershed restora-
should form an industry trade association that lob-
tion firms who engage in federal contracts tend to be
bies all levels of government for business-friendly
small businesses that employ less than ten people
restoration policy, researches industry activities,
and have annual revenues of less than one million
and undertakes critical public outreach.
dollars. The majority of the firms principally engage
in construction activities, but many forestry, consul-
tative, and administrative firms exist as well;
• The permitting process for restoration projects can
be duplicative and time consuming, but permitting is
required to ensure good work;
• Some practitioners are concerned about liability for
their restoration treatments, fearing that they could
face lawsuits if their work fails for unforeseen and
unintended reasons 10 or 20 years in the future.

Possibilities of Forming an Ecological

Restoration Trade Association
Changes in public policy greatly affect the ecological res-
toration industry. Many other industries that are similarly de-
pendent on the government for their existence have formed
themselves into trade associations to influence public policy
to their advantage. In doing so, they leverage the respect,
influence, and resources of their entire industry to help shape
their own future. We researched the possibility of forming an
ecological restoration trade association, concluding that:

• The primary goal of a restoration trade association Matting was used on the old roadbed to prevent weeds. Photo by Adam
would likely be to conduct lobbying and outreach in Switalski.
order to expand market opportunity, influence regu-
lation, and maximize profits for shareholders;

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009 5

Fifteen Years and Going Strong
By Bethanie Walder

S
ometimes you get so busy with day-to-day work that you don’t even
realize when you’ve crossed an important milestone. That’s just what
happened this June at our annual board/staff retreat when we realized
it was our 15th anniversary this year. And what a busy, exciting and suc-
cessful 15 years it’s been…

Wildlands CPR was founded in 1994 by a group of activists, conserva-

tion biologists and environmental lawyers who met to share strategies
for fighting roads and off-road vehicles on public lands. Founders Katie
Alvord and Kraig Klungness coordinated the meeting and took on the
responsibility to implement the many strategies that were developed
there, including creating a new organization to act as a clearinghouse for
scientific, legal and strategic information about roads and ORVs on public
lands. Katie and Kraig spent that first year overseeing the development
of some of Wildlands CPR’s resources that remain key foundations of our
work, including:
• a bibliographic database on the ecological effects of roads (first
developed by Reed Noss in 1995, and updated every other year
since then) – now in the update process for 2009 and including
more than 12,000 citations;
• the “Road-Ripper’s” Guides to the Forest Service, Park Service
and Bureau of Land Management, quickly followed by guides to
off-road vehicles and road removal; and
• our original workshop series to train citizen activists to docu-
ment roads and calculate road densities to pressure the agency to
comply with road management standards.
During our first few years we focused primarily on being a clearing-
house, providing assistance to thousands of activists on road and ORV
strategy questions, while also training more than 1,000 activists to conduct
road surveys and ORV impact surveys. Our bibliographic database was
publicized long before “road ecology” became popular, providing a critical
resource to land managers, scientists, activists and decision-makers re-
garding the impacts of roads and off-road vehicles – the database has been
used by people all over the world, and by every land management agency
in the country.
After that initial burst of key resources, we focused the next few years
on building strong relationships with grassroots groups throughout the
country. Those relationships provided us with a unique “bird’s eye-view”
about common management problems/themes cropping up in multiple
places, enabling us to provide strategic leadership on public lands trans-
portation policy reform nationally. For example, in 1999 we led a coalition
of more than 100 groups to formally petition the Forest Service to overhaul
their off-road vehicle management. (A few years later we updated our
strategic plan with a specific goal of stopping cross-country ORV travel on
The fragility of natural systems requires us to practice land
management with humility; restoring wildlands represents
just such an approach. Photo by Laurel Hagen.
50% of the national forests.) Our petition pro-
vided a compendium of the available science on
off-road vehicle impacts, as well as site-specific
examples of problematic management on dozens
of national forests. In large part as a response to
our 1999 petition (though perhaps a little after
the fact), in 2005 the Forest Service began a na-
tional “transportation planning process” to close
national forest lands to cross-country travel and
to complete new travel plans for all national
forests. We’ve been co-leading (with The Wilder-
ness Society) the national campaign to influence
these travel planning processes. And while
travel planning isn’t finished yet, to date it ap-
pears that more than 20,000 miles of roads and
user-created routes have been closed (about ¼
of the former, ¾ of the latter), and more than 10
million acres of land have been protected from
cross country travel by ORVs. The bulk of the
decisions will be coming out in the next 12-15
months, and the trend looks positive for a con-
tinuation of statistics like these. We’re thrilled
to report that by the end of 2010, as the new
travel plans come on line, nearly all national for-
est lands will be closed to cross country travel
(except in discrete designated areas).

6 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

 And it’s not just on the ORV side that we’ve been
succeeding – Wildlands CPR is trusted by state and
federal agency staff, congressional staff, activists
and university professors as THE source for infor-
mation about watershed restoration emphasizing
road reclamation. During the past few years we’ve
focused our energy on securing new funding for the
Forest Service, in particular to implement watershed
restoration priorities, and we’ve been outrageously
successful. In fiscal years 2008-09 combined, the FS
received ~$90 million for the newly created Legacy
Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative. They also
received at least $228 million in stimulus funds for
road and trail maintenance, including critical culvert
upgrades. While it remains difficult to analyze how
those stimulus funds were allocated, we were in-
formed that $25 million of that went directly to road
decommissioning work! If you add that to the $90
million already allocated, that’s $115 million in two
years, with another $100 million on the table in the
FY ’10 appropriations bill that is still under consid- Wildlands CPR Program Associate Cathrine Walters looks ahead to the next 15
eration. We also worked directly in the state of MT years. Photo by Dan Funsch.
to increase watershed restoration funding by $34
million in 2007, largely overseen by a new statewide
office of watershed restoration. What are the on the ground results of all on restoration and jobs in 2003 – once again
that money? The FY ’08 Legacy Roads funds were used to reclaim more showing cutting-edge leadership in the resto-
than 500 miles of roads nationally, resulting in more than 60,000 acres of ration arena. This year we worked with The
habitat improved (and many forests didn’t even calculate the habitat acre- Wilderness Society to analyze how many people
age). For FY ’09, the FS estimates it will more than double their restoration received jobs from the first year’s Legacy Roads
efforts – reclaiming more than 1300 miles of roads, resulting in more than allocations in Idaho and Montana (see pages
65,000 acres of habitat and 566 miles of streams restored this year alone. 14-15 this issue), so we could start to show real
Wildlands CPR’s work is having an unprecedented and very significant green jobs progress on the ground. In addition,
impact on the ground! we just completed a series of reports on the
political economy of watershed restoration (see
A huge obstacle to restoration work has always been funding, thus cover story this issue). We understand that
our emphasis over the past few years on getting the money to the Forest road reclamation isn’t the only step to restoring
Service to do the necessary work. And it turns out that all that money watersheds, and we’re excited about expanding
provides real jobs on the ground. Wildlands CPR was one of the first our programs to incorporate more watershed
conservation organizations to embrace and promote the concept of green restoration activities.
jobs – well before it was popular to do so. We published our first report
During the past 15 years, Wildlands CPR
has been instrumental in dramatically changing
transportation management on Forest Service
lands, with a couple of small excursions into
BLM and Park Service lands as well (e.g. we
were part of an important lawsuit that reduced
ORV trails in Big Cypress National Preserve (FL)
from 23,000 miles of user-created routes to 400
miles of designated routes). Our work has in-
creased the Forest Service’s capacity to restore
watersheds by reclaiming unneeded roads and
upgrading/maintaining needed roads. We have
also played an essential role in beginning to
reform Forest Service off-road vehicle manage-
ment nationally. Thanks to our many grassroots
partners, and our extraordinarily talented staff,
we’ve been able to identify effective, cutting-
edge strategies that have profound results on
the ground. We’re looking forward to continu-
ing to provide leadership to the conservation
community and public land managers regarding
transportation and watershed restoration for at
Wildlands CPR has been a leading catalyst for restoring wildlands through road least another 15 years!
removal. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009 7

The Spirit of Restoration
By Thomas R. Petersen
Editor’s Note: This is the conclusion of a two-part series.
Photo by Steve Dutch.
N
on-native people are also considering spirit in res-
toration. William R. Jordan III, who was editor of the
journal “Restoration and Management Notes” (now
called “Ecological Restoration”), says this about the act of
restoration:
“It isn’t enough, having caused harm, or just hav-
ing caused change, to say, ‘We won’t do it anymore.’
There should be recompense, in kind. What do you
do to recompense for causing change in the case of
nature? What you do should be some rich, deeply
conceived act, carried out in terms that address the
wrong.
Having a landscape with lots of nature in it de-
pends on finding a way to connect nature with culture.
Restoration has a crucial component to bring to that
relationship. Indigenous cultures generally tried to
achieve some reciprocal relationship with nature, me-
diated into material and spiritual terms. Restoration,
at the mechanical level, is the mechanical part of that
reciprocal relationship.”
But what is the spiritual part of that reciprocal relation-
ship?
8 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009
Bill TallBull was a Northern Cheyenne elder and mem-
ber of the Medicine Wheel Alliance, a group of native and
non-native people formed to protect the Wheel, especially in
native people’s use of the site for vision quests and sacred
ceremonies. President Clinton selected TallBull as a member
of the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for
sacred sites.
Before he passed away, TallBull spoke with me about
the spirits that inhabit not just the Medicine Wheel but all
of Medicine Mountain in northeastern Wyoming. “All over
Medicine Mountain,” he explained, “native people see the
rock spirits move from one piece of granite to another, they
see the tree spirits dash from Douglas fir to ponderosa pine,
and we see the plant spirits move among the sage when we
collect materials for our ceremonies.”
TallBull paused a moment and his coal-black eyes nar-
rowed as if part of him saw the spirits even then.
“We have been taught to see these spirits since we were
young children, and our elders were taught by their elders.
This kind of seeing is a part of us. White people are not taught
this way. No wonder we see the spirits and whites don’t.”
 TallBull said the spirits have been active
around Medicine Mountain for thousands of
years, and they are active today.
TallBull told me of a time when he was
walking to the Wheel on a vision quest, ap-
proaching quietly from the south along the
same ridge Evan and I had walked. A
quarter mile from the Wheel he came
to a flat stone wall twelve feet high. He
stopped. A blood-red wolf appeared
from the stone wall as if materializing
from the wall itself. It locked its amber-
yellow eyes on TallBull like two steady
flames in a bright red lantern. TallBull
stared back at the red wolf. It turned in
a circle, once. As suddenly as it ap-
peared, the red wolf melted back into
the wall, ghostlike.
“I don’t know what the wolf was
saying to me,” TallBull reflected. “Maybe
nothing. Maybe it was just the mountain’s
way of letting me know the spirits were with
me, that they were joining me in my journey.”
Another native elder says, “…the trees,
the four-leggeds, the wingeds, the insects,
even stones, all are alive and conscious.”
The spirit of restoration considers living
spirits in the land, the idea that restoring the
physical landscape somehow, with attentive-
ness and consciousness, also restores these
living spirits. This is a different belief system
and a different hope from those of most of
the modern Western world. Archeologist
Michael Wilson suggests that to fully com-
prehend a site like the Medicine Wheel “…
probably requires a world view in which the
secular/religious dichotomy simply does not
exist.”
But restoration is nothing if not pure
possibility and the notion that you and I can
give back to the land and to some extent
reverse the mistakes of the past. Restoration
is a positive belief system. William Jordan
writes:
“Exact restoration is impossible. So is
preservation. So let’s get on with the conver-
sation. We have all these influences on the
ecosystem which are not only inadvertent,
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009
but invisible to us. What I’m driving at is that it’s the commit-
ment to restore the ecosystem that forces us to explore all
that we’ve done to the system, and to uncover all of these
hidden, unseen, or unrealized influences. That’s how we get to
know who we are in relationship to that system. That experi-
ence generates an ecological definition of who we are.”
Restoration is nothing if not pure possibility
and the notion that you and I can give back to
the land and to some extent reverse the mistakes
of the past.
Although this idea of a living earth is new and difficult for
many in our Western culture, it was not new to my more an-
cient ancestors, the northern European and Danish peoples.
The Gauls referred to their spiritual faculties being awak-
ened by the Wouivre, telluric (magnetic or cosmic) currents
that move through the ground, represented symbolically by
serpents. The ancients came to these places to receive what
the earth could give them, literally “the Gift of the Earth.”
They came not only to be affected by them, but to actively
awaken the earth’s dormant energies. It was an exchange, a
kind of sacred dialogue, and not a one-way taking. The earth
was seen as a living being of matter, and energy currents and
interchange took place with humans also possessing this
spiritual energy. Dolmens or megaliths—large stones—were
placed where these currents were particularly strong.
Large stones were gathered centuries ago at the top of
Medicine Mountain, in a sacred place that had drawn sojourn-
ers there for millennium. The Wheel was formed and rock
cairns built.
I think of these Celtic dolmens and the currents that
course the earth and remember Evan on that snowy Fourth
of July at the Wheel. His sky-blue rain jacket lit up the white
landscape as he tossed light green sage and soft yellow corn-
meal offerings to the wind.
But then, surprisingly, Evan fell to his knees at the Wheel
and stared at the central cairn. Our family rarely prays in the
traditional manner, and never on our knees, and yet Evan
seemed pulled to the earth by the presence of something
much greater than he or I consciously understood. In the
blinding and blowing snow he remained kneeled and fixed.
— Thomas R. Petersen is Development Director for Wildlands CPR, and the
editor of the book “A Road Runs Through It.”
9
Status of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule
By Mike Anderson, The Wilderness Society, and Sarah Peters
T The Status of the Tongass
he Roadless Area Conservation Rule was adopted by
the U.S. Forest Service on January 12, 2001, after the
most extensive public involvement in the history of
federal rulemaking. The Roadless Rule generally prohibited
road construction and timber cutting in 58.5 million acres of
inventoried roadless areas, covering about 30 percent of the
National Forest System. The Roadless Rule came under a
coordinated and sustained attack by the timber industry and
its allies immediately after it was adopted in January 2001,
and over eight years later, a final resolution has not yet been
reached.
Currently, the 2001 Roadless Rule is in effect nationwide
except in Idaho and in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
Thus, the Forest Service may not undertake activities that
violate the Roadless Rule on 40 million out of the 58.5 million
total acres of inventoried roadless areas. Roadless area proj-
ects in the Tongass National Forest are subject to approval by
the Secretary of Agriculture.
Roadless areas — both protected and unprotected — are
critical ingredients for a healthy water supply. Photo by
Dan Funsch.
10
In December 2003, the Bush Administration amended the
Roadless Rule by temporarily exempting the Tongass National
Forest’s 9.3 million acres of inventoried roadless areas from
the Rule. The exemption, which was adopted pursuant to a
settlement of litigation brought by the state of Alaska, was
supposed to remain in effect only until the Administration
adopted a permanent rule for Alaska. However, no further
rulemaking has occurred in Alaska, leaving the legally-viable
duration of the Tongass exemption in doubt.
In April 2007 the Forest Service agreed to temporarily
defer timber sales in the Tongass roadless areas through
settlement of a lawsuit over the Tongass land management
plan. The Tongass logging moratorium continued until the
Forest Service completed a revision of its management plan,
which occurred in February 2008.
We are now waiting to see whether the Obama Adminis-
tration will continue the temporary exemption of the Tongass
from the Roadless Rule.
The State Petitions Rule and its Demise
In May 2005, the Administration repealed the Roadless
Rule and replaced it with a state petition process. The State
Petitions Rule allowed road building and logging to resume in
accordance with local forest management plans, and estab-
lished a cumbersome process for individual state governors
to request different management rules for roadless areas
within their respective states. However, there was no cer-
tainty that the petition process would result in any protection
for roadless areas.
In September 2006, Judge Laporte, a federal judge in
California, invalidated the Bush Administration’s State Peti-
tions Rule and reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule nationwide,
except in the Tongass. Judge Laporte held that the State Peti-
tions Rule amounted to a repeal of the Roadless Rule and had
been promulgated without complying with the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered
Species Act. The Bush Administration appealed that ruling to
the Ninth Circuit.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009
 Undeterred by the California court’s invalidation
of the State Petitions Rule, the Bush Administration
relied on general authorities of the Administrative
Procedure Act to continue pursuing state-specific
amendments to the Roadless Rule. Federal rulemak-
ing processes were initiated for roadless areas in
Idaho and Colorado. In October 2008, the Adminis-
tration adopted a separate roadless rule for the state
of Idaho, which has since been challenged in federal
court. In Colorado, a draft rule was published in 2008
but not finalized prior to the end of the Bush Admin-
istration in January 2009.

On August 5, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals affirmed the California district court deci-
sion invalidating the Bush Administration’s rule and
reinstating the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Ninth Circuit
decision required the Forest Service to comply with
the Roadless Rule in all national forests except those Under the Obama Administration’s interim directive, Montana roadless areas like
in Idaho (due to the separate Idaho rule) and the Ton- this one (along the Idaho state line, containing Heart Lake) are to be managed
gass National Forest, (due to the Tongass temporary under the terms of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Photo by Paul Shively.
exemption).

Yet to be determined is whether the Obama Administra- We are now waiting to see whether the Tenth Circuit will
tion will finalize a Colorado rule and whether the Idaho rule reverse or affirm Judge Brimmer’s decision that the Roadless
will stand up in court. Rule violated NEPA and the Wilderness Act.

Conflicting Judicial Decisions Interim Direction

Contrary to court decisions in the Ninth Circuit uphold-
ing the legality of the Roadless Rule, the Wyoming federal
district court has twice declared the Rule to be invalid. In
August 2008, Judge Brimmer released his second decision on
the Roadless Rule, once again ruling that it violated NEPA and
the Wilderness Act and enjoining the Forest Service’s use of
the Rule nationwide. Environmental intervenors have again
appealed Judge Brimmer’s decision to the Tenth Circuit, and
on August 6, 2009 the Obama Administration joined them in
that appeal.
Since Judge Brimmer’s injunction was in direct conflict
with Judge Laporte’s injunction in California district court,
the Bush Administration requested that both the Wyoming
and California district courts suspend or change their injunc-
tions in order to relieve the Forest Service of the potential to
be held in contempt of court for complying or not complying
with the Roadless Rule. In December 2008, Judge Laporte
issued a partial stay of her injunction, temporarily reducing
the geographic scope of her 2006 injunction to states located
within the Ninth Circuit, plus New Mexico (since it is one of
the state co-plaintiffs). However, now that the Ninth Circuit
has affirmed Judge Laporte’s 2006 decision, the temporary
stay has been lifted and the Roadless Rule is back in effect
nationwide (except in Idaho and the Tongass National Forest).
On May 28, 2009, the Obama Administration issued a
one-year interim directive requiring approval by the Secretary
of Agriculture of any road-building or logging projects in road-
less areas. The directive does not apply to roadless areas in
Idaho, but does apply to those in the Tongass National Forest.
Conclusion
The current status of the 2001 Roadless Rule is that all
National Forests with Inventoried Roadless Areas, except
those in Idaho and the Tongass, must comply with the 2001
Roadless Rule. Conflicting decisions by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and the Wyoming district court put the For-
est Service in a difficult legal position, which will likely con-
tinue at least until the Tenth Circuit decides on the appeal of
Judge Brimmer’s decision. It is also possible that the Obama
Administration could identify a new administrative approach
to resolving lingering and conflicting roadless questions, or
that Congress could choose to independently protect road-
less areas.
— Mike Anderson is an attorney with The Wilderness Society.
— Sarah Peters is Legal Liaison for Wildlands CPR.

Meanwhile, in June 2009, Judge Brimmer denied the gov-

ernment’s request and continued his nationwide injunction
prohibiting the Forest Service from implementing the Rule.
Judge Brimmer’s decision cleared the way for the Tenth Cir-
cuit to begin to consider environmentalists’ appeal of Judge
Brimmer’s initial 2003 decision.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009 11

Program Updates, Autumn 2009
Restoration Program
L
ate spring and early summer marked a very busy-time for our restoration
program. Our Restoration Campaign Coordinator Sue Gunn has been inform-
ing Congress and the new Administration about the value of watershed
restoration and road removal for protecting clean drinking water, enhancing wildlife
and aquatic habitat, improving resiliency in the context of climate change, saving
taxpayer dollars, and creating green jobs in rural communities. Sue and Executive
Director Bethanie Walder traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with key agency
and Congressional staffers to promote various restoration projects. Top among
those projects: The renewal of funding for the Legacy Roads and Trails Restoration
Initiative at $100 million dollars a year; and the initiation of a forest roads program
as part of the reauthorization of the National Transportation Bill. This program
would provide funding for maintenance of the 20-40,000 miles of forest roads most
used by forest visitors and help free up other Forest Service funds to decommis-
sion and repair the balance of the system. The new forest roads program has been
included in the House mark-up of the Transportation bill; it’s now up to the Senate
to pass it – unfortunately, at this point in time they’ve opted to extend the current
transportation bill for another
18 months before considering
a new one (these bills usually
last 5-6 years).
In addition, Wildlands
CPR was joined by The Wil-
derness Society and Pacific
Rivers Council in co-hosting
two Congressional briefings
on the importance of these
programs. Bethanie and Sue
met with a host of DC staff-
ers and officers, including top
officials at the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture,
Federal Highways Administra-
tion, Office of Management
and Budget, and the Council
on Environmental Quality.
Our Restoration Research
Associate Josh Hurd finished
six reports that make up a new
“Political Economy of Water-
shed Restoration” series. The
highlights from the six reports
Natural regeneration is slow where a 1988 fire burned hot are featured in this issue’s
in the North Fork of the Blackfoot River, Montana. Photo
by Dan Funsch.
12 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009
cover story, and you can download the
full reports at www.wildlandscpr.org/
resources. Once he was finished with
his year-long research project, Josh left
to enjoy the rest of the summer and
prepare for graduate school where he’ll
be pursuing a Masters in Public Policy
at the University of Chicago. We’ll miss
you Josh!
Back at the ranch and in the
field, the “Adams” (Adam Rissien, our
Montana ORV Coordinator, and Adam
Switalski, our Staff Scientist) have
begun an innovative new partnership
(cost-share agreement) with the Lolo
National Forest. We’ve hired two field
staff to conduct location, condition
and impact surveys of a portion of the
Lolo’s road system. Switalski trained
the crew (one of whom is suspiciously
also named Adam, while the other field
tech’s last name is McAdams) to docu-
ment wildlife signs, noxious weeds,
signs of road or culvert failure and/or
other hydrologic damage, and off-road
vehicle abuse.
Switalski and our field coordinator
Greg Peters have also been busy on the
Clearwater National Forest (ID), work-
ing with local volunteers and with Uni-
versity of Montana students to conduct
field research and analysis on decom-
missioned roads. For example, Greg
and Adam are following up on previous
reports indicating that recontoured
and regrown ex-roads are popular with
bears. As one report asks, “Is their
use driven by food, security, or both?”
Interestingly, it appears as though there
are significantly more foods on decom-
missioned roads than on open roads.
Greg will be working with volunteers to
collect data until the end of October.
 Transportation Program

A
dam Rissien has been spend- We look forward to working with the Dixie on the restoration and decommissioning
ing most of his time addressing efforts that will emerge from this process.
travel plans, with a focus on
the Bitterroot National Forest. The On a less exciting note, and in large part because most of the travel planning is
Bitterroot released its draft plan and now finished in Utah, we’ve made the difficult decision to close our UT office at the
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) end of September. Laurel’s done a great job on travel planning and rural organiz-
this summer, and Adam continues to ing and we’ll hate to see her go, but the primary projects for which we hired her
coordinate with the Bitterroot Quiet are coming to completion. Thanks for everything you’ve done for Wildlands CPR
Use Coalition (BQUC) to participate in Laurel – we’ll sure miss having you on staff!
the planning process. Adam has helped
BQUC prioritize their field monitoring Sarah Peters, our legal liaison, has been spreading her expertise around many
efforts to document use and impacts. forests. In addition to her invaluable help with legal issues on the Bitterroot and
We hope that, as a result, the Bitter- Dixie National Forests, Sarah provided advice on an appeal of new ATV trail con-
root will be a kinder, gentler place struction in Idaho, a forest travel plan in Oregon, the resolution of a construction
for hikers, backcountry horsemen, appeal near the Oregon coast, early intervention in a travel plan in the Cascades,
mountain bikers, traditional hunters, road litigation in southern Montana, protecting a wild and scenic river in Idaho,
skiers, and wildlife. Wildlands CPR and and possible litigation regarding snowmobile recreation in northern Utah. She
BQUC have been engaged with Bitter- also interpreted impenetrable thickets of policy-speak for activists, on issues such
root travel planning since the process as Travel Management Rule Directives, “Infra baselines” and the Forest Service’s
started and we are delighted to see that “Road Analysis Process.” Sarah and Greg also worked to finalize our “Managing
some of their initial work has already the Miles” report about Forest Service road policies and practices. We featured
paid off. The preferred action in the the results of that report in the last issue of The RIPorter, but we are just now tying
DEIS protects the Sapphire Wilderness up all the loose ends to post the full report on our website. Check it out at: www.
Study Area, a critical roadless area in wildlandscpr.org/resources.
the region. In addition, it currently
provides only very limited motorized
recreational opportunities in two other
roadless areas – this is a huge victory, Agency travel plans
though we will continue to work to fully (theoretically) balance
protect those two roadless areas. motorized and non-motorized
uses on national forest
roads and trails. Ensuring
Utah ORV Coordinator Laurel Ha-
that these uses don’t harm
gen successfully concluded a multi-year the environment is one
Travel Planning process with the Dixie goal of Wildlands CPR’s
National Forest, which contains much transportation program.
of the green headwaters of southern
Utah’s canyon country. Back when the
process began, the Three Forests Coali-
tion (TFC) of Utah wrote and submitted
a science-based Citizens’ Alternative
Travel Plan during the pre-draft period.
After the draft plan was released, Laurel
worked with community groups to col-
lect local land lore, raise money to hire
a field worker, conduct trainings and
outreach, and write up detailed site-
specific comments. Laurel coordinated
the legal and policy-based comments of
the TFC. When the final draft emerged,
it was greatly improved, but still had
some problems. The TFC appealed the
new plan, and negotiated with the For-
est Service to reach a resolution. The
TFC agreed to drop our appeal, and in Photo credits: horse and
exchange the Forest Service corrected cyclists courtesy of BLM,
jeeps by Laurel Hagen.
several problems, most notably not des-
ignating any new roads within invento-
ried roadless and other sensitive areas!

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009 13

 The Economic Impacts of the
2008 Legacy Roads & Trails Remediation Initiative
in Idaho and Montana
By Joe Kerkvliet, The Wilderness Society
Notes:
i IMPLAN© software (Minnesota IMPLAN
Group 2004) used to project the total

I
economic impacts of the changes in
n 2008, the Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Initiative (LRRI) provided funds final demand. IMPLAN uses a system
for the repair, maintenance, and decommissioning of Forest Service roads and of linear structural input-output
trails. In this analysis, we document the expenditures on these projects in equations describing the purchase
national forests in Idaho and Montana and project the economic impacts of these and sales decisions of as many as 509
projects in the counties in which the work occurred. economic sectors, several representative
consumers, and several types of federal,
We confirmed the identity of 36 LRRI projects, 19 in Montana, and 17 in Idaho, state, and local governmental units.
IMPLAN is widely used by federal
and obtained detailed information from the Federal Procurement Data System.
agencies, academics, and private
The information we obtained included: the county in which the project occurred, consultants to estimate the impacts of
the dollar amount of the contract and the address of the business awarded the various projects, including proposed
contract. We used this information to conduct an economic impact analysis for the changes in resource management plans.
county in which the project was located using IMPLAN.i ii One Montana LRRI contract was
awarded to an Idaho business and one to
Chart 1 shows the dollar amounts of the Montana LRRI contracts, both in the a Washington business.
counties in which the projects are located and in the counties in which the bid- iii To project economic impacts, we ran
a small sample of impact analyses for
winning contractors are located. Chart 2 shows the projected economic impacts of
Montana LRRI projects and applied the
the Montana projects. average of the multipliers we obtained
from the sample. We assumed that the
In summary, we confirmed over $2 million in LRRI projects in 12 Montana coun- LRRI funds were spent in four business
ties. Businesses in nine Montana counties were awarded more than $1.8 million in sectors (proportions in parentheses):
LRRI contracts.ii As contractors hired workers and purchased materials, LRRI funds logging (.33), agriculture and forestry
resulted in $2.49 million in increased final demand for Montana businesses, $0.65 support (.33), maintenance and repair
million increased wages, $0.38 million increased business income, and approxi- construction (.165), and environmental
consulting (.165). The multipliers used
mately 35 jobs. Nearly all sectors experienced positive economic impacts. The sec-
were: final demand, 1.2 if the contractors
tors with the largest increases in final demand ranged from logging, construction, address was in a different county, 1.45 if
forestry services, wholesale trade, real estate, food and drinking establishments, the contractors address was in the same
and owner-occupied housing.iii county, wages, .2 for outof- county and
.5 if in-county, business income .188 for
Chart 3 shows the dollar amounts of the Idaho LRRI contracts, both in the both in and out-of county, jobs per dollar,
counties in which the projects are located and in the counties in which the success- .0000176.
ful contractors are located. Chart 4 shows the projected economic impacts of the iv One Idaho LRRI contract was awarded
to an Oregon business and one to a
Idaho projects.
Washington business.
v To project economic impacts, we ran
In summary, we confirmed $1.6 million in LRRI projects in ten Idaho counties. a small sample of impact analyses for
Businesses in ten Idaho counties were awarded more than $1.5 million in LRRI Idaho LRRI projects and applied the
contracts.iv As contractors hired workers and purchased materials, LRRI funds average of the multipliers we obtained
resulted in $1.86 million in increased final demand for Idaho businesses, $0.24 mil- from the sample. We assumed that the
lion increased wages, $0.27 million increased business income, and approximately LRRI funds were spent in four business
18 jobs. Nearly all economic sectors experienced positive economic impacts. The sectors (proportions in parentheses):
logging (.33), agriculture and forestry
sectors with the largest increases in final demand ranged from domestic trade, log-
support (.33), maintenance and repair
ging, construction, forestry services, wholesale trade, real estate, food and drinking construction (.165), and environmental
establishments, environmental consulting, and owner-occupied housing.v consulting (.165).There were no projects
in Idaho completed by in-county
For more information: contractors. The multipliers used were:
Joe Kerkvliet, PhD, Senior Resource Economist, Bozeman, MT (406) 581-9826, final demand, 1.2, wages, .155, business
jkerkvliet@twsnw.org income .175, jobs per dollar, .0000176.

14 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

 CHART 1: MONTANA CHART 2: MONTANA
Chart 1: Montana LRRI Project
LRRI PROJECT ANDand LRRI ECONOMIC
Chart 2: Montana IMPACTS
LRRI Economic
Contract
CONTRACTDollars
DOLLARS ImpactsIN
inPROJECT COUNTIES
Project Counties

Wheatland Wheatland
FINAL DEMAND
LRRI PROJECT $ Yellowstone
Yellowstone WAGES
LRRI CONTRACT $
Stillwater BUSINESS INCOME
Stillwater
Silver Bow Silver Bow

Sanders Sanders

Rosebud Rosebud

Ravalli Ravalli
COUNTY

COUNTY
Missoula Missoula

Madison Madison

Lewis and Clark Lewis and Clark

Lincoln Lincoln

Judith Basin Judith Basin

Gallatin Gallatin

Flathead Flathead

Carbon Carbon

0 500000 1000000 1500000 0 500000 1000000 1500000

DOLLARS (2007) DOLLARS (2007)

CHART 3: IDAHO CHART 4: IDAHO

Chart 3: Idaho LRRI Project and Chart 4: Idaho LRRI Economic Impacts
LRRI PROJECT AND LRRI ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Contract Dollars
CONTRACT DOLLARS
in Project Counties
IN PROJECT COUNTIES

Washington
Washington
Valley FINAL DEMAND
Valley
WAGES
Teton LRRI PROJECT $ Teton BUSINESS INCOME
LRRI CONTRACT $
Stevens Stevens
Shoshone Shoshone
Payette Payette
Lewis Lewis
Lemhi Lemhi
COUNTY
COUNTY

Kootenai Kootenai

Idaho Idaho

Clearwater Clearwater

Caribou Caribou

Caldwell Caldwell

Boundry Boundry

Bonner Bonner

Benewah
Benewah
Ada
Ada
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
DOLLARS (2007)
DOLLARS (2007)
3
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 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.

A Review of the Impacts of ORVs on Soil

By Adam Switalski and Allison Jones

Editor’s Note: This BiblioNote is an excerpt from Wildlands CPR and Wild Utah’s ORV BMPs
published last year. To see a list of Best Management Practices for planning and management
of ORV routes or to view the full report visit: www.wildlandscpr.org/ORV-BMPs.

H
ealthy forest soils provide nutrients
and the physical foundation for plants.
Soils are also home to many animals At right, deep ruts
that burrow beneath the surface. One important created by ORVs crossing
a wet area. Photo by
characteristic of forest soil is that it contains Adam Switalski.
pore space or tiny cracks and crevices that fill
with air and water. Pore spaces allow rain and
snowmelt to enter the soil, gases to escape, and
tree and other plant roots to grow.

Compaction and Erosion

Off-road vehicles can cause compaction
of soil pore spaces. Weighing several hundred
pounds, ORVs can compress and compact soil
(Nakata et al. 1976, Snyder et al. 1976, Vollmer et
al. 1976, Wilshire and Nakata 1976), thus reduc-
ing its ability to absorb and retain water (Dregne
1983), and decreasing soil fertility by harming
Trails that ascend directly
the microscopic organisms that would other- up steep inclines can lead to
wise break down the soil and produce nutrients rutting and erosion. Wildlands
important for plant growth (Wilshire et al. CPR file photo.
1977). An increase in compaction decreases soil
permeability, resulting in increased flow of water
across the ground and reduced absorption of
water into the soil. This increase in surface
flow concentrates water and increases erosion
of soils (Wilshire 1980, Webb 1983, Misak et al.
2002). Increased erosion due to ORVs also adds
sediment to streams (Sack and da Luz 2003, dig into the soil, forces far exceeding the strength of the soil are exerted
Chin et al. 2004), which decreases water qual- to allow the vehicles to climb slopes. The result is that the soil and small
ity, buries fish eggs, and generally reduces the plants are thrown downslope in a “rooster tail” behind the vehicle. This is
amount and quality of fish habitat (Newcombe known as mechanical erosion, which on steep slopes (about 15o or more)
and MacDonald 1991). with soft soils may erode as much as 40 tons/mi (Wilshire 1992). The rates
of erosion measured on ORV trails on moderate slopes exceed natural
Erosion of soil is accelerated in ORV use ar- rates by factors of 10 to 20 (Iverson et al. 1981, Hinckley et al. 1983),
eas directly by the vehicles and indirectly by in- whereas use of steep slopes has commonly removed the entire soil mantle,
creased runoff of precipitation, and by creating exposing bedrock. Measured erosional losses in high use ORV areas range
2 2
conditions favorable to wind erosion (Wilshire from 1.4-242 lbs/ft (Wilshire et al. 1978) and 102-614 lbs/ft (Webb et al.
1980). Knobby and cup-shaped protrusions 1978). A more recent study by Sack and da Luz (2003) found that off-road
from ORV tires that aid the vehicles in travers- vehicle use resulted in a loss of more than 200 lbs of soil off every 100 feet
ing steep slopes are responsible for major direct of trail each year. Some soils, such as those supporting biological soil
erosional losses of soil. As the tire protrusions crusts, require decades to centuries to recover (Belnap 2003).

16 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

 Most soils are vulnerable to compaction
and erosion due to several factors. An analysis
of more than 500 soils at more than 200 sites
found that virtually all types of soils are suscep-
tible to ORV damage (Schubert and Associates
1999). Some soils such as clay-rich soils, while
less sensitive to direct mechanical displace-
ment by ORVs, have higher rates of erosion than
most other soil types, and when compacted
can result in a strong surface seal that can
increase rainwater runoff and increase gullying
(Sheridan 1979). Sandy and gravelly soils are
susceptible to direct excavation by ORVs, and
when stripped of vegetation they are suscep-
tible to rapid erosion processes – usually by rill
and gully erosion. Compaction is also greater in
wet, poorly drained soils than well-drained soils
(Willard and Marr 1970, Burde and Refro 1986).
Finely textured soils are more prone to erosion
than coarser soils (Welch and Churchhill 1986).
In addition to the chemical make-up of
soils, location of ORV routes is a determinant
to whether soils erode. Routes on steep slopes
(about 15o or more) are more likely to cause ero-
sion (Welch and Churchhill 1986), as are routes
in higher elevation alpine areas (Willard and
Marr 1970, Marion 1994). Additionally, forests
that receive higher precipitation are more sus-
ceptible to erosion than drier forests (Cole and
Bayfield 1983, Burde and Renfro 1986).
ORV impacts on forest soils are compound-
ed by the loss of vegetation following ORV use.
It is well known that stable vegetation keeps
soil in its place (Wilshire 1983, Belnap 1995),
and once anchoring vegetation is removed,
While most common
in the arid southwest,
cryptobiotic soils are
found throughout the West.
Photo courtesy of U.S.
Geological Service.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009
soil erosion increases. For example, soil exposure is increased when
vehicles damage or uproot plants, thereby allowing the exposed soils to
easily become wind blown or washed away by water. Wilshire et al. (1978)
report on both the direct effects of ORVs on vegetation such as crushing
and uprooting of foliage and root systems, as well as the indirect effects
caused by the concomitant erosion. This includes undercutting of root
systems as vehicle paths are enlarged by erosion, creation of new erosion
channels on land adjacent to vehicle-destabilized areas due to accelerated
runoff or wind erosion, burial of plants by debris eroded from areas used
by vehicles, and reduction of biological capability of the soil by physical
modification and stripping of the more fertile upper soil layers (Wilshire et
al. 1978).
Impacts of ORVs on Cryptobiotic Soils
While cryptobiotic soil crusts are more often associated with arid
and semi-arid regions, they are important components of some western
forests as well. Cryptobiotic crusts, which were historically widespread
in western U.S. arid lands, are being rapidly depleted across rangelands
today. These crusts increase the stability of otherwise easily erodible
soils, increase water infiltration in a region that receives limited precipita-
tion, and increase fertility of soils often limited in essential nutrients such
as nitrogen and carbon (Johansen 1993, Belnap et al. 1994). ORVs are
highly destructive to these fragile cryptobiotic crusts. A single pass of an
ORV through cryptobiotic crusts will increase wind and water erosion of
surface soils that were previously protected by the crusts (pers. Comm.,
Howard Wilshire, USGS-retired). This in turn can trigger rapid loss of the
underlying topsoil, which can take up to 5,000 years to reform naturally in
arid regions (Webb 1983).
The destruction of cryptobiotic soils by ORVs can reduce nitrogen
fixation by cyanobacteria, and set the nitrogen economy of nitrogen-limit-
ed arid ecosystems back decades. Even small reductions in crust can lead
to diminished productivity and health of the associated plant community,
with cascading effects on plant consumers (Davidson et al. 1996). In gen-
eral, the deleterious effects of ORV use on cryptobiotic crusts is not easily
repaired or regenerated. The recovery time for the lichen component of
crusts has been estimated at about 45 years
(Belnap 1993). After this time the crusts may
appear to have regenerated to the untrained
eye. However, careful observation will reveal
that the 45 year-old crusts will not have recov-
ered their moss component, which will take an
additional 200 years to fully come back (Belnap
and Gillette 1997).
Additionally, radical reduction of soil
biota, including bacteria and fungi, results from
compaction. Soil microorganisms in desert
soils exposed to ORV use are typically reduced
from about 4 to less than 1 million/g, which in
turn reduces the bacterial oxidation that makes
nitrates available to plants (Liddle 1997). A
severe loss of nitrates to plants is significant
in typically nitrogen poor arid environments,
and may even eventually lead to desertification
(Belnap 1995).
Soil doesn’t stand a
chance against off-road — Adam is Wildlands CPR’s Science Coordinator
vehicles. Photo by and Allison is Conservation Biologist for the Wild
Laurel Hagen. Utah Project.
17
 — continued from previous page —
References
Belnap, J. 1993. Recovery rates of cryptobiotic crusts: inoculant
use and assessment methods. Great Basin Naturalist 53:89-95.
Belnap, J. 1995. Surface disturbances—their role in accelerating
desertification. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 37:
39-57.
Belnap, J. 2003. The world at your feet: desert biological soil
crusts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(5): 181-189.
Belnap, J. and D.A. Gillette. 1997. Disturbance of biological soil
crusts: impacts on potential wind erodibility of sandy desert
soils in SE Utah. Land Degradation and Development 8: 355-
362.
Belnap, J., K.T. Harper, and S.D. Warren. 1994. Surface disturbance
of cryptobiotic soil crusts: Nitrogenase activity, chlorophyll
content, and chlorophyll degradation. Arid Lands Research
and Rehabilitation. 8: 1-8.
Burde, J.H., and J.R. Renfro. 1986. Use impacts on the Appalachian
Trail. Pages 138-143 in R.C. Lucas, editor. Proceedings:
National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research.
USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,
General Technical Report INT-212, Ogden, UT.
Chin, A., D.M. Rohrer, D.A. Marion, and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2004.
Effects of all terrain vehicles on stream dynamics. Pages
292-296 in Guldin, J.M. technical compiler, Ovachita and Ozark
Mountains Symposium: Ecosystem Management Research.
USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.General
Technical Report SRS-74, Ashville, NC.
Cole, D.N., and N.P. Bayfield 1993. Recreational trampling of
vegetation: Standard experimental procedures. Biological
Conservation 63(3): 209-215.
Davidson, D.W, W.D. Newmark, J.W. Sites, D.K. Shiozawa, E.A.
Rickart, K.T. Harper, and R.B. Keiter. 1996. Selecting
Wilderness areas to conserve Utah’s biological diversity.
Great Basin Naturalist 56: 95-118.
Dregne, H.E. 1983. Physical effects of off-road vehicle use. Pages 15-
30 in R.H. Webb and H.G. Wilshire. Environmental Effects of
Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Hinckley, B.S., Iverson, R.M. and B. Hallet. 1983. Accelerated water
erosion in ORV-use areas. Pages 81-96 in Webb, R.H. and H.G.
Wilshire, editors, Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Iverson, R.M., Hinckley, B.S., and R.H. Webb. 1981. Physical effects
of vehicular disturbance on arid landscapes. Science 212:
915-917.
Johansen, J.R. 1993. Cryptogamic crusts of semiarid and arid lands
of North America. Journal of Phycology 29: 140-147.
Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London. 639 pp.
Marion, J.L. 1994. An assessment of trail conditions in Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Southeast Region, Research/Resources
Management Report, Atlanta, GA.
Misak, R.F., J.M. Al Awadhi, S.A. Omar, and S.A. Shahid. 2002. Soil
degradation in Kabad area, southwestern Kuwait City. Land
Degradation & Development. 13(5): 403-415.
Nakata, J.K., H.G. Wilshire, and G.G. Barnes. 1976. Origin of Mojave
Desert dust plumes photographed from space. Geology 4(11):
644-648.
18
Newcombe, C.P., and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended
sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 11: 72-82.
Sack, D., and S. da Luz. 2003. Sediment flux and compaction trends
on off-road vehicle (ORV) and other trails in an Appalachian
forest setting. Physical Geography 24(6): 536-554.
Schubert and Associates. 1999. Petition to enhance and expand
regulations governing the administration of recreational off-
road vehicle use on National Forests. Published by Wildlands
CPR, Missoula, MT 188p. www.wildlandscpr.org/orvs/
ORVpetition.doc
Sheridan, D. 1979. Off-road vehicles on public land. Council on
Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Report No. 041-011-00041-6. Washington, D.C.
Snyder, C.T., D.G. Frickel, R.E. Hadley, and R.F. Miller. 1976. Effects
of off-road vehicle use on the hydrology and landscape of
arid environments in central and southern California. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
#76-99. 45p.
Vollmer, A.T., B.G. Maza, P.A. Medica, F.B. Turner, and S.A. Bamberg.
1976. The impact of off-road vehicles on a desert ecosystem.
Environmental Management 1(2):115-129.
Webb, R.H.. 1983. Compaction of desert soils by off-road vehicles.
Pages 51-79 in: Webb, R.H. and Wilshire, H.G., editors,
Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Webb, R.H., Ragland, H.C., Godwin, W.H., and D. Jenkins. 1978.
Environmental effects of soil property changes with off-road
vehicle use. Environmental Management 2: 219-233.
Welch, D.M., and J. Churchill. 1986. Hiking trail conditions in
Pangnirtung Pass, 1984, Baffin Island, Canada. Parks Canada
Report, Ottawa, Canada.
Willard, B.E., and J.W. Marr. 1970. Effects of human activities on
alpine tundra ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Park,
Colorado. Biological Conservation 2:257-265.
Wilshire, H.G. 1980. Human causes of accelerated wind erosion
in California’s deserts. Pages 415-433 in D.R. Coates and J.B.
Vitek, editors, Thresholds in Geomorphology. George Allen &
Unwin, Ltd., London.
Wilshire, H.G. 1992. The wheeled locusts. Wild Earth 2: 27-31.
Wilshire, H.G. 1983. The impact of vehicles on desert soil
stabilizers. Pages 31-50 in Webb, R.H. and Wilshire, H.G.,
editors, Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles. Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Wilshire, H.G. and J.K. Nakata. 1976. Off-road vehicle effects on
California’s Mojave Desert. California Geology 29(6):123-132.
Wilshire, H.G., G.B. Bodman, D. Broberg, W.J. Kockelman, J. Major,
H.E. Malde, C.T. Snyder, and R.C. Stebbins. 1977. Impacts
and management of off-road vehicles. The Geological Society
of America. Report of the Committee on Environment and
Public Policy.
Wilshire, H.G., Nakata, J.K., Shipley, S., and K. Prestegaard. 1978.
Impacts of vehicles on natural terrain at seven sites in the San
Francisco Bay area. Environmental Geology 2: 295-319.
The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009
GAO Report Looks at Managing
Off-Road Vehicles
In June 2009 the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued
a report to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, For-
ests and Public Lands on managing off-road vehicles on public
lands. Entitled “Enhanced Planning Could Assist Agencies in
Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles,” the report
examined trends in off-road vehicle use and its environmental
and social impacts, agency planning processes and actions in
the field, as well as executive orders and agency regulations.
The 60-page report found that off-road vehicle use (both
authorized and unauthorized) increased from 2004 to 2008,
along with varying impacts. Interviews with land managers
show that most field units cannot manage existing OHV areas
in a sustainable manner — communication and enforcement
were among the areas most in need of improvement.
Independent Study Examines
Travel Planning
The Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the Uni-
versity of Virginia conducted a national assessment of the
Forest Service’s off-road vehicle travel management planning
process. Several of Wildlands CPR’s staff were interviewed for
the report, which identifies challenges facing land managers.
All are exacerbated by the difficulty inherent in coordinating
travel planning throughout the National Forest System:
• Interpreting the Travel Management Rule
• Limited time & resources
• Understanding and documenting current conditions
• Public involvement
• Leadership and commitment
• Motor vehicle use map
• Enforcement
• Specific Technical challenges

The GAO recommended that the Forest Service and Bu-
reau of Land Management improve strategic planning in order
to protect resources while providing recreational opportuni-
ties. Specifically, it recommended adopting more results-ori-
ented goals and performance measures, as well as strategies
and time frames to achieve goals.
To overcome these challenges, the authors propose
dozens of approaches, ranging from clarifying the original
intent of the travel planning rule, to forming partnerships and
leveraging funding, to making the process more transparent
and inclusive, to improving enforcement. The report is most
useful for forests in the early stages of travel planning.

To see the full report visit: www.eenews.net/pub- For the full report, visit: www.virginia.edu/ien/docs/
lic/25/11990/features/documents/2009/07/31/document_ National%20Assessment%20of%20TMP%20-%20Full%20Docu-
gw_01.pdf ment.pdf

Appeals Court rules against Kane County in Road Case

A panel for the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled in September that Kane
County, Utah acted illegally when it
replaced federal signs restricting off-
road vehicle use in the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument and other
Bureau of Land Management areas.
In 2003, the County removed BLM
signs and put up their own, inviting
off-roaders on hundreds of roads within
and around the monument. The County
asserted that the antiquated R.S. 2477
statute gave them authority over road
management. In 2005, the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance and The Wilderness
Society filed suit, and in 2008 a District
Court ruled against Kane County, saying
it had not proved that it had authority
over the roads.
The Appeals Court panel agreed
with the District Court, although one
of the panel’s three justices dissented.
The panel did not rule specifically on
the validity of the county’s R.S. 2477
claims, however. At press time, a sepa-
rate trial on R.S. 2477 claims is being
heard in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake
City. In that case, San Juan County is ar-
guing that the National Park Service had
no right to close the Salt Creek Road in
Canyonlands National Park because it
qualified as an R.S. 2477 road.
It’s uncertain whether Kane County
will appeal the 10th Circuit panel deci-
sion. If they do, the case would be
heard by the entire 10th Circuit Court.
There are over 900 miles of open road in
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009 19

Montana’s Senator Tester Introduces Forest Management Bill

S The Not-So-Good Stuff

enator Jon Tester (D-MT) recently introduced The Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act of 2009, which was developed through a partnership
of organizations and individuals working on the Beaverhead-Deer- We have some concerns with the bill:
lodge National Forest. Tester took a lot of heat for not making the details • statements regarding forest health and
of the bill more public as he, his staff, and a select few constituents were catastrophic fire that do not seem eco-
working out the final version. The full text can now be found at: www. logically justified;
tester.senate.gov/forest. • expectations that stewardship con-
tracting will provide enough funds for
We took a few minutes to skim through the bill, which Senator Tester watershed restoration activities on the
was very clear to say was NOT a “wilderness” bill, but instead a “forest Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest;
jobs and stewardship bill.” Below is our initial take on what we like and • mandated timber targets; and,
what we don’t. • efforts to “permanently protect and
enhance motorized recreation opportu-
nities.”
The Good Stuff
Long before it became legislation, we reviewed the original Beaver- Forest Health
head-Deerlodge Partnership Proposal, and we had some very real con- Wildlands CPR doesn’t work directly on tim-
cerns about how they described watershed restoration, the reliance on ber/forest structure/fire restoration issues. That
temporary roads, and a failure to include any real “effectiveness monitor- said, the bill includes, as a primary purpose,
ing.” We are pleased to see that the Tester bill has addressed some of the need to “reduce wildfire management costs
these concerns. by reestablishing natural fire regimes outside of
a wildland-urban interface.” This section also
• There is no mention of temporary roads in the bill. Instead, the states a need to “reduce the size and severity
bill introduces a new term, “access road,” which is a road used of uncharacteristic fires on forest land.” Many
to implement the bill, but then reclaimed and revegetated or of the forests in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are
converted to a trail within 5 years of its construction. (“Temporary high-elevation lodgepole pine that evolved with
roads,” on the other hand, don’t have to be revegetated until 10 stand-replacing fire. Lodgepole cones won’t
years after completion of the project for which the road was built.) open to release their seeds without the heat
• Restoration projects include efforts to reduce road densities generated from big fires. Such stand-replacing
down to 1.5 miles per square mile of land (but they don’t seem to fires are exactly what occurred in Yellowstone
mandate this reduction). Further, and perhaps more importantly, National Park in 1988, and they are ecologi-
motorized trails are to be included with roads in the calculation cally normal and necessary. The bill clearly
of road density on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Few distinguishes between the backcountry and the
forests do this, but it’s critically important – we are very happy to wildland/urban interface, but it seems to recom-
see this in the bill language. mend similar treatments.
• The bill includes monitoring requirements that explicitly address
the effectiveness of watershed restoration on ecological health. In
addition, the language regarding adaptive management addresses
management changes that might be needed because of climate
change. More often than not (and in an earlier bill draft), monitor-
ing requirements only include whether or not actions were taken,
regardless of whether they had the intended “benefits.”
• The bill proposes designating more than half a million acres of
wilderness, in various places throughout the Beaverhead-Deer-
lodge, Kootenai and Lolo National Forests.

Wildlands CPR facilitated a road to trail restoration project on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge

National Forest. While Tester’s bill proposes some restoration for the area, it does not
guarantee funding such work. Photo by Adam Switalski.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

Stewardship Contracting/Mandated Harvest
While we have few concerns about stewardship contracting in theory,
it has rarely been able to generate the funds necessary to conduct all of
the proposed restoration in a project. This problem is further exacer-
bated by the drop in wood products prices due to the home-construction
slowdown. We are pleased that the Seeley Lake part of the project can be
funded with direct appropriations, but we are concerned that the pro-
posed logging will take precedence over restoration. The bill mandates a
certain amount of logging each year, which will tie the agency’s hands and
may set a bad precedent for future bills. Perhaps most disconcerting is
that the legislation sunsets after 15 years, or at the end of the mandated
logging, whichever is later, and this sunset provision is not contingent on
completing the restoration. While the introductory language of the bill ap-
pears to put watershed restoration and timber harvest on a level playing
field, the fine print makes it clear that watershed restoration remains a
secondary objective at best.
Designations/Protections for Motorized Recreation
We repeatedly hear the argument that if Wilderness is going to be
designated/permanently protected, then motorized recreation should be
too. But it’s a false dichotomy. The only way to get Wilderness is through
legislative action, while opportunities to drive around for fun or transport
exist practically everywhere. Once motorized recreation is mandated by
legislation, land managers’ hands are tied regarding its ecological impacts.
Interestingly, the bill is inconsistent on this topic, with different provisions
for different recreation areas. The West Big Hole, in particular, does not
seem to receive as much protection as other areas.
Conclusion
We know that there are numerous other good and bad things in this
bill, and we have met with Tester’s office about our specific concerns. Sen-
ator Tester clearly worked hard to try to make a lot of different interests
happy. While there are some things that we like
in concept, we’re concerned about whether or
not they will work in practice. Having reviewed
a lot of integrated land management bills,
however, we do believe that Tester has avoided
some of the pitfalls of other bills. For example,
this bill does not appear to circumvent the
National Environmental Policy Act, the off-road
vehicle Executive Orders, or other laws. It does,
however, legislate a forest plan, and mandate
that a certain number of acres be treated an-
nually, which could set a dangerous precedent
while also making it challenging to comply with
the National Forest Management Act and other
substantive environmental laws.
The forest stand management components
of the bill will probably be more controversial
than the motorized recreation issues, with even
the Forest Service questioning whether it’s pos-
sible to sustainably log that many acres annually
on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009
offers some good steps toward restoration,
it protects a lot of land as wilderness, and it
doesn’t directly circumvent environmental laws;
but it also includes some highly controversial
components. In our ideal world, watershed
restoration practices would be fiscally separated
from resource extraction, and we will continue
to work and advocate for such efforts.

Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

Yellowstone Snowmobile Update

The number of snowmobiles allowed in
Yellowstone National Park would be cut by
more than half under an Obama administration
proposal announced in July. Interior Secretary
Ken Salazar said the proposed rule would limit
snowmobile use to 318 snowmobiles and 78
multi-passenger snowcoaches daily for the next
two winters, down from 720 snowmobiles per
day allowed last winter.
Last year, a Park Service plan would have allowed 540 snowmobiles
daily into Yellowstone. Environmental groups challenged that plan in
court, and a Washington, D.C. District Court struck it down. In response,
the Park Service unveiled a new plan to allow 318 snowmobiiles per day
(the same as allowed under the Interior Department’s proposal). Also last
year, ruling on a separate lawsuit brought by snowmobilers, District Judge
Brimmer in Cheyenne, Wyoming ruled that 720 snowmobiles should be
allowed while a long-term plan was crafted. Judge Brimmer said recently
that he has no authority to block Salazar’s current plan.

The rule would extend for two years, during At one point, the Clinton administration proposed an outright ban. A
which time the Interior Department would con- daily average of 205 snowmobiles entered the park in 2008-09.
duct an environmental analysis and determine a
permanent level.

The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009 21

M
uch to our delight, there hasn’t been a wildfire in sight this summer. It’s
been pleasantly cool, with a few hot days sprinkled in here and there to
remind us that it’s summer, though the record-breaking rain in August defi-
nitely made us question what season it really was. And in the midst of all this really
nice weather, we’ve been managing to get a bunch of work done, too…

Field survey project

This June we hired Heather McAdams and Adam Bender (yes, the third Adam needs for future years combined with
employed by Wildlands CPR at one time) to conduct a series of road surveys on the our shrinking budget as a result of the
Lolo National Forest. This project is part of a cost-share agreement we entered into economic slowdown. With only limited
with the Lolo to begin surveying some of their roads to provide critical and needed funding, and with travel planning largely
information as they address road management over time. Heather and Adam have completed in UT, it only made sense
been doing a terrific job documenting weeds, drainage problems, inaccuracies with to close the UT office. Laurel Hagen
the maps (including both roads that exist on the land but don’t appear on the map will continue to work for us on a part
and vice versa), and otherwise assessing the condition of dozens of miles of roads time contract to finish two important
on the forest. projects, after which Wildlands CPR
will no longer have a formal presence
in UT. We’ll all be sorry to see Laurel
Unfortunate news – we’re closing our UT office go – she has brought a very creative
approach to her position, building up an
We’re very disappointed to report that we will be closing our UT office as
amazing network of rural UT activists
of September 30. We opened this office 2.5 years ago as part of our multi-state
who have been outspoken about ORV
campaign to influence travel planning on national forest lands. Wildlands CPR
problems – quite effectively countering
has been hosting two “state coordinators” (one in Montana, one in Utah), while
many myths. She’s also brought fierce
other organizations are hosting similar positions in their states to address off-road
determination, extraordinary humor, a
vehicle management on Forest Service lands. Since the agency was supposed to
sharp intellect and a talented writing
complete all travel planning by the end of 2009, the campaign was initially de-
and drawing pen to her position and to
signed to end this December. As we approach that time, we’ve been assessing our
Wildlands CPR. We’ll miss you Laurel,
and we hope to be able to work with
you again in the future.

Thanks and keep it

coming…
Wildlands CPR is in the midst of
our annual gifts campaign – celebrating
our 15th anniversary. Help us keep the
organization strong by contributing to
our annual gifts campaign today. Our
campaign goal is $40,000, and we’re
making progress, but we’re still in the
early stages of the effort. Thanks so
much to all of you who’ve already con-
tributed, and to all of you who will be
doing so soon.

We’d also like to thank the Bullitt

and Wilburforce Foundations for gener-
ous grants to support Wildlands CPR.
Photo by Dan Funsch.

22 The Road-RIPorter, Autumn Equinox 2009

 Support Wildlands CPR Today!
We’ve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

• Reducing Overhead
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 2009 23

 Glacier National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.
Non-profit Organization
US POSTAGE
PAID
MISSOULA MT, 59801
PERMIT NO. 569

Our shared vision must begin

with a complete commitment to
restoration. Restoration, for me,
means managing forest lands
first and foremost to protect our
water resources while making
our forests far more resilient to
climate change.

— Secretary of Agriculture Tom

Vilsack

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