The Road RIPoRTeR

summer solstice 2012. Volume 17 No. 2

GrIzzly Bears Help restore Bull trout HaBItat on FlatHead natIonal Forest!
By Keith Hammer, Swan View Coalition

Montana contractor removing stream-side road fill on the Flathead National Forest. Photo by Paul Harvey.

Below: Bull trout. Photo by Joel Sartore National Geographic Stock with Wade Fredenber.

InsIde
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 Grizzly Bears Help Restore Bull Trout Habitat, by Keith Hammer. Pages 3-7 Get with the Program: The Boss. Pages 8-9 DePaving the Way: ORV Management Bullied Into Submission, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 10-11 Odes to Roads: Closing the Distance to Roads, by Tom Petersen. Pages 12-14 Policy Primer: Integrated Resource Restoration, by Adam Rissien. Pages 15-17 New Resources: Page 18 Biblio Notes: Bibliographic Databse updated, by Sophia Vernholm. Pages 19-21 Around the Office. Page 22 Membership Info. Page 23

Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org

A Look Down the trAiL

lookInG Back at BIG creek
By Bethanie Walder
P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

ig Creek has been restored, and removed from the Clean Water Acts list of water-quality impaired streams! Why? Because of road reclamation! Its a pleasure to include this as our cover story, especially because Big Creek (on the Flathead National Forest in northern Montana) was one of the first projects we engaged in as an organization, back in 1996. The stream had just been listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act, and the Flathead National Forest was one year into their ten-year plan to rightsize their road system to comply with Endangered Species Act protections for the grizzly bear. That convergence created a great opportunity to promote road reclamation. Fast-forward sixteen years which seems like a really long time. But in the world of watershed restoration, its a blink of an eye, at most. To learn about all the ups and downs during that decade and a half, check out the great cover story by Keith Hammer. Suffice it to say the conclusion was not foregone Swan View Coalition, Friends of the Wild Swan and at key points, Wildlands CPR, all played important roles watch-dogging the Forest Service to ensure their plans for this watershed would be effectively implemented. In the end, the agency reclaimed more than 66 miles of road, and upgraded or removed nearly 70 culverts, dramatically reducing the amount of sediment entering the Big Creek watershed. As Keith points out, at the start of this process, Big Creek had more road miles than stream miles. Thats no longer the case, but the roads that do remain provide ample recreational and resource management access for the area. Big Creek is an important example for a variety of reasons. First, the stream was listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act because of excess sediment, and the agencys plan to fix the problems acknowledged that roads and logging were the primary culprits for all that sediment. But second, activists had previously filed a lawsuit to protect grizzly bears from the impacts of roads on that forest. The resulting plan to address grizzly bear habitat needs also included language to protect bull trout, and thats one of the primary reasons that this story had such a happy ending. Big Creek had numerous legal and funding handles that enabled Swan View Coalition and other activists to ensure the Clean Water Act objectives for the area would be met and that the restoration plan would be implemented. In too many instances, streams remain on the water quality limited list forever. This is even more significant as we consider the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) recent announcement about a new national rulemaking process regarding the regulation of logging roads for their impacts to streams. RIPorter readers may recall several articles over the last 2 years about the NEDC v. Brown lawsuit (RIPorter 16.2; 15.3), which found that logging roads should be regulated and require permits as point sources of pollution under the Clean Water Act. In late May, the EPA finally released their plan to comply with the litigation. But instead of proposing a permitting process, they have proposed changing the definition of industrial practices to exclude most aspects of logging (and therefore the associated logging roads). This could enable them to avoid requiring CWA permits for logging roads. Instead, they propose to ensure roads wont damage water by depending on Best Management Practices, which are typically voluntary. For more on this story, check out our NEDC v. Brown page on our website, including a link to a fact sheet about the strengths and weaknesses of Best Management Practices. We can only hope that Big Creek moves from a great, but somewhat lonely example, to one of many examples of the proven benefits of reclaiming roads to improve water quality. Though were savoring this victory, it leaves us hungry for more.

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 Grace Brogan Journal Editor Dan Funsch Board of Directors Susan Jane Brown, Dave Heller, Marion Hourdequin, Crystal Mario, Kathi Nickel, Brett Paben, Jack Tuholske

2012 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

GrIzzly Bears Help restore Bull trout HaBItat on FlatHead natIonal Forest!
By Keith Hammer

n Montanas northwest corner, the Forest Service and Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently announced theyve succeeded in restoring the Big Creek watershed in the Flatheads North Fork, a key bull trout spawning stream. This is the first stream in Montana removed from DEQs list of impaired waters and it is truly good news! While the agencies deserve credit, grizzly bears and bull trout deserve credit too! After all, the bears insisted over 60 miles of logging roads be decommissioned in Big Creek to provide them with adequate habitat security. And bull trout and other fish insisted stream-bearing culverts be removed from those old roads to help restore the entire watershed. The story of Big Creek is about how advocacy, public education and, often, litigation are necessary to lay the foundation upon which success can be built. It begins with listening to the needs of fish and wildlife and ends with people also benefiting from habitat protection and restoration.

Grizzly bear sow and cub. Keith Hammer Photo.

Griz influence Flathead Forest Plan

Grizzly bears have been speaking out against forest roads for decades, by either dying near them or giving them the cold shoulder. Wildlife biologists studying bears use statistics to rephrase it this way: bears that linger near roads are at greater risk of being killed by people and those that avoid roadside areas to avoid people give up considerable habitat they need for survival. For bears, when it comes to roads its damned if you do and damned if you dont! Despite this, the Flathead National Forest (the majority of which is occupied by grizzly bears) issued its 1986 Forest Plan calling for increasing its road system by 50% (from 4,000 to 6,000 miles). Their Forest Plan, however, did not comport with a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) ten-year study of Grizzly Bear Ecology in the Swan Mountains. That study found that grizzly bears avoided both open roads and, because of continued human access, roads closed to vehicles with just a gate or berm. Swan

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

BIG creek restored, contd

View Coalition (SVC) and Friends of the Wild Swan (FOWS) asked the Flathead to develop standards limiting the total density of roads in bear habitat and, when it refused to work with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to do so, we turned to the federal courts, and won. As a result, in 1995 the Flathead issued Amendment 19 to its Forest Plan, laying out a ten-year plan to reduce total road densities through the reclamation of an estimated 650 miles of road. (Editors note: Wildlands CPR was largely founded on Swan View Coalitions successful work to document roads and their impacts to wildlife like griz.) Bull trout and other native fish harmed by road sediments also got their say in Amendment 19 thanks to fisheries biologists with the Flathead and FWP. Biologists included language requiring that all streambearing culverts and associated road fill must be removed when roads are reclaimed or decommissioned. Otherwise, the culverts would inevitably wash out and flush entire chunks of road downstream. Amendment 19, though initiated out of utmost concern for threatened grizzly bears, was written to benefit other wildlife like elk, as well as fish and water quality. USFWS, anticipating objections from folks who may not understand the harm forest roads cause to fish and wildlife, required the Flathead National Forest to develop and implement a public information program on the positive effects of road closures for fish and wildlife, water quality, and other Forest resources. The Flathead fell flat on its public education program. Separately, three of its former employees helped lead Montanans for Multiple Use (MFMU) in its opposition to Amendment 19.

A Bumpy road on the Way to Big creek!

To help get Amendment 19s road decommissioning off on the right foot, Swan View Coalition, Friends of the Wild Swan and Wildlands CPR hired Pacific Watersheds Associates (PWA) in 1996 to present a three-day public road decommissioning workshop at Big Creek. Though re-contouring an entire road is often our preferred method of decommissioning, the workshop focused on the more cost-efficient methods of removing culverts and re-contouring stream-side areas. Montanans for Multiple Use (MFMU) held a protest at Big Creek, objecting to the workshop and road reclamation. But a dedicated FS engineer attended the entire workshop, including a full day in the field with PWA beforehand. Soon after, the Flathead embarked on its program of hydrologic decommissioning aimed at road treatments that both provide wildlife security and protect fish and water quality. But hurdles remained. Swan View Coalition and Friends of the Wild Swan led efforts to defend the Amendment, with help from Wildlands CPR at different points along the way. We successfully jumped most of those hurdles, but also clipped a few.

Culvert wash-out on Flathead National Forest. USFS Photo.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

BIG creek restored, contd

Properly removed culvert in Big Creek. USFS Photo.

The first hurdle, and one that helped set the tone for the next decade, came in 1996 through a controversial restoration plan along the west side of Hungry Horse Reservoir. The Paint-Emery project, a collaboration between Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, and the Intermountain Forest Industries Association, paired road decommissioning with logging. The proposal was peer-reviewed, with the final report concluding that the desire to harvest timber products should be explicitly recognized here as the driving force. The peer review also stated it was unclear the extent to which road closure entails gating only, gating plus culvert removal, or reclamation/obliteration. A legitimate concern indeed. In May 1999, the Flathead attempted to -- thereafter -- leave stream-bearing culverts in decommissioned roads because it would save money while allowing the Flathead to consider the road reclaimed. Swan View Coalition and Friends of the Wild Swan filed a notice of intent to sue, reminding the Flathead that Amendment 19 requires removal of the culverts not only to protect water quality and fish, but also to provide more effective road closure for wildlife security. After consulting its attorneys, the Flathead abandoned its end-run, concluding SVC and FOWS were right. In addition, the Paint-Emery stewardship contract didnt pan out as projected. It failed to generate the funds needed to decommission the promised 116 miles of road, though the logging was completed. This is, unfortunately, not an isolated case, and acts as a reminder to why Wildlands CPR, SVC, FOWS and others continue to advocate for independent funding for road reclamation.

All of the collaborators walked away, and SVC and FOWS stepped in to pick up the slack. After nearly a dozen years of pressure, the decommissioning was finished in 2011 with stimulus funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Culverts were removed, streambeds restored, and the roads were rendered impassable to motor vehicles - this would not have been the case if simple earth berms had been installed. As a result of this reclamation in Paint-Emery, the wildlife are secure, the water quality is improved and fish passage is restored. And then came the next hurdle. In 1996 the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) threatened Amendment 19, though they had initially supported it. The Committee proposed returning to seasonal road closures for grizzly bear security, even though this ran afoul of the research. This biased attempt to gut Amendment 19 was roundly criticized by conservation groups and independent biologists alike. The attempt was finally abandoned in 2000 after a formal peer review by three independent wildlife biologists concluded that, the simplicity of A19 and its ability to permanently secure areas for grizzly bears makes it a powerful tool in the conservation of the grizzly bear. While we cleared these two hurdles, the Flathead also tried to diminish Amendment 19 by creating site specific Forest Plan amendments to reduce requirements for road decommissioning, including yet another attempt to leave culverts in, this time to facilitate winter snowmobile use. FOWS, SVC and Wildlands CPR sued against these efforts, taking our case to the Ninth Circuit. Unfortunately, in this instance, the court sided with the Forest, silencing the voices of bulltrout and grizzly bear.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

BIG creek restored, contd

Big creek and the Big Picture
Amendment 19s integrated improvements to wildlife, water quality and fish came to the rescue in Big Creek, which was listed by Montana DEQ as impaired in 1996. Big Creek was listed specifically due to increased soil erosion and sedimentation from logging and road building. Watershed restoration plans for Big Creek and other watersheds on DEQs impaired list languished, however, until a lawsuit filed by Friends of the Wild Swan and others set a timetable for establishing the plans. The Big Creek restoration plan was finalized in 2003 and, following considerable restoration work, the watershed was removed from the impaired list in 2012! Had the IGBC succeeded in stifling the voice of grizzly bears (expressed through sound research and independent peer review), all the road gates in the world would not have restored the Big Creek watershed for bull trout. That required decommissioning 61 miles of road; removing 47 culverts; replacing 19 culverts; improving 89 miles of roads to decrease storm-water runoff; re-vegetating 25 acres of eroding uplands; and improving the amount of large wood in headwater streams that feed Big Creek. Though Amendment 19 proposed this work to provide grizzly bear security, it required the removal of all stream-bearing culverts to protect and restore water quality and fish habitat! Had the Flathead gotten its way in 1999 and later simply dozed these roads shut with a berm, Big Creek might still be listed as water-quality impaired. Big Creeks restoration and removal from Montanas list of impaired waters is a success story largely because Amendment 19 remains essentially intact. Though compromised from the outset by not requiring full re-contouring, it still accomplishes the majority of watershed restoration objectives. The restoration of Big Creek was more than a simple collaboration between the Flathead and DEQ. It required citizen action, public education, litigation, and scientists maintaining their integrity to meet the needs of fish and wildlife.

continued on next page

Culvert removed, streambed restored. Paul Harvey Photo.

Kelly humps make for ineffective road closures as they are easily crossed. Road reclamation is the only sure way to increase habitat security. Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

BIG creek restored, contd

epilogue: Big Benefits to Fish, Wildlife and People
Restoring water quality in Big Creek benefits not only fish, but wildlife and people too. Road decommissioning in Big Creek continues to provide increased habitat security for threatened grizzly bear and big game species like elk. Increased habitat security benefits not only fish and wildlife, but anglers, hunters, and people looking for quiet places away from motor vehicles to hike, take photographs, swim, or soak their feet in a cool stream! But thats not all. All this work requires restoration workers. The Flathead estimates the road decommissioning contracts alone were worth some $600,000, providing much-needed high-wage, high-skill jobs. And those workers went on to buy local groceries, hardware and fuel for their crews, pickups and heavy equipment. Contractors and the people they depend on also benefited, of course, from the work provided improving drainage and stream crossings on another 89 miles of road in Big Creek, re-vegetating 25 acres of eroding uplands, and carefully placing tree trunks in headwater streams to restore and re-stabilize them. (Ideally the Flathead will complete an economic assessment of the overall benefits of this program, but they have not done so yet.) When Big Creek was first listed as impaired, the watershed contained 188 miles of logging roads compared to 150 miles of streams. Unfortunately, this situation is not uncommon. Forest-wide, over half of the Flatheads roaded watersheds contain more miles of roads than streams! Thank goodness that restoration programs like Amendment 19 simultaneously benefit fish, wildlife and people. And thank goodness Amendment 19 has thus far withstood the worst of the threats against it - many of which would have us believe watersheds suffer from too many trees instead of too many roads. Heres the lesson from Big Creek: True watershed restoration programs will persist only if we listen to the voices of fish and wildlife, protect the integrity of the research that translates those voices into scientific findings, stand up for biologists when their work is being ignored or misrepresented, and challenge their bosses when they attempt to break the law and make fish and wildlife sit in the back of the bus. Swan View Coalition and Wildlands CPR will continue to press the Forest Service to apply this lesson far and wide we hope you will, too. Keith Hammer has served as Chair of Swan View Coalition since 1984 and helped co-found Wildlands CPR.

Once the epicenter of Montanas logging industry, the Flathead is becoming more valued for its fish and wildlife resources. Photo courtesy of US Forest Service.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

get with the ProgrAm

ProgrAm UPDAtes, sUmmer soLstice 2012
By Thomas R. Petersen, Development Director

tHe Boss

s you may have noticed, our Program Update section of the RIPorter has been highlighting a particular staff persons work, be it getting our first photos of mama grizzly bears and cubs on reclaimed roads, tracking down off-road vehicle damage on horseback (or, accidentally, off horseback), or our Oregon staff teaming up and scoring some major victories. But who is behind all this? Sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes in front, is The Boss. No, not that Boss, but our own Executive Director Bethanie Walder.

Now, we dont really call her The Boss well, not often at any rate and when we do, it is pretty tongue in cheek and thats for a few reasons. First, Wildlands CPRs organizational structure is a far cry from a typical hierarchical format. With seven staff including Bethanie were a small group of peers, and as youve seen in the Program Updates, a talented group with solid experience to the extent that we do a good bit of our work independently: Sarah with our legal issues; Marlies with our Oregon and

Washington rightsizing and coalition work with the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative (WWRI); Adam Rissien with Policy; Adam Switalski with research and field crews; Grace keeping our office running effectively and efficiently as well as some social media and fundraising; and me with organizational development. And this independence is the way Bethanie, and Wildlands CPR, like it, almost require it, because it is the nature of our work and the culture of the organization. While Bethanie has regular meetings with each

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

program updates, contd

one of us, plus our regular weekly staff meetings with all of us, were kind of like golden retrievers on those stretchy leashes: we love to run and have our freedom and do go pretty far out on our own, but theres always line to bring us back so we dont stray too far. Or, in an analogy that may be a little less restrictive and a little more accurate, staff are like the spokes of a wheel and Bethanie and Wildlands CPR the center hub around which we all spin. A second reason that Wildlands CPR has an atypical structure is that Bethanie functions as a program staff in addition to an E.D. For instance, she flies to DC every quarter or so to meet directly with top Forest Service officials about rightsizing policy, or to educate decision makers about continued funding for Legacy Roads and Trails. She flies to Seattle to meet with our existing and potentially new funders. She drives to Utah (way less expensive than flying, though it is a 7 hour drive in our new car, Kenny) to meet with Forest Service staff there in Region 4 about integrated resource restoration and/or transportation planning. She participates in campaign calls to help develop strategy and otherwise engage in the multiple campaigns with which were involved. Professional, articulate, knowledgeable, and strategic, Bethanie is a main reason that those top Forest Service officials and decision-makers know about, and respect, Wildlands CPR. We dont rant and rave, and Bethanie, who ultimately is the face of Wildlands CPR, has built a reputation for reasonable, open-minded, yet firm discussions and meetings. Last, Bethanies managerial style is a fascinating combination of these two things: hands off, allowing (requiring) independence in staff, and hands on, as a small

Elizabeth Fleming, Laurie Macdonald and Bethanie Walder. Photo copyright Marcel Huijser.

organization also requires her to be directly involved in programmatic issues. Some days, for example, Bethanie and my entire conversation consists of good morning and see you tomorrow. Other times were working for two days straight on a grant proposal, e-mailing the proposal back and forth and sticking our head into the others office every fifteen minutes to clarify a certain section. But when push comes to shove, she IS the Boss. To us, and to those we work with. For instance, the Forest Service DC office responded to our little BMP censorship issue (see Our News and Views on our website of March 15, 2012) by calling Bethanie about the controversy. Funders

from Seattle, northern California, and Portland call to talk with Bethanie about specific campaigns and programs even those beyond our immediate scope of work. And have I mentioned all the administrative work? Budget? Bethanie. Working with the auditor, and bookkeeper? Bethanie. Board liaison? Bethanie. Program staff Hiring? Bethanie. You get the picture, and its a picture of incredible competence and 17 years of effectively running this small, nimble, organization, first called ROADRIP, then Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, then Wildlands CPR. The Boss? You bet. We wouldnt have it any other way.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

DePAving the wAy

oFF-road VeHIcle ManaGeMent BullIed Into suBMIssIon
By Bethanie Walder eadlines about bullying in schools are common, and many organizations are dedicated to addressing bullying and its effects. A search on the topic reveals too many resources to review, but its clear that bullying also occurs outside of schools: in academia, in the workplace, online, and politically, as more powerful political parties or countries bully the less powerful. Its also clear that bullying is perpetrated by many different types of people and entities. Whats less clear, however, are the origins and causes of this behavior. Perhaps societys failure to control school bullying is partially responsible for political bullying, and if that is the case, I can only hope that recent efforts to stop bullying in schools might pay off with more civil discourse in future generations. Though Im no expert on the subject, it seems to me that the Forest Service (FS) is a frequent victim of bullying from many constituents, and through numerous means. And while all interest groups and stakeholders can be expected to assert appropriate political pressure to influence agency decision-making, theres a point where that pressure crosses the line into intimidation and bullying. Bullying the agency takes many forms, from the mild (like threatening to violate proposed regulations to try to prevent them from being enacted) to the extreme (such as assaulting staff or bombing FS facilities e.g. the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF bombing in 1995). The Congressional oversight hearing is one form of political bullying endured by Forest Service and other agency staff. Staffers are routinely called to Capitol Hill to testify at these hearings and answer any number of pointed questions from both sides of the political aisle. Held by both the Senate and House on any topic at all, oversight hearings often devolve into polemic diatribes against the witnesses giving testimony (and by extension, the sitting administration in the case of agency staff). Unfortunately, when the victims of bullying back down, it can embolden the bully and lead to more of this behavior. Wikipedia puts it this way: for (bullying) to succeed, the bullying-cycle must also (include) a certain chronic inadequate response on the part of the target (or targets). That is, a response that is seen by both the bully and the target as insufficient to prevent the chronic bullying-cycle from repeating itself... Watching the Forest Service with this in mind, its disconcerting to see how effective bullying might be. During the past few months, the FS has been the subject, in my opinion, of some heavy-handed pressure and bullying related to off-road vehicles and travel planning. First, and as reported in the last issue of the Road-RIPorter, the agency recently faced escalating intimidation over their publication of a new A Comprehensive Framework for Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Management. The guide was published and in use when off-road vehicle organizations realized they didnt like some of the language. It appears that a collection of off-road vehicle organizations convinced Senator Barasso (R-WY) to pressure the Forest Service to pull the document, with success

continued on next page

10

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

 depaving the Way, contd

after Senator Barasso railed against Forest Service Chief Tidwell at an oversight hearing, the Forest Service pulled the guide from its website. The ORV organizations pressed the agency in public and private, focusing on two things: language in the report referring to ORV recreation as a dragon that needed to be tamed (which we agree was inappropriate), and; the inclusion in the guide of Wildlands CPRs Best Management Practices as an appendix (their opposition, in the form of letters to officials, press releases and news articles included numerous falsehoods, completely misrepresenting the data and tone of Wildlands CPRs BMPs). The second example began in March, after the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF eastern Oregon) released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on their travel plan. Initially they faced a firestorm of controversy from a small group of locals, and like the ORV Comprehensive Guide, the pressure quickly elevated to Congressional intervention, culminating in the withdrawal of the FEIS prior to a final decision. In this case, opposition to the new travel plan was fueled by misinformation, leading hundreds or thousands (depending on which news article you read) to turn out at meetings. Local conservationists, who didnt really like the plan all that much, worked hard to support the agency in their efforts to correct the misinformation, but the crowd would not be silenced. They turned out at meetings held by both Oregon Senators and a Congressman, which only added more fuel to the fire. Congressman Walden (R-OR) proposed introducing new legislation that could affect not just the Wallowa Whitman, but all Forest Service travel plans, by requiring the agency to reconsider or pull decisions if the public opposed them: an invitation to

Wildlands CPRs off-road vehicle BMP Guide became a focal point for the controversy.

bullying. The Congressman took it one step further and threatened to the cut the FS budget so they couldnt implement the travel plan. So, the WWNF pulled the plan for more review. This, for a plan that was seven years in the making and that thousands of local residents had already commented on and just didnt like the final decision. Bullies regularly use threats and intimidation to get their way, even if that way doesnt make the most economic or ecological sense. Unfortunately, intimidation works. One lesson we should learn from all this is that bullying will continue to be a problem for the Forest Service if they continue to acquiesce to bullies. While each circumstance is different, and some decisions are made to protect the safety of staff, the agency needs to stand up for its management decisions and its authority. Retreating in response to bullies only reinforces bad behavior. Of course, different stakeholders will always be pressing the agency to influence management, and every decision will make some unhappy. But if the agency has made a legally and ecologically justified decision, within the context of their management authority, then staff from the forest, regional, and national levels should defend that decision. In doing so, they would send a message to bullies that public involvement must be based on civil discourse and respect within the processes established. Applying firm pressure to influence an outcome is one thing, bullying is another, and the agency should not tolerate it.

Not all off-roaders are bullies. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

11

oDes to roADs
closInG tHe dIstance to roads
By Tom Petersen

recently attended a thesis defense of an environmental studies graduate student at the University of Montana (in fact, it was our very own Program Associate, Grace Brogan). Her thesis revolved around the idea of distancing, that is, identifying the gap that exists between product and consumerand how to close it, or at least narrow it. This includes, for instance, the distance between the food we eat and the farmer (or farm company) that produces it. Or between the jeans we wear, and where and how those jeans were made: cotton grown organically on a U.S. farm and woven in a Jersey factory? Or, more common, cotton grown with numerous pesticides, and shipped towho knows where? China? India? Cambodia? for spinning, weaving and manufacturing. Graces thesis defense reading focused on her own personal experience and exposure to distancing. How, for example, she had worked with youngsters at an arboretum trying to teach them by showing them where maple syrup comes from by tapping maple trees and processing the sap to make syrup. Oh, I get it, one youngster said to Grace, its a trees milk. Little by little. Some of these gaps are easier to narrow than others. The most common examples are the boom of farmers markets in many of our towns and cities. Just last Saturday I strolled through the Missoula Farmers Market (one of two) near the Clark Fork River. The early season brought bright lime green leaf lettuce from the Bitterroot Valley just 10 miles south of Missoula, deep forest green kale starts from the Clark Fork Organic farm in the Missoula Valley, and even some hothouse tomatoes from Paradise, Montana, a telling name for this warmer micro-climate and (very) small town at the confluence of the Clark Fork and Flathead Rivers about an hour and half northwest of Missoula. The food gap is more obvious (local vs. imported), and closing the energy gap a little less so, especially traditional energy sources of natural gas and coal. I turn up my thermostat on cold Montana winter mornings and the furnace kicks on, the natural gas from, where? I couldnt tell you, maybe some place in eastern Montana, but with energy bought and sold on a market that is mysterious to me, it could come from almost anywhere. That distance, literally, could be great. Certainly the conceptual distance Im talking

How do you get close to roads? Wildlands CPR photo.

aboutin this context trying to wrap ones head around how traditional energy markets workis greater in regard to energy than food. But solar energy, on the other hand, can narrow that gap. Collectors on your roof that help supplement your heat source are about as direct as you can get, and that distance, conceptually and physically, is a lot smaller. Thinking about closing this distancebetween lettuce eater and lettuce grower, between jean wearer and jean manufacturer, or between energy producer and energy usermade me think aboutmaybe not surprisingly for a Wildlands CPR staffroads. That is, how we can close the distance between road builders, road planners, roads themselves, and us road users. I suggest that we need to get closer to roads, not farther away.

continued on next page

12

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

odes to roads, contd

I think about a story I read from the author Gary Snyder. He describes driving through the desert of central Australia with a Pintubi elder. While narrating the landscape for Snyder, the elder suddenly began speaking rapidly about a mountain they were passing, then another hillside, then a boulder, then lizards, acacias, wallabies. Snyder writes, I realized after about half an hour of this that these were tales to be told while walking [Snyders emphasis], and that I was experiencing a speeded-up version of what might be leisurely told over several days of foot travel. So we can move slower, slow down our movement and our thinking. You know how this is: when you bike to work the same landscape you pass when driving passes by slower, gives you a closer view of your neighbors purple lilacs in bloom, or you may notice ospreys sailing over the river nearby, or even smell the musky cottonwood along the bank. How else can we get closer to roads? How do we keep closing that distance?

This is what I mean: most of us, including myself, take roads for granted. This is due in part, I think, to the ubiquitous nature of roads: they seem to be everywhere we go. They ARE everywhere we go, right? Ha! At least when were traveling via a motor: to the store, to work, to school, and yes, to that favorite trailhead, ski hill or fishing spot. When Im traveling on a road, I rarely contemplate how that road was designed, or why that road was built where it is. I just go, thinking more about my destination than how Im getting there. There is a distance, if you will, between the road and me. That distance closes somewhat when I get off a main road, say an Interstate, and onto a state or county road. Maybe it has to do with speed, or the reduction of it when Im on those smaller roads. The landscape moves by slower, and I start to see more of where Im going, and where I am, at the moment. I feel a little more connected to the world Im traveling on, and by. Get off those state and county roads to a smaller public lands road, say a Forest Service road that leads to my favorite fishing spot on a blue ribbon trout stream near my home in Missoula, (unnamed but known for its fat cutthroat trout) and that smaller road bumps and jostles me and my car to a closer attention, and even sometimes to a complete stop as I inch around a blind curve, sandwiched between the rock hard cliff and the clear cold stream just feet away down slope.

First, we can recognize that everything has impacts: the lettuce we eat, or the jeans we wear, the energy we use, and the roads we drive on. Its not, of course, that we stop using these things, (including roads; even Wildlands CPR has never advocated for no roads), but that we stop and think for a minute that what were using has impacts. Even one of the greenest companies Flathead National Forest. Photo by Adam Switalski. around, Patagonia, Inc., honestly admits that their efforts at only buying The road and I merge somewhat, the organically grown cotton and selldistance between us narrows, and as ing t-shirts with that cotton are made I get out of my car at my favorite fishing spots pullout, I instantly overseas, increasing transportation/energy costs (oil, gas) while smell the butterscotch scent of Ponderosa Pine and the sweet citrus impacting U.S. and local jobs and contributing to climate change. of Mock Orange. The footpath to the river is the only thing now that separates me from those cutthroats (or at least hopes of cutSecond, we can realize that most of the time road impactslike throats) and I can see, clearly, where this road has taken me. I can food, clothing and energy impactsare ones we cant directly see. see that its endpoint is fishing, at least for me, that day. We dont see the truck driving the lettuce from Californias central valley to the upper Midwest; we dont see the heavy pesticide use But we cant always go from major thoroughfare to county road on much of the cotton grown for our jeans; nor do we see the masto walk near streamside all in a few hours to help close the gap sive amounts of carbon dioxide produced by a coal-fired power between roads and ourselves. plant.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

13

odes to roads, contd

How do you and I close the distance to roads? What can we do? Conceptually, we can increase our understanding of the impacts of roads, and we can travel slower across the landscape to better see where were going. But how can we reduce the number of roads? After all, removing and maintaining roads take more than a pick and a shovel, and a ton of money to boot. We can choose to use roads less by biking, taking the bus, or car-pooling. When dozens do this, and then hundreds, time and time again, that decreased road use can mean less maintenance costs for roads, and even fewer roads because of the decreased public need for them. In addition, we can show up at public meetings where our land managers are deciding what roads to keep, and what roads to get rid of, and weigh in knowing the impacts of roads can be severeeven if we dont always see them. Communities growing demand for fresh, sweet lettuce closed the distance between local lettuce lovers and local growers, with farmers markets now blooming in towns and cities across the country. And a demand for well-planned, ecologically responsible roads can lead to a road system, and a distance, that is smaller. We can all help close that gap. Tom Petersen, Wildlands CPRs Development Director, is a former high-altitude Colorado truck farmer whose tasty spinach, broccoli and leaf lettuce was sold to local communities.

Similarly with roads, we dont see a perched culvert blocking upstream fish passage, we dont watch trout or salmon futilely leaping to get through that culvert, only to splash back down because it sits too high; we dont see poorly planned roads that parallel streams being cut away, sending large amounts of sediment into the stream and dirtying drinking water for downstream communities (more than 66 million Americans in 3400 communities get their drinking water from Forest Service lands). Nor do we actually see a grizzly bear or an elk turn around when they spot a road, often deterred by the human presence they have found on it. So we can drive less and move slower to help close that conceptual distance, to see more clearly our connection to travel, but simply doing that doesnt reduce the number of roads. If one old or poorly planned road can wreak havoc on a watershed by washing out, think of what three or six or ten roads can do. In 1996, for example, huge flood events damaged roads, trails, campgrounds and other facilities on the Siuslaw National Forest along the Oregon coast. Landslides and debris torrents from dozens of road and culvert failures spoiled many stream systems. How did the Siuslaw respond, how did they close the distance between roads, their impacts, and road users? They reduced the number of roads. The Siuslaw allocated $7 million (over 10 years) to fix the forests road system (using a combination of funding from the Legacy Roads and Trails fund that Wildlands CPR helped secure for the Forest Service, and other sources), by removing old or poorly planned roads, and stormproofing needed roads (upgrading them with bigger/better culverts, better drainage, etc, so they are better able to withstand storm events). And did it make a difference? No doubt about it. January 2012 was, like in 1996, an extreme winter of heavy rainfall on the Oregon Coast. Slopes gave away under the pressure of so much water, creating landslides. Roadways collapsed and other roads were closed because of water, fallen trees and branches. Travel was difficult. But because of the Siuslaws road removal and maintenance work since 1996, the Siuslaw withstood this record-breaking storm, only closing 26 miles of roads while 631 miles remained open. Key open roads on the Siuslaw provided critical connections for residents and emergency vehicles, after county and state roads were closed in the storm. In addition, sediment impacts to important coho salmon streams were reduced.

Photo by Dan Funsch.

14

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

PoLicy Primer
InteGrated resource restoratIon a neW Way to do BusIness?
By Adam Rissien n 2009 Secretary Vilsack announced a new restoration vision for the Forest Service by stressing the need to manage our national forests first and foremost to protect our water resources, while making our forests more resilient to climate change. In an effort to implement that vision, the Forest Service is testing a new budgeting approach, called Integrated Resource Restoration. The Forest Service emphasis on restoration is nothing new to those that follow agency policy. During the Bush Presidency, many projects in the western United States focused on restoring fire-adapted ecosystems and increasing forest resiliency, albeit with timber harvest as a key tool. That emphasis on vegetative management raised many questions as to what qualifies as real restoration, and we still struggle with this conundrum. (click here). However, with Secretary Vilsacks announcement, Wildlands CPR hoped the Forest Service would shift to a more holistic restoration approach: one that will emphasize clean water and ecologicallybased watershed restoration. The creation of the Legacy Roads & Trails Program, the Watershed Condition Framework, and a commitment to rightsize the road system bolstered our hope and illustrated how the agency is focusing more on increasing watershed integrity than ever before. Unfortunately, these efforts need significant funding from Congress, an unlikely scenario given the current trend of declining federal budgets. So in order to better focus limited dollars and provide greater flexibility for managers to conduct restoration work, the Forest Service proposed a new way to do business the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program. We reported on this in the RIPorter in 2010 and 2012, but in this Policy Primer we take a closer look at the programs structure and performance measures.

Will IRR be able to repair the Forest Services damaged approach to restoration funding? Photo by Dan Funsch.

irr History and structure

The Forest Service describes IRR as follows: The NFRR [National Forest Resource Restoration] budget line item (BLI) brings together key management resources necessary for maintaining and restoring ecosystem function under one umbrella and directs funding to achieve priority work in the most important places. (Final Program Direction, p.14-22).

IRR first appeared in the Presidents FY11 budget, but Congress was skeptical for multiple reasons, ranging from cost, to accountability, to shifting priorities, to how the agency would track accomplishments and outcomes. In response, the Administration proposed a revised IRR for FY12 and Congress eventually adopted a three-region pilot, rather than an across the board national budgetary shift. The pilot includes the Northern (R1), Southwest (R3), and Intermountain (R4) Regions.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

15

policy primer, contd

Traditionally, the Forest Service funds restoration projects through multiple programs, each with their own BLI and target. For example, a project to stabilize a stream bank, decommission a road, treat weeds and thin a tree stand would use funds from three or four different BLIs. Under IRR, instead of utilizing several individual line items, an individual forest would pay for this through the new, combined IRR line item. The Forest Service combined the following line items/programs to create IRR: Timber Products Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Management Vegetation & Watershed Management Hazardous Fuels Non-Wildland Urban Interface Legacy Roads & Trails

irr on the ground

If IRR becomes permanent, the agency will no longer have specific budgets tied to set targets, rather they will have a suite of performance measures and targets that must all be met with IRR funding. The Forest Service identified the following specific restoration performance measures: Number of watersheds moved to an improved condition class Miles of road decommissioned Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience Volume of timber sold

By combining different funding programs, the Forest Service has created greater flexibility to use its budget. For example, the agency has previously received specific funds to produce timber, but under IRR the money that was pooled in from the timber budgetary line item could pay for any IRR activity, including road decommissioning or prescribed burning. This also works the other way; Legacy Roads & Trails funding could end up paying for timber harvests.

In conjunction with the national agenda for accelerated restoration, the Washington office has set aggressive targets for both timber volume and road decommissioning mileage under the pilot. Based on our conversations with the pilot regions, both are significantly increased. While were pleased about decommissioning more unneeded roads, were concerned about increasing timber volume targets. Because IRR is now the only line item in the pilot regions, all projects should, theoretically, fit within the IRR programs restoration purpose. For the first few years, however, the agency will have to use projects that were already in the works prior to the IRR authority. Thus regardless of whether a project is based on ecological restoration principles, it will be implemented through IRR. We expect it would take a minimum of three years to see the agency shift the scope of work to more fully meet the proposed objectives of the IRR. Ideally, several newer agency tools will help set those future IRR restoration priorities. For example, the Watershed Condition Framework, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the road rightsizing effort are all planning frameworks that can identify restoration needs. As an example, one performance measure outlined above is the improvement of watershed condition classes this is directly tiered to the Watershed Condition Framework (click here for more information). Similarly, road decommissioning mileage is directly tiered to rightsizing analyses. Many of the treatments to improve a watersheds condition class may also count towards other IRR targets (e.g. decommissioning roads, thinning to reduce fire risk, treating weeds, or restoring or enhancing stream habitat).

And we thought city streets were expensive to maintain! Photo by Dan Funsch.

continued on next page

16

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

policy primer, contd

All of these options are part of an effort to focus limited dollars on areas most in need of restoration treatments. It remains unclear, however, how IRR funding will be prioritized. Will it be more important to meet one performance measure (e.g. timber harvest) than another? Will they focus on watersheds that need only a small amount of work to move up to a higher watershed condition rather than focusing on more important ecological priorities? Will timber sales that have no ecological restoration value still be offered through the IRR to ensure the agency meets their timber targets? For example, would a 40-acre clearcut in a high-elevation lodgepole pine stand really be considered restoration? The agency has also identified acres of watershed treated to sustain or restore function and resiliency as a performance measure. As with our concerns above, acreage treated could become another euphemism for timber harvest. This acreage treated performance measure includes a variety of activities under nine secondary targets: Timber Sale Treated Acres Forest Vegetation Improved Forest Vegetation Established Range Vegetation Improved Soil & Water Resource Improvements Invasive Plants Noxious Weeds on Federal Acres Habitat Enhancements Terrestrial Habitat Enhancements Lakes Forest Products Fuels Non Wildland Urban Interface (Final Program Direction, p.14-25).

Find Out MOre

The Forest Service is hosting a free webinar to introduce the IRR program to stakeholders. The webinar will be on July 16 from 2:00-3:30 eastern time. It will be recorded and available for review after the event if you are not able to attend. They have 200 spots available. Sign up early to learn more about how the agency envisions implementing this program and to ask your own questions about what it will mean for your national forest. To reserve your spot, click here.

testing the premise (evaluation)

This new Integrated Resource Restoration program offers both cautions and opportunities. IRR could result in more projects that upgrade culverts, stabilize stream banks, or decommission roads. It could also result in more timber harvesting both to meet true ecological restoration objectives and simply to meet targets. The IRR pilot forests have much to prove. Each region will have to tell a compelling story that not only reports accomplishments, but also demonstrates if and how IRR achieved real restoration outcomes if the pilot is to become the new funding model for the entire agency. They must also assess the challenges that arose as a result of the new IRR authority to clearly articulate the costs and benefits of such a shift. However, we cannot rely on the agencys story alone. Those tracking IRR in each region will need to evaluate specific projects and the program as a whole to see if they meet true restoration goals such as rightsizing the road system or implementing priority watershed action plans. Ultimately, IRR may result in cleaner water, better functioning habitat and increased overall ecological integrity of our national forests. It could also be a new name to an old saw where traditional timber sales are simply called restoration; it will take diligent research to make this determination. One thing is sure, we need full agency disclosure and detailed reporting in order to make any conclusions.

Accounting for, and controlling the spread of, user-created routes is a costly management challenge. How effective IRR is in dealing with this problem remains to be seen. Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

17

new resoUrces
nedc V. BroWn/ clean Water act
Weve recently added a new resource to our website consolidating all of the information related to the NEDC v. Brown case and the associated political and legal challenges. Well be regularly updating the page as changes occur, so please keep an eye on this to keep up to date about the status of the case and how it is affecting the Clean Water Act. Visit www.wildlandscpr. org/content/nedc-v-brown.

neW orV report released

Responsible Trails America (RTA) recently released a new report about state regulations related to off-road vehicles: Visible Identification of Off-Road Vehicles: A Trend Toward a Uniform Standard. The report focuses on visible identification which, they argue, solves one of the biggest remaining obstacles to preventing illegal ORV useidentifying the rider. Its nice to see that only 9 states received a failing grade (F), while 12 received an A. Theyve also separately posted an interactive state-by-state map thats not included in the report itself. RTA produced a similar report in 2011, the first of its kind. The report is an update, detailing how state laws have changed and progressed (or regressed) over the past year. In addition to their overviews and summaries, they walk through the specific laws in each individual state, so you can very easily learn about how your state is regulating this off-road vehicle issue. Its worth a look.

roads are Hot WItH our partners!

It seems that roads have been a focus area for several of our partners over the last few months. Check these out: Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative: Y2Y Newsletter Conservation Northwest: Roads and Wildlife.

ecotrust detaIls restoratIon BeneFIts

A new report released by Ecotrust takes a look at the many benefits of restoration: from tangible improvements in ecological health to the less easily measured socioeconomic ripples. With an Oregon case study that spanned nearly a decade, Ecotrust documented over $100 million in economic outputs resulting from about half that amount in expenditures. They estimated between 616 and 865 jobs were created in the process. Visit this link to read a blog on the report: http://blog.ecotrust.org/digging-deeperon-restoration-jobs/

Restored road on the Kootenai National Forest, Montana. Photo by Adam Switalski.

18

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

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.

WIldlands cpr updates key researcH tool

By Sophia Vernholm

introduction
ildlands CPR recently updated our road and off-road vehicle bibliographic database, and the online, searchable database now stands at more than 22,000 entries! The database contains citations and their accompanying abstracts for thousands of journal articles, government reports, and conference proceedings, along with numerous other sources of information. Below we provide background on the database and a sample of what you can find in it, along with instruction on how to conduct a search.
We all know that culverts are ugly, but if youd like to know why they are so destructive to water quality and fisheries, consult Wildlands CPRs bibliographic database. Photo by Dan Funsch.

the original creation of the Database

Wildlands CPR is dedicated to promoting science-based public lands management. Key to this goal is providing easy access to the most recent scientific research regarding the impacts of roads and motorized recreation on wildlife and many other topics. More than 15 years have passed since Wildlands CPR first developed the database to provide essential information to public and private land managers, decision-makers, environmental advocacy organizations, and the general public. A compilation of pertinent articles, reports, and literature, the database is designed to help decision-makers and land managers make informed, science-based decisions. It is also intended to help empower the public and advocacy organizations who engage on these issues.

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

19

Biblio notes, contd

In 1995, Wildlands CPR (then ROAD-RIP) partnered with distinguished conservation biologist Reed Noss to assemble a bibliography of literature discussing the ecological effects of roads. Since then, this bibliography has been updated every two years to ensure all newly published material is available to agencies and the public. The database is built from source databases including biological, ecological, natural resource, agricultural, and environmental databases. In 2012 we used 17 primary key words and 89 secondary descriptor words.

Wildlands CPRs remote cameras are verifying what many research studies have also shown: that many species of wildlife make use of reclaimed roads.

This years update added approximately 2,000 citations to the database, increasing the overall number to more than 22,000. The impact of roads on the environment, wildlife, and air and soil quality continues to be a concern in the U.S., and increasingly for many countries worldwide. From the harmful effects of de-icing salts, to the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures, to the potential environmental benefits of a high speed rail system, to an increase of asthma, blood pressure, and certain cancers in humans due to their proximity to roads, the database contains a wide array of citations about road and motorized recreation impacts. Browsing the citations alone can be quite fascinating as well as educational. Here are some examples of research articles recently added to the database: Wolves studied in Finland were shown to use roads and low-use linear elements for transportation but avoided high-use roads and areas of high human habitation. However, the presence of low use or high-use linear elements appeared to have little to no effect on the success of hunting and pup rearing (Gurarie et al. 2011). While high speed railway systems are meant to reduce dependence on conventional transportation there are concerns about how they will affect the environment. The proximity of the tracks to sensitive ecosystems must be considered as well as how to minimize disruptions to the environment and communities that will suddenly have trains speeding through at 220 miles per hour (Goodman 2010).

continued on next page

20

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

Biblio notes, contd

Highway crossing structures have been proven to be quite effective in alleviating fragmentation of the habitats of many species. However, overpasses and tunnels arent effective for every species. Flying squirrels are one such example. Recently, wooden crossing poles were erected in areas of busy highways and high squirrel population so that flying squirrels can glide across and reconnect with populations on the other side of the highway (Kelly 2011). It has long been known that de-icing salts have a detrimental effect on areas immediately adjacent to roadways. Recent studies have shown that the application of de-icing salts are actually affecting a much broader area for a much longer time period than originally thought. The concentrations of road salts in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are shown to adversely affect organisms during sensitive life stages such as reproduction (Findlay and Kelly 2011).

ple, if you want to search roads and vegetation but not heavy metals, type roads vegetation into the first field and then heavy metals (with quotation marks) into the second. The quotation marks will instruct the search to exclude all results that contain the phrase heavy metals, and these results will not be displayed.

It is important to remember that this database does not provide access to the full-text articles themselves, but instead is a compilation of citations and abstracts. To find the actual article, you have to take the citation as provided and track down the article itself. Google Scholar and university collections are two of the best places to locate the full-text articles.

conclusion
This bibliographic database is a great resource for anyone interested in the effects roads and motorized recreation have on our wildlife, our landscapes, and our health. The breadth of information and collection of citations offered in this resource is unique. Contact Adam Switalski, Science Program Director, if you have additional questions or for more information about the database. Sofie Vernholm is an undergraduate at the University of Montana studying Resource Conservation and Wilderness Studies.

searching the Database

To access the database, simply click here or open the Wildlands CPR website: www.wildlandscpr.org. Choose the Resources Page (on the top of the screen), and then Bibliographic Database (on the sidebar to the left). This opens up the search form, which operates like most standard on-line search tools. The first field is for the words you want to search, separated by a space. For example, if you want to search roads and vegetation, type roads vegetation into the field and all citations containing roads and vegetation will display. There is an exclusion option which limits your results. To exclude a term, simply type it into the second field. For exam-

reFerences
Findlay, S.E.G., and V.R. Kelly. 2011. Emerging indirect and long-term road salt effects on ecosystems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1223: 58. Goodman, J. 2010. Not So Fast. Governing 23. (8): 21-26. Gurarie E. et al. 2011. Summer movements, predation and habitat use of wolves in human modified boreal forests. Journal of Oecologia 165: 891. Kelly, C. 2011. Flying squirrels successfully using crossing structures. Wildlife in North Carolina 75(1): 36.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

21

AroUnD the office

he weathers been a bit crazy this spring, including both unseasonable highs and lows as we bounce our way to summer. But at least the roller-coaster weather hasnt stopped us from getting out in the field and starting up a host of summer field projects

Welcome

water will be conducting photo monitoring again this summer on the Clearwater National Forest. In addition, Bob Ward and Phil Knight, who both participated in our 2011 monitoring projects, will be helping us keep that research going on the Gallatin and Helena National Forests this summer. In other words, weve got a lot of folks out there collecting data around the forests in the northern region this summer keep an eye on Get with the Program in the next issue of the RIPorter to find out more about what we learned.

Were pleased to welcome two new field crews for this summer. First, Kagan Kaszuba and Jason Blakney started a six-month field season with us in early May, conducting field inventories on Lolo National Forest roads. Their field work is part of a five-year partnership weve entered into with the Lolo National Forest. Were also pleased to report that Kendall Four Seasons Subaru made a significant donation toward the purchase of a 2010 new to us Subaru Forester to use for this partnership. Jason comes to us from the University of Idaho, while Kagan recently finished his studies at the University of Montana. We also entered into a second agreement with the Lolo National Forest to monitor the effectiveness of road reclamation work in the Southwest Crown of the Continent Collaborative Forest Restoration Project. Cody Steckly and Sophia Vernholm will start working on this project in June, with a three-month field season. (Sophia just completed our bibliographic database update, as well, see pages 19-20.) This field project is related to the Legacy Roads and Trails monitoring that weve previously implemented in the Northern Region, and Cody will be working a few extra hours to keep tabs on that previous research. Were delighted to have both crews on board for the summer and look forward to seeing the results of their work. Were also happy to welcome back several volunteers and partnerships related to that Legacy Roads and Trails monitoring from the past. Friends of the Clear-

thanks

A big thank you to Missoulas Kendall Four Seasons Subaru, as mentioned above, for donating 1/3 of the price of a nearly new Subaru Forester for our field work. We had a great open house here at our office to promote the Lolo National Forest partnership and to thank Kendall Four Seasons for their sponsorship. Wed also like to thank Cinnabar, MUSE, Northwest Fund for the Environment, and Patagonia for their support for our work. And another thank you to all of you who donated to our email fundraiser in March and April your support is critical to our continued success.

Wildlands CPR photo.

22

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

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 Phone 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:

Individual/Family

Organization

Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account

$5/Month $10/Month $20/Month other

Payment Option #2: Credit Card Pledge

$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: _______________________________

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!

The Road-RIPoRTeR, summeR solsTIce 2012

23

Lower Canyon Creek, north end of the East Pioneer Mountains, Montana. Photo by Bob Clark.