road riporter 11.4 winter solstice 2006

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 11.4 Winter Solstice 2006

1/24

Winter Solstice 2006. Volume 11 No. 4

Road Removal Protects Fish and Creates JobsBy Lisa Doolittle and Emily Platt, Giord Pinchot Task Force

Inside

Road Removal Protects Fish and Creates Jobs, by LisaDoolittle and Emily Platt. Pages 3-5

Biblio Notes: How Many is Too Many: A Review o RoadDensity Thresholds or Wildlie, by Adam Switalski.Pages 6-8

Check out our website at:www.wildlandscpr.org

Get with the Program: Restoration, Transportation, &Science Updates. Pages 9-11

Roadless Policy Update, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 12-13

Citizen Spotlight: Roz McClellan, by Cathy Adams. Pages14-15

Odes to Roads: From a Wonderland Road, by CarolynDuckworth. Page 16-17

Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 18-19

Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 20-21.

Around the Ofce, Membership Ino. Pages 22-23

Targeted road removal is one o several restoration projects initiated by the Pinchot Partnership that meets their mission orestoring the Cowlitz Valley in the Giord Pinchot National Forest while creating high quality local economic opportunities.

Photo by Emily Platt.


2/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 20062

2006 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR works to protect and restorewildland ecosystems by preventing andremoving roads and limiting motorized

recreation. We are a national clearinghouseand network, providing citizens with toolsand strategies to fght road construction,

deter motorized recreation, and promote roadremoval and revegetation.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551

www.wildlandscpr.org

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development Director

Tom Petersen

Restoration ProgramCoordinator

Marnie Criley

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

NTWC Forest CampaignCoordinator

Jason Kiely

Transportation PolicyCoordinator

Tim Peterson

Program AssistantCathy Adams

NewsletterDan Funsch & Marianne Zugel

Interns & VolunteersCarla Abrams, Mike Fiebig, Laura Harris, Anna

Holden, Noah Jackson, Gini Porter, Tiany Saleh

Board of DirectorsAmy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, WilliamGeer, Dave Havlick, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson,

Sonya Newenhouse, Patrick Parenteau

Advisory CommitteeJasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,

Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lind-ner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie

Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soul, Steve Trombulak,Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

While weve tried to avoid ocusing too much on politics within the pages o theRoad-RIPorter, Tuesday November 7 was certainly an upliting day or thoseo us who care about environmental protection. Not only did voters change

control o both houses o Congress rom republican to democratic, but some o the mostaggressively anti-environment representatives lost their seats this year, including Con-gressman Richard Pombo rom Caliornia, Congressman Charles Taylor rom North Caro-lina and Senator Rick Santorum rom Pennsylvania. Representative Pombo, in particular,had led an all-out assault on the Endangered Species Act and on the concept o publiclands itsel, with his numerous proposals to sell o public lands to private interests.

The loss o these pro-business, pro-privatization members o Congress gives Wild-lands CPR sta some hope that we might nally be able to usher in a new era o restora-tion on our public lands. This hope comes not only rom having more environmentallyconscious olks in elected oce, but rom the act that conservationists might not needto dedicate quite as much time to deending our bedrock environmental laws like the En-

dangered Species Act. I this new Congress even stays mum on the environment, it wouldree up a signicant amount o time to work on proactive, restorative strategies. For thepast six years, conservationists have been ocused on deense, deense, deense. Whilethreats and challenges wont go away completely, conservationists and conservationunders now have an opportunity to move orward with a restoration agenda. And whilethis should be a broad agenda, there is one vital element that it must include: Dedicatedrestoration unding.

O course, any restoration work that proceeds on public lands must comply withenvironmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act. But it is not these legalquestions that have proven most dicult in implementing restoration programs, it is thelack o dedicated, appropriated dollars or restoration. I we can increase the undingagencies put into restoration, then we will see many more restoration programs imple-mented on the ground, projects like the one highlighted in the cover story o this issue oThe RIPorter.

This story about collaborative restoration and conservation on the Giord PinchotNational Forest provides a model we can learn rom. The Giord Pinchot Task Forceset out to change the way the public and the agency were approaching national orestmanagement, and especially restoration, and they have largely succeeded. Their biggestchallenge now, to complete the work they want to complete, is nding additional unding.Congress has been willing to subsidize timber sales and road construction or decadesand decades now its time to shit those allocations to watershed restoration. Not onlywill this enable us to restore the land that is so vital to our health, but i we take a holisticapproach to restoration, it may also allow us to heal long-standing rits in resource-de-pendent communities, as people realize the economic and ecological gains that can comerom investing in on-the-ground restoration projects.

Converting recently purchased orange groves into productive wildlie habitat or the birds oPelican Island, FL. Photo courtesy o U.S. Fish & Wildlie Service.


3/24


continued on next page

Road Removal Protects Fish and Creates JobsBy Lisa Doolittle and Emily Platt, Giord Pinchot Task Force

The Cowlitz Valley o the Gi-

ord Pinchot National Forest isnestled between the Cascadepeaks o Mount Rainer, Mount Adams,and Mount St. Helens in WashingtonState. The Cowlitz River meandersthrough the valley, linking together thecommunities o Randle, Mossyrock, andPackwood. The river also ties togetherthe diverse stakeholders o the PinchotPartners collaborative group.

The Pinchot Partnership ormedin late 2002 and early 2003 ater a eldtour organized by the Giord PinchotTask Force (Task Force) and a diversesteering committee that included laborrepresentatives, economic develop-ment interests, Native American Indiantribes, conservationists, loggers, localelected ocials, and others. On theeld tour, these stakeholders withwildly divergent interests learned thatthey shared at least a ew things incommon: a deep passion or the orestand a desire or long-term stability.

Over the ollowing years, the relationship between theseinterest groups was ormalized in the Pinchot Partners, andthe Partners have developed and supported the implemen-tation o a number o restoration projects that meet their

mission o restoring the Cowlitz Valley while creating highquality, local economic opportunities.

Early projects supported by the Partners includedsmall thinning projects and culvert replacement projects restoration that was easy or the Partners to agree on andthat helped build trust between players whose previouscommunication was mainly through barbs and bombs in thelocal newspaper.

It was also at this early stage in the Partners develop-ment that the group took an interest in the Iron Creek sub-watershed, which had been identied by the Forest Serviceas a high priority watershed or aquatic restoration. The

Forest Service and the Partners reached this assessmentater reviewing criteria including the presence and state othreatened, endangered and sensitive species; road densityand location; riparian condition; and key watershed status(Northwest Forest Plan). Iron Creek is located in the LowerCispus watershed and has the highest sediment delivery inthe watershed one o the limiting actors in this area orrecovery o species including winter steelhead and coho. Allthese actors combined to make it a compelling subwater-shed on which to ocus our restoration work.

Trail through ormer Iron Creek road site. Photo by Emily Platt.

Members o the Pinchot Partnership, rom let to right: Bill Little, Red Rogers, DeanLawrence, Kristie Miller, and John Squires. Photo by Emily Platt.


4/24


continued from page 3

Our rst restoration project in the IronCreek subwatershed was replacing andright-sizing culverts along two miles o roadto restore sh passage and reduce sedimentdelivery to the Lower Cispus River. Thisinitial project was coordinated and driven byConservation Northwest. Ater completingthe culvert project, it was clear that this and

previous restoration work implemented bythe Forest Service was threatened by two roadsegments at risk o ailing and dumping verylarge sediment loads into the creeks and riverin the watershed. However, unlike the previousroad where we replaced culverts, there was noneed or these particular roads to remain. Theroad density in Iron Creek subwatershed is 3.1miles/per square mile, and rom a larger per-spective there are over 4,000 miles o roads onthe 1.37 million acre Giord Pinchot NationalForest. There is also a 40-50 million dollar roadmaintenance backlog that grows each year.The condition o the road system is one o the

greatest obstacles we ace in restoring wildsalmon to the streams and native wildlie likewolves to the woods on the Giord PinchotNational Forest.

While the Forest Service and Task Forcewere easily convinced o the need to removethe two road segments in question, others werenot. Most notably, a hunter that was a membero the Pinchot Partners was concerned aboutmotorized access. Because the Partners had

been working with each other or about two years by thistime, we were able to have very honest and direct con-versation about peoples interests and concerns. Ater ameeting where the roads high risk o ailure was described,our hunter decided the long-term protection o sh species

and the orests resources were more important than be-ing able to drive to the low-use hunting site located at theend o one o the road segments. The meeting resulted inthe Pinchot Partners decision to support the removal o

the 2.2 miles o road in question, and the Task Force hasbeen guiding this second phase o work in the Iron Creeksubwatershed.

Ater we decided to remove the roads, the challengebecame unding the project. First, we wrote a proposal toone o the Giord Pinchots Resource Advisory Committees(or RACs), which were created by Senator Wydens countypayments legislation in 2000. (This is the same legislationthat de-linked logging levels on ederal lands rom the und-ing o schools.) We asked the RAC or $91,500 to address

The success of the Iron Creek projectshas been exciting for the Pinchot

Partners and gives us real hope that

we will truly be able to meet our visionof restoring the Cowlitz Valley while

creating high quality jobs for local forestworkers.

Restoration projects beneft both the local environment and the local economy. Photo by Emily Platt.


5/24


Action Alert!Support the RAC Reauthorization

Road removal and other restoration efforts on theGifford Pinchot National Forest have been supportedin large part by funding from our Resource AdvisoryCommittee. As mentioned earlier, these RACs werecreated by the county payments legislation, or theSecure Rural Schools Act of 2000. This legislation wasa temporary, six-year x to the problem caused bylinking rural school funding to the logging levels onnearby federal forest lands. However, the legislationexpires this year, and its reauthorization is desper-ately needed not only to fund important restorationwork like road removal but also to keep funding forrural schools separate from logging on public lands.Without this legislation, there will be a strong andcompelling push for greatly increased logging levelson our national forests. Please call your Senators andRepresentative and ask them to support reauthoriza-tion of the Secure Rural Schools Act.

Restoration of public lands

could be the greatest publicworks and employment projectin our countrys history.

Mrs. Erion described the challenge o nding well-qualied employees, who oten come rom a loggingbackground and dont see the value o restoration. On theother hand, those interested in restoration oten arent asamiliar with the hazards o working in the woods, creatinga stressul situation or supervisors and other crew mem-bers. All restoration jobs are good jobs, says Mrs. Erion,I just wish they would do more.

The Task Force is now completing its work to secureunding or the nal two miles o road removal called or bythis project. We recently received unding rom the Na-tional Fish and Wildlie Foundation and Metro Metals thatwill be matched with additional RAC money to completethe project. The on-the-ground work will take place nexteld season and will result in the removal o two miles oroad with blocked culverts that post a high risk to aquatichabitat in the sh-bearing reach by the road. Removingthese culverts will open up more than three kilometerso additional habitat. This road removal project will alsoreduce sediment delivery to the Lower Cispus watershedand improve habitat or steelhead and coho.

The success o the Iron Creek projects has been excit-

ing or the Pinchot Partners and gives us real hope thatwe will truly be able to meet our vision o restoring theCowlitz Valley while creating high quality jobs or localorest workers. The greatest obstacle we see to implement-ing this vision is a lack o investment rom the politiciansin Washington DC. Restoration o public lands could bethe greatest public works and employment project in ourcountrys history. Below we talk about how you can helpmake this happen.

Lisa Doolittle and Emily Platt coordinate the restorationprogram or the Giord Pinchot Task Force and are memberso the Pinchot Partners collaborative group.

the higher priority o our two road segments.The RAC recommended our project or undingand resulted in the removal o .2 miles o roadthat was at very high risk o ailing and drop-ping into lower Iron Creek. Large amounts osediment would also have reached the Lower

Cispus, where winter steelhead and cohowould be heavily impacted. Finally, removal othis road segment protected in-stream habitatstructures that were placed in Iron Creek in2000. In act, with the massive fooding on theGiord Pinchot this year, it is sae to assumethe road would have allen into the creek.

This initial road removal work was com-

pleted by one o the most talented restorationcontractors in the Northwest, LKE Corpora-tion. Kim Erion owns and operates LKE, theonly such business owned by a woman inthe Northwest. They work across the Westbecause there is not enough restoration workin southwest Washington to keep them busy.We hope to change that. The Pinchot Partnersvisited the completed project this year andwere very pleased with LKEs work, which wentabove and beyond what was called or by thecontract.

Members o the Pinchot Partnership and sta rom theGiord Pinchot National Forest tour the completed roadremoval project area. Photo by Emily Platt.


6/24


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

physical and ecological eects o roads and o-road vehicles. Weoer bibliographic searches to help activists access importantbiological research relevant to roads. We keep copies o most

articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our ofce library.

How Many is Too Many:A Review of Road Density Thresholds for WildlifeBy T. Adam Switalski

The negative impacts o wildlandroads on wildlie have been welldocumented (e.g., Wisdom et

al. 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000).In addition to road-kill, roads increaseanimals vulnerability to over-hunting,poaching, and the eects o degradedhabitat. Despite this qualitative un-derstanding, however, the actual roadmileage that would signicantly reducewildlie populations is still underreview. A common measure used togauge the impact o roads on wildlie isroad density, measured as kilometers oroads per square kilometer o land area.For example, i there were 2 kilometerso road in a 1 square kilometer area,the road density would be 2 km/km2. In

this article, I review studies that havemeasured road density thresholds orwildlie and report on research thatexamined the benets o reducing roaddensity.

The majority o studies on this top-ic have identied road density thresh-olds or large endangered carnivoresor hunted game species. Gray wolves(Canis lupus) in the Great Lakes regionand elk (Cervus elaphus) in Montanaand Idaho have had the most long-termand in depth analysis. Forman and Her-

sperger (1996) were the rst to reviewroad density thresholds at the Trans-portation Related Wildlie MortalitySeminar (FL). By comparing previousstudies o wolves and mountain lions(Felis concolor), they ound that in or-der to maintain a naturally unctioninglandscape with sustained populationso large mammals, road density must bebelow 0.6 km/km2 (1.0 mi/mi2 ). Severalstudies have since substantiated theirclaim.

ElkElk are one o the most well studied animals in the U.S., probably because o

their popularity as a game animal and their sensitivity to disturbance. Other gamespecies have been linked to road density, including moose (Alces alces, Crete et al.

1981, Timmermann and Gallath 1982) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus,Sage et al. 1983), but the amount o data is limited. Lyon (1983) was the rst studyto report the impact o road density on elk populations. He states, habitat eec-tiveness can be expected to decline by at least 25 percent with a density o 1 mileo road per square mile and by at least 50 percent with two miles o road per squaremile..As road densities increased to ve to six miles per square mile, elk usedeclined to less than 25 percent o potential (Figure 1). A comprehensive reviewo the impacts o roads on elk was recently published by Rowland et al. (2005) andprovides dozens o citations.

In addition to extensive documentation o the impacts o roads on elk, studieshave shown that closing roads has beneted elk. Irwin and Peek (1979) ound thatroad closures allowed elk to stay in preerred habitat longer while elk in roadedareas were displaced. More recently, Leptich and Zager (1991) ound that closing

roads extended the age structure and doubled the bulls per cow sex ratio. Gratsonet al. (2000) measured elk hunter success in relation to road density. They oundthat hunter success almost doubled when open road density was reduced rom 2.54km/km2 to 0.56 km/km2. Rowland et al. (2005) reported that road closures may im-

ElkHabitatEffectiveness(

percent)

Miles of Road Per Square Mile

Figure 1: Average habitat effectiveness for elkwith road densities ranging from 0 to 6 mi/mi2(Adapted from Lyon 1983).


7/24


prove the animals perormance, increase the amount o eective habitat, increasehunting opportunities, decrease damage to crops, improve diet quality, increasehunter satisaction, and decrease vulnerability o elk during the hunting season.

WolvesSeveral studies have also measured road density thresholds or wolves (Table

1). One o the rst studies to identiy a road density threshold or wolves was inWisconsin. Thiel (1985) reported that wolves could not survive in areas with roaddensities higher that 0.6 km/km2. The ollowing year, Jensen et al. (1986) document-

ed a maximum road density o 0.6 km/km2

on the Ontario-Michigan border. Mech etal. (1988) ound similar ndings in northern Minnesota. They observed that wolveswere absent i road densities exceeded 0.58 km/km2. Mech (1989) later reportedthat wolves persisted in areas with road densities greater than 0.58 km/km2 i theywere adjacent to extensive roadless areas.

There have also been studies thatsuggested closing roads to improvesurvival o wolves. Thurber et al.(1994) examined the impact o roads onwolves in Alaska and ound that wolveswere using closed roads while avoidingopen roads. They recommend gatingor seasonally closing roads to increasethe amount o available habitat orwolves. Carroll et al. (2006) developeda spatially explicit model o wol habitatin the continental U.S. They oundthat the amount o wol habitat couldincrease by 24 percent i you removedone percent o the roads each year or20 years.

Bears, lynx, and wolverineOther wildlie have also been ound

to have road density thresholds. Blackbear (Ursus americanus) populationswere shown to be inversely related toroad density in the Adirondacks, New

York (Brocke et al. 1988). There was astrong negative relationship betweenroad density and population tness ogrizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) inthe U.S. Rocky Mountains (Mace et al.1996, Mattson et al. 1996). Similar rela-tionships have also been hypothesizedor wolverine (Gulo gulo) and lynx (Felislynx, ICBEMP 1996b, 1996c, and Terra-Berns et al. 1997 cited in Wisdom et al.2000). Road closure has been recom-mended to reduce black bear (Powell etal. 1996) and grizzly bear mortality risk(Frederick 1991, USFWS 1993, Booneand Hunter 1996, Mace et al. 1999), andhas been suggested to benet rare or-est carnivores (Bull et al. 2001).

ConclusionRoad density thresholds have been

identied or several species, and whenexceeded, many species cannot persist.Closure and removal o roads has beenound to eectively provide wildliesecurity and increase the amount oavailable wildlie habitat. Future re-search is needed to determine thresh-olds or other sensitive species such as

lynx and wolverine. There is also littlepeer-reviewed data on road densitythresholds or aquatic species such assh. Wildland managers should striveto keep roaded lands below 0.6 km/km2(1.0 mi/mi2) to ensure healthy wildliepopulations.

Adam Switalski is Wildlands CPRsScience Coordinator. He is currentlystudying the extent that road removalrestores wildlie habitat in Idaho.

Table 1: Road density thresholds for wolves in the northernGreat Lakes region.Road Density Threshold(km/km2)

Study Area Citation

0.6 Wisconsin Thiel (1985)0.6 Onterio-Michigan border Jensen et al. (1986)0.58 Minnesota Mech et al. (1988)0.73* Minnesota Mech et al (1989)0.7 (with 4 humans/km2) Minnesota Fuller et al (1992)0.5 (with 8 humans/km2) Minnesota Fuller et al (1992)0.45 Wisconsin/Michigan Mladenoff et al (1995)0.23 (core areas) Wisconsin/Michigan Mladenoff et al (1995)0.63** Wisconsin Wydevan et al (2001)

*Adjacent roadless area allowed higher road density threshold**Changing attitudes allowed higher road density threshold

Fuller et al. (1992) was the rst study to incorporate human density intothresholds. They ound a maximum threshold o 0.7 km/roads/km2 with 4 humans/km2 or a maximum o 0.5 km/roads/km2 with 8 humans/km2 in northern Minnesota.Thus, the higher the density o humans, the lower the threshold or persistenceo wolves would be. More recently in the northern Great Lakes region, Mladenoet al. (1995) ound ew portions o any pack territory were located in areas o roaddensity greater than 0.45 km/km.2 Core areas (dened as 40 percent use) did notexceed road densities o 0.23 km/km2 and no portion o any pack area was in anarea o road density greater than 1.0 km/km2. Wydeven et al. (2001) most recentlyobserved that changing attitudes towards wolves has allowed them to persist inareas with road densities as high as 0.63 km/km2 in Wisconsin.

A black bear is captured on flm by remote cameras monitoring wildlie usageo road density study areas in the Clearwater National Forest. Photo courtesy oWildlands CPR.


8/24


Boone, R.B., and M.L. Hunter. 1996. Using diused models tosimulate the eects o land use on grizzly bear dispersalin the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecology11(1): 51-64.

Brocke, R.H., J.P. OPezio, and K.A. Gustason. 1990. Aorest management scheme mitigating the impact oroad networks on sensitive wildlie species: Is Forest

Fragmentation a Management Issue in the Northeast?General Technical Report NE-140, U.S. Forest Service,Radnor, PA.

Bull, E.L., K.B. Aubry, B.C. Wales. 2001. Eects odisturbance on orest carnivores o conservationconcern in eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest

Science, 75 Special Issue: 180-184.Carroll, C, M.K. Phillips, C.A. Lopez-Gonzalez, and N.H.

Schumaker. 2006. Dening recovery goals andstrategies or endangered species: the wol as acase study. Bioscience 56(1): 25-37. http://www.klamathconservation.org/docs/carrolletal2006.pd

Crete, M., R.J. Taylor, and P.A. Jordan. 1981. Optimization omoose harvest in southwest Quebec. Journal o Wildlie

Management45: 598-611.Forman, R. T. T., and A.M. Hersperger. 1996. Road ecology androad density in dierent landscapes, with internationalplanning and mitigation solutions. Pages 122. IN: G. L.Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry (eds.), Trendsin Addressing Transportation Related Wildlie Mortality.No. FLER- 58-96, Florida Department o Transportation,Tallahassee, Florida.

Frederick, G.P. 1991. Eects o orest roads on grizzlybears, elk, and gray wolves: a literature review. USDAForest Service Kootenai National Forest, Libby MT.Publication number R1-91-73. 53p.

Fuller, T.K., W.E. Berg, G.L. Radde, M.S. Lenarz, and G.B.Joselyn. 1992. A history and current estimate o woldistribution and numbers in Minnesota. Wildlie Society

Bulletin 20: 42-55.Gratson, M.W., and C.L. Whitman. 2000. Road closures and

density and success o elk hunters in Idaho. WildlieSociety Bulletin 28(2): 302-310.

Irwin, L.L., and J.M. Peek. Relationship between road closureand elk behavior in northern Idaho. IN: North AmericanElk: Ecology, Behavior, and Management. EditorsM.S. Boyce, and L.D. Hayden-Wing, 199-205. Laramie,Wyoming: Univerity o Wyoming.

Jensen W.F., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Robinson. 1986. Wol (canislupus) distribution on the Onterio-Michigan border nearSault Ste. Marie. Canadian Field-Naturalist100: 363-366.

Leptich, D.J., and P. Zager. 1991. Road access managementeects on elk mortality and population dynamics.IN: Proceedings o the Elk Vulnerability Symposium,compilers A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner,126-31 Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitateectiveness or elk. Journal o Forestry81: 592-595.

Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuuring.1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads andhabitat in the Swan Mountains, MT. Journal o Applied

Ecology. 33: 1395-1404.Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger.

1999. Landscape evaluation o grizzly bear habitat inwestern Montana. Conservation Biology13(2): 367-377.

Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, G.Wright, C.M. Craig. 1996. Scienceand management o Rocky Mountain grizzly bears.Conservation Biology. 10(4): 1013-1025.

Mech, L. D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Woldistribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlie

Society Bulletin 16: 85-87.

Mech, L D. 1989. Wol population survival in an area o highroad density.American Midland Naturalist121: 387-389.

Mladeno, D.J., T.A. Sickley, R.G. Haight, and A.P. Wydeven.1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction oavorable gray wol habitat in the Nothern Great Lakesregion. Conservation Biology9: 279-294.

Powell, J.W., J.W. Zimmerman, D.E. Seaman, and J.F. Gilliam.1996. Demographic analysis o a hunted black bearpopulation with access to a reuge. Conservation Biology10(1): 224-234.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A.Penninger. 2005. Eects o roads on elk: implicationsor management in orested ecosystems. Pages 42-52.IN: Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, The Starkey Project:

a Synthesis o Long-term Studies o Elk and Mule Deer.Reprinted rom the 2004 Transactions o the NorthAmerican Wildlie and Natural Resources Conerence,Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS.

Sage, R.W., W.C. Tierson, G.F. Matteld, and D.F. Behrend. 1983White-tailed deer visibility and behavior along orestroads. Journal o Wildlie Management47: 940-962.

Thiel, R.P. 1985. The relationships between road densities andwol habitat in Wisconsin.American Midland Naturalist113: 404-407.

Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer, and S.A.Thomasma. 1994. Gray wol response to reugeboundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildlie Society Bulletin22: 61-68.

Timmermann, H.R., and R. Gollath. 1982. Age and sexstructure o harvested moose related to season,manipulation, and access. Alces 18: 301-328.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review o ecologicaleects o roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities.Conservation Biology14: 18-30.

U.S. Fish and Wildlie Service (USFWS). 1993. Grizzly bearrecovery plan. Missoula, MT. 181p.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A.Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J.Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats orterrestrial vertebrates o ocus in the interior Columbiabasin: Broad-scale trends and management implications.Volume 1 Overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485.Portland, OR: U.S. Department o Agriculture, ForestService, Pacic Northwest Research Station. http://www.s.ed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/gtr485vl.pd

Wydeven, A.P, D.J. Mladeno, T.A. Sickley, B.E. Kohn, R.P.Thiel, and J.L. Hansen. 2001. Road density as a actor inhabitat selection by wolves and other carnivores in theGreat Lakes Region. Endangered Species Update 18(4):110-114.

References


9/24


Restoration Program Update

The Restoration Program has been in ull out-reach mode this all, primarily in the Northern Rock-ies. Marnie gave presentations at the Wild RockiesRendezvous, a gathering o citizens and activistssponsored by conservation groups working through-out the Wild Rockies region o Montana, Idaho,Wyoming, Washington and Oregon; the Wild WestInstitutes Nature Forum at the University o Montana;and the Bitterroot Economic Development District,comprising western Montana county commissionersand economic development interests. These presenta-

tions ocused on creating restoration economies thatgo beyond just cutting trees and include road removalas a key component. Along these same lines, Wild-lands CPR helped arrange or Sungnome Madrone, arestoration practitioner and advocate rom HumboldtCounty, Caliornia, to come to the Bitterroot and YaakValleys in western Montana to promote the potentialo a restoration economy in these regions. HumboldtCounty is probably the only place in the country thattruly has a documented restoration economy.

Locally, the Restoration Program continues towork with a diverse group o partners to implementsome o the key recommendations that came out othe June 2006 Montana Governors Restoration Sum-mit. The work is ocused on coordinating communityrevitalization with wildland restoration. For example,we are considering a ollow up event to the GovernorsRestoration Forum; such an event might ocus on thebusinesses that are involved in restoration, reclama-tion and community revitalization. Our goal is orMontana to be a model or other state-level restora-tion and revitalization programs.

Citizen Monitoring in the Clearwater NationalForest (ID)

Adam Switalski, our Science Coordinator, continues to overseeWildlands CPRs Citizen Monitoring Program on the Clearwater Na-tional Forest, ID. Adam is working closely with Anna Holden, an Envi-ronmental Studies graduate student, to monitor decommissionedroads on the orest with citizen scientists. With the eld seasoncoming to an end, Adam and Anna collected, cleaned, and maderepairs to our eld gear. With most o the data in hand, they keyedout wildlie tracks and downloaded remotely-triggered cameras. AMissoula-based company named Rhithron has agreed to identiy ourcollected insects at a discounted rate.

Anna is leading a group o University o Montana undergradu-ate students to analyze the data collected by citizen scientists. The

class group conducted pebble counts, macroinvertebrate surveys,and collected wildlie detections (tracks and photos) and will ana-lyze all the wildlie data collected throughout the season.

Citizen Monitoring in the Swan Valley Flathead National Forest (MT)

Adam is also working with Northwest Connections (NWC) toimprove grizzly bear connectivity in the Swan Valley, MT. In October,Adam went into the eld with Tom Parker (NWC) and the UM Chap-ter o The Wildlie Society (TWS). About 20 students attended theeldtrip and helped us collect data and check our remotely-triggeredcameras. We collected hundreds o photos o wildlie using the iden-

tied grizzly bear corridor. This winter we will continue to work withNWC and students by assisting with a winter wildlie tracking classon our study site.

Adam responded to requests or inormation including: roadsand road closure eectiveness or Earth Justice; corridors or LegacyLands Alliance; road paving or American Wildlands; restorationplanning or Public Employees or Environmental Responsibility;road removal or Pacic Rivers Council, and a contact or WoodsHole Research Center.

Regionally, several Hells Canyon Collaborative members, alongwith 20 students o Whitman College Proessor Phil Brick, invento-ried most o the road system in the Overlook II area o Hells Canyon.Phils students are currently sorting through all the collected data,and rom this inventory we plan to prioritize needed road removalwork and get local olks out on the ground doing the work.

Finally, the Restoration Program is providing inormation andpotential assistance to upcoming road removal eorts in New Mexico(Forest Guardians) and Southeast Alaska (Cascadia Wildlands Project).

Collaboration is essential or eective, community-basedrestoration eorts. Photo by Natural Trails and WatersCoalition.

Program Updates continued on next page


10/24


11/24

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006 11

NTWC UpdateThroughout the all, the Natural Trails &

Waters Coalition (NTWC) ocused on buildingthe communications capacity o grassroots andregional members. To improve communicationswithin the community, we developed an online,password-protected campaign room available to

coalition members. This campaign room is ull ouseul inormation, much o it sensitive. Many othe resources ound in the campaign room weredeveloped by Wildlands CPR, such as PlanningPathways: A Citizens Guide to Controlling O-Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands.

We also reorganized the NTWC listserves. Inaddition, we doubled the number o visitors tothe campaign room and participants in listservesdedicated to travel planning and other o-roadvehicle issues. Organizations are invited to jointhe coalition in order to access these two valuableresources by visiting http://www.naturaltrails.

org/join-us/.

This summer, Resource Media (www.resource-media.org) produced messaging research and rec-ommendations at NTWCs request and with a con-tribution rom Wildlands CPR, the Sierra Club, andthe Colorado Mountain Club. Since then we haveheld a series o conerence calls to explain thesemessaging materials to member organizations inArizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Caliornia,and Montana, with Washington state and ourhunting/angling allies still on tap or this winter. Iyou need help with travel planning media, contactJason at Wildlands CPR or more inormation.

NTWC has scheduled the nal two in a serieso seven regional workshops on eective collabo-ration delivered by the University o Virginias

Institute or Environmental Negotiations. Bothworkshops will be held beore December 15, withSierra Club hosting one in Bend, Oregon and Wild-lands CPR hosting the other in Missoula, Montana.

In a collaborative eort to equip land manag-

ers with the best tools or travel planning, NTWChelped introduce agency decision-makers to theEcosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS)tool. Over the past year, Wildlands CPR identiedEMDS as the premier tool or a landscape ap-proach to travel planning and arranged a success-ul workshop or ederal and state land managerson the benets and applications o EMDS. ThisG.I.S. tool developed by the agencys ownPacic Northwest Research Station enables asophisticated yet graphical assessment o whicho-road vehicle routes, roads and oot trails arenecessary or transportation, desirable or recre-ation, and manageable given the values and limits

o the landscapes they transect. Ater a presenta-tion by Wildlands CPR board member Jim Furnishand a meeting with EMDS researchers and devel-opers, agency leadership distributed a memo toregional sta encouraging them to consider usingEMDS in travel planning.

The NTWC Steering Committee has beenworking closely with some o our key unders thissummer to develop a more coordinated responseto travel planning eorts throughout the west.One o the responses is the creation o a new Rec-reation Planning Action Center at The WildernessSociety in Denver. Well be working closely with

RPAC and others to continue to address travelplanning and o-road vehicle issues on publiclands. Well have a more complete update aboutthese new eorts in the next issue o The RIPorter.

Creating a consistent, concise, and comprehensive message is imperative orsuccessul collaboration. Photo courtesy o U.S. Fish & Wildlie Service.


12/24


The Long and Winding Roadless RuleBy Bethanie Walder

Its been two months since a district

judge in Caliornia overturned Presi-dent Bushs roadless rule and rein-

stated the roadless protection rule putin place under President Clinton. Andwhile this decision is certainly a signi-cant legal victory, no one can predicthow long it will last. Beore the judgesink had even dried, opponents o road-less protection were already declaringtheir intent to take new legal action.Wildlands CPR has been tracking this is-sue or the better part o a decade, andit is important to consider some o thathistory as part o this update.

Background Two RulesCompared

The Clinton roadless rule, as areminder, protects inventoried road-less areas rom most road construction,logging and development. It was nevera complete ban on road building andlogging, however, and would still allowa signicant amount o road construc-tion in roadless lands (up to 2,320 mileso roads could still be built in roadless

areas (see RIPorter 6:1).

Conservationists had other con-cerns. For instance, Cintons roadlessrule had no provision or dealing witho-road vehicle use, which has be-come a major threat to the integrity oroadless areas. In addition, the For-est Service redened roads and trails,making it almost impossible to tell thedierence between a motorized trailand a road so even though motor-ized trails might look and act justlike roads, they were never restricted

by the Clinton rule. Still, despite theseconcerns, the rule was a lot more pro-tective o roadless areas than the statusquo.

In July 2004, the Bush Administra-tion announced it was developing a newroadless rule that would, theoretically,empower state governments to play alarger role in managing roadless areas.This rule was adopted in May 2005 andcreated a petition process through

which state governors could help writethe rules or managing roadless areaswithin their states. Through the peti-tions, governors could request protec-tion or development o roadless areas;petitions had to be led by mid-Novem-ber 2006. All petitions were to be re-viewed by a newly chartered RoadlessArea Conservation National AdvisoryCommittee (RACNAC), whose recom-mendations would then be orwardedto the Administration and the ForestService or action. While this processwas intended to empower states, it waspossible that a state could ask or road-less protection and the Administrationcould still say no. I governors chosenot to petition, then roadless manage-ment would revert to the regular orestplanning process. The weaknesses othe Clinton roadless rule were carriedorward into Bushs rule, because most

governors who did submit petitionsbased them on the language in theClinton rule.

Legal Ping-Pong

Shortly ater the implementationo the Clinton roadless rule, numerousstates led legal challenges against it.Conservationists intervened in mosto these challenges and helped deend

the rule in court, and over time, districtcourt judges issued conficting opinionson the rules legality. At the appealslevel, the Ninth Circuit upheld the rule,while the Tenth Circuit was in the midsto hearing an appeal o a Wyomingdecision that had ound the Clinton ruleillegal. When the Bush state petitionsrule was released, the Tenth Circuitdeclared that appeal moot and vacatedthe Wyoming District Court decision.Numerous challenges were led againstthe Bush rule ater it was nalized, butgovernors also proceeded to preparestate petitions while the courts consid-ered these cases.

On September 19, 2006, JudgeLaporte set aside the Bush state peti-tions rule and reinstated the Clintonroadless rule. The decision applies toall national orest roadless areas with

the exception o the Tongass NationalForest, which had been excluded romthe Clinton rule through a separatelegal settlement between the State oAlaska and the Bush Administration.That settlement resulted in a ormalrulemaking process that was nalized inDecember 2003. Judge Laporte oundthat this rulemaking had undergoneproper procedure and was thereoreexempt rom her ruling.

Alamosa/Monte Vista National Wildlie Reuge, CO. Photo courtesy o U.S. Fish& Wildlie Service.


13/24


It is important to recognize thatone o the reasons Judge Laporte wasable to ully reinstate the Clinton rulewas because the Tenth Circuit had va-cated Wyoming Judge Brimmers deci-sion that ound the Clinton rule illegal.It is highly likely that the Wyoming casewill be reheard, or that the decision willbe reinstated, so Judge Laportes rulingmay be short-lived.

What the California DistrictCourt Decided

The September decision by JudgeLaporte ound that the Bush state peti-tions rule violated the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act, the EndangeredSpecies Act and the AdministrativeProcedures Act. The decision nulliedall petitions that had already been ledunder the Bush rule. Many o thesepetitions would have protected road-

less areas but now, in the wake o thedecision, petitioning takes on a wholenew meaning (see below).

In addition, Judge Laportes deci-sion resulted in a November 29, 2006injunction against road projects in road-less areas. In the injunction, the courtdecided not to halt any projects thatwere already underway on the ground,so several such projects approvedunder the Bush rule are proceeding.But the injunction does stop projectsapproved, but not begun.

Interestingly, the case included aspecic example o a user-created, ren-egade route that had been authorizedor reconstruction through a roadlessarea. The Court ound that the routewas not authorized by the Clinton ruleexceptions, because it was not classi-ed, and the exceptions only apply toclassied routes. However, the Courtrequested urther examination o ren-egade routes, so the injunction is notthe nal word on this issue.

The Many Uses of a Petition

Under the Bush state petitions rule,the only way to secure real protec-tion or roadless areas was or a stategovernor to le a petition, and numer-ous governors did so. The governorso North Carolina, Caliornia and NewMexico, or instance, had petitioned orcomplete protection o all the roadless

areas in their states. Many other stateswere in the nal stages o preparingtheir own petitions, some protective,some not. As mentioned, all previouslyled petitions are now invalid, becausethe Bush state petitions rule has beendeclared illegal.

In contrast, under the now-rein-stated Clinton roadless rule, the onlyway to get RID o protection is to le apetition. And at the recommendationo Undersecretary o Agriculture MarkRey, several states (including Idaho

and Utah) are in the process o doingjust that. These petitions have beenled under the ederal AdministrativeProcedures Act (APA) and i success-ul, would lead to ederal rulemakingto overturn roadless protection on astate-by-state basis. The APA rulemak-ing petitions process has been in eector decades, and was always available,regardless o the Bush rule.

In essence, the September courtdecision led to an about-ace in terms ostrategy, with petitions now a tactic othose governors who want to developroadless areas, rather than those gover-nors who want to protect them.

What Will the Future Hold?

It is quite likely that we will seean appeal o Judge Laportes decision.Alternately, new lawsuits could be led

against the Clinton rule, or old legalcases revived. In a worst-case scenario,a court could then overturn the Clintonrule again, or the Bush rule could bereinstated on appeal. I the Clintonrule is overturned, and Bush rule is notreinstated, that would put us back tosquare one, where individual nationalorests would determine through theirorest planning process how to treatroadless areas. But with ten years oroadless advocacy in place this is ahighly unlikely nal outcome. Giventhe importance and complexity o this

issue over the years, urther judicialwrangling could well prompt Congres-sional action. There have been severalprevious Congressional attempts toenact the Clinton rule into law, but nonehave yet succeeded that could changeunder the new Congress.

At this point in time (that is, presstime), we can consider roadless areaslargely protected rom most ormalroad-building under the Clinton road-less rule. But o-road vehicle use andthe continued prolieration o user-cre-

ated routes in roadless areas remains akey threat, under any potential sce-nario. With the Clinton protections inplace, it is time to turn our attention todeveloping some lasting solutions too-road vehicle use o roadless areas,and the many problems that causes orlong-term protection o roadless values.

Large carnivores, like the endangered Florida panther, require roadless areas or theirsurvival. Photo courtesy o U.S. Fish & Wildlie Service.


14/24


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

both as a tribute to them and as a way o highlightingsuccessul strategies and lessons learned. Please

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

Citizen Spotlight on Roz McClellanBy Cathy Adams

In 1992 Roz McClellan joined the Wildlands Project,which at the time was involved in mapping wildliereserves across North America in an eort to reduce

habitat ragmentation. As the group drew boundariesaround blocks o habitat, Roz noticed the blocks werecriss-crossed with lines. I noticed that the reserves weresliced up with lines she said, and then realized that

the lines were o-road vehicle trails. She said the areasappeared roadless, but that o-road vehicle trails hadbecome a new orm o ragmentation. I realized thenthat our work to map large core reserves needed to startaddressing o-road vehicles. And so Roz switched herocus to o-road vehicles and how they could better beregulated.

Roz got her start in advocacy in the early 1980s help-ing start an Adopt-a-BLM-Wilderness program to protectColorado BLM Wilderness Study Areas. During the 1980sshe was also active with Earth First! deending old growthorests. One incident led her and a couple o dozen othersto get arrested in Caliornia or blocking a truck carrying

redwoods bound or Japan.

In 1985, Roz became director o the University oColorados Environmental Center in Boulder, where shecoordinated national conerences on topics such as tropi-cal deorestation, global warming and population and theenvironment.

In 1992 she ounded the Southern Rockies Ecosys-tem Project (SREP) and or the next six years orga-nized activists to map eco-regions in hopes o ndingways to connect, restore and protect ecosystems.Eventually Roz and the mapping coordinators ormeda non-prot, and SREP continues reconnecting habitatto this day.

Back in the 1990s habitat ragmentation wasrecognized as the major threat to biodiversity, but therole o o-road vehicles was less understood. O-road vehicles were allowed to prolierate reely, Rozsays, because there were no laws against it. O-roadvehicles were continuing the pattern o ragmentationwhere roads let o, she says.

The unchecked spread o o-road vehicles ledRoz in 1998 to branch o rom SREP to start a smallorganization, the Rocky Mountain Recreation Initia-tive (RMRI), ocusing on the ragmenting eects oo-road vehicles. Roz has attempted to introduce the

principles o conservation biology into trail planningand recreational policy at the state and ederal levelin Colorado. She attributes her grounding in conserva-tion biology to conservation champions Reed Nossand Mike Soul, but saw that ew people were apply-ing conservation biology to trail prolieration. Iveound that Ive been allied with wildlie biologists romgovernment agencies and the universities becausethey best understand the impacts o recreational trailson wildlie.

RMRI works on o-road vehicle issues in tandemwith a network o mostly Colorado environmental or-ganizations called the Southern Rockies Conservation

Alliance. Whats unique about RMRI is that it ocusesnot on wilderness and other issues, but on the biologi-cal impacts o trails motorized trails and mountainbike trails as well.

Roz believes dealing with o-road vehicles isimportant because they are the most transormativeorce on our public lands today, and unortunately,many o their impacts are irreversible. Whatever ismotorized will never be wild again, whereas non-motorized areas have a chance o retaining theirwildness. I believe we are in a critical moment in the

Roz McClellan at work with the Rocky MountainRecreation Initiative. Photo courtesy o RMRI.


15/24


history o public lands. I want to help establish thenal balance between what is motorized and what isnon-motorized or the oreseeable uture.

Roz nds that people she works with aroundColorado experience the loss o silence as the loss osomething precious. Hikers, hunters and horsebackriders are oten heart broken by the loss o theiravorite quiet haunts and the ability to nd peace andsolitude. The work is un because were trying topreserve what is a critical component o the humanexperience: the ability to experience natural sound.

Other RMRI projects include getting non-motor-ized prescriptions into national orest plan revisions.When a orest plan is written, the Forest Servicedecides which sections o the orest will emphasizelogging, wildlie, recreation, etc. With each sectionhaving a dierent management emphasis, Roz worksto make sure that wildlands are given a non-motorizedmanagement prescription. In my mind, keeping theland non-motorized is a surrogate or keeping it wild.

RMRI also has been working to get the ColoradoO-Highway Vehicle Program to consider environ-mental actors in their grant program. When the statecollects OHV registration ees, that money goes intodeveloping motorized trails on Forest Service andBLM lands. Roz has helped add environmental criteria

into the grant process. She also worked to protectWolord Mountain, near Kremmling, Colorado as aquiet sanctuary or wintering elk.

Roz believes it helps to work cooperatively withthe motorized community. Theres a lot o anger andcontroversy involved, which is why it is helpul tomake riends with the o-road vehicle leadership. Youneed to create a sense o respect between the twosides so we can talk to each other; otherwise its psy-chologically damaging to be in an atmosphere o suchintolerance. In 2006, RMRI coordinated a collabora-tive group o motorized and non-motorized interests,including the Colorado Mountain Club, the Colorado

O-highway Vehicle Coalition and the ColoradoWildlie Federation. The group got consensus rom theentire Colorado delegation or a Congressional appro-priation (not yet approved) that would go to ColoradoNational Forests. The unding would help the ForestService better manage o-road vehicles. Right nowthe trail systems are undened, so o-road vehiclesdont know where to go and o-road vehicle routesare prolierating. Both sides agree that i we get trailsdesignated and get vehicles to stay on trails throughenorcement and management then the land will be inbetter shape.

But the two sides dont always agree. Its interestingto collaborate on one issue, while being at loggerheads onother issues, such as how many user-created trails aregoing to be added to the motorized trail system.

A huge challenge is budget cuts to the Forest Ser-vice and BLM that have made them incapable o gettinga handle on the prolieration o o-road vehicle use. The

loss o eld sta and law enorcement allows vehicles torun rampant across the land.

The dicult thing is that the vehicles are already outthere. With a timber sale you have a decision up ront, butwith vehicles they are already out o the barn and youredoing a rear-guard action.

RMRI is ocusing now on the national orest and BLMlands along the Front Range, while other members o theSRCA coalition ocus elsewhere in the state. What I enjoyabout the o-road vehicle issue is that it is so new and asteep learning curve. Its ascinating to try to help cratpolicy where there has never been policy beore. Thedownside, she says, is dealing with a lot o disappoint-ment and the relentless loss o wildness.

However challenging, Roz remains in the ght. We

are at a critical moment in the history o the ForestService. The outcome o the new o-road vehicle rule willdecisively infuence Forest Service lands into the inde-nite uture. So I plan to stay with the process and try tosee it to its conclusion.

But it isnt always easy. In this work, you need toler-ance or setbacks and an appetite or challenge. Thiswork is not or the aint o heart, you get burnt out ast.So what keeps her going? The caring and the passion opeople she works with. For her, helping them achieve

their goals o protecting wild and quiet places is the mostsatisying part o the work!

When not working to protect Colorados wildlands,Roz enjoys playing in them quietly, hiking, running, down-hill and cross-country skiing with her husband and twosons.

Cathy Adams is the Wildlands CPR Program andMembership Associate.

The work is fun because weretrying to preserve what is a critical

component of the human experience;the ability to experience natural

sound.

Roz in her element. Photo courtesy o RMRI.


16/24


From a Wonderland RoadBy Carolyn Duckworth

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

Sunset seems to have turned to twilight overnortheastern Yellowstone. Then the cloudsmove east enough or a deep golden light

to slant over the peaks, illuminating SpecimenRidge in the mid-distance or ve more minutes.I swing the spotting scope up and away romAntelope Creek toward the nearest slopes othe ridge. In this contrasty light, I sometimescan discern a grizzly or two. Once I had in viewtwo bears traversing the slope when one veereddownhill at a run, pulled up in sagebrush, andcame up shaking the lie out o what was prob-ably an elk cal.

Tonight, no wildlie drama in sight, I sit backinto the twilight, eeling the wind, hearing theaint rush o the creek. And enjoying the lack otrac. I sit less than ten eet o one o Yellow-stones major roads, the road over Dunraven

Pass, over which more than 4,000 cars pass ona busy summer day as they cross the fanks oMount Washburn. The pass has been closed ortwo summers now while the road is reconstruct-ed rom the bed upsomething not done sincethe early 1930s when the road was nally madet or automobiles. It reopens in one month, andIve been coming up here at least once a week toenjoy the quiet or a little bit longer.

At the time o the parks establishment in1872, European American visitors rode theirhorses and drove their wagons over trails longestablished by the tribes who had been visiting

and passing through Yellowstone or centuries.

The ancient Bannock Trail crosses the mod-ern road system on Blacktail Plateau, northwesto Mount Washburn and Specimen Ridge. I canjust barely pick out the travois twin-track wind-ing down the same hill where the current roadsends you down in an S-curve. That curve buildsup a speed that you dont even notice once youare on the fat racing 10, 15, 20 miles over thespeed limit. In summer, that stretch o road islittered with fattened ground squirrels.

This year during several days at peak summer season, I counted road-killed Uinta ground squirrels across the roads o Yellowstones northernrange. This was a relatively simple task: I learned to scan the road aheador dark spots and small lumps on the pavement. Approaching one, Idslow, note the mileage on the odometer, scribble it down along with gs,eastbound or gs, westbound or gs, center in my eld journal. Becausepeople have the potential to see elk, deer, bison, coyote, bear, and wolvesalong this road, its relatively acceptable to cruise along at 35 mph insteado the posted 45 mph.

On each o these roadkill counting trips, the return yielded dierentresults. A ew more ground squirrels would have been killed by the time Iretraced the route, and most o the squashed squirrels rom the trip outwere gone. Only a stain remained on the pavement. Ravens, magpies, andcoyotes scavenge roadkills. One time I stopped in an animal jam createdby people watching a coyote trying to yank a dead squirrel stuck to thepavement. Sometimes I had to slow as I approached a roadkill because Icould see live ground squirrels in the road, eating their dead.

This stretch o Yellowstone road was a heavily used trail by prospec-tors, miners, and suppliers traveling rom Mammoth Hot Springs throughto Cooke City, a busy mining hamlet in the 1800s. The old dirt roads o thattime probably impacted wild animals very little, except perhaps to moveelk and other wary creatures away rom the route. When you read ac-counts or look at photographs o that era, its clear that speedy travel wasnot possible.

Motor vehicles in Yellowstone have increased rom a ew thousand per year inthe 1920s to a ew million per year today. Photo courtesy o Yellowstone National

Park, circa 1925.


17/24


Yellowstone roads remained the domain o horses and wheeled cartsand coaches until 1915, when the rst motorized vehicle was allowed inthe park. The ollowing year, more than 3,000 automobiles entered thepark. By 1920, 13,000 cars and buses were bumping their way around Yel-lowstone. Today, more than one million cars travel Yellowstones roadsrom May until October.

On July 3rd this year, my Dunraven visit came at noonconsideredpeak travel time on the peak weekend o the year. I counted cars or 30minutes. Fiteen vehicles passed me as I sat on a rock listening to the creekand watching Parnassian butterfies nectar the blooming stonecrop. Theollowing evening, July 4th, ten cars passed in one hal-hour.

Amazingly, this roadso amous or its bear- and wol-viewingdidnot extract a huge toll in road kills o any large mammals beore recon-struction began. O the 310 miles o paved roads in Yellowstone, it has thesecond-lowest roadkill rate o any section: one animal per ten miles peryear. During the 1990s, no grizzlies were killed on this road that passesdirectly through one o their major habitat areas.

In contrast, a 17-mile stretch o U.S. 191 on the west side is the roadkill

corridor o Yellowstone. It is the only road in the park with a legal speedlimit o 55 mph; the actual speed is closer to 75 mph. It is also the onlyroad on which semi-tractor trailers and other heavy commercial vehiclescan legally pass through the park. During the 1990s, this stretch o roadclaimed 461 large mammals at a rate o more than 2 animals per mile peryear.

The major roadkill studies o the 1990s ocused on large mammalsrom beaver to bison. I wonder what we might have ound out had anyonecounted the Uinta mortality on Dunraven Road beore the road reconstruc-tion so we could compare the mortality aterward. The new road will bewider, less curvy, and saer or higher speeds than the old road, whichoten stripped cars o their hubcaps with its deep potholes and high rostheaves.

The rst time I came up Dunraven this summer, ground squirrelsdanced giddily close to the pavement, crossed daringly close to my ap-proach, and chattered back and orth. They were several generationsremoved rom the last ground squirrels to experience the 4,000-cars-a-daytrac. How many generations will be squished beore their ancestors cau-tion is relearned?

Most roadkills occur at dusk and at night in Yellowstone, no dierentthan other places. The dierence is this is a national park, the rst nationalpark in the world, and it set a precedent in its emphasis on individualvehicular transportation.

The precedent began in the rst years othe park, when a succession o superintendentsbegged the U.S. Congress or money to improveoot and horse trails or more comortablewagon roads. They emphasized visitor saetyand comort rst, accessibility to the parksscenic and thermal wonders second. In the earlyyears o the National Park Service, establishedin 1916, Stephen T. Mather and Horace Albrightset the standards or automobile roads, empha-sizing the importance o designing park roadsthat impacted the landscape as little as pos-sible. Their orward-looking point o view wassomewhat maintained ater the 1920s when theederal Bureau or Public Roads took over parkroad construction and maintenance.

Roads built in the 1920s and 30s nallychanged a tour through Yellowstone rom abone-jarring ordeal to a pleasant automobiletour. They remained the literal basis o Yellow-stones road system until the late 20th centurywhen deterioration o the roadbeds was sothorough that only reconstruction could repair

them. Millions o dollars pour in to Yellowstoneeach year or this massive project. This highwaymoney is included when ederal ocials pro-claim that Yellowstones budget has increasedeach year during the current administration andthat its maintenance backlog is being reduced.Yet employees still live in trailers toxic withblack mold and people in wheelchairs must en-ter some visitor centers through the back door.

But the roads will be improved and main-tained. Thanks to the daily oversight o parkemployees, these roads are being rebuilt assensitively as possible given the constraints o

ederal highway projects. Unortunately, theycan do nothing about decisions such as the newDunraven Road will welcome vehicles up to 30eet long but wont be sae or bicycles. Nor canthey change the act that improved roads equalincreased speeds equal increased roadkills o allanimals in Yellowstone.

During July 2005, I drove the parks roadsmore than usual. Hal the trips were to countroad-killed Uintas on my way to enjoy the quieton Dunraven Road. Friends staying at LakeHotel, in the southern part o the park, providedanother reason to drive the peak-season roads.

I joined them oten or meals and evening drivesto look or wildlie, but I couldnt join them ontheir hikes ar rom roads. Several oot prob-lems laid me o hiking this year. Thats whyDunravens quiet was especially welcomed andwill be sorely missed when the barricades comedown and our thousand cars a day pass by.

Carolyn Duckworth is a writer, editor andnaturalist living in Gardiner, Montana. She isone o Yellowstone National Parks Publications

Manager.

Some o Yellowstones early motorized visitors encounter difcult roadconditions. Photo courtesy o Yellowstone National Park, circa 1925.


18/24


Highlighted Principlesof Environmental Justice

To view all of the 17 Principles of Environmental Justice, visitwww.ejnet.org/principles.htm

Environmnetal Justice (EJ) demands that public policy be

based on mutual respect and justice for all peoples, free fromany form of discrimination or bias.

EJ calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, ex-traction, production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastesand poisons and nuclear testing that threaten the fundamen-tal right to clean air, land, water, and food.

EJ demands the right to participate as equal partners atevery level of decision-making, including needs assessment,planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation.

EJ afrms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy workenvironment without being forced to choose between anunsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also afrms the rightof those who work at home to be free from environmentalhazards.

EJ considers governmental acts of environmental injustice

a violation of international law, the Universal Declarationof Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention onGenocide.

EJ afrms the need for urban and rural ecological policiesto clean up and rebuild our cities and rural areas in balancewith nature, honoring the cultural integrity of all our com-munities, and providing fair access for all to the full range ofresources.

EJ calls for the education of present and future generationswhich emphasizes social and environmental issues, based onour experience and an appreciation of our diverse culturalperspectives.

Restoring Justice to our Forests,

our CommunitiesBy Bethanie Walder

This all I had the opportunity to speak to a group ocollege students about gender issues in the environ-mental movement. While I used to deal with this issue

a lot, I havent in a long time, so it was rereshing to see theprogress weve made in the last ten years in bringing bettergender balance to the conservation community. But the con-text or my discussion with students was broader, incorporat-ing gender as a component o environmental justice.

Ive paid attention to the environmental justice move-ment peripherally or many years, but Ive always consideredWildlands CPR to t exclusively into the realm o traditionalconservation. What surprised me was my realization thatecological restoration alls quite squarely within the realmo environmental justice. In act, restoration might provide avaluable intersection between the conservation and environ-mental justice communities. I so, then can restoration alsohelp us redene the conservation movement to incorporate amuch broader constituency o interest?

What is environmental justice?

The environmental movement has traditionally been

split into two segments conserving lands and wildlie on theone hand, and preventing pollution and its eects on humanhealth on the other. Environmental justice ocuses on thedisproportionate exposure o low-income people and peopleo color to toxic pollution, most oten caused by the proxim-ity o their neighborhoods to the sources o pollution, likeactories. Migrant armworkers are another population thatexperiences severe environmental injustices through expo-sure to pesticides and chemicals.

But environmental justice could be considered morebroadly than this. It could, or example, also ocus on peoplewho live in rural, resource-dependent communities, wherethe extraction o resources (including logging, mining, oil andgas exploration) has signicant impacts on peoples liveli-

hoods, communities and even their health. While loggingmight not cause the same air pollution as a actory, it candramatically impact water quality, while also destabilizingmountain slopes. In addition, slash burning (and naturalwildre) can cause signicant air pollution problems. Or con-sider mountaintop removal or coal mining, and the prooundimpacts that has on the people who live below those moun-tains. Nonetheless, it is not quite as common to hear environ-mental justice applied to rural communities.

At the rst National People o Color EnvironmentalLeadership Summit, held in Washington DC in 1991, delegatesadopted 17 principles o Environmental Justice (see side bar).

As recently as six years ago, these principles were markedlydierent rom the conservation agenda. Since then, however,

the conservation community has broadened its message andreached out to new constituencies or mutually increasedpolitical power. One example is the addition o an ecologicalrestoration message.

In an article by University o Michigan proessor DorcetaTaylor in 2000, she compares contemporary environmental-ism with environmental justice. She points out, or example,that most contemporary environmentalists dont incorpo-rate religion or religious institutions into their work, whileenvironmental justice advocates do. But that is changing,and many conservation groups now work with aith-basedorganizations. She also considers worker health and saety,


19/24


and the need to develop environmentally sae livelihoods.Ten years ago environmental justice advocates consideredthese issues as a oundation o their work, while conserva-tion organizations gave them limited attention. That too haschanged, as has our emphasis on the right to clean air, land,water and ood.

Ecological restoration specically addresses the need ordeveloping environmentally sae livelihoods by developingeconomies that heal the land instead o harming it. Ecologi-cal restoration has at its base the idea o restoring clean air,land, water and ood. Ecological restoration, when practicedin rural, resource dependent communities, also provides anopportunity to maintain cultural integrity.

Ecological restoration as environmentaljustice

In June, Wildlands CPR co-sponsored the Montana Gov-ernors Restoration Summit. One o the main ideas to emergewas that o pairing urban/suburban revitalization with wild-land restoration. Storm Cunningham rom the RevitalizationInstitute spoke about the 12 sectors o restorative develop-ment; they address the natural, built and socioeconomic en-

vironments. In the natural environment, restoration includesthings like sheries and watersheds. In the socioeconomicenvironment, restoration addresses things like education andworkorce development as well as cultural assets (see sidebar, this page). These twelve sectors are mostly consistentwith the 17 principles o environmental justice, though theyare not nearly as comprehensive. Nonetheless, they helparticulate how ecological restoration and revitalization reallyare environmental justice issues.

Wildlands CPR is now leading a ollow-up eort romthe Governors conerence that would meld urban/subur-ban revitalization with wildland restoration. This work hasthe support o universities, labor unions, conservationists,and, hopeully, rural communities. While the Revitalization

Institute supports such eorts, nowhere has a coordinatedrevitalization/restoration campaign been undertaken at astatewide level.

What might this look like on the ground? Lets takeLibby, Montana, as an example. The entire town has beendeclared a superund site because o asbestos contaminationrom the now-closed vermiculite mine in town. Hundreds opeople are either sick or dying o asbestosis. Some worked inthe mines, but many are ill simply because so much asbestoswas in the air, their houses, schools, buildings and shops.

Libby lies in the midst o the Kootenai National Forest,one o the better tree-growing orests in Montana. But lastyear the last mill in Libby closed. The Kootenai has an ex-tremely high density o roads, and those roads are impacting

The 12 Sectors of Restorative Development

Natural: ecosystem, watershed, sheries, agricultural lands

Built: brownelds remediation/redevelopment; infrastruc-ture renovation/design/replacement; heritage restoration;catastrophe recovery/reconstruction

Socioeconomic: social policies and services; economypolicies; education and workforce development; culturalassets

Visit http://www.revitalizationinstitute.org/12_sectors.htm

endangered wildlie like grizzly bears, while also degradingwater quality. A combined revitalization/restoration projectin and around Libby could, or example, consider browneldsredevelopment (revitalization) o some o the ormerly con-taminated buildings in and around Libby. This could includeretooling the Libby mill to unction as a value-added worksite or small timber products (logged, or example, rom reprotection eorts in the wildland urban interace). We could

pair this with an aggressive road decommissioning programon the Kootenai that would expand habitat or endangeredspecies and restore key watersheds. Both the in-town revital-ization and the wildland restoration would provide high-wage,high skill jobs to community members, while also restoringthe built and natural environments within and outside o thecommunity o Libby, ideally providing them with longer termopportunities to maintain a vital and healthy community.

I Montana embraced this combined revitalization/resto-ration approach, it could create a model or the nation. Thismodel would push the envelope o the traditional conserva-tion paradigm directly into the heart o the environmentaljustice paradigm.

I the residents o rural, resource-dependent communi-

ties are suering rom environmental injustices, then eco-logical restoration may oer one way to resolve some othat injustice. Ecological restoration specically addressesthe need or developing environmentally sae livelihoods bydeveloping economies that heal the land instead o harmingit. Ecological restoration has at its base the idea o restoringclean air, land, water and ood. Ecological restoration, whenpracticed in rural communities, also provides an opportunityto maintain cultural integrity.

Authors note: As I was researching this article I cameacross a brand new book title, Reclaiming Nature: Environ-mental Justice and Ecological Restoration by James Boyce,Elizabeth Stanton and Sunita Narain. The book was just

released, and I could not get a copy in time, but look or areview o this book in a uture issue o The RIPorter.

Reerences:Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism website: http://

www.ejnet.org/principles.htmlRevitalization Institute website: http://www.

revitalizationinstitute.org/12_sectors.htmTaylor, Dorceta. 2000. The rise o the environmental justice

paradigm: Injustice raming and the social constructiono environmental discourses. American Behavioral

Scientistv3, n4, 508-580 (2000).


20/24


On September 19, the 10th Circuit Court o Appealsissued a decision upholding the legality o o-road vehiclerestrictions put in place by the Bureau o Land Management

(BLM) to halt considerable adverse impacts caused by thesemachines in Box Elder and Grand County, Utah. The motor-ized recreation group Utah Shared Access Alliance (USA-ALL)sued the agency, seeking to overturn the restrictions so thato-road vehicle use could continue without managementoversight. Upon losing in District Court, USA-ALL appealed tothe 10th Circuit where they also sought to overturn ExecutiveOrders governing o-road vehicle use.

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Earthjustice,along with Wildlands CPR, Red Rock Forests and Great OldBroads or Wilderness intervened in the case to support theBLMs long-overdue restrictions on o-road vehicle abuse.The court held, signicantly, that an emergency is not

required beore BLM may limit o-road vehicle use on publiclands, and that BLMs decision is supported by substantial ev-idence o abuse. The 10th Circuit Court ound that the DistrictCourt properly dismissed USA- ALLs claims against the BLM. The Bureau o Land Management has decided to imple-

ment emergency restrictions or o-road vehicle recreationin Southern Utahs Factory Butte Area to protect criticalhabitat. Factory Butte is a popular destination or motorizedrecreationists.

This action has been expected or some time, as the landis the endemic home o the endangered Wrights Fishhookcactus and the threatened Winkler cactus. Factory Butte,located near Capitol Ree National Park, has until now beendesignated open or o-road vehicle use. Under the new

rules, motorized use will be limited to a 2,600-acre play areaknown as Swing Arm City, and 220 miles o designated roads.Ocials emphasized that i the new regulations are not hon-ored, the result could be a closure o the entire area.

This action was spurred by a petition led last year byThe Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance or a more restrictiveo-road vehicle plan, citing concerns over the cactus, andsoil and water impacts due to motorized recreation. The Bu-reau o Land Management rejected most o the petition, butlaunched an analysis o cactus habitat and ound signicanto-road vehicle damage to the plants.

Travel Restrictions UpheldTo Halt Off-Road VehicleAbuse In Utah

New Off-Road VehicleRestrictions For Utahs

Factory Butte

Alaska is moving orward with plans to build the rst seg-ment o a controversial road linking Juneau to the NorthernLynn Canal and, ultimately, the state road system.

The state Department o Transportation has askedcontractors to bid on construction o 13 to 21 miles o graveltrack while it awaits permits rom the Army Corps o Engi-neers or a more permanent paved road.

Gov. Frank Murkowski said the ederal permitting pro-cess is slowing the roads construction and could increasethe costs o building it.

Murkowski Plans JuneauRoad Start

Jeep despoils rare desert water source in Pritchett Canyon, Utah.Photo by Kevin Walker, U.S. Bureau o Land Management.


21/24


A ederal court has ordered that the current o-roadvehicle restrictions in the Algodones Dunes o southernCaliornias Sonoran Desert will remain in eect or the ore-seeable uture. For years the dunes have been the subject omuch controversy concerning o-road vehicles and harm to

threatened wildlie.

Fity thousand o the areas 180,000 acres have beenclosed since 2000 in an eort to protect habitat and threat-ened wildlie, including Peirsons milk-vetch, desert tortoises,and fat-tailed horned lizards.

One has but to drive Hwy 78 across the dunes to see theremarkable dierence on the north side o the highway withprotected wilderness and the south side with vehicles every-where, said Elden Hughes o the Sierra Club. The north isalive with desert plants and animals. The south side has ewplants and no animal lie. The rare and threatened species othe Dunes need the protections the judge has given them.

The closures will remain in eect at least until the Bureauo Land Management revises the environmental review orthe Dunes management plan and the Fish and Wildlie Servicerevises the critical habitat designation or the Peirsons milk-vetch.

Californias Algodones Dunes Will Remain Protected

A ederal judge on Thursday issued an order temporarilyhalting construction o a road to a development planned atthe base o the Wol Creek Ski Area, days ater the U.S. ForestService issued a permit or the road.

U.S. District Judge John Kane approved a 10-day tem-porary restraining order requested by two environmentalgroups. He also scheduled a hearing Tuesday on the groupsrequest or a preliminary injunction, which i approved wouldput any work on hold until the matter is settled in court. Thelawsuit by Durango-based Colorado Wild and the San Luis Val-ley Ecosystem Council in Alamosa is the latest round in thebattle over the ski village. The groups want to overturn theForest Services decision that gave developers o The Village

at Wol Creek the go-ahead. The Forest Service on Tuesday is-sued a permit allowing developer Bob Honts and his partner,Texas billionaire Billy Joe Red McCombs, to extend a roadrom the ski area by 250 eet to link the site o the proposedvillage and the ski area parking lots.

Construction had not started in the two days since thepermit was issued. Its pretty snowy up there, thats whatWol Creek is all about, Honts said. You just deal with whatthe judges do. The important thing is that its not very longuntil we have a day in court.

Judge Halts Wolf Creek Road

The developers still need permits rom the ColoradoDepartment o Transportation and other agencies beore theycan use it. The extended road would have been gated untilthen.

Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Councilclaim in their lawsuit that the Forest Service didnt analyzethe developments ull impact, a violation o the law, and onlylooked at the impacts o two roads that would be built to thenearly 300-acre plot o private land surrounded by the RioGrande National Forest.

The lawsuit also claims that Peter Clark, orest supervi-sor, in August illegally amended the nal decision on con-

struction o the roads when he said the developer could startbuilding one o them. The lawsuit claims that Clarks actionundermines the Forest Services requirement or two roads.

A spokesman in the regional Forest Service oce in Den-ver declined to comment because o the pending litigation.

McCombs proposed Village at Wol Creek could have2,000 residential units or as many as 10,500 people, 250,000square eet o commercial space and a luxury hotel on a 288-acre parcel next to the ski area. The surrounding area is hometo ewer than 1,000 year-round residents.

O-road vehicles damage ragile desert soil. Photocourtesy o U.S. Bureau o Land Management.


22/24


The rst real snow ell in and around Mis-soula on Thanksgiving weekend remind-ing us that winter is really on its way. As

the calendar year comes to a close, were thankulor some o our big accomplishments this year,including the publication o our new book, and theco-hosting o the MT Governors Restoration Sum-mit. Not to mention that the Utne Reader includedthis very publication, The Road-RIPorter, as mediathat matters according to their Street Librarian.The Street Librarian highlights publications whosecreators are motivated by passion or ideas insteado prot. Were very proud to be mentioned in

that context, and we hope that you, our readers,continue to nd our newsletter an important one tokeep on your bookshel! And just one quick note oclarication, the Street Librarian questioned whywe changed our name rom Wildlands Center orPreventing Roads to Wildlands CPR. We changedour name or several reasons, chie among themthat the emphasis o our organization is on resto-ration, which is strongly implied by the concepto CPR. Because our work encompasses so muchmore than preventing road construction in wildlandecosystems, we thought it was important to have aname that was more encompassing, too. Sorry orany conusion that may have caused.

And now we have some people to thank andsome people to welcome to Wildlands CPR

A big thanks rom us to University o Montana(UM) Environmental Studies (EVST) graduatestudents Tiany Saleh and Anna Holden or theirresearch expertise this all. Tiany is research-ing the impacts o road lighting on wildlie andAnna is summarizing the eectiveness o citizenscience projects across the country. Youll seetheir reviews in the Road-RIPorter later in 2007.Many thanks, too, to Noah Jackson, who has beenresearching o-road vehicle enorcement or us this

summer and all in preparation or a new report.

Wed like to oer Anna Holden a second, butbigger, thank you or her very hard work on ourClearwater National Forest citizen science moni-toring project. Thanks to Anna, this was our besteld season yet - with more volunteers, more datacollected and more data analysis than ever beore.Wed also like to thank the National Forest Foun-dation, which recently awarded us a new grant tocontinue this project.

With our new grant, weve hired Gini Porter and MikeFiebig, who will each be helping us out on a part-time ba-sis with our Clearwater citizen science program. Gini is anAmericCorps member and will be working with us through

UM as a Community Organizer to recruit and train volunteersrom Missoula and the surrounding area to monitor restora-tion projects on the Clearwater. She has a bachelors degreein Biology rom UM with an emphasis in Zoology and she iscurrently working on a second degree in Psychology.

Weve hired Mike to work part-time as an EnvironmentalEducator or the same program. Mike is an EVST graduatestudent and comes to us with a wealth o outdoor educationexperience, most recently working or the National OutdoorLeadership School (NOLS). Mike will be teaching classes onrestoration and road removal in rural Idaho schools adjacentto the Clearwater National Forest, and leading classroomeldtrips this spring.

Wed also like to extend a big thank you to the Bullitt,Harder, New-Land and Page Foundations or their generoussupport or our work. And wed like to thank all o you, ourmembers, who responded to either our Give Thanks or ourAnnual Gits Campaign appeals. Its support like yours thatenables Wildlands CPR to continue with our work. I youhavent made a year-end contribution yet, we hope youll stillconsider making a holiday donation to Wildlands CPR. And iyou need a belated git, check out our holiday git specials atwww.wildlandscpr.org.

A bald eagle draws its wings back as it comesin or a landing. Photo courtesy o U.S. Fish &Wildlie Service.


23/24


Join Wildlands CPR Today!Weve made joining Wildlands CPR easier and more effective than ever beore.

Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program Reducing Overhead

Monthly giving puts your contributiondirectly into action and reduces our

administrative costs. The savings go torestoring wildlands and building a more

eective network.

Making Your Gift Easier

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Yourcredit card or bank statement will

contain a record o each git; we willalso send a year-end tax receipt or your

records.

Our Promise To You

You maintain complete control overyour donation. To change or cancel

your git at any time, just write or giveus a call.

Name

Street

City, State,

Zip

Email

Phone

Organization/Business Name (i applicable)

Type o Membership: OrganizationIndividual/Family Business

Please send this orm and your payment option to:

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

Payment Option #2:

Electronic Funds Tr

road riporter 11.4 winter solstice 2006

Documents