road riporter 16.1

8/7/2019 Road RIPorter 16.1

1/24

LegaL Victory SpareS

SaLmon-chaLLiS From

oFF-road VehicLe abuSe

By Sarah Peters

story begs o ge 3

inSide

A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2

Salmon-Challis Victory, by Sarah Peters. Pages 3-5

Odes to Roads: Best Wild Places: Exploring Gila Countrby Kirk Deeter. Pages 6-8

Wildlands CPR 2010 Annual Report Pages 9-12

DePaving the Way: Continuing Resolutions: No ResolutAt All, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 13-14

Biblio Notes: From Silk to Pavement: The RapidDevelopment of Roads in China, by Monica PereWatkins. Pages 15-17

Policy Primer: Second Chance for Wilderness Quality LThroughout the West, by Heidi McIntosh. Pages

18-19

Get with the Program: Restoration and TransportationProgram Updates. Pages 20-21

Around the Ofce. Page 22

Membership Info. Page 23

Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org

The Road RIPoRTeR

Two visions for the Salmon-Challis Na-

tional Forest: one of serenity and wildness

(above); and the other, a mechanized play-

ground. Photos courtesy of Idaho Conser-

vation League.

Spi Eqiox 2011. VoE 16 o. 1


2/24The Road-RIPoRTeR, SPRIng equInox 20112

Since the late 1990s, the Forest Service has been trying in vain to solidify a new forest planningrule in accordance with the National Forest Management Act. At some point they will adopt arule, the courts will let it stand, and new political leaders wont undermine it. Were probably

earing that point now, making this revision all the more important.

n late-February, the agency released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on their pro-osed rule. The DEIS includes some great language, but language can be deceiving. If we hadntead the ne print, wed think the rule was terric, but its long on vision and short on requirements.he agency did a good job addressing many public concerns while providing maximum discretionnd a minimum of red tape.

As far as substance, we see pros and cons. On the plus side, the rule is visionary in nature, andpecically recognizes the importance of water, climate, and ecosystem services. In addition, theule includes language about watershed protection a signicant improvement over previous rules.

On the down side: The rule lacks specic requirements to ensure the agencys vision for the future is met. The Forest Service adopted a biased and seemingly impossible process for protesting and

challenging forest plans. Threatened, endangered and sensitive species receive fewer protection than under previous

rules, especially the 1982 requirement to maintain viable populations. The proposed rulewould make the viability standard discretionary, limit monitoring, and reduce the geographicarea over which a species should be protected. Whereas the current viability rule ensuresthat common species remain common, under the new rule, protections may not kick in untilspecies are in danger.

While the agency has included new language on watershed and water quality restoration,it doesnt go far enough to guarantee positive change on the ground.

The agency fails to require the use of the best available science in forest planning.

Climate change is acknowledged as a stressor to forest, watershed and wildlife health, butthe rule does not include clear mandates for addressing its impacts.

Our initial comments on the proposed rule include: The agency must improve public participation by allowing extensions on the objection pe-

riod, ensuring the data used to make decisions is available during the objection period, andallowing objections to be raised at any time during plan development.

Plans must provide for viable populations of all native and focal species across the planningarea.

The nal rule should adopt enforceable standards that require protections for streams, rivers,lakes, and riparian areas.

The nal rule should require road density standards to protect and improve watershed (andwildlife) conditions.

The agency must require the use of the best available science instead of just recommendingthat forest managers consider such science.

The agency should require that forest plans assess the risks of climate change and take eco-logically sustainable actions to reduce those risks and the expected impacts of human causedstressors on natural resources.

The nal rule should require that forest plans preserve existing refugia for climate-sensitivespecies and protect migration corridors and linkage zones.

o download a copy of the nal rule, the DEIS, or the schedule for regional meetings, click here:www.fs.usda/gov/planningrule. For specic ideas about issues to raise related to the planning rule,ont hesitate to contact our ofce.

2011 Wildlands CPR

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild placepromoting watershed restoration that impro

sh and wildlife habitat, provides clean waterenhances community economies. We focus

reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public

P.O. Box 7516Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 543-9551

www.wildlandscpr.org

Director

Bethanie Walder

Development DirectorThomas R. Petersen

Science Program DirectAdam Switalski

Legal LiaisonSarah Peters

Policy SpecialistAdam Rissien

Restoration CampaignDirector

Sue Gunn

Program AssociateCathrine L. Walters

Journal EditorDan Funsch

Board of DirectorsSusan Jane Brown, Marion Hourdequin

Rebecca Lloyd, Crystal Mario,Brett Paben, Jack Tuholske

uLS & uLainS, wh ndS m?

A Look Downthe trAiL


3/24The Road-RIPoRTeR, SPRIng equInox 2011 3

ote o ext ge

LaL Vic SpaS SaLmn-chaLLiS FmFF-ad VhicL auS

Travel anagement ule equres nmzng oV impacts

By Sarah Peters

The Salmon-Challis National Forest encompasses 4.3 millionacres of land in Idaho, and includes large portions of theiconic Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. Of the

orest area not already designated as Wilderness, over 70% isither inventoried roadless or recommended wilderness. Despitehe remote nature of the Salmon-Challis, motorized recreation haslowly crept onto the land and eroded the unique values that de-ne this wild Idaho landscape. But if the beginning of this storyounds eerily similar to the stories of other quiet places threatened

with rampant motorized use, it ends with an inspiring conclusion,ue to the tireless efforts of citizen activists and a much-heraldedecent ruling by the District Court of Idaho.

Backgrund: Travel plannngesponding to unmanaged off-road vehicle use, the Forest Ser-ice set out to complete a new forest travel plan, which eventuallylosed the forest to cross country travel and was also supposedo address the noise, dust and resource damage caused by off-oad vehicle abuse. Travel planning ofcially began on August, 2007 when the Forest Supervisor published a Federal Registerotice announcing the agencys proposed action initiating thescoping period called for by National Environmental Policy ActNEPA) regulations.

hroughout the travel planning process, Idaho Conservationeague (ICL) and The Wilderness Society (TWS) documented wide-pread abuse from motor vehicle use, including torn-up riparianreas, deep tire ruts, and evidence of ATV violations in protectedreas. To bolster their already strong on-the-ground knowledgef the forest, ICL volunteers and staff spent the summer of 2008urveying numerous roads and trails in areas of high resourceoncern on all but one ranger district of the Salmon-Challis. ICLmployed a systematic protocol for inventorying roads and trailssing photos, global positioning system (GPS) waypoints, and

written data forms.

All of the information collected, and the accompanying recommen-ations and basis for them, were provided to the Forest Serviceuring the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impacttatement (DEIS). ICL also met with Forest Service representatives

n January 2009 to highlight areas of concern and to discuss themonitoring protocol and damage they discovered. Unfortunately,he Forest Service continually ignored the well-documented dam-ge caused by motorized use to sensitive resources, and issued ainal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and decision on Au-ust 24, 2009 that failed to address these documented resource

problems. These same concerns over resource damage wraised again when ICL and TWS led an administrative appethe decision on October 30, 2009, which was ultimately deby the Forest Service.

A awsut f ast esrtWith no other avenue left to make their voices heard, ICL and Tcalled on attorneys at Earthjustice to represent them in challenthe Forest Service decision. They led suit in the District CouIdaho in January 2010 asking the Court to enforce federal ronmental laws that require responsible use and better balbetween motorized recreation and other forest values. Just ov

year later, on February 4, 2011, a federal magistrate overtuthe Forest Service decision on the Salmon-Challis Nationalest travel management plan. The decision is a big win for protecting resources on the Salmon-Challis from off-road veabuse, and for all those advocating for responsible Forest Setravel management decisions.

Sawuger Lakes Trail in the Borah Peak Recommended Wilderness. Photcourtesy of Idaho Conservation League.



ote o ext ge

While this decision is only binding on thealmon-Challis with regards to its travellan, it provides a clear mandate that theorest Service must not only protect publicands from off-road vehicle abuse, but alsohow how theyve done it.

Travel anagement ule

and oV Eecutve order:nmum s amumerhaps the most exciting aspect of the

Courts ruling deals with the minimizationriteria from the off-road vehicle Executive

Orders (EOs) signed by Presidents Nixonnd Carter. The Court ordered the Forestervice to show how their decision actually

minimized impacts from off-road vehicleesignations, as opposed to simply show-

ng that the forest had consideredminimiz-ng impacts on watersheds, soil, vegeta-

on, wildlife, recreational users.

ndeed, the case record reected that theorest Service had consideredthe EO mini-

mization criteria, but had failed to demon-trate how that information was appliedinesignating routes. In 2009, a different

Court reached a similar conclusion re-arding the BLMs obligations to apply the

minimization criteria (See Road-RIPorterVol. 14.4 for more on that decision). The

Salmon-Challis case conrms that the twoland management agencies obligations tominimize impacts from route designationsare the same, notwithstanding variationsin wording between the agencies regula-tions.

The Forest Service regulation [or the trav-el management rule (TMR), at 36 C.F.R.212.55(b)] states that the agency shallconsider effects ... with the objective ofminimizing. On the other hand, the Ex-

ecutive Order (EO) on which this particularpart of the rule is based, as well as thecurrent BLM regulations and the pre-2005Forest Service regulations, clearly requirethat, areas and trails shall be located tominimize damage....

The Court soundly rejected the govern-ments argument that the Forest Servicetravel management rule only required theagency to consider impacts. Though def-erence is warranted to the Forest Servicesinterpretation of its own regulations, whenthat interpretation is unreasonable, theCourt cannot give it deference.

Therefore, in all decisions dealing off-road vehicle use on trails and athe Forest Service, at least on the SalChallis at this point in time, must not consider the minimization criteria sein the TMR, but must also document i

record how they applied the criteria indesignations. Otherwise, the designaare invalid.

nmum ad SysteSubart A f the Traanagement egulatnAnother exciting element of the rulinthe Judges decision to revoke the miniroad system determination that was mby the Salmon-Challis literally at thehour and noticed to the public for the

time in the Record of Decision (RODthe travel plan. The administrative redid not contain the requisite science-banalysis, and the agency did not inthe public that it was identifying, let adesignating, the minimum road systemthe RODs release.

SaLmn-chaLLiS LaL Vic, ot

An area used for highmarking in the LemhiMountains. Photo courtesy of Idaho Conserva-tion League.

Borah Peak Recommended Wilderness.

Photo courtesy of Idaho ConservationLeague.

Hay Creek-Knapp Creek Trail. Photo coutesy of Idaho Conservation League.



Here, the government took theosition in litigation that thealmon-Challis had not identi-ed or implemented a minimumoad system through its TMP,

ven though the ROD clearlytated that such a determinationwas being made. The Courtisagreed, stating that in theyzantine world of federal en-ironmental and administrativeaw, such an assurance is ofttle currency, particularly when

measured against the expresstatement in the ROD to theontrary. The Judge thereforegreed with ICL and TWS that

minimum road system determi-

ations, when incorporated intoNEPA documents, must be sub-ected to public input and musthow how that decision haseen made.

n summary, the Forest Service may not insert statements in itsNEPA documents indicating that it has completed the requirementsf Subpart A without actually completing the required steps androviding the public notice that it was doing so.

atnal Envrnmental plcy Act Vla-

ns and other Clamshe Court ruled that the Forest Service failed to address the exten-ive evidence submitted by ICL and TWS documenting substantialesource damage from off-road vehicle use. Some 400 miles of

motorized routes were surveyed by these groups and documenta-on was submitted of former hiking trails and meadows reducedo muddy bogs, deep tire ruts, crushed vegetation and signicanttream bank erosion.

he Court stated (p. 40):The Forest Service cannot meet its obligations under the2005 Travel Management Rule or NEPA without someexplanation of how it considered Plaintiffs site-specic

evidence of what appear to be signicant environmentaleffects occasioned by motorized use.

he Forest Service must demonstrate on the record that it has con-idered site-specic evidence of damage done by ORV use thats submitted by the public during comment periods, and it mustrovide a rational explanation for making decisions in the face ofonicting evidence.

However, the Court did not nd the evidence presented was suf-cient to show that the Forest Service failed to apply the mini-

mization criteria descrabove as a matter of lawdirected the Forest Servicstead to respond to plaand demonstrate how its

sion responded to the survThe Court would not put in the place of the Forestvice and apply the substaminimization criteria ofExecutive Orders. That iresponsibility of the agen

The Court also found thaForest Service violated Nbecause the record didsupport the agencys sion to exclude from its

mulative impacts analysicombined effect of motorroutes less than one-half long on the wilderness va

and roadless characteristics of the forests Recommended Wness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas.

ICL and TWS also lost three of their claims, including an arguthat the agency failed to immediately close trails in the facsignicant evidence that a trail was causing considerable adveffects, a range of alternatives argument, and a broader cumtive impacts argument.

With regard to the failure to close routes where ICL and TWSthat considerable adverse effects were occurring, the Court stthat it cannot force the Forest Service to take action to close robecause the agency does not have a discrete, nondiscretioduty to close trails under 36 C.F.R. 212.52(b). ThereforeCourt found that the Forest Service did not err by not immediclosing certain routes Plaintiffs claimed were causing signiresource damage.

Stayed Tuned fr eturn f the Travel plaBecause of the Judges decision, the Forest Service will have tback and develop a new travel plan that designates motor

roads and trails in a manner that demonstrates it actually mized damage and conicts.

ICL and TWS are in discussions with the Forest Service oveon-the-ground remedy that will be issued by the Court, so it remto be seen what the nal effects are for the Salmon-Challis antravel plan. But, for the rest of us, this decision should be plin our everyday collection of cases to be used when commeon Forest Service travel management plans and projects, andshould be making sure that the Forest Service hears loud and that this decision should be applied to all national forests, nothe Salmon-Challis.

SaLmn-chaLLiS LaL Vic, ot

Documenting resource damage was a key component of the lawsuits success.Photo courtesy of Idaho Conservation League.



cote o ext ge

S wiLd pLacS: pLin iLa cun

by Kirk Deeter

oDesto roADs

ijoined photographers Kevin Cooley and BridgetBatch, as well as Trout Unlimiteds Chris Hunt, GregMcReynolds, and Dylan Looze in Silver City, New

Mexico. Silver City has a trendy restaurant row, artoutiques, and plenty of allure for outdoor aciona-os, especially anglers, hunters, mountain bikers, and

ikers.My main objective wasnt about nding a new out-oorsy place to be, however. I wanted to catch a rare

Gila trout (oncoryhchus gilae gilae), a sh that can onlye found in this area. Genetically related to cutthroatsnd rainbow trout, it is believed that as ancient oceansnd oodwaters receded and the deserts enveloped

his region, the Gila trout evolved and adapted in whats now a relatively tiny high country oasis, where cold-water streams still ow in alpine meadows. Once pres-ured to the brink, through the efforts of Trout Unlimited,

New Mexico wildlife ofcials, and other conservation

rganizations, the Gila trout have made an impressiveesurgence of late.

As this trip evolved, however, it would become muchmore than a quest to tick off a bucket list species onhe y. It was an eye-opening odyssey through a unique ecosystem that supports wide array of animals. Frankly, having never been here, I came prepared forusty mountains and tumbleweed. What I found instead were vast glades ofibrant wildowers, and lush green thickets through which owed crystallinerooks. And more animalsbigger, stronger, and more numerousthan I hadlanned to see.

or example, the area is home to some of the most prolic elk in the world (its

ne of the most coveted, and difcult-to-draw licenses in New Mexico). Localuides will tell you that they expect a herd bull to be 380-class, and 350-scoringatellite bulls are commonplace.

am told it is the uniquely mild high desert-meets-alpine-climate that produceshe habitat and forage needed to yield such species. But, almost ironically, theelicate balance that produces such natural wonder may also be the regions

Achilles heel. I was struck by the palpable fragility of this landscape.

Editors note: This is a story ostensibly about a y-shing trip. However,this Field and Stream editor found much more in this sportsmans para-

dise, some of which was surprisingly disturbing.

Trout Unlimiteds mission in this area simply revaround keeping the road access throughout the limited, and also limiting the amount of ATV troff established trails avoiding the so-called cen foot effect. As much as hunters and anglersize the benets of open access, one cornerstonconservation thinkingparticularly in this regiothat some places are best left alone or at leas

should tread on them very lightly.

It was conservation icon Aldo Leopold who said: Recreational development is a job nobuilding roads into lovely country, but of buireceptivity into the still unlovely human mind.

Looking out over the expansive, remote Gila watershed. Photo by Dan Funsch.



es to os, ot

pecies like the Gila trout benet when their frag-e spawning runs are not disturbed. Migrating elkerds ourish away from the noises and pressuresoads bring. And so on, and so on

As such, this would be a trip that involved a lot of hik-ng. We had noticed that the monsoon rains turnedhe main stem of the Gila River into a raging torrentf chocolate, but were able to nd some clear water

n the west fork of the Gila River. Chris Hunt caught amall brown trout on a grasshopper y, but we didntnd the elusive Gila trout that day.

On day two we got up early, and decided to headnto the high country of the Black Mountains, in or-er to nd a feeder creek that would be above mostf the monsoon runoff. We knew if we could ndlear water, we would also nd Gila trout that wouldat ies.

rout Unlimiteds (TU) New Mexico Public LandsCoordinator, Greg McReynolds, led the way, andwe were joined by TU volunteer and avid outdoors-man Garrett Veneklasen. Veneklasen runs a shingravel business that connects anglers with some ofhe most exotic shing locales in the world. Yet helso reminded me that he lives in New Mexico for aeason: this is some of the most stunning hunting andshing land in the world.

That said, Veneklasen also pointed out that the high desert and alpine areaNew Mexico are also extremely fragile, which is part of the reason TU and & Stream organized this expedition.

The particular concern in this area is that the Gila National Forest is deva Travel Management Plan for the area, which would establish a designsystem of motorized trails. The problem, according to Trout Unlimited, isthe proposal could include a huge loophole by allowing motorized big gretrieval for up to a mile from any road.

That sounds good for many hunters but theres a catch. The problem iswould make the off-road limits utterly unenforceable in a practical sense, McReynolds.

According to Veneklasen, who considers himself an avid ATVer, there is a where we need to draw clearer boundaries in order to protect the overall exence.

Im a 17-year ATV guy, but as an elk hunter, I have also come to learnengine noise is denitely equated by elk with predation, said Veneklasen. point is to have a regressive experience, and in fact, that is a huge reason the elk hunting, bird hunting and shing experience is so unique here.

The problem is, the more you drive off road, the more the elk are pushed aand the more need there is to hunt with an ATV. Its a spiral effect. We neeprevent that from happening.

Indeed, it isnt an issue of irresponsible ATVers rip-snorting around the mounand marking up the landscape as much as it is a matter of people who lovelandscapehunters, anglers, and ATVers included (often one in the same)haps loving it so much, and wanting to experience it so easily, that we risk lo

the region to death. By the same token, we limit hunting licenses in the Gwhich is one of the most prolic trophy elk areas in the world. We also shlook at the way we access the resource. In conservation icon Aldo Leopospirit, keeping the true wilderness nature of an area requires maintaining rless areas.

A rare Gila Trout. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildleervice.

The Gila cuts through high plateaus and quiet canyons. Photo by Dan Funsch.



es to os, ot

What that boiled down to for us anglers on this day was some se-ous hikinga few miles along a creek, through a canyon, andver a small ridge to a spot where we could see the Gila Trouthimmering in the runs of the narrow creek.

On the rst cast, I lobbed a size #10 Stimulator y into the heartf a choppy run, and a Gila trout surged to inhale the bug.heyre sporty little sh; this one bulldogged upstream on a rstun, and then turned back into an eddy, where I could cradle itn my hand, unhook it, hold it for a few images by photographerKevin Cooley, and then let it go.

Mission accomplished. As I held that small sh in my hands, con-idering the fragility of the ecosystem and the rarity of this spe-ies, I ranked it right up there with the most rewarding outdoordventures I have ever had.

he trick now is nding ways to work together to ensure that same

mpression and experience for future generations.

he trip also forced a reckoning with a difcult issue that faces all of us huntersnd anglers who hope to experience as much as we can share that opportu-ity with as many others as possible and at the same time, preserve the naturalandscape (and the sh/animals therein) for future generations as best we can.

rout Unlimited volunteer Garrett VeneKlasen summed it up with a question hesked as we hiked up the Gila River on day three: Is wilderness really wilder-ess if you build roads through it?

chicken-foot effect, where trails encroach virtunchecked into critical habitat.

The chicken foot effect is when a trail ends, someone creates a new fork, then the next pecomes along, and forks off that trail eventtheres a chicken foot network of trails that mighhave been intended, but form because of retions that cant be effectively enforced, explaMcReynolds.

I think all sportsmen, from hunters, to anglerATVers, and hikers share a common goal. Thenow will be working together to achieve the scenario for the Gila.

As I thought on what Veneklasen and McReynhad to say, it occurred to me that, while therefew universal truths in the nicky y shing wone constant I have always experienced is thafurther one ventures from the road or the parlot the more foot miles you put on the betteexperience is.

And so that would be the mantra for the nal daour Gila country adventure. We walked up the WFork of the Gila River. And walked and wasome more.

It is, without question, one of the most beautifulplaces I have seen. And it is worth experienyourselves and protecting for many generathat will follow us.

Box canyon in the lower Gila River. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and WildService.

I was struck by the palpable fragility ofthis landscape.

Garretts query wasnt unique by any stretch. It reects a concern sportsmen andwomen have wrestled with for generations.

Aldo Leopold wrote in his classic A Sand County Almanacdecades ago: Therophy-recreationalist has peculiarities that contribute in subtle ways to his undo-ng. To enjoy he must possess, invade, appropriate. Hence the wilderness thate cannot personally see has no value to him. Hence the universal assumptionhat an unused hinterland is rendering no service to society. To those devoid of

magination, a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the mostaluable part.

And therein lies the rub.

he Gila National Forests proposed travel management hopes to designate cer-ain routes for all-terrain vehicles and others for motorized use. Done right, itould open opportunity in this amazing place. Done wrong, however, TU New

Mexico public lands coordinator Greg McReynolds, thinks it could lead to a



eviewing economic headlines from2010, one might have predicted thatWildlands CPRs campaigns, stafng, and budget would have experi-enced a year of retrenchment. Were happy to report, however, that we

ucked the trend, solidifying and expanding our signature campaigns, whilelso beginning research and development for new programs. For example,

we signicantly expanded our summer inventory and monitoring eldwork, de-eloping new partnerships with the Forest Service and grassroots groups. Weontinued to act as a watchdog on agency decisions, paying close attention tohe multitude of motor vehicle use maps being issued by the Forest Service acrosshe country. And we continued to lead the wildly successful Legacy Roads andrails Campaign, while working to improve its results on the ground. Our efforts

were almost universally successful, with a few hiccups here and there. This left uswell positioned to both continue our successful programs and begin implement-ng new efforts in 2011.

organzatnal DevelmentWe had no changes to our permanent staff in 2010. However, we did add fourummer eld techs, in addition to numerous summer volunteers and a few short-ermers for intensive data collection at the end of the summer.

rom a funding perspective, we expanded our fee-for-service work and reducedur dependence on philanthropic grants as a percentage of our overall budget.here was a change in the timing of our grant funding, however, in that severalrants typically received in the fourth quarter of the year were pushed to the rstuarter of 2011. The result is clear in the accompanying nancial charts, whereur expenditures top our income by nearly $80,000. That difference should beully made up in early 2011 (since all of the funding would have been for 2011work, anyway, this had no impact on our cash ow or overall nancial health).

CamagnsWildlands CPRs 2010 work revolved around two major campaigns: 1) Theegacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative; and 2) The Forest Service Travel

Management Rule (which includes both off-road vehicle management, and iden-tifying an ecologicallyand scally sustainableminimum road system).Weve built a bridgebetween these two cam-paigns by successfullypressuring the Forest

Service to identify theirminimum road system(or rightsize it). Whilerightsizing was incor-porated into the TravelManagement Rule, it willalso provide a blueprintfor future Legacy Roadsand Trails spending.

egacy ads and TralsThe year began well, after Congress approvrecord $90 million for the Legacy Roads and T(LRT) program for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10). WCongressional champions warned us that this mbe a high water mark for the program, wsponded by educating decision-makers abouimportant benets LRT provides, including cdrinking water, green jobs, and improved shand wildlife habitat. This year, the budget-cuchaos that took over Congress after the Novemelection will make our work even more chaling. Our Restoration Campaign Director Sue Gcontinues to run this campaign for Wildlands and our several related coalitions. In FY10, theest Service accomplished more than ever withfunds, including:

261 culverts xed to provide aquatic oism passage

1509 miles of system and non-system decommissioned (split about evenly)

887 miles of road improved 2618 miles of road maintained

76 bridges treated (e.g. maintainedplaced, upgraded, or installed) to rewater quality impacts/restore sh pass

These accomplishments are signicant (trail is not yet available), but we are frustrated thaagency doesnt report on ecological benets indition to mileage treated. (One of our main pobjectives for 2011 is to change this.)

Under the Legacy Roads program, hundreds of culvertsbeen replaced or removed to facilitate movement of aq

species. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Educating policy makers and members of the mediahrough scientic research and eld tours is key to buildingupport for wildlands restoration. Wildlands CPR photo. cote o ext ge



cote o ext ge

ever content, we began three new projectsrelated to LRT in 2010. First, we receivedfunding from the National Forest Founda-

on to develop a wildlife and vegetation monitor-ng program for LRT projects in Montana/Northerndaho (Forest Service Region One). We partneredwith the University of Great Falls, Yaak Valley ForestCouncil and Friends of the Clearwater to set up wild-fe monitoring sites on ve different national forests.

We hired a eld technician and began collectingaseline data. We partnered with staff and gradu-te students from the University of Montana to set up robust vegetation monitoring protocol, and hired

more eld techs. We set up plots for a 5-10 yearmonitoring program to measure changes in wildlifese of reclaimed roads, and to look at the reasonsor these changes (e.g. return of vegetation that pro-ides food post-treatment). Our baseline data was

ollected before roads were reclaimed, and in 2011we will begin post-treatment data collection. Ourcience Program Director, Adam Switalski, devel-ped and oversaw this program.

2010 al eort, ot

from the Forest Service for this project. With Geos, we developed proconcept maps for several cities in Oregon, showing a likely causal link betwhigh road densities and water-quality limited streams (more research will cwhich watersheds are impaired because of roads as opposed to other probleWe are discussing revisions to the initial maps, and expect them to becomimportant tool in our efforts to better explain the connections between natiforests, roads and clean water. These maps have the potential to becompowerful tool that will be important not just to secure continued funding forbut also to inuence future Forest Plan Revisions, efforts to identify a miniroad system, and more.

Travel anagement plannng (ncludes Subarts B & A bel

Since 2005, Wildlands CPR has partnered with The Wilderness Society tolead a westwide campaign to ensure a positive outcome from the Forest Servdesignation of roads, trails and areas for motorized recreation (known as part B of the Travel Management Rule). Since that rule was issued, wevebeen pushing the agency to implement subpart A by identifying and impleming an ecologically and scally sound minimum road system (as mentionedis also related to LRT). These two components made up the bulk of our TManagement Planning Campaign, largely led by Legal Liaison/Staff AttoSarah Peters and Policy Specialist Adam Rissien.

Subart BWe are starting to see our efforts on this portion of the travel managementcome to fruition across the west. As of December 2010, 68% of the nat

forests had issued subpart B decisions designating roads, trails and areas foroad vehicle use. The results are impressive:

32.2 million acres of Forest Service land have been closed to ccountry travel by off-road vehicles

More than 31,000 miles of renegade, user-created routes have not added to the formal transportation system

More than 8,000 miles of system roads have been closed to motorecreational use

Our efforts on Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule are paying off with on-the-ground protections. Wildlands CPR le photo.

We set up plots for a 5-10 year

monitoring program to measure

changes in wildlife use of re-

claimed roads, and to look at the

reasons for these changes.

econd, in the fall we created an ad-hoc coalitiono support LRT in Montana, the Montana Legacyoads, Trails and Jobs Coalition. Its 27 organiza-ons include six unions, one tribe, and a soil/ag-cultural coalition that understands how importantational forest water is to agriculture. The coalitions broad-based and has already been successful.or example, we met with Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)n October to stress the link between LRT and themerging restoration economy. Senator Tester is

ow taking a much more active role in supportingRT in the halls of Congress!

he third new project was developing a series ofmaps demonstrating the relationship between mu-icipal watersheds/water supply, roads, and wateruality. We partnered with the Geos Institute in Or-gon, and are now using the maps in our advocacy.took us much of the year to collect the key data



These numbers are based on nal decisions in travel management plans,but we didnt succeed everywhere. The California National Forests, forexample, mostly added routes to their system. And one of our top priority

orests, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge in Montana, still hasnt formally begun theiroff-road vehicle route designation process on a majority of its districts. Speakingof the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, we did bring a lawsuit against the forest for theirapproach to winter travel management, and we are awaiting a decision on thatase as well as several others in Montana and beyond. Were pleased to reporthat our campaign partners (Idaho Conservation League and The WildernessSociety) won an important lawsuit against the Salmon-Challis National Foreste-afrming the primacy of the off-road vehicle Executive Orders, and the needo minimize impacts to many different resources when designating off-roadehicle use (see cover story, this issue). Sarah also provided strategic assistanceo partners on nearly a dozen other legal challenges that arose as a result ofubpart B decisions, including several that we are participating in as co-plaintiffs.

Scence2010 saw several scientic projects come totion, allowing Adam Switalski to submit two arfor publication in peer-reviewed journals. Oneaccepted and published in early 2011; the secis under minor revision based on favorable rev

and will hopefully be accepted for publication nal submission. Adam worked in collaborwith other ecologists on these and two other ping publications to advance the science of roadlamation.

We also expanded our eldwork, undertakinsecond year of road reconnaissance or roaventory work through a cost-share agreement the Lolo National Forest. Adams top-notch surveyed hundreds of miles of roads, adaptingadvancing the protocols being used and providfairly comprehensive set of data to the Forest Se

for future planning efforts. This road inventory provides some of the critical data needed foagency to begin identifying their minimum roadtem in accordance with subpart A of travel plan

Our scientic work is now more effectively coming on-the-ground eld efforts with policy needsulting in more focused use of time and resouand, as mentioned above, much of Adams wfeeds directly into our core campaigns (e.g. LRT itoring). For example, Adam S. answered doof information requests from agency staff, grassactivists, ecologists and others who needed scieinformation related to the impacts of roads androad vehicles, as well as the ecological outcoassociated with road reclamation. He also ovethe biennial update of our bibliographic dataon the ecological effects of roads. The datanow contains more than 20,000 citations on stic articles related to road and off-road vehiclpacts and road reclamation.

2010 al eort, ot

Monitoring wildlife use of restored roads continues as oof Wildlands CPRs major programs, and is key to builsupport for restoration. Photo by Adam Switalski.

Subart A

Yes, we know A comes before B in the alphabet, but the Forest Service decidedo start with Subpart B, so we did too (at least in this annual report). That said,we are extremely pleased to announce one of our most important victories fromast year on November 10, 2010 the agency released new guidance to theeld directing all national forests to nally complete subpart A as well! Weve

been pushing for this for many years, and we see it as a once-in-a-generationopportunity to improve overall Forest Service management on the ground byightsizing the transportation system (see RIPorter15.4, cover story).

he agency set a deadline of September 2015 for completing this work anyoads not analyzed by then will lose their road maintenance funding. So theres

a real stick to pressure the national forests to follow through. Since the releaseof the guidance in November, weve helped coordinate meetings in four of the

ine Forest Service regions on implementing the guidance, we co-developed amemo to our partners explaining Subpart A, and we have met regularly with theational/Washington DC Forest Service team leading the effort to express both

our concerns and our optimism about the initial stages of the process.

As a community, we can only achieve this once-in-a-generation opportunity ifgrassroots groups, local policy makers and interested individuals across theountry participate in this process from day one. The municipal watershed maps

were developing, along with several other resources, will provide importantools to help people succeed in their efforts.

Victory: on November 10, 2010 the agency

released new guidance to the eld directing all

national forests to nally complete subpart A.



2010 finAnciALreport

FnSVolunteer and in-kind contributions are not represented here, but totalled52 hours valued at $3,888.Wildlands CPRs expenses exceeded our income by nearly 20%, but this largely due to two things:1) we received nearly $60,000 from foundations in the rst quarter of2011, instead of the fourth quarter of 20102) our scal year (the calendar year) never exactly matches up with ourgrant income.Our nances and cash ow are healthy and we expect them to remain

o in 2011.

aL pndiu$483,17

pnSS

Admin & Fundraising$58,658

OrganizaDevelop$48,9

Restoration$215,881

Transportation$159,710

aL incm$401,442

Contract Income$67,881

incm

Individual Contributions$36,955

Foundations/Grants$278,413

ales/Other$18,194

2010 al eort, ot

CnclusnWildlands CPR continues to make great strides in our primary campaigns and related efforts. Werethankful for the continued support weve received from philanthropic foundations and individuals, mak-ing 2010 a bona-de success. Though we have only a small fulltime staff, we are making huge impactson the ground, as noted in the accomplishments above! Respected by grassroots activists and agenciesalike, Wildlands CPR is building from success to success, providing effective solutions to often-intractableenvironmental problems on the ground. And we are using those successes to help us map out new

strategies and program opportunities for 2011 and beyond.

Photo by Dan Fu



cninuin SLuinS: n SLuin a aLL

By Bethanie Walder

cote o ext ge

February was a busy month for people interested in nationalforest management. The Forest Service nally released theirDraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) proposing a re-

ised forest planning rule, Congress took up debate on funding theovernment for the remainder of 2011, and the president releasedis budget for scal year 2012. Ill focus here on the FY11 andY12 budgets, for more information about the planning rule, seeA Look Down the Trail on page 2.

Cngressnal Budget Shenanganshe US government operates on an October 1- September 30 s-al year, and if all goes according to schedule, Congress adopts new budget well before September 30 rolls around. Theyveeen missing this deadline more frequently, however, forcing them

o adopt continuing resolutions (also called CRs) to keep theovernment operating. The November 2010 election and relatedolitical jockeying were partly to blame for the failure to adopt anY11 budget on time last year, and while Congress came close todopting a budget during the lame duck session, they didnt get itone. (We wish they had, as the provisions we care most about

were well-funded in two of the three proposals that were on theable back in December.) The scal austerity drumbeat became

ouder as the new Congress took ofce, resulting in the politicalheater weve been forced to endure since then.

we count the pre-election negligence and the lame duck sessionss Acts 1 and 2, then were probably in the midst of Act 3. The

House, bowing to incoming freshman scal conservatives, adopt-d a bill with severe cuts to discretionary spending. The bill tar-eted many things Wildlands CPR considers critical from a broad-ased social welfare and environmental perspective, but it also

ncluded cuts to two things that we specically focus on: off-roadehicle enforcement and the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediationrogram. Neither these nor many of the other cuts proposed makeny sense, but then not much seems to make sense in the halls of

Congress these days.

youve been reading the The Road-RIPorterfor a while, youverobably heard us talk about the ABCs of Travel Planning. Sub-art A requires the agency to identify a minimum road system,ubpart B directs them to identify roads, trails and areas for off-oad vehicle recreation, and subpart C deals with snowmobilelanning. Were making huge progress on subparts A and B, (see

Annual Report, this issue) which will result in profound improve-

ments to land and water quality on national forests. So whathe House of Representatives do in the budget they adopted? approved the Herger Amendment (Amendment 177, introdby Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)), which would prevent the Foresvice from spending any money on implementing or enforcingpart B of travel planning. Interestingly, the agency has no speline item for this work, its part of their general law enforcebudget, which Herger did not propose cutting, thus fully illustrathat this has nothing to do with cutting spending.

As of December, 68% of the national forests had nished sub

B and issued Motor Vehicle Use Maps designating where off-vehicles can travel. If Hergers amendment becomes law, theagency cannot enforce the designations on those lands, androad vehicles can effectively drive anywhere. On the remalands, where planning is nearly done, the Forest Service whave to stop the planning process, at least until the next scal yOn these forests, since subpart B isnt nalized, its possibleagency could continue to enforce whatever off-road vehicle they had in place, but that remains unclear.

Is Congress working around the clock to come toan agreement on the budget? Youre right, thats arhetorical question. Photo by Laurel Hagen.

DepAvingthe wAy



depvg te wy, ot

The Herger Amendment is purely ideological promoting off-road vehicle recreation above all other uses non-motorizedrecreationists, wildlife and water be damned. Two weeks

fter passage, however, were seeing some cracks in this ideologi-al wall. The new Chairman of the House Interior Appropriationsubcommittee, Congressman Mike Simpson (R-ID), has changedis mind and is now opposing the amendment. At a budget hear-ng in mid-March, both Simpson and Forest Service Chief Tomidwell said that defunding subpart B makes no sense. Tidwells quoted in an article from Environment and Energy Daily(FOR-ST SERVICE: House chairman blasts amendment to halt agencys

OHV planning (03/11/2011)) as saying, Not allowing us to goorward with this planning is not going to be helpful to the motor-zed recreation community in the long term, while Simpson statedhat stopping the process is not the right way to deal with anyontroversy the process has generated. Lets hope this means themendment wont see the light of day in any nal FY11 bill or CR

when the House and Senate nally pass a budget.

While the Herger Amendment may die, we probably cant sayhe same for proposed cuts to the Forest Service Legacy Roadsnd Trails Remediation Program (LRT). The CR adopted by the

House would cut Legacy Roads and Trails funding nearly in halfor the remainder of FY11 (from $90 million in FY10 to $50.6million). According to the House budget documents we reviewed,RT was cut more than any other Forest Service program. The onlyxplanation we can nd is that Congress had been funding LRT at much higher level than that proposed in the Presidents budget.he budget documents compared the proposed FY11 budget tohe proposed Presidents budget, where LRT was only funded at50 million. So perhaps it was an easy cut for the House to make.

And that brings us to the little bit of light we do see on the budget-ry horizon

The FY12 BudgetWhile the news was generally all bad on the FY11 front, thats nothe case with FY12. If our assessment is right and the House cutRT to match the FY11 Presidents budget, then that makes the Presi-ents FY12 budget even more important. In it, LRT was increased

rom $50 to $75 million. While this is still a decrease from FY10s90 million, nearly every program will decrease in FY12, and thisut seems more manageable than that proposed in the FY11 CR.ut there are some other budgetary changes worth noting.

he Forest Service has, once again, proposed integrating manyudgetary line items into one large fund called Integrated Re-ource Restoration or IRR (see RIPorterV.15.1). This year, unlikeast year, they moved Legacy Roads and Trails into the IRR. WhileRR is one huge fund, it includes three sub-line items one of whichs LRT. The second sub-line is an $80 million fund for Priority Wa-ersheds and Job Stabilization, which includes road reclamationnd culvert work possibly increasing available funds. The thirdub-line item relates to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Resto-

ration Program (CFLRP), at $40 million, which is focused on ardous fuels. Many CFLRP projects, however, also include reclamation and stormproong. While were not thrilled aboubeing a sub-line item, weve been assured that the agency wstill be able to account for the program. Weve also been assthat road projects could move forward whether they are partlarger integrated project or not.

We were adamantly opposed to IRR last year, but the agencymade signicant changes that make it more viable. They still a ways to go to ensure accountability, and we continue to disthis with them, but their proposal is gaining some traction Congress, so we wouldnt be surprised to see it adopted if,

is, Congress actually adopts an FY12 budget in a reasonableframe.

Well continue to monitor developments with both budgets keep you posted about what happens to LRT and whether othe Herger Amendment lives or dies. Were hopeful for a pooutcome for many threatened programs that will benet sh, life, municipal drinking water, public health, jobs, and more.hope that Congress stops playing games and starts doing theiagain soon, but were not holding our breath.

Thousands of culverts in this condition can be found onnational forest lands, including an undetermined numberwithin municipal watersheds. Perhaps this is one reasonwhy LRT funding is so important. Wildlands CPR le photo.



Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientic lin our 20,000 citation bibliography on the physical and ecological effroads and off-road vehicles. We offer bibliographic searches to help a

access important biological research relevant to roads.

Fm SiLk paVmn:h apid dVLpmn F adS in china

By Monica Perez-Watkins

cote o ext ge

BiBLiogrAphynotes

ntrductnWhile Chinas rapid economic growth has garnered much attention in recentears, its associated boom in road building is neither well-documented nor well-nderstood. With more than 3.5 million km of roadways already in place (CIA

2010, Li et al. 2010), China continues to build roads at an amazing rate. Forxample, Chinas network of expressways has increased from 652 km in 1992,o more than 65,000 km today (CIA 2010). Such expansive road networks arepowerful drivers of regional ecosystem change (Liu et al. 2008), and Chinas

ontinued road construction and expansion projects will cause an increasing lossn habitat (Li et al. 2003), posing a grave risk to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.ecent research has found Chinas road building to result in habitat fragmenta-on (Li et al. 2010, Liu et al. 2008), altered wildlife migration patterns (Li et al.

2003, Xia et al. 2007), the spread of invasive species (Ding et al. 2008), soilrosion (Liu et al. 2008), increased impervious surfaces (Elvidge et al. 2007),nd an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions due to increased travel and

he quantity of cars. In this paper, I review the ecological consequences of thenprecedented growth of Chinas road system.

Habtat FragmentatnA leading cause of habitat fragmentation in China today is road development.oads greatly alter an areas environment and landscape structure, producingdge habitat (Liu et al. 2008). Such induced habitat fragmentation can pose ahreat to the ecological ow of an ecosystem. This may inuence many importantcological processes, such as animal movement, water runoff, and erosion (Fund Chen 2000), gene ow, and sustained biodiversity (Li et al. 2010). Soilutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen may be captured and processedifferently due to habitat fragmentation. The degree to which these nutrients will

be affected depends upon the differing patch types that occur in a fragmentedandscape, along with vegetation and soil conditions (Fu and Chen 2000).

Wldlfe imactsThe expansion and construction of new roads lead to increased mortality through direct wilvehicle collisions, but also through behavchanges such as road avoidance and disrupin migration and movement patterns. As a reconnectivity between habitats is greatly reducerestricted, leading to habitat loss (Li et al. 2003et al. 2007, Eigenbrod et al. 2008). For examthe snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and giant pa(Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are two such speciesresearchers have found to be signicantly thened by habitat loss caused by road constructioChina (Xu et al. 2008, Zhang et al. 2007). In Zhang et al. (2007) found that, as of 2007, 100 km2 of suitable habitat remained for the gpanda, down from 1330 km2 in the 1950s, iDaxiangling Mountains of Sichuan Province.

sequently, only 17 giant pandas inhabit the aredecline from a population of approximately 5the 1970s (Zhang et al. 2007).

Researchers studying the effects of the Golmud-Lhighway and the new Qinghai-Tibetan railwathe Tibetan plateau found that both cut througsummer migration route of the Tibetan antelope

Transportation infrastructure is key to any countrys econdevelopment. Photo Marcel Huijser.

Despite challenges posed by terrain, Chinas transportation networkis expanding at an alarming rate. Photo Marcel Huijser.


16/24



Liau cid

each, D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The effects of urban design onaquatic ecosystems of the United States, Pew Oceans Com-mission. Arlington, Virginia USA.

ooth, D. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage system -impacts, solutions, and prognoses. Northwest EnvironmentalJournal7: 93-118.

Carlson, T.N. 2008. Impervious surface area and its effect onwater abundance and water quality. In: Remote Sensing ofImpervious Surfaces. Pp 353-367. Q. Weng (Editor). CRCPress, Taylor and Francis Group.

CIA (The Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book). China.Accessed online on 11-30-10 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html.

Changnon S. A. 1992. Inadvertent weather modication in ur-ban areas: Lessons for global climate change. Bulletin of theAmerican Meteorological Society73: 619-627.

Ding, J., R.N. Mack, P. Lu, M. Ren, and H. Huang. 2008.Chinas booming economy is sparking and accelerating bio-logical invasions. BioScience58(4): 317-324.

igenbrod, F., S.J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2008. Accessible habi-tat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss androads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology23(2):159-168.

lvidge, C. D., B.T. Tuttle, P.C. Sutton, K.E. Baugh, A.T. Howard,C. Milesi, B.L. Bhaduri, and R. Nemani. 2007. Globaldistribution and density of constructed impervious surfaces.Sensors 2007(7): 1962-1979.

u, B. and L. Chen. 2000. Agricultural landscape spatial patternanalysis in the semi-arid hill area of the Loess Plateau, China.

Journal of Arid Environments 44: 291-303.Hu, X., S. Chang, J. Li, and Y. Qin. 2010. Energy for sustain-

able road transportation in China: Challenges, initiatives andpolicy implications. Energy35: 4289-4301.

, T., F. Shilling, J. Thorne, F. Li, H. Schott, R. Boynton, and A.M.Berry. 2010. Fragmentation of Chinas landscape by roadsand urban areas. Landscape Ecology25: 839-853.

, Y., Y. Hu, X. Li, and D. Xiao. 2003. A review on road ecol-ogy. Journal of Applied Ecology14(3): 447-452.

Liu, J., B. Cui, S. Dong, J. Wang, and S. Zhao. 2007. The

changes of community components and their horizontalpatterns caused by highway construction in the LongitudinRange-Gorge Region. Chinese Science Bulletin 52: 213224.

Liu, S. L., B.S. Cui, S.K. Dong, Z.F. Yang, M. Yang, and K. Ho2008. Evaluating the inuence of road networks on land-scape and regional ecological risk - A case study in LancaRiver Valley of Southwest China. Ecological Engineering91-99.

Milesi, C., C.D. Elvidge, R.R. Nemani, and S.W. Running.2003. Assessing the impact of urban land development net primary productivity in the Southeastern United States,Remote Sensing of Environment86: 401-410.

Planning and Research Institute, Ministry of Communications ofChina. 2004. National Expressway Planning, Beijing.

Xia, L., Q. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Wu, and Z. Feng. 2007. The effecthe Qinghai-Tibet railway on the migration of Tibetan antePantholops hodgsoniiin Hoh-xil National Nature ReserveChina. Oryx41(3): 352-357.

Xu A., Z. Jiang, C. Li, J. Guo, S. Da, Q. Cui, S. Yu, and G. W2008. Status and conservation of the snow leopard Panthera uncia in Gouli Region, Kunlun Mountains, China. O42(3): 460-463.

Yan, X. and R.J. Crookes. 2010. Energy demand and emissiofrom road transportation vehicles in China. Progress in En

ergy and Combustion Science36: 651-676.Zhang, K., X. Li, W. Zhou, D. Zhang, Z. Yu. 2006. Landresource degradation in China: Analysis of status, trends astrategy. International Journal of Sustainable Developmenand World Ecology13: 397-408.

Zhang, W., Y. Hu, B. Chen, Z. Tang, C. Xu, D. Qi, and J. Hu2007. Evaluation of habitat fragmentation of giant pand(Ailuropoda melanoleuca)on the north slopes of DaxiangMountains, Sichuan Province, China. Animal Biology57485-500.

blo notes, ot

Chinas road building boom is impacting much more than charismatic mfauna. Photo by Gary M. Stolz, courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv

Road-building always entails problems such as erosion.Photo Marcel Huijser.



poLicyprimer

in a great feat of foresight, Congress gave the Department of Interior the au-thority to manage some federal public lands in their natural condition whenit passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. However,

n 2003, former Interior Secretary Gale Norton struck a deal with then-UtahGovernor Mike Leavitt in which she tried to give away the Bureau of Land Man-gements authority to protect scenic, natural landscapes throughout the West. Inoing so, she ignored federal law and 27 years of BLM history.

On December 23, 2010, Secretary of Interior Salazar announced that he waseinstating the Bureau of Land Managements long-standing authority to identifynd protect the last remaining scenic and undeveloped federal public lands in

he West. Under the Wild Lands policy, issued as Secretarial Order 3310,LM will inventory lands with wilderness character and then decide whether torotect them as a necessary part of the agencys multiple use mission. If theLM determines that specic wilderness-quality lands should be protected, it will

dentify them as Wild Lands and manage them accordingly.

is now up to the BLM to ensure that its implementation lives up to the highriority that the secretarial order places on wilderness landscapes. Although

he BLM manages more land than any other federal land management agency,

ncluding some of our nations most spectacular landscapes, it has less wildernesshan any other agency. Importantly, BLM can remedy that imbalance withoutringing energy development to a halt. Even if all wilderness-quality lands wererotected, the vast majority of BLM would remain available for both renewablend conventional energy development.

A ttle Hstry . . .The 2003 agreement with the State of Utah, wbecame known as the No More Wilderness cy, broke with history by disavowing the Interiopartments well-established authority to protecwilderness character of spectacular landscapesfore 2003, every administration had used its au

ity under Section 202 of the Federal Land PolicyManagement Act (FLPMA) to identify wilderstudy areas, or WSAs, and protect their wildecharacter. However, as a result of the 2003 agreement, well-known western icons were afrom oil and gas drilling and rampant off-roadhicle abuse, including Utahs redrock canyons, Mexicos Otero Mesa, Oregons Steens MounColorados Roan Plateau, and Wyomings AdTown.

Under the No More Wilderness policy, wilderbecame the only resource which the Bureau of

Management (BLM) is specically precluded managing or protecting, and the impacts have profound. After 2003 the Interior Departmenttioned off leases for millions of acres of public lto oil and gas companies. Additionally, BLM use plans released late in 2008 included thousof miles of off-road vehicle trails in areas the itself found to qualify for wilderness protection.

Preserving these last remaining unprotected wness-quality lands is particularly important gBLMs history of neglect of these national treasOnly 3% of BLM lands are now protected by

gress as Wilderness.1 Secretary Salazars owill restore needed administrative protective toonearly 6 million acres of wilderness quality lanUtah, 650,000 acres in Colorado, more than

1 http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blspecial_areas/NLCS/Wilderness.html.

h ini dpamn iVS a Scnd chanc maniFicnwiLdnSS QuaLi LandS huhu h wS

By Heidi McIntosh, Associate Director Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Lockhart Basin, Utah, photo by Ray Bloxham. cote o ext ge



million acres in Arizona, and more than 2 millioncres in New Mexico (out of the approximately 256

million acres of surface lands managed by the BLM).

epublican politicians in Congress have squawkedoudly about the policy claiming wrongly that it

will bring an end to economic development like oilnd gas drilling. But even if all currently unprotectedLM lands that still qualify for Wilderness designa-on were protected now, the vast majority of BLMands would still be available for energy develop-ment.

n New Mexico, of the 13.4 million acres managedy the BLM, less than 2 million are proposed for

wilderness protection outside existing WSAs, whileearly 5.5 million are under lease to oil and gasompanies. Similarly, in Colorado, as of the endf scal year 2009, the oil and gas industry held

4.9 million acres of public lands and some 85%f the BLM lands in Colorado are open to oil andas development. In contrast, only 205,000 acresor 1.7%) of BLM lands are currently protected aswilderness. Protection of the all of the lands pro-osed for wilderness in Colorado would increase

he amount of protected BLM lands to only 17%, stilleaving the vast majority of BLM land open to extrac-ve uses and off-road vehicle recreation. 2

n Utah, an analysis of BLMs 2008 resource man-gement plans shows that if lands that the BLM itself

dentied as eligible for wilderness protection were

rotected, 86% of the proposed oil and gas wellsould still be drilled.

Additionally, the oil and gas industry has millions ofcres under lease and thousands of drilling permits

hat it has simply chosen not to put into production.hrough FY 2009, 45,365,695 acres of BLM lands

were under lease, yet only 12,842,209 were actu-lly in production. In other words, oil and gas com-anies now hold leases on over 32.5 million acresf public lands throughout the West that they are noteveloping.

What nw?he Secretarial Order and the Wild Lands policylone do not protect a single acre of wild BLM land.

n fact, the policy includes a loophole that wouldllow wilderness character lands to be developednyway if BLM decided that development was ap-

Special thanks to Nada Culver with The Wilder-ess Society for providing oil and gas data for CO &

NM.

propriate and consistent with governing laws and other resource demandprovision that gives us all heartburn.

To breathe life into the policy, the Secretary required the BLM to produceguidance documents that instruct the state and eld ofce staff how to implethe policy. The rst guidance documents came out on February 25, 2011are available at:

H6301: Wilderness Characteristics Inventoryhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_ResouManagement/policy/blm_manual.Par.34706.File.dat/6301.pdf

H6302: Consideration of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the LandPlanning Processhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_ResouManagement/policy/blm_manual.Par.46960.File.dat/6302.pdf

H6303: Consideration of LWCs for Project-Level Decisions in Areas Not lyzed in Accordance with BLM Manual 6302http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resou

Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.46960.File.dat/6302.pdf

While the guidance does include some positive steps forward, like requnew wilderness inventories whenever a project is proposed or new land use developed, there are a few red ags. One is that the guidance creates a dition between impacts and impairment of wilderness character. Its unwhen an impact crosses the line into impairment, but BLMs policy is to aonly impairment. Bottom line: this may open the door to projects that impwilderness character lands.

In addition to this guidance document, the BLM must provide the Secretary a plan by the end of June describing how it will address awed wilderness intories and decisions in recently completed resource management plans. T

a critical step and unless it is done right, we will be living with Bush-era landplans for the next twenty years.

In the end, the effectiveness of the new policy will depend on the knowledata, maps and advocacy work of countless wilderness supporters who will to watch the BLM in their states to make sure they make wilderness a high pity, as the Secretarial Order mandates. As we know, too many at the BLM a long history of nding that development trumps wilderness preservation. job is to marshal the support and the data that makes it very hard for the BLfall back on bad habits.

poly prer, ot

Utahs Red Desert. Photo by Ray Bloxham.



progrAm UpDAtes, winter 2010

aVL manamn campain

cote o ext ge

get withthe progrAm

Since 2005, Wildlands CPR has been co-leading a westwide campaign to addresssubpart B of the Travel Management Rule while simultaneously pushing the Forest Ser-vice (FS) to implement subpart A. Subpart B addresses designating roads, trails and

reas for motorized use, while subpart A focuses on identifying an ecologically and scallyustainable minimum road system.

As featured in the last Road-RIPorter (Winter Solstice 2010), the Forest Service recently is-ued important direction on subpart A. The minimum road system analysis, taking placeetween now and 2015,is one of the most important opportunities in the past generation to

mprove forest and watershed health.

Wildlands CPR Executive Director Bethanie Walder and Restoration Campaign Director SueGunn met with the FS national leadership team for subpart A in December and early Marcho discuss progress with the new policy. In addition, weve met with regional implementationeams in four of the nine FS regions, with a fth regional meeting planned. For example, inanuary, Sue coordinated a meeting between the Pacic Northwest (R6) staff and membersf the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, and Adam Rissien, our Transportationolicy Coordinator, pulled together a meeting between several Montana groups and the

Northern regional staff (R1). In February we partnered with Southern Appalachian ForestCouncil on a meeting in Atlanta (R8), and with the Center for Biological Diversity and otherroups on a meeting with the Southwest Region (R3). We also partnered with numerousroups on a meeting with the Intermountain Region (R4) team in March, and nally, wevelso sent support letters to many of the regions, signed by a broad coalition of local groups.

hese meetings have helped us identify themes, ideas and concerns about the process, whichwill become part of the mix as the regions and forests interface with other interest groups.

As to subpart B, Adam and our Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney Sarah Peters are following up onur lawsuit against the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF (Montana) challenging its revised forestlan as it pertains to winter motorized use. Sarah is working with local environmental attor-ey (and new Wildlands CPR Board member) Jack Tuholske on this case. To substantiate ourlaims, Adam has been coordinating monitoring, working with Lighthawk and Friends of theitterroot to schedule over-ights of protected areas in the West Big Hole, complete with vid-ographer and GPS specialist. Adam also coordinated volunteers to measure snowmobilese in the West Pioneers Wilderness Study Area, where we settled a lawsuit with the FS lastear to eliminate snowmobile grooming. The volunteers checked FS infrared counters, whichndicated mixed effectiveness. This data will be used in the agencys winter travel planning.

arah is also assisting with travel planning litigation on the Custer NF (MT), the Klamath-iskiyou NF (OR), the Salmon-Challis and Sawtooth NFs (ID), and the Pike-San Isabel NFCO). While Wildlands CPR wasnt a plaintiff in the Salmon-Challis case, Sarahs strategicupport helped result in the courts ruling that the agency must follow the plain language ofhe off-road vehicle Executive Orders by minimizing the impacts of off-road vehicles on natu-al resources and other users (see our cover story).

oth within and outside litigation, Sarah is getting more involved in OR national forest plan-ing as a result of a new grant we received from the Jubitz Family Foundation. To help guide

her work, we formed an Oregon AdvBoard (see Around the Ofce on pageOne of the rst things Sarah is tacklithe subpart B travel planning process oUmpqua NF, which could use some se

improvement. Shes also continuing hvolvement with the Oregon Dunes NatRecreation Area motorized trail destions, as well as work in the Rogue RSiskiyou NFs.

Sarah helped coordinate several panethe 29th annual Public Interest EnvironmLaw Conference (PIELC) in Eugene, ining one on subpart B and one on a re9th Circuit decision related to logging rand the Clean Water Act. Both were sing room only, and the subpart B panelfeatured in a Los Angeles Times article!a related note, Sarah co-authored an elent amicus brief on the 9th Circuit deciarguing that it should stand and not bheard.) Bethanie also coordinated a Ppanel about subpart A/rightsizing the system that was well attended and provan overview of this important process.

Wildlands CPR has conducted extensivemonitoring in the Pioneer Mountains. Wilands CPR photo.



progr utes, ot

Lac adS and aiLS

Sue coordinates our other primary campaign, the LegacyRoads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRT). Its challeng-ing to report on LRT because Congress still hasnt adopted a

udget for scal year 2011 (FY11), and we dont know how muchunding the program will receive (see DePaving the Way, this issue,or more details). Weve been on a roller coaster since December,when Congress nearly passed a budget that would have continuedlevel funding (the same as FY10) for LRT at $90 million. But thatied, and two short-term continuing resolutions since then have not

made any changes. In February the House proposed a budgethat cut all sorts of programs including LRT (shrinking it from $90million to ~$50 million), but at press time, the actual FY11 budgetemains unknown. The bright news is that the Presidents proposedudget for FY12 includes $75 million for LRT. Though still a cut

rom FY10, everything is likely to get cut from FY10 levels. Welleep you posted as this plays out.

n the interim, Sue has had her hands full organizing sign-on lettersrom diverse constituents in MT, OR, CA, AZ, NM, CO, ID and WAo key Congressional ofces articulating broad support for LRT.ue and Bethanie also spent a week in DC educating new and old

Congressional supporters about the importance of this program toreen jobs, clean water and recreational access.

o increase support for Legacy Roads and rightsizing, WildlandsCPR partnered with Geos Institute on a series of maps illustratinghe connections between roads and clean water. We used our rstproof of concept maps in presentations at USDA, on the Hill,nd with some new potential partners. The maps will become a

owerful tool for making links between clean water and roads aswe are able to add more municipalities to the mix.

h pjcS

in addition to our LRT eld monitoring, Adam S. is coordinaour road reconnaissance surveys on the Lolo National FoUnfortunately, we may not be able to nalize our agree

with the Lolo until Congress passes a FY11 budget. Were hothe project will be funded so we can continue to provide infotion for the agencys rightsizing process.

During the winter, Adam focused on data analysis and buithe scientic basis for our advocacy, including submitting pafor publication in peer-reviewed journals. For starters, Adam

authored a paper published in the March 2011 issue of Restion Ecology, Restoration of Native Plant Communities after RDecommissioning in the Rocky Mountains: Effect of Seed-Mix Cposition on Vegetative Establishment, (the lead author was AsGrant, who recently completed her Masters at University of Mtana). He also partnered with former board member/UniversMontana professor Cara Nelson to nalize analysis and subpaper to Biological Conservation about wildlife response to removal on the Clearwater National Forest. In addition, Ais partnering with The Nature Conservancy on a climate chacall to action paper that they will submit for publication soo

Wildlands CPR also hired several contractors to help develop

business plans for our future restoration work. Betsy Hands pleted a plan for a restoration training and certication progrelated to road reclamation/stormproong/critical maintenaAdam R. is overseeing next steps in implementing that planaddition, Ryan Atwell completed a strategic action plan foveloping Payment for Ecosystem Services programs to seprivate dollars to reclaim unneeded forest roads in watershedsprovide municipal drinking water. The maps we developedGeos Institute will be critical for this ecosystem markets projec

Wildlands CPR continues to monitor wildlife use of restored roads on thClearwater National Forest. Wildlands CPR photo.

The minimum road system

analysis, taking place between

now and 2015, is one of the most

important opportunities in the

past generation to improve forest

and watershed health.

rom an on-the-ground perspective, Science Program DirectorAdam Switalski is knee-deep in planning and hiring for the sum-mer eld season and year two of our LRT monitoring program. Lastear we conducted baseline monitoring on ve different nationalorests, and this year well go back to those same sites for the rstear of post-decommissioning monitoring, while ideally also add-ng at least two more sites. This project has the full support of theS, and Northern Regional Forester Leslie Weldon.



AroUnDthe office

The big news from Missoula this quarter is that we moved to a new ofce! Itwasnt a big move distance-wise, just one block, but it was a very big moveofce-wise. Our old ofce, though fun and funky, had severe limitations on

atural light. Our new ofce is a bit of a dream, with east and north light stream-ng into (almost) every ofce! Were sharing the space with Missoulas Commu-ity Food and Agriculture Coalition a coalition working to address communityeeds related to food and agriculture in a creative and comprehensive way.

Welcmen the last RIPorter we announced the departure of two of our long-time boardmembers who had reached their term-limits Cara Nelson and Jim Furnish.While of course theyre irreplaceable, we still have to replace them. Wereleased to announce the addition of Jack Tuholske and Dave Heller to Wildlands

CPRs board. Due to prior obligations and projects, Dave wont be ofcially join-ng our board until May, but Jack joined us in February.

ack is an environmental attorney in Missoula, Montana. Since graduating fromhe University of Montana School of Law with honors in 1985, Jack has beenn private practice in Missoula, Montana, with an emphasis on public interestnvironmental litigation in state and federal court in Montana and the West. Heas been lead counsel for over 45 published decisions, including over a dozenuccessful cases at the Montana Supreme Court. These cases span environmen-al, land use, water, constitutional, and natural resource management law. Inecognition of his work on behalf of public interest groups, Jack was awarded the

William O. Douglas Award by the Sierra Club in 2002 and the Kerry RydbergAward in 2010 by the University of Oregon Public Interest Environmental LawConference. More recently, Jack has combined teaching with his practice. Heas taught a variety of courses and lectured frequently at The University of Mon-

ana and Vermont Law School. Jack has represented Wildlands CPR on severalases in the past, including one ongoing case against the Beaverhead-DeerlodgeNational Forest over winter travel planning.

Dave recently retired from the Forest Services Pacic Northwest Region, whereis most recent position was Regional Program Leader for the Forest Service Fishnd Aquatic Resource Program in the Pacic Northwest. During his work with

he Forest Service he was involved in several international projects, includingwatershed restoration (mostly related to salmon) in British Columbia, Russia andMexico. He also worked on several Forest Service partnership and cost sharerograms for sh and aquatic resources, serving on the boards of Wolftree and

he Native Fish Society. He currently serves on the Oregon Fish Passage Taskorce, an advisory group to the Director of the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife. Were also happy to report that Dave was very involved in the regionalmplementation of the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative, one ofWildlands CPRs signature campaigns. Dave will be joining Wildlands CPRsoard in May 2011.

Were delighted to have them both on board, and are looking forward to theirarticipation in our June board meeting.

As mentioned in the program updates, WildlCPR has recently put together an Oregon AdvCommittee. The members of the committee Wildlands CPR Board member and Western ronmental Law Center attorney Susan Jane Bro

Bark Executive Director Alex Brown (no relatThe Freshwater Trusts Brett Brownscomb, ChaLeGue from Oregon Wild, and Trout UnlimiAlan Moore. Sarah has been talking with eacthe OR advisory members to help set her Oreagenda and we are very appreciative to have their support! Thank you.

ThanksWed like to extend a big thank you to the BFiredoll, and High Stakes Foundations for their erous support for our restoration program. We

also very thankful to all of you who participateour annual gifts campaign. While we didnt quite as much as we hoped, we did raise enoto make a big difference in our budget. Ancourse, its never too late. So if you forgot to sedonation at the end of 2010, dont hesitate to one in now, instead!

The northern Rockies has enjoyed an abundanceof snowfall this winter. Wildlands CPR le photo.



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 contributiondirectly into action and reduces our

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

effective network.

Making Your Gift Easier

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

tain a record of each gift; we will alsosend a year-end tax receipt for your

records.

Our Promise To You

You maintain complete control overyour donation. To change or cancel

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

Name

Street

City, State,

Zip

Email

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Type of Membership:

Thank you for your support!

Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge

$10/Month (minimum)

Payment Option #1:

Electronic Funds Transfer

from Checking Account

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

from my checking account once per month.

$5/Month $10/Month

Please include a voided check. All information will be kept conden-

tial. Transfers will be processed on the rst Friday of each month, orthe following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.

NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation,

please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your

check to the address below.

Charge my: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___ American Express

Credit Card Number: _______________________________

CSC Number: ________________ *(see below)

Expiration date: _____________________________

Signature: ________________________________________

* The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is notpart of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a creditcard (usually in the signature eld).

Please send this form and your payment option to:

Wildlands CPR P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, Montana 59807


24/24

Photo by Laurel H

Recreational development is a job not of

building roads into lovely country, but of

building receptivity into the still unlovely

human mind.

Aldo Leopold

road riporter 16.1

Documents