Spring Equinox 2010. Volume 15 No.

Bark Sounds Off For Restoration

By Alex Brown, Executive Director, Bark

Inside…
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie
Walder. Page 2
Bark Sounds Off For Restoration, by
Alex Brown. Pages 3-5
Get with the Program: Restoration and
Transportation Program Updates.
Pages 6-7
Odes to Roads: Springtime in the
Country, by Dana Wildsmith.
Pages 8-9
DePaving the Way: What’s in a Name?,
by Bethanie Walder. Page 10-11
Wildlands CPR Annual Report. Pages
12-14
Regional Reports. Page 15
Biblio Notes: Off-Road Vehicle Impacts
on Wildlife, by Adam Switalski
and Allison Jones. Pages 16-19
Field Notes, Wildlands CPR’s
Bibliographic Database, by Greg
Peters. Pages 20-21
New Resources, Around the Office.
Pages 22-23
Membership Info. Page 24

Mt. Hood National Forest is redefining road decommissioning to

include the storage of roads for future timber harvest. Photo by Bark.
Visit us online:
wildlandscpr.org — story begins on page 3 —
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org

T
o honor the 40th anniversary of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently announced some important pro- Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by
posed changes to its implementation. In mid-February, CEQ released draft guidance promoting watershed restoration that improves
for NEPA in three areas: greenhouse gas emissions; mitigation and monitoring; and categorical fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and
exclusions. The three proposals are independent, with separate comment processes. enhances community economies. We focus on
reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads
and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.
All three of these proposals have the potential to benefit both watershed restoration and
travel management/off-road vehicle decisions. For example, the new greenhouse gas (GHG)
guidance proposes that if an activity is projected to emit 25,000 or more metric tons of green- Director
house gasses, then the NEPA document would have to include a quantitative analysis. CEQ is Bethanie Walder
not currently proposing that this apply to federal land management actions, though they are
accepting comments on this idea.
Development Director
If CEQ does apply the new GHG guidance more broadly to federal lands, it could have a
Tom Petersen
significant impact on travel planning analyses. For example, our colleagues at the Wilderness
Society put together a rough estimate for motorized recreation on one national forest, finding
that it could be responsible for emitting almost 35,000 metric tons of greenhouse gasses. This Science Coordinator
points to an opportunity for national forests to analyze, and mitigate for, the greenhouse gas Adam Switalski
emissions of off-road vehicle recreation in new travel plan analyses.

That’s a good segue to mitigation… CEQ guidance on this topic could be extremely valu-
Legal Liaison
able. They propose three main changes to current mitigation protocols:
“First, proposed mitigation should be considered throughout the NEPA process. … those Sarah Peters
mitigation measures that are adopted by the agency should be identified as binding commit-
ments to the extent consistent with agency authority… . Second, a monitoring program should
Montana State ORV
be created or strengthened to ensure mitigation measures are implemented and effective.
Coordinator
Third, public participation and accountability should be supported through proactive disclosure
of, and access to, agency mitigation monitoring reports and documents.” http://ceq.hss.doe. Adam Rissien
gov/nepa/regs/Mitigation_and_Monitoring_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FINAL_02182010.pdf

This is significant for road decommissioning. Since at least the mid 1990s, and perhaps Restoration Campaign
even earlier, the agency has been including road decommissioning to mitigate new road Coordinator
construction and other impacts of timber sales. Yet this mitigation is rarely binding and rarely Sue Gunn
funded, thus making its implementation uncertain. Many recommended mitigation measures
are never implemented. It remains unclear if CEQ has the authority to make mitigation bind-
ing, but if so, it could make road decommissioning much more viable. In addition, monitoring Program Associate
and publicizing mitigation implementation data would make it easier to track progress. Cathrine L. Walters

The final topic is categorical exclusions (CE). Apparently the revision to the CE guid-
ance is fairly minimal, however, we hope the Forest Service will use this opportunity to make Journal Editor
road decommissioning a formal category appropriate for a CE. While we want the agency to Dan Funsch
undertake comprehensive NEPA analysis at the watershed or forest level to determine the
minimum road system and identify roads for decommissioning, there are many cases where
the agency knows a road is causing problems, they no longer need it, and removing it will only Interns & Volunteers
benefit the environment. In such cases, it would be great if the agency had clear guidance on Greg Peters, Stuart Smith
the appropriate application of categorical exclusions.

Overall, this new CEQ guidance could provide important opportunities for enhancing Board of Directors
Wildlands CPR’s work, but the guidance isn’t finalized yet and the agency is accepting com- Susan Jane Brown, Jim Furnish,
ments. Within the next few weeks, Wildlands CPR will post key talking points on each of the Marion Hourdequin, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd,
three proposals as they relate to our work, along with comment submission information – Crystal Mario, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben
keep an eye on our website for more information, and please send in comments!

© 2010 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010

Bark Sounds Off For Restoration
By Alex Brown, Bark

Editor’s Note: Wildlands CPR first got to know Bark when we provided an ATV
survey training to their staff and volunteers in 2006. They have made huge
gains in road removal efforts since then, and their successes and challenges
may be a sign of what is to come for other forests. We hope you find their
story helpful for restoration in your own backyard, or that it at least sparks
some interesting conversation.

I
n early June 2008, Amy Harwood wondered if any-
one would show up to her eight-day campout next
to Oregon’s Clackamas River. Ominous clouds
began to form over camp as volunteers started to
arrive. Rain began to fall, forcing 50 people to huddle
under large tarps for the first road survey training.
Despite eight days of snow, sleet, and rain, volunteers
surveyed 150 miles of Forest Service roads. The data
collected during the “roadtruthing campouts” over
the summer of 2008 helped push a big change in Mt.
Hood National Forest. It used to be that removing
roads required justification, but now it is the road’s
continued existence that must be justified. This shift
has led to some of the most aggressive road decom-
missioning efforts in the Pacific Northwest. But
surveying the roads was just one step of many along
the way.

Threatened salmon + drinking

water + recreation = 29MMBF? Bark’s Amy Harwood trains volunteers how to survey Forest Service roads. Photo
Mt. Hood National Forest is unique in many courtesy of Bark.
ways. It is home to five populations of threatened
salmon. The mountain is second only to Japan’s
Mount Fuji for the most annual climbs of a glaciated
peak, contributing to a total five million visits to the forest each year. Nine-
ty-eight percent of the 1.1 million-acre forest contributes to a municipal
drinking water source. But Mt. Hood shares one trait with other forests; it
is riddled with logging roads--3,400 miles according to the Forest Service’s
recreation map.
In the 1990s Portland’s population grew by over 20%. The increasing
urbanization of Portland has led Mt. Hood National Forest to become a
canary in a political coal mine. Water quality and quantity are increas-
ingly potent issues, as are recreation and quality of life. Yet these values
continue to take a back seat to the timber sale program, which in 2008 sold
29 million board feet.
Meanwhile, a new vision is coming out of Washington D.C. In his first
major speech regarding the future of the Forest Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said “Restoration means managing
forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources, while mak-
ing our forests more resilient to climate change.” But will the Mt. Hood
National Forest rise to the management challenge, and prioritize water
quality over timber production? Map courtesy of Bark.

— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010 3

 — continued from page 3 —
Hitching a ride on the pineapple express
In November, 2006, a “pineapple express” raised the
freezing level to 11,000 feet and dropped 13.4 inches of pre-
cipitation on Mt. Hood in a six-day period. Massive debris
flows on all sides of the mountain collapsed a state highway
and countless Forest Service roads into pristine streams. The
same storm devastated Washington communities, shut down
its national parks, overwhelmed water treatment plants, and
solidified Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA) as a champion for
funding road-related watershed restoration.
Pictures of forest road blowouts were nearly unavoid-
able on local and national news for three days. The Forest
Service, at least in the Pacific Northwest, could not deny the
need for action. Rep. Dicks utilized his chairmanship on the
interior appropriations subcommittee to secure $40 million in
funding for the new Forest Service “Legacy Roads and Trails
Remediation” program (see previous RIPorters, or www.wild-
landscpr.org/legacy-roads).
One year after the pineapple
express, a mild winter storm
caused this blowout in the
Clackamas River watersed.
Photo courtesy of Bark.
The need was clear and new funding on its way. All that
remained was to convert the staff of a road building and log-
ging agency into restoration planners.
Prior to the 2006 storm, “stewardship contracts” had be-
come the predominant method of paying for watershed and
forest restoration. Unlike traditional timber sale contracts,
under this method the value of the timber is exchanged for
restoration services in the national forest, like road decom-
missioning, effectively excluding the national treasury from
the revenue stream.
Local forest managers love keeping the revenue on site,
Forest Service specialists love the increased funding for
restoration -- so do many environmentalists -- and timber
companies do not seem to mind having new proponents for
logging. However, revenues from stewardship contracts often
are not enough to fulfill all of the restoration needs in forest
watersheds, adding to the importance of the Legacy Roads
program. Bark was determined to influence restoration fund-
ing decisions in Mt. Hood National Forest regardless of the
source, so long before the 2006 floods, we joined a local col-
laborative group and jumped into the stewardship contract
game.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
Readying the shovels
Stewardship contracts require “collaboration,” and Bark
had been a member of the Clackamas Stewardship Partners
(CSP) since 2004. Unlike other “partnerships” in Mt. Hood
National Forest, this one was dominated by restoration
voices. Members included Bark, county and state agencies,
and conservation and hunting organizations. The partner-
ship was specifically created to use stewardship contracts as
a way to promote restoration and create jobs in Clackamas
County. (For a full list of members, visit the CSP website at:
www.clackamasstewardshippartners.org.)
Bark presented the data collected from the roadtruthing
campouts that 25% of the roads considered “closed” by the
agency were actually being used. The Partners added this
information to the existing discussion of prioritizing road
removal and the next step was to implement a road decom-
missioning pilot project.
The first collaborative meeting to discuss road decom-
missioning in the Upper Clackamas sub-water-
shed was exhilarating. Attendees used words like
“exciting” and “finally.” The very road system
that Bark documented abuses of was now in the
crosshairs. The Partners and Forest Service staff
devised a survey plan for the Upper Clackamas
subwatershed to implemented by agency staff. If
successful, the program would expand by using
volunteer or student surveyors. In a nod to the
volunteers that made the roadtruthing campouts
a success, the Forest Service used Bark’s survey
forms for the inventory.
Untouchable roadsMidstream through this
first phase, we encountered our first hurdle, a di-
chotomous key designed by agency staff to deter-
mine which roads would be surveyed and which would not.
The first qualification was whether the road posed a hydro-
logical threat—e.g. was it bad for streams. While this sounds
good, the decision tree then adds a second filter: whether the
road provides access to a commercial harvest or fuels reduc-
tion opportunity that would occur within ten years.
The most frustrating aspect of the decision tree was that
it was being used at the very beginning of the process to limit
Bark roadtruthers found this constructed ‘soaking tub’ in a tributary to
the salmon-bearing Clackamas River accessed by an unmapped system
road. Photo courtesy of Bark.
the road surveys themselves, not just to make management
decisions. How would the agency determine the impacts of
the road system if it won’t even survey all of the roads? This
turned our entire process on its head. The result: The Forest
Service reneged on its commitment to survey all of the roads
in the Upper Clackamas subwatershed.
Soon the full impact of this became apparent. The
agency had no intention of understanding its baseline road
system, but instead targeted only the lowest hanging fruit for
potential decommissioning. Among the roads excluded by
the timber filter: roads leading to future timber sales; roads
still being used despite being labeled “decommissioned” in
agency records; unauthorized user created routes; and miles
of old timber sale roads that were never published on Forest
Service maps.
All said and done, of the 380 mapped road miles in the
subwatershed, fewer than 50 were surveyed, and 113 were ul-
timately proposed for decommissioning. Road surveys were
delayed during creation of the dichotomous key and snow fell
before the 1The result was hailed a success by the Forest Ser-
vice. Restoration was happening and at least one source of
future funding, timber, was secure. After all, roads leading to
future stewardship contracts (i.e. timber sales) were not only
excluded from decommissioning, but were not even surveyed
for potential impacts.
How to hide 3,400 miles of road and get
away with it
Voicing extreme disappointment in the survey process,
the Clackamas Stewardship Partners convinced the Forest
Service not to exclude timber roads from future road decom-
missioning efforts. The dichotomous key was amended to
include “decommission with delay” as a potential outcome
for these roads. Practically speaking, this means that at some
point in time all roads will be surveyed and if a particular
road accesses timber but is otherwise a hydrological threat it
will be decommissioned upon completion of the next timber
harvest. Progress.
The Forest Service is now pursuing a second phase road
decommissioning project in another subwatershed within
the Clackamas River system. In 2009 it surveyed nearly 100%
of the roads in the watershed by utilizing a dozen interns
from nearby community colleges. Bark recently received a
preliminary proposed action that indicates a much higher
percentage of decommissioning will occur due to better data
collected from the field. Progress!
Interestingly, instead of using “decommission with delay”
for all roads leading to future timber sales, the document
prescribes the more immediate “decommission” for most of
them. But there is a catch, as clarified at a Clackamas Stew-
ardship Partner meeting in the spring of 2009.
In response to Mt. Hood’s head fish biologist describing
the importance of hydrologically stabilizing roads, one of the
timber planners remarked that decommissioning is a cheap
way to “store roads.” The preliminary document’s use of
“decommission” describes closing the road and using water
bars to stabilize, or store it, for future logging operations. So
it will be a form of hydrologic closure, but they will not be
fully reclaiming these roads by recontouring them and remov-
ing them from their system maps. In the short term it’s a
step in the right direction from a watershed perspective, but
what impacts will result from multiple logging entries in the
long-term?
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
User-created routes like this one will likely be excluded from Forest
Service surveys. Photo courtesy of Bark.
Restoring watersheds?
You are reading The RoadRIPorter so it is likely you al-
ready understand the benefits of permanently reclaiming For-
est Service roads. In many ways Mt. Hood National Forest is
leading the pack in addressing its burdensome road system,
but Bark believes that the toughest fight is yet to come. After
all, in its two attempts to deal with the problem, the Forest
Service first exempted timber roads altogether and is now
“storing” them for later.
Through our involvement with the Clackamas Steward-
ship Partnership, we also learned first hand how stewardship
contracts, which couple restoration with timber receipts,
make this fight tougher. Unlike the Legacy Roads program,
which directly funds road-removal for watershed restoration,
stewardship contracts encourage a perpetual restoration and
logging paradigm -- a paradigm dependent on the continued
existence of an over-sized road system.
Nonetheless, the inventory work that both Bark and the
agency completed has resulted in real benefits on the ground.
For example, the regional office directed a significant portion
of its Legacy Roads funds to decommissioning projects in
the Clackamas River watershed because of the data collected
through this process and the commitment of the Partners.
From our conversation with other activists, we know the
same is true in other forests as well – local engagement helps
dictate future spending.
While most of us are excited to see people at work
restoring our rivers, now is the time to start asking the tough
question, “Is the stewardship contract paradigm a sustainable
restoration solution, or is it leading us back to a perpetual
cycle of mitigation?” And perhaps more importantly, how can
we ensure that Legacy Roads funds continue to flow, so the
agency doesn’t have to depend on stewardship contracts to
restore water quality and watershed health.
— Alex P. Brown is the executive director of Bark. As a Portland
native he grew up hiking and camping in Mt. Hood National
Forest. As an activist he has tasted success in the campaign to
stop the 1996 Eagle Creek ‘salvage rider’ timber sale and in
organizing support for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Prior to joining Bark in 2005 Alex helped lead Oregon Wild’s
successful Wilderness campaign on Mt. Hood.
5
Program Updates, Spring 2010
Restoration Program
O
ur Restoration Campaign Director Sue Gunn has been busy lead-
ing our national campaign to right-size the Forest Service road
system and promote increased funding for their Legacy Roads and
Trails Remediation Initiative (Legacy Roads). Sue and Executive Director
Bethanie Walder joined other members of the Washington Watershed Resto-
ration Initiative (WWRI) in DC in December to accept our “Rise to the Fu-
ture” award from the Forest Service. As part of the award, Sue (who directs
the WWRI as part of her work for Wildlands CPR) gave a presentation to
the national watershed staff about Legacy Roads. In addition, we met with
Under Secretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman, Congressman Norm Dicks,
and numerous other Forest Service and Hill staff about the importance of
Legacy Roads and opportunities to expand the program.
Our Legacy Roads efforts went into overdrive when the President
released his proposed FY11 budget in January, which unfortunately recom-
mended only $50 million for Legacy Roads next year (see DePaving the Way,
page 10). The President’s budget last year also recommended $50 million,
so perhaps in the Administration’s eyes this is just a redo. But Congress
increased the funding to $90 million when they passed the final FY10 bill,
and we’re hoping they’ll do the same (or even more) for FY11. Our specific
FY11 request is to increase Legacy Roads to $120 million next year, with an
additional $30 million for identifying an ecologically and fiscally sustainable
minimum road system. This proposal has been endorsed by all the large
national environmental groups as part of their “green budget” proposal for
public lands. On the bright side of the new budget, Forest Service Chief Tom
Tidwell stated, as part of his testimony to the House Interior Appropriations
Committee, that the agency is moving in a new direction of right-sizing the
road system, so they are starting to hear and use our words. He also said
that there are at least 45,000 miles of roads the agency no longer needs.
While this number is only about a third of the 2001 “unneeded roads” projec-
Converting forest roads into trails offers many ecological and social
benefits. Photo by Adam Switalski.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
tion by the agency, it’s still a lot of roads and a lot
of work to do – if they would only start identifying
which roads those are…
To identify those roads, the agency must
define an ecologically and fiscally sustainable
minimum roads system. We are anxiously await-
ing a nearly 3-months overdue Forest Service
report to Congress about their plans for identify-
ing the minimum road system. Keep an eye on
our website for updates about the plan as soon as
the agency releases it.
In addition to national advocacy, Wildlands
CPR staff have been engaged at the regional and
individual forest level. Both Bethanie and Sue co-
ordinated regional responses to the FY10 Legacy
Roads allocations in the Northern Region (MT and
northern ID) and in the Pacific Northwest Region
(WA and OR, Region Six). For example, Sue worked
with our WWRI partners to inform Region 6 about
potentially problematic projects. The final alloca-
tions in the Pacific Northwest did not include any
of the projects opposed by WWRI members.
And to start promoting all of this Legacy
Roads work more effectively, we hired Greg Peters
on a new contract to work on Legacy Roads com-
munications for us, many thanks to the Temper of
the Times Foundation. He’s starting to update the
WWRI website so that it has more recent data, and
he’s begun work on an ambitious project to outline
the intersection between community drinking
water supplies and national forest lands.
Our restoration staff are also working on
non-Legacy Roads issues as well. For example,
Science Coordinator Adam Switalski is finalizing
the results of our five years of road removal
research on the Clearwater National Forest. He’s
working closely with board member and Universi-
ty of Montana professor Cara Nelson on this final
paper. In closing that five-year research project,
Adam is opening up a new one that is going to
monitor the effectiveness of… you guessed it…
Legacy Roads projects in the northern region. We
received a grant from the National Forest Foundation (who also funded the
above-mentioned Clearwater monitoring project), to begin a citizen-monitor-
ing program on Legacy Roads. We’ve been working closely with the Forest
Service to identify opportunities to expand their own monitoring efforts –
field work will begin this summer.
Adam also gave a Legacy Roads/road reclamation presentation to all of
the Forest Service Region One watershed staff at their annual regional meet-
ing. He talked with staff about ways to increase monitoring and research
related to road reclamation and fish passage.
On the combined restoration and transportation front, Adam also
oversaw the biannual update of our bibliographic database (see Field
Notes, p. 20-21). Many thanks to Greg Peters who we contracted with to
complete that project. The database now sits at more than 20,000 cita-
tions/abstracts of road and ORV research and reports. Check it out at:
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/bibliographic-database-search
Transportation Program
O
n the travel planning side of things, the agency is finalizing more
decisions, leading to more appeals from all sides, including ours.
More appeals also has the potential to mean more litigation de-
pending on how things play out. Our Legal Liaison, Sarah Peters, has been
working with activists around the west to address these decisions. She
also took the month of February off to study for the MT Bar (as if passing
the CO and OR bar wasn’t already enough)!
Sarah worked with the Idaho Conservation League and The Wilder-
ness Society on their challenge to the Salmon-Challis NF’s travel plan after
the agency ignored extensive documentation of damage to important
streams and riparian areas. Sarah also worked with our Montana ORV Co-
ordinator, Adam Rissien, and his partners from eastern Montana, the Pry-
ors Coalition, on a lawsuit against the Custer National Forest’s Beartooth
District Travel Plan. Matt Bishop from Western Environmental Law Center
is our lawyer for this case. At issue are two popular horseback riding
trails leading into the Gallatin NF, and the entire Pryor Mt. area where the
Forest Service designated 124 miles (99%) of roads and trails for motorized
use, and less than one and a half miles (1%) for those who rely on a quiet
setting to enjoy traditional Montana activities. Additionally, the agency
Federal agencies have been unable to effectively cope with off-road vehicle abuse.
Photo by Adam Switalski.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
Friends of the Bitterroot members joined Wildlands
CPR staffers on a field trip into the West Pioneers.
Wildlands CPR Photo.
allows cross-country motorized travel up to 300
feet off either side of nearly every designated
road and trail for the purpose of dispersed
camping, which has led to extensive soil damage
on Big Pryor Mt. and other places.
In addition to filing these new cases,
Wildlands CPR’s settlement of the snowmobile
grooming problem in the West Big Hole road-
less area on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National
Forest was finalized by the courts just around
Christmas! The settlement will stop 95 miles of
snowmobile grooming in this spectacular road-
less area. And as a follow up to the settlement,
Adam is coordinating with Friends of the Bitter-
root and LightHawk to coordinate winter use
monitoring over-flights of the area. For more
details about the settlement, see the regional
report on page 15.
Adam R. continues to participate in other
travel plans still underway throughout Montana
(including projects on the Flathead and Bea-
verhead-Deerlodge National Forests). He also
worked with Montanans for Quiet Use to issue a
report highlighting monitoring results from the
2009 season. He has given presentations to local
chapters of Trout Unlimited and Back Country
Horsemen to identify vulnerable areas and op-
portunities to work together. And with the aid of
volunteer Stu Smith of True North GIS, Adam R.
determined that roadless areas on the Beaver-
head-Deerlodge are threatened by nearly 1,000
miles of potential user-created routes, many of
which could be formally designated when the
agency undertakes travel planning. As the For-
est Service moves ahead, Adam R. will focus on
preventing as many of these routes from being
designated as possible.
7
Springtime in the Country
By Dana Wildsmith
Editor’s Note: This essay is excerpted with permis-
sion from the author’s environmental memoir, Back
to Abnormal: Surviving With An Old Farm in the New
South, Motesbooks, March, 2010
I
t’s not the crocuses by Mama’s side
porch, or grape hyacinths under the
big cedar or yellow jonquils flagging
Georgia’s roadsides which announce
the coming of spring to me- it’s the
southern wood violet and how its arriv-
al affects the way we walk around Grace
Farm. Some early morning in March or
even late February, one of us will glance
down to watch for ankle-twisting stump
holes, stop in our tracks, and moan,
“Oh, no. Look!” There it is: the first
teeny patch of violets. Lovely they may
be in their miniscule daintiness, but we
know their power. Our violets have won
the queen’s heart and her protection.
Mama can’t bear to lose a single tiny
blossom. She would as soon stomp on
kittens’ heads as crush these miniature
wildflowers, and we are all shamed into
compliance through her example. For
six weeks or more to come, we won’t
so much walk our forty acres as lurch,
leap and sidestep inch-high clusters of
violets.
•••
The positive side of being thwarted
in any designs we may have had on
Bethlehem, Georgia’s Lawn-of-the-
Month award is that my family is doing
our small part to uphold the southern
tradition of each community having its
oddball characters. That’s a good thing,
because I don’t want small-town Geor-
gia to lose its character- either of the
8 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
“In Spring, at the end of the day you
should smell like dirt.”
— Margaret Atwood
human sort or in our landscapes. I can’t
remember any of the towns I’ve lived
in not having an old man who covered
his fence posts with Nehi Orange bottle
caps, or a woman who wore a heavy
wool coat through Savannah summers,
or her daughter who never married but
carried a dog tucked under her arm
every waking moment, or a grove of
falling-down cracker houses with three
generations of sofas on the front porch.
The southern right to inter a worn-out
sofa onto your porch was recently
challenged in nearby Athens, to great
uproar and protestation against loss of
personal freedom.
I’ve been thinking a lot about per-
sonal freedom since I came back to the
farm to live, partly because of my ongo-
ing battle against ATVs. These fat-tired
motorized rhinos have claimed our dirt
road as their weekend racetrack. Or, a public road, that’s why. “Nobody’s
rather, their drivers have. It gets worse living in these woods. Why shouldn’t I
every month as more and more subdivi- ride my ATV through them?” Because
sions pop up around us. People who they’re not your woods, that’s why. And
used to live in one of the counties im- because the weight of your machine is
mediately surrounding Atlanta proper killing my Queen Anne’s Lace, my Flea-
are abandoning paved-over, congested bane, my Pipsissewa, even my southern
Gwinnett County and Dekalb County wood violets.
in favor of Barrow County. I can only
assume these new Barrow Countians Not that I would ever present that
consider a dirt road walled by woods last listing as argument to any of the
as public green space. “It’s just an old cami-garbed guys I stop mid-road. You
dirt road. Why shouldn’t I play on it can’t ride that ATV here. “Why not,
with my dirt bike or ATV?” Because it’s lady?” Because you’re crushing the
illegal to ride any off-road vehicle on violets. “Oh, God, sorry! I didn’t know.
I’ll call my buddy to bring his pickup to get
me.” Nope, what I do is stand in the middle of
the road with Fred-the-big-red-dog on his leash
and my cell phone in my other hand. Fred hates
anything with tires. When he sees an ATV (or
motorcycle or F-150 or tricycle) he lunges and
slathers (always an effective combination of
deterrents) while I call the sheriff with my free
hand. Dogs, sheriffs and an angry landowner—
the great southern trinity of law enforcement.
Make that one crazy-haired lady landowner who
is rapidly gaining a reputation as a weirdo, and
I can usually put the skids on ATV play, at least
for right then.
But do I have the right? Legally, yes. In
Georgia, in Barrow County, it is illegal to drive or
ride any off-road vehicle on a public road. This
comes as a rude surprise to many new arrivals.
They have moved to the country to get away
from urban sprawl, to have a little ease from
restrictions. Isn’t that sort of freedom also my
desire and aim? Yes, but I prefer to gain ease
from life’s restrictions by blending into the
quiet of my woods, by letting nature take the
upper hand. So far as I can tell, ATV-ers want
access to undeveloped land in order to destroy
it. They want into my woods so they can kill all
the small life growing on the floor of my woods,
so they can kill the stillness, so they can kill the
smells of reindeer moss and pine needle beds
and wet white clay. They would disavow this, of
course, and with actual sincerity. After all, how
can someone be held accountable for setting
out to kill what they don’t know is there? You
can’t see reindeer moss when you’re sitting atop
several tons of fiberglass and steel. You can’t
hear a forest’s various modes of silence over a
gas engine’s howl. Wet clay’s cleanly sharp odor
is smothered by gas emissions as thoroughly as
new puppies drowned in a sack.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
Who in a motorized world notices the small and the silent? I do, as
Emily Dickinson did:
“A little bread- a crust- a crumb-
A little trust- a demijohn-
Can keep the soul alive-”
I need a dose of wildness to keep my soul alive. We all do. Any head-
butting which goes on between me and ATV owners has its origin in our
differing ideas of what ‘wildness’ is. ATV wildness comes at the world
from the outside, in the form of a deafening gas engine carried along by
eco-system-flattening tires entering undeveloped areas in order to enjoy
by destroying. This is pleasure through conquest. I am of the pleasure-
through-conjuncture school. Conjuncture: “a combination; as of events
or circumstances.” Have you ever had a relationship in which strong love
spilled over into strong desire, and vice-versa? Then you know what I
mean by conjuncture- you submerse yourself in someone or something
outside of yourself and find not that you lose yourself but that you emerge
as more than you were before.
I find all too many people lately believing in the progression to a stron-
ger, more assured self through accumulation of goods. It’s like that cold
weather advice our TV announcers always give before the harshest day
of winter: dress in layers because layers give greatest protection from the
cold. Our popular culture wants to assure us that our greatest protection
from anomie will be gained through the layering on of possessions. If those
possessions in some way mimic sentience- if beeps and roars and whistles
make them sound alive; if response to some signal on our part makes them
act alive; if movement and heat and breath-like exhalations make them
look alike- we are even more disposed to accept Blackberries and I-Pods
and ATVs as indicators not only of self-worth, but of character affirmation.
The truth is that our individual character becomes most evident when
we are most stripped of our accoutrements, when we are what we are, and
not what we possess.
•••
— Dana Wildsmith is the author of an environmental memoir, Back to
Abnormal: Surviving with an Old Farm in the New South (MotesBooks),
four collections of poetry: One Good Hand Iris Press, 2005), Our Bodies
Remember (The Sow’s Ear Press, 2000), Annie (Palanquin Press, 1999),
Alchemy (The Sow’s Ear Press, 1995), and an audio collection, Choices ( Iris
Press). Wildsmith lives in Bethlehem, Georgia. She is employed as an English
Literacy Instructor through Lanier Technical College.
9
 DePaving the Way
What’s In a Name?
By Bethanie Walder

S
ustainable forestry, ecosystem management, integrated resource
restoration… These phrases can be viewed as an evolution of Forest
Service management philosophies over the past 25 years. Or, on
the other hand, they could be viewed as semantic changes that have not
significantly affected on-the-ground management. It’s too early to say
whether the latest agency exercise in spin amounts to a meaningful change
in management, or just, well, more spin.

In the 1990s, reaction to the first two phrases was somewhat predict-
able: conservationists heard “sustainable” and “ecosystem,” while timber
companies heard “forestry” and ”management.” The third term, Integrated
Resource Restoration (IRR), was just introduced in January 2010 in the For-
est Service’s proposed budget, so it hasn’t yet been funded, and Congress
may decide not to fund it at all (but it certainly indicates what direction
the agency is moving in). The budget introduced some more disconcert- It’s hard to imagine an effective watershed restoration
ing wordplay: in an effort to match Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s plan that doesn’t include removing roads and addressing
new vision for the Forest Service, the agency is conflating the terms “forest their impacts. Photo by Adam Switalski.
restoration” and “watershed restoration.” While this may sound like mere
semantics, it will have real impacts on the ground.

Meet the New Program Now For the Fine Print

Let’s start with the big picture – the introduction of the new Integrated
Resource Restoration budget line item theoretically provides an opportunity
to move forward in a new restoration direction. The budget proposes $694
million for IRR – nearly half of the entire National Forest System budget ex-
cluding fire. Included along with IRR are funds for the existing vegetation/wa-
tershed, fisheries/wildlife, and timber line items, plus a few others. Wildlands
CPR’s favorite program, the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative,
was not added into IRR because it comes from an altogether different budget
category, “Capital Improvement and Maintenance,” where all infrastructure
and facilities are funded. Legacy Roads therefore remains an independent
maintenance initiative that is managed by the engineering department.
While it might make sense to combine veg/water and fish/wildlife togeth-
er, what seems to be driving the newly proposed IRR is Secretary Vilsack’s vi-
sion for the Forest Service - a vision focused on protecting and restoring clean
water. From a watershed perspective, however, it seems a stretch to add
timber into that mix, and this is the crux of both the semantic and the tactical
problem with the new budget. The agency wants to meet the Secretary’s vi-
sion, but it seems to want to do so by cutting as many trees as possible. That
may put the IRR in the same context as its predecessors “ecosystem manage-
ment” and “sustainable forestry.”
In his testimony to the House Interior Appro-
priations subcommittee on 2/25/10, Forest Service
Chief Tom Tidwell explained the intent of combin-
ing activities:
“The agency will integrate traditional timber
activities predominately within the context of
larger restoration objectives, focusing on pri-
ority watersheds in most need of stewardship
and restoration work, pursuing forest products
when they support watershed, wildlife, and
restoration goals.”
This doesn’t sound bad – especially if the
agency actually followed it and only pursued
forest products as a side benefit of watershed,
wildlife and restoration goals. But when you go to
the actual budget language (and further state-
ments in Tidwell’s testimony), the intent of the IRR
becomes clear. The budget describes the intent
of the proposed new Priority Watersheds and Job
Stabilization Initiative (a part of the IRR):

10 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010

 “Large-scale (greater than 10,000 acres) watershed restoration projects
within these priority watersheds will be selected through a national pri-
oritized process which favors projects that … improve watershed function
and health; create jobs or will contribute to job stability; and create or
maintain biomass or renewable energy development.”
Since when did biomass and renewable energy projects benefit wa-
tershed health? The agency seems to be missing the point: not once does
this section of the budget refer to roads, which are arguably the biggest
cause of water quality problems in our national forests. Furthermore, road
reclamation provides a large number of high-wage, high-skill forest jobs.
In reality, the Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization (PWJS) Initia-
tive likely is proposed as a way to extend the new Collaborative Forest Res-
toration Act (CFRA) funding. The CFRA has many redeeming components,
but its primary purpose is to deal with fire and fuels in dry forests, not
water quality. These two programs together (CFRA and PWJS) will result
in $90 million for “watershed restoration” largely through timber manage-
ment, conflating forest and watershed restoration into one concept, and
potentially co-opting the entire concept of watershed restoration.
Where Did the Roads Go?
Road reclamation and culvert upgrades to restore fish passage are
major components of any watershed program, most of which also include
instream activities. With roads contributing more sediment to water
sources than most other human activity in the forest (except, for example,
dams or mountaintop removal), managing the road system and reducing
its impacts is the first and foremost step towards restoring watershed
health. To us, “watershed” and “forest” restoration are different, and boast
different priorities.
Unfortunately, the new budget proposes making forest (tree-based)
management the primary tool for watershed restoration. But while reduc-
ing hazardous fuels can benefit water quality, it can also harm it. The ap-
propriate practices are still heavily debated and often subsumed to ques-
tions surrounding timber production. Wildlands CPR has long engaged in
this multi-faceted debate about what constitutes proper “forest restora-
tion” from an ecological perspective, but it is not our priority issue. We
participate to ensure that folks working on these forest questions include
road reclamation in the discussion.
Restoring roads and re-establishing vegetative cover is a sound
investment in water quality. Photo by Adam Switalski.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
There is no such debate, however, for water-
shed restoration through road reclamation. This
work, though sometimes socially contentious, is
not scientifically questionable. Scientists agree
on the impacts of roads to watershed health, and
they agree that mitigating or removing those im-
pacts will protect and restore water quality over
the long-term (there are sometimes short-term,
small-scale sediment impacts). Yet Tidwell’s en-
tire 7-page testimony to the appropriations com-
mittee, which focuses throughout on watershed
health and water quality, includes only two refer-
ences to road decommissioning – one near the
beginning, as part of a laundry list of activities,
and one two-sentence token acknowledgement in
the concluding paragraph:
“We are using the Travel Management Plan-
ning process to guide our efforts in right-sizing
the Agency’s road system. The President’s Bud-
get for the USDA Forest Service also contains
funding for many other important items, such
$50 million for the Legacy Roads program
to help improve water quality and stream
conditions, and an increase in the recreation
budget that will help rural economies while
creating opportunities to reconnect people to
forest lands.”
First, the agency is NOT using Travel
Management Planning to guide their right-sizing
efforts. They have purposely chosen to avoid
undertaking the portion of travel planning (also
known as subpart A, see The RIPorter v14#2:
Forest Service Issues Long Awaited Travel Manage-
ment Directives) that would require them to
identify an ecologically and fiscally sustainable
minimum road system. Second, the President’s
budget proposes cutting Legacy Roads funding
in half, from the $90 million the agency received
in FY10, to only $50 million in FY11. And that
cut is on top of an even larger cut to the general
road management budget, which will further
reduce road maintenance funding.
The Bottom Line
When we first read about the IRR, we
thought that perhaps the agency was finally
listening to those who have urged them to seri-
ously invest in restoration as their priority. They
have taken some important restoration steps
over the past few years, but those steps continue
to lean towards what the agency knows best –
timber management – and this new budget rein-
forces that emphasis. While both the President’s
budget and the Chief’s testimony to Congress
promote strong restoration concepts that sound
great to the untrained ear, when you dig a little
deeper into the reality, it once again seems like
the emphasis is business as usual on the ground.
11
 Wildlands CPR Annual Report
I
t was a pretty wild ride for Wildlands CPR in 2009 – extraordinary success-
es in our program work combined with some significant funding challenges
as a result of the recession. But we came out at the end of year in very
good financial and programmatic shape for 2010. We couldn’t have done it
without the steady support from our members and foundations, and we hope
you are as pleased as we are with the results.
Restoration Program
When 2009 began, the US Congress was still operating under a series of
continuing budget resolutions. Finally, in March, Congress adopted a final
budget for the fiscal year (FY09 was Oct 1, 2008 – Sep 30, 2009) including a $10
million increase in Legacy Roads and Trails funding to $50 million. The Forest
Service projected the following national accomplishments with this funding:
• Fix 820 culverts restoring at least 1147 miles of stream habitat;
• Improve 2215 miles of road;
• Maintain 3089 miles of road;
• Decommission 2194 miles of system and unauthorized roads;
• Fix 166 bridges;
• Maintain or improve 3170 miles of trail; and
• Improve a minimum of 126,008 acres of habitat.
At the start of the year, we also pushed hard for road reclamation to be
included in the stimulus bill, and it was. The Forest Service received $650
million for capital improvement and maintenance over a two year period, of
which approximately $228 million was dedicated to road management. Ac-
cording to the agency, they allocated about 10% of that, or $25 million to road
reclamation projects on Forest Service lands!
In August, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a speech in Seattle
outlining a 21st century vision for the Forest Service. Vilsack’s vision was all
about protecting and restoring clean drinking water for Americans. Recog-
nizing the outsized impact that the decaying, under-maintained, and overly-
extensive Forest Service road system has on water, Vilsack directly discussed
the importance of road decommissioning as part of the agency’s future work.
Our advocacy is clearly paying off!
Staff scientist Adam Switalski in the field with UM students. Photo by
Laurie Ashley.
12
Ellswoth Creek road restoration,
Washington. Photo by Adam Switalski.
At the end of October, Congress adopted
budgets for the Departments of Interior, Agri-
culture and several other agencies. Imagine our
exuberance when we learned that Legacy Roads
and Trails had been nearly doubled, to $90 million
for FY10! The bill also reiterated and strength-
ened some FY09 language directing the agency to
undertake a long-overdue process to identify and
implement an ecologically and fiscally sustain-
able minimum road system. We have continued
meeting with the Forest Service to discuss the
best methods for such a process and we are now
anxiously awaiting a nearly three-months overdue
report to Congress about their plans for complying
with this direction.
Wildlands CPR and our partners in this cam-
paign are aggressively advocating for real dollars to
fix the crumbling road system, and to thus restore
clean drinking water in addition to fisheries and
wildlife habitat. We reached out to the Western
Governors Association and to the National Council
of Mayors, both of whom submitted letters to
Secretary Vilsack endorsing our proposal for the
agency to undertake a national right-sizing initia-
tive. Members of the Senate and the House both
submitted letters to the President encouraging him
to continue funding watershed restoration through
road reclamation. And perhaps most importantly,
Forest Service staff like the program.
It’s been a long time since conservationists
have sat at the table with the agency promoting a
positive program, as opposed to fighting against
funding for programs we oppose. The agency is
leaning farther and farther towards a restoration ap-
proach, but we will have to be vigilant to ensure that
any new restoration agenda truly addresses water
and watersheds, not just timber.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010

Wildlands CPR built a broad coalition of organizations to oppose off-road vehicle abuse
in Utah. Photo by Laurel Hagen.
Transportation Program
Wildlands CPR has been co-leading (with the Wilderness Society) a na-
tional Forest Service travel management campaign since the agency adopted a
new travel planning rule in 2005. The results have been stupendous. The rule
required all forests to end the extremely damaging practice of off-road vehicle
cross-country travel (though small play areas are still allowed). All travel
plans were supposed to be completed by December 2009, but many deadlines
have now been extended for one year.
This national campaign has resulted in the following changes to date: over
18,000 miles of user created routes have not been added to the Forest Service
road or trail system as part of this process, and over 6,000 miles of agency roads
have been removed from the formal system as part of final travel planning deci-
sions. Another 2,000 miles of Forest Service roads are slated for removal (at
least on paper) as part of already released draft plans, plus an additional 14,000
miles of user-created routes. Many other forests have not even released their
drafts yet, so we will continue to track this and keep you posted.
As part of the campaign, our Montana and Utah ORV coordinators (Adam
Rissien – MT, Laurel Hagen – UT) focused their attention on protecting road-
less areas from off-road vehicle designations. Each chose 2-3 forests to focus
on in their states, and they were successful. Laurel and her local partners
were able to protect important roadless areas on the Dixie National Forest
from any off-road vehicle designations. She also helped build a rural coalition
of local citizens working to stop off-road vehicle abuse in southern UT. Adam
was able to protect 9 of 11 roadless areas on the Bitterroot National Forest
from designations as well, at least through the draft phase of planning, and
he’s still working on the other two areas while we await the final analysis and
decision. Adam also worked with Western Environmental Law Center to file a
lawsuit challenging illegal snowmobile grooming in the West Pioneers Wilder-
ness Study Area on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The result: the
Forest Service agreed to stop grooming 95 miles of snowmobile trails in this
important roadless area. Our Legal Liaison, Sarah Peters worked with Adam
and Laurel on their legal strategies, as well as assisting ORV staff in other
states with their travel planning advocacy.
Clearly the national travel planning campaign that we co-lead with The
Wilderness Society is resulting in significant improvements on the ground
when it comes to both off-road vehicle and road management – both at the
individual roadless area level and the broader level.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
New Projects
In the spring, we released an updated version
(electronic only) of our landmark, “Six Strategies
for Success” report about effective off-road vehicle
enforcement. And in the fall, Josh Hurd, our
Restoration Research Associate, completed a six-
part series on the political economy of watershed
restoration. The series included six reports, which
constitute a huge step forward in understanding
some of the funding mechanisms, public percep-
tions, economic implications, etc. of the develop-
ing restoration sector of the economy.
This summer we entered into our first formal
cost-share agreement with the Forest Service – spe-
cifically the Lolo National Forest (MT). The four-
month project included inventorying hundreds of
miles of roads to document road condition, weeds,
water impacts, and other damage. In one area, for
example, our field crew found an extensive net-
work of user-created, illegal off-road vehicle routes.
The project was a great success, and the data is
now being used in a proposed restoration project.
At the Office
In part due to the recession, and since the UT
forests were largely done with travel planning, we
closed our UT office this fall. Our communications
coordinator, Franklin Seal, was also based in our
UT office, but due to projected funding shortfalls
we had to drop that position in January ’09. We
experienced some other downsizing as well, but it
was thankfully due to attrition.
With these cuts, numerous other cost-saving
measures, and a few new grants, we were actually
able to end the year well in the black and ready to
tackle our 2010 objectives, including implementing
a new strategic plan that we adopted in June ‘09.
Conclusion
Though Wildlands CPR is smaller than we
were a year ago, our workload has not shrunk ac-
cordingly (much to the staff’s chagrin). As detailed
above, we’re continuing to move our campaigns
forward very aggressively. We’ve had a terrific
year with both of our major campaigns and we’re
looking forward to even more success in 2010!
Photo by Laurel Hagen.
13
 2009 Financial Report

Income 2009 Income: $473,532

Contributions 2009 Expenses: $421,303
Other & Membership
$13,202 $40,768 In-Kind Donations
Contract Income & Services $ 12,563
$50,437
Grants
$369,125

Photos by Laurel Hagen.

Org. Development

Expenses $37,108 Admin. & Fundraising

$41,887

Note: The figures used in this

report have yet to be audited,
so they are subject to change.

Transportation
$191,225 Restoration
$150,983

14 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010

 Regional Reports
Victory for the West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area

T
he West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area (WSA), on the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest, has been a little quieter this winter
following a victorious lawsuit challenging snowmobile grooming in
this special place.

Wildlands CPR and Friends of the Bitterroot challenged the re-issu-

ance of a controversial permit that had authorized a snowmobile club to
groom nearly 95 miles of trail inside the West Pioneer WSA. The settlement
agreement (broken into two phases) does not prohibit snowmobiling, but
it does eliminate trail grooming. This will significantly reduce the number
of machines entering the area.

The first phase, implemented this winter, orders no grooming in the

northern portion of the West Pioneer WSA; an area that contains a large
chunk of sensitive wolverine habitat. By the winter of 2010-11, all grooming
within the WSA will end.

Part of the settlement directs the Forest Service to monitor snowmo-

bile use and coordinate with Wildlands CPR and Friends of the Bitterroot,
who have been working with LightHawk to document snowmobile activ-
ity. Due to a poor snowpack and high avalanche risk, use levels so far this
season are lower than in past years.

Background on the West Pioneer WSA

The West Pioneer WSA totals 148,150 acres and has mostly gentle
topography with elevations ranging from 6,500 to 9,500 feet. The area
provides important winter habitat for sensitive species such as wolverine
and mountain goats.

In 1977, Congress passed the Montana Wilderness Study Act, which

included the West Pioneers. The law required the Forest Service to assess A legal settlement will protect the West Pioneer Wilderness
the area’s wilderness character, and maintain it at levels that existed when Study Area from the impacts of snowmobile trail grooming.
the act was signed into law. Photo by Cathrine L. Walters.

In a 2003 report the Forest Service decided that the area would not
be considered for Wilderness designation, even though it scored high.
The report also disclosed that in 1977 only seven trail miles were marked
for snowmobile use and none were groomed, while in 2003, 90 miles were
marked and 36 were groomed. In 2008 when we filed our lawsuit, the Forest Conclusion
Service permitted grooming on nearly 95 miles of trails, a 62% increase in Trail grooming inside the West Pioneer WSA
groomed trails from 2003 to 2008. has been going on for so long that few have chal-
lenged its legitimacy or its effects on wintering
wildlife. But with this victory, we have gained an
Increased Trail Grooming Equals Increased important, if incremental step in protecting the
area from snowmobile impacts. We will continue
Snowmobile Use and Impacts to press the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
The increase in trail grooming has undoubtedly led to more snow-
Forest to fully protect the WSA from all motor-
mobiles entering the WSA, and the lack of steep terrain makes it easy
ized use that degrades this wilderness quality
for snowmobiles to travel off groomed routes and into areas important
landscape.
for wintering wildlife such as wolverine and mountain goats. The West
Pioneers have several high elevation cirque basins that provide crucial
denning habitat for female wolverines giving birth and rearing their young.
Unfortunately, the exponential increase in snowmobile grooming over the
past thirty years has threatened wolverine populations with extirpation.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010 15


Off-Road Vehicle Impacts on Wildlife
By Adam Switalski and Allison Jones
F
orests are home to hundreds of species
of fish and wildlife, providing recreational
opportunities for hunters, anglers, and
wildlife enthusiasts. Millions of hunters and
fishermen enjoy pursuing their sport while in-
creasing numbers of birders and photographers
enjoy simply catching a glimpse of the diversity
of forest life. In addition to recreational benefits,
diverse wildlife are a sign of overall ecosystem
health and integrity. While there are many
threats to preserving wildlife ranging from global
warming to development, the negative impacts
from off-road vehicles (ORVs) on wildlife have
been well documented in the scientific litera-
ture. ORVs can impact wildlife through direct
mortality, increased legal and illegal harvest,
disturbance, and habitat loss.
Direct Mortality
One of the most apparent impacts of ORVs
on wildlife is collisions and direct mortality.
Direct impact will kill most species, but am-
phibians, reptiles, small mammals and ground
nesting birds are most vulnerable (Wilkins 1982,
Rei and Seitz 1990, Fahrig et al. 1995, Ashley and
Robinson 1996, Gibbs 1998, DeMaynadier and
Hunter 2000). With millions of ORVs traversing
the landscape at high speeds (up to 60 mph),
the number of animals being killed can be signifi-
cant.
Habitat Security
Several studies have found that large ani-
mals such as elk, wolves, and bears are nega-
tively impacted by the loss of habitat security
resulting from increased motorized access. De-
pending on the species, some wildlife are more
sensitive to disturbance during critical times
of year, such as winter habitat for ungulates or
areas important for grizzly bear food sources
during spring (USDI 1987).
16
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 20,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We
offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important
biological research relevant to roads.
Editor’s Note: This BiblioNote is an excerpt from
Wildlands CPR and Wild Utah’s ORV BMPs published in
2008. To see a list of Best Management Practices for plan-
ning and management of ORV routes or to view the full
report visit: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ORV-BMPs
Elk have been the most extensively studied animal in relation to
motorized access. While recent studies have made a direct connection
between ORVs and impacts to elk (Vieira 2000, Wisdom et al. 2004, Wisdom
2007, Grigg 2007), most studies have looked more broadly at the impacts of
motorized travel and roads on elk. It can be assumed that these impacts
would be similar on ORV routes. Many studies have found that increased
motorized access results in decreased elk habitat and security (Lyon 1983;
Figure 3), and increased elk mortality from hunter harvest both legal and
illegal (Hershey and Leege 1982, Hayes et al. 2002, McCorquodale et al.
2003, see Rowland et al. 2005 for review).
Closing or decommissioning roads has been found to decrease hunter
induced mortality (Leptich and Zager 1991), increase elk survivorship
(Cole et al. 1997), increase the number of bulls (Leptich and Zager 1991),
extend the age structure (Leptich and Zager 1991), increase hunter suc-
cess (Gratson and Whitman 2000), and allow elk to remain in preferred
habitat longer (Irwin and Peek 1979). Studies have also recommended
closing entire areas to motorized use— as opposed to individual roads—
to best promote healthy elk populations (Hurley 1994, Burcham et al. 1998,
Rowland et al. 2005).
ORVs can also allow access for illegal harvest of wildlife in areas that
are difficult for game wardens to patrol. Weaver (1993) reported that
increased ORV access increases the trapping vulnerability of American
marten, fisher, and wolverine. For wolves, one study found that 21 of 25
human caused mortalities in the U.S. northern Rockies occurred within 650
ft. of a motorized route (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Wolves often travel on
roads and off-road vehicle routes where they risk increased poaching pres-
sure. Several studies have found that wolf persistence is reduced when
road density exceeds approximately 1 mi./mi.2 (Table 1). Lynx are also
thought to be sensitive to road density, but to a lesser extent than wolves
(Singleton et al. 2001, 2002). Grizzly bears are at risk from poaching and
have been found to be negatively affected by roads and to avoid open
roads (Elgmork 1978, Zager et al. 1983, Archibald et al. 1987, Mattson et al.
1987, McLellan and Shackleton 1988, Kasworm and Manley 1990, Mace et
al. 1996).
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
 Figure 1. Average habitat effectiveness (a measure of forage quality
and available cover) for elk in western Montana with road densities
ranging from 0 to 6 miles per square mile (Adapted from Lyon 1983).
100
Elk Habitat Effectiveness (percent)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 (e.g., Wisdom et al. 2004, Preisler et al. 2006),
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Miles of Road Per Square Mile
Table 1. Road density levels shown to be deleterious for wolves in the
northern Great Lakes region.
Road Density Study Location Citation
(mi/mi2)
1.0 Wisconsin Thiel (1985)
1.0 Ontario-Michigan border Jensen et al. (1986)
0.9 Minnesota Mech et al. (1988)
1.2* Minnesota Mech et al. (1989)
1.1 (with ~6 humans/mi2) Minnesota Fuller et al. (1992)
0.8 (with ~12 humans/mi2) Minnesota Fuller et al. (1992)
1.0** Wisconsin Wydevan et al. (2001)
*Adjacent roadless area allowed higher road density threshold
**Changing attitudes allowed higher road density threshold
Table 2. Recommended spatial nest buffer zone for selected birds of prey.
Species Spatial Nest Citation
Buffer Zone (ft.)
American kestrel 650 Richardson and Miller (1997)
Bald eagle 1300 Hamann et al. (1999)
Northern goshawk 1600 Jones (1979)
Sharp-shinned hawk 1600 Jones (1979)
Cooper’s hawk 2000 Richardson and Miller (1997)
Prairie falcon 2600 Richardson and Miller (1997)
Peregrine falcon 2600 Richardson and Miller (1997)
Red-tailed hawk 2600 Call (1979)
Mexican Spotted owl 3000 USFWS (1995)
Osprey 4900 Richardson and Miller (1997)
Golden eagle 5200 Richardson and Miller (1997)
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
Disturbance
Probably the most widespread impact of
ORVs is disturbance to wildlife. Within indi-
vidual species, a number of factors can influ-
ence the degree of ORV impact, including the
animal’s breeding status, its size, and the size of
the group it is with (Burger et al. 1995). Studies
have shown a variety of disturbance is possible
from ORVs. While these impacts are difficult
to measure, repeated harassment of wildlife
can result in increased energy expenditure and
reduced reproduction. Noise and disturbance
from ORVs can result in a range of impacts
including increased stress (Nash et al. 1970, Mill-
spaugh et al. 2001), loss of hearing (Brattstrom
and Bondello 1979), altered movement patterns
avoidance of high-use areas or routes (Janis and
Clark 2002, Wisdom 2007), and disrupted nesting
activities (e.g., Strauss 1990).
Again, elk are one of the most studied spe-
cies in regards to disturbance by mechanized
use. Vieira (2000) found that elk moved twice as
far from ORV disturbance than they did from pe-
destrian disturbance, and Wisdom et al. (2004)
found that elk moved when ORVs passed within
2,000 yards but tolerated hikers within 500 ft.
Recently, Wisdom (2007) reported preliminary
results suggesting that ORVs are causing a
shift in the spatial distribution of elk that could
increase energy expenditures and decrease for-
aging opportunities for the herd. Elk have been
found to readily avoid and be displaced from
roaded areas (Irwin and Peek 1979, Hershey and
Leege 1982, Millspaugh 1995, Weber 1996). Addi-
tional concomitant effects can thus occur, such
as major declines in survival of elk calves due to
repeated displacement of elk during the calving
season (Phillips 1998). Alternatively, closing
or decommissioning roads has been found to
decrease elk disturbance (Cole et al. 1997, Mill-
spaugh et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2005).
Disruption of breeding and nesting birds is a
particularly well documented problem. Several
species are sensitive to human disturbance with
the potential disruption of courtship activities,
over-exposure of eggs or young birds to weather,
and premature fledging of juveniles (Hamann et
al. 1999). Repeated disturbance can eventually
lead to nest abandonment. These short-term
disturbances can lead to long-term bird com-
munity changes (Anderson et al. 1990). Several
authors have recommended spatial nest buffer
zones from motorized recreation for raptors
(Table 2). On the Loa Ranger District of the
Fishlake National Forest in southern Utah, suc-
cessful goshawk nests occur in areas where the
localized road density is at or below 2-3 mi./mi.2
(USDA 2005).
— Story continues on next page —
17
 — continued from previous page —
Loss of Habitat
The cumulative effect of loss of habitat security, soil
erosion, vegetation loss, introduction of non-native invasive
species, and forest fragmentation results in the loss of func-
tional wildlife habitat that supports healthy individuals and
populations of wildlife. Animals may be impacted directly
and/or indirectly. A direct impact may be an ORV that col-
lapses a small mammal burrow or runs an animal over. An
indirect impact would be reduced habitat for cavity-nesting
species caused by increased access for firewood collection
(Bury 1980). Any additional habitat loss for sensitive, threat-
ened, and endangered species is also of concern. Wilcove et
al. (1998) reported that as many as 13 percent of endangered
species are impacted by ORVs.
The indirect impacts of ORVs can have cascading effects
throughout the ecosystem. For example, on an intensively
used ORV route in Idaho, native shrubs, bunch grasses, and
microbiotic crust were greatly reduced close to the route and
replaced with non-native cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) and
the native shrub, rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.; Munger
et al. 2003). Because of these habitat changes, fewer reptiles
were found alongside the route than were found 325 ft. away.
— Adam is Science Coordinator for Wildlands CPR and Allison
is Conservation Biologist for the Wild Utah Project.
Literature Cited
Archibald, N.J., R. Ellis, and A.N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of
grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the Kimsquit River
Valley, British Columbia. International Conference on Bear
Research and Management 7: 251-257.
Ashley, P.E., and J.T. Robinson. 1996. Road mortality of
amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife on Long Point
Causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist.
110(3): 403-412.
Boyd, D.K., and D.H. Pletscher. 1999. Characteristics of dispersal
in a colonizing wolf population in the central Rocky
Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 1094-1108.
Brattstrom, B.H., and M.C. Bondello. 1979. The effects of dune
buggy sounds on the telencephalic auditory evoke response
in the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, Uma scoparia. Unpublished
report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California
Desert Program, Riverside, CA. 31p.
Burcham, M.G., W.D. Edge, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, and K.T. Weber.
1998. Final report of the Chamberlain Creek elk studies,
1977-1983 and 1993-1996. Missoula, MT: School of Forestry,
University of Montana. 260p.
Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L.J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and
birds in coastal New Jersey: contrasting responses of birds,
tourists and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:
56-65.
18
Bury, R.B. 1980. What we know and do not know about off-road
vehicle impacts on wildlife. in Richard N.L. Andrews and
Paul Nowak, editors. Off-Road Vehicle Use: a Management
Challenge. (University of Michigan Extension Service)
Michigan League. The University of Michigan, School of
Natural Resources. USDA, Office of Environmental Quality.
Call, M. 1979. Habitat management guides for birds of prey.
Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note 338, Denver.
70p.
Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road
management on movement and survival of Roosevelt elk.
Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1115-1126.
DeMaynadier, P.G., and M.L. Hunter. 2000. Road effects on
amphibian movements in a forested landscape. Natural
Areas Journal 20: 56-65.
Elgmork, K. 1978. Human impact on a brown bear population
(Ursus arctos L.). Biological Conservation 13(2): 81-103.
Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor, and J.F. Wegner.
1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological
Conservation 73: 177-182.
Gibbs, J.P. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forest
edges, roads, and stream beds in southern New England.
Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2): 584-589.
Gratson, M.W., and C.L. Whitman. 2000. Characteristics of Idaho
elk hunters relative to road access on public lands. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 28(4): 1016-1022.
Grigg, J.L. 2007. Gradients of predation risk affect distribution
and migration of a large herbivore. M.S. Thesis. Bozeman,
MT: Montana State University.
Hershey, T.J., and T.A. Leege. 1982. Elk movements and habitat
use on a managed forest in north-central Idaho. Idaho
Department of Fish and Game. 32p.
Hurley, M.A. 1994. Summer-fall ecology of the Blackfoot-
Clearwater elk herd of western Montana. M.S. Thesis.
Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.
Irwin, L.L., and J.M. Peek. 1979. Relationship between road
closure and elk behavior in northern Idaho. Pages 199-
205 in Boyce, M.S. and L.D. Hayden-Wing, editors, North
American Elk: Ecology, Behavior, and Management.
Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.
Janis, M.W., and J.D. Clark. 2002. Responses of Florida panthers
to recreational deer and hog hunting. Journal of Wildlife
Management 66(3): 839-848.
Jensen W.F., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Robinson. 1986. Wolf (Canis
lupus) distribution on the Ontario-Michigan border near
Sault Ste. Marie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100: 363-366.
Jones, S. 1979. Habitat management series for unique or
endangered species. Report No. 17. The accipiters:
goshawk, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk. Bureau of
Land Management, Technical Note 335. 55p.
Kasworm, W.F., and T.L. Manley. 1990. Road and trail influences
on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana.
Pages 79-84 in Darling, L.M., and W.R. Archibald, editors,
Bears – their Biology and Management: Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on Bear Research and
Management, February 1989, Victoria, B.C. Bear Biology
Association, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Pp. 79-84.
Leptich, D.J., and P. Zager. 1991. Road access management effects
on elk mortality and population dynamics. Pages 126-131 in
Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium, compilers
A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Bozeman, Montana:
Montana State University.
Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat
effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry 81: 592-595.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
 Literature Cited, cont’d
Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuuring. 1996.
Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the
Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:
1395-1404.
Mattson, D. J., R. R. Knight, and B. M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects
of developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat
use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. International
Conference on Bear Resources and Management 7: 259-273.
McCorquodale, S.M., R. Wiseman, and C.L. Marcum. 2003.
Survival and harvest vulnerability of elk in the Cascade
Range of Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management
67(2): 248-257.
McLellan, B.N., and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and
resource-extraction industries: effects of roads on behavior,
habitat use, and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:
451-460.
Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf
distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 16: 85-87.
Mech, L.D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road
density. American Midland Naturalist 121: 387-389.
Millspaugh, J.J. 1995. Seasonal movements, habitat use patterns
and the effects of human disturbances on elk in Custer
State Park, South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. Brookings, SD: South
Dakota State University.
Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundige, R.A. Gitzen, and K.J. Raedeke.
2000. Elk and hunter space-use sharing in South Dakota.
Journal of Wildlife Management 64(4): 994-1003.
Millspaugh, J.J., Woods, R.J. and K.E. Hunt. 2001. Fecal
glucocorticoid assays and the physiological stress response
in elk. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 899-907.
Munger, J.C., B.R. Barnett, S.J. Novak, and A.A. Ames. 2003.
Impacts of off-highway motorized vehicle trails on the
reptiles and vegetation of the Owyhee Front. Idaho Bureau of
Land Management Technical Bulletin 03-3: 1-23.
Nash, R.F., G.G. Gallup, jr., and M.K. McClure. 1970. The
immobility reaction in leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) as a
function of noise induced fear. Psychonometric Science 21(3):
155-156.
Phillips, G.E. 1998. Effects of human-induced disturbance during
calving season on reproductive success of elk in the upper
Eagle River Valley. Dissertation. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado
State University.
Preisler, H.K., A.A. Ager, and M.J. Wisdom. 2006. Statistical
methods for analyzing responses of wildlife to human
disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 164-172.
Rei, W., and A. Seitz. 1990. The influence of land use on the
genetic structure of populations of the common frog, Rana
temporaria. Biological Conservation 54: 239-249. Resource Conference 69.
Richardson, C.T., and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for
protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 634-638.
Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger.
2005. Effects of roads on elk: implications for management
in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M.J.,
technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group,
Lawrence, KS.
Singleton, P.H., Gaines, W., and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2001. Using
weighted distance and least-cost corridor analysis to
evaluate regional-scale large carnivore habitat connectivity
in Washington. The Proceedings of the International
Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Keystone CO.
September 24-27.
Singleton, P.H., Gaines, W., and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape
permeability for large carnivores in Washington: A
Geographic Information System weighted-distance and least-
cost corridor assessment. USDA Forest Service Research
Paper. PNW-RP 549. Pacific Northwest Field Station, OR.
Strauss, E.G. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns,
and behavioral variation in a population of piping plovers
subjected to human disturbance. Dissertation. Medford,
MA: Tufts University.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. The relationships between road densities and
wolf habitat in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113:
404-407.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2005.
Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), Loa, UT.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Recovery Plan for
the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida).
USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management). 1987. Interagency Rocky Mountain Front
Wildlife Monitoring / Evaluation Program: management
guidelines for selected species, Rocky Mountain Front
Studies. Billings, MT. 71p.
Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, wolverine, and fisher in the western United
States: research assessment and agenda. USDA Forest
Service Intermountain Research Station Contract Number
43-0353-2-0598. Missoula, MT.
Wilkins, K.T. 1982. Highways as barriers to rodent dispersal.
Southwest Naturalist 27(4):459-460.
Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos.
1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United
States. BioScience 48(8): 607-615.
Wisdom, M.J. 2007. Shift in Spatial Distribution of Elk Away from
Trails Used by All-Terrain Vehicles. Report 1, May 2007,
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, La
Grande, OR.
Wisdom, M.J., H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson.
2004. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk.
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Wydeven, A.P, D.J. Mladenoff, T.A. Sickley, B.E. Kohn, R.P. Thiel,
and J.L. Hansen. 2001. Road density as a factor in habitat
selection by wolves and other carnivores in the Great Lakes
Region. Endangered Species Update 18(4): 110-114.
Zager, P.E., C.J. Jonkel, and J. Habeck. 1983. Logging and
wildfire influence on grizzly bear habitat in Northwestern
Montana. International Conference on Bear Resources and
Management 5: 124-132.
19
 Field Notes
Wildlands CPR’s Recently Updated
Bibliographic Database
By Greg Peters

A
s part of Wildlands CPR’s mission to promote respon-
sible, science-based public lands management, we
have been working to provide forest officials, lawmak-
ers, fellow conservationists, and the public with access to
the latest scientific information pertaining to roads and their
impacts to the land, wildlife and people. One critical aspect
of this effort is the maintenance of a bibliographic database
that contains citations and abstracts to scholarly journal
articles, government reports, conference proceedings, and
other sources of information. In this Field Notes, I present
background on this database project and instructions on how
to efficiently conduct a search.

In the beginning
Wildlands CPR recognized a need for this database over
fifteen years ago. Roads impact nearly every square mile of
the United States. Land managers, Forest Service officials,
environmental advocacy organizations, and average citizens
need to be able to access the ever-growing body of science
that reveals these impacts to make informed decisions and
develop scientifically sound policy. Without this access, land
managers are less likely to recognize and mitigate the myriad
impacts roads have on our public health, wildlife, natural
resources, and the landscape. This database is an impor-
tant, time-saving compendium of the most relevant scientific
articles, conference proceedings, government reports, and Want to research the impacts of plugged culverts or
gray literature designed to provide officials, citizens, and land cut slope failures? Log on and try Wildlands CPR’s
management professionals with the necessary information to Bibliographic Database. Photos by Adam Switalski.
make sound, science-based land use decisions.

So, in 1995, Wildlands CPR (then Road RIP) contacted

renowned conservation biologist Reed Noss to assemble
a bibliography of the literature discussing the ecological
effects of roads. Noss started with a bibliography he had
compiled in 1987 and 1988 and began the process of updat-
ing it. Under his direction, Dave Augeri, Susan Pierce, and
Mike Eley worked to conduct extensive computer searches
of literature on road impacts and entered their findings into a
comprehensive database. Additions from Steve Humphrey of
the University of Florida, and Paul Paquet from the University
of Calgary rounded out the initial effort.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010

The database today
The full database was completed in 1995, and in the 15
years since, Wildlands CPR has been conducting updates
every two years to ensure that all relevant, newly published
article citations are available to the public. Our database is
built from “source” databases including biological, ecological,
natural resource, agricultural, and environmental databases.
In 2009, we used 17 primary keywords and 89 secondary
keywords. Access to the “source” databases was provided
by the University of Montana and has expanded to include
fisheries, zoological, environmental pollution, and leisure
tourism databases.

The 2009 update has pushed the total database to

more than 20,000 individual citations, an increase of nearly
6,000 citations from 2007. The vast proliferation of studies
documenting the environmental effects of vehicles and the
transportation infrastructure they require illustrates the ever
growing importance of studying and quantifying how run-
away road building and off-road vehicle use have impacted
our environment. Many of the most recent studies document
impacts in Europe and China - and Chinese scientists have
been especially industrious.

From pollution partition studies, to impacts of roads on

antelope on the Tibetan Plateau, to the effects of stormwater
How to search the database
To access the database, simply open the Wildlands CPR
runoff, to the bioaccumulation of heavy metals by roadside
website: www.wildlandscpr.org. Choose the “Resources Page”
plants, the database contains citations of almost every con-
(on the top of the screen), and then “Bibliographic Database”
ceivable type of road impact study available. Simply brows-
(on the sidebar to the left). This opens up the search form,
ing through the citations can be an informative and interest-
which is pretty straightforward and operates like most stan-
ing exercise. It is important to remember that this database
dard on-line search tools. The first field is for the words you
does not provide access to the full-text articles themselves. It
want to search, separated by a space. For example, if you
is a compilation of citations and abstracts. To find the actual
want to search roads and vegetation, type roads vegetation
article, you have to take the citation as provided and track
into the field and all citations containing roads and vegetation
down the article itself. Google Scholar and university collec-
will display. There is an exclusion option which limits your
tions are two of the best places to locate the full-text articles.
results. To exclude a term, simply type it into the second
field. For example, if you want to search roads and vegeta-
tion but not heavy metals, type roads vegetation into the first
field and then “heavy metals” into the second. The quota-
tion marks will instruct the search to exclude all results that
contain the phrase “heavy metals,” and these results will not
be displayed.

This bibliographic database is a great resource for any-

one interested in the effects roads have on our wildlife, our
landscapes, and our health. The breadth of information and
collection of citations offered in this resource is unique. Con-
tact Adam Switalski, Science Coordinator, if you have addi-
tional questions or for more information about the database.

— Greg Peters is an environmental writer, communications

consultant, and recent graduate of the Environmental Studies
Masters Degree program at the University of Montana.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010 21

New Study Points to Off-Road Vehicle Activity
as Primary Source of Air Pollution
The San Luis Obispo (CA) Air Control Board released a study Feb 22
on the impacts of off-road vehicle use at the Oceano Dunes and the resul-
tant air pollution at the nearby Nipomo Mesa. 
A preliminary study was undertaken in 2004 to determine what was
causing high levels of air pollution — and potentially significant health
problems for the people in this community.  That study was somewhat in-
conclusive, and a second phase was begun in 2008 to hone in on the source
of the pollution, with two primary targets: a ConocoPhillips refinery and
the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreational Area.  It turns out the refinery
was exonerated in the study, while the ORV area was fully implicated.
Here’s the crux excerpt from the Executive Summary:
• “The airborne particulate matter (PM) predominantly impact-
ing the region on high episode days does not originate from an
offshore source.
• Neither the petroleum coke piles at the ConocoPhillips facility nor
agricultural fields or activities in and around the area are a signifi-
cant source of ambient PM on the Nipomo Mesa.
• The primary source of high PM levels measured on the Nipomo
Mesa is the open sand sheets in the dune areas of the coast.
• The open sand sheets subject to OHV activity on the SVRA emit
significantly greater amounts of particulates than the undisturbed
sand sheets at the study control sites under the same wind condi-
tions.
• Vegetated dune areas do not emit wind blown particles; the con-
trol site dunes have significantly higher vegetation coverage than
is present at the SVRA.
• The major findings resulting from detailed analysis of the diverse
and comprehensive data sets generated during the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 South County PM Studies clearly lead to a definitive con-
clusion: OHV activity in the SVRA is a major contributing factor to
the high PM concentrations observed on the Nipomo Mesa.”
The executive summary goes on to say that the primary cause of the
pollution is not from sand/dust being kicked up by ATVs directly, or ATV
exhaust (though these are contributing factors), but instead the destruc-
tion of the soil crust and of the vegetation, both of which stabilize the
dunes and significantly reduce windblown particulates.
The full study, entitled: South County Phase 2 Particulate Study is
more than 100 pages long, and is available at the San Luis Obispo Air Pollu-
tion Control District website, along with several appendices. The release of
the study was also reported in several news outlets.
22
New Paper on Roads and
Wildlife Mitigation Available
This recent paper looks at some economic
issues surrounding mitigation of road impacts.
ABSTRACT. Wildlife-vehicle collisions, es-
pecially with deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk (Cervus
elaphus), and moose (Alces alces) are numerous
and have shown an increasing trend over the last
several decades in the United States and Canada.
We calculated the costs associated with the
average deer-, elk-, and moose -vehicle collision,
including vehicle repair costs, human injuries
and fatalities, towing, accident attendance and
investigation, monetary value to hunters of the
animal killed in the collision, and cost of disposal
of the animal carcass. In addition, we reviewed
the effectiveness and costs of 13 mitigation mea-
sures considered effective in reducing collisions
with large ungulates. We conducted cost-benefit
analyses over a 75-year period using discount
rates of 1%, 3%, and 7% to identify the threshold
values (in 2007 U.S. dollars) above which indi-
vidual mitigation measures start generating ben-
efits in excess of costs. These threshold values
were translated into the number of deer-, elk-,
or moose-vehicle collisions that need to occur
per kilometer per year for a mitigation measure
to start generating economic benefits in excess
of costs. In addition, we calculated the costs
associated with large ungulate-vehicle collisions
on 10 road sections throughout the United States
and Canada and compared these to the thresh-
old values. Finally, we conducted a more detailed
cost analysis for one of these road sections to
illustrate that even though the average costs for
large ungulate-vehicle collisions per kilometer
per year may not meet the thresholds of many
of the mitigation measures, specific locations on
a road section can still exceed thresholds. We
believe the cost-benefit model presented in this
paper can be a valuable decision support tool
for determining mitigation measures to reduce
ungulate-vehicle collisions.
The full cite is:
Huijser, M.P., J.W. Duffield, A.P. Clevenger,
R.J. Ament, and P.T. McGowen. 2009.
Cost–benefit analyses of mitigation
measures aimed at reducing collisions
with large ungulates in the United States
and Canada; a decision support tool.
Ecology and Society 14(2): 15. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/viewissue.php?sf=41
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
T
he snow and ice storms that buried the
east coast just floated right by Missoula,
leaving us with an extremely low snow-
pack and a mild winter. Perhaps that’s why some
people call it climate change, instead of global
warming… The warm weather here was a good
partner to the busy winter we’ve had – preparing
all sorts of things for the spring and summer.
Welcome
In our last issue, we thanked two depart-
ing board members, Amy Atwood and William
Geer. In this issue, we’re pleased to introduce
you to our two newest board members, Susan
Jane Brown and Marion Hourdequin. Some of
you may recognize Marion’s name, as she and
Bethanie were co-directors of Wildlands CPR in
1995 before Marion went back to school for her
Master’s and PhD. It’s a treat to have her back
with Wildlands CPR!
Susan Jane Brown works for Western Envi-
ronmental Law Center (WELC) on public lands
and natural resources and has worked with
Wildlands CPR on several motorized recreation
cases already, in addition to helping out with
our advocacy work on Federal Highways issues.
Prior to joining WELC this year, she spent two
Photo © Marcel Huijser.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010
years as Natural Resources Council for Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
in Washington, DC.  Before that, she spent three years as a staff attorney
with the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Lewis and Clark Law
School’s environmental law clinic.  She also spent three years as Executive
Director of the Gifford Pinchot Task Force, a group that’s been at the fore-
front of promoting road reclamation on Forest Service lands. Susan Jane
graduated cum laude from Vanderbilt University in 1997 and graduated
from Lewis and Clark Law School in 2000. 
Marion Hourdequin is an assistant professor of philosophy at Colo-
rado College, in Colorado Springs, CO.  She holds an A.B. in biology from
Princeton University, Master’s degrees in ecology and philosophy from
University of Montana, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Duke University.
Marion’s teaching and research interests include environmental ethics,
comparative ethics, and philosophy of science.  With her husband, David
Havlick (a geography professor at University of Colorado-Colorado Springs,
author of No Place Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America’s
Public Lands, and former Wildlands CPR board member), Marion was
recently awarded a three-year grant from the National Science Foundation
to study ecological restoration on former military lands now designated as
National Wildlife Refuges. 
Thanks
A huge thank you to everyone who made year end donations to Wild-
lands CPR – your support made a big difference and enabled us to enter
2010 in a very financially healthy position! We’d also like to thank the High
Stakes, Horizons, Peradam and Temper of the Times Foundations for gener-
ous grants to support our restoration program.
23
 Support Wildlands CPR Today!
We’ve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

• Reducing Overhead
Monthly giving puts your contribution
directly into action and reduces our
administrative costs. The savings go to
restoring wildlands and building a more
effective network.
• Making Your Gift Easier
Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your
credit card or bank statement will con-
tain a record of each gift; we will also
send a year-end tax receipt for your
records.
• Our Promise To You
You maintain complete control over
your donation. To change or cancel
your gift at any time, just write or give
us a call.

Name
Phone
Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership: Individual/Family Organization Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Electronic Funds Transfer Credit Card Pledge
from Checking Account

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

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

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

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

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

Signature: __________________________________________
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation, * The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is
please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of
check to the address below. a credit card (usually in the signature field).

Please send this form and your payment option to:

Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807 Thank you for your support!

24 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010

 Photo by Laurel Hagen.

ATV wildness comes at the world from the outside, in the

form of a deafening gas engine carried along by eco-system-
flattening tires entering undeveloped areas in order to
enjoy by destroying.

— Dana Wildsmith