Road RIPorter 12.1 Spring Equinox 2007

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 12.1 Spring Equinox 2007

1/24

Spring Equinox 2007. Volume 12 No. 1

Inside

Check out our website at: www. wildlandscpr.org

A Look Down the Trail, byBethanie Walder. Page

Conducting a Successful Ci

Monitoring Program onClearwater National Forby Anna Holden. Pages

Odes to Roads: Dipnets andDevils Own Invention, Susan Cerulean. Pages 6

Policy Primer: StewardshipResult Contracting, by CDaly. Pages 8-9

DePaving the Way, by BethaWalder. Pages 10-11

Wildland CPRs Annual Re

Pages 12-13Get with the Program:

Restoration, Transportat& Science Updates. Pag14-15

Citizen Spotlight: Karen Boand Dan Heinz, by CathAdams. Pages 16-17

Biblio Notes: Beyond VegetCover as a Measure ofRestoration Success, bySara Simmers. Pages 18

Regional Reports & UpdatePage 21

Around the Ofce, MemberInfo. Pages 22-23

Citizen Scientists Making Good Conducting a Successful Citizen Monitoring Program on

the Clearwater National Forest By Anna Holden

Students from Kamiah Middle School, Leah Yorks Ecology class: Photo by Anna Holden.

Student volunteers tracking animals. Photo by Anna Holden.

Photo by Adam Switalski.


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 20072

2007 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR works to protect awildland ecosystems by preventiremoving roads and limiting mo

recreation. We are a national clearand network, providing citizens wand strategies to ght road constr

deter motorized recreation, and proremoval and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

Director Bethanie Walder

Development Director

Tom Petersen Communications

Coordinator Jason Kiely

Restoration ProgramCoordinator

Marnie Criley

Science Coordinator Adam Switalski

Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator

Sarah Peters

Program Assistant Cathy Adams

Montana State ORV Coordinator

Adam Rissien

Newsletter Dan Funsch

Interns & Volunteers Mike Fiebig, Laura Harris, Noah Ja

Andrea Manes, Gini Porter

Board of Directors Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim FurGeer, Dave Havlick, Rebecca Lloyd, C

Sonya Newenhouse, Patrick Paren

Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,

Keith Hammer, Timothy HermacMarion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungnessner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell

Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soul, StevLouisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howi

Change is in the air

In late 2006, contemplating numerous opportunities to expand our work, WildlandsCPR underwent a strategic restructuring. Unlike corporate speak, this is not a euphe-mism for downsizing were actually expanding, and were really excited about it! Notonly are we expanding, but we redened several existing jobs at Wildlands CPR, again,to take advantage of opportunities in both our restoration and transportation programs.The result is the following: We will now have the equivalent of four full-time staff workingon off-road vehicles, and the equivalent of three full-time staff working in our restorationprogram.

As we went to press, we were nishing the hiring process for two new State ORVCoordinators, based in Utah and Montana. There are six other State Coordinators,housed in six other organizations (in CO, CA, OR/WA, AZ/NM, ID, and NV). All of the statecoordinators are responsible for working with grassroots activists, agencies and others

to ensure the best possible travel plans as the Forest Service implements its 2005 travelplanning rule. While we have implemented some very successful pilot projects on-the-ground, this will be the rst time Wildlands CPR has dedicated staff to place-based work.So with our MT and UT coordinators well engage in a new way, which will open up aseries of challenges and opportunities for us.

In addition to our State Coordinators, we have redened our Transportation PolicyCoordinator Position. Our new Legal Liaison/Agency Training Coordinator will be re-sponsible for three key things: 1) coordinating the travel planning litigation of all eightState Coordinators; 2) developing a training program to provide agency staff with toolsfor implementing effective travel plans, and; 3) providing rapid response services to folksworking on travel planning outside of the west, and also providing policy assistance onoff-road vehicle issues not related to travel planning.

Finally, weve created a new Communications Coordinator position at WildlandsCPR, which will be lled by Jason Kiely. Jason will be splitting his time 50-50 betweenour restoration and transportation programs. On the restoration side, hell be creatinga brand around the concept of restoration, both within Montana and beyond. On thetransportation side, hell be helping the State Coordinators with the media components oftheir campaigns. And over all, hell be helping Wildlands CPR get the word out about ourgood work.

What does this mean, you might be wondering, for the Natural Trails and WatersCoalition? The Coalition will continue to provide travel planning and internal commu-nications resources for activists working on travel planning (and Wildlands CPR will becoordinating this effort), but it will play a much less public role on these issues. TheWilderness Society will be assuming that public role, with the creation of a RecreationPlanning Program. Theyll be coordinating the efforts of the State Coordinators, and pro-

viding national guidance on transportation planning. Well be working closely with them,including, as mentioned above, coordinating the litigation strategy and providing somecommunications resources.

Heres the bottom line: as of 2007, the conservation community has far greater capac-ity to address transportation planning on national forest lands, and Wildlands CPR hasa signicant portion of that increased capacity. With every national forest expecting toadopt a revised travel plan by 2010, this increased investment is critical, and were look-ing forward to taking full advantage of our new structure. Dont hesitate to get in touchwith us if you have any questions about this effort.


3/24

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2007 3

story continued on next page

Citizen Scientists Making Good

Conducting a Successful Citizen Monitoring Program

the Clearwater National Forest By Anna HoldenRoad Decommissioning on the Clearwater

In the winter of 1995-1996, right on schedule with predicted historicalrecords, the Clearwater National Forest (ID) experienced a dramaticrain-on-snow event that caused extensive ooding and more than 900landslides. Due to a legacy of logging and associated roading, some areason the Clearwater had road densities as high as 40 miles per square mile.These roads were the cause of more than half of the 900 landslides in theregion in 95-96, several of which literally carried area residents homes off

the mountains.

The Clearwater National Forest (CNF) responded quickly, acquiringemergency federal funds from Congress to begin an extensive road decom-missioning program with the help of the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). To date,the agency, in partnership with the tribe, has removed more than 600 milesof unused, unsafe and ecologically harmful roads.

Road decommissioning on the CNF provides high-wage jobs for localcontractors, whose work restores watershed integrity and reduces thelikelihood and severity of future landslides. But not everyone under-stands either how road removal works, or why it is important. So the CNFconducted extensive outreach in the local communities to build under-standing of and support for this form of watershed restoration. However,

budget cutbacks in the Forest Service havent allowed the CNF or the NPTto conduct extensive monitoring on the decommissioned roads. In addi-tion, there isnt much peer-reviewed scientic research about the effects ofroad decommissioning on wildlife, vegetation or stream integrity.

Wildlands CPR recognized both the extraordinary nature of the CNF/NPT restoration program, and the importance of monitoring that work. In2004 Wildlands CPR received a generous grant from the National ForestFoundation that enabled us to begin working with the CNF and NPT to ex-pand their efforts by creating the rst citizen monitoring program to focuson road removal as a key form of watershed restoration.

Anna Holden in the eld. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Extensive road building and logging through the 1980s and

90s left the Clearwater vulnerableto catastrophic erosion. Aerial photo at left shows excessiveroad densities (Wildlands CPR

le photo). Photo at right showsa failed culvert (photo by Bill

Haskins).


4/24


What is Citizen Science?Citizen science is simply the incorporation of volunteers into the plan-

ning, data collection, or analysis of a scientic project. In addition to col-lecting data, there are many benets of citizen science, both to the organi-zation in charge and the communities involved. Organizations or agenciescan reduce their resource costs, educate non-scientists, and begin to buildtrust between agencies, conservation organizations and citizens. Citizenscientists gain an understanding of the project and issues surrounding it,giving them the opportunity to be an educational source for other citizensin their community. Over time, citizen science projects can lead to fargreater community understanding of natural resource management issues.

The overall goals of Wildlands CPRs monitoring project are twofold:to collect much needed data about the short and long-term effects of roadremoval as a watershed restoration tool, and to increase local communityunderstanding of, and support for, watershed restoration. During the rstyear of the program, Katherine Court, a University of Montana graduatestudent, developed and tested research methods for citizen scientists to

collect data on road removal. We also contracted with wildlife biologistSue Townsend to develop some of our wildlife protocols, which includeusing remotely-triggered cameras to photograph large fauna in action, andbaited track plates to collect the footprints of smaller critters (see Road

RIPorter 10:2). In addition, we developed protocols for vegetation samplesto identify noxious weed problems. For stream integrity, we developedmacro-invertebrate sampling techniques and adopted the Wolman Pebblecount to measure stream sediment (see Road RIPorter 9:4).

Organizing Citizen ScientistsOnce the protocols were completed and peer-reviewed, we began

organizing local people to conduct the monitoring. We recruited individu-

als and groups of volunteers through meetings with local schools, conser-vation groups, and shing organizations. I was hired last year to organizemore citizen scientists for the project, specically targeting the hard-to-re-cruit rural areas along Highway 12 in Idaho. Beginning in February of 2006,I taught high school classes in Orono and Kamiah. In May, I took thesestudents into the eld and we conducted both wildlife and vegetativemonitoring. The students were very enthusiastic and seemed happy to bedoing something constructive and out of the classroom, especially when Itied the activities to their favorite local activities hunting and shing.

I also presented to local shing and conservation groups including theThree Rivers Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Clearwater Flycasters, andFriends of the Clearwater. While notall presentations were met with en-

our monitoring site in the Moscow area. Adri-enne recruited her own volunteers and tookgroups into the eld.

The Clearwater Flycasters provided consis-tent volunteers from the Moscow and Troy areas at last we had found a regular, dedicatedgroup of volunteers. Cliff Swanson, a ClearwaterFlycaster and return volunteer, understood theimportance of participating in citizen science.As a retired mathematics teacher it was excit-ing to see science and math used in a real world

setting. It made me feel good to help with aproject that will have an impact on future resto-ration practices.

Over the course of the 2006 eld season 60volunteers contributed more than 400 hoursof monitoring on the CNF the most volun-teer hours yet! This brought our grand totalof volunteers to 125 contributing nearly 1000hours of time. In addition to adult volunteers,we collected data with students from HellgateHigh in Missoula, Montana, Orono and KamiahHigh Schools in Idaho, and groups and individu-als from the University of Montana, University

of Idaho, and Washington State University inPullman, WA.

Citizen Science, continued from page 2

A curious moose is captured on lm by one of the remote monitoring cameras.

Student volunteers found these tracks, left by a sher using one of the decommissioned roads.

thusiasm, and some with downrightskepticism, I did have some suc-cess. Friends of the Clearwater,based out of Moscow,Idaho, gave us thesupport of theirstudent intern,AdrienneBoland, whotook over


5/24


As a retired mathematics teacher it was exciting to

see science and math used in a real world setting. It made me feel good to help with a project that will have an impact on future restoration practices.

Cliff Swanson, volunteer

Data CollectionDuring our rst full monitoring season in 2005, citizen scientists

successfully recorded tracks or photos of bear, deer, elk, moose, squir-rels, chipmunks, mice, and voles. They also sampled three streams andconducted vegetation samples on decommissioned roads. Katherine andAdam Switalski, Wildlands CPRs Science Coordinator, presented these re-sults and the project in general at the International Conference on Ecologyand Transportation (ICOET) in San Diego, CA. Their poster presentation

was well-received and generated interest from peers in the eld of roadecology.

In 2006, we engaged university students to help us with the dataanalysis. An undergraduate environmental studies class at the Universityof Montana, led by Dr. Vicki Watson, conducted the initial analysis of all ofour 2006 monitoring data. The study design included three paired moni-toring sites on open and decommissioned roads. The students found thatbears are using decommissioned roads signicantly more than open roads.While all our sites on decommissioned roads captured photos of bears,remotely triggered cameras on open roads found none. Our monitoringis the rst study to show with statistical signicance that road decommis-sioning is restoring bear habitat.

On the Palouse Ranger District, we had a different study design andwere testing whether the distance from an open road affected wildlife use.We found six bears 1 mile from the open road, three bears 2/3 mile fromthe open road, and no bears 1/3 mile from the road. This is a very impor-tant nding as it appears that more bears use decommissioned roads asthere is an increased level of security (i.e., further from an open road). Amanagement implication may be that decommissioning several small roadspurs is not as effective for protecting bears as decommissioning onelonger road section.

We have been accepted to present our re-sults at next years Ecological Society of America/ Society for Ecological Restorations joint meet-ing in San Jose, CA. We have also been acceptedfor presentation at this years International Con-ference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET)in Little Rock, AR this summer. In addition, wehave plans to present this work to members ofthe communities surrounding the CNF.

ConclusionCollecting information on the benets of

road removal will help support continued roadremoval efforts undertaken by the Forest Ser-vice and Nez Perce Tribe. Moreover, it will alsohelp build community support for this criticalform of watershed restoration. As our projecttrains new citizen scientists and takes them intothe eld, many will likely be inspired to helpprotect and restore the Clearwaters forestedlandscapes. My role as project leader has beenrewarded by new friendships, joyful memories,and the knowledge that our efforts are making adifference. We expect to build upon our suc-cesses through the program, while rebuildingthe ecological integrity of the Clearwater.

Anna Holden is an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Montana. She was raised in Logan, Utah, by passionateoutdoor enthusiasts who showed her that theanswer to most questions could be found innature.

Decommissioned roads are not only used by wildlife they offer access for quiet recreation. Photo taken by remote monitoring camera.

Next StepsOver the last three years the program has adapted to increase its

effectiveness. Due to the success of the classroom lessons and eld day,

Wildlands CPR has expanded our school-based efforts for 2007, hiringMike Fiebig to work exclusively with schools in rural Idaho. In Missoulaand Moscow, we have hired AmeriCorps volunteers to organize at farm-ers markets, volunteer fairs, and other events. We have added eld sitesto increase our sample size and the scientic strength of the study. Wehave also expanded our citizen monitoring to the Swan Valley (MT) andare seeking funding with the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project to createanother citizen monitoring program in Colorado.


6/24


Dipnets and the Devils Own Invention By Susan Cerulean

For nearly forty years, renowned Tallahassee herpetologist Dr. BruceMeans has seined and dipnetted and cataloged the vertebrate lifeof more than 266 unique, ephemeral ponds that dot this landscapejust south of Tallahassee. Rare and threatened amphibians, including thestriped newt and the gopher frog (both designated candidates as feder-ally threatened species), have struck an evolutionary deal with the pondsever-changing water levels, which can include going bone-dry for severalyears at a stretch. These animals and quite a few others actually dependon periodic dry-downs to eliminate sh and other aquatic predators fromthe ponds. In addition, at least ten of Floridas twenty-seven species ofnative frogs utilize temporary ponds almost exclusively four in the verycoldest time of the winter and six in the summer months.

But Bruce Means has told me that illegal off-road motoring continuesto threaten the very existence of the newts and salamanders and frogs thatlive here. The U.S. Forest Service rules allow motor vehicles only on estab-lished trails within the national forest. Resource damage, which includesdriving in or near ponds, is prohibited. When I met with Means in his tinyTallahassee ofce, he ran through a set of slides he took of a single pondduring the last nine years. The rst slide showed an undisturbed wetland,so thickly vegetated that I couldnt really tell where the forest stoppedand the pond began. There was very little off-highway vehicle use of thesandhills in the national forest when I began my study, said Means. Butall of sudden, about six years ago, boom. Here comes all these OHVs.Precipitously.

He told me that what protected the Apalachicola National Forest upuntil that point was unlimited public access to the commercial papercompany lands to the east. In 1998, those private roads were gated andposted by hunting clubs, which had leased the hunting rights and nowexcluded trespassers.

It was the Forest that took the overow of displaced OHV riders.

And its the very ponds the rarest animals live in that these idiotshave been destroying with their mudbogging and joyriding activity! hesaid. The last slide in his series showed a forty-or fty-foot swath of mud-dy destruction around the perimeter of the sampling pond. I dont needfurther convincing; its clear that very little could survive in that war zone.

Whats really scary is the way these guys love to motor around andaround these ponds, totally destroying the littoral vegetation, the under-pinning of the whole system, said Means.

The rst pond I visit this morning looksmore like a grassy bowl than a wetland. Thestanding water at the center is less than eightfeet across and a mere four inches deep. Its sosmall I can almost encircle it with my arms. Butthe surface of the water thrums with life. Eachpass of my net yields a scattering of dragonynymphs and a dozen tadpoles with bronze ro-bust bellies and delicately marbled tails. I wish Iknew their names. My eld guide only illustratesthe adult frogs, doesnt distinguish betweenthe tadpoles. As I kneel by the tiny wetland, Ican clearly see its seasonal range of movementbetween the tall pines and arching oaks at itsperimeter to this remnant pool at the center.I think about the dissolution of subsurfacelimestone that caused the ground to slump andcreate this mild saucer. In other places, wherethe ground sinks too much and dips into theunderground aquifer, I remember Means saying,a permanent water body will be formed, creatingan entirely different environment.

. . . . .

I get back on my bike and continue deeperinto the forest. Theres a big pond on my left,and I push my bike through the palmetto under-story to the waters edge. I see deer tracks inthe sand, and one white egret, and a turtle strok-

Editors note: This is a condensed version of an essay that appears in our book: A Road Runs Through It.

An intact ephemeral pond. Photo by Susan Cerulean.


7/24


ing off through the grasses. This pond is much bigger than the previoustwomust be ve or more acres--and its ringed with a sandy beach thatsparkles with shattered bits of green and brown beer bottles.

. . . . .

But what appears to be a perfectly natural sand beach encircling thispond and so many others in the forest is an artifact, I realize, of past OHVtrafc and a goodly number of parties. As beautiful as they might seem,they are actually scars in the once-continuous sandhill fabric. Vehicle tireshave destroyed the vegetation that grew here and ground down ruts thattrap and kill newts, salamanders and their larvae as the ponds season-ally recede. The wide, sandy trails remain desertlike barriers for the tinynewts and other rare creatures attempting to move between pond and for-est, as they must, to complete their intricate life cycles. These sand ringsshould not exist, says Bruce Means.

In March 2004, in response to documentation of the damage tosandhill ponds on the forest provided by Means and the Friends of theApalachicola, the U.S. Forest Service closed about 6,500 acres to off-roadvehicles. A story with a happy ending, right? Scientist shares lifework,persuades federal administrators to permanently protect sensitive areas,isnt that how it works? Unfortunately, and unbelievably given whats atrisk the closure is most likely only temporary. Although the Forest Ser-vices plan for the national forests in Florida changed access for motorizedvehicles and bicycles by prohibiting cross-country travel, and establisheda few restricted areas where travel will be limited to designated roads andtrails only, we are still awaiting a nal access decision that designates asystem of roads and trails within the restricted areas. The document isfour years late and appears to be in the hands of Forest Service recreationplanners with close ties to the OHV community, rather than the biologistsand natural resource specialists who ought to be laying out the needsof the forests sensitive species as an immutable baseline from which allother decisions should be made.

In the meantime, says Walter Tschinkel, another longtime forest re-searcher and president of the Friends of the Apalachicola National Forest,the temporary restricted area closures and the ban against cross-countrytravel are violated right and left, and with only two law enforcement of-cials on the whole 500,000-acre forest, the riders grow more condent andbrazen every day. I think these machines are the devils own invention.

. . . . .

Theres another solution than trail designation that some land man-agers believe could mitigate this problem of trying to integrate off-roadvehicles into an ecosytem, at least somewhat. What were looking at noware lands that can be basically dedicated or sacriced for this use, likeformer phosphate mines, says the state wildlife agencys Jerrie Lindsey.Teneroc Fish Management Area near Lakeland is a good example areclaimed phosphate mine that is never going to be a pristine pine forestagain. What you see down there are pines with waving stands of invasive

cogan grass underneath. It would cost billions to restore it for other uses.It just might be the place for off-road riders. Lindsey and her colleaguesin governmental agencies know that pretending this problem is going to goaway will never work. Pandoras box has been opened, she says. If wedont try to help, then were part of the problem.

I just can hardly stand the thought of sacricing any of our Apalachic-ola as an off-road playground, and I say so to Chuck Hess, a former wildlifebiologist with the forest. He tells me, If you dont let them into the forestat all, you lose supporters for natural areas. Youve got to pick an areathats already trashed. Youve got to give it to these guys. Youve got toset up areas to do it in and eliminate it everywhere else. I just dont think

the concept of trail systems is going to work.Youd have to count on the people who use thetrails to behave responsibly. Its not enforce-able; unless we issue draconian threats andhire twenty times the present law enforcementpersonnel, we dont have a chance.

Pretty grim prospects. Given that OHVsare designed to trammel the landscape; giventhat the number of riders has far outgrown lawenforcement capabilities of public land agencies;given that the Bush administration is not onlyloosening protective regulations, cowing its em-ployees, and gutting their budgets, but attempt-ing to rewrite their very mission statements. Iwonder if we as a culture will have to let this oneplay itself out to its sorrowful, sorry conclusion,just as we are with the automobile.

I think back to my last visit to Bruce Meanstiny second-oor Coastal Plains Institute in afunky, unassuming downtown neighborhood.Hurricane Katrina was just bearing down on NewOrleans, her fringes bending the trees outsidethe windows while we talked. As we pagedthrough reports and images of the habitatsand creatures hes come to know so intimately,Bruces lifework seemed as vulnerable and es-sential as one of his beloved ephemeral ponds.I looked at the tiny rooms honeycombed withwhite shelving, the carefully arranged librariesand data collections, the hundreds and hun-dreds of boxed slide carousels. All on behalf ofrattlesnakes, newts, gopher frogs and salaman-

ders, and why? Theyve had the same evolu-tionary run on the planet that weve had, saysMeans. We owe them everything we can do.

Reprinted (in abbreviated form) by authors permission, all rights reserved.

Susan Cerulean is the director of the Red Hills Writers Project and a writer, naturalist,and activist living in Florida. Her latest book isa nature memoir, entitled Tracking Desire: A

Journey After Swallow-tailed Kites.

Repeated off road vehicle use has turned this pond intoa desert of sand. Photo by Susan Cerulean.


8/24


Stewardship End Result Contracting By Carol Daly

Value-added products made by local manufacturer from small diameter trees removed on Clearwater

Stewardshsip Project, Lolo NF, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.

Background Experimental projects using some of the concepts now incorporated

in stewardship end result contracting were conducted sporadically onfederal lands beginning in the late 1970s. Broad interest in the idea,however, did not develop until the mid-1990s, when community-basedforestry groups in the West started looking at it as a possible way to re-duce the contentious nature of public lands management. They wanted toencourage diverse stakeholders to collaborate in planning and monitoringrestoration projects that would be carried out by contractors who focusedon what was left, not what was removed from the forest. Some regional

Forest Service managers also were advocating for stewardship contracting,seeing advantages both in the exibility it offered and in potential improve-ment of operational effectiveness.

PurposeStand-alone legislation to establish a new demonstration program

failed to generate widespread interest in Congress, so in 1998 some of theinitiatives supporters in the Senate attached it as a rider to an appropria-tions bill funding on-going government programs. Section 347 authorizedthe Forest Service to implement a limited number of stewardship endresult contracting demonstration projects. Five years later, Congresslifted stewardship contractings demonstration status, removed the capon the number of projects, and empowered the Bureau of Land Manage-ment (BLM) to also use the new tool. That legislation is effective through

September 30, 2013. For the full text of the legislation and related ForestService implementation guidance: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/projects/stewardship/direction/index.shtml. There is a link to the BLMstewardship site as well.

The law provides that stewardship contracting be used by the agen-cies to achieve land management goalsthat meet local and rural com-munity needs, and that such goals may include, among other things --

1. road and trail maintenance or obliteration to restore or maintainwater quality;

2. soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and sheries, or other re-source values;

3. setting of prescribed res to improve the composition, structure,condition, and health of stands or to improve wildlife habitat;

4. removing vegetation or other activities to promote healthy forest

stands, reduce re hazards or achieve other land managementobjectives;5. watershed restoration and maintenance;6. restoration and maintenance of wildlife and sh habitat; and7. control of noxious and exotic weeds and reestablishing native

plant species.

The Forest Service Handbook says the intent of stewardship contract-ing is to accomplish resource management with a focus on restoration,and echoes the legislative proviso that deriving revenue from the sale ofproducts designated for removal through stewardship contracting projectsis a secondary objective to achieving land management goals.

Special authoritiesStewardship contracting provides special

authorities for the agencies to use in pursuingtheir management goals. These include:

Best value contracting Rather thanawarding a contract solely on the basis of price(as with conventional timber sales), agenciescan consider both price and non-price factors(such as the contractors past performance,key employees qualications, and plannedutilization of local workforce). Best value isthe standard that must be used in awarding allstewardship contracts or agreements.

Goods for services The agencies canexchange goods (timber or other forest prod-ucts such as biomass and forage) for servicesrendered by a contractor in doing restorationwork in the project area.

Residual receipts If the value of theproduct removed through a stewardship con-tract exceeds the cost of the services providedby the contractor, the agencies may keep theexcess revenue and use it for additional restora-

tion. If the excess receipts are not used on thesame project, but made available for transfer toanother, they become retained receipts.

Multi-year contracting Stewardshipcontracts or agreements may have terms up to10 years.

Stewardship contracting projects mustcomply with the National Environmental PolicyAct and all other laws and regulations applicableto the management of National Forest Systemand BLM lands.


9/24


Carol Daly is president of the Flathead Economic Policy Center, Columbia Falls, Montana, and has been engaged in regional and national multiparty monitoring of stewardship contracting projects since 1999. She is theauthor of the Best Value and Stewardship Contracting Guidebook, recently

published by Sustainable Northwest.

CollaborationAlthough the word collaboration does

not appear in the authorizing legislation forstewardship contracting, broad and meaningfulparticipation in planning, implementing, andmonitoring projects is intrinsic. Collaborationcan increase understanding and trust, and bringa broader range of knowledge and experience tobear on the achievement of shared goals for res-

toration. Agency personnel are encouraged toparticipate in but not lead collaborative groups.Collaborative efforts supplement but do not

replace existing NEPA-required public involve-ment processes. Collaborative groups offerideas and recommend where and how steward-ship projects should be implemented, but fed-eral agencies retain decision making authority.

Multiparty Monitoring During the demonstration phase, the Forest

Service was required to establish a multipartymonitoring and evaluation process that as-sessed each of the 84 pilots. They contracted

with the Pinchot Institute for Conservation(PIC), who from 1999-2004 worked with local,regional, and national monitoring teams to ana-lyze information from the demonstrations. TheForest Service then prepared annual reports toCongress addressing:

1. The status of development, execution,and administration of stewardship contracts;

2. Specic accomplishments that resulted;3. The role of local communities in the de-

velopment of those agreements and plans.

The 2003 legislation eliminated the require-ment for project level monitoring. The agencies

now collect data on items #1 and #2 from allprojects, and contract with PIC to address item#3. Regional multiparty teams are still facilitat-ed by PIC. Project level teams are discretionary,although managers are encouraged to providefor them when there is local support. The For-est Service allows retained receipts to be usedto complete project level process monitoring.

Contracts and agreementsStewardship projects may be implemented

through either contracts or agreements with pri-vate contractors, non-prot organizations, andtribal, state, and local government entities. The

Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 additionallyauthorizes the Forest Service and BLM to givespecial consideration to tribally-proposedstewardship contracting projects on federallands bordering tribal trust lands. Until recently,few agreements had been used to implementstewardship projects, but in December 2006the BLM and the Forest Service signed 10-yearchallenge cost-share agreements with the RockyMountain Elk Foundation for cooperative effortsto enhance and restore wildlife habitat on thou-sands of acres in Montana and Wyoming.

Using stewardshipcontracting

Many of the demonstration proj-ects took advantage of stewardshipcontractings special authorities tobundle a variety of managementactivities in a project area standimprovement, stream restoration,road improvement or removal,

noxious weed treatment, habitat en-hancement, etc. But priorities haveshifted, and most new stewardshipprojects are now aimed solely or pri-marily at reducing wildre risks inthe wildland urban interface (WUI).Such projects usually involveremoving large quantities of small,low- or no-value woody material,and barring a readily accessiblebiomass market the goods valueoften isnt sufcient to pay for theservice of removing it, let alonecover the cost of other restoration.

There is an up side to the current stewardship/fuels pairing. Workin the WUI is often less contentious than projects farther from populatedareas, and can provide a good starting place for community collaboration.

Issues to be Resolved 1. Bonding. It is difcult for non-prots, communities, quasi-govern-

mental organizations, and small contractors to meet the stringent bondingrequirements for contracting with the Forest Service and BLM. With fewerbonding companies willing to issue bonds for forest work particularly fornon-harvest related activities with which they are unfamiliar even someestablished contractors have a hard time obtaining coverage.

2. Payments to counties. Last years expiration of the Craig-Wydencounty payments bill sounded an alarm for counties that had foregonereceipt of their traditional 25% fund payments (25% of the value of

federal timber sales from within their counties) in order to receive annualpayments based on an average of previous receipts. Stewardship contract-ing is exempt from making 25% payments from revenues it generates, andif the county payments bill is not reauthorized and funded, local govern-ment resistance to more stewardship contracting is likely.

ConclusionThere is growing support for a greater emphasis on and more invest-

ment in forest ecosystem restoration. To many, that is the job for whichstewardship contracting should be a valuable tool with its focus on endresults, its use of best value in selecting contractors, its capacity to incor-porate multiple activities over longer time frames and broader landscapes,and its ability to capture revenues as a by-product of the restoration workto help offset project costs. Moving on to multi-faceted restoration proj-ects, however, will require that agencies and other stakeholders develop agreater familiarity with the full suite of stewardship contractings specialauthorities and a willingness to use them to best advantage. Appropriatetraining and technical assistance will be essential. Agency personnel andcontractors both will have to learn new ways of doing business, overcom-ing individual reluctance, and sometimes institutional barriers, to change.

Thinning in campground area, Paint Emery Stewardship Project, Flathead National Forest, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.


10/24


Keep Your ORVs Out Of My

Roadless Areas! By Bethanie Walder

Incredible as it may seem, the

Forest Service could add these user- created, renegade, unauthorized roads to its authorized system as

trails.

It was 1998, and the Forest Service had justdecided to develop a plan for managing theirnational road system. They also decided,concurrently, to create a plan for managing and pro-tecting roadless areas. We were encouraged, albeit abit skeptical, that the Forest Service was nally ready

to get serious about roads and roadless areas. Recog-nizing an opportunity to address several transporta-tion-related problems at once, Wildlands CPR met withthe Forest Service, and also with many conservationorganizations inside the beltway, to push for ad-dressing off-road vehicle problems within the contextof these two management initiatives.

Now, nearly ten years later, and following numer-ous policy reversals and shifts, were still worriedthat the Forest Service could allow off-road vehicledamage, and particularly the continued proliferationof user-created routes, to go unchecked in roadlessareas.

Background Back then, while many agreed that off-road

vehicles were a problem, very few, including those incharge at the Forest Service, wanted to address off-road vehicles at the same time they considered road-less protection and road management. Their platewas full, they said, and they would address off-roadvehicles once these other management issues werecomplete. To their credit, they did, and in November2005, the Forest Service adopted a national rule formanaging off-road vehicles as well. Ironically, by thattime, the 2001 roadless rule had been rendered mootand replaced by a new roadless rule from the BushAdministration.

Then, in September 2006 the courts reinstated the2001 roadless rule. So we now have two administra-tive rules that potentially give us the tools to curboff-road vehicles. The thing is that the two rules usedifferent denitions and different terminology: theyintersect, but they dont necessarily overlap. While

the roadless rule is the law of the land for road-less areas (barring any court action that could onceagain nullify it), the 2005 off-road vehicle rule applieseverywhere else, and in some contexts, it applies toroadless areas, too.

Lake Alice Roadless Area, Wyoming. Threatened by proposed road construction. Photo courtesy of Wild Utah Project.


11/24


The Devils in the DetailsWith the reinstatement of the 2001 rule, there was

a collective sigh of relief. But we may need to keepholding our breath regarding off-road vehicle use inroadless areas. The 2001 roadless rule states thatroads cannot be constructed into roadless areas, butit lists seven exceptions. These exceptions generallycover public health and safety; existing treaty or otherstatutory rights; pollution cleanup; realignment of

needed roads that are causing unacceptable damage;development of Federal Aid Highway projects; or thecontinuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease.While these exceptions may give us heartburn in somecases, the greater concern is that the 2001 roadlessrule technically does not prevent off-road vehiclerecreation in roadless areas.

This loophole is now combining with the 2005off-road vehicle rule to create what may be a perfectstorm. The 2005 rule requires all national forests toundergo a travel planning process, and it includesroadless areas within this process. So how will theForest Service apply travel planning in roadless areas?

According to the 2005 rule, such use can be allowedonly on designated routes or in discrete designatedareas, but just what does constitute a designatedroute? Enter semantics

The Forest Service denes a road as follows: Amotor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identi-ed and managed as a trail. This denition doesnot include unauthorized roads (unclassied roadsunder the 2001 denitions) many of which arefound in roadless lands and were created by off-roadvehicle users repeatedly traveling the same path. Asthe Forest Service engages in travel planning, they willhave to decide whether or not to add these unauthor-

ized roads to their authorized travel system. To doso, they should be required to undergo site-specicenvironmental analysis to determine whether or notthese roads are causing harm. Furthermore, to addthese roads to the authorized system in inventoriedroadless areas, the roads should have to meet one ofthe exceptions dened above. But an end run aroundthese sensible demands is possible: if the Forest Ser-vice adds these user-created routes to the system assomething other than roads.

When is a Road a Trail?Incredible as it may seem, the Forest Service

could add these user-created, renegade, unauthorizedroads to its authorized system as trails. Should thishappen, the protections of the roadless rule ceaseto apply. Wildlands CPR has long argued with theForest Service over this fatal aw in their denitionof a road. If there is a travelway on the ground, andit looks, feels and functions like a road (with all of theassociated impacts of a road), then the Forest Serviceshould address it as a road and manage it as such. Ifthey were to classify these travelways as roads, thenmost of them could not legally be designated as open

under the protections of the 2001 roadless rule. But ifthey classify them as system trails, then the routes aresuddenly allowed in roadless areas. To allow this issimply unacceptable.

We raised these concerns with the Forest Serviceway back in 1997. We raised these concerns with theForest Service all through the development of the 2005off-road vehicle regulations. But the Forest Serviceloves discretion. And with that discretion comes theoption to circumvent the protections of the 2001 road-less rule by simply reclassifying unauthorized roadsas system trails.

Where To Go From Here?It would be a travesty if neither the 2001 road-

less rule nor the 2005 off-road vehicle could preventsuch reclassications or designations. The end resultwould be profoundly diminished roadless values inthe affected roadless areas. Lets be clear we donot recommend that these routes be designated asroads. To do so simply rewards bad behavior and en-courages off-road vehicles users to develop ever moreuser-created, renegade routes, especially in roadlessareas. These routes impacts were never analyzed bythe agency, and they have received no maintenanceother than repeated travel by four-wheel drive vehi-cles. A responsible, fair-minded agency would simplydecide not to authorize any user-created routes butthats not very likely.

Now that the Forest Service is dramaticallyramping up its travel planning schedule, its time forconservationists, quiet recreationists, and all otherswho care about the fate of roadless areas to insistthat off-road vehicle use NOT be allowed in roadlessareas. Off-road vehicle recreation is inconsistent witheverything that roadless areas stand for.

HD Mountain Roadless Area, Colorado. Site of proposed Coal Bed Methane Project. Photo Source: www.savehdmountains.org


12/24


2006 Annual Report

Wow!2006 was a big year for Wildlands CPR, lled with new proj-ects and transitions all of which have created new opportu-

nities for us in 2007.

Restoration ProgramThe highlight of our restoration work in 2006 was co-sponsoring (with the MTAFL-CIO) the Montana Governors Restoration Summit, held in June in Billingsand attended by over 300 business and industry leaders, tribal representatives,university faculty, labor representatives, conservationists, watershed councilmembers, and others. We helped the Governors staff design the agenda, andby the end participants had adopted numerous recommendations for investingin restoration (and therefore economic development). The Governor took manyof these and crafted a legislative package for investing $7 million in restorationin 2007-08. Shortly after the conference, we convened a follow-up meeting,

which morphed into a growing coalition to promote such investment in restora-tion and revitalization, calling itself Restore Montana.

Adam expanded our citizen-science monitoring on Idahos Clearwater NationalForest. Anna Holden joined the project through the University of Montanaand increased the participation of rural Idaho residents, especially by engagingmore schools. Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow, Idaho helped coordinatevolunteers. Adam analyzed data with an ecology class at the University of Montana, and found statistically signicant results on black bears use of de-commissioned roads. In addition, we started a new citizen science project onthe Flathead National Forest in partnership with Northwest Connections, a ruralcitizens advocacy group.

In addition to our work on restoration economics and citizen science, weteamed up with university professors (UC-Davis; CU-Denver; Redlands Insti-tute) to lead a GIS training for agency staff to help them set priorities for roaddecommissioning and maintenance during travel planning. In addition, Marniepulled together two other agency trainings on road removal programs (Albu-querque, NM and Portland, OR). More than 100 agency staff attended thesethree workshops.

Transportation Program/NTWCIn 2006, we partnered with the Natu-ral Trails and Waters Coalition andgrassroots groups to deliver a series of workshops for conservationists, quietrecreationists, off-road vehicle usersand agency staff on the ins and outsof authentic collaboration. We heldworkshops in seven western states(CA, CO, AZ, NM, UT, OR, MT), withnearly 200 people attending. JasonKiely, on loan from Wildlands CPRto NTWC, coordinated these work-shops with some assistance from Tim

Peterson, our Transportation PolicyCoordinator. Staff from the Institutefor Environmental Negotiation at theUniversity of Virginia developed thecurricula. With the Forest Serviceconsidering collaboration as a majortool for transportation planning, theworkshops helped agency staff andlocal stakeholders understand whatgood collaboration looks like.

In addition to these and other citizenworkshops, we provided $22,000

in minigrant support to grassrootsorganizations working on monitor-ing and travel planning throughoutthe west. We also developed sev-eral new resources for activists. Forexample, Adam partnered with theWild Utah Project to create a set of off-road vehicle Best ManagementPractices, which are now undergoingpeer review and will be publishedin 2007. These BMPs will providestrong guidelines for off-road vehiclemanagement in those places wherethe agency determines such use isappropriate. In addition, ExecutiveDirector Bethanie Walder oversawdevelopment of a new report on strat-egies for enforcing off-road vehicle re-strictions. The report will be out soonand is based on interviews with morethan 50 activists and agency staff about successful models to enhanceenforcement on limited budgets.

Kenai Refuge, Alaska. Photo by Steve Hillebrand, courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


13/24


2006 Financial Report

Grant Income(73%)

Contract Income(10%)

Contributions, Membership& Workplace Giving

(13%)Other* (4%)

Income: $ 594,258.41

Administration &Fundraising

(10%)OrganizationalDevelopment (13%)

Natural Trails& Waters

Coalition (23%)

Restoration(32%)

Transportation Policy(23%)

Expenses: $499,891.02

These resources are critical for ad-dressing travel planning nationwide.In addition to new resources, werealso coordinating with The Wilder-ness Societys new Recreation Plan-ning Program to increase grassrootscapacity on travel planning. At theend of 2006 we received funding for

three new positions as part of thiseffort: one to assist with travel plan-ning litigation throughout the west;and two to develop programs in Utahand Montana to ensure the mostprotective travel plans possible. In ad-dition, Wildlands CPR will continueto provide electronic and network-ing resources through the NTWCcampaign room. As a result of thesechanges, Jason Kiely shifted to a newrole as our Communications Coordi-nator beginning in 2007. In addition,

Tim Peterson left Wildlands CPR inDecember 2006 for a position withGreat Old Broads for Wilderness.

A Road Runs Through ItIn 2006, we worked with Johnson Books to publish a literary anthology, ARoad Runs Through It. The book was the result of years of work by our Devel-opment Director Tom Petersen, who edited the project, and who coordinatesthe Odes to Roads essays in our newsletter. The book is an extraordinary col-lection about roads, off-road vehicles and restoration. We were also fortunateto have Wildlands CPR member Annie Proulx write the Foreword to the book.In its rst few months, even before the rst reviews, we sold nearly 2000 copies

(including 400 that Wildlands CPR bought to distribute to decision-makers andthe media). Were looking forward to increased sales and more reviews overthe next few months.

FundraisingWildlands CPR was funded by the following foundations in 2006: 444S, Brain-erd, Bullitt, Cinnabar, Firedoll, Harder, LaSalle Adams, Lazar, Maki, NationalForest Foundation, New Land, Norcross, Page, Patagonia, and Weeden Founda-tions. We also raised nearly $70,000 in private contributions.

ConclusionIt was an exciting, productive, successful, cutting-edge, and especially fun yearto be working at Wildlands CPR. With huge advances in both our Restorationand Transportation programs, we set the stage for even greater accomplishmentsin 2007!

* Other includes Interest Income, Reimbursed Income,Sales and Miscellaneous Income

NOTE: These income and expenditure charts do not reect in-kindcontributions.


14/24


Transportation Program/NTWC A s of January 1, Jason began his new role as Communications Coordinatorfor Wildlands CPR. By elevating the frequency and effectiveness of howWildlands CPR communicates with the media, Jason will help us attract

broad support for protecting and restoring public lands from the scars left by un-managed off-road vehicle use and unnecessary roads. While a full transition fromhis duties as forest campaign coordinator for the Natural Trails & Waters Coalition(NTWC) will take up to six months, opportunities to broadcast Wildlands CPRsvalues and goals are already coming out of the woodwork.

For instance, check out the half-hour interview that Jason did with Pacica Ra-dio-Houston (found at www.kpft.org) and a shorter interview with the Great LakesRadio Consortium on a controversial off-road vehicle mega-route proposal (found

at www.glrc.org).Jasons communications focus will aid Wildlands CPRs restoration program

by building a diverse network of leaders representing business and industry, laborand sportsmen, state universities and conservation. This group calls itself RestoreMontana and is founded on the belief that increased support for and coordina-tion of restoration projects will create green-collar jobs and add value to damagedpublic lands and waters.

Jason recently organized the last three in a series of eight briengs on messag-ing produced for NTWC and Wildlands CPR by Resource Media. Their recommen-dations are helping Wildlands CPR and the broader conservation community framethe off-road vehicle debate in a more productive and inclusive way. Weve alreadyseen these messages effectively applied in letters to the editor in several states.

In December, NTWC delivered the nal two workshops on effective collabora-tion led by the University of Virginias Institute for Environmental Negotiations.Jason organized an over-sold workshop in Missoula and provided support for aworkshop held in Bend, Oregon that was hosted by the Sierra Club. Some of themost critical outcomes were summarized by one ofour partner organizations:

Relationship building with conservation-ists, agency planners, off-roaders, and potential allies(backcountry horsemen, anglers, hunters);

Breaking down misconceptions of conser-vationist and motorized recreationists goals andtactics;

Providing a legitimate outside source to seta standard for what is authentic collaboration amonga cross-section of interests and agency staff;

In order to make the workshops as useful aspossible, NTWC partnered with in-state conservationorganizations to serve as co-hosts. In written evalu-ations from the mix of 165 stakeholders who partici-pated, the workshop was rated at 8.4 on a 10-pointscale!

This project will replace a culvert and improve sh passage part of theClearwater Stewardship Project, Lolo National Forest, MT. Photo by Carol Daly.

Jason has also nalized an out-reach effort to organizations that areobvious candidates for membership inNTWC. Membership benets includeaccess to the NTWC online, members-only campaign room that contains valu-able information and serves as a portalto NTWC listserves. As of January 4,149 organizations are members of thecoalition; we communicate with 311 in-dividuals afliated with these organiza-

tions. From among this organizationalmembership, 160 individuals represent-ing 85 organizations have asked for andbeen granted access to the campaignroom and listserves.

Better answer that Jasons calling!


15/24


Restoration Program Update

T here is a lot of exciting restoration policy work going on in Montana, so thisupdate will focus on Wildlands CPRs piece of the puzzle. Wildlands CPR re-cently helped start a collaborative group called Restore Montana, a networkof leaders from Montanas restoration economy that works for community renewaland natural resource restoration. Restore Montanas members to date includeconservation groups, restoration businesses, and labor interests. This ad hocgroup continues to work closely with Montana Governor Schweitzers ofce to se-cure more state money for restoration work. Restore Montana hopes to be a publicand policy voice for the businesses and workforce that make ecological restorationand community revitalization happen.

Another new but promising effort is the formation of a collaborative workinggroup to focus on restoration efforts on Montanas national forests. Marnie is thechair of the Vision and Principles Subcommittee. The goal of this subcommittee isto develop consensus recommendations for the overall Working Group, concern-ing both broad vision and specic priorities to help guide national forest restora-tion activities in Montana to achieve ecological, economic, and social health andsustainability. It is our hope that these principles can help lead to comprehensivenational forest restoration projects that include road removal as a key component.

Sungnome Madrone from Humboldt County, California, Jim Burcheld, Associ-ate Dean of the University of Montanas College of Forestry and Conservation, andMarnie spoke at the Bit-terroot Economic Devel-opment District (BREDD)meeting at the end of lastyear. In attendance wereapproximately 30 countycommissioners andeconomic developmentfolks from several westernMontana counties. We hada good response from avery diverse audience andwe are already followingup on this meeting: JimBurcheld will be speakingto BREDDs Redevelop-ment working group aboutRestore Montana.

Our Science Coordinator, Adam Switalski, continues to organize the ClearwaterCitizen Monitoring Program. Last fall, Field Organizer Anna Holden took a group ofstudents into the eld to collect data on open and decommissioned roads. Then,after deep snow prevented further monitoring, Anna and Adam worked with aUniversity of Montana ecology class to analyze the data. Their analysis found thatbears used decommissioned roads signicantly more than open roads (see coverstory). This is quite exciting as it is the rst study to document that bears are us-ing decommissioned roads.

We are also preparing for next years monitoring. Mike Fiebig, our new Envi-ronmental Educator, has been talking to high school teachers in rural Idaho schoolsabout teaching about restoration in their classrooms. Mike presented at the Wa-tershed Education Training (WET) workshop in Kamiah High School (ID), attendedby teachers from schools across the region. Mike discussed the restoration workoccurring in their backyards on the Clearwater and showed them the methodsWildlands CPR is using to monitor road removal on the ground. Mike found severalinterested teachers and plans on taking classes into the eld this spring to conductcitizen monitoring.

Collaborative approaches have replaced much of thedissention over land management. Photo by Carol Daly.

ESA/SER Organized Oral Session

Wildlands CPR and the UC DavisRoad Ecology Center have put togetheran Organized Oral Session on road re-moval at the Ecological Society of Amer-ica / Society for Ecological Restorationconference this August in San Jose, CA.The session will synthesize the currentstate of knowledge of road removal asa form of ecological restoration acrosslandscape, watershed, and site-levelspatial scales, and propose directionsfor future interdisciplinary research.For a list of speakers and more infor-mation see: http://eco.confex.com/eco/2007/techprogram/S1522.HTM

Bull Trout, Flathead National Forest

Adam co-authored a researchpaper on road removal and bull trouton the Flathead National Forest (MT)with Lisa Eby and Magnus McCafferyfrom the University of Montana. Themanuscript was ofcially acceptedas a Note in the Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society and is to bepublished this spring.

Information Requests

Adam responded to requests forinformation on off-road vehicles in NewMexico (from a concerned citizen), roadavoidance zones (from Center for Bio-logical Diversity), road removal (fromBARK), bear research (from the Uni-versity of Kentucky), and road density

conversions (from the Forest Service).


16/24


The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of theawesome activists and organizations we work with,

both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting successful strategies and lessons learned. Please

e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight [email protected].

Citizen Spotlight on Karen Boeger and Dan Heinz By Cathy Adams

For a couple who claims to be retired, one quickly learns that KarenBoeger and Dan Heinz dene retirement as being retired from theirprofessional goals, not their passionate ones. They are too busy ght-ing tooth and claw to keep off-road vehicles out of Nevadas once quiet,wild places to slow down.

Karen grew up in a farming community in California where her fam-ily hiked, shed and hunted in the nearby Sierra Mountains. In the early1970s she moved to Reno, Nevada to raise her children and teach. Sheeducated kids from preschool to middle school, from remedial readinggroups to gifted children. She started getting involved in off-road vehicleissues about 30 years ago when she began witnessing takings of previ-ously roadless wild areas and wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. Off-roadvehicles were creating renegade routes across Nevadas landscape, takingadvantage of its wide open, treeless terrain.

Unsure of where to begin to help stop this abuse, Karen began attend-ing local Sierra Club meetings, became Chair of the Wilderness Committee,and hosted meetings at her home. She was also a founding member ofEarth First! back when it was a therapy group for disillusioned wilder-

ness activists, as she describes it. In 1988 when Nevada began working onits rst statewide Wilderness bill, Karen helped found Friends of NevadaWilderness, and has been on their Board ever since.

Dan grew up in Colorado Springs, Colorado where, as a teen, he wasrst exposed to off-road vehicles on a backpacking trip with a friend into

what was to become the Lost Creek Wilderness.We were headed to a stream to do some shing.It took us two days to get there, but when wearrived we found a jeep that had beat us! Thatunpleasant encounter stuck with Dan through-out his career and into retirement. He takes

on inappropriate off-road vehicle use at everyopportunity.

Dans love of the outdoors led him to acareer with the US Forest Service. He retiredin 1983 and immediately volunteered in Butte,Montana for the National Wildlife Federation. Hewent on to help found American Wildlands inBozeman, and served on boards for the MontanaWilderness Association, Greater YellowstoneCoalition and Forest Service Employees for En-vironmental Ethics. As a volunteer, Dan workedmainly on grazing and logging issues, but also onthe impacts of off-road vehicles.

Dan and Karen met in the old DC Sierra Clubofce. Now married, they share their passion foractivism while living beyond the grid in a remotespot north of Reno in the Pahrah Range, whichKaren says has been a great problem solvingactivity. Over the last ten years, the two havespent their spare time working on their sustain-able home, which includes solar power, a windgenerator, and a hydroelectric system that theyinstalled themselves. They manage their emailand computer work out of their home and travelaround the state to attend meetings and politi-cal activities. We wear a lot of different hats,Karen admits.

The latest success the couple shared waspreventing legislation that mandated hundredsof miles of off-road vehicle trails across an east-ern Nevada county. A Silver State OHV Trailwas to be attached to the White Pine CountyConservation, Recreation, and Development Actof 2006. The trail was projected to connect witha vast network of trails across the state; trailshad already been established in adjacent LincolnCounty through a similar bill, and White Pinewas next on the list.


17/24


Dan and Karen, opposing the trail provision, were told by the statesdelegation that the trail was a done deal and nothing could be done tostop it. I thought whoa, if we cant stop the trail in this county, it will bemandated and established in every county without public review or an op-portunity to decide it is a bad idea Karen recalls.

She and Dan kept the debate alive and, with crucial help from a statewildlife biologist and concerned residents, convinced the County Commis-sioners to pass a resolution against the trail, requesting that the route des-ignation go through an administrative instead of a legislative process. Thiswould assure public involvement, an environmental study, and a chanceto halt the off-road vehicle mega-route from impacting Nevadas traditionalpublic land values. The legislative process simply mandated the trail.

Luckily we had a visionary set of Commissioners who had known usfrom our years of involvement in other issues. We also had an atmosphereof folks here who wanted to do something about irresponsible off-roadvehicle use, Karen says.

The delegation reacted by putting pressure on the Commissionersto rescind the resolution. In response, Karen and Dan worked around theclock to gather supporting resolutions, and got them from the NevadaGame Commission, the Nevada Cattlemens Association, the Nevada FarmBureau, the (very conservative) Nevada Coalition for Wildlife, BackcountryHunters & Anglers, and the National and Nevada Wildlife Federations. Weare usually on opposite sides of issues with many of these organizations,but this was an issue we had in common and our many years of involve-ment bought us credibility, according to Karen.

We purposely did not seek sign-on by typically green organizations;rather we sought to build up a big coalition of red meat organizations tourge the Congressional delegation not to legislate this trail. So at the end ofthe day when the bill was introduced, the trail was not mandated.

The bills nal language greatly restricts the trail mileage that can beconsidered, and it requires the agencies to complete a three-year NEPA(National Environmental Policy Act) study to make sure the trail doesntsignicantly impact wildlife, natural and cultural resources or traditionaluses. It was a major win, says Karen, it gives all citizens, the Departmentof Wildlife and other cooperating agencies a chance to give critical input.We believe no off-road vehicle trail can be located without creating verysignicant impacts to some if not all of these key resources.

Karen and Dan attribute their success to the groundwork they had laidworking on other issues in rural counties. When it came time to approachconservative organizations about off-road vehicles, people were willing tosign on because a level of credibility, trust and respect had been estab-lished.

Dan and Karen say the experience solidied their belief that environ-mentalists have to hang tough and be resilient when facing down threatsto the environment. Dan says all too often enviros mistake good feelings

with success. When you meet with people and everyone leaves feelinggood you may think you gained something. Most often reality is that you,and the American public you are representing, have been had. Visionarypublic land decisions just cannot be made without disturbing someonesinterest. Be courteous-always, but soft-never.

Dan also recommends talking to off-road vehicle supporters at everyopportunity in order to better understand their positions. We must alwayslisten with humility. No matter how right our position may be, it just maybe that the off-road vehicle users are also right about something. Its bet-ter to hear it earlier from your opponent so you can strengthen your casebefore any talks begin, he says.

Proposed High Schells Wilderness, eastern White PineCounty (near Ely, NV). Photo by Pete Dronkers.

Taken in the proposed Highland Ridge Wilderness,southeastern White Pine County. Photo by Pete

Dronkers.

Dan says environmentalists should also beskeptical when an agency says they have nomoney to do something. Speaking from his longexperience as an agency land manager he says,too often that is a bureaucratic dodge. Thereare few unit managers out there that cant doa far better job with the money they alreadyhave.

Karen and Dan nd inspiration for theirwork in the outdoors. Karen recognizes thewide-open and wild spaces of her youth arequickly disappearing. As a result she realizesher kids didnt have the opportunities she didand fears her grandkids will have even less. Herpassion is to save wild areas from the takingsof renegade routes.

For Dan, every trail he sees desecratinga mountainside is enough to keep him going.He says we need to establish a bottom line for

all activities nationally: we are okay with asystem of touring routes for off-road vehiclesestablished on existing roads, but we should notagree to legalize one inch of renegade routes.Under no circumstances should we agree to anymotor sports, play areas or hill climbing routeson public lands. We will not score 100% everytime, but we will achieve far more by strivingtoward such a goal.


18/24


Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of thescientic literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the

physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. Weoffer bibliographic searches to help activists access important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most

articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our ofce library.

Beyond Vegetation Cover as a Measure ofRestoration SuccessLong Term Patterns on Removed Grassland Roads

By Sara Simmers

P icture a restored road halfway overgrown with vegetation. Most ofus involved in restoration would generally see this vegetative coveras a good thing. It is a sign that something is able to grow on theonce disturbed and compacted soil. Erosion is held in check, minus somebare spots here and there. Wildlife are likely beginning to use some of theplants for cover and food. As for the plant community itself, we expectthat successional processes will eventually result in a diverse array ofdesired plant species. However, if we take a closer look at the plant com-munity, we may nd more to the long-term story.

Grassland Road Removal Curiosity about such a story led me to restoration ecology research

in western North Dakota. Since about the 1950s when oil and naturalgas exploration began in this part of the Great Plains varying degreesof well site and access road removal have been attempted in an effort toreverse the impacts of drilling activities on native grasslands. Public landshave the tightest regulations, and currently road removal on those landsinvolves removing surface materials, recontouring the soil to match thesurroundings, and planting a seed mix of 3-7 grassland species (USDI andUSDA 2006).

Study DesignFor my study, I took

a closer look at the plantcommunities of 58 ofthese removed accessroads in the oileldsof the Little MissouriNational Grasslands(LMNG). The roads Iselected were decom-missioned 3 to 22 yearsago, and my goal was toanswer 3 main ques-tions: Which specieswere planted during res-toration? How do thesespecies compare to thevegetation currentlygrowing on the restored

roadbed? And nally, how is the plant com-munity on the restored roadbed similar to ordifferent from undisturbed vegetation adjacentto the old roadway? The answers to these ques-tions, along with more traditional vegetativecover assessments, can give us a better idea ofwhether these restoration practices are lead-ing to long-term recovery. So to answer them, Itrekked across the rugged and rolling prairie ofthe LMNG to sample plots that I set up on andalong the 58 study roads, recording all plant spe-cies that I observed. I also did a fair amount ofdetective work to retrieve records of seeding forthese roads.

FindingsMy main nding was that, in general, the

species that were planted on the removed roadswere still the most abundant (Simmers 2006).When I incorporated time into the analysis,accounting for the length of time since restora-tion, I found that this pattern held. Even on theoldest restorations, which would have had themost time for surrounding species to colonize,the species observed were very much like theseed mixes.

This nding could be a positive one, particu-larly if the species that were planted are desiredcomponents of the restoration, i.e. native spe-cies also dominant in surrounding, undisturbedvegetation. However, I found that the seed

Road restored in 1995. Dominated by the nativespecies western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) and

green needlegrass (Stipa viridula). Photo by Sara Simmers.

Oil well site on Little Missouri National Grasslands. Photo by Sara Simmers.


19/24


mixtures used in the olderrestorations containednon-native forage species,transitioning to nativegrasses and forbs for themore recent decommis-sionings (Simmers 2006).

Both old and new mixtureswere low in diversity(averaging 5 species permix) and mis-matchedthe adjacent plant com-munity, even if composedof native species. Numer-ous species common in the surrounding vegetation were either absent orpresent infrequently and at low cover on the removed roads. The result:linear corridors of a very different species assemblage compared to thesurrounding matrix of native grassland and a pattern that remains evenafter 20 years.

DiscussionOne explanation for this nding is simply that this system needs more

time to recover from such a disturbance. After all, the climate of the GreatPlains is harsh, with dramatic swings in precipitation and temperaturewithin and among years. Other research indicates that both natural suc-cessional processes and revegetation after human disturbances can beslowed by such a climate (Burke et al. 1998, Bakker et al. 2003). However,my results suggest that restoration choices and practices could also becontributing to the lag in recovery. More specically, recovery may be hin-dered due to characteristics of seeded species and/or due to insufcientlyameliorated soil conditions.

Evidence for the rst of these explanations is found in the persistenceand dominance of seeded species, whether non-native or native. Otherwork in the Great Plains has shown that many of the non-native species

traditionally used for revegetation projects have competitive advantagesover local native species and tend to spread from initial introductions (Wil-son 1989, Bakker and Wilson 2001, Bakker and Wilson 2004). Not unexpect-edly, I found evidence that several non-native, seeded species were spread-ing, such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus ofcinalis). Yetthe availability, dependability, and vigor of these species make them hardto pass up when soil stabilization and vegetative cover are needed quickly.Incorporating native species might be a solution to this problem. Indeed,as my study demonstrated, native cultivars can be just as competitive astheir non-native counterparts if selected for traits like fast growth or highseed production.

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

several exploratory soil cores, I found evidence of compaction within thetop 10 cm of the restored roadbeds. Mechanically ripping the roadbedsduring the recontouring process is not routinely implemented during roadremoval in the LMNG. Compaction can physically affect the germinationor root establishment of plants (McSweeney and Jansen 1984, Bell et al.1994). I found another indication of soil problems: a greater abundance ofsalt-tolerant species on roads compared to adjacent prairie. This meansthat salts and carbonates are likely brought to the surface during recon-touring and could affect the growth of salt-intolerant species.

ConclusionAs suggested by my ndings, problems

stemming from restoration choices can ulti-mately be detrimental to longer-term goalssuch as the re-assembly of the native plantcommunity. The spread of non-native speciescan be prolonged rather than reversed, and the

conservation of locally adapted native speciescan be affected by genetic contamination fromrestoration seeding. Soil problems could furtherdelay recovery. Evaluating restorations byvegetative cover only would fail to detect issuessuch as these.

Because roads are so pervasive, poor choic-es during their restoration can further degradeotherwise intact ecosystems, resulting in moreharm than good. My study indicates that sev-eral restoration details would be worth invest-ing in if long term recovery of the ecosystem isdesired: seeding with locally collected or locally

produced native seeds (or non-aggressive nativecultivars); broadening the number of speciesused in mixes when the adjacent plant commu-nity is slow to colonize; and adequately prepar-ing the soil before seeding. It is not enough toassume that any restoration project will benetwildlands and natural areas. We must continueto closely evaluate both positive and negativeconsequences of road removal practices andimplement changes accordingly.

Sara recently received an M.S. degree inConservation Biology from the University of

Minnesota Twin Cities. She is currently

employed with Western Plains Consulting, Inc.in Bismarck, North Dakota as an Environmental Scientist/Ecologist.

references on next page

Road restored in 1986. Dominated by non-nativecrested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Photoby Sara Simmers.

Road restored in 1992. Dominated by non- native intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyronintermedium). Photo by Sara Simmers.


20/24


ReferencesAubry, C., R. Shoal, and V. Erickson. 2005. Grass

cultivars: their origins, development, and

use on national forests and grasslands inthe Pacic Northwest. USDA Forest Service.Bakker, J., and S. Wilson. 2001. Competitive

abilities of introduced and native grasses. Plant Ecology 157:117-125.

Bakker, J. D., and S. D. Wilson. 2004. Usingecological restoration to constrainbiological invasion. Journal of Applied

Ecology 41:1058-1064.Bakker, J. D., S. D. Wilson, J. M. Christian, X. Li,

L. G. Ambrose, and J. Waddington. 2003.Contingency of grassland restoration onyear, site, and competition from introducedgrasses. Ecological Applications 13:137-153.

Bell, J. C., R. L. Cunningham, and C. T. Anthony.1994. Morphological characteristicsof reconstructed prime farmland soilsin western Pennsylvania. Journal of

Environmental Quality 23:515-520.Burke, I. C., W. K. Lauenroth, M. A. Vinton, P. B.

Hook, R. H. Kelly, H. E. Epstein, M. R. Aguiar,M. D. Robles, M. O. Aguilera, K. L. Murphy,and R. A. Gill. 1998. Plant-soil interactionsin temperate grasslands. Biogeochemistry 42:121-143.

Hammermeister, A. M., M. A. Naeth, J. J.Schoenau, and V. O. Biederbeck. 2003.Soil and plant response to wellsite

rehabilitation on native prairie insoutheastern Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 83:507-519.

McSweeney, K., and I. J. Jansen. 1984. Soilstructure and associated rooting behaviorin minespoils. Soil Science Society of

America Journal 48:607-612.Rogers, D. L. 2004. Genetic erosion: no longer

just an agricultural issue. Native Plants Journal 5:112-122.

Simmers, S. 2006. Recovery of semi-aridgrassland on recontoured and revegetatedoil access roads. MS Thesis. University ofMinnesota, St. Paul, MN.

USDI, and USDA. 2006. US Department of theInterior and US Department of Agriculture.Surface Operating Standards andGuidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration andDevelopment. BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071.Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO.84 pp.

Wilson, S. D. 1989. The suppression of nativeprairie by alien species introduced forrevegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 17:113-119.

continued from previous page

Idaho Roadless UpdateIn November 2006, the Roadless Area Conservation National

Advisory Committee (RACNAC) was brewing for a ght with outgo-ing Idaho Governor Jim Risch. He had submitted a roadless petitionto the committee that would have allowed signicant developmentand road construction in the bulk of Idahos 9 million roadlessacres. This was the rst petition submitted under the Administra-tive Procedures Act, after the 2001 Roadless Rule was reinstated byfederal court in September 2006 (see RIPorter 11-4).

To everyones surprise, Governor Risch did an about face atthe RACNAC meeting. While his petition supported development,he argued for protecting 3 million acres with no exceptions for roadconstruction (the 2001 roadless rule includes seven exceptions).In addition, the Governor recommended that 5.5 million acres beprotected under the guidelines of the 2001 rule (allowing thoseexceptions). Risch did also request that 500,000 acres of roadlessland be open to development.

On December 22, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns accept-ed Idahos revised petition, as presented at the November meeting.The Forest Service will now develop a memorandum of understand-ing with the state for completing an environmental impact analysisto put the states recommended changes into the national forestmanagement plans. It is unclear how long this will take.

The majority of the 500,000 acres that would be exempt fromprotection (and moved into general forest management) are in theCaribou-Targhee National Forest. The Forest Service is consideringlimiting the NEPA analysis solely to these 500,000 acres, and con-servationists are working to identify their wildlife values. There areongoing debates over whether an Environmental Impact Statement,or a less comprehensive Environmental Analysis will be completed.

Idaho Conservation League and Theodore Roosevelt Conserva-tion Project (TRCP) are heavily engaged in this process and will beworking to ensure that those 500,000 acres receive the strongestpossible protections. During the roadless petition process, for ex-ample, TRCP contacted 1,032 hunters and anglers, 67 conservationorganizations and 21 businesses in Idaho.

While many expected that Idaho was one of the targets forroadless exploitation under the Bush roadless rule, the tables haveturned, and Idaho is now likely to have some of the most protectedroadless lands in the nation. Idaho now has a new governor, butwith his actions, then-Governor Risch created a legacy of roadlessprotection one that hunters, anglers, conservationists, birders,and the wildlife itself, will thank him for, for generations to come.

Special thanks to William Geer from Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership for the information used in this alert.


21/24


Gallatin Travel Plan Released On December 8, 2006, the Gallatin National Forest released the Final

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for its Travel Man-agement Plan, determining where and how people recreate on the forestfor the next 15-20 years.

Most conservationists see the plan as a mixed bag: while the agencytackled the issue of travel planning, on the whole they missed the mark.The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Montana Wilderness Association, andThe Wilderness Society led a joint administrative appeal focusing onmanagement of places like the Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn WildernessStudy Area (WSA), Lionhead Recommended Wilderness Area, Cabin CreekRecreation and Wildlife Management Area, and the Crazy Mountains, aswell as grizzly bear habitat and elk security standards.

Of particular concern, the WSA (known as the Gallatin Range) con-tinues to be threatened by motorized use. In 1977, Congress designatedthe Gallatin Range a Wilderness Study Area to maintain its wildernesspotential. Allowing snowmobiles, motorcycles and mountain bikes violatesthe intent of the 1977 act and impacts the potential for future wildernessdesignation.

Likewise, the Cabin Creek Recreation and Wildlife Management Area,south of the Gallatin Range, was designated by Congress for the protec-tion and propagation of wildlife. And yet, the travel plan allows unlimitedyear-round snowmobile use in Cabin Creek, which would cause impacts togrizzly bears and wolverine.

Failing a negotiated resolution, the appeal will be considered by theNorthern Regional ofce. For more information contact: Patricia Dowd,Greater Yellowstone Coalition, [email protected]

Hikers in the Gallatin range. Photo by Cathy Weeden.

Quiet recreation, wintertime. Photo by Jim Earl.

Labor - Conservation Alliance Formed

The Washington Post recently reported(January 16, 2007) on a new alliance between theTheodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership(TRCP) and a group of 20 labor unions. Callingitself the Union Sportsmans Alliance, the groupsays its goal is to protect wildlife habitat andpreserve access for hunting and shing.

The groups worked for nearly three years toestablish the relationship. Of particular concern

to them are plans to open up more lands in theRocky Mountains to oil and gas exploration.

According to one poll, 70 percent of unionmembers hunt and sh but many belong tothe National Rie Association (NRA). Unionleaders say they are concerned about the NRAsanti-labor positions and close association withthe Bush administration and Republican Party,and they hope this new alliance will help balancethe NRAs inuence.

Legal VictoryIn February 2007, the US District Court in Colorado ruled in favor of

a 2001 Forest Service decision to close several motorized routes on theMedicine Bow - Routt National Forest. The Colorado Off-Highway VehicleCoalition (COHVC) argued that the Forest Service had violated the Admin-istrative Procedures Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and theNational Forest Management Act by closing two motorized trails to off-roadvehicles as part of a larger decision to restrict off-road vehicles to desig-nated routes only. The Wilderness Society, Rocky Mountain RecreationInitiative, Colorado Mountain Club and Colorado Wild all intervened on be-half of the Forest Services decision. Attorney Mike Chiropolos of WesternResource Advocates argued the case on behalf of the intervenors.

Rocky Mountain Recreation appealed the initial Radial Mountain deci-

sion, and in response to their appeal the Forest Service closed a 5 milemotorized loop trail that had rst been allowed. After the appeal process,COHVCO brought their litigation. One of the trails in question included ascenic alpine stretch of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.

In his conclusion, Judge Daniel stated, Despite COHVCs numerousand indiscriminate arguments, COHVC has failed to demonstrate any basisfor setting aside the two relevant USFS decisions. Cases like this are im-portant to intervene in to make good law, support good agency decisions,ensure against back-room settlements, and ensure that hard-fought wins inthe planning process dont get reversed in the courts.


22/24


Its been a very busy winter here a

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wildlands-cpr
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Road RIPorter 12.1 Spring Equinox 2007

Documents