RIPORTER 15.1

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

1/13

Spring Equinox 2010. Volume 15 No. 1

Inside

A Look Down the Trail, by BethanieWalder. Page 2

Bark Sounds Off For Restoration, byAlex Brown. Pages 3-5

Bark Sounds Off For RestorationBy Alex Brown, Executive Director, Bark

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

2/13

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 20102 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2010

2010 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places bypromoting watershed restoration that improves

sh and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, andenhances community economies. We focus on

reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads

and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551www.wildlandscpr.org

Director

Bethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Petersen

Science CoordinatorAdam Switalski

Legal LiaisonSarah Peters

Montana State ORV

CoordinatorAdam Rissien

Restoration CampaignCoordinator

Sue Gunn

Program AssociateCathrine L. Walters

Journal EditorDan Funsch

Interns & VolunteersGreg Peters, Stuart Smith

Board of DirectorsSusan Jane Brown, Jim Furnish,

Marion Hourdequin, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd,Crystal Mario, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben

To honor the 40th anniversary of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), theCouncil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently announced some important pro-posed changes to its implementation. In mid-February, CEQ released draft guidance

for NEPA in three areas: greenhouse gas emissions; mitigation and monitoring; and categoricalexclusions. The three proposals are independent, with separate comment processes.

All three of these proposals have the potential to benet both watershed restoration andtravel management/off-road vehicle decisions. For example, the new greenhouse gas (GHG)guidance proposes that if an activity is projected to emit 25,000 or more metric tons of green-house gasses, then the NEPA document would have to include a quantitative analysis. CEQ isnot currently proposing that this apply to federal land management actions, though they areaccepting comments on this idea.

If CEQ does apply the new GHG guidance more broadly to federal lands, it could have asignicant impact on travel planning analyses. For example, our colleagues at the WildernessSociety put together a rough estimate for motorized recreation on one national forest, ndingthat it could be responsible for emitting almost 35,000 metric tons of greenhouse gasses. Thispoints to an opportunity for national forests to analyze, and mitigate for, the greenhouse gasemissions of off-road vehicle recreation in new travel plan analyses.

Thats a good segue to mitigation CEQ guidance on this topic could be extremely valu-able. They propose three main changes to current mitigation protocols:

First, proposed mitigation should be considered throughout the NEPA process. thosemitigation measures that are adopted by the agency should be identifed as binding commit-ments to the extent consistent with agency authority . Second, a monitoring program should

be created or strengthened to ensure mitigation measures are implemented and eective.Third, public participation and accountability should be supported through proactive disclosureo, and access to, agency mitigation monitoring reports and documents. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Mitigation_and_Monitoring_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FINAL_02182010.pdf

This is signicant for road decommissioning. Since at least the mid 1990s, and perhapseven earlier, the agency has been including road decommissioning to mitigate new roadconstruction and other impacts of timber sales. Yet this mitigation is rarely binding and rarelyfunded, thus making its implementation uncertain. Many recommended mitigation measuresare never implemented. It remains unclear if CEQ has the authority to make mitigation bind-ing, but if so, it could make road decommissioning much more viable. In addition, monitoringand publicizing mitigation implementation data would make it easier to track progress.

The nal topic is categorical exclusions (CE). Apparently the revision to the CE guid-ance is fairly minimal, however, we hope the Forest Service will use this opportunity to makeroad decommissioning a formal category appropriate for a CE. While we want the agency toundertake comprehensive NEPA analysis at the watershed or forest level to determine theminimum road system and identify roads for decommissioning, there are many cases wherethe agency knows a road is causing problems, they no longer need it, and removing it will onlybenet the environment. In such cases, it would be great if the agency had clear guidance on

the appropriate application of categorical exclusions.

Overall, this new CEQ guidance could provide important opportunities for enhancingWildlands CPRs work, but the guidance isnt nalized yet and the agency is accepting com-ments. Within the next few weeks, Wildlands CPR will post key talking points on each of thethree proposals as they relate to our work, along with comment submission information keep an eye on our website for more information, and please send in comments!

Bark Sounds Off For RestorationBy Alex Brown, Bark

Editors Note: Wildlands CPR rst got to know Bark when we provided an ATVsurvey training to their staff and volunteers in 2006. They have made hugegains in road removal efforts since then, and their successes and challengesmay be a sign of what is to come for other forests. We hope you nd theirstory helpful for restoration in your own backyard, or that it at least sparkssome interesting conversation.

Barks Amy Harwood trains volunteers how to survey Forest Serviccourtesy o Bark.

continued on next page

Map courtesy o Bark.

In early June 2008, Amy Harwood wondered if any-one would show up to her eight-day campout nextto Oregons Clackamas River. Ominous clouds

began to form over camp as volunteers started toarrive. Rain began to fall, forcing 50 people to huddleunder large tarps for the rst road survey training.Despite eight days of snow, sleet, and rain, volunteerssurveyed 150 miles of Forest Service roads. The datacollected during the roadtruthing campouts overthe summer of 2008 helped push a big change in Mt.Hood National Forest. It used to be that removingroads required justication, but now it is the roadscontinued existence that must be justied. This shifthas led to some of the most aggressive road decom-missioning efforts in the Pacic Northwest. Butsurveying the roads was just one step of many alongthe way.

Threatened salmon + drinking

water + recreation = 29MMBF?Mt. Hood National Forest is unique in many

ways. It is home to ve populations of threatenedsalmon. The mountain is second only to JapansMount Fuji for the most annual climbs of a glaciatedpeak, contributing to a total ve million visits to the forest each year. Nine-ty-eight percent of the 1.1 million-acre forest contributes to a municipaldrinking water source. But Mt. Hood shares one trait with other forests; itis riddled with logging roads--3,400 miles according to the Forest Servicesrecreation map.

In the 1990s Portlands population grew by over 20%. The increasingurbanization of Portland has led Mt. Hood National Forest to become acanary in a political coal mine. Water quality and quantity are increas-ingly potent issues, as are recreation and quality of life. Yet these valuescontinue to take a back seat to the timber sale program, which in 2008 sold29 million board feet.

Meanwhile, a new vision is coming out of Washington D.C. In his rstmajor speech regarding the future of the Forest Service, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Restoration means managing

forest lands rst and foremost to protect our water resources, while mak-ing our forests more resilient to climate change. But will the Mt. HoodNational Forest rise to the management challenge, and prioritize waterquality over timber production?

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

3/13


continued from page 3

Bark roadtruthers ound this constructed soaking tub in a tributary tothe salmon-bearing Clackamas River accessed by an unmapped systemroad. Photo courtesy o Bark.

User-created routes like this one will likely be excluded r Service surveys. Phot o courtesy o Bark.

One year ater the pineappleexpress, a mild winter stormcaused this blowout in theClackamas River watersed.

Photo courtesy o Bark.

Hitching a ride on the pineapple expressIn November, 2006, a pineapple express raised the

freezing level to 11,000 feet and dropped 13.4 inches of pre-cipitation on Mt. Hood in a six-day period. Massive debrisows on all sides of the mountain collapsed a state highwayand countless Forest Service roads into pristine streams. Thesame storm devastated Washington communities, shut downits national parks, overwhelmed water treatment plants, andsolidied Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA) as a champion forfunding road-related watershed restoration.

Pictures of forest road blowouts were nearly unavoid-able on local and national news for three days. The Forest

Service, at least in the Pacic Northwest, could not deny theneed for action. Rep. Dicks utilized his chairmanship on theinterior appropriations subcommittee to secure $40 million infunding for the new Forest Service Legacy Roads and TrailsRemediation program (see previousRIPorters, or www.wild-landscpr.org/legacy-roads).

The need was clear and new funding on its way. All thatremained was to convert the staff of a road building and log-ging agency into restoration planners.

Prior to the 2006 storm, stewardship contracts had be-come the predominant method of paying for watershed andforest restoration. Unlike traditional timber sale contracts,under this method the value of the timber is exchanged forrestoration services in the national forest, like road decom-missioning, effectively excluding the national treasury fromthe revenue stream.

Local forest managers love keeping the revenue on site,Forest Service specialists love the increased funding forrestoration -- so do many environmentalists -- and timber

companies do not seem to mind having new proponents forlogging. However, revenues from stewardship contract s oftenare not enough to fulll all of the restoration needs in forestwatersheds, adding to the importance of the Legacy Roadsprogram. Bark was determined to inuence restoration fund-ing decisions in Mt. Hood National Forest regardless of thesource, so long before the 2006 oods, we joined a local col-laborative group and jumped into the stewardship contractgame.

Readying the shovelsStewardship contracts require collaboration, and Bark

had been a member of the Clackamas Stewardship Partners(CSP) since 2004. Unlike other partnerships in Mt. HoodNational Forest, this one was dominated by restorationvoices. Members included Bark, county and state agencies,and conservation and hunting organizations. The partner-ship was specically created to use stewardship contracts asa way to promote restoration and create jobs in ClackamasCounty. (For a full list of members, visit the CSP website at:www.clackamasstewardshippartners.org.)

Bark presented the data collected from the roadtruthing

campouts that 25% of the roads considered closed by theagency were actually being used. The Partners added thisinformation to the existing discussion of prioritizing roadremoval and the next step was to implement a road decom-missioning pilot project.

The rst collaborative meeting to discuss road decom-missioning in the Upper Clackamas sub-water-shed was exhilarating. Attendees used words likeexciting and nally. The very road systemthat Bark documented abuses of was now in thecrosshairs. The Partners and Forest Service staffdevised a survey plan for the Upper Clackamassubwatershed to implemented by agency staff. Ifsuccessful, the program would expand by usingvolunteer or student surveyors. In a nod to thevolunteers that made the roadtruthing campoutsa success, the Forest Service used Barks surveyforms for the inventory.

Untouchable roadsMidstream through thisrst phase, we encountered our rst hurdle, a di-

chotomous key designed by agency staff to deter-mine which roads would be surveyed and which would not.The rst qualication was whether the road posed a hydro-logical threate.g. was it bad for streams. While this soundsgood, the decision tree then adds a second lter: whether theroad provides access to a commercial harvest or fuels reduc-tion opportunity that would occur within ten years.

The most frustrating aspect of the decision tree was thatit was being used at the very beginning of the process to limit

the road surveys themselves, not just to make managementdecisions. How would the agency determine the impacts ofthe road system if it wont even survey all of the roads? Thisturned our entire process on its head. The result: The ForestService reneged on its commitment to survey all of the roadsin the Upper Clackamas subwatershed.

Soon the full impact of this became apparent. Theagency had no intention of understanding its baseline roadsystem, but instead targeted only the lowest hanging fruit forpotential decommissio ning. Am ong the roads excluded bythe timber lter: roads leading to future timber sales; roadsstill being used despite being labeled decommissioned inagency records; unauthorized user created routes; and milesof old timber sale roads that were never published on ForestService maps.

All said and done, of the 380 mapped road miles in thesubwatershed, fewer than 50 were surveyed, and 113 were ul-timately proposed for decommissioning. Road surveys weredelayed during creation of the dichotomous key and snow fellbefore the 1The result was hailed a success by the Forest Ser-vice. Restoration was happening and at least one source offuture funding, timber, was secure. Aft er all, roads leading tofuture stewardship contracts (i.e. timber sales) were not onlyexcluded from decommissioning, but were not even surveyedfor potential impacts.

How to hide 3,400 miles of road and get

away with itVoicing extreme disappointment in the survey process,

the Clackamas Stewardship Partners convinced the ForestService not to exclude timber roads from future road decom-missioning efforts. The dichotomous key was amended toinclude decommission with delay as a potential outcomefor these roads. Practically speaking, this means that at some

point in time all roads will be surveyed and if a particularroad accesses timber but is otherwise a hydrological threat itwill be decommissioned upon completion of the next timberharvest. Progress.

The Forest Service is now pursuing a second phase roaddecommissioning project in another subwatershed withinthe Clackamas River system. In 2009 it surveyed nearly 100%of the roads in the watershed by utilizing a dozen internsfrom nearby community colleges. Bark recently received apreliminary proposed action that indicates a much higherpercentage of decommissioning will occur due to better datacollected from the eld. Progress!

Interestingly, instead of using decommission with delayfor all roads leading to future timber sales, the documentprescribes the more immediate decommission for most ofthem. But there is a catch, as claried at a Clackamas Stew-ardship Partner meeting in the spring of 2009.

In response to Mt. Hoods head sh biologist describingthe importance of hydrologically stabilizing roads, one of thetimber planners remarked that decommissioning is a cheap

way to store roads. The preliminary documents use ofdecommission describes closing the road and using waterbars to stabilize, or store it, for future logging operations. Soit will be a form of hydrologic closure, but they will not befully reclaiming these roads by recontouring them and remov-ing them from their system maps. In the short term its astep in the right direction from a watershed perspective, butwhat impacts will result from multiple logging entries in thelong-term?

Restoring watersheds?You are reading The RoadRIPorterso it is like

ready understand the benets of permanently reest Service roads. In many ways Mt. Hood Nationleading the pack in addressing its burdensome robut Bark believes that the toughest ght is yet toall, in its two attempts to deal with the problem, tService rst exempted timber roads altogether astoring them for later.

Through our involvement with the Clackamaship Partnership, we also learned rst hand how contracts, which couple restoration with timber make this ght tougher. Unlike the Legacy Roadswhich directly funds road-removal for watershed

stewardship contracts encourage a perpetual reslogging paradigm -- a paradigm dependent on theexistence of an over-sized road system.

Nonetheless, the inventory work that both Bagency completed has resulted in real benets onFor example, the regional ofce directed a signiof its Legacy Roads funds to decommissioning prthe Clackamas River watershed because of the dthrough this process and the commitment of theFrom our conversation with other activists, we knsame is true in other forests as well local engagdictate future spending.

While most of us are excited to see people atrestoring our rivers, now is the time to start askiquestion, Is the stewardship contract paradigm restoration solution, or is it leading us back to a cycle of mitigation? And perhaps more importawe ensure that Legacy Roads funds continue to agency doesnt have to depend on stewardship crestore water quality and watershed health.

Alex P. Brown is the executive director o Bark. native he grew up hiking and camping in Mt. HoodForest. As an activist he has tasted success in the cstop the 1996 Eagle Creek salvage rider timber saorganizing support or the Roadless Area ConservaPrior to joining Bark in 2005 Alex helped lead Oregsuccessul Wilderness campaign on Mt. Hood.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

4/13


Program Updates, Spring 2010

Restoration Program

Transportation ProgramOur Restoration Campaign Director Sue Gunn has been busy lead-ing our national campaign to right-size the Forest Service roadsystem and promote increased funding for their Legacy Roads and

Trails Remediation Initiative (Legacy Roads). Sue and Executive DirectorBethanie Walder joined other members of the Washington Watershed Resto-ration Initiative (WWRI) in DC in December to accept our Rise to the Fu-ture award from the Forest Service. As part of the award, Sue (who directsthe WWRI as part of her work for Wildlands CPR) gave a presentation tothe national watershed staff about Legacy Roads. In addition, we met withUnder Secretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman, Congressman Norm Dicks,and numerous other Forest Service and Hill staff about the importance ofLegacy Roads and opportunities to expand the program.

Our Legacy Roads efforts went into overdrive when the Presidentreleased his proposed FY11 budget in January, which unfortunately recom-mended only $50 million for Legacy Roads next year (see DePaving the Way,page 10). The Presidents budget last year also recommended $50 million,

so perhaps in the Administrations eyes this is just a redo. But Congressincreased the funding to $90 million when they passed the nal FY10 bill,and were hoping theyll do the same (or even more) for FY11. Our specicFY11 request is to increase Legacy Roads to $120 million next year, with anadditional $30 million for identifying an ecologically and scally sustainableminimum road system. This proposal has been endorsed by all the largenational environmental groups as part of their green budget proposal forpublic lands. On the bright side of the new budget, Forest Service Chief TomTidwell stated, as part of his testimony to the House Interior AppropriationsCommittee, that the agency is moving in a new direction of right-sizing theroad system, so they are starting to hear and use our words. He also saidthat there are at least 45,000 miles of roads the agency no longer needs.While this number is only about a third of the 2001 unneeded roads projec-

tion by the agency, its still a lot of roads and a lotof work to do if they would only start identifyingwhich roads those are

To identify those roads, the agency mustdene an ecologically and scally sustainableminimum roads system. We are anxiously await-ing a nearly 3-months overdue Forest Servicereport to Congress about their plans for identify-ing the minimum road system. Keep an eye onour website for updates about the plan as soon asthe agency releases it.

In addition to national advocacy, WildlandsCPR staff have been engaged at the regional andindividual forest level. Both Bethanie and Sue co-ordinated regional responses to the FY10 Legacy

Roads allocations in the Northern Region (MT andnorthern ID) and in the Pacic Northwest Region(WA and OR, Region Six). For example, Sue workedwith our WWRI partners to inform Region 6 aboutpotentially problematic projects. The nal alloca-tions in the Pacic Northwest did not include anyof the projects opposed by WWRI members.

And to start promoting all of this LegacyRoads work more effectively, we hired Greg Peterson a new contract to work on Legacy Roads com-munications for us, many thanks to the Temper ofthe Times Foundation. Hes starting to update theWWRI website so that it has more recent data, andhes begun work on an ambitious project t o outlinethe intersection between community drinkingwater supplies and national forest lands.

Our restoration staff are also working on

non-Legacy Roads issues as well. For example,

Science Coordinator Adam Switalski is nalizingthe results of our ve years of road removalresearch on the Clearwater National Forest. Hesworking closely with board member and Universi-ty of Montana professor Cara Nelson on this nalpaper. In closing that ve-year research project,Adam is opening up a new one that is going tomonitor the effectiveness of you guessed itLegacy Roads projects in the northern region. We

received a grant from the National Forest Foundation (who also funded theabove-mentioned Clearwater monitoring project), to begin a citizen-monitor-ing program on Legacy Roads. Weve been working closely with the ForestService to identify opportunities to expand their own monitoring efforts eld work will begin this summer.

Adam also gave a Legacy Roads/road reclamation presentation to all ofthe Forest Service Region One watershed staff at their annual regional meet-ing. He talked with staff about ways to increase monitoring and researchrelated to road reclamation and sh passage.

On the combined restoration and transportation front, Adam alsooversaw the biannual update of our bibliographic database (see FieldNotes, p. 20-21). Many thanks to Greg Peters who we contracted with tocomplete that project. The database now sits at more than 20,000 cita-tions/abs tracts of road and ORV research and reports. Check it out at:http://www.wildlandscpr.org/bibliographic-database-search

On the travel planning side of things, the agency is nalizing moredecisions, leading to more appeals from all sides, including ours.More appeals also has the potential to mean more litigation de-

pending on how things play out. Our Legal Liaison, Sarah Peters, has beenworking with activists around the west to address these decisions. Shealso took the month of February off to study for the MT Bar (as if passingthe CO and OR bar wasnt already enough)!

Sarah worked with the Idaho Conservation League and The Wilder-ness Society on their challenge to the Salmon-Challis NFs travel plan after

the agency ignored extensive documentation of damage to importantstreams and riparian areas. Sarah also worked with our Montana ORV Co-ordinator, Adam Rissien, and his partners from eastern Montana, the Pry-ors Coalition, on a lawsuit against the Custer National Forests BeartoothDistrict Travel Plan. Matt Bishop from Western Environmental Law Centeris our lawyer for this case. At issue are two popular horseback ridingtrails leading into the Gallatin NF, and the entire Pryor Mt. area where theForest Service designated 124 miles (99%) of roads and trails for motorizeduse, and less than one and a half miles (1%) for those who rely on a quietsetting to enjoy traditional Montana activities. Additionally, the agency

allows cross-country motorized travfeet off either side of nearly every droad and trail for the purpose of discamping, which has led to extensiveon Big Pryor Mt. and other places.

In addition to ling these new cWildlands CPRs settlement of the sgrooming problem in the West Big Hless area on the Beaverhead DeerlodForest was nalized by the courts ju

Christmas ! The settlement will stopsnowmobile grooming in this spectaless area. And as a follow up to the Adam is coordinating with Friends oroot and LightHawk to coordinate wmonitoring over-ight s of the area. details about the settlement, see thereport on page 15.

Adam R. continues to participatravel plans still underway through(including projects on the Flathead verhead-Deer lodge National Forestsworked with Montanans for Quiet Ureport highlighting monitoring resul2009 season. He has given presentachapters of Trout Unlimited and BacHorsemen to identify vulnerable areportunities to work together. And wvolunteer Stu Smith of True North G

determined that roadless areas on thead-Deerlodge are threatened by nmiles of potential user-created routewhich could be formally designatedagency undertakes travel planning. est Service moves ahead, Adam R. wpreventing as many of these routes designated as possible.

Friends o the Bitterroot members joineCPR staers on a feld trip into the WesWildlands CPR Photo.

Federal agencies have been unable to eectively cope with o-road vehicle abuse.Photo by Adam Switalski.Converting orest roads into trails oers many ecological and social

benefts. Photo by Adam Switalski.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

5/13


Its not the crocuses by Mamas sideporch, or grape hyacinths under thebig cedar or yellow jonquils agging

Georgias roadsides which announcethe coming of spring to me- its thesouthern wood violet and how its arriv-al affects the way we walk around GraceFarm. Some early morning in March oreven late February, one of us will glance

down to watch for ankle-twisting stumpholes, stop in our tracks, and moan,Oh, no. Look! There it is: the rstteeny patch of violets. Lovely they maybe in their miniscule daintiness, but weknow their power. Our violets have wonthe queens heart and her protection.Mama cant bear to lose a single tinyblossom. She would as soon stomp onkittens heads as crush these miniaturewildowers, and we are all shamed intocompliance through her example. Forsix weeks or more to come, we wontso much walk our forty acres as lurch,leap and sidestep inch-high clusters ofviolets.

The positive side of being thwarted

in any designs we may have had onBethlehem, Georgias Lawn-of-the-Month award is that my family is doingour small part to uphold the southerntradition of each community having itsoddball characters. Thats a good thing,because I dont want small-town Geor-gia to lose its character- either of the

Springtime in the CountryBy Dana Wildsmith

Ill call my buddy to bring his pickup to getme. Nope, what I do is stand in the middle ofthe road with Fred-the-big-red-dog on his leashand my cell phone in my other hand. Fred hatesanything with tires. When he sees an ATV (ormotorcycle or F-150 or tricycle) he lunges andslathers (always an effective combination ofdeterrents) while I call the sheriff with my freehand. Dogs, sheriffs and an angry landownerthe great southern trinity of law enforcement.Make that one crazy-haired lady landowner whois rapidly gaining a reputation as a weirdo, andI can usually put the skids on ATV play, at leastfor right then.

But do I have the right? Legally, yes. InGeorgia, in Barrow County, it is illegal to drive orride any off-road vehicle on a public road. Thiscomes as a rude surprise to many new arrivals.They have moved to the country to get awayfrom urban sprawl, to have a little ease fromrestrictions. Isnt that sort of freedom also mydesire and aim? Yes, but I prefer to gain easefrom lifes restrictions by blending into thequiet of my woods, by letting nature take theupper hand. So far as I can tell, ATV-ers wantaccess to undeveloped land in order to destroyit. They want into my woods so they can kill allthe small life growing on the oor of my woods,so they can kill the stillness, so they can kill thesmells of reindeer moss and pine needle bedsand wet white clay. They would disavow this, ofcourse, and with actual sincerity. After all, howcan someone be held accountable for settingout to kill what they dont know is there? You

cant see reindeer moss when youre sitting atopseveral tons of berglass and steel. You canthear a forests various modes of silence over agas engines howl. Wet clays cleanly sharp odoris smothered by gas emissions as thoroughly asnew puppies drowned in a sack.

Who in a motorized world notices the small and the silenEmily Dickinson did:

A little bread- a crust- a crumb-A little trust- a demijohn-Can keep the soul alive-

I need a dose of wildness to keep my soul alive. We all do.butting which goes on between me and ATV owners has its oridiffering ideas of what wildness is. ATV wildness comes at thfrom the outside, in the form of a deafening gas engine carried eco-system-attening tires entering undeveloped areas in ordeby destroying. This is pleasure through conquest. I am of the pthrough-conjuncture school. Conjuncture: a combination; as or circumstances. Have you ever had a relationship in which spilled over into strong desire, and vice-versa? Then you knowmean by conjuncture- you submerse yourself in someone or soutside of yourself and nd not that you lose yourself but thatas more than you were before.

I nd all too many people lately believing in the progressioger, more assured self through accumulation of goods. Its like weather advice our TV announcers always give before the harof winter: dress in layers because layers give greatest protecticold. Our popular culture wants to assure us that our greatestfrom anomie will be gained through the layering on of possesspossessions in some way mimic sentience- if beeps and roars amake them sound alive; if response to some signal on our part act alive; if movement and heat and breath-like exhalations malook alike- we are even more disposed to accept Blackberries and ATVs as indicators not only of self-worth, but of character

The truth is that our individual character becomes most ewe are most stripped of our accoutrements, when we are whatnot what we possess.

Dana Wildsmith is the author o an environmental memoir, BAbnormal: Surviving with an Old Farm in the NewSouth (Moour collections o poetry: One Good HandIris Press, 2005), OuRemember(The Sows Ear Press, 2000), Annie (Palanquin PresAlchemy (The Sows Ear Press, 1995), and an audio collection,Press). Wildsmith lives in Bethlehem, Georgia. S he is employed Literacy Instructor through Lanier Technical College.

Editors Note:This essay is excerpted with permis-sion from the authors environmental memoir,Backto Abnormal: Surviving With An Old Farm in the NewSouth,Motesbooks, March, 2010

In Spring, at the end o the day you

should smell like dirt.

Margaret Atwood

human sort or in our landscapes. I cantremember any of the towns Ive livedin not having an old man who coveredhis fence posts with Nehi Orange bottlecaps, or a woman who wore a heavywool coat through Savannah summers,or her daughter who never married butcarried a dog tucked under her armevery waking moment, or a grove of

falling-down cracker houses with threegenerations of sofas on the front porch.The southern right to inter a worn-outsofa onto your porch was recentlychallenged in nearby Athens, to greatuproar and protestation against loss ofpersonal freedom.

Ive been thinking a lot about per-sonal freedom since I came back to thefarm to live, partly because of my ongo-ing battle against ATVs. These fat-tiredmotorized rhinos have claimed our dirtroad as their weekend racetrack. Or,rather, their drivers have. It gets worseevery month as more and more subdivi-sions pop up around us. People whoused to live in one of the counties im-mediately surrounding Atlanta properare abandoning paved-over, congested

Gwinnett County and Dekalb Countyin favor of Barrow County. I can onlyassume these new Barrow Countiansconsider a dirt road walled by woodsas public green space. Its just an olddirt road. Why shouldnt I play on itwith my dirt bike or ATV? Because itsillegal to ride any off-road vehicle on

a public road, thats why. Nobodysliving in these woods. Why shouldnt Iride my ATV through them? Becausetheyre not your woods, thats why. Andbecause the weight of your machine iskilling my Queen Annes Lace, my Flea-bane, my Pipsissewa, even my southern

wood violets.

Not that I would ever present thatlast listing as argument to any of thecami-garbed guys I stop mid-road. Youcant ride that ATV here. Why not,lady? Because youre crushing theviolets. Oh, God, sorry! I didnt know.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

6/13


DePaving the Way

Whats In a Name?By Bethanie Walder

Its hard to imagine an eective watershed restorationplan that doesnt include removing roads and addressingtheir impacts. Phot o by Adam Switalski.

Restoring roads and re-establishing vegetative cover is a soundinvestment in water quality. Phot o by Adam Switalski.

Sustainable forestry, ecosystem management, integrated resourcerestoration These phrases can be viewed as an evolution of ForestService management philosophies over the past 25 years. Or, on

the other hand, they could be viewed as semantic changes that have notsignicantly affected on-the-ground management. Its too early to saywhether the latest agency exercise in spin amounts to a meaningful changein management, or just, well, more spin.

In the 1990s, reaction to the rst two phrases was somewhat predict-able: conservationists heard sustainable and ecosystem, while timbercompanies heard forestry and management. The third term, IntegratedResource Restoration (IRR), was just introduced in January 2010 in the For-est Services proposed budget, so it hasnt yet been funded, and Congressmay decide not to fund it at all (but it certainly indicates what directionthe agency is moving in). The budget introduced some more disconcert-ing wordplay: in an effort to match Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsacksnew vision for the Forest Service, the agency is conating the terms forestrestoration and watershed restoration. While this may sound like meresemantics, it will have real impacts on the ground.

Now For the Fine PrintIn his testimony to the House Interior Appro-

priations subcommittee on 2/25/10, Forest ServiceChief Tom Tidwell explained the intent of combin-ing activities:

The agency will integrate traditional timberactivities predominately within the context olarger restoration objectives, ocusing on pri-ority watersheds in most need o stewardshipand restoration work, pursuing orest productswhen they support watershed, wildlie, andrestoration goals.

This doesnt sound bad especially if theagency actually followed it and only pursued

forest products as a side benet of watershed,wildlife and restoration goals. But when you go tothe actual budget language (and further state-ments in Tidwells testimony), the intent of the IRRbecomes clear. The budget describes t he intentof the proposed new Priority Watersheds and JobStabilization Initiative (a part of the IRR):

Large-scale (greater than 10,000 acres) watershed restoration projectswithin these priority watersheds will be selected through a national pri-oritized process which avors projects that improve watershed unctionand health; create jobs or will contribute to job stability; and create ormaintain biomass or renewable energy development.

Since when did biomass and renewable energy projects benet wa-tershed health? The agency seems to be missing the point: not once doesthis section of the budget refer to roads, which are arguably the biggestcause of water quality problems in our national forests. Furthermore , roadreclamation provides a large number of high-wage, high-skill forest jobs.

In reality, the Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization (PWJS) Initia-tive likely is proposed as a way to extend the new Collaborative Forest Res-toration Act (CFRA) funding. T he CFRA has many redeeming components,but its primary purpose is to deal with re and fuels in dry forests, notwater quality. These two programs together (CFRA and PWJS) will resultin $90 million for watershed restoration largely through timber manage-ment, conating forest and watershed restoration into one concept, andpotentially co-opting the entire concept of watershed restoration.

Where Did the Roads Go?Road reclamation and culvert upgrades to restore sh passage are

major components of any watershed program, most of which also includeinstream activities. With roads contributing more sediment to watersources than most other human activity in the forest (except, for example,dams or mountaintop removal), managing the road system and reducingits impacts is the rst and foremost step towards restoring watershedhealth. To us, watershed and forest restoration are different, and boastdifferent priorities.

Unfortunately, the new budget proposes making forest (tree-based)management the primary tool for watershed restoration. But while reduc-ing hazardous fuels can benet water quality, it can also harm it. Th e ap-propriate practices are still heavily debated and often subsumed to ques-tions surrounding timber production. Wildlands CPR has long engaged inthis multi-faceted debate about what constitutes proper forest restora-tion from an ecological perspective, but it is not our priority issue. Weparticipate to ensure that folks working on these forest questions includeroad reclamation in the discussion.

There is no such debate, howevshed restoration through road reclawork, though sometimes socially conot scientically questionabl e. Scienon the impacts of roads to watershethey agree that mitigating or removipacts will protect and restore water the long-term (there are sometimes small-scale sediment impacts). Yet Ttire 7-page testimony to the approprmittee, which focuses throughout onhealth and water quality, includes onences to road decommissioning onbeginning, as part of a laundry list oand one two-sentence token acknowthe concluding paragraph:

We are using the Travel Managening process to guide our eorts inthe Agencys road system. The Presget or the USDA Forest Service alunding or many other important $50 million or the Legacy Roadto help improve water quality aconditions, and an increase in thebudget that will help rural econocreating opportunities to reconnecorest lands.

First, the agency is NOT using TManagement Planning to guide theirefforts. They have purposely choseundertaking the portion of travel plaknown as subpart A, see The RIPorteForest Service Issues Long Awaited Trment Directives) that would require tidentify an ecologically and scally minimum road system. Second, thebudget proposes cutting Legacy Roain half, from the $90 million the agenin FY10, to only $50 million in FY11. cut is on top of an even larger cut toroad management budget, which wireduce road maintenance funding.

The Bottom LineWhen we rst read about the IR

thought that perhaps the agency walistening to those who have urged thously invest in restoration as their phave taken some important restoratover the past few years, but those stto lean towards what the agency kno

timber management and this new forces that emphasis. While both thbudget and the Chiefs testimony to promote strong restoration conceptgreat to the untrained ear, when youdeeper into the reality, it once againthe emphasis is business as usual on

Meet the New ProgramLets start with the big picture the introduction of the new Integrated

Resource Restoration budget line item theoretically provides an opportunityto move forward in a new restoration direction. The budget proposes $694million for IRR nearly half of the entire National Forest System budget ex-cluding re. Included along with IRR are funds for the existing vegetation/wa-tershed, sheries/wildlife, and timber line items, plus a few others. WildlandsCPRs favorite program, the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative,was not added into IRR because it comes from an altogether different budgetcategory, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, where all infrastructureand facilities are funded. Legacy Roads therefore remains an independentmaintenance initiative that is managed by th e engineering department.

While it might make sense to combine veg/water and sh/wildlife togeth-er, what seems to be driving the newly proposed IRR is Secretary Vilsacks vi-sion for the Forest Service - a vision focused on protecting and restoring clean

water. From a watershed p erspective, however, it seems a stretch to addtimber into that mix, and this is the crux of both the semantic and the tacticalproblem with the new budget. The agency wants to meet the Secretarys vi-sion, but it seems to want to do so by cutting as many trees as possible. Thatmay put the IRR in the same context as its predecessors ecosystem manage-ment and sustainable forestry.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

7/13


Wildlands CPR Annual Report

It was a pretty wild ride for Wildlands CPR in 2009 extraordinary success-es in our program work combined with some signicant funding challengesas a result of the recession. But we came out at the end of year in very

good nancial and programmatic shape for 2010. We couldnt have done itwithout the steady support from our members and foundations, and we hopeyou are as pleased as we are with the results.

Restoration ProgramWhen 2009 began, the US Congress was still operating under a series of

continuing budget resolutions. Finally, in March, Congress adopted a nalbudget for the scal year (FY09 was Oct 1, 2008 Sep 30, 2009) including a $10million increase in Legacy Roads and Trails funding to $50 million. The ForestService projected the following national accomplishments with this funding:

Fix 820 culverts restoring at least 1147 miles of stream habitat; Improve 2215 miles of road; Maintain 3089 miles of road; Decommission 2194 miles of system and unauthorized roads; Fix 166 bridges; Maintain or improve 3170 miles of trail; and Improve a minimum of 126,008 acres of habitat.

At the start of the year, we also pushed hard for road reclamation to beincluded in the stimulus bill, and it was. The Forest Service received $650million for capital improvement and maintenance over a two year period, ofwhich approximately $228 million was dedicated to road management. Ac-cording to the agency, they allocated about 10% of that, or $25 million to roadreclamation projects on Forest Service lands!

In August, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a speech in Seattleoutlining a 21st century vision for the Forest Service. Vilsacks vision was allabout protecting and restoring clean drinking water for Americans. Recog-nizing the outsized impact that the decaying, under-maintained, and overly-extensive Forest Service road system has on water, Vilsack directly discussedthe importance of road decommissioning as part of the agencys future work.Our advocacy is clearly paying off!

At the end of October, Congress adoptedbudgets for the Departments of Interior, Agri-culture and several other agencies. Imagine ourexuberance when we learned that Legacy Roadsand Trails had been nearly doubled, to $90 millionfor FY10! The bill also reiterated and strength-ened some FY09 language directing the agency toundertake a long-overdue process to identify andimplement an ecologically and scally sustain-able minimum road system. We have continued

meeting with the Forest Service to discuss thebest methods for such a process and we are nowanxiously awaiting a nearly three-months overduereport to Congress about their plans for complyingwith this direction.

Wildlands CPR and our partners in this cam-paign are aggressively advocating for real dollars tox the crumbling road system, and to thus restoreclean drinking water in addition to sheries andwildlife habitat. We reached out to the WesternGovernors Association and to the National Councilof Mayors, both of whom submitted letters toSecretary Vilsack endorsing our proposal for theagency to undertake a national right-sizing initia-tive. Members of the Senate and the House bothsubmitted letters to the President encouraging himto continue funding watershed restoration throughroad reclamation. And perhaps most importantly,Forest Service staff like the program.

Its been a long time since conservationistshave sat at the table with the agency promoting apositive program, as opposed to ghting againstfunding for programs we oppose. The agency isleaning farther and farther towards a restoration ap-proach, but we will have to be vigilant to ensure thatany new restoration agenda truly addresses waterand watersheds, not just timber.

Transportation ProgramWildlands CPR has been co-leading (with the Wilderness Society) a na-

tional Forest Service travel management campaign since the agency adopted anew travel planning rule in 2005. The results have been stupendous. The rulerequired all forests to end the extremely damaging practice of off-road vehiclecross-country travel (though small play areas are still allowed). All travelplans were supposed to be completed by December 2009, but many deadlineshave now been extended for one year.

This national campaign has resulted in the following changes to date: over18,000 miles of user created routes have not been added to the Forest Service

road or trail system as part of this process, and over 6,000 miles of agency roadshave been removed from the formal system as part of nal travel planning deci-sions. Another 2,000 miles of Forest Service roads are slated for removal (atleast on paper) as part of already released draft plans, plus an additional 14,000miles of user-created routes. Many other forests have not even released theirdrafts yet, so we will continue to track this and keep you posted.

As part of the campaign, our Montana and Utah ORV coordinators (AdamRissien MT, Laurel Hagen UT) focused their attention on protecting road-less areas from off-road vehicle designations. Each chose 2-3 forests to focuson in their states, and they were successful. Laurel and her local partnerswere able to protect important roadless areas on the Dixie National Forestfrom any off-road vehicle designations. She also helped build a rural coalitionof local citizens working to stop off-road vehicle abuse in southern UT. Adamwas able to protect 9 of 11 roadless areas on the Bitterroot National Forestfrom designations as well, at least through the draft phase of planning, andhes still working on the other two areas while we await the nal analysis anddecision. Adam also worked with Western Environmental Law Center to le alawsuit challenging illegal snowmobile grooming in the West Pioneers Wilder-ness Study Area on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The result: the

Forest Service agreed to stop grooming 95 miles of snowmobile trails in thisimportant roadless area. Our Legal Liaison, Sarah Peters worked with Adamand Laurel on their legal strategies, as well as assisting ORV staff in otherstates with their travel planning advocacy.

Clearly the national travel planning campaign that we co-lead with TheWilderness Society is resulting in signicant improvements on the groundwhen it comes to both off-road vehicle and road management both at theindividual roadless area level and the broader level.

New ProjectsIn the spring, we released an upd

(electronic only) of our landmark, Sixfor Success report about effective offenforcement. And in the fall, Josh HurRestoration Research Associate, compart series on the political economy orestoration. The series included six rconstitute a huge step forward in undsome of the funding mechanisms, pubtions, economic implications, etc. of thing restoration sector of the economy

This summer we entered into ourcost-share agreement with the Forest

cically the Lolo National Forest (MT)month project included inventorying miles of roads to d ocument road condwater impacts, and other damage. In example, our eld crew found an extenwork of user-created, illegal off-road vThe project was a great success, and now being used in a p roposed restora

At the OfceIn part due to the recession, and

forests were largely done with travel pclosed our UT ofce this fall. Our comcoordinator, Franklin Seal, was also baUT ofce, but due to projected fundinwe had to drop that position in Januaexperienced some other downsizing awas thankfully due to attrition.

With these cuts, numerous othermeasures, and a few new grants, we wable to end the year well in the black atackle our 2010 objectives, including ia new strategic plan that we adopted

ConclusionThough Wildlands CPR is smaller

were a year ago, our workload has nocordingly (much to the staffs chagrinabove, were continuing to move our cforward very aggressively. Weve hadyear with both of our major campaignlooking forward to even more success

Ellswoth Creek road restoration,Washington. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Wildlands CPR built a broad coalition o organizations to oppose o-road vehicle abusein Utah. Phot o by Laurel Hagen.

Sta scientist Adam Switalski in the feld with UM students. Photo byLaurie Ashley.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

8/13


Income

Grants$369,125

Other$13,202

Contributions& Membership

$40,768Contract Income

$50,437

Expenses

Transportation$191,225 Restoration

$150,983

Admin. & Fundraising$41,887

Org. Development$37,108

2009 Financial Report

Note: The fgures used in thisreport have yet to be audited,

so they are subject to change.

The West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area (WSA), on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, has been a little quieter this winterfollowing a victorious lawsuit challenging snowmobile grooming in

this special place.

Wildlands CPR and Friends of the Bitterroot challenged the re-issu-ance of a controversial permit that had authorized a snowmobile club togroom nearly 95 miles of trail inside the West Pioneer WSA. The settlementagreement (broken into two phases) does not prohibit snowmobiling, butit does eliminate trail grooming. This will signicantly reduce the numberof machines entering the area.

The rst phase, implemented this winter, orders no grooming in thenorthern portion of the West Pioneer WSA; an area that contains a largechunk of sensitive wolverine habitat. By the winter of 2010-11, all groomingwithin the WSA will end.

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

Background on the West Pioneer WSAThe West Pioneer WSA totals 148,150 acres and has mostly gentle

topography with elevations ranging from 6,500 to 9,500 feet. The areaprovides important winter habitat for sensitive species such as wolverineand mountain goats.

In 1977, Congress passed the Montana Wilderness Study Act, whichincluded the West Pioneers. The law required the Forest Service to assessthe areas wilderness character, and maintain it at levels that existed whenthe act was signed into law.

In a 2003 report the Forest Service decided that the area would notbe considered for Wilderness designation, even though it scored high.The report also disclosed that in 1977 only seven trail miles were markedfor snowmobile use and none were groomed, while in 2003, 90 miles weremarked and 36 were groomed. In 2008 when we led our lawsuit, the ForestService permitted grooming on nearly 95 miles of trails, a 62% increase ingroomed trails from 2003 to 2008.

Increased Trail Grooming Equals Increased

Snowmobile Use and ImpactsThe increase in trail grooming has undoubtedly led to more snow-

mobiles entering the WSA, and the lack of steep terrain makes it easyfor snowmobiles to travel off groomed routes and into areas importantfor wintering wildlife such as wolverine and mountain goats. The WestPioneers have several high elevation cirque basins that provide crucialdenning habitat for female wolverines giving birth and rearing their young.Unfortunately, the exponential increase in snowmobile grooming over thepast thirty years has threatened wolverine populations with extirpation.

Victory for the West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area

Regional Reports

A legal settlement will protect the West PioneStudy Area rom the impacts o snowmobile tPhoto by Cathrine L. Walters.

ConclusionTrail grooming inside the West P

has been going on for so long that fewlenged its legitimacy or its effects on wildlife. But with this victory, we havimportant, if incremental step in protarea from snowmobile impacts. We w

to press the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NForest to fully protect the WSA from ized use that degrades this wilderneslandscape.

Photos by Laurel Hagen.

2009 Income: $473,5322009 Expenses: $421,303

In-Kind Donations

& Services $ 12,563

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

9/13


Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some o thescientifc literature in our 20,000 citation bibliography on the

physical and ecological eects o roads and o-road vehicles. Weoer bibliographic searches to help activists access important

biological research relevant to roads.

Forests are home to hundreds of speciesof sh and wildlife, providing recreationalopportunities for hunters, anglers, and

wildlife enthusiasts. Millions of hunters andshermen enjoy pursuing their sport while in-creasing numbers of birders and photographersenjoy simply catching a glimpse of the diversityof forest life. In addition to recreational benets,diverse wildlife are a sign of overall ecosystemhealth and integrity. While there are manythreats to preserving wildlife ranging from globalwarming to development, the negative impactsfrom off-road vehicles (ORVs) on wildlife havebeen well documented in the scientic litera-ture. ORVs can impact wildlife through directmortality, increased legal and illegal harvest,disturbance, and habitat loss.

Direct MortalityOne of the most apparent impacts of ORVs

on wildlife is collisions and direct mortality.Direct impact will kill most species, but am-phibians, reptiles, small mammals and groundnesting birds are most vulnerable (Wilkins 1982,Rei and Seitz 1990, Fahrig et al. 1995, Ashley andRobinson 1996, Gibbs 1998, DeMaynadier andHunter 2000). Wit h millions of ORVs traversingthe landscape at high speeds (up to 60 mph),the number of animals being killed can be signi-cant.

Habitat SecuritySeveral studies have found that large ani-

mals such as elk, wolves, and bears are nega-tively impacted by the loss of habitat securityresulting from increased motorized access. De-pending on the species, some wildlife are moresensitive to disturbance during critical timesof year, such as winter habitat for ungulates orareas important for grizzly bear food sources

during spring (USDI 1987).

Off-Road Vehicle Impacts on WildlifeBy Adam Switalski and Allison Jones

Elk have been the most extensively studied animal in relation tomotorized access. While recent studies have made a direct connectionbetween ORVs and impacts to elk (Vieira 2000, Wisdom et al. 2004, Wisdom2007, Grigg 2007), most studies have looked more broadly at the impacts ofmotorized trav el and roads on elk. It can be assumed that these impactswould be similar on ORV routes. Many st udies have found that increasedmotorized access results in decreased elk habitat and security (Lyon 1983;Figure 3), and increased elk mortality from hunter harvest both legal and

illegal (Hershey and Leege 1982, Hayes et al. 2002, McCorquodale et al.2003, see Rowland et al. 2005 for review).

Closing or decommissioning roads has been found to decrease hunterinduced mortality (Leptich and Zager 1991), increase elk survivorship(Cole et al. 1997), increase the number of bulls (Leptich and Zager 1991),extend the age structure (Leptich and Zager 1991), increase hunter suc-cess (Gratson and Whitman 2000), and allow elk to remain in preferredhabitat longer (Irwin and Peek 1979). Studie s have also recommendedclosing entire areas to motorized use as opposed to individual roadsto best promote healthy elk populations (Hurley 1994, Burcham et al. 1998,Rowland et al. 2005).

ORVs can also allow access for illegal harvest of wildlife in areas thatare difcult for game wardens to patrol. Weaver (1993) reported thatincreased ORV access increases the trapping vulnerability of Americanmarten, sher, and wolverine. For wolves, one study found that 21 of 25human caused mortalities in the U.S. northern Rockies occurred within 650ft. of a motorized route (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Wolves often travel onroads and off-road vehicle routes where they risk increased poaching pres-

sure. Several studies have found that wolf persistence is reduced whenroad density exceeds approximately 1 mi./mi.2 (Table 1). Lynx are alsothought to be sensitive to road density, but to a lesser extent than wolves(Singleton et al. 2001, 2002). Grizzly bears are at risk from poaching andhave been found to be negatively affected by roads and to avoid openroads (Elgmork 1978, Zager et al. 1983, Archibald et al. 1987, Mattson et al.1987, McLellan and Shackleton 1988, Kasworm and Manley 1990, Mace etal. 1996).

DisturbanceProbably the most widespread

ORVs is disturba nce to wildlife. Witvidual species, a number of factors ence the degree of ORV impact, inclanimals breeding status, its size, anthe group it is with (Burger et al. 19have shown a variety of disturbancefrom ORVs. W hile these impacts arto measure, repeated harassment ofcan result in increased energy expereduced reproduction. Nois e and dfrom ORVs can result in a range of iincluding increased stress (Nash et spaugh et al. 2001), loss of hearing (

and Bondello 1979), altered movem(e.g., Wisdom et al. 2004, Preisler et avoidance of high-use areas or routeClark 2002, Wisdom 2007), and disruactivities (e.g., Strauss 1990).

Again, elk are one of the most scies in regards to disturbance by meuse. Vieira (2000) found that elk mofar from ORV disturbance than theydestrian disturbance, and Wisdom efound that elk moved when ORVs pa2,000 yards but tolerated hikers witRecently, Wisdom (2007) reported presults suggesting that ORVs are caushift in the spatial distribution of elkincrease energy expenditures and daging opportunities for the herd. Elfound to readily avoid and be displaroaded areas (Irwin and Peek 1979,

Leege 1982, Millspaugh 1995, Webertional concomitant effects can thus as major declines in survival of elk crepeated displacement of elk duringseason (Phillips 1998). Alternat ivelyor decommissioning roads has beendecrease elk disturbance (Cole et alspaugh et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 20

Disruption of breeding and nesparticularly well documented problspecies are sensitive to human distuthe potential disruption of courtshipover-exposure of eggs or young birdand premature edging of juveniles al. 1999). Repeat ed disturbance canlead to nest abandonment. These sdisturbances can lead to long-term bmunity changes (Anderson et al. 19authors have recommended spatial

zones from motorized recreation fo(Table 2). On the Loa Ranger DistriFishlake National Forest in southerncessful goshawk nests occur in arealocalized road density is at or below(USDA 2005).

Story continues on next

Elk

Hab

itatEffectiveness(percent)

Miles of Road Per Square Mile

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 1. Average habitat eectiveness (a measure o orage qualityand available cover) or elk in western Montana with road densitiesranging rom 0 to 6 miles per square mile (Adapted rom Lyon 1983).

Table 1. Road density levels shown to be deleterious or wolves in thenorthern Great Lakes region.

Road Density Study Location Citation

(mi/mi2)

1.0 Wisconsin Thiel(1985)1.0 Ontario-Michiganborder Je ns en et al . (1986)0.9 Minnesota Mechetal.(1988)1.2* Minnesota Mechetal.(1989)1.1(with~6humans/mi2) Minnesota Fulleretal.(1992)0.8(with~12humans/mi2) Minnesota Fulleretal.(1992)

1.0** Wisconsin Wydevanetal.(2001)

*Adjacentroadlessareaallowedhigherroaddensitythreshold

**Changingattitudesallowedhigherroaddensitythreshold

Species Spatial Nest Citation

Buffer Zone (ft.)

Americankestrel 650 RichardsonandMiller(1997)Baldeagle 1300 Hamannetal.(1999)Northerngoshawk 1600 Jones(1979)Sharp-shinnedhawk 1600 Jones(1979)Coopershawk 2000 RichardsonandMiller(1997)

Prairiefalcon 2600 RichardsonandMiller(1997)Peregrinefalcon 2600 RichardsonandMiller(1997)Red-tailedhawk 2600 Call(1979)MexicanSpottedowl 3000 USFWS(1995)Osprey 4900 RichardsonandMiller(1997)

Goldeneagle 5200 RichardsonandMiller(1997)

Table 2. Recommended spatial nest buer zone or selected birds o prey.

Editors Note: This BiblioNote is an excerpt romWildlands CPR and Wild Utahs ORV BMPs published in2008. To see a list o Best Management Practices or plan-ning and management o ORV routes or to view the ullreport visit: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/ORV-BMPs

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

10/13


Literature Cited

continued from previous page

Archibald, N.J., R. Ellis, and A.N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses ofgrizzly bears to logging truck trafc in the Kimsquit RiverValley, British Columbia. International Conference on BearResearch and Management 7: 251-257.

Ashley, P.E., and J.T. Robinson. 1996. Road mortality ofamphibians, reptiles and other wildlife on Long PointCauseway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist.110(3): 403-412.

Boyd, D.K., and D.H. Pletscher. 1999. Characteristics of dispersalin a colonizing wolf population in the central RockyMountains. Journal o Wildlie Management63: 1094-1108.

Brattstrom, B.H., and M.C. Bondello. 1979. The effects of dunebuggy sounds on the telencephalic auditory evoke responsein the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, Uma scoparia. Unpublishedreport to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, CaliforniaDesert Program, Riverside, CA. 31p.

Burcham, M.G., W.D. Edge, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, and K.T. Weber.1998. Final report of the Chamberlain Creek elk studies,1977-1983 and 1993-1996. Missoula, MT: School of Forestry,

University of Montana. 260p.Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L.J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and

birds in coastal New Jersey: contrasting responses of birds,tourists and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65.

Bury, R.B. 1980. What we know and do not know about off-roadvehicle impacts on wildlife. in Richard N.L. Andrews andPaul Nowak, editors. Off-Road Vehicle Use: a ManagementChallenge. (University of Michigan Extension Service)Michigan League. The University of Michigan, School ofNatural Resources. USDA, Ofce of Environmental Quality.

Call, M. 1979. Habitat management guides for birds of prey.Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note 338, Denver.70p.

Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of roadmanagement on movement and survival of Roosevelt elk.Journal o Wildlie Management61: 1115-1126.

DeMaynadier, P.G., and M.L. Hunter. 2000. Road effects onamphibian movements in a forested landscape.NaturalAreas Journal20: 56-65.

Elgmork, K. 1978. Human impact on a brown bear population

(Ursus arctos L.). Biological Conservation 13(2): 81-103.Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor, and J.F. Wegner.

1995. Effect of road trafc on amphibian density.BiologicalConservation 73: 177-182.

Gibbs, J.P. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forestedges, roads, and stream beds in southern New England.Journal o Wildlie Management62(2): 584-589.

Gratson, M.W., and C.L. Whitman. 2000. Characteri stics of Idahoelk hunters relative to road access on public lands. WildlieSociety Bulletin28(4): 1016-1022.

Grigg, J.L. 2007. Gradients of predation risk affect distributionand migration of a large herbivore. M.S. Thesis. Bozeman,MT: Montana State University.

Hershey, T.J., and T.A. Leege. 1982. Elk movements and habitatuse on a managed forest in north-central Idaho. IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game. 32p.

Hurley, M.A. 1994. Summer-fall ecology of the Blackfoot-Clearwater elk herd of western Montana. M.S. Thesis.Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Irwin, L.L., and J.M. Peek. 1979. Relationship between road

closure and elk behavior in northern Idaho. Pages 199-205 in Boyce, M.S. and L.D. Hayden-Wing, editors, NorthAmerican Elk: Ecology, Behavior, and Management.Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.

Janis, M.W., and J.D. Clark. 2002. Responses of Florida panthersto recreational deer and hog hunting. Journal o WildlieManagement66(3): 839-848.

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

Jones, S. 1979. Habitat management series for unique orendangered species. Report No. 17. The accipiters:goshawk, Coopers hawk, sharp-shinned hawk. Bureau ofLand Management, Technical Note 335. 55p.

Kasworm, W.F., and T.L. Manley. 1990. Road and trail inuenceson grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana.Pages 79-84 in Darling, L.M., and W.R. Archibald, editors,Bears their Biology and Management: Proceedings ofthe 8th International Conference on Bear Research andManagement, February 1989, Victoria, B.C. Bear BiologyAssociation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Pp. 79-84.

Leptich, D.J., and P. Zager. 1991. Road access management effectson elk mortality and population dynamics. Pages 126-131 inProceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium, compilersA.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Bozeman, Montana:Montana State University.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitateffectiveness for 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 and habitat in theSwan Mountains, Montana.Journal o Applied Ecology33:1395-1404.

Mattson, D. J., R. R. Knight, and B. M. Blanchard. 1987. The effectsof developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitatuse in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. InternationalConference on Bear Resources and Management 7: 259-273.

McCorquodale, S.M., R. Wiseman, and C.L. Marcum. 2003.Survival and harvest vulnerability of elk in the Cascade

Range of Washington. The Journal o Wildlie Management67(2): 248-257.McLellan, B.N., and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and

resource-extraction industries: effects of roads on behavior,habitat use, and demography. Journal o Applied Ecology25:451-460.

Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolfdistribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlie SocietyBulletin 16: 85-87.

Mech, L.D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high roaddensity. American Midland Naturalist 121: 387-389.

Millspaugh, J.J. 1995. Seasonal movements, habitat use patternsand the effects of human disturbances on elk in CusterState Park, South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. Brookings, SD: SouthDakota State University.

Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundige, R.A. Gitzen, and K.J. Raedeke.2000. Elk and hunter space-use sharing in South Dakota.Journal o Wildlie Management64(4): 994-1003.

Millspaugh, J.J., Woods, R.J. and K.E. Hunt. 2001. Fecalglucocorticoid assays and the physiological stress response

in elk. Wildlie Society Bulletin 29: 899-907.Munger, J.C., B.R. Barnett, S.J. Novak, and A.A. Ames. 2003.Impacts of off-highway motorized vehicle trails on thereptiles and vegetation of the Owyhee Front. Idaho Bureau ofLand Management Technical Bulletin 03-3: 1-23.

Nash, R.F., G.G. Gallup, jr., and M.K. McClure. 1970. Theimmobility reaction in leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) as afunction of noise induced fear. Psychonometric Science 21(3):155-156.

Phillips, G.E. 1998. Effects of human-induced disturbance duringcalving season on reproductive success of elk in the upperEagle River Valley. Dissertation. Fort Collins, CO: ColoradoState University.

Preisler, H.K., A.A. Ager, and M.J. Wisdom. 2006. Statisticalmethods for analyzing responses of wildlife to humandisturbance.Journal o Applied Ecology43: 164-172.

Rei, W., and A. Seitz. 1990. The inuence of land use on thegenetic structure of populations of the common frog,Ranatemporaria. Biological Conservation 54: 239-249.

Richardson, C.T., and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for

protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review.Wildlie Society Bulletin 25: 634-638.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger.2005. Effects of roads on elk: implications for managementin forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M.J.,technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-

term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted frTransactions of the North American Wildlife anResources Conference, Alliance CommunicatioLawrence, KS.

Singleton, P.H., Gaines, W., and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2001. Uweighted distance and least-cost corridor analevaluate regional-scale large carnivore habitat in Washington. The Proceedings of the InternaConference on Ecology and Transportation, KeSeptember 24-27.

Singleton, P.H., Gaines, W., and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Lpermeability for large carnivores in WashingtonGeographic Information System weighted-distacost corridor assessment. USDA Forest ServicePaper. PNW-RP 549. Pacic Northwest Field St

Strauss, E.G. 1990. Reproductive success, life historand behavioral variation in a population of pipisubjected to human disturbance. DissertationMA: Tufts University.

Thiel, R.P. 1985. The relationships between road denwolf habitat in Wisconsin.American Midland Na404-407.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceFishlake OHV Route Designation Project Draft EImpact Statement (DEIS), Loa, UT.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Recovthe Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis luci

USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement). 1987. Interagency Rocky MounWildlife Monitoring / Evaluation Program: mana

guidelines for selected species, Rocky MountaiStudies. Billings, MT. 71p.Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, wolverine, and sher in the w

States: research assessment and agenda. USDAService Intermountain Research Station Contra43-0353-2-0598. Missoula, MT.

Wilkins, K.T. 1982. Highways as barriers to rodent dSouthwest Naturalist27(4):459-460.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species States.BioScience 48(8): 607-615.

Wisdom, M.J. 2007. Shift in Spatial Distribution of ElTrails Used by All-Terrain Vehicles. Report 1, MUSDA Forest Service, Pacic Northwest ResearGrande, OR.

Wisdom, M.J., H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. John2004. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deTransactions of the North American Wildlife anResource Conference 69.

Wydeven, A.P, D.J. Mladenoff, T.A. Sickley, B.E. Kohn,

and J.L. Hansen. 2001. Road density as a factoselection by wolves and other carnivores in theRegion. Endangered Species Update 18(4): 110

Zager, P.E., C.J. Jonkel, and J. Habeck. 1983. Logging wildre inuence on grizzly bear habitat in NorMontana. International Conference on Bear ResManagement 5: 124-132.

Literature Cited, contdLoss of Habitat

The cumulative effect of loss of habitat security, soilerosion, vegetation loss, introduction of non-native invasivespecies, and forest fragmentation results in the loss of func-tional wildlife habitat that supports healthy individuals andpopulations of wildlife. Animals may be impacted directlyand/or indirectly. A direct impact may be an ORV that col-lapses a small mammal burrow or runs an animal over. Anindirect impact would be reduced habitat for cavity-nestingspecies caused by increased access for rewood collection(Bury 1980). Any additional habitat loss for sensitive, threat-ened, and endangered species is also of concern. Wilcove et

al. (1998) reported that as many as 13 percent of endangeredspecies are impacted by ORVs.

The indirect impacts of ORVs can have cascading effectsthroughout the ecosystem. For example, on an intensivelyused ORV route in Idaho, native shrubs, bunch grasses, andmicrobiotic crust were greatly reduced close to the route andreplaced with non-native cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) andthe native shrub, rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.; Mungeret al. 2003). Because of these habitat changes, fewer reptileswere found alongside the route than were found 325 ft. away.

Adam is Science Coordinator or Wildlands CPR and Allisonis Conservation Biologist or the Wild Utah Project.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

11/13


Field Notes

As part of Wildlands CPRs mission to promote respon-sible, science-based public lands management, wehave been working to provide forest ofcials, lawmak-

ers, fellow conservationists, and the public with access tothe latest scientic information pertaining to roads and theirimpacts to the land, wildlife and people. One critical aspectof this effort is the maintenance of a bibliographic databasethat contains citations and abstracts to scholarly journalarticles, government reports, conference proceedings, andother sources of information. In this Field Notes, I presentbackground on this database project and instructions on howto efciently conduct a search.

In the beginningWildlands CPR recognized a need for this database over

fteen years ago. Roads impact nearly every square mile ofthe United States. Land managers, Forest Service ofcials,environmental advocacy organizations, and average citizensneed to be able to access the ever-growing body of science

that reveals these impacts to make informed decisions anddevelop scientically sound policy. With out this access, landmanagers are less likely to recognize and mitigate the myriadimpacts roads have on our public health, wildlife, naturalresources, and the landscape. This database is an impor-tant, time-saving compendium of the most relevant scienticarticles, conference proceedings, government reports, andgray literature designed to provide ofcials, citizens, and landmanagement professionals with the necessary information tomake sound, science-based land use decisions.

Wildlands CPRs Recently UpdatedBibliographic DatabaseBy Greg Peters

The database todayThe full database was completed in 1995, and in the 15

years since, Wildlands CPR has been conducting updatesevery two years to ensure that all relevant, newly publishedarticle citations are available to the public. Our datab ase isbuilt from source databases including biological, ecological,natural resource, agricultural, and environmental databases.In 2009, we used 17 primary keywords and 89 secondarykeywords. Access to the source databases was providedby the University of Montana and has expanded to includesheries, zoological, environmental pollution, and leisuretourism databases.

The 2009 update has pushed the total database tomore than 20,000 individual citations, an increase of nearly6,000 citations from 2007. Th e vast proliferation of studiesdocumenting the environmental effects of vehicles and thetransportation infrastructure they require illustrates the evergrowing importance of studying and quantifying how run-away road building and off-road vehicle use have impactedour environment. Many of the most recent studies documentimpacts in Europe and China - and Chinese scientists havebeen especially industrious.

From pollution partition studies, to impacts of roads onantelope on the Tibetan Plateau, to the effects of stormwaterrunoff, to the bioaccumulation of heavy metals by roadsideplants, the database contains citations of almost every con-ceivable type of road impact study available. Simply brows-ing through the citations can be an informative and interest-ing exercise. It is important to remember that this databasedoes not provide access to the full-text articles themselves. Itis a compilation of citations and abstracts. To nd the actualarticle, you have to take the citation as provided and trackdown the article itself. Google Scholar and university collec-

tions are two of the best places to locate the full-text articles.

How to search the databaseTo access the database, simply open the Wil

website: www.wildlandscpr.org. Choose the Res(on the top of the screen), and then Bibliograph(on the sidebar to the left). This opens up the sewhich is pretty straightforward and operates likedard on-line search tools. The rst eld is for thewant to search, separated by a space. For exampwant to search roads and vegetation, type roads into the eld and all citations containing roads anwill display. There is an exclusion option which

results. To exclude a term, simply type it into theeld. For example, if you want to search roads antion but not heavy metals, type roads vegetationeld and then heavy metals into the second. Ttion marks will instruct the search to exclude all contain the phrase heavy metals, and these resbe displayed.

This bibliographic database is a great resourone interested in the effects roads have on our wlandscapes, and our health. The breadth of inforcollection of citations offered in this resource is tact Adam Switalski, Science Coordinator, if you htional questions or for more information about th

Greg Peters is an environmental writer, c ommunconsultant, and recent graduate o the EnvironmenMasters Degree program at the University o Monta

So, in 1995, Wildlands CPR (then Road RIP) contactedrenowned conservation biologist Reed Noss to assemblea bibliography of the literature discussing the ecologicaleffects of roads. Noss started with a bibliography he hadcompiled in 1987 and 1988 and began the process of updat-ing it. Under his direction, Dave Augeri, Susan Pierce, and

Mike Eley worked to conduct extensive computer searchesof literature on road impacts and entered their ndings into acomprehensive database. Additions from Steve Humphrey ofthe University of Florida, and Paul Paquet from the Universityof Calgary rounded out the initial effort.

Want to research the impacts o plugged culverts or

cut slope ailures? Log on and try Wildlands CPRs

Bibliographic Database. Photos by Adam Switalski.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

12/13


The snow and ice storms that buried theeast coast just oated right by Missoula,leaving us with an extremely low snow-

pack and a mild winter. Perhaps th ats why somepeople call it climate change, instead of globalwarming The warm weather here was a goodpartner to the busy winter weve had preparingall sorts of things for the spring and summer.

WelcomeIn our last issue, we thanked two depart-

ing board members, Amy Atwood and WilliamGeer. In this issue, were pleased to introduceyou to our two newest board members, SusanJane Brown and Marion Hourdequin. Some ofyou may recognize Marions name, as she andBethanie were co-directors of Wildlands CPR in1995 before Marion went back to school for herMasters and PhD. Its a treat to have her backwith Wildlands CPR!

Susan Jane Brown works for Western Envi-ronmental Law Center (WELC) on public landsand natural resources and has worked withWildlands CPR on several motorized recreationcases already, in addition to helping out withour advocacy work on Federal Highways issues.Prior to joining WELC this year, she spent two

years as Natural Resources Council for Congressman Peter DeFin Washington, DC. Before that, she spent three years as a stawith the Pacic Environmental Advocacy Center, Lewis and ClSchools environmental law clinic. S he also spent three years Director of the Gifford Pinchot Task Force, a group thats been front of promoting road reclamation on Forest Service lands. Sgraduated cum laude from Vanderbilt University in 1997 and gfrom Lewis and Clark Law School in 2000.

Marion Hourdequin is an assistant professor of philosophyrado College, in Colorado Springs, CO. She holds an A.B. in biPrinceton University, Masters degrees in ecology and philosopUniversity of Montana, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Duke UnMarions teaching and research interests include environmentcomparative ethics, and philosophy of science. With her husbHavlick (a geography professor at University of Colorado-Coloauthor of No Place Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation oPublic Lands, and former Wildlands CPR board member), Marirecently awarded a three-year grant from the National Science to study ecological restoration on former military lands now dNational Wildlife Refuges.

ThanksA huge thank you to everyone who made year end donatio

lands CPR your support made a big difference and enabled u2010 in a very nancially healthy position! Wed also like to thStakes, Horizons, Peradam and Temper of the Times Foundatioous grants to support our restoration program.

New Study Points to Off-Road Vehicle Activity

as Primary Source of Air Pollution

The San Luis Obispo (CA) Air Control Board released a study Feb 22on the impacts of off-road vehicle use at the Oceano Dunes and the resul-tant air pollution at the nearby Nipomo Mesa.

A preliminary study was undertaken in 2004 to determine what was

causing high levels of air pollution and potentially signicant healthproblems for the people in this community. That study was somewhat in-conclusive, and a second phase was begun in 2008 to hone in on the sourceof the pollution, with two primary targets: a ConocoPhillips renery andthe Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreational Area. It turns out the rener ywas exonerated in the study, while the ORV area was fully implicated.

Heres the crux excerpt from the Executive Summary:

The airborne particulate matter (PM) predominantly impact-ing the region on high episode days does not originate from anoffshore source.

Neither the petroleum coke piles at the ConocoPhillips facility noragricultural elds or activities in and around the area are a signi-cant source of ambient PM on the Nipomo Mesa.

The primary source of high PM levels measured on the NipomoMesa is the open sand sheets in the dune areas of the coast.

The open sand sheets subject to OHV activity on the SVRA emitsignicantly greater amounts of particulates than the undisturbedsand sheets at the study control sites under the same wind condi-

tions. Vegetated dune areas do not emit wind blown particles ; the con-trol site dunes have signicantly higher vegetation coverage thanis present at the SVRA.

The major ndings resulting from detailed analysis of the diverseand comprehensive data sets generated during the Phase 1 andPhase 2 South County PM Studies clearly lead to a denitive con-clusion: OHV activity in the SVRA is a major contributing factor tothe high PM concentrations observed on the Nipomo Mesa.

The executive summary goes on to say that the primary cause of thepollution is not from sand/dust being kicked up by ATVs directly, or ATVexhaust (though these are contributing factors), but instead the destruc-tion of the soil crust and of the vegetation, both of which stabilize thedunes and signicantly reduce windblown particulates.

The full study, entitled: South County Phase 2 Particulate Study ismore than 100 pages long, and is available at the San Luis Obispo Air Pollu-tion Control District website, along with several appendices. The release ofthe study was also reported in several news outlets.

New Paper on Roads and

Wildlife Mitigation Available

This recent paper looks at some economicissues surrounding mitigation of road impacts.

ABSTRACT. Wildlife-vehicle collisions, es-pecially with deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk (Cervus

elaphus), and moose (Alces alces) are numerousand have shown an increasing trend over the lastseveral decades in the United States and Canada.We calculated the costs associated with theaverage deer-, elk-, and moose -vehicle collision,including vehicle repair costs, human injuriesand fatalities, towing, accident attendance andinvestigation, monetary value to hunters of theanimal killed in the collision, and cost of disposalof the animal carcass. In addition, we reviewedthe effectiveness and costs of 13 mitigation mea-sures considered effective in reducing collisionswith large ungulates. We conducted cost-benetanalyses over a 75-year period using discountrates of 1%, 3%, and 7% to identify the thresholdvalues (in 2007 U.S. dollars) above which indi-vidual mitigation measures start generating ben-ets in excess of costs. These threshold valueswere translated into the number of deer-, elk-,or moose-vehicle collisions that need to occur

per kilometer per year for a mitigation measureto start generating economic benets in excessof costs. In addition, we calculated the costsassociated with large ungulate-vehicle collisionson 10 road sections throughout the United Statesand Canada and compared these to the thresh-old values. Finally, we conducted a more detailedcost analysis for one of these road sections toillustrate that even though the average costs forlarge ungulate-vehicle collisions per kilometerper year may not meet the thresholds of manyof the mitigation measures, specic locations ona road section can still exceed thresholds. Webelieve the cost-benet model presented in thispaper can be a valuable decision support toolfor determining mitigation measures to reduceungulate-vehicle collisions.

The full cite is:Huijser, M.P., J.W. Dufeld, A.P. Clevenger,

R.J. Ament, and P.T. McGowen. 2009.Costbenet analyses of mitigationmeasures aimed at reducing collisionswith large ungulates in the United Statesand Canada; a decision support tool.Ecology and Society 14(2): 15. http ://www.ecologyandsociety.org/viewissue.php?sf=41

Photo Marcel Huijser.

8/9/2019 RIPORTER 15.1

13/13

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 201024

Support Wildlands CPR Today!Weve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier and more effective than ever before.

Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

Reducing Overhead

Monthly giving puts your contribution

directly into action and reduces ouradministrative costs. The savings go torestoring wildlands and building a moreeffective network.

Making Your Gift Easier

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your

credit card or bank statement will con-tain a record of each gift; we will alsosend a year-end tax receipt for yourrecords.

Our Promise To You

You maintain complete control over

your donation. To change or cancelyour gift at any time, just write or giveus a call.

Name

Street

City, State,

Zip

Email

Phone

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Type of Membership: OrganizationIndividual/Family Business

Thank you for your support!

Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge

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

Charge my:

Documents

RIPORTER 15.1