Spring Equinox 2007. Volume 12 No.

Citizen Scientists Making Good Inside…

A Look Down the Trail, by
Bethanie Walder. Page 2
Conducting a Successful Citizen Monitoring Program on Conducting a Successful Citizen
the Clearwater National Forest Monitoring Program on the
Clearwater National Forest,
by Anna Holden. Pages 3-5
By Anna Holden
Odes to Roads: Dipnets and the
Devil’s Own Invention, by
Susan Cerulean. Pages 6-7
Policy Primer: Stewardship End
Result Contracting, by Carol
Daly. Pages 8-9
DePaving the Way, by Bethanie
Walder. Pages 10-11
Wildland CPR’s Annual Report.
Pages 12-13
Get with the Program:
Restoration, Transportation,
& Science Updates. Pages
14-15
Citizen Spotlight: Karen Boeger
and Dan Heinz, by Cathy
Adams. Pages 16-17
Biblio Notes: Beyond Vegetation
Students from Kamiah Middle School, Leah York’s Ecology class: Photo by Anna Cover as a Measure of
Holden. Restoration Success, by
Sara Simmers. Pages 18-20
Regional Reports & Updates.
Page 21
Around the Office, Membership
Info. Pages 22-23

Check out our

website at: www.
Student volunteers tracking animals. Photo by Adam Switalski.
Photo by Anna Holden.
wildlandscpr.org
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
Change is in the air… (406) 543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org

I
n late 2006, contemplating numerous opportunities to expand our work, Wildlands Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore
CPR underwent a strategic restructuring. Unlike corporate speak, this is not a euphe- wildland ecosystems by preventing and
mism for downsizing – we’re actually expanding, and we’re really excited about it! Not removing roads and limiting motorized
only are we expanding, but we redefined several existing jobs at Wildlands CPR, again,
recreation. We are a national clearinghouse
to take advantage of opportunities in both our restoration and transportation programs.
and network, providing citizens with tools
The result is the following: We will now have the equivalent of four full-time staff working
and strategies to fight road construction,
on off-road vehicles, and the equivalent of three full-time staff working in our restoration
deter motorized recreation, and promote road
program.
removal and revegetation.
As we went to press, we were finishing the hiring process for two new “State ORV Director
Coordinators,” based in Utah and Montana. There are six other State Coordinators, Bethanie Walder
housed in six other organizations (in CO, CA, OR/WA, AZ/NM, ID, and NV). All of the state
Development Director
coordinators are responsible for working with grassroots activists, agencies and others
Tom Petersen
to ensure the best possible travel plans as the Forest Service implements its 2005 travel
planning rule. While we have implemented some very successful pilot projects “on-the-
Communications
ground,” this will be the first time Wildlands CPR has dedicated staff to place-based work. Coordinator
So with our MT and UT coordinators we’ll engage in a new way, which will open up a Jason Kiely
series of challenges and opportunities for us.
Restoration Program
In addition to our State Coordinators, we have redefined our Transportation Policy Coordinator
Coordinator Position. Our new Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator will be re- Marnie Criley
sponsible for three key things: 1) coordinating the travel planning litigation of all eight
Science Coordinator
State Coordinators; 2) developing a training program to provide agency staff with tools
Adam Switalski
for implementing effective travel plans, and; 3) providing rapid response services to folks
working on travel planning outside of the west, and also providing policy assistance on Legal Liaison/Agency
off-road vehicle issues not related to travel planning.
Training Coordinator
Sarah Peters
Finally, we’ve created a new Communications Coordinator position at Wildlands
CPR, which will be filled by Jason Kiely. Jason will be splitting his time 50-50 between Program Assistant
our restoration and transportation programs. On the restoration side, he’ll be creating Cathy Adams
a “brand” around the concept of restoration, both within Montana and beyond. On the
transportation side, he’ll be helping the State Coordinators with the media components of Montana State ORV
their campaigns. And over all, he’ll be helping Wildlands CPR get the word out about our Coordinator
good work. Adam Rissien

What does this mean, you might be wondering, for the Natural Trails and Waters Newsletter
Coalition? The Coalition will continue to provide travel planning and internal commu- Dan Funsch
nications resources for activists working on travel planning (and Wildlands CPR will be
coordinating this effort), but it will play a much less public role on these issues. The Interns & Volunteers
Wilderness Society will be assuming that public role, with the creation of a Recreation Mike Fiebig, Laura Harris, Noah Jackson,
Planning Program. They’ll be coordinating the efforts of the State Coordinators, and pro- Andrea Manes, Gini Porter
viding national guidance on transportation planning. We’ll be working closely with them,
including, as mentioned above, coordinating the litigation strategy and providing some Board of Directors
communications resources. Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William
Geer, Dave Havlick, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson,
Sonya Newenhouse, Patrick Parenteau
Here’s the bottom line: as of 2007, the conservation community has far greater capac-
ity to address transportation planning on national forest lands, and Wildlands CPR has Advisory Committee
a significant portion of that increased capacity. With every national forest expecting to Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
adopt a revised travel plan by 2010, this increased investment is critical, and we’re look- Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
ing forward to taking full advantage of our new structure. Don’t hesitate to get in touch Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lind-
ner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie
with us if you have any questions about this effort. Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak,
Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
© 2007 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Citizen Scientists Making Good
Conducting a Successful Citizen Monitoring Program on
the Clearwater National Forest
By Anna Holden

Road Decommissioning on the Clearwater

I
n the winter of 1995-1996, right on schedule with predicted historical
records, the Clearwater National Forest (ID) experienced a dramatic
rain-on-snow event that caused extensive flooding and more than 900
landslides. Due to a legacy of logging and associated roading, some areas
on the Clearwater had road densities as high as 40 miles per square mile.
These roads were the cause of more than half of the 900 landslides in the
region in ’95-’96, several of which literally carried area residents’ homes off
the mountains.

The Clearwater National Forest (CNF) responded quickly, acquiring

emergency federal funds from Congress to begin an extensive road decom-
missioning program with the help of the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). To date,
the agency, in partnership with the tribe, has removed more than 600 miles
of unused, unsafe and ecologically harmful roads.

Road decommissioning on the CNF provides high-wage jobs for local

contractors, whose work restores watershed integrity and reduces the
likelihood and severity of future landslides. But not everyone under-
stands either how road removal works, or why it is important. So the CNF Anna Holden in the field. Photo by
conducted extensive outreach in the local communities to build under- Adam Switalski.
standing of and support for this form of watershed restoration. However,
budget cutbacks in the Forest Service haven’t allowed the CNF or the NPT
to conduct extensive monitoring on the decommissioned roads. In addi-
tion, there isn’t much peer-reviewed scientific research about the effects of
road decommissioning on wildlife, vegetation or stream integrity.

Wildlands CPR recognized both the extraordinary nature of the CNF/

NPT restoration program, and the importance of monitoring that work. In
2004 Wildlands CPR received a generous grant from the National Forest
Foundation that enabled us to begin working with the CNF and NPT to ex-
pand their efforts by creating the first citizen monitoring program to focus
on road removal as a key form of watershed restoration.

Extensive road building and

logging through the 1980’s and
90’s left the Clearwater vulnerable
to catastrophic erosion. Aerial
photo at left shows excessive
road densities (Wildlands CPR
file photo). Photo at right shows
a failed culvert (photo by Bill
Haskins).
— story continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 3

 — Citizen Science, continued from page 2 —

What is Citizen Science?

Citizen science is simply the incorporation of volunteers into the plan-
ning, data collection, or analysis of a scientific project. In addition to col-
lecting data, there are many benefits of citizen science, both to the organi-
zation in charge and the communities involved. Organizations or agencies
can reduce their resource costs, educate non-scientists, and begin to build
trust between agencies, conservation organizations and citizens. Citizen
scientists gain an understanding of the project and issues surrounding it,
giving them the opportunity to be an educational source for other citizens
in their community. Over time, citizen science projects can lead to far
greater community understanding of natural resource management issues.

The overall goals of Wildlands CPR’s monitoring project are twofold:

to collect much needed data about the short and long-term effects of road
removal as a watershed restoration tool, and to increase local community
understanding of, and support for, watershed restoration. During the first
year of the program, Katherine Court, a University of Montana graduate
student, developed and tested research methods for citizen scientists to
collect data on road removal. We also contracted with wildlife biologist
Sue Townsend to develop some of our wildlife protocols, which include
using remotely-triggered cameras to photograph large fauna in action, and
baited track plates to collect the footprints of smaller critters (see Road
RIPorter 10:2). In addition, we developed protocols for vegetation samples
to identify noxious weed problems. For stream integrity, we developed
macro-invertebrate sampling techniques and adopted the Wolman Pebble
count to measure stream sediment (see Road RIPorter 9:4).
Organizing Citizen Scientists
Once the protocols were completed and peer-reviewed, we began
organizing local people to conduct the monitoring. We recruited individu-
als and groups of volunteers through meetings with local schools, conser-
vation groups, and fishing organizations. I was hired last year to organize
more citizen scientists for the project, specifically targeting the hard-to-re-
cruit rural areas along Highway 12 in Idaho. Beginning in February of 2006,
I taught high school classes in Orofino and Kamiah. In May, I took these
students into the field and we conducted both wildlife and vegetative
monitoring. The students were very enthusiastic and seemed happy to be
doing something constructive and out of the classroom, especially when I
tied the activities to their favorite local activities — hunting and fishing.
I also presented to local fishing and conservation groups including the
Three Rivers Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Clearwater Flycasters, and
Friends of the Clearwater. While not
all presentations were met with en-
thusiasm, and some with downright
skepticism, I did have some suc-
cess. Friends of the Clearwater,
based out of Moscow,
Idaho, gave us the
support of their
student intern,
Adrienne
Boland, who Student volunteers found these tracks, left by a fisher
took over using one of the decommissioned roads.
A curious moose is captured on film by one of
the remote monitoring cameras.
our monitoring site in the Moscow area. Adri-
enne recruited her own volunteers and took
groups into the field.
The Clearwater Flycasters provided consis-
tent volunteers from the Moscow and Troy areas
— at last we had found a regular, dedicated
group of volunteers. Cliff Swanson, a Clearwater
Flycaster and return volunteer, understood the
importance of participating in citizen science.
“As a retired mathematics teacher it was excit-
ing to see science and math used in a real world
setting. It made me feel good to help with a
project that will have an impact on future resto-
ration practices.”
Over the course of the 2006 field season 60
volunteers contributed more than 400 hours
of monitoring on the CNF — the most volun-
teer hours yet! This brought our grand total
of volunteers to 125 contributing nearly 1000
hours of time. In addition to adult volunteers,
we collected data with students from Hellgate
High in Missoula, Montana, Orofino and Kamiah
High Schools in Idaho, and groups and individu-
als from the University of Montana, University
of Idaho, and Washington State University in
Pullman, WA.

4 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Data Collection
During our first full monitoring season in 2005, citizen scientists
successfully recorded tracks or photos of bear, deer, elk, moose, squir-
rels, chipmunks, mice, and voles. They also sampled three streams and
conducted vegetation samples on decommissioned roads. Katherine and
Adam Switalski, Wildlands CPR’s Science Coordinator, presented these re-
sults and the project in general at the International Conference on Ecology
and Transportation (ICOET) in San Diego, CA. Their poster presentation
was well-received and generated interest from peers in the field of road
ecology.
In 2006, we engaged university students to help us with the data
analysis. An undergraduate environmental studies class at the University
of Montana, led by Dr. Vicki Watson, conducted the initial analysis of all of
our 2006 monitoring data. The study design included three paired moni-
toring sites on open and decommissioned roads. The students found that
bears are using decommissioned roads significantly more than open roads.
While all our sites on decommissioned roads captured photos of bears,
remotely triggered cameras on open roads found none. Our monitoring
is the first study to show with statistical significance that road decommis-
sioning is restoring bear habitat.
On the Palouse Ranger District, we had a different study design and
were testing whether the distance from an open road affected wildlife use.
We found six bears 1 mile from the open road, three bears 2/3 mile from
the open road, and no bears 1/3 mile from the road. This is a very impor-
tant finding as it appears that more bears use decommissioned roads as
there is an increased level of security (i.e., further from an open road). A
management implication may be that decommissioning several small road
spurs is not as effective for protecting bears as decommissioning one
longer road section.
“As a retired mathematics teacher it was exciting to
see science and math used in a real world setting.
It made me feel good to help with a project that will
have an impact on future restoration practices.”
— Cliff Swanson, volunteer
Next Steps
Over the last three years the program has adapted to increase its
effectiveness. Due to the success of the classroom lessons and field day,
Wildlands CPR has expanded our school-based efforts for 2007, hiring
Mike Fiebig to work exclusively with schools in rural Idaho. In Missoula
and Moscow, we have hired AmeriCorps volunteers to organize at farm-
ers markets, volunteer fairs, and other events. We have added field sites
to increase our sample size and the scientific strength of the study. We
have also expanded our citizen monitoring to the Swan Valley (MT) and
are seeking funding with the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project to create
another citizen monitoring program in Colorado.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
Decommissioned roads are not only used by wildlife
— they offer access for quiet recreation. Photo taken by
remote monitoring camera.
We have been accepted to present our re-
sults at next year’s Ecological Society of America
/ Society for Ecological Restoration’s joint meet-
ing in San Jose, CA. We have also been accepted
for presentation at this year’s International Con-
ference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET)
in Little Rock, AR this summer. In addition, we
have plans to present this work to members of
the communities surrounding the CNF.
Conclusion
Collecting information on the benefits of
road removal will help support continued road
removal efforts undertaken by the Forest Ser-
vice and Nez Perce Tribe. Moreover, it will also
help build community support for this critical
form of watershed restoration. As our project
trains new citizen scientists and takes them into
the field, many will likely be inspired to help
protect and restore the Clearwater’s forested
landscapes. My role as project leader has been
rewarded by new friendships, joyful memories,
and the knowledge that our efforts are making a
difference. We expect to build upon our suc-
cesses through the program, while rebuilding
the ecological integrity of the Clearwater.
— Anna Holden is an Environmental Studies
graduate student at the University of Montana.
She was raised in Logan, Utah, by passionate
outdoor enthusiasts who showed her that the
answer to most questions could be found in
nature.
5
Dipnets and the Devil’s Own Invention
By Susan Cerulean
Editor’s note: This is a condensed version of an essay that appears in our
book: “A Road Runs Through It.”
F
or nearly forty years, renowned Tallahassee herpetologist Dr. Bruce
Means has seined and dipnetted and cataloged the vertebrate life
of more than 266 unique, ephemeral ponds that dot this landscape
just south of Tallahassee. Rare and threatened amphibians, including the
striped newt and the gopher frog (both designated candidates as feder-
ally threatened species), have struck an evolutionary deal with the ponds’
ever-changing water levels, which can include going bone-dry for several
years at a stretch. These animals and quite a few others actually depend
on periodic dry-downs to eliminate fish and other aquatic predators from
the ponds. In addition, at least ten of Florida’s twenty-seven species of
native frogs utilize temporary ponds almost exclusively — four in the very
coldest time of the winter and six in the summer months.
But Bruce Means has told me that illegal off-road motoring continues
to threaten the very existence of the newts and salamanders and frogs that
live here. The U.S. Forest Service rules allow motor vehicles only on estab-
lished trails within the national forest. Resource damage, which includes
driving in or near ponds, is prohibited. When I met with Means in his tiny
Tallahassee office, he ran through a set of slides he took of a single pond
during the last nine years. The first slide showed an undisturbed wetland,
so thickly vegetated that I couldn’t really tell where the forest stopped
and the pond began. “There was very little off-highway vehicle use of the
sandhills in the national forest when I began my study,” said Means. “But
all of sudden, about six years ago, boom. Here comes all these OHVs.
Precipitously.”
He told me that what protected the Apalachicola National Forest up
until that point was unlimited public access to the commercial paper
company lands to the east. In 1998, those private roads were gated and
posted by hunting clubs, which had leased the hunting rights and now
excluded trespassers.
It was the Forest that took the overflow of displaced OHV riders.
“And it’s the very ponds the rarest animals live in that these idiots
have been destroying with their mudbogging and joyriding activity!” he
said. The last slide in his series showed a forty-or fifty-foot swath of mud-
dy destruction around the perimeter of the sampling pond. I don’t need
further convincing; it’s clear that very little could survive in that war zone.
“What’s really scary is the way these guys love to motor around and
around these ponds, totally destroying the littoral vegetation, the under-
pinning of the whole system,” said Means.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
An intact ephemeral pond. Photo by Susan Cerulean.
• • • •
The first pond I visit this morning looks
more like a grassy bowl than a wetland. The
standing water at the center is less than eight
feet across and a mere four inches deep. It’s so
small I can almost encircle it with my arms. But
the surface of the water thrums with life. Each
pass of my net yields a scattering of dragonfly
nymphs and a dozen tadpoles with bronze ro-
bust bellies and delicately marbled tails. I wish I
knew their names. My field guide only illustrates
the adult frogs, doesn’t distinguish between
the tadpoles. As I kneel by the tiny wetland, I
can clearly see its seasonal range of movement
between the tall pines and arching oaks at its
perimeter to this remnant pool at the center.
I think about the dissolution of subsurface
limestone that caused the ground to slump and
create this mild saucer. In other places, where
the ground sinks too much and dips into the
underground aquifer, I remember Means saying,
a permanent water body will be formed, creating
an entirely different environment.
.....
I get back on my bike and continue deeper
into the forest. There’s a big pond on my left,
and I push my bike through the palmetto under-
story to the water’s edge. I see deer tracks in
the sand, and one white egret, and a turtle strok-
ing off through the grasses. This pond is much bigger than the previous
two—must be five or more acres--and it’s ringed with a sandy beach that
sparkles with shattered bits of green and brown beer bottles.
.....
But what appears to be a perfectly natural sand beach encircling this
pond and so many others in the forest is an artifact, I realize, of past OHV
traffic and a goodly number of parties. As beautiful as they might seem,
they are actually scars in the once-continuous sandhill fabric. Vehicle tires
have destroyed the vegetation that grew here and ground down ruts that
trap and kill newts, salamanders and their larvae as the ponds season-
ally recede. The wide, sandy trails remain desertlike barriers for the tiny
newts and other rare creatures attempting to move between pond and for-
est, as they must, to complete their intricate life cycles. “These sand rings
should not exist,” says Bruce Means.
In March 2004, in response to documentation of the damage to
sandhill ponds on the forest provided by Means and the Friends of the
Apalachicola, the U.S. Forest Service closed about 6,500 acres to off-road
vehicles. A story with a happy ending, right? Scientist shares lifework,
persuades federal administrators to permanently protect sensitive areas,
isn’t that how it works? Unfortunately, and unbelievably — given what’s at
risk — the closure is most likely only temporary. Although the Forest Ser-
vice’s plan for the national forests in Florida changed access for motorized
vehicles and bicycles by prohibiting cross-country travel, and established
a few restricted areas where travel will be limited to designated roads and
trails only, we are still awaiting a final access decision that designates a
system of roads and trails within the restricted areas. The document is
four years late and appears to be in the hands of Forest Service recreation
planners with close ties to the OHV community, rather than the biologists
and natural resource specialists who ought to be laying out the needs
of the forest’s sensitive species as an immutable baseline from which all
other decisions should be made.
“In the meantime,” says Walter Tschinkel, another longtime forest re-
searcher and president of the Friends of the Apalachicola National Forest,
“the temporary restricted area closures and the ban against cross-country
travel are violated right and left, and with only two law enforcement offi-
cials on the whole 500,000-acre forest, the riders grow more confident and
brazen every day. I think these machines are the devil’s own invention.”
.....
There’s another solution than trail designation that some land man-
agers believe could mitigate this problem of trying to integrate off-road
vehicles into an ecosytem, at least somewhat. “What we’re looking at now
are lands that can be basically dedicated or sacrificed for this use, like
former phosphate mines,” says the state wildlife agency’s Jerrie Lindsey.
“Teneroc Fish Management Area near Lakeland is a good example — a
reclaimed phosphate mine that is never going to be a pristine pine forest
again. What you see down there are pines with waving stands of invasive
cogan grass underneath. It would cost billions to restore it for other uses.
It just might be the place for off-road riders.” Lindsey and her colleagues
in governmental agencies know that pretending this problem is going to go
away will never work. “Pandora’s box has been opened,” she says. “If we
don’t try to help, then we’re part of the problem.”
I just can hardly stand the thought of sacrificing any of our Apalachic-
ola as an off-road playground, and I say so to Chuck Hess, a former wildlife
biologist with the forest. He tells me, “If you don’t let them into the forest
at all, you lose supporters for natural areas. You’ve got to pick an area
that’s already trashed. You’ve got to give it to these guys. You’ve got to
set up areas to do it in and eliminate it everywhere else. I just don’t think
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
Repeated off road vehicle use has turned this pond into
a desert of sand. Photo by Susan Cerulean.
the concept of trail systems is going to work.
You’d have to count on the people who use the
trails to behave responsibly. It’s not enforce-
able; unless we issue draconian threats and
hire twenty times the present law enforcement
personnel, we don’t have a chance.”
Pretty grim prospects. Given that OHVs
are designed to trammel the landscape; given
that the number of riders has far outgrown law
enforcement capabilities of public land agencies;
given that the Bush administration is not only
loosening protective regulations, cowing its em-
ployees, and gutting their budgets, but attempt-
ing to rewrite their very mission statements. I
wonder if we as a culture will have to let this one
play itself out to its sorrowful, sorry conclusion,
just as we are with the automobile.
I think back to my last visit to Bruce Means’
tiny second-floor Coastal Plains Institute in a
funky, unassuming downtown neighborhood.
Hurricane Katrina was just bearing down on New
Orleans, her fringes bending the trees outside
the windows while we talked. As we paged
through reports and images of the habitats
and creatures he’s come to know so intimately,
Bruce’s lifework seemed as vulnerable and es-
sential as one of his beloved ephemeral ponds.
I looked at the tiny rooms honeycombed with
white shelving, the carefully arranged libraries
and data collections, the hundreds and hun-
dreds of boxed slide carousels. All on behalf of
rattlesnakes, newts, gopher frogs and salaman-
ders, and why? “They’ve had the same evolu-
tionary run on the planet that we’ve had,” says
Means. “We owe them everything we can do.”
Reprinted (in abbreviated form) by author’s
permission, all rights reserved.
— Susan Cerulean is the director of the Red
Hills Writers Project and a writer, naturalist,
and activist living in Florida. Her latest book is
a nature memoir, entitled Tracking Desire: A
Journey After Swallow-tailed Kites.
7
Stewardship End Result Contracting
By Carol Daly
Background
Experimental projects using some of the concepts now incorporated
in stewardship end result contracting were conducted sporadically on
federal lands beginning in the late 1970’s. Broad interest in the idea,
however, did not develop until the mid-1990’s, when community-based
forestry groups in the West started looking at it as a possible way to re-
duce the contentious nature of public lands management. They wanted to
encourage diverse stakeholders to collaborate in planning and monitoring
restoration projects that would be carried out by contractors who focused
on “what was left, not what was removed” from the forest. Some regional
Forest Service managers also were advocating for stewardship contracting,
seeing advantages both in the flexibility it offered and in potential improve-
ment of operational effectiveness.
Purpose
Stand-alone legislation to establish a new demonstration program
failed to generate widespread interest in Congress, so in 1998 some of the
initiative’s supporters in the Senate attached it as a rider to an appropria-
tions bill funding on-going government programs. Section 347 authorized
the Forest Service to implement a limited number of “stewardship end
result contracting” demonstration projects. Five years later, Congress
lifted stewardship contracting’s demonstration status, removed the cap
on the number of projects, and empowered the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) to also use the new tool. That legislation is effective through
September 30, 2013. For the full text of the legislation and related Forest
Service implementation guidance: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/
projects/stewardship/direction/index.shtml. There is a link to the BLM
stewardship site as well.
The law provides that stewardship contracting be used by the agen-
cies “to achieve land management goals…that meet local and rural com-
munity needs,” and that such goals “may include, among other things --
1. road and trail maintenance or obliteration to restore or maintain
water quality;
2. soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or other re-
source values;
3. setting of prescribed fires to improve the composition, structure,
condition, and health of stands or to improve wildlife habitat;
4. removing vegetation or other activities to promote healthy forest
stands, reduce fire hazards or achieve other land management
objectives;
5. watershed restoration and maintenance;
6. restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and
7. control of noxious and exotic weeds and reestablishing native
plant species.”
The Forest Service Handbook says “the intent of stewardship contract-
ing is to accomplish resource management with a focus on restoration,”
and echoes the legislative proviso that “deriving revenue from the sale of
products designated for removal through stewardship contracting projects
is a secondary objective to achieving land management goals.”
8 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
Value-added products made by local manufacturer
from small diameter trees removed on Clearwater
Stewardshsip Project, Lolo NF, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.
Special authorities
Stewardship contracting provides special
authorities for the agencies to use in pursuing
their management goals. These include:
• Best value contracting – Rather than
awarding a contract solely on the basis of price
(as with conventional timber sales), agencies
can consider both price and non-price factors
(such as the contractor’s past performance,
key employees’ qualifications, and planned
utilization of local workforce). “Best value” is
the standard that must be used in awarding all
stewardship contracts or agreements.
• Goods for services – The agencies can
exchange goods (timber or other forest prod-
ucts such as biomass and forage) for services
rendered by a contractor in doing restoration
work in the project area.
• Residual receipts – If the value of the
product removed through a stewardship con-
tract exceeds the cost of the services provided
by the contractor, the agencies may keep the
excess revenue and use it for additional restora-
tion. If the excess receipts are not used on the
same project, but made available for transfer to
another, they become “retained receipts.”
• Multi-year contracting – Stewardship
contracts or agreements may have terms up to
10 years.
Stewardship contracting projects must
comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act and all other laws and regulations applicable
to the management of National Forest System
and BLM lands.
Collaboration
Although the word “collaboration” does
not appear in the authorizing legislation for
stewardship contracting, broad and meaningful
participation in planning, implementing, and
monitoring projects is intrinsic. Collaboration
can increase understanding and trust, and bring
a broader range of knowledge and experience to
bear on the achievement of shared goals for res-
toration. Agency personnel are encouraged to
participate in but not lead collaborative groups.
Collaborative efforts supplement but do not
replace existing NEPA-required public involve-
ment processes. Collaborative groups offer
ideas and recommend where and how steward-
ship projects should be implemented, but fed-
eral agencies retain decision making authority.
Multiparty Monitoring
During the demonstration phase, the Forest
Service was required to establish a “multiparty
monitoring and evaluation process” that as-
sessed each of the 84 pilots. They contracted
with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation
(PIC), who from 1999-2004 worked with local,
regional, and national monitoring teams to ana-
lyze information from the demonstrations. The
Forest Service then prepared annual reports to
Congress addressing:
1. The status of development, execution,
and administration of stewardship contracts;
2. Specific accomplishments that resulted;
3. The role of local communities in the de-
velopment of those agreements and plans.
The 2003 legislation eliminated the require-
ment for project level monitoring. The agencies
now collect data on items #1 and #2 from all
projects, and contract with PIC to address item
#3. Regional multiparty teams are still facilitat-
ed by PIC. Project level teams are discretionary,
although managers are encouraged to provide
for them when there is local support. The For-
est Service allows retained receipts to be used
to complete project level process monitoring.
Contracts and agreements
Stewardship projects may be implemented
through either contracts or agreements with pri-
vate contractors, non-profit organizations, and
tribal, state, and local government entities. The
Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 additionally
authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to give
“special consideration” to tribally-proposed
stewardship contracting projects on federal
lands bordering tribal trust lands. Until recently,
few agreements had been used to implement
stewardship projects, but in December 2006
the BLM and the Forest Service signed 10-year
challenge cost-share agreements with the Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation for cooperative efforts
to enhance and restore wildlife habitat on thou-
sands of acres in Montana and Wyoming.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
Using stewardship
contracting
Many of the demonstration proj-
ects took advantage of stewardship
contracting’s special authorities to
“bundle” a variety of management
activities in a project area – stand
improvement, stream restoration,
road improvement or removal,
noxious weed treatment, habitat en-
hancement, etc. But priorities have
shifted, and most new stewardship
projects are now aimed solely or pri-
marily at reducing wildfire risks in
the wildland urban interface (WUI).
Such projects usually involve
removing large quantities of small,
low- or no-value woody material,
and – barring a readily accessible
biomass market – the “goods” value
often isn’t sufficient to pay for the Thinning in campground area, Paint
“service” of removing it, let alone Emery Stewardship Project, Flathead
cover the cost of other restoration. National Forest, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.
There is an “up” side to the current stewardship/fuels pairing. Work
in the WUI is often less contentious than projects farther from populated
areas, and can provide a good starting place for community collaboration.
Issues to be Resolved
1. Bonding. It is difficult for non-profits, communities, quasi-govern-
mental organizations, and small contractors to meet the stringent bonding
requirements for contracting with the Forest Service and BLM. With fewer
bonding companies willing to issue bonds for forest work – particularly for
non-harvest related activities with which they are unfamiliar – even some
established contractors have a hard time obtaining coverage.
2. Payments to counties. Last year’s expiration of the Craig-Wyden
“county payments” bill sounded an alarm for counties that had foregone
receipt of their traditional “25% fund” payments (25% of the value of
federal timber sales from within their counties) in order to receive annual
payments based on an average of previous receipts. Stewardship contract-
ing is exempt from making 25% payments from revenues it generates, and
if the county payments bill is not reauthorized and funded, local govern-
ment resistance to more stewardship contracting is likely.
Conclusion
There is growing support for a greater emphasis on and more invest-
ment in forest ecosystem restoration. To many, that is the job for which
stewardship contracting should be a valuable tool – with its focus on end
results, its use of best value in selecting contractors, its capacity to incor-
porate multiple activities over longer time frames and broader landscapes,
and its ability to capture revenues as a by-product of the restoration work
to help offset project costs. Moving on to multi-faceted restoration proj-
ects, however, will require that agencies and other stakeholders develop a
greater familiarity with the full suite of stewardship contracting’s special
authorities and a willingness to use them to best advantage. Appropriate
training and technical assistance will be essential. Agency personnel and
contractors both will have to learn new ways of doing business, overcom-
ing individual reluctance, and sometimes institutional barriers, to change.
— Carol Daly is president of the Flathead Economic Policy Center, Columbia
Falls, Montana, and has been engaged in regional and national multiparty
monitoring of stewardship contracting projects since 1999. She is the
author of the “Best Value and Stewardship Contracting Guidebook, recently
published by Sustainable Northwest.
9
Keep Your ORVs Out Of My
Roadless Areas!
By Bethanie Walder
It
was 1998, and the Forest Service had just
decided to develop a plan for managing their
national road system. They also decided,
concurrently, to create a plan for managing and pro-
tecting roadless areas. We were encouraged, albeit a
bit skeptical, that the Forest Service was finally ready
to get serious about roads and roadless areas. Recog-
nizing an opportunity to address several transporta-
tion-related problems at once, Wildlands CPR met with
the Forest Service, and also with many conservation
organizations “inside the beltway,” to push for ad-
dressing off-road vehicle problems within the context
of these two management initiatives.
Now, nearly ten years later, and following numer-
ous policy reversals and shifts, we’re still worried
that the Forest Service could allow off-road vehicle
damage, and particularly the continued proliferation
of user-created routes, to go unchecked in roadless
areas.
Lake Alice Roadless Area, Wyoming. Threatened by proposed road
construction. Photo courtesy of Wild Utah Project.
10
Background
Back then, while many agreed that off-road
vehicles were a problem, very few, including those in
charge at the Forest Service, wanted to address off-
road vehicles at the same time they considered road-
less protection and road management. Their plate
was full, they said, and they would address off-road
vehicles once these other management issues were
complete. To their credit, they did, and in November
2005, the Forest Service adopted a national rule for
managing off-road vehicles as well. Ironically, by that
time, the 2001 roadless rule had been rendered moot
and replaced by a new roadless rule from the Bush
Administration.
Incredible as it may seem, the
Forest Service could add these user-
created, renegade, unauthorized
roads to its authorized system as
“trails.”
Then, in September 2006 the courts reinstated the
2001 roadless rule. So we now have two administra-
tive rules that potentially give us the tools to curb
off-road vehicles. The thing is that the two rules use
different definitions and different terminology: they
intersect, but they don’t necessarily overlap. While
the roadless rule is “the law of the land” for road-
less areas (barring any court action that could once
again nullify it), the 2005 off-road vehicle rule applies
everywhere else, and in some contexts, it applies to
roadless areas, too.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
The Devil’s in the Details
With the reinstatement of the 2001 rule, there was
a collective sigh of relief. But we may need to keep
holding our breath regarding off-road vehicle use in
roadless areas. The 2001 roadless rule states that
roads cannot be constructed into roadless areas, but
it lists seven exceptions. These exceptions generally
cover public health and safety; existing treaty or other
statutory rights; pollution cleanup; realignment of
needed roads that are causing unacceptable damage;
development of Federal Aid Highway projects; or the
continuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease.
While these exceptions may give us heartburn in some
cases, the greater concern is that the 2001 roadless
rule technically does not prevent off-road vehicle
recreation in roadless areas.
This loophole is now combining with the 2005
off-road vehicle rule to create what may be a perfect
storm. The 2005 rule requires all national forests to
undergo a travel planning process, and it includes
roadless areas within this process. So how will the
Forest Service apply travel planning in roadless areas?
According to the 2005 rule, such use can be allowed
only on designated routes or in discrete designated
areas, but just what does constitute a “designated
route?” Enter semantics…
The Forest Service defines a road as follows: “A
motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identi-
fied and managed as a trail.” This definition does
not include unauthorized roads (“unclassified roads”
under the 2001 definitions) — many of which are
found in roadless lands and were created by off-road
vehicle users repeatedly traveling the same path. As
the Forest Service engages in travel planning, they will
have to decide whether or not to add these unauthor-
ized roads to their “authorized” travel system. To do
so, they should be required to undergo site-specific
environmental analysis to determine whether or not
these roads are causing harm. Furthermore, to add
these roads to the authorized system in inventoried
roadless areas, the roads should have to meet one of
the exceptions defined above. But an end run around
these sensible demands is possible: if the Forest Ser-
vice adds these user-created routes to the system as
something other than “roads.”
When is a Road a Trail?
Incredible as it may seem, the Forest Service
could add these user-created, renegade, unauthorized
roads to its authorized system as “trails.” Should this
happen, the protections of the roadless rule cease
to apply. Wildlands CPR has long argued with the
Forest Service over this fatal flaw in their definition
of a road. If there is a travelway on the ground, and
it looks, feels and functions like a road (with all of the
associated impacts of a road), then the Forest Service
should address it as a road and manage it as such. If
they were to classify these travelways as roads, then
most of them could not legally be designated as open
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
HD Mountain Roadless Area, Colorado. Site of proposed Coal Bed Methane
Project. Photo Source: www.savehdmountains.org
under the protections of the 2001 roadless rule. But if
they classify them as system trails, then the routes are
suddenly allowed in roadless areas. To allow this is
simply unacceptable.
We raised these concerns with the Forest Service
way back in 1997. We raised these concerns with the
Forest Service all through the development of the 2005
off-road vehicle regulations. But the Forest Service
loves discretion. And with that discretion comes the
option to circumvent the protections of the 2001 road-
less rule by simply reclassifying “unauthorized roads”
as “system trails.”
Where To Go From Here?
It would be a travesty if neither the 2001 road-
less rule nor the 2005 off-road vehicle could prevent
such reclassifications or designations. The end result
would be profoundly diminished roadless values in
the affected roadless areas. Let’s be clear — we do
not recommend that these routes be designated as
roads. To do so simply rewards bad behavior and en-
courages off-road vehicles users to develop ever more
user-created, renegade routes, especially in roadless
areas. These routes’ impacts were never analyzed by
the agency, and they have received no maintenance
other than repeated travel by four-wheel drive vehi-
cles. A responsible, fair-minded agency would simply
decide not to authorize any user-created routes… but
that’s not very likely.
Now that the Forest Service is dramatically
ramping up its travel planning schedule, it’s time for
conservationists, quiet recreationists, and all others
who care about the fate of roadless areas to insist
that off-road vehicle use NOT be allowed in roadless
areas. Off-road vehicle recreation is inconsistent with
everything that roadless areas stand for.
11
2006 Annual Report

Wow! 2006 was a big year for Wildlands CPR, filled with new proj-
ects and transitions — all of which have created new opportu-
nities for us in 2007.
Transportation Program/NTWC
In 2006, we partnered with the Natu-
ral Trails and Waters Coalition and
grassroots groups to deliver a series of
Restoration Program workshops for conservationists, quiet
The highlight of our restoration work in 2006 was co-sponsoring (with the MT recreationists, off-road vehicle users
AFL-CIO) the Montana Governor’s Restoration Summit, held in June in Billings and agency staff on the ins and outs
and attended by over 300 business and industry leaders, tribal representatives, of “authentic” collaboration. We held
university faculty, labor representatives, conservationists, watershed council workshops in seven western states
members, and others. We helped the Governor’s staff design the agenda, and (CA, CO, AZ, NM, UT, OR, MT), with
by the end participants had adopted numerous recommendations for investing nearly 200 people attending. Jason
in restoration (and therefore economic development). The Governor took many Kiely, on loan from Wildlands CPR
of these and crafted a legislative package for investing $7 million in restoration to NTWC, coordinated these work-
in 2007-08. Shortly after the conference, we convened a follow-up meeting, shops with some assistance from Tim
which morphed into a growing coalition to promote such investment in restora- Peterson, our Transportation Policy
tion and revitalization, calling itself “Restore Montana.” Coordinator. Staff from the Institute
for Environmental Negotiation at the
Adam expanded our citizen-science monitoring on Idaho’s Clearwater National University of Virginia developed the
Forest. Anna Holden joined the project through the University of Montana curricula. With the Forest Service
and increased the participation of rural Idaho residents, especially by engaging considering collaboration as a major
more schools. Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow, Idaho helped coordinate tool for transportation planning, the
volunteers. Adam analyzed data with an ecology class at the University of workshops helped agency staff and
Montana, and found statistically significant results on black bears’ use of de- local stakeholders understand what
commissioned roads. In addition, we started a new citizen science project on good collaboration looks like.
the Flathead National Forest in partnership with Northwest Connections, a rural
citizens’ advocacy group. In addition to these and other citizen
workshops, we provided $22,000
In addition to our work on restoration economics and citizen science, we in minigrant support to grassroots
teamed up with university professors (UC-Davis; CU-Denver; Redlands Insti- organizations working on monitor-
tute) to lead a GIS training for agency staff to help them set priorities for road ing and travel planning throughout
decommissioning and maintenance during travel planning. In addition, Marnie the west. We also developed sev-
pulled together two other agency trainings on road removal programs (Albu- eral new resources for activists. For
querque, NM and Portland, OR). More than 100 agency staff attended these example, Adam partnered with the
three workshops. Wild Utah Project to create a set of
off-road vehicle Best Management
Practices, which are now undergoing
peer review and will be published
in 2007. These BMPs will provide
strong guidelines for off-road vehicle
management in those places where
the agency determines such use is
appropriate. In addition, Executive
Director Bethanie Walder oversaw
development of a new report on strat-
egies for enforcing off-road vehicle re-
strictions. The report will be out soon
and is based on interviews with more
than 50 activists and agency staff
about successful models to enhance
enforcement on limited budgets.
Kenai Refuge, Alaska. Photo by Steve Hillebrand, courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

12 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

These resources are critical for ad-
dressing travel planning nationwide.
In addition to new resources, we’re
also coordinating with The Wilder-
ness Society’s new Recreation Plan-
ning Program to increase grassroots
capacity on travel planning. At the
end of 2006 we received funding for
three new positions as part of this
effort: one to assist with travel plan-
ning litigation throughout the west;
and two to develop programs in Utah
and Montana to ensure the most
protective travel plans possible. In ad-
dition, Wildlands CPR will continue
to provide electronic and network-
ing resources through the NTWC
campaign room. As a result of these
changes, Jason Kiely shifted to a new
role as our Communications Coordi-
nator beginning in 2007. In addition,
Tim Peterson left Wildlands CPR in
December 2006 for a position with
Great Old Broads for Wilderness.
A Road Runs Through It…
In 2006, we worked with Johnson Books to publish a literary anthology, “A
Road Runs Through It.” The book was the result of years of work by our Devel-
opment Director Tom Petersen, who edited the project, and who coordinates
the “Odes to Roads” essays in our newsletter. The book is an extraordinary col-
lection about roads, off-road vehicles and restoration. We were also fortunate
to have Wildlands CPR member Annie Proulx write the Foreword to the book.
In its first few months, even before the first reviews, we sold nearly 2000 copies
(including 400 that Wildlands CPR bought to distribute to decision-makers and
the media). We’re looking forward to increased sales and more reviews over
the next few months.
Fundraising
Wildlands CPR was funded by the following foundations in 2006: 444S, Brain-
erd, Bullitt, Cinnabar, Firedoll, Harder, LaSalle Adams, Lazar, Maki, National
Forest Foundation, New Land, Norcross, Page, Patagonia, and Weeden Founda-
tions. We also raised nearly $70,000 in private contributions.
Conclusion
It was an exciting, productive, successful, cutting-edge, and especially fun year
to be working at Wildlands CPR. With huge advances in both our Restoration
and Transportation programs, we set the stage for even greater accomplishments
in 2007!

2006 Financial Report

Income: $ 594,258.41 Expenses: $499,891.02

Contributions, Membership Transportation Policy Restoration

& Workplace Giving (23%) (32%)
Other* (4%) (13%)

Administration &
Contract Income Natural Trails Fundraising
Grant Income (10%) & Waters Organizational (10%)
(73%) Coalition (23%) Development (13%)

* Other includes Interest Income, Reimbursed Income, • NOTE: These income and expenditure charts do not reflect in-kind
Sales and Miscellaneous Income contributions.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 13

Transportation Program/NTWC

A
s of January 1, Jason began his new role as Communications Coordinator
for Wildlands CPR. By elevating the frequency and effectiveness of how
Wildlands CPR communicates with the media, Jason will help us attract
broad support for protecting and restoring public lands from the scars left by un-
managed off-road vehicle use and unnecessary roads. While a full transition from
his duties as forest campaign coordinator for the Natural Trails & Waters Coalition
(NTWC) will take up to six months, opportunities to broadcast Wildlands CPR’s
values and goals are already coming out of the woodwork.

For instance, check out the half-hour interview that Jason did with Pacifica Ra-
dio-Houston (found at www.kpft.org) and a shorter interview with the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium on a controversial off-road vehicle mega-route proposal (found
at www.glrc.org). Better answer that — Jason’s calling!

Jason’s communications focus will aid Wildlands CPR’s restoration program

by building a diverse network of leaders representing business and industry, labor Jason has also finalized an out-
and sportsmen, state universities and conservation. This group calls itself “Restore reach effort to organizations that are
Montana” and is founded on the belief that increased support for and coordina- obvious candidates for membership in
tion of restoration projects will create green-collar jobs and add value to damaged NTWC. Membership benefits include
public lands and waters. access to the NTWC online, members-
only campaign room that contains valu-
Jason recently organized the last three in a series of eight briefings on messag- able information and serves as a portal
ing produced for NTWC and Wildlands CPR by Resource Media. Their recommen- to NTWC listserves. As of January 4,
dations are helping Wildlands CPR and the broader conservation community frame 149 organizations are members of the
the off-road vehicle debate in a more productive and inclusive way. We’ve already coalition; we communicate with 311 in-
seen these messages effectively applied in letters to the editor in several states. dividuals affiliated with these organiza-
tions. From among this organizational
In December, NTWC delivered the final two workshops on “effective collabora- membership, 160 individuals represent-
tion” led by the University of Virginia’s Institute for Environmental Negotiations. ing 85 organizations have asked for and
Jason organized an over-sold workshop in Missoula and provided support for a been granted access to the campaign
workshop held in Bend, Oregon that was hosted by the Sierra Club. Some of the room and listserves.
most critical outcomes were summarized by one of
our partner organizations:
• Relationship building with conservation-
ists, agency planners, off-roaders, and potential allies
(backcountry horsemen, anglers, hunters);
• Breaking down misconceptions of conser-
vationist and motorized recreationists’ goals and
tactics;
• Providing a legitimate outside source to set
a standard for what is authentic collaboration among
a cross-section of interests and agency staff;

In order to make the workshops as useful as

possible, NTWC partnered with in-state conservation
organizations to serve as co-hosts. In written evalu-
ations from the mix of 165 stakeholders who partici-
pated, the workshop was rated at 8.4 on a 10-point
scale!

This project will replace a culvert and improve fish passage — part of the
Clearwater Stewardship Project, Lolo National Forest, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.

14 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Restoration Program Update

T ESA/SER Organized
here is a lot of exciting restoration policy work going on in Montana, so this
update will focus on Wildlands CPR’s piece of the puzzle. Wildlands CPR re-
cently helped start a collaborative group called Restore Montana, a network
of leaders from Montana’s restoration economy that works for community renewal Oral Session
and natural resource restoration. Restore Montana’s “members” to date include
conservation groups, restoration businesses, and labor interests. This ad hoc Wildlands CPR and the UC Davis
group continues to work closely with Montana Governor Schweitzer’s office to se- Road Ecology Center have put together
cure more state money for restoration work. Restore Montana hopes to be a public an Organized Oral Session on road re-
and policy voice for the businesses and workforce that make ecological restoration moval at the Ecological Society of Amer-
and community revitalization happen. ica / Society for Ecological Restoration
conference this August in San Jose, CA.
Another new but promising effort is the formation of a collaborative working The session will synthesize the current
group to focus on restoration efforts on Montana’s national forests. Marnie is the state of knowledge of road removal as
chair of the Vision and Principles Subcommittee. The goal of this subcommittee is a form of ecological restoration across
to develop consensus recommendations for the overall Working Group, concern- landscape, watershed, and site-level
ing both broad vision and specific priorities to help guide national forest restora- spatial scales, and propose directions
tion activities in Montana to achieve ecological, economic, and social health and for future interdisciplinary research.
sustainability. It is our hope that these principles can help lead to comprehensive For a list of speakers and more infor-
national forest restoration projects that include road removal as a key component. mation see: http://eco.confex.com/
eco/2007/techprogram/S1522.HTM
Sungnome Madrone from Humboldt County, California, Jim Burchfield, Associ-
ate Dean of the University of Montana’s College of Forestry and Conservation, and
Marnie spoke at the Bit-
terroot Economic Devel- Bull Trout, Flathead
opment District (BREDD)
meeting at the end of last National Forest
year. In attendance were
approximately 30 county Adam co-authored a research
commissioners and paper on road removal and bull trout
economic development on the Flathead National Forest (MT)
folks from several western with Lisa Eby and Magnus McCaffery
Montana counties. We had from the University of Montana. The
a good response from a manuscript was officially accepted
very diverse audience and as a “Note” in the Transactions of the
we are already following American Fisheries Society and is to be
up on this meeting: Jim published this spring.
Burchfield will be speaking
to BREDD’s Redevelop- Collaborative approaches have replaced much of the
ment working group about
Restore Montana.
dissention over land management. Photo by Carol Daly.
Information Requests
Our Science Coordinator, Adam Switalski, continues to organize the Clearwater Adam responded to requests for
Citizen Monitoring Program. Last fall, Field Organizer Anna Holden took a group of information on off-road vehicles in New
students into the field to collect data on open and decommissioned roads. Then, Mexico (from a concerned citizen), road
after deep snow prevented further monitoring, Anna and Adam worked with a avoidance zones (from Center for Bio-
University of Montana ecology class to analyze the data. Their analysis found that logical Diversity), road removal (from
bears used decommissioned roads significantly more than open roads (see cover BARK), bear research (from the Uni-
story). This is quite exciting as it is the first study to document that bears are us- versity of Kentucky), and road density
ing decommissioned roads. conversions (from the Forest Service).

We are also preparing for next year’s monitoring. Mike Fiebig, our new Envi-
ronmental Educator, has been talking to high school teachers in rural Idaho schools
about teaching about restoration in their classrooms. Mike presented at the Wa-
tershed Education Training (WET) workshop in Kamiah High School (ID), attended
by teachers from schools across the region. Mike discussed the restoration work
occurring in their backyards on the Clearwater and showed them the methods
Wildlands CPR is using to monitor road removal on the ground. Mike found several
interested teachers and plans on taking classes into the field this spring to conduct
citizen monitoring.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 15

 The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the
awesome activists and organizations we work with,
both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to
Citizen Spotlight on
Karen Boeger and Dan Heinz
By Cathy Adams
F
or a couple who claims to be retired, one quickly learns that Karen
Boeger and Dan Heinz define retirement as being retired from their
professional goals, not their passionate ones. They are too busy fight-
ing tooth and claw to keep off-road vehicles out of Nevada’s once quiet,
wild places to slow down.
Karen grew up in a farming community in California where her fam-
ily hiked, fished and hunted in the nearby Sierra Mountains. In the early
1970’s she moved to Reno, Nevada to raise her children and teach. She
educated kids from preschool to middle school, from remedial reading
groups to gifted children. She started getting involved in off-road vehicle
issues about 30 years ago when she began witnessing “takings” of previ-
ously roadless wild areas and wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. Off-road
vehicles were creating renegade routes across Nevada’s landscape, taking
advantage of its wide open, treeless terrain.
Unsure of where to begin to help stop this abuse, Karen began attend-
ing local Sierra Club meetings, became Chair of the Wilderness Committee,
and hosted meetings at her home. She was also a founding member of
Earth First! “back when it was a therapy group for disillusioned wilder-
ness activists,” as she describes it. In 1988 when Nevada began working on
its first statewide Wilderness bill, Karen helped found Friends of Nevada
Wilderness, and has been on their Board ever since.
Dan grew up in Colorado Springs, Colorado where, as a teen, he was
first exposed to off-road vehicle’s on a backpacking trip with a friend into
16
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
cathy@wildlandscpr.org.
what was to become the Lost Creek Wilderness.
“We were headed to a stream to do some fishing.
It took us two days to get there, but when we
arrived we found a jeep that had beat us!” That
unpleasant encounter stuck with Dan through-
out his career and into retirement. He takes
on inappropriate off-road vehicle use at every
opportunity.
Dan’s love of the outdoors led him to a
career with the US Forest Service. He “retired”
in 1983 and immediately volunteered in Butte,
Montana for the National Wildlife Federation. He
went on to help found American Wildlands in
Bozeman, and served on boards for the Montana
Wilderness Association, Greater Yellowstone
Coalition and Forest Service Employees for En-
vironmental Ethics. As a volunteer, Dan worked
mainly on grazing and logging issues, but also on
the impacts of off-road vehicle’s.
Dan and Karen met in the old DC Sierra Club
office. Now married, they share their passion for
activism while living beyond the grid in a remote
spot north of Reno in the Pahrah Range, which
Karen says has been “a great problem solving
activity.” Over the last ten years, the two have
spent their spare time working on their sustain-
able home, which includes solar power, a wind
generator, and a hydroelectric system that they
installed themselves. They manage their email
and computer work out of their home and travel
around the state to attend meetings and politi-
cal activities. “We wear a lot of different hats,”
Karen admits.
The latest success the couple shared was
preventing legislation that mandated hundreds
of miles of off-road vehicle trails across an east-
ern Nevada county. A “Silver State OHV Trail”
was to be attached to the White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act
of 2006. The trail was projected to connect with
a vast network of trails across the state; trails
had already been established in adjacent Lincoln
County through a similar bill, and White Pine
was next on the list.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007
 Dan and Karen, opposing the trail provision, were told by the state’s
delegation that the trail was a done deal and nothing could be done to
stop it. “I thought ‘whoa, if we can’t stop the trail in this county, it will be
mandated and established in every county without public review or an op-
portunity to decide it is a bad idea” Karen recalls.

She and Dan kept the debate alive and, with crucial help from a state
wildlife biologist and concerned residents, convinced the County Commis-
sioners to pass a resolution against the trail, requesting that the route des-
ignation go through an administrative instead of a legislative process. This
would assure public involvement, an environmental study, and a chance
to halt the off-road vehicle mega-route from impacting Nevada’s traditional
public land values. The legislative process simply mandated the trail.
“Luckily we had a visionary set of Commissioners who had known us
from our years of involvement in other issues. We also had an atmosphere
of folks here who wanted to do something about irresponsible off-road
vehicle use,” Karen says.
The delegation reacted by putting pressure on the Commissioners
to rescind the resolution. In response, Karen and Dan worked around the
clock to gather supporting resolutions, and got them from the Nevada
Game Commission, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, the Nevada Farm
Bureau, the (very conservative) Nevada Coalition for Wildlife, Backcountry
Hunters & Anglers, and the National and Nevada Wildlife Federations. “We
are usually on opposite sides of issues with many of these organizations,
but this was an issue we had in common and our many years of involve-
ment bought us credibility,” according to Karen.
“We purposely did not seek sign-on by typically “green” organizations;
rather we sought to build up a big coalition of ‘red meat organizations’ to
urge the Congressional delegation not to legislate this trail. So at the end of
the day when the bill was introduced, the trail was not mandated.”
The bill’s final language greatly restricts the trail mileage that can be
considered, and it requires the agencies to complete a three-year NEPA
(National Environmental Policy Act) study to make sure the trail doesn’t
significantly impact wildlife, natural and cultural resources or traditional
uses. “It was a major win,” says Karen, “it gives all citizens, the Department
of Wildlife and other cooperating agencies a chance to give critical input.”
We believe no off-road vehicle trail can be located without creating very
significant impacts to some if not all of these key resources.
Karen and Dan attribute their success to the groundwork they had laid
working on other issues in rural counties. When it came time to approach
conservative organizations about off-road vehicles, people were willing to
sign on because a level of credibility, trust and respect had been estab-
lished.
Proposed High Schells Wilderness, eastern White Pine
County (near Ely, NV). Photo by Pete Dronkers.
Dan says environmentalists should also be
skeptical when an agency says they have no
money to do something. Speaking from his long
experience as an agency land manager he says,
“too often that is a bureaucratic dodge. There
are few unit managers out there that can’t do
a far better job with the money they already
have.”
Karen and Dan find inspiration for their
work in the outdoors. Karen recognizes the
wide-open and wild spaces of her youth are
quickly disappearing. As a result she realizes
her kids didn’t have the opportunities she did
and fears her grandkids will have even less. Her
passion is to save wild areas from the “takings”
of renegade routes.
For Dan, every trail he sees desecrating
a mountainside is enough to keep him going.
He says we need to establish a bottom line for
all activities nationally: “we are okay with a
system of touring routes for off-road vehicle’s
established on existing roads, but we should not
agree to legalize one inch of renegade routes.
Under no circumstances should we agree to any
motor sports, play areas or hill climbing routes
on public lands. We will not score 100% every
time, but we will achieve far more by striving
toward such a goal.”

Dan and Karen say the experience solidified their belief that environ-
mentalists have to “hang tough” and be resilient when facing down threats
to the environment. Dan says all too often enviros mistake good feelings
with success. “When you meet with people and everyone leaves feeling
good you may think you gained something. Most often reality is that you,
and the American public you are representing, have been had. Visionary
public land decisions just cannot be made without disturbing someone’s
interest. Be courteous-always, but soft-never.”

Dan also recommends talking to off-road vehicle supporters at every

opportunity in order to better understand their positions. We must always
listen with humility. No matter how right our position may be, it just may
be that the off-road vehicle users are also right about something. It’s bet-
ter to hear it earlier from your opponent so you can strengthen your case
before any talks begin, he says.
Taken in the proposed Highland Ridge Wilderness,
southeastern White Pine County. Photo by Pete
Dronkers.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 17

 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We
offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important
biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most
articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Beyond Vegetation Cover as a Measure of

Restoration Success
Long Term Patterns on Removed Grassland Roads
By Sara Simmers

P
icture a restored road halfway overgrown with vegetation. Most of
us involved in restoration would generally see this vegetative cover
as a good thing. It is a sign that something is able to grow on the
once disturbed and compacted soil. Erosion is held in check, minus some
bare spots here and there. Wildlife are likely beginning to use some of the
plants for cover and food. As for the plant community itself, we expect Oil well site on Little Missouri National Grasslands.
that successional processes will eventually result in a diverse array of Photo by Sara Simmers.
desired plant species. However, if we take a closer look at the plant com-
munity, we may find more to the long-term story. roadbed? And finally, how is the plant com-
munity on the restored roadbed similar to or
Grassland Road Removal different from undisturbed vegetation adjacent
Curiosity about such a story led me to restoration ecology research to the old roadway? The answers to these ques-
in western North Dakota. Since about the 1950’s – when oil and natural tions, along with more traditional vegetative
gas exploration began in this part of the Great Plains – varying degrees cover assessments, can give us a better idea of
of well site and access road removal have been attempted in an effort to whether these restoration practices are lead-
reverse the impacts of drilling activities on native grasslands. Public lands ing to long-term recovery. So to answer them, I
have the tightest regulations, and currently road removal on those lands trekked across the rugged and rolling prairie of
involves removing surface materials, recontouring the soil to match the the LMNG to sample plots that I set up on and
surroundings, and planting a seed mix of 3-7 grassland species (USDI and along the 58 study roads, recording all plant spe-
USDA 2006). cies that I observed. I also did a fair amount of
detective work to retrieve records of seeding for
Study Design these roads.
For my study, I took
a closer look at the plant Findings
communities of 58 of My main finding was that, in general, the
these removed access species that were planted on the removed roads
roads in the oilfields were still the most abundant (Simmers 2006).
of the Little Missouri When I incorporated time into the analysis,
National Grasslands accounting for the length of time since restora-
(LMNG). The roads I tion, I found that this pattern held. Even on the
selected were decom- oldest restorations, which would have had the
missioned 3 to 22 years most time for surrounding species to colonize,
ago, and my goal was to the species observed were very much like the
answer 3 main ques- seed mixes.
tions: Which species
were planted during res- This finding could be a positive one, particu-
Road restored in 1995. Dominated by the native toration? How do these larly if the species that were planted are desired
species western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) and species compare to the components of the restoration, i.e. native spe-
green needlegrass (Stipa viridula). Photo by Sara vegetation currently cies also dominant in surrounding, undisturbed
Simmers. growing on the restored vegetation. However, I found that the seed

18 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

mixtures used in the older Conclusion
restorations contained As suggested by my findings, problems
non-native forage species, stemming from restoration choices can ulti-
transitioning to native mately be detrimental to longer-term goals
grasses and forbs for the such as the re-assembly of the native plant
more recent decommis- community. The spread of non-native species
sionings (Simmers 2006). can be prolonged rather than reversed, and the
Both old and new mixtures conservation of locally adapted native species
were low in diversity Road restored in 1992. Dominated by non- can be affected by genetic contamination from
(averaging 5 species per native intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyron restoration seeding. Soil problems could further
mix) and mis-matched intermedium). Photo by Sara Simmers. delay recovery. Evaluating restorations by
the adjacent plant com- vegetative cover only would fail to detect issues
munity, even if composed such as these.
of native species. Numer-
ous species common in the surrounding vegetation were either absent or Because roads are so pervasive, poor choic-
present infrequently and at low cover on the removed roads. The result: es during their restoration can further degrade
linear corridors of a very different species assemblage compared to the otherwise intact ecosystems, resulting in more
surrounding matrix of native grassland – and a pattern that remains even harm than good. My study indicates that sev-
after 20 years. eral restoration details would be worth invest-
ing in if long term recovery of the ecosystem is
Discussion desired: seeding with locally collected or locally
One explanation for this finding is simply that this system needs more produced native seeds (or non-aggressive native
time to recover from such a disturbance. After all, the climate of the Great cultivars); broadening the number of species
Plains is harsh, with dramatic swings in precipitation and temperature used in mixes when the adjacent plant commu-
within and among years. Other research indicates that both natural suc- nity is slow to colonize; and adequately prepar-
cessional processes and revegetation after human disturbances can be ing the soil before seeding. It is not enough to
slowed by such a climate (Burke et al. 1998, Bakker et al. 2003). However, assume that any restoration project will benefit
my results suggest that restoration choices and practices could also be wildlands and natural areas. We must continue
contributing to the lag in recovery. More specifically, recovery may be hin- to closely evaluate both positive and negative
dered due to characteristics of seeded species and/or due to insufficiently consequences of road removal practices and
ameliorated soil conditions. implement changes accordingly.

Evidence for the first of these explanations is found in the persistence — Sara recently received an M.S. degree in
and dominance of seeded species, whether non-native or native. Other Conservation Biology from the University of
work in the Great Plains has shown that many of the non-native species Minnesota – Twin Cities. She is currently
traditionally used for revegetation projects have competitive advantages employed with Western Plains Consulting, Inc.
over local native species and tend to spread from initial introductions (Wil- in Bismarck, North Dakota as an Environmental
son 1989, Bakker and Wilson 2001, Bakker and Wilson 2004). Not unexpect- Scientist/Ecologist.
edly, I found evidence that several non-native, seeded species were spread-
ing, such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), smooth brome
grass (Bromus inermis), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis). Yet
the availability, dependability, and vigor of these species make them hard
to pass up when soil stabilization and vegetative cover are needed quickly.
Incorporating native species might be a solution to this problem. Indeed,
as my study demonstrated, native cultivars can be just as competitive as
their non-native counterparts if selected for traits like fast growth or high
seed production.

Unresolved soil problems may also be a factor in this story. By taking

several exploratory soil cores, I found evidence of compaction within the
top 10 cm of the restored roadbeds. Mechanically ripping the roadbeds
during the recontouring process is not routinely implemented during road
removal in the LMNG. Compaction can physically affect the germination
or root establishment of plants (McSweeney and Jansen 1984, Bell et al.
1994). I found another indication of soil problems: a greater abundance of
salt-tolerant species on roads compared to adjacent prairie. This means Road restored in 1986. Dominated by non-native
that salts and carbonates are likely brought to the surface during recon- crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Photo
by Sara Simmers.
touring and could affect the growth of salt-intolerant species.

— references on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 19

 — continued from previous page —

References
Aubry, C., R. Shoal, and V. Erickson. 2005. Grass
cultivars: their origins, development, and
use on national forests and grasslands in
the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service.
Bakker, J., and S. Wilson. 2001. Competitive
Idaho Roadless Update
abilities of introduced and native grasses.
In November 2006, the Roadless Area Conservation National
Plant Ecology 157:117-125.
Advisory Committee (RACNAC) was brewing for a fight with outgo-
Bakker, J. D., and S. D. Wilson. 2004. Using
ing Idaho Governor Jim Risch. He had submitted a roadless petition
ecological restoration to constrain
to the committee that would have allowed significant development
biological invasion. Journal of Applied
and road construction in the bulk of Idaho’s 9 million roadless
Ecology 41:1058-1064.
acres. This was the first petition submitted under the Administra-
Bakker, J. D., S. D. Wilson, J. M. Christian, X. Li,
tive Procedures Act, after the 2001 Roadless Rule was reinstated by
L. G. Ambrose, and J. Waddington. 2003.
federal court in September 2006 (see RIPorter 11-4).
Contingency of grassland restoration on
year, site, and competition from introduced
To everyone’s surprise, Governor Risch did an about face at
grasses. Ecological Applications 13:137-153.
the RACNAC meeting. While his petition supported development,
Bell, J. C., R. L. Cunningham, and C. T. Anthony.
he argued for protecting 3 million acres with no exceptions for road
1994. Morphological characteristics
construction (the 2001 roadless rule includes seven exceptions).
of reconstructed prime farmland soils
In addition, the Governor recommended that 5.5 million acres be
in western Pennsylvania. Journal of
protected under the guidelines of the 2001 rule (allowing those
Environmental Quality 23:515-520.
exceptions). Risch did also request that 500,000 acres of roadless
Burke, I. C., W. K. Lauenroth, M. A. Vinton, P. B.
land be open to development.
Hook, R. H. Kelly, H. E. Epstein, M. R. Aguiar,
M. D. Robles, M. O. Aguilera, K. L. Murphy,
On December 22, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns accept-
and R. A. Gill. 1998. Plant-soil interactions
ed Idaho’s revised petition, as presented at the November meeting.
in temperate grasslands. Biogeochemistry
The Forest Service will now develop a memorandum of understand-
42:121-143.
ing with the state for completing an environmental impact analysis
Hammermeister, A. M., M. A. Naeth, J. J.
to put the state’s recommended changes into the national forest
Schoenau, and V. O. Biederbeck. 2003.
management plans. It is unclear how long this will take.
Soil and plant response to wellsite
rehabilitation on native prairie in
The majority of the 500,000 acres that would be exempt from
southeastern Alberta, Canada. Canadian
protection (and moved into general forest management) are in the
Journal of Soil Science 83:507-519.
Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The Forest Service is considering
McSweeney, K., and I. J. Jansen. 1984. Soil
limiting the NEPA analysis solely to these 500,000 acres, and con-
structure and associated rooting behavior
servationists are working to identify their wildlife values. There are
in minespoils. Soil Science Society of
ongoing debates over whether an Environmental Impact Statement,
America Journal 48:607-612.
or a less comprehensive Environmental Analysis will be completed.
Rogers, D. L. 2004. Genetic erosion: no longer
just an agricultural issue. Native Plants
Idaho Conservation League and Theodore Roosevelt Conserva-
Journal 5:112-122.
tion Project (TRCP) are heavily engaged in this process and will be
Simmers, S. 2006. Recovery of semi-arid
working to ensure that those 500,000 acres receive the strongest
grassland on recontoured and revegetated
possible protections. During the roadless petition process, for ex-
oil access roads. MS Thesis. University of
ample, TRCP contacted 1,032 hunters and anglers, 67 conservation
Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
organizations and 21 businesses in Idaho.
USDI, and USDA. 2006. US Department of the
Interior and US Department of Agriculture.
While many expected that Idaho was one of the targets for
Surface Operating Standards and
roadless exploitation under the Bush roadless rule, the tables have
Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and
turned, and Idaho is now likely to have some of the most protected
Development. BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071.
roadless lands in the nation. Idaho now has a new governor, but
Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO.
with his actions, then-Governor Risch created a legacy of roadless
84 pp.
protection – one that hunters, anglers, conservationists, birders,
Wilson, S. D. 1989. The suppression of native
and the wildlife itself, will thank him for, for generations to come.
prairie by alien species introduced for
revegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning
— Special thanks to William Geer from Theodore Roosevelt
17:113-119.
Conservation Partnership for the information used in this alert.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

Gallatin Travel Plan Released
On December 8, 2006, the Gallatin National Forest released the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for its Travel Man-
agement Plan, determining where and how people recreate on the forest
for the next 15-20 years.

Most conservationists see the plan as a mixed bag: while the agency
tackled the issue of travel planning, on the whole they missed the mark.
The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Montana Wilderness Association, and
The Wilderness Society filed a joint administrative appeal focusing on
management of places like the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness
Study Area (WSA), Lionhead Recommended Wilderness Area, Cabin Creek
Recreation and Wildlife Management Area, and the Crazy Mountains, as
well as grizzly bear habitat and elk security standards.
Hikers in the Gallatin range. Photo by Cathy Weeden.
Of particular concern, the WSA (known as the Gallatin Range) con-
tinues to be threatened by motorized use. In 1977, Congress designated
the Gallatin Range a Wilderness Study Area to maintain its wilderness
potential. Allowing snowmobiles, motorcycles and mountain bikes violates
the intent of the 1977 act and impacts the potential for future wilderness
designation.

Likewise, the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area,

south of the Gallatin Range, was designated by Congress for “the protec-
tion and propagation of wildlife.” And yet, the travel plan allows unlimited
year-round snowmobile use in Cabin Creek, which would cause impacts to
grizzly bears and wolverine.

Failing a negotiated resolution, the appeal will be considered by the

Northern Regional office. For more information contact: Patricia Dowd,
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, pdowd@greateryellowstone.org
Quiet recreation, wintertime. Photo by Jim Earl.

Legal Victory Labor - Conservation

In February 2007, the US District Court in Colorado ruled in favor of
a 2001 Forest Service decision to close several motorized routes on the
Medicine Bow - Routt National Forest. The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle
Coalition (COHVC) argued that the Forest Service had violated the Admin-
istrative Procedures Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the
National Forest Management Act by closing two motorized trails to off-road
vehicles as part of a larger decision to restrict off-road vehicles to desig-
nated routes only. The Wilderness Society, Rocky Mountain Recreation
Initiative, Colorado Mountain Club and Colorado Wild all intervened on be-
half of the Forest Service’s decision. Attorney Mike Chiropolos of Western
Resource Advocates argued the case on behalf of the intervenors.
Rocky Mountain Recreation appealed the initial Radial Mountain deci-
sion, and in response to their appeal the Forest Service closed a 5 mile
motorized loop trail that had first been allowed. After the appeal process,
COHVCO brought their litigation. One of the trails in question included a
scenic alpine stretch of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
In his conclusion, Judge Daniel stated, “Despite COHVC’s numerous
and indiscriminate arguments, COHVC has failed to demonstrate any basis
for setting aside the two relevant USFS decisions.” Cases like this are im-
portant to intervene in to make good law, support good agency decisions,
ensure against back-room settlements, and ensure that hard-fought wins in
the planning process don’t get reversed in the courts.
Alliance Formed
The Washington Post recently reported
(January 16, 2007) on a new alliance between the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
(TRCP) and a group of 20 labor unions. Calling
itself the Union Sportsman’s Alliance, the group
says its goal is to protect wildlife habitat and
preserve access for hunting and fishing.
The groups worked for nearly three years to
establish the relationship. Of particular concern
to them are plans to open up more lands in the
Rocky Mountains to oil and gas exploration.
According to one poll, 70 percent of union
members hunt and fish — but many belong to
the National Rifle Association (NRA). Union
leaders say they are concerned about the NRA’s
anti-labor positions and close association with
the Bush administration and Republican Party,
and they hope this new alliance will help balance
the NRA’s influence.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 21

I
t’s been a very busy winter here at Wildlands CPR,
mostly taken up with some significant staff changes.
As we mentioned in the last issue, Tim Peterson
has moved on to a new position with Great Old Broads
for Wilderness. In the meantime, we’ve been deep in a
hiring frenzy, not only for his position, but for two other
new positions. While we haven’t filled them all yet, we
do want to introduce you to two new staff members.

A big welcome to Sarah Peters, our new Legal

Photo by John D’Anna.
Liaison. Sarah finished law school at the University of
Oregon last spring, and has been working as a law clerk
in Eugene, OR. We’re thrilled to have Sarah on board,
where she’ll be working with Wildlands CPR’s two new
State ORV Coordinators (as well as six other Coordina- You’re Invited!
tors in the west) as they consider litigation on Forest
Service travel plans. Sarah will also be helping Wild-
lands CPR develop a travel planning training program
Quiet Commotion Summit 2007
for agency staff. Our goal, after all, is not litigation, but MAY 4-6, 2007
getting the best possible travel plans out of these travel Hotel Colorado, Glenwood Springs, CO
planning processes.
The Quiet Commotion Summit 2007, hosted by the
Speaking of new State Coordinators, we’re equally
excited to welcome Adam Rissien to Wildlands CPR’s
Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance, will bring
staff as our new Montana State ORV Coordinator. Adam together traditional quiet recreationists such as hikers,
will be working with grassroots organizations and citi- skiers, mountain bikers, bird watchers, hunters and an-
zens to prioritize MT travel planning processes for en- glers, as well as national and local experts, to discuss
gagement. He’ll be helping develop local campaigns to with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Manage-
stop off-road vehicle abuse. Adam finished his M.S. in ment the recreation future of our Southern Rockies
Environmental Studies at the University of Montana last public lands.
year, where he wrote his thesis on wildland restoration,
and where he helped us develop our MT restoration
The conference will address how we can protect and
agenda. He’s also worked on off-road vehicle monitor-
ing for years, so he brings a well-rounded background
enhance the world class natural and recreation heri-
to our organization. Most recently, he’s been working tage contained in the public lands of Colorado and
as the Wyoming Associate Regional Representative for Southern Wyoming and provide for long term, sustain-
the Sierra Club. able access. Our goal is to open a dialogue with agen-
cy staff on how to achieve quiet recreation opportuni-
We’re still in the midst of the hiring process for the ties in a network of connected, sustainable ecosystems,
UT ORV Coordinator, so keep your eye on our website watersheds, and quality wildlife habitat areas.
for information about that position.
Panel discussions and presentations will include:
We’re also happy to welcome Laurel Hagan, in
Moab, who is working on a report about the Paiute Trail
travel planning using GIS data; auditory resource
for us. In addition, Andrea Manes has joined us as an management using “Soundscapes” analysis; quiet use
intern, where she’ll be helping us, finally, get our photo landscape visions and benefits; travel and recreation
library on line. management techniques and methodology; agency
collaboration and partnerships; and highlighting model
In addition to all these new folks, we’d like to travel plans.
extend a huge thank you to the 444S Foundation, for
making it possible to hire new state coordinators in
Utah and Montana. And thanks to the National Forest Please Join Us!
Foundation and LaSalle Adams Fund for continued fund-
ing for two of our restoration projects. Many thanks For more information contact:
too, to all of you who made year-end contributions to Richard Huck, 720-436-6061 / richardjhuck@yahoo.com
our annual gifts campaign – we raised almost $30,000 Aaron Clark, 303-324-7031 / aaron@quiet-trails.org
through the campaign!

22 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007

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

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

• Reducing Overhead
Monthly giving puts your contribution
directly into action and reduces our
administrative costs. The savings go to
restoring wildlands and building a more
effective network.
• Making Your Gift Easier
Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your
credit card or bank statement will
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.

Name
Phone
Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership: Individual/Family Organization Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge Electronic Funds Transfer
from Checking Account

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

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

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

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

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

Signature: __________________________________________
* 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!
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership
donation ($30 standard membership, or more), 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 Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 23

 Ground-truthing Project, Cleveland Roadless Area, Alaska. Site of proposed Emerald
Bay Timber Sale. Photo courtesy of Sitka Conservation Society.
Non-profit Organization
US POSTAGE
PAID
MISSOULA MT, 59801
PERMIT NO. 569

“If we do not fix our roads we will

have to drink our roads — after
they slide down into our streams.”

— Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), February

2007, in response to a proposed 31% road
maintenance budget cut by the Forest
Service in FY 2008.

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