He Oad Orter: T R Rip

The Road RIPoRTeR
winter solstice 2011. Volume 16 no. 4
restoratIon: a retrospectIve
By Marlies Wierenga, Bethanie Walder, Thomas OKeefe & Mary OBrien
InsIde
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 A Restoration Retrospective, by Marlies Wierenga, Bethanie Walder, Thomas OKeefe & Mary OBrien. Pages 3-9 Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation Program Updates. Pages 10-11 Legal Notes: Montana Wilderness Study Area Protections Affirmed, by Sarah Peters. Pages 12-13 Odes to Roads: Confessions of a Recovering Engineer, by Charles Marohn. Pages 14-15 Policy Primer: Restoration Opportunities & the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Act, by Adam Rissien. Pages 16-19 DePaving the Way: Up Against a Wall on Immigration, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 20-21 Biblio Notes: Environmental Impacts of Off-Road Vehicle Races and Events, by Jeremiah Purdum. Pages 22-24 New Resources. Page 25 Around the Office. Page 26 Membership Info. Page 27
Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org
momentum builds for restoring roads and removing dams, but what about grazing policies?
Cover photos by Dan Funsch
A Look Down the trAiL

Forests to Faucets
By Bethanie Walder
P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org
ts been over two years since US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack laid out a vision for the Forest Service focused on restoring water quality and watershed health. Since then, the agency has taken on a number of initiatives to implement that vision. A year ago, for example, they instituted a new Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) process to assess the physical condition of all watersheds, identify priority watersheds and then develop and implement watershed restoration plans in those priority areas. Theyve made a lot of progress on the WCF and the first Watershed Restoration Action Plans are just now becoming public. A month after they announced the WCF, the agency announced their road rightsizing initiative. This initiative, which weve covered extensively in previous RIPorters, should result in an ecologically and fiscally sustainable minimum road system by the time its completed in 2015. Since roads are one of the greatest threats to water quality, the road rightsizing initiative has the potential to profoundly improve water quality. We learned last year that USDA had also set up an intra-departmental team to work on water initiatives. Staff from the different agencies within the Department of Agriculture are meeting to share strategies and create integration for protecting and enhancing water quality in the United States. Theyve also been considering watershed restoration and protection issues as a significant component during their process to rewrite the National Forest Management Act forest planning rules. This change will be an important step forward for the planning regulations. Sometime within the past two years, the State and Private Forestry branch of the Forest Service undertook a new initiative called, Forests to Faucets. The Forests to Faucets (F2F) team worked to identify links between municipal water supplies and forested lands. We were lucky enough to see a draft of their methodology report about a year ago, and it provided some fascinating maps showing how critical forest lands are to water supply. In addition to looking at overall forest cover across the U.S., they also created separate maps that just show the importance of national forests to municipal water supplies providing some very interesting perspective for people interested in working on ecosystem services projects related to water supply and national forest lands (see cover story, The RIPorter 16.2). Unfortunately, the F2F report highlights only three threats to water quality on federal, state and private forest lands, and roads didnt make that list. We had requested the agency to add roads, climate change, grazing and other critical water quality threats to the report, but they had only limited time and capacity for additional analysis. The final report, released this fall, does at least acknowledge that threats other than those discussed therein are also of significant concern for water provided by forest systems. The report should prove extremely valuable to conservation activists interested in water quality and national forests. The agency is making the data available to the public for people to conduct their own analyses (e.g. to assess road impacts). The agency has also started implementing an F2F project in the Denver watershed though it is focused on one of their three highlighted threats fire/fuels. Its nice to see the Forest Service taking water quality and watershed health so seriously since Secretary Vilsack gave his vision speech in August 2009. Too often visions are not backed up with concrete action. While the changes to date are mostly related to new reports and proposed processes, if well-implemented and effective over time, they should result in improved water quality on national forests over the long term.
Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by 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.
Director Bethanie Walder
Development Director Thomas R. Petersen Science Program Director Adam Switalski
Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney Sarah Peters Policy Specialist Adam Rissien Washington/Oregon Field Coordinator Marlies Wierenga Program Associate Cathrine L. Walters Journal Editor Dan Funsch Board of Directors Susan Jane Brown, Dave Heller, Marion Hourdequin, Crystal Mario, Kathi Nickell, Brett Paben, Jack Tuholske
2012 Wildlands CPR
The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011
restoratIon: a retrospectIve IntroductIon

By Marlies Wierenga, WA/OR Field Coordinator
or decades, the restoration of our degraded natural areas seemed to follow a particular paradigm addressing issues singularly on a site-by-site basis. A property owner might have revegetated a streambank to improve water quality but a mile upstream, a dam might have completely altered the streams flow or a road may have been failing and delivering excess sediment or invasive knotweed may have been chocking out native plants for miles. As one problem was resolved, another became apparent, making the achievement of restoration goals akin to a carnival hall of mirrors increasingly out of reach. But slowly, people started talking to each other and an understanding of how the sum of the parts could add up to the whole began to emerge. The concept of watershed-wide restoration developed and new partnerships allowed for ranchers, NGOs, recreationists, federal and state agencies, and community members to pool resources and combine efforts on a grander scale. In addition, the work force changed from tree harvesters to tree planters; from hydraulic engineers to hydrologic engineers; from road construction crews to road reclamation crews. The decades old paradigms were crumbling and shifting. In this cover story, we explore areas where this shift has occurred and where we may still be stuck in the old paradigm. The unimaginable idea for dam removal is now a reality. Excessive and deteriorating roads in public lands are being reclaimed. Yet, changes in grazing still occur in the framework of the old model: site-by-site. In order to finally move beyond the hall of mirrors, we must continue to talk about what currently appears to be impossible and take on new expectations that transform our old rules and standards of practice into a reality that truly reaches whole watershed restoration goals.
Restoring grassland and forest ecosystems is a relatively new concept in land management, but one that is catching on quickly. Photos by Dan Funsch.
continued on next page
restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd Its Been a Long, Long road

By Bethanie Walder
ts 1996, and Im standing in Redwood National Park, staring in awe as huge excavators operate with surgical precision to re-sculpt a road back into a naturally contoured hillside. The folks in Redwood had been doing this work for decades, slowly but surely returning logged and roaded lands to nature restoring not just the aesthetic beauty of the place, but its ecological function as well. The experts at Redwood State and National Parks are the progenitors of the entire field of road reclamation as a tool for watershed restoration. When they first started restoring landscapes in the 1970s, they focused largely on in-stream activities such as check dams and riparian planting to trap and control sediment. But the traps filled up and the sediment kept right on flowing. Eventually they realized that to control the sediment that was choking salmon-bearing streams, they would have to look upland, to where the sediment was generated. When they looked closely, it became clear that roads were the primary problem. So people working in the Redwoods started removing those upland roads. They started with culvert crossings and eventually moved to full road re-contours. Sediment production into Redwood Creek and other rivers and streams dropped significantly they were on to something. The concept of road removal for watershed restoration was born.
In restoration, its the little things that make a big difference. Here, saprophytic fungi are being placed to accomplish mycorestoration. This restores the presence and function of fungi, which are critical to healthy soils. Photo by Adam Switalski.
In partnership with the Nez Perce tribes, the Clearwater National Forest was a pioneer in road removal in the northern Rockies. Here, heavy equipment is put to work removing a road. Photo by Adam Switalski.
Road removal spent its infancy largely in northern California, but as the concept and techniques matured, the idea spread outside the region and outside the Park Service. And while it began as watershed restoration, wildlife biologists realized that removing roads was also beneficial for endangered species like grizzly bears, who need large, roadless lands to thrive. Over the past 20 years the Forest Service has gone from cautiously exploring road reclamation (sometimes because of court orders) to wholeheartedly embracing it. Since the idea became reality it has become a common practice on public and even some private industrial timber lands. Now, the biggest obstacles to implementing road reclamation are a lack of funding and, in some cases, local opposition (especially where road reclamation is court ordered). But local opposition has decreased substantially over time, in part because road reclamation provides high-wage jobs to local people, and as more people learn about the economic, ecological and social benefits, well see support continue to grow.
restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd

The funding of road reclamation has changed dramatically as well, at least on Forest Service lands. Before the agency had funding specifically dedicated for road reclamation, they would use existing budgetary line items (e.g. using fisheries funding to benefit endangered salmon). In addition, many national forests received emergency money to deal with road failures after severe weather events. For example, the Forest Service used Emergency Supplemental funding to create and implement the Clearwater National Forests award-winning road reclamation program. That was later supplemented with millions in salmon-mitigation funding from the Bonneville Power Administration through the Clearwaters partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe. Public-private partnerships have been created, enabling agencies to access funding from dozens of different state, federal and private philanthropic sources. In 2007, Wildlands CPR and our partners at the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative came together to advocate for a new Forest Service budget line item, the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRT). This program was initially funded at $40 million in fiscal year 2008, and has now received $225 million to date (with another $45 million just allocated for 2012). All LRT funds are dedicated to mitigating the effects of the national forest road system on water quality, including endangered fish habitat and municipal water supplies. Since the programs inception, the Forest Service has removed 3,550 miles of roads with LRT funding, fixed nearly 800 culverts to restore fish passage, and performed critical maintenance on many other roads. What happened between the mid-90s and 2008 to change the funding scenario? First, the Forest Service very publicly addressed the impacts of roads through the development of their roadless and long-term roads rules, which were adopted in early 2001. While the well-known roadless rule helped change the national agenda related to new wildland road construction, its quiet cousin, the long-term roads rule, helped change the agency agenda related to its existing road system. The Forest Service finally acknowledged they had more roads than
A rehabilitated stream crossing on the Clearwater NF. Photo by Amy Chadwick.
they needed, or than they could afford to maintain. The long-term roads rule recommended undertaking a forest-by-forest analysis to determine an ecologically and fiscally sustainable minimum road system. The FS estimated that this minimum or rightsized road system would be 20-30% smaller than their existing system obligating the reclamation of up to 120,000 miles of unneeded system roads, and thousands of non-system roads as well. Until 2010, however, that long-term roads policy was just gathering dust. They are finally conducting the assessment, and expect, by September 2015, to have identified a fiscally and ecologically sustainable minimum road system on each national forest. This work is critical, because it will ensure that future funds dedicated to road reclamation are well-spent. When road removal first started in the Redwood country, no one could have predicted that it would be adopted by multiple land management agencies as a critical tool for watershed restoration. But investment in this work yields enormous returns for people, fish and wildlife. While 20 years doesnt seem like such a long time, the wildland road management world has changed profoundly one can only imagine where the next 20 years will take us.
Restoration goals are more easily accomplished by enlisting partners such as the Montana Conservation Corps, shown here. Photo by Adam Switalski.
restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd dam removaL In the pacIFIc northwest

By Thomas OKeefe, American Whitewater
his past fall the National Park Service began chiseling away at Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams on the Elwha River. In a more dramatic display, PacifiCorp blasted a hole at the base of Condit Dam, draining the reservoir in an hour to restore a free-flowing White Salmon River. Both of these changes were decades in the making and began as crazy ideas by some passionate salmon and river advocates. But these river restoration efforts are part of a larger conversation that is happening regionally and nationally where the impacts of dams are evaluated relative to the benefits they provide. A river without dams will always be healthier than one plugged up by walls of concrete, but our society depends on dams for drinking water that flows from our faucets, low-carbon hydropower energy that keeps our lights on, and irrigation water for farms that grow our food. At one time not so long ago, dams were thought by many to be permanent features on the landscape it was only a handful of river advocates and geomorphologists who understood that dams and the reservoirs behind them have finite lives. The situation began to change in the 1990s, however, as dam owners began to critically evaluate the cost of bringing their dams up to modern environmental standards. While dams like the Elwha were able to ignore laws of a century ago designed to protect salmon populations, the listing of salmon under the Endangered Species Act and an honest discussion about what it would take for recovery put dam removal on the table in a serious way. What began as a wild idea and dream of fans of Edward Abbey playing out Hayduke fantasies, became a business decision for dam owners. The simple fact was that the liability and cost of modernizing dams like the Elwha and Condit specifically providing salmon passage greatly exceeded the value of the small amount of power they produced.
The dramatic removal of the Condit dam, on the White Salmon river. Full reservoir before removal (top); the explosion (middle), and the empty reservoir following removal (bottom). Photos courtesy of PacificCorp.
restoratIon: a retrospectIve
The same scenario has played out on other rivers in the region. Recent dam removals on the Hood River, Sandy River, and Rogue River in Oregon; Clark Fork River in Montana, Trout Creek in Washington; and Bear River in Idaho are all examples where the impacts of the dams were high relative to the services they were designed to provide. In all cases it took consistent and sustained pressure on the part of those who value and enjoy free-flowing rivers, but it was ultimately a realization by project owners that their dams were simply not economically viable. This is not to say all dams should be removed. In the majority of cases operations can be modernized in several cases hydropower projects have increased generation efficiency, improving power production while improving instream flows and mitigating impacts. Hydropower projects like those on the Skagit, Pend Oreille, and Deschutes Rivers clearly have impacts but these rivers provide significant power output for major regional urban centers like Seattle and Portland and new agreements provide the revenue for meaningful mitigation measures that would not have been economically viable on low power dams like those on the Elwha or White Salmon. Against this backdrop of success many have wondered what the future holds. The Klamath on the Oregon-California border is another great example of a hydropower project that produces very little electric power (just 78 MW for four massive dams) relative to its environmental impacts. It represents one of the more significant restoration opportunities in the Northwest. While building the sup-
Retrofitting dams like the Elwha to allow for salmon passage would have proven more costly than their meager power outputs could justify. Hence, many (like the Elwha above) have now been removed. Photo by Thoms OKeefe.
port and political will to make the significant up-front investment in dam removal is a challenge, the long-term economic and societal benefits of a restored river are clear. The Snake River dams of Washington State impede access to some of the best spawning habitat in the entire region and it is clear that the long-term viability of Lewiston, Idaho as a seaport is questionable. What has been lacking for this river is the forum and political leadership for a stakeholder process that brings everyone to the table for an honest discussion. Dam removal is exciting and there are certainly more dams to be removed but the real lesson from the Elwha and White Salmon is that ambitious crazy ideas are possible. Challenging the status quo can be a long endeavor requiring a focused commitment, but these successes are an inspiration for what we can do when everyone sits down to work together on solutions. Thomas OKeefe is the Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director for American Whitewater. Besides having a PhD in aquatic ecology and having completed research projects on topics such as the structural development of riparian forests along large floodplain rivers, Tom is an avid whitewater paddler and has traveled the globe in search of great rivers.
Breaching the Milltown dam, March 2008, Missoula, Montana. Photo courtesy of EPA.
restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd grazIng reForm: aBout to happen?

By Mary OBrien, Grand Canyon Trust hile the Forest Service has moved toward the watershed and landscape levels for much of its forest health, water development, and transportation planning in the last two decades, livestock grazing has largely been stuck in the ecologically and bureaucratically broken system of allotment-by-allotment annual management. Similarly, while multiple stakeholders have become regularly acknowledged in forest and transportation planning, livestock grazing has remained largely a closed shop between the Forest Service and livestock permittees. As one Utah Forest Supervisor put it in 2011, Were stuck in the 1950s with grazing. This sentiment is shared by many in the agency, particularly among its fish and wildlife biologists, botanists, and ecologists; and many District Rangers and Supervisors. It can be a pretty dismal enterprise, trying to turn the USS Forest Service on management of the single most pervasive damaging use of any on the national forests. This could change in a major way for the better in 2012, though. First, the long-time Director of Range in the Washington Office, who was less than interested in any grazing management changes, retired in May 2011. The appointment of a new director is imminent, and if it is someone who is interested in moving grazing management into alignment with current Forest Service commitments on watersheds, climate change, and collaboration, the whole game could change.
Decision-making the old fashioned way. Grazing allotment decisions are often still made with little public input. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
Second, the draft forest planning rule (due to be finalized around the beginning of 2012) is rife with references to collaboration. The agency will have to admit that collaboration on grazing management has to mean more than leaning against the truck with permittees or taking threatening phone calls from rural county commissioners or congressional aides. Conservation groups, economists, hunters, anglers, hikers, bird watchers, scientists (to say nothing of the wildlife they represent) all have valid places at the tables where decisions are made about the how many, wheres, whens, and whys of livestock. Third, the Forest Service is admirably outspoken regarding the reality of climate change and the consequent need to increase resilience of the national forests, particularly with regard to water, one of its twin founding commitments (timber being the other). Livestock grazing does essentially nothing but exacerbate the scariest impacts of climate change, whether higher temperatures, deeper droughts, or more intense precipitation events on droughty, grazed slopes. The case can be made with overwhelming scientific literature that so many livestock impacts, e.g., bare ground; incised streams; weakened plants; depleted native diversity; the favoring of invasive, exotic weeds; generation of dust (e.g., dust on snow); and compromised wildlife habitat (e.g., for sagebrush- and riparian-dependent birds) simply make every bad climate scenario worse.
Cows making themselves at home on the bank of the John Day river. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd

So far, any administrative changes to grazing have arisen largely via acre-byacre, allotment-by-allotment or deal-by-deal congressional arrangements to end livestock grazing via third-party permit buyouts, as in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and Owyhee Wilderness legislation. The Forest Service has had to revisit some of its grazing decisions via litigation, especially that brought by Western Watersheds, WildEarth Guardians, and Center for Biological Diversity. On the other hand, the Forest Service routinely fails to seriously consider alternatives for improved grazing management submitted by conservationists via National Environmental Policy Act processes. At some point the Forest Service needs to own grazing reform rather than just being kicked around on it. And the Bureau of Land Management? Witness its 2011 decision to prevent scientists from including livestock grazing as a change agent in its development of rapid ecological assessments on BLM lands throughout the Western U.S. Thats akin to studying trends in U.S. obesity while excluding consideration of peoples diets. Again, this all might change. Heretofore, such exclusion of grazing impacts has been agreed upon while leaning against the truck, but this time it became public (Wall Street Journal, NPR, et al.) via the science integrity policy the BLM had adopted (all federal agencies must adopt such policies by December 17, 2011). Thanks to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility for submitting a formal complaint under the policy, because the exclusion of grazing from BLMs ecological assessments of its lands is now almost certainly doomed. On a bright note, conservationists have been able to gain some third-party voluntary grazing permit buyouts. These have allowed conservation buyers and organizations to pay a federal grazing permittee willing to give up their grazing and reallocate forage from livestock to wildlife and watersheds. Congress has enacted legislation that makes such waivers permanent on public land in and near the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon and several Wilderness Areas in the Owyhee Country of Idaho. Legislation is necessary to prevent the
One of the more pervasive signs in the west. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
management agency from ever reissuing the grazing permit, so a conservation funder is assured that their money is well spent. Congress is considering additional grazing permit buyout facilitation associated with proposed expansion of the Oregon Caves National Monument in Oregon and designation of several Wilderness Areas in central Idaho. The Forest Service and BLM are similarly able to administratively allow for long-term or permanent rest for allotments via voluntary grazing permit exchanges with conservation buyers or retirements. This option could be utilized much more frequently than it has been in the past, and it would allow for far more varied management of our national public lands. Perhaps the best contribution conservationists can make at this point is documenting with photographs, data, and stories the visibly astonishing land values, ecosystem services, and simple beauty that are gained wherever livestock grazing management has been significantly altered or retired from public land parcels. Get to the grazing decision table early and often; you belong there because the fish, wildlife, flowers, streams, springs, and meadows need you there.
A severely denuded and eroded Oregon hillside. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
Mary OBrien is Utah Forests Program Manager with the Grand Canyon Trust.
get with the ProgrAm

ProgrAm UPDAtes, winter soLstice 2011
By Thomas R. Petersen, Development Director
Grizzly!
exclaimed Adam Switalski, our Science Program Director, pointing straight ahead. I had seen grizzlies in the wild before, but always thankfully from a distance. This one was just a few feet away. As it was, this was just a photo of a grizzly (sorry), but nonetheless it took me aback, as this griz had a particularly menacing look to its eyes. And the next photo Adam showed me was even better: two small shadows were in the grass following the bear her cubs. These photos, and this griz sow and two cubs, are special to Adam and Wildlands CPR, as they are our first photographs of grizzlies on a reclaimed road, captured using motion sensitive cameras we set up in the Gallatin National Forest (MT). The fact that this was a female grizzly with cubs is also significant, as females demonstrate a growing and expanding population more than lone, wandering males.
The Gallatin grizzly, captured by one of Wildlands CPRs motion-triggered cameras, set up to monitor wildlife use of reclaimed roads.
For the past seven years, Adam has spearheaded a long-term wildlife monitoring project, attempting to answer the question that seemed obvious, at least to us, but in which there was very little scientific evidence: after road reclamation, do wildlife actually return to reclaimed areas? Thanks to support from the National Forest Foundation and others, Adam began this project in 2004, setting up remotely triggered cameras and track plates on roads, and former roads, in the Clearwater National Forest (CNF) in Idaho. We started to get the answer to our question. With multiple years of high-quality data (Adam ran this project on the Clearwater for five years), we collected 900 photos and 650 tracks of wolf, coyote, fox, mountain lion, bobcat, fisher, American marten, ermine, moose, elk, white-tailed deer, black-tailed deer, field mice, jumping mice and voles, all using open, gated, abandoned and recontoured roads on the CNF. Adam worked for months crunching the numbers on the Clearwater, working with former Wildlands CPR Board member and Assistant Professor of Restoration Ecology at the Uni-
versity of Montana, Cara Nelson. The results? The Clearwater study demonstrated that black bears use habitat on reclaimed roads far more (almost four times as much) than habitat behind roads simply gated or bermed. The reason? Road reclamation recreates habitat security and restores bear habitat, like serviceberry bushes and other available fall foods, while also providing needed hiding cover. Significantly, the Clearwater National Forest has developed one of the most active road reclamation programs in the country, with more than 3,000 acres of secure wildlife habitat created since its inception. Adam and Caras research was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal, Biological Conservation.
10
program updates, contd
The 2011 field season recently ended, so Adam is just now analyzing the data, and its too early to report results. But heres where the Gallatin griz comes in. In 2010 we monitored this site before reclamation, and while we did record some use by deer, elk and moose, there were no bears. However, just weeks ago, we retrieved the Gallatin motion sensitive camera back from the field. Upon checking the photos from this years monitoring of sites post reclamation, the sow griz with two cubs appeared twice over the course of a week. This was a preliminary but encouraging sign that even very road-wary species like griz will return to reclaimed habitat. So if you want to see the beginnings of a success story, of grizzlies returning to new and restored habitat, go to the Gallatin. But if the prospect of literally running into a grizzly makes you hesitate, just look at our photos instead, knowing they are returning, knowing they are there, staring with those eyes, again.
Remote, motion-triggered cameras set up by Wildlands CPR on revegetated roads have captured images of ungulates and predators alike, such as this cougar (above) and calf/cow moose pair (below). Wildlands CPR photos.
While their research dealt with black bears, there are important management implications for grizzly bears in the Clearwater as well, where restoration of this kind of highquality habitat could provide key linkages between expanding grizzly populations in the north, to prime habitat in the SalmonSelway to the south. (In 2007 in fact, an adult male grizzly bear was inadvertently killed by a hunter in the proposed Great Burn Wilderness, just north of Adams study area in the CNF unfortunate that it was killed of course, but a grizzly hadnt been officially documented in this area for 60 years.) Its a different story in the Gallatin. As of 2010 biologists estimated about 600 grizzlies living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which contains the Gallatin National Forest. And in 2010 Adam expanded his wildlife-monitoring project into six different national forests in Forest Service Region 1 (Montana, eastern Idaho and western Dakotas), including the Gallatin. This new monitoring project, also supported by the National Forest Foundation, is looking at Legacy Roads and Trails projects pre- and post-reclamation, to examine wildlife use and gather additional data to build on the CNF project. Adam hired two field technicians for the 2010 and 2011 field seasons. During the first year, they conducted wildlife (and vegetation) monitoring on roads before reclamation, and in 2011 the same monitoring on the same former roads after reclamation.
11
LegAL notes
montana wILderness study area protectIons aFFIrmed
By Sarah Peters, Wildlands CPR Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney
introduction
In our Winter Solstice, 2010 issue of The Road RIPorter, here, we highlighted a ruling out of Montana District court that over-turned the Lewis and Clark National Forests travel management decision for the Little Belt, Castle, and the north half of the Crazy Mountains Russell Country Sportsmen v. Forest Service. Less than a year later, we got some good news out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the lower courts decision was over-turned and the travel plan, and its protections for Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), would remain in place. On December 1, 2011, we got more good news about WSAs from the 9th Circuit. In Montana Wilderness Association v. McAllister, ___ F.3d ___, slip op. 20573 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2011), the court ruled that the Gallatin travel plan had not adequately taken into account the impacts of increased motorized use and noise when making its decision about whether to continue allowing motorized and mechanized use in WSAs.
The 9th Circuits decision in Russell Country Sportsmen affirmed the Forest Services ability to manage lands protected by the Montana Wilderness Study Act in a manner that was more restrictive of motorized use than when the Act was passed in 1977. The court found that the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 (Study Act) imposes two requirements: First, the Service must administer study areas so as to maintain their wilderness character as it existed in 1977. Second, the Service must administer the areas so as to maintain their potential for designation as wilderness areas i.e., as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Russell Country Sportsmen v. United States Forest Service, ___ F.3d ___, No. 10-35623, slip op. 18851 at 18861 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2011) (emphasis added).
russell country revisited
It remains to be seen what constitutes a reduction in the potential for designation as wilderness and how that potential can be measured. However, the 9th Circuits other decision, McAllister, provided some clarification about what it means to maintain wilderness character. The court found that the Study Act: requires the Service to ensure that current users of a wilderness study area are able to enjoy the wilderness character of the area as it existed in 1977, pending a congressional decision on whether to designate the area as wilderness. In this case, the Service has not adequately explained how the 1977 wilderness character of the relevant study area, particularly the opportunities for solitude it offers, has been maintained despite an increase in the volume of motorized and mechanized recreation in the area. (emphasis added) The courts opinion hinged on the Forest Services acknowledgement that motorized use in the area had greatly increased in volume since 1977. The Forests travel plan decision, which reduced the acreage within the WSA that was open to motorized use, was not sufficient to address this increase in volume. The court also relied upon the fact that the Gallatin failed to address the impacts on current users from that increase. Specifically, [t]he Service did not attempt to maintain the areas 1977 wilderness character, including the relatively low motorized use
the meaning of mcAllister
Charity Lake in the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area, Montana. Photo by Adam Rissien.
12
LegaL notes, contd

volumes that existed at that time, for the enjoyment of current users. McAllister at 20593. An areas ability to provide solitude depends on a current users perception of other users around him not just on the physical characteristics of the land. McAllister at 20587. The court acknowledged that the Gallatins attempt to maintain wilderness character will likely be approximate and qualitative and that the lack of complete historical data on volume of recreational use would make these estimations difficult. But, the court determined that the Forest Service must still try, and do the best it can with the data it has and that it cannot ignore the volume of use increase completely. McAllister at 20592. The decision expands upon this issue with regards to satisfying NEPA requirements to disclose to the public when data is unavailable or incomplete. See 40 C.F.R. 1502.22. In attempting to meet the 1502.22 requirements, the Forest Service disclosed that historical data tracking changes in the volume of recreational use within the study area was not available. However, the Forest Service went on to conclude that, because its Wilderness Attribute Rating System (WARS) did not use volume of recreational use to evaluate solitude, it did not have to do so in its travel management decision. Because the historical volume of use data are relevant to the Study Act analysis, they are also relevant for purposes of NEPA analysis, and thus are relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts under 1502.22. See McAllister at 20595.
Without effective, enforceable travel plans, user-proliferated routes tend to expand. West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area. Photo by Adam Rissien.
nePA ruling in russell country sportsmen
In addition to its ruling on WSA management, the 9th Circuit also over-turned the Montana District Court judges National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ruling, finding that the Forest Services decision was within the scope of its prior environmental analysis. The lower court found that the Lewis and Clark had selected an alternative that was qualitatively outside the spectrum of the alternatives discussed in the draft. In reviewing this decision, the 9th Circuit disagreed. The Circuit court found, after
conducting a thorough examination of the administrative record and the mileage of routes evaluated to be open vs. closed in the DEIS, that the lower court had ignored evidence in the record that was also presented by Defendants and Defendant-intervenors about the range of alternatives. Based on that examination, the 9th Circuit determined that the route mileage approved in the final decision was covered by the range of mileages analyzed in the DEIS, and that, therefore, the range of alternatives was adequate. As such, no supplemental EIS was required.
conclusion
Both of these decisions are great news for the preservation of wilderness-caliber lands, not just on the Lewis and Clark and Gallatin, where these battles were fought, but in designated wilderness study areas throughout Montana. The Lewis and Clark will move forward with implementing its approved travel plan, which was deemed to be accurately protective of WSAs. The Gallatin has an interim winter management plan in place that constrains snowmobile use in the Gallatin Range WSA to the Big Sky Snowmobile Trail and provides an open area for cross-country snowmobile travel near Golden Trout Lakes and west of Windy Pass. It remains to be seen what a final plan will look like, but, after the December 1st court ruling, you can be sure it will take into account the experience of current users of the WSAs.
The courts ruling will help protect solitude and other wilderness values. West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area. Photo by Adam Rissien.
13
oDes to roADs
conFessIons oF a recoverIng engIneer
By Charles Marohn
Editors Note: While this essay is not about wildland roads, its quite provocative from many perspectives. The author is an engineer who decided that many of the things he learned about road engineering are wrong when you try to apply them at the suburban level. We think you can extend his arguments to rural, exurban and even wildland roads. This article is reprinted with permission from the author, from the Strong Towns website blog of Nov. 22, 2010. Strong Towns is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support a model for growth that allows Americas towns to become financially strong and resilient.
fter graduating from college with a civil engineering degree, I found myself working in my home town for a local engineering firm doing mostly municipal engineering (roads, sewer pipes, water pipes, stormwater). A fair percentage of my time was spent convincing people that, when it came to their roads, I knew more than they did.
Road widening is what engineers are taught to do for safety. Problem is, it makes things more dangerous. Photo: WSDOT Cross-posted from Strong Towns.
And of course I should know more. First, I had a technical degree from a top university. Second, I was on a path towards getting a state license (at the time I was an engineer in training, the four-year apprenticeship required to become a fully licensed professional engineer), which required me to pass a pretty tough test just to get started and another, more difficult, exam to conclude. Third, I was in a profession that is one of the oldest and most respected in human history, responsible for some of the greatest achievements of mankind. Fourth -and most important -- I had books and books of standards to follow. A book of standards to an engineer is better than a bible to a priest. All you have to do is to rely on the standards. Back in college I was told a story about how, in WWII, some Jewish engineers in hiding had run thousands of tedious tests on asphalt, just to produce these graphs that we still use today. Some of our craft descends from Roman engineers who did all of this a couple of millennia ago. How could I be wrong with literally thousands of years of professional practice on my side? And, more to the point, what business would I -- let alone a property owner on a project I was working on -- have in questioning the way things were done? Of course the people who wrote the standards knew better than we did. That is why they wrote the standard. When people would tell me that they did not want a wider street, I would tell them that they had to have it for safety reasons. When they answered that a wider street would make people drive faster and that would seem to be less safe, especially in front of their house where their kids were
playing, I would confidently tell them that the wider road was more safe, especially when combined with the other safety enhancements the standards called for. When people objected to those other enhancements, like removing all of the trees near the road, I told them that for safety reasons we needed to improve the sight distances and ensure that the recovery zone was free of obstacles. When they pointed out that the recovery zone was also their yard and that their kids played kickball and hopscotch there, I recommended that they put up a fence, so long as the fence was outside of the right-of-way. When they objected to the cost of the wider, faster, treeless road that would turn their peaceful front yard into the viewing area for a drag strip unless they built a concrete barricade along their front property line, I informed them that progress was sometimes expensive, but these standards have been shown to work
14
odes to roads, contd
across the state, the country, and the world, and I could not compromise with their safety. In retrospect I understand that this was utter insanity. Wider, faster, treeless roads not only ruin our public places, they kill people. Taking highway standards and applying them to urban and suburban streets, and even county roads, costs us thousands of lives every year. There is no earthly reason why an engineer would ever design a 14foot lane for a city block, yet we do it continually. Why? The answer is utterly shameful: Because that is the standard. In the engineering professions version of defensive medicine, we cant recommend standards that are not in the manual. We cant use logic to vary from a standard that gives us 60 mph design speeds on roads with intersections every 200 feet. We cant question why two cars would need to travel at high speed in opposite directions on a city block, let alone why we would want them to. We can yield to public pressure and post a speed limit -- itself a hazard -- but we cant recommend a road section that is not in the highway manual. When the public and politicians tell engineers that their top priorities are safety and then cost, the engineers brain hears something completely different. The engineer hears, Once you set a design speed and handle the projected volume of traffic, safety is the top priority. Do what it takes to make the road safe, but do it as cheaply as you can. This is why engineers return projects with asinine
Photo by Scott Meltzer. www.publicdomainpictures.net/ view-image.php?image=5605&picture=city-traffic
mitigating for safety and, finally, how to reduce the overall cost (which at that point is nearly always ridiculously expensive). In America, it is this thinking that has designed most of our built environment, and it is nonsensical. In many ways, it is professional malpractice. If we delivered what society asked us for, we would build our local roads and streets to be safe above all else. Only then would we consider what could be done, given our budget, to handle a higher volume of cars at greater speeds. We go to enormous expense to save ourselves small increments of driving time. This would be delusional in and of itself if it were not also making our roads and streets much less safe. It is clear that narrower, slower streets dramatically reduce accidents, especially fatalities. And it is that simple observation that all of those supposedly ignorant property owners were trying to explain to me, the engineer with all the standards, so many years ago. When you cant let your kids play in the yard, let alone ride their bike to the store, because you know the street is dangerous, then the engineering profession is not providing society any real value. Its time to stand up and demand a change. Its time we demand that engineers build us Strong Towns. Charles Marohn is a professional engineer licensed in the state of Minnesota and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He is president of the nonprofit organization Strong Towns.
When the public and politicians tell engineers that their top priorities are safety and then cost, the engineers brain hears something completely different.
safety features, like pedestrian bridges and tunnels that nobody will ever use, and costs that are astronomical. An engineer designing a street or road prioritizes the world in this way, no matter how they are instructed: 1. Traffic speed 2. Traffic volume 3. Safety 4. Cost The rest of the world generally would prioritize things differently, as follows: 1. Safety 2. Cost 3. Traffic volume 4. Traffic speed In other words, the engineer first assumes that all traffic must travel at speed. Given that speed, all roads and streets are then designed to handle a projected volume. Once those parameters are set, only then does an engineer look at
15
PoLicy Primer
restoratIon opportunItIes & the coLLaBoratIve Forest Landscape restoratIon (cFLr) act
By Adam Rissien
introduction
By now many people are aware of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Act and the new opportunities it offers for funding Forest Service restoration projects. Indeed, while CFLR proposals feature vegetation management (e.g. logging, prescribed fire, weed treatments), the possibility exists for including watershed restoration treatments such as road decommissioning or activities to improve aquatic organism passage. While some conservationists have concerns about components of the CFLR, this article does not address those concerns, but provides an overview of the enabling legislation, proposal selection process, and watershed restoration opportunities. The CLFR Act also requires these proposals be developed through a collaborative process that includes diverse interests and is both transparent and non-exclusive, or meets the requirements for Resource Advisory Committees.3 It is unclear what exactly this means about opportunities to become involved in proposal development if you are not one of the committee members, but we encourage individuals to investigate whether there are opportunities to engage early in local CLFR efforts. The result of this collaboration requirement is that for each proposal there is a diverse group in charge of helping implement and monitor restoration treatments. CLFR proposals must describe how they will improve ecological and watershed conditions. Interestingly, proposals must also analyze the cost savings that result from restoration activities, and they must provide local employment or 3 This comes from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, Sec. 205 of PL 106-393 under subsections c-f.
the cFlr Act An overview

The CFLR Act, passed under Title IV of the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act, continues the growing Forest Service trend to work with local interests and stakeholders to restore our natural landscapes. The act relies on collaborative, science-based ecological restoration to, among other things, reduce uncharacteristic wildfire risk, reestablish natural fire regimes and demonstrate the effectiveness of restoration techniques in achieving ecological and watershed health objectives.1 Towards these ends, the act created a new program within the Forest Service to select and fund restoration proposals in priority landscapes. In order to qualify for selection and receive CFLR funding, collaborative restoration landscape proposals must meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the act. This means that selections and funding will favor a project that: identifies and prioritizes treatments over a 10 year period across a landscape that is at least 50,000 acres located primarily on Forest Service lands; relies on the best available science; maintains or restores old growth stands to pre-fire suppression conditions; includes treatments to reduce hazardous fuels; and ensures no new permanent road construction and the decommissioning of any needed temporary roads.2 1 2 PL 11-111 Sec. 4001.Purpose PL 11-111 Sec. 4003(b)
The CFLR Act offers some new opportunities for restoration. Wildlands CPR photo.
16
policy primer, contd

training opportunities that support nearby economies.4 This requirement provides a chance to show how local economies benefit from restoration treatments, and how activities, such as road decommissioning, can save taxpayer dollars in the long term. Once a collaborative group drafts a proposal they send it to their Regional Forester, who may nominate it for selection by the Chief of the Forest Service (acting for the Secretary of Agriculture). An advisory panel then reviews each proposal and makes recommendations to the Chief. This panel plays a crucial role, since its members carefully study each proposal to determine how well it meets the eligibility criteria. The Chief may only select 10 proposals each fiscal year and no more than two from a specific Forest Service region; 31 proposals were submitted in 2010 and 26 in 2011. accomplishments.6 Not all of these performance measures are applicable to all projects. For instance, if a project does not include road treatments, those performance measures are not applied. Unfortunately, not all the 2010 selected proposals included a wide range of restoration treatments; some focused almost exclusively on vegetative treatments.
Annual reports must also include monitoring results. Some collaborative groups have established specific monitoring committees with clear methodology to evaluate proposals success for 15 years after projects get started. For example, the Southwest Crown of the Continent Collaborative in Montana established a separate monitoring committee to develop scientifically valid protocols for numerous restoration objectives in order to assess project effectiveness. Participating in such committees may Once chosen, proposals are provide an opportunity to proeligible to receive funding mote and fund monitoring that from the new CFLR budget escan demonstrate, for instance, tablished by the act to pay for how road decommissioning up to 50% of the total costs to can improve water quality by implement and monitor restorareducing related sedimentation treatments. The other half tion. Effectiveness monitoring may come from a variety of has a long history of being sources such as a combinaunderfunded or excluded altotion of appropriated, permagether, and the CFLR fund proThe CFLR creates incentives for groups to collaborate on restoration projects. nent and trust, or partnership vides an opportunity to help Wildlands CPR photo. funds, in-kind contributions, answer many long-standing and forest product value exquestions about specific restochanged for restoration treatration approaches. ments (in stewardship contracts).5 For selected proposals, the act requires collaborative groups to develop a work plan and budget cFlr Proposals & watershed restoration that describes how it will implement the proposal to achieve ecological as well as community benefits. Also included is a business Undoubtedly, the CLFR Act focuses a great deal on reducing the plan that must show cost savings over the life of the proposal. potential for wildfires and related costs, as well as directing the The CFLR Act requires annual reporting and multiparty monitoring for all selected proposals. Those reports have several requirements, including a progress evaluation, for which the Forest Service provided additional direction by listing 26 performance measures that collaborative groups can use to help report yearly 4 5 PL 11-111 Sec. 4003(b)(4)(B) & (7) http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/questions/answers/ qa001_funding.shtml. This link also shows all the different codes from the Forest Service budget that can be used to match CFLR funding.
utilization of restoration byproducts (e.g. small diameter trees and woody biomass). Proposals that do not incorporate these components do not meet the eligibility criteria, so in essence, the act primarily focuses on restoring large landscapes through vegetative treatments. However, as mentioned above, the act allows for a range of other restoration treatments including road maintenance and decommissioning, repairing stream crossings, and improving aquatic organ6 http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/documents/AnnualReportWorkPlan/Annual_Report_Template_Instructions.docx
17

ism passage. Proposals must show the cost savings expected from these restoration treatments, and they must demonstrate that treatments will improve fish and wildlife habitat; maintain or improve water quality and watershed function; and maintain, decommission, and rehabilitate roads and trails.7 Special consideration is given to the strength of proposed restoration strategies, so it makes good sense to include road decommissioning and maintenance along with improving stream crossings and aquatic organism passage. Finally, the acts eligibility criteria preclude the construction of any new permanent roads, and commit funding for decommissioning any needed temporary roads (though there is no direction on when roads must be decommissioned or if they must be fully recontoured). 7 PL 11-111 Sec. 4003(b)(3)(B),(C) & (E)
While the CFLR program tends to favor projects with a fuels reduction component, it also provides opportunities to restore watersheds. Wildlands CPR photo.
CLFR proposals must describe how they will improve ecological and watershed conditions.
While selected collaborative proposals vary widely in watershed restoration treatments, the opportunity certainly exists to focus on road reclamation and maintenance, as well as other activities that can improve fish passage and increase water quality. However the CFLR advisory panel can only recommend the proposals it receives, so collaborative groups need to include a broad range of restoration treatments, and stress their importance to the Regional Forester. Therefore, it may be advantageous for those of us who promote watershed restoration to get involved with future collaboration efforts to promote road and other comprehensive restoration treatments. The CFLR act provides an opportunity to promote watershed restoration within the context of landscape scale approaches that utilize vegetative treatments to reduce wildfire risk, among other benefits. However, some are dubious of this approach and collaboration in general; but multi-party, science-based monitoring may help prove or negate concerns. Ultimately, one must answer whether or not it is better to sit at the table and improve CFLR proposals, or to rely on traditional public involvement opportunities provided by other laws and regulations.
A review of the 2010 selected proposals reveals that some proposals focused almost exclusively on reducing fuels through vegetative treatments, whereas others included a full suite of activities to improve ecological and watershed integrity.8 For example, the Southwest Crown of the Continent proposal will maintain to Best Management Practice standards 650 miles of road, decommission or store 400 miles of road, and upgrade 149 stream crossing structures.9 While these numbers could be higher, this is in stark contrast to Arizonas Four Forests Restoration Initiative that provides no estimates for road work and instead defers to individual forest travel plans for possible decommissioning opportunities. Unfortunately, the travel plans in Arizona thus far completed have failed to include much decommissioning, and instead increase overall system road mileage. 8 9 http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/selections.shtml See the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape Restoration Strategy, p 24. http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/ CFLR/documents/2010Proposals/Region1/SWCrown/ Southern_Crown_2010_CFLRP_Proposal_FINAL.pdf
see flow chart on next page
18
cFLr FLowchArt
Landscape Strategy
Conforms to Sec. 4003(b)(1) iden=es and priori=zes treatments over a 10 year period across a landscape that is at least 50,000 acres located primarily on Forest Service lands relies on the best available science maintains or restores old growth stands to pre-re suppression condi=ons would include treatments to reduce hazardous fuels ensures no new permanent road construc=on and the decommissioning of any needed temporary roads
Forest/Stakeholders Develop Proposal
Consistent with Landscape Strategy (above) and Eligibility Requirements -Sec. 4003(b)(2)-(8) Must be collabora=ve process including diverse interests This group also monitors implementa=on and eec=veness of project, if approved for CLFR funding
Regional Forester Nominates Proposals and sends to USDA Secretary
Proposal SubmiVed to Regional Forester
Advisory panel reviews how well each proposal meets the eligibility criteria and makes recommenda=ons to the Chief
Secretary makes Maximum of two projects selected per region, with a total of ten projects per year selec=ons and No=es Regions of Selec=ons
Project Implementa=on
Collabora=ve groups develop a work plan, budget, and business plan that must show cost savings over the life of the proposal Annual repor=ng and mul=party monitoring required or all selected proposals
Flowchart adapted from the USDA Forest Service. 2011. Overview of CFLR Program Proposal Development and Selection Process. www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/documents/diagram.pdf
19
DePAving the wAy

up agaInst a waLL on ImmIgratIon
By Bethanie Walder
hardly thought that a lecture entitled Global Crisis: Immigration, Drug Trafficking, and Financial Meltdown would have much to do with Wildlands CPRs work. But this fascinating discussion by University of California, Santa Barbara Sociology Professor William Robinson raised important questions about the ecological consequences of immigration policy. Robinson explored connections between seemingly disparate topics (download a podcast from the University of Montana here), but what struck me most was his discussion about corporate profiteering from the immigration crackdown. That crackdown and proposed border policies are posing enormous threats to conservation along the southern and northern US borders. While the military-industrial complex is long-studied, a new complex is emerging and threatening environmental protection and restoration. The wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Photo by Jay J. JohnsonThe immigration-industrial complex is at the heart of some of the most Castro, Sr damaging legislation in years. In 2008 (see The RIPorter 13.4) we wrote about the profound impacts of the border fence/wall between the US and Mexico (the US government calls it a fence, but for all purposes it the border patrol/DHS from environmental laws inacts as a wall). Unfortunately, in addition to continued border wall construction, cluding the Wilderness Act, National Forest Manlegislation now pending in Congress could significantly impact land manageagement Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Nament along a wide swath on both the southern and northern US borders. While tional Environmental Policy Act, as well as the Clean the bills are couched in the context of homeland security (as explained in RobinWater and Clean Air Acts, which are designed to sons lecture), it seems likely that their goal is to increase corporate profits with protect human health and safety. Laws derived from people, land, water and wildlife all suffering as a result. international treaties would also be at risk, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To get a sense of whats at stake, lets consider these bills: The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (HR1505); the Senate Homeland Security Despite these threats, the bills provide no real soAuthorization bill (S1546); and the House Homeland Security Authorization bill lution to either real or purported immigration prob(HR3116). The premise behind all three is the same they give the Department lems. While people are clearly entering the counof Homeland Security authority over all other federal land managers and agentry illegally, the border wall only treats a symptom, cies within 100 miles of the US border(s) while exempting Homeland Security rather than asking why people are willing to risk from most, if not all, environmental laws. HR1505 is a stand-alone bill to provide their lives to enter the United States (as Robinson and this authority on the northern and southern borders. HR 3116 is more compreothers have explained, some of our domestic and hensive, but an amendment from Representative Quayle (R-AZ) incorporates the international policies exacerbate the conditions that essential provisions of HR1505. Similarly, S1546 is a comprehensive security promote illegal immigration). In addition, erecting bill with an amendment from Senator McCain (R-AZ), but unlike the other two, walls has been ineffective at stopping human moveMcCains amendment only affects the southern border. ment. These bills could wreak havoc on fragile ecosystems along both borders. The border wall has already disrupted terrestrial and aquatic connectivity between the US and Mexico. Jaguars and other far-ranging predators were starting to migrate north and re-occupy former habitat in the United States but walls constructed to stop people also stop wildlife. And while people can find ways around them, the walls are very effective at fragmenting wildlife habitat. HR1505 would exempt According to University of Kansas professor Tonya Golash-Boza, immigration fits the same pattern as other industrial complexes:
20
depaving the way, contd

The discord between rhetoric and reality when it comes to immigration policy points to the importance of using a framework similar to that of the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex to understand the immigration industrial complex. These three complexes share three major features: (a) a rhetoric of fear; (b) the confluence of powerful interests; and (c) a discourse of other-ization. With the military build-up during the Cold War, the others were communists. With the prison expansion of the 1990s, the others were criminals (often racialized and gendered as black men). With the expansion of the immigration industrial complex, the others are illegals (racialized as Mexicans). In each case, the creation of an undesirable other creates popular support for government spending to safeguard the nation (Golash-Boza 2008). Robinson, Golash-Boza and others go on to explain the economics of the immigration industrial complex and the corporate interests who gain from increased militarization of the border. For example, GolashBoza cites data from the National Network for Immigration and Refugee Rights showing the profound increase in federal funding for immigration and border control since 2003 with both the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) budgets nearly doubling by 2008. As right-wing media pundits vilified illegal immigrants, they helped create space for politicians to overfund immigration and border control such that special interest corporations gained financial benefits. Once the American public was sufficiently frightened, militarized solutions became not just viable, but preferable by both political parties. The legislation currently under consideration is a direct result of the growth and success of the immigration-industrial complex. For them, the southern border is not enough greedy corporations and politicians are now pushing to the north to create new opportunities for profit regardless of any real threat on the ground. Conservation organizations, especially in the Southwest, have been challenging border policies for years, with some success. For example, in 2006 the Departments of Homeland Security, Interior and Agriculture signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on interagency cooperation to improve security. This MOA created mechanisms to ensure Homeland Security could do its job without interfering with land management agencies, while also ensuring that land management activities would not exacerbate border control challenges. This MOA was not limited to the Mexico/US border. In critical grizzly bear habitat, for example, road use can be very problematic. Fish and Wildlife agents now coordinate with DHS agents to ensure motorized access into critical habitat is carefully documented and controlled to fall within acceptable standards for wildlife. Critics of HR1505 claim that the bill would reduce this co-operation why would DHS agents ask how to reduce impacts to wildlife if the law allows them to run roughshod over wildlife? Perhaps 100 miles doesnt sound like so much, but one look at a map makes clear how much land is at stake. In Montana, for example, the zone would extend from the border through the entirety of Glacier National Park Erosion at the base of the wall. Photo courand deep into the Bob Marshall Wiltesy of National Park Service. derness. Its unfathomable to imagine the Dept of Homeland Security having ultimate authority to do as they please across this entire landscape with no environmental regulation. The philosophical and ecological questions behind bills like HR1505 are enormous, and consequences on the ground are equally profound. As conservationists across borders work to ensure wildlife connectivity and the steady supply of ecosystem services such as clean water, the immigration-industrial complex is creating new threats to our success. The sections of border wall constructed in the south have already had disastrous ecological impacts hampering the movement of iconic species like the jaguar, while also blocking the normal flow of water. Giving the Department of Homeland Security unfettered management of a 100mile swath of land south of Canada and north of Mexico will do little to improve American security while doing much to degrade American natural resources. It will create a hostile environment for the movement of species like grizzly bears, caribou and wolves between Canada and the United States, in addition to the damage that has already occurred in the south. The military-industrial complex has dominated American policy for more than half a century. We can only hope the same will not be true of the emerging immigration-industrial complex.
citations:
Robinson, William. 2011. Global Crisis: Immigration, Drug Trafficking, and Financial Meltdown. University of Montana 2011-12 Presidents Lecture Series. Missoula, MT. 12-1-11. Golash-Boza, Tonya. 2009. The Immigration Industrial Complex: Why we enforce immigration policies destined to fail. Sociology Compass 3(2) 295309. Golash-Boza, Tonya. 2009. A Confluence of Interest in Immigration Enforcement: How Politicians, the Media and Corporations Profit from Immigration Policies Destined to Fail. Sociology Compass 3/(2) 283-299.
21
BiBLiogrAPhy notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature in our 20,000 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.
envIronmentaL Impacts oF oFF-road vehIcLe races and events: a LIterature revIew

By Jeremiah Purdum
revious Road RIPorter Biblio Notes have examined the impacts of off-road vehicles (ORVs) on various segments of an ecosystem, providing a great deal of knowledge on these impacts. In reviewing these articles, it is evident that scientific research has focused on the general impacts of single all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), but little has been done to assess the impacts of large-scale off road events, such as races or jamborees. Herein I review the available literature and government reports on large-scale off road events impacts on the environment.
existing literature
Most of the research and discussion of the impacts of large-scale ORV events occurs in the form of environmental impact analyses conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and similar state policies (e.g., BLM 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010). In contrast to these assessments, in 1994, in response to the Mojave desert tortoises listing under the Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) examined the effects ATV/ORV races would have on tortoise habitat. At that time there were nine races permitted for operation by the Las Vegas field office. Two draft technical reports by the BLM considered two of these races as case studies for all those previously permitted, instead of taking a race-by-race look at impacts (Medica 1994a, 1994b). The two reports are similar in scope and findings. One event, the Twilight 200, was a 43-mile truck and buggy race; while the other, the Nelson Hills ATV/Motorcycle race, was a shorter motorcycle and
Off-road vehicle events and the spectators they attract can have a profound impact on arid ecosystems. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
ATV lap race. Medica (1994a) found that race participants had some minimal impact upon the desert habitat (pg. 21, Medica 1994a), and that the course itself was not widened significantly. Most of the damage was done by ancillary activities that occurred during the race, with spectators following or observing the race from areas just off the race course. The use of areas outside the race course by spectators may have far reaching impacts in other race events as well. Medica (1994b) found that as much as 19 hectares (48acres) per linear mile of racer course were affected by the presence of spectators of the Twilight 200. Medica (1994b) found 25 shrubs directly damaged by tracks off the race course in hilly subarea transects. When extrapolated over the 13km race course there would be 255 damaged or destroyed shrubs.
22
Biblio notes, contd
A more recent BLM NEPA document prepared for the three day, 995-mile truck, ATV and motorcycle race known as The Vegas to Reno Race, spent little time identifying potential impacts, but did contain a larger discussion on the amount of dust created during the race (BLM 2009). Inhalable particulates are those that can be breathed into the lungs and can affect respiratory and circulatory functions. In this report the BLM acknowledged that there would be an environmental impact and acknowledged that the Environmental Protection Agencys generic emission factor recommendation for calculating the amount of fugitive dust created (USEPA 2005) is not adequate in desert areas like the location of this race. The BLM in this case used a method of estimation provided in Goossens and Buck (2009) and found that the Vegas to Reno Race would likely emit between 23.2 and 39.3 metric tons of dust in the PM10 classification (particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter). Furthermore it was estimated that 118 to 331 metric tons of PM60 would be emitted during the race. PM60 (particles less than 60 micrometers) represents the total suspendable particles. Despite this large amount of dust released and the known human health impacts, the EA stated in its monitoring and mitigation section that, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control may monitor the ORV race events to observe the production of PM10 fugitive dust (pg. 35, BLM 2009). Fugitive dust can have large impacts on the surrounding vegetation, air quality, and soil structure (Ouren et al. 2007). Not to mention the possible impacts of visitors/spectators outside of the race course.
Mass-off-road events are often billed as family friendly, giving children an introduction to the sport. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
All three events discussed above were permitted for racing. Very little mitigation or monitoring was stipulated in permits, and it is unclear how much mid-race or post-race monitoring was conducted by the BLM. The BLM has denied permit applications before, though in the instance I found, it was for previous permit violations and not potential impacts. In 2011 the BLM Las Vegas field office denied a special recreation permit to the Southern Nevada OffRoad Enthusiasts (SNORE) for their 2011 Midnight Special based on previous safety violations, resource damage outside the race course, and violations of their race permit stipulations (clean up, flaggers, etc) (BLM 2011). It will be important for the BLM to step up its post race monitoring of races, as it seems that it may be the visitor-induced damage that is most neglected in their assessments. If the BLM will not do this, due to limited staff, budgets or priority, it may be up to organizations in the areas of these yearly races to monitor impacts and report them to BLM. The Forest Service also allows ATV use and conducted a study across seven sites representing seven regions of the country (Meadows et al. 2008). The major finding of this study was that with just a few additional ATV passes, a trail can transition from a low to medium or medium to high disturbance level. For example, with 20-40 passes, across all study areas, the trails transitioned to medium disturbance and all sites transitioned to high disturbance after 120 passes by ATVs (40 passes for the lowest transition). These numbers are similar to many of the race sizes seen in the Environmental Assessments (EAs) conducted by the BLM. Many of the environmental reviews that were conducted prior to issuing race event permits stated that there would be no significant environmental impacts. These were usually due to what they considered short term effects, such as wildlife or bird disturbance or noise pollution. The assessments also approved permitting be-
Lining up for an off-road desert race. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
23
Biblio notes, contd

tors lining courses. Most Environmental Assessments, conducted in large portion by the Bureau of Land Management, focus directly on the racing vehicles themselves and not the ancillary activities of pit crews, support personnel, and visitors/spectators. The current mitigation measures used in EAs and permit stipulations are weak and inadequate at controlling direct and indirect impacts to the ecosystems in which these races are held. Opportunities abound for researchers and non-profits to help understand these impacts better. GPS units could be placed on each vehicle in a race, not only to assess impacts of those leaving the course, but to provide a context for punishing course cutting. Visitors and spectators can be restricted to certain, previously developed locations. Currently most permits make no such restrictions or stipulations. Further research is needed to understand these spectator impacts given most of the research available is almost 20 years old and new techniques and resources have become available. Jeremiah is a University of Montana Environmental Studies Student. For his thesis he is examining the effectiveness of highway wildlife crossing structures.
cause most races and events were on previously established courses, or contained only small new sections. This argument would be a legitimate argument if riders and spectators remained on the course. It is important to remember that designating a route does not preclude riders from leaving the course, though permits usually stipulate against it. Shortcutting and breakdowns are likely to occur and can cause significant damage to off course habitats. In one ATV recreation area in Utah there was an increase of 885 trail segments and an increase in density of 1122m/km2 of new unplanned routes from 1977 to 1997 (Dunfee 2008).
conclusion
It is evident, through the review of the available literature, technical reports, and environmental assessment analysis that the impacts of large-scale ORV events are not well understood. Research has shown the various and wide-ranging impacts that general ORV use can have on an environmental system, but the extension of these impacts to the larger scale events have not been done. Most evident is the lack of focus on possible course widening and environmental damage due to vehicles out of bounds and visitors/specta-
reFerences
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Environmental Assessment, Bushwackers Motorcycle Race. US Department of Interior. 34pp. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Environmental Assessment, SNORE Truck and Buggy Race. US Department of Interior. 32pp. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2009. Environmental Assessment, BITD TSCO Vegas to Reno The Long Way. US Department of Interior. 32pp. BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2010. Environmental Assessment, Gold Diggers Motorcycle Club Competitive Event. US Department of Interior. 35pp BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2011. Decision, 2011 Midnight Special, Special Recreation Permit Denied. Las Vegas Field Office, US Department of Interior. 4pp. Dunfee, S. 2008. Evolution of ORV trails in the Little Sahara Recreation Area, Utah, 1952-1997. MA Thesis, Ohio University, Athens, OH. Goossens, D. and B. Buck. 2009, Dust Emission by Offroad Driving: Experiments on 17 Arid Soil Types, Nevada, USA, in Geomorphology, vol. 107, issues 3-4, pp. 118-138. Meadows, D, R.B Foltz, N. Geehan. 2008. Effects of All Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands. USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 0823 1811-SDTDC Medica, P.A. 1994a. The effects of an ATV/Motorcycle OHV race upon course widening. SNARE, Nelson Hills ATV/Motorcycle race, December 5, 1993. National Biological Survey Draft Report to Bureau of Land Management. 18pp + 3 Appendices. [Technical Report] Medica, P.A. 1994b. Study of an off-highway vehicle race in Eldorado Valley Twilight 200 March 27, 1993. Bureau of Land Management Draft Report. 29pp [draft Technical Report] USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. Compilation of air pollutant factors (AP42), Volume I: Stationary point and area sources, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources (updated November 2006), fifth edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, variable pagination.
24
new resoUrces
Fs reLeases Forests to Faucets report FInaL Fy11 Legacy roads and traILs accompLIshments
fter years of research, and many public statements about the importance of forests for providing drinking water, the Forest Service has finally released their Forests to Faucets report and maps. Heres a quick summary from their announcement: The USDA Forest Service Forests to Faucets project uses GIS to model and map the continental United States land areas most important to surface drinking water, the role forests play in protecting these areas, and the extent to which these forests are threatened by development, insects and disease, and wildland fire. If you click on the announcement link above, you will go to a website that includes links to all of the maps, the methodology report, and a link to access the base data. Weve been waiting for the agency to release this report, and look forward to closely reviewing it. We are disappointed, however, that the report does not include roads as one of the primary threats to water quality. That said, the agency clearly understands that there are many threats to surface water quality, including roads, grazing, mining, climate change, and more.
he data is in, and the Legacy Roads and Trails program continues to provide critical funding for watershed restoration related to road impacts. According to the Forest Service Road Accomplishment Reports (RARs), the $45 million in LRT funding in Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) accomplishments on the ground included: X X X X X Roads decommissioned: 581 miles Roads maintained: 1172 miles Roads improved: 498 miles Bridges constructed, reconstructed (including culvert to bridge upgrades): 57 Aquatic organism passage restored (culverts fixed or replaced): 143
LRT funding was also used for trails, planning and some overhead, but the RARs dont include that data (we will update the bulleted list above once we have the trails data). RARs are the annual tracking report the agency uses to document all road activities on the national forests (maintenance, construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, etc). We are still awaiting final LRT project data, including dollars spent per project, which should enable us to update our 2010 report that identified trends in how LRT funding is being spent over time. We also continue to work with the Forest Service to try to get them to conduct analyses on the fiscal/economic benefits and ecological outcomes resulting from the Legacy Roads and Trails program. We have uploaded both the FY10 and FY11 RAR data on our overall RAR page here. This page also provides an overview of how to use RAR data (e.g. to determine the percentage of roads maintained on your national forest in a given year). Dont hesitate to contact us if you have questions about how to read the spreadsheets, what some of the abbreviations mean, or how to conduct specific analyses for your forest.
Restored road on the Colville National Forest, WA. Photos courtesy of U.S. Forest Service.
25
AroUnD the oFFice

inter is upon us and were looking forward to seeing the days get longer again, though we are also looking forward to getting out and playing in the snow. Now that the field season has come to a close, weve been busy analyzing data, and ramping up our new projects for 2012.
Farewell
We are disappointed to have to say farewell to our long-time Program Associate Cathrine Walters, and to long-time board member Rebecca Lloyd. Becca served two consecutive terms (the max allowed without a break) on the board and brought incredible expertise from her 10 years of experience running the Nez Perce Tribes road removal program on the Powell District of the Clearwater National Forest. She has been a great asset to Wildlands CPR, and we are anxiously awaiting some of her pending publications from her PhD research into road removal. Cathrine has been with us on and off since 2004 and we are really going to miss all of her positive energy, enthusiasm and Ellswoth Creek preserve, Washington. Photo by Adam Switalski. input to Wildlands CPR. Cathrines been responsible for everything from day-to-day office management, to maintaining our website and facebook pages, to coming up with a lot of the creative approaches for our email solicitations. But now, she no longer has time for every- tiveness of wildlife mitigation measures and thing she wants to do, from professional photography to organic farming, to traveling. We youll see her biblio notes in 2012. Thanks wish her the best of luck, and well let you know who her replacement is in the next issue Lydina, Jeremiah and Elizabeth we really of The RIPorter. appreciate your time and energy! Were also happy to welcome a new winter intern, Michael N. Lazorchak. Hell be working on welcome We are very pleased to introduce Marlies Wierenga, our new WA/OR Field Coordinator. an assessment of how closed/abandoned Marlies is responsible for our on-the-ground engagement with the Forest Service in Wash- roads respond to fire, and the impacts of ington and Oregon, as well as leading the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative such roads after a fire occurs. and securing more support for our restoration efforts in the region. Shes responsible for a big portion of the work Sue Gunn previously did for us in the Pacific Northwest. Marlies is based in Portland, OR, and has been working in the transportation and restoration fields for about 10 years in Oregon and Washington, bringing a fantastic array of skills perfectly suited to her new position. Welcome Marlies! Were also delighted to welcome new board member Kathi Nickell. Kathi lives here in Missoula and has supported Wildlands CPR for a long time. In addition to helping us out, she has worked for years with local nonprofits in the environment and the arts, with the Special Olympics and more. As a board member, shell be focusing on organizational development. Finally, we had several new interns this fall. Lydina BigMan joined us as an intern through a tribal fellowship with the National Science Foundation. She updated the tribal resources on our website and researched new tribal road reclamation programs. We also want to thank two University of Montana Environmental Studies interns. Jeremiah Purdum put together the biblio notes for this RIPorter, while Elizabeth Fairbank researched the effec-
thanks
A huge thank you to everyone who participated in our Strength in Numbers campaign! Were very happy to report that we have met our $20,000 matching goal. If you forgot to make a year-end contribution in 2011, dont hesitate to get an early start and send a donation today. The fourth quarter is also a busy time for foundation support, and wed like to thank the 444-S, Harder, High Stakes, Lazar, New-Land, and Page Foundations for their support for our upcoming work in 2012.
26
suPPoRT wIldlands cPR Today!

Weve 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.
Name Street City, State, Zip Email
Making Your Gift Easier

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your credit card or bank statement will contain a record of each gift; we will also send a year-end tax receipt for your records.
Our Promise To You

You maintain complete control over your donation. To change or cancel your gift at any time, just write or give us a call.
Type of Membership:
Organization/Business Name (if applicable)
Payment Option #1: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account

$5/Month $10/Month
Payment Option #2: Credit Card Pledge
$10/Month (minimum)
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: _______________________________
Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confidential. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.
CSC Number: ________________ *(see below) Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: ________________________________________
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation, please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the address below. Please send this form and your payment option to: Wildlands CPR P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807
* The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a credit card (usually in the signature field).
Thank you for your support!
27
Redwood National Park, California. Photo by Dan Funsch.

He Oad Orter: T R Rip

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

He Oad Orter: T R Rip

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Road RIPoRTeR

winter solstice 2011. Volume 16 no. 4

Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org

A Look Down the trAiL

Director Bethanie Walder

Development Director Thomas R. Petersen Science Program Director Adam Switalski

2012 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

restoratIon: a retrospectIve IntroductIon

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd Its Been a Long, Long road

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd

A rehabilitated stream crossing on the Clearwater NF. Photo by Amy Chadwick.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd dam removaL In the pacIFIc northwest

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd grazIng reForm: aBout to happen?

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

restoratIon: a retrospectIve, contd

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

get with the ProgrAm

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

program updates, contd

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

russell country revisited

the meaning of mcAllister

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

LegaL notes, contd

nePA ruling in russell country sportsmen

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

odes to roads, contd

Photo by Scott Meltzer. www.publicdomainpictures.net/ view-image.php?image=5605&picture=city-traffic

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

the cFlr Act An overview

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

see flow chart on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

Forest/Stakeholders Develop Proposal

Regional Forester Nominates Proposals and sends to USDA Secretary

Proposal SubmiVed to Regional Forester

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011

DePAving the wAy

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, wInTeR solsTIce 2011