Summer Solstice 2005.

Volume 10 # 2

Travel Management:
A Success Story in the Gold Belt
By Vera Smith

Inside…
Travel Management Success in the Gold
Belt, by Vera Smith. Pages 3-5
Odes to Roads: Caught in the
Headlights, by Eliza Murphy.
Pages 6-7
Policy Primer: Partnerships, by Marnie
Criley. Pages 8-9
Get with the Program: Restoration &
Transportation Program Updates.
Pages 10-11
Depaving the Way, by Bethanie
Walder. Pages 12-13
Biblio Notes: Effects of Roads and ORVs
on Reptiles, by Allison Clark.
Pages 14-16
Citizen Spotlight: Scott Stouder, by
Kiffin Hope. Page 17
Regional Reports. Pages 18-19
Field Notes: Guidelines for Citizen
Scientists, by Katherine Court.
Pages 20-21
Around the Office, Membership info.
Pages 22-23

Check out our website at: The Shelf Road winds amongst the cliffs and shrublands of the Gold Belt Planning Area.
www.wildlandscpr.org Photo by Dave Walker, Bureau of Land Management.
 P.O. Box 7516

D
Missoula, MT 59807
uring the last quarter, roadless protection and the six-year transportation fund- (406) 543-9551
ing bill have both sprung back to life. While technically these two issues are www.wildlandscpr.org
completely separate, they both relate to public road management and have the
potential to impact our work. Please read our update on the latest changes to the road-
Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore
less rule, on page 19.
wildland ecosystems by preventing and
Congress is now finalizing plans for highway construction, maintenance, public trans-
removing roads and limiting motorized
portation funding, wildlife mitigation and many other things as they discuss final terms of
recreation. We are a national clearinghouse
a new federal highways bill. In early May, the Senate passed “SAFETEA,” the Senate ver-
and network, providing citizens with tools
sion of the six year authorizing bill for federal highway projects. The House had passed
and strategies to fight road construction,
TEA-LU a few months earlier, so now the two bills have gone to a conference committee,
where conferees will fight over which components of which bills will end up in the final
deter motorized recreation, and promote road
product. Much is on the chopping block that shouldn’t be, and many other things are not
removal and revegetation.
on the chopping block when they should be. The negotiations will certainly be difficult.
Wildlands CPR and our partners are particularly concerned about several provisions,
Director
while we support others. Here’s a brief list of the problematic items: Bethanie Walder
• The House bill doubles funding for the recreational trails program over the six
year life of the bill; Development Director
• Both bills allocate funding for Public Lands Highways, including $250 million per Tom Petersen
year for turning forest roads into forest highways;
• The Senate bill includes an additional $60 million per year for additional forest Restoration Program
road upgrades, targeting a subset of the 67,000 miles of level 4 and 5 roads on FS lands; Coordinator
• Both bills have language that could fundamentally change current protections Marnie Criley
provided by section 4f of the Transportation Act, which forces state or federal depart-
ments of transportation to limit impacts of road construction on local, state or federal Science Coordinator
parklands. Adam Switalski

On the bright side, the bill includes language that would allow the FHWA and state Transportation Policy
DOTs to spend more money on wildlife crossing structures and fish passage, critically Organizer
needed mitigation tools for restoring connectivity between habitat fragmented by high- Jason Kiely
ways.
In addition to these two critical federal issues related to roads, we expect that the Program Assistant
new National Outdoor Recreation Policy Act will be released sometime in June. Please Kiffin Hope
stay tuned to our website for more information about all of these federal actions and what
you can do to impact them. Newsletter
In the meantime, take a look at this issue of the RIPorter, where we raise questions Dan Funsch
and opportunities related to partnerships, discuss new field monitoring techniques, and
include an excerpt from an excellent essay about roadkill from Eliza Murphy. Happy Sum-
mer Solstice Reading! Interns & Volunteers
Allison Clark, Katherine Court, Noah Jackson,
Stephanie Naftal, Gordon Naranjo

Board of Directors
Amy Atwood, Karen DiBari, Greg Fishbein,
Jim Furnish, William Geer, Dave Havlick, Cara
Nelson, Sonya Newenhouse, Matt Skroch

Advisory Committee
Jasper Carlton, Dave Foreman,
Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach,
Marion Hourdequin, Kraig Klungness, Lorin Lind-
ner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie
Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Steve Trombulak,
Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

Spring thunderstorm brewing on the Madison River, Montana. Photo by Dan Funsch. © 2005 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005

Travel Management:
A Success Story in the Gold Belt
By Vera Smith

B
etween Canon City and Victor, Colorado is a
little-known region referred to locally as the
Gold Belt. Similar to many other BLM areas,
the Gold Belt’s 564,600 acres of shrublands, gulches,
cliffs, and high grassy balds are mixed into a com-
plicated mosaic of ranches, subdivisions, city parks,
and federal lands. The federal lands, totaling about
139,000 acres, provide some of the most rugged and
wildlife-rich country in the region, with mountain li-
ons, peregrines, Mexican spotted owls, leopard frogs,
and bighorn sheep.
Included within the Gold Belt planning area
is the Gold Belt Tour National Scenic and Historic
Byway, and the Garden Park Area of Critical Environ- The rugged lands of the Gold Belt area are rich in biological and cultural history.
Photo by Dave Walker, BLM.
mental Concern (ACEC), which is also designated
as a Research Natural Area and a National Natural
Landmark. The planning area also includes the
renowned Shelf Climbing area, the Beaver Creek Wilderness Study Area
and two additional ACECs. Garden Park contains world-class dinosaur Citizens Team Up
fossils as well as a buckwheat plant species that is listed as sensitive, Supported by 13 prisons, Canon City and
and in decline. As often seems the case in southern Colorado, off-road Fremont County have not traditionally been strong-
vehicles have adopted these paleontologically and botanically sensi- holds for the conservation community. However,
tive locales as play areas, resulting in an unfortunate confluence of over the years a handful of citizens have grouped
incompatible interests. together to fight for wilderness designation and
The majority of the lands in the Gold Belt Planning Area were oppose proposals that would damage important
zoned in 1996 to limit OHV use to existing routes. Since then, OHV use conservation lands. When we found out about
(including extreme jeeping) and target shooting have led to user-cre- BLM’s travel management planning in the Gold Belt,
ated routes which are damaging dinosaur fossils and river health, and, we contacted this core group and developed an ac-
in some places, creating dangerous conditions. In addition, the BLM tion plan. Our plan roughly consisted of early and
purchased some significant inholdings that required they develop a consistent interactions with BLM staff, developing
plan to guide visitor use, and so the BLM decided to initiate a travel a Citizens Management Alternative, and broadening
management planning process. our small group to incorporate other local land us-
ers such as equestrians and trail runners.
Our first step was to subdivide the planning
area into logical sub-areas, and then character-
ize the current condition of each by the types of
recreational experiences and condition of the land.
We did this by collating resource information with
expert local knowledge on specific routes, impacts,
and areas. We put together detailed GIS maps
showing riparian areas, perennial streams, Colorado
Natural Heritage Program element occurrences and
Potential Conservation Areas, and Colorado Division
of Wildlife big game and fish data. For the entire
planning area and for each sub-area, we crafted a
Desired Future Condition (DFC) that spelled out a vi-
sion for management, detailing desired recreational

Small Gulch in The Gulches area. Photo courtesy of

Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition. — continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005 3

 — continued from page 3 —
settings and experiences, ecological conditions,
and management styles. From this step flowed the
development of management objectives and tasks
for each area, including specific route recommenda-
tions.
The BLM met with members of our group
several times, beginning long before they initiated
scoping. These meetings gave us the opportunity to
share our approaches, priorities, and concerns, and
to learn how the BLM intended to carry out their
process, as well as what they were thinking about
certain areas and routes — points to which we
could rally our troops to either reinforce the BLM’s
approach, or urge them to shift it.
Notably, the Royal Gorge Field Office hired a
full-time transportation planner, whose sole job
was to coordinate the Gold Belt travel manage-
ment planning process. Moreover, the Field Office
manager made it clear to the staff and the public
that transportation planning was a priority. These
two factors were critical in developing a timely and
well-conceived plan.
Because our core group was so small (and be-
cause the ORV community in and around Canon City
was so large, relatively), it was imperative that we
broaden our ranks. Through word of mouth, finding
friends of friends, reaching out to key community
members we didn’t know, and leaving flyers at the
climbing area, we forged links to the local trailrun-
ners, Audubon Society, and Colorado Backcountry
Horsemen Association. We included these new-
found allies in subsequent meetings held to refine
the Citizens Management Alternative.
Strong Science and Solid
Process are the Keys to Success
The BLM, for its part, was serious about
transportation planning. It was clear from the start
that the Field Office staff had great affection for the
lands entrusted to their management, and wanted to
address the growing problems responsibly and sci-
entifically. The difficulty was that they did not know
how to conduct travel management or recreation
planning, and had little guidance from the state or
Washington offices (not to mention funding).
Photo by Dave Walker, BLM.
4 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
Petrified Sequoia trees are found in the area.
Photo courtesy of National Park Service.
We provided a template for planning: establishing DFCs and man-
agement goals, objectives, and tasks to achieve them, as well as stan-
dards to ensure they would be maintained. The BLM provided staff
expertise in fisheries, hydrology, soil science, wildlife, wilderness, and
GIS, and developed an analytical approach for assessing the ecological
benefit and cost of current routes (legal and illegal) and cumulative
route systems.
The BLM analyzed the impacts of the no action, low use, medium
use, and high use alternatives on factors such as core interior habi-
tat; wildlife habitat including winter range and calving areas; visual
resources; watershed condition focusing on riparian zones; route
density; natural quiet; fossil resources; and threatened and endangered
species.
In addition to using GIS analysis to find an appropriate mix of
recreational access and ecological protection, the Royal Gorge Field Of-
fice was proactive and effective in the way it handled public outreach.
In contrast to many other offices who fear the controversy that travel
management planning invites, this office developed a public outreach
process that seemed to reduce controversy, or at least keep it at a
manageable level.
The Field Office manager integrated the Resource Advisory
Council into the process by creating a subcommittee that would help
contact the public as well as digest the public input. This subcommit-
tee and the BLM interdisciplinary team (ID team) put together a short
list of 43 people who were interviewed by a team consisting of one
BLM staff person and one RAC member. In addition to these personal
interviews, BLM conducted scoping by soliciting comment through a
federal register notice, mailed notices, and a public meeting.
Lastly, and importantly, the BLM ID team orga-
nized two Saturday field trips: one for the motorized
community and another for the non-motorized and
conservation communities. The BLM brought the
participants to locations where easy solutions were
not obvious, and asked for ideas. From our perspec-
tive, these field trips were key. Not only did the BLM
staff teach us about their approach and share their
concerns and challenges, but they also gave us an op-
portunity to reciprocate. Moreover, we had a chance
to explore trouble areas together, and acquire a field
sense for the overall planning area.
 Before publishing the final environmental assessment, the BLM
held two public meetings at which they presented the basic frame-
work of the GIS analysis and provided examples of the algorithms
used to determine which route segments were problematic for specific
resources (e.g., labeled as highly problematic for watershed health).
They placed ten stations around the room with large maps showing
the GIS output for specific resources, and members of the ID team
explained the approach and the output at each station. The BLM did
not “dumb down” their presentation, nor did they bore people with
powerpoint presentations on NEPA flowcharts. Instead, staff took the
time to walk the audience through a complicated process, and by do-
ing so, provided some level of assurance that decisions were neither
arbitrary nor ill-considered.
Where the Plan Fell Short
Although the Royal Gorge’s first attempt at travel/recreation
planning deserves kudos, it clearly was a learning process. To our
knowledge, they are the first office in the Southern Rockies region to
identify Desired Future Conditions for sub-areas and an entire planning
area. However, the DFC descriptions lacked development and breadth.
Recognizing this, the Royal Gorge Office is improving these statements
in their next travel management planning process.
Also absent in the plan were three important, and linked, compo-
nents: a capacity model, a detailed monitoring plan, and an outreach
strategy. The BLM staff understood the need to integrate a capacity
model into the plan (an estimation of the amount of use that a particu-
lar landscape or site can handle before it begins to decline), but simply
didn’t know how to go about doing it. Because they did not want to
include an inadequate model (and potentially face legal action), they
opted to not address the issue of capacity and adaptive management
at all. Related to this is the absence of a strong monitoring plan and
outreach strategy. A travel management plan without built-in mecha-
nisms to address movement away from the DFC is all bark and no bite.
The plan should set out monitoring requirements, including timelines,
indicators, thresholds, and consequent management actions. Inform-
ing the public about how, when, and where they can access public
lands, the importance of personal responsibility in complying with the
plan, and the benefits to
the community that will
result are also integral
to success. I have yet to
see a travel management
plan that has an ade-
quate outreach strategy
(or one at all).
Garden Park/Dinosaur Fossil Area.
Head of Trail
Gulch.
Photos courtesy of
Central Colorado
Wilderness
Coalition.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
Trail Gulch Road. Photo courtesy of Central Colorado
Wilderness Coalition.
The final decision did not remove the camping/
firewood gathering/game retrieval buffers that exist
in most land management plans today, but instead
reduced them to 100 feet. Removing these buf-
fers altogether would go a long way in curbing the
continuous creep of illegal ORV routes across our
public lands. We argued strongly, although unsuc-
cessfully, to remove these buffers and replace them
with periodically widened road segments where
vehicles can park parallel to the road.
Lessons Learned
Lesson 1: The reason the Gold Belt planning
effort was a success (in that the BLM used a sound
process to reach a reasonable decision, not neces-
sarily that the most conservation-oriented alter-
native was chosen) was because the Field Office
Manager provided direction to his staff that travel
management was a priority, and that resource
conservation was the driver. To that end, he estab-
lished an ID team and hired a full-time transporta-
tion planner. (Notably, since then, he has hired a
full time monitoring coordinator as well.) Because
the Field Office was prepared to make some serious
changes to protect resources and experiences, the
investment by the conservation community really
paid off. This may not be the case if the Field Man-
ager is not prepared to address the issue of unfet-
tered ORV use in a substantial and effective way.
Lesson 2: We need to invest our resources into
developing capacity modeling approaches that will
work and be legally defensible, yet can be practi-
cally implemented in the field with existing staff. A
travel management plan without teeth can only be
so effective.
Lesson 3: Pick the travel management plans in
which to invest time and resources, and then really
do it. We are most effective when we engage land
managers pre-scoping, and continue to interact
closely with them until the decision is signed (some
groups, if they have the resources, develop pro-
grams to help with and/or monitor plan implementa-
tion).
— Vera Smith is Conservation Director for the
Colorado Mountain Club.
5
Caught in the Headlights
By Eliza Murphy
A
s I drove home late one night, my headlights
illuminated a motionless lump in my lane.
It was a red fox. This was no place to end a
life. I stopped, got out of my car and lifted the body.
It was a recent kill, warm and softer than anything I
had ever touched. No wonder people wear fur coats,
I thought. They ought to wear them outside in, with
nothing on underneath.
It draped over my hands, its head as floppy as
a newborn’s. I carried it down the bank and placed
it beneath a thicket. I left an aster on its breathless
body.
A few years later, in graduate school in St. Paul,
Minn., my private devotional practice became an ob-
session. I could not get roadkill out of my thoughts.
I had to know how many animals got hit each day.
Did cars put certain species at risk? Did anyone out
there care enough to do something about it?
I headed west in my aging Volvo with a shovel
in my trunk, a new notebook, pens, and a yearning
to find people who were doing something with or
about roadkill. I stopped in all sorts of places — sa-
loons, flea markets, fish and wildlife offices, highway
department garages, diners, art galleries and natural
history museums. I went by hunches. I positioned
myself on the fringe.
My brief encounters nudged me through a tiny
door and into something big: a growing network
of professionals devoted to exploring the complex
relationship between human beings and animals
that is created by roads. This work would consume
much of the next decade of my life, as I drove tens
of thousands of miles and talked to hundreds of
people. I wrecked the front end of my Volvo twice,
once hitting a buck and later, a fawn. I removed at
least a thousand dead animals from the road.
Along the way, I found not only tragedy, but also
people who were devoted to preventing roadkill.
I also learned a new language, one made of sinew,
muscle, bone, feather, blood and gristle.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
I knew when I saw the
“Welcome to the Snake Pit” sign
on biologist Randy Babb’s office
door that my hunch had been
correct: There was a treasure at
the Arizona Department of Game
and Fish in Mesa.
Photo by Forest McMullin, At the Edge
As I walked into Babb’s of- collection.
fice, a small rattlesnake shook its
tail at me from its glass house on the floor, and a turtle crawled around
inside a nearby cardboard box. Mounted quail with their question-
mark headdresses adorned the wall. Stacks of paper and towers of
books hid his desktop.
Babb looked like the kind of person I’d trust to take me on a safari,
or a trek into the desert. Trim, clean-shaven and bespectacled, he wore
hiking boots, sensible long pants, and a white button-down shirt. As
the department’s Information and Education Program manager, Babb’s
innate inquisitiveness about all things that squirm, slither, hop, crawl
and fly — even after they’ve stopped moving around — serves him
well.
Over the course of several years, I’ve tagged along with Babb as
he trapped bats, lifted the walls of caved-in buildings to chase lizards,
climbed into a dry cistern to retrieve a desert shrew – and caught a
myriad of insects to feed that shrew, whose fuel needs rivaled those of
the most ridiculous status symbols clogging the roadways. But some of
the most interesting moments have come driving around in search of
what he calls “cool dead stuff.”
Only a trained eye can distinguish between a stick and a snake
from the driver’s seat. Babb, a herpetologist — someone who studies
reptiles and amphibians — has an uncanny ability to tell the difference,
even at 40 miles an hour.
During the late-summer monsoon season, Babb checks the In-
ternet frequently to watch for storms forming. With his truck packed
with the tools of his trade — snake tongs, pillowcases, buckets, and
boxes for both live and dead animals — he heads for the areas where
a few drops of rain could coax all sorts of creatures out of hiding. He
sustains his high energy with Dr. Pepper and the gooey orange candy
called Circus Peanuts. All food is the same, he says, “microbially speak-
ing.”
 Some roadkills he gives to schoolteachers, or uses in the educa-
tional kits his department prepares for classrooms. “There’s a lot to be
learned from looking at animal parts, looking at the beaks of birds or
feet and figuring out what they do,” he says. “I usually salvage skulls
from roadkill. They’re a good way to learn about carnivores or herbi-
vores or omnivores, just looking at the dentition.”
Some of the fresher finds end up on his barbecue grill, while
others become meals for the snakes and other animals he keeps in a
room off his garage, some of them rescued from the roads. Interesting
roadkills go into his freezer. A gifted scientific illustrator, Babb prefers
to draw his subjects when they’re still. “Roadkill has always been a
good way to look at stuff that you never get in hand,” he says. “Birds
that you see flying over, or animals you just catch a glimpse at – when
they’re dead on the road you can look at them close.”
Road-killed animals can also serve as the “voucher specimens”
that tell scientists where certain species are found. In the 1980s, for
example, in the Santa Rita Mountains southeast of Tucson, Babb found
a Mexican opossum, an animal that he later saw a few miles south of
the U.S.-Mexico border, which debunked his initial theory that they had
been released by people in Arizona. He kept records of a number of
road-killed opossums, and he shared his unexpected findings with col-
leagues Dan Brown and Jack Childs, who had caught them on camera
while researching jaguars crossing the border.
After collecting records and taking pictures, they dug through the
archeological records and found an account of Mexican opossums in
Arizona as far back as the 1870s. The animal was alas mentioned in a
journal kept by a trapper in 1825. They concluded that the opossum
had likely arrived during a northern emigrations 200 years years ago
from northern Sonora, Mexico, along with javelinas and the raccoon-
like coatimundi.
I am happy to report that I have many more
stories to tell about people who are committed to
making it safe for animals to walk across this won-
drous spinning hunk of heaven to get a drink or find
a bite to eat. A species ingenious enough to invent
the automobile is certainly capable of devising the
means to allow animals to get where they need to
go, too.
While we work on this momentous task, I will
keep my pitchfork handy to scoop animals from the
asphalt and lay them to rest on the porous earth,
where their remains will nourish the living. I will
continue to offer my apologies, comforted by the
knowledge that there are others out there who feel
the same way.
— Eliza Murphy currently writes from Central Oregon.
She is uneasy about the miles she’s driven to gather
stories about road kill for a book she’s writing. Her
reverence for wildlife is visible in the shrines she
makes out of found objects, including leatherized
herps. She looks forward to ripping up some roads.
This essay is excerpted from a longer one that
appeared in High Country News on February 7, 2005.

Babb’s hunts for roadkill have given him other insights as well. He
says that for wildlife, cities are like bombs: The closer you are to the
epicenter, the more destructive the impact. The farther out you go, the
richer and more abundant the animal life becomes.

Roads suck the life out of wild places, he says. When rural roads
are first paved, they become great places to find cool dead stuff.
But that’s only true for a while; then the animal populations sink. He
describes a road near Maricopa where sidewinders were once so com-
mon that he stopped pulling over for every one. Today, it’s rare for him
to see one.

What causes the drop in numbers is open to speculation, he says.

Not surprisingly, wild animals shy away from busy roads, but part of
the decline in roadkill can probably be attributed to collectors. “The
people that field-collect reptiles will seek out these roads,” he says.
“The animals near the road get collected very quickly, especially any-
thing interesting or unusual.”

His remedy for roadkill? “Build less roads, and pave less roads.
Leave rural roads dirt, y’know, the ones that are there. There’s a lot of Photo by Forest McMullin, At the Edge collection.
other things that live here other than us, but we never, ever, give them
any thought.”
To see more images from At the Edge
point your browser to:
Like any romance, our love of the road offers mixed blessings
www.mcmullinphoto.com/gallery/attheedge3.
— exhilaration, thrills, escape, excitement, danger. Auto mobility
seduces us all with an illusion of freedom, but it comes at great cost,
For information regarding exhibition contact
and not only at the gas pump: A lot of blood spills for this intoxicating
forest@mcmullinphoto.com.
object of affection.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005 7

Partnering to Fund Wildland Restoration
By Marnie Criley
T
he Clearwater National Forest (CNF) in north-
central Idaho began a modest road removal
program in 1992, and due to limited funding
decommissioned less than 10 miles per year over
the next three years. Then, after a winter of severe
flooding and landslides in 1996, an unexpected
partner appeared: the Nez Perce Tribe had recently
received $350,000 from the Bonneville Power Admin-
istration, in part for road removal projects on the
CNF. Ira Jones, the Nez Perce’s Watershed Coordi-
nator, approached the Forest Supervisor with “an
offer you can’t refuse.” The tribe and the forest had
taken on projects together in the past, so they al-
ready had a good working relationship. Now, nearly
ten years later, the road removal partnership still
thrives, removing about 40 miles of roads per year.
One of the biggest obstacles to road removal is
a lack of funding. Funding for road decommission-
ing on Forest Service lands, for example, usually
comes from watershed, fisheries and wildlife, or
road maintenance funds, all of which are scarce and
in high demand. For the Forest Service, forming a
partnership with a nonprofit group, or a state or
An example of a typical decommissioned road reach in the Headwaters Forest
Reserve, California. Photo by David Fuller, BLM.
8 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
tribal agency is one way to leverage additional fund-
ing — non-federal partners have access to funds
that federal agencies do not (see RIPorter 8.1). Part-
nerships are often the best, and sometimes the only,
way to get road removal and restoration projects
underway. Below are a few examples of successful
federal and non-federal entities partnering up to
restore wildlands.
Nez Perce Tribe/Clearwater
National Forest
The unique quality of the relationship between
the Nez Perce and the CNF is that it works in all
aspects as a partnership, not simply for obtaining
funding. From project planning to completion the
tribe and the Forest Service are in constant commu-
nication, and both sides work with the assumption
that nothing will go forward unless it is to the mu-
tual satisfaction of both. “That’s probably why it is
so successful, because we’re planning it, designing
it, and doing the monitoring and all of that together,
so every phase of the project is a true partnership”
says Ira Jones. Former CNF Forest Supervisor Jim
Caswell sums up the forest’s position by saying
that if the CNF had to cut programs because of
limited funding, the road-decommissioning program
would be the last to go. The Nez Perce tribe is now
expanding its partnerships and projects to other
national forests, such as the Umatilla and the Nez
Perce National Forests.
Headwaters Forest Reserve –
Northern California
The Pacific Coast Fish, Wildlife and Wetlands
Restoration Association (PCFWWRA) was estab-
lished after the northern California salmon fishery
crashed and the region received federal funding
for displaced salmon fishermen. In 1998 PCFWWRA
began assessing sediment sources in the private
Headwaters timberland area and in March 1999 the
US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game acquired the
7,400-acre Headwaters Forest Reserve. PCFWWRA
helped prioritize the worst sources of sediment and
since that time has worked with the Department of
Fish and Game, BLM, the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, the Water Resources Control Board,
 An excavator and dump truck work to decommission a Headwaters Reserve road. Because of its
erodibility, much of the road material must be transported to high ridges, above water sources.
Photo by David Fuller, BLM.
Green Diamond Resource Company (formerly Simpson timber
company) and others to decommission over 28% of the exist-
ing roads in the watershed assessment area. PCFWWRA has
been able to bring in California fisheries restoration funds to
help leverage BLM funds — according to Mitch Farro of PCF-
WWRA, partnering is the only way to get this work done.
Karuk Tribe/Six Rivers National Forest
– Northern California
The Karuk Tribe and the Six Rivers National Forest
(SRNF) have an established road removal partnership that
began in 1998 when the Tribe initiated its Tribal Restoration
Division. The Steinacher road on the SRNF seemed an ideal
start-up project because it was a high priority road to remove
for salmon restoration, an issue deeply important to the
tribe. The tribe secured funding and then approached the
Forest Service. The two entities already had a solid relation-
ship after working on fisheries projects together for a decade,
and the Forest Service agreed to the project. (For more on
the Steinacher Road project, see Road RIPorter Volume 7, #4,
2002.)
The success of that initial project has led to many others,
including the Ishi Pishi Watershed Restoration Project, which
also includes Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) as
a partner. The Karuk tribe and Forest Service collaboratively
developed the project, which involved decommissioning an
unnecessary and eroding road and training tribal equipment
operators and laborers. RCAA provided detailed training in
native revegetation techniques and helped leverage the fund-
ing for the project. This is one of the only training programs
of its kind — in which tribes are training their own members
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
to do restoration work, providing an expanded, skilled local
workforce for restoration projects. Both sides benefit from
this partnership: the tribe has a hand in the management of
ancestral lands, while the Forest Service receives funding as-
sistance from the tribe. The partnership has made the water-
shed restoration program successful by defraying expenses,
generating jobs, and creating local acceptance of the projects.
Conclusion
At this point in time, some of the most successful road
removal programs involve partnerships. Partnerships can
involve federal agencies, tribes, state wildlife or environmen-
tal quality agencies, local watershed groups, water boards,
conservation districts, conservation groups, and local job
programs. The underlying benefits include increased funding,
an expanded pool of skilled workers, and community benefits
(such as employment) that help generate a positive local at-
titude toward road decommissioning.
The advice that the Nez Perce tribe gives for starting
partnerships is to start modestly, building relationships first.
Persistence and patience are essential. Also, stay positive:
it takes a long time to develop strong partnerships, and you
have to ignore possible conflicts outside the project boundar-
ies. That is why a trusting, personal relationship is neces-
sary: to carry the project past the rough spots and not take
the glitches personally.
For more information on forming partnerships to leverage
funding and create positive restoration projects, contact Marnie
Criley at Wildlands CPR. Also see www.wildlandscpr.org/
roads/RRtoolkit.htm.
9
Transportation Program Update
T
he Transportation Program has been preparing for the surge of
travel planning that is expected to follow the release of the Forest
Service’s new off-road vehicle regulations. In addition to vying for
additional resources to increase grassroots capacity, Wildlands CPR has
been developing organizing and policy strategies that play to conserva-
tionists’ strengths and minimize our vulnerabilities.
Forest Service Off-Road Vehicle Regulations
The Forest Service has been further delayed from releasing their final
off-road vehicle regulations. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
opted not to review the draft regulations, but after 81,000 public comments
they now believe the rule raises significant legal or policy issues and they
are taking a closer look.
In the meantime, the Forest Service is hurtling towards unsupported
public “collaborations” to designate roads, routes, and trails at the forest
and ranger district levels. In April, Forest Service Chief Bosworth spoke at
a “National OHV Collaboration Summit,” and although the agency only pre-
sented a couple of effective collaboration case studies, they are advancing
collaborative processes as the preferred decision-making model. When
Wildlands CPR asked the Chief if the agency will seek dedicated funds to
train staff and support collaborative efforts, he replied, “No.”
Although they’ve been established illegally, user-created routes may be sanctioned by
land managers. Photo by Dan Funsch.
10
Promoting Citizen Monitoring
Wildlands CPR continues to support a
promising coalition of groups in southern Utah.
The Three-Forest Coalition is engaged in forest
and travel planning on the Manti-LaSal, Dixie,
and Fishlake National Forests — they conducted
a citizen monitoring workshop June 18-19 in the
wild Abajo Mountains outside of Monticello.
Contact Transportation Organizer Jason Kiely
(jason@wildlandscpr.org) if you’d like to learn
more.
Also, at the invitation of the American Hik-
ing Society, Wildlands CPR conducted a citizen
monitoring workshop at the Southeast Trails
Conference held in April at Table Rock State
Park in South Carolina.
Clearinghouse
Science Coordinator Adam Switalski has re-
plied to numerous information requests recently
on topics as diverse as the impacts of roads
on wetlands, and comparing ATVs with dirt-
bikes. This information has been shared with
conservation groups such as Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council, Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, Gifford Pinchot
Task Force, Center for Native Ecosystems, and
BARK; educational institutions such as Univer-
sity of Minnesota, the Yellowstone Institute, and
University of Washington; and from locations as
far away as Ireland and Pakistan.
Adam has also been increasing our visibility
through the restoration showcase on the Society
for Ecological Restoration website. This website
receives thousands of visits a day and shares
before and after restoration stories on their
homepage. Check out the achives at http://www.
ser.org/project_showcase.asp#ShowcaseListing
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
Restoration Program Update

W
ildlands CPR’s restoration program continues to pursue a suc-
cessful strategy that includes both national and local collab-
orative efforts, as well as promoting our road removal toolkit
to groups around the country.

Restoration Collaborative
This spring, the Restoration Steering Committee was reorganized as
the National Restoration Collaborative (NRC). We’ve been a part of this
group of environmental and community forestry representatives since its
inception in 2001. NRC’s mission is to create a restoration dialogue and
build a movement to advance ecologically and socio-economically sustain-
able forest and watershed restoration. The NRC works primarily to influ-
ence decision makers in the national policy arena, including key opinion
leaders in various interest groups, members of Congress, the administra-
tion, and officials in land management agencies. The collaborative’s new
incarnation will provide a more cohesive national voice for promoting
restoration.

The Collaborative’s three goals are:

1. Develop and influence restoration-related policy at the national
level;
2. Serve as a venue for dialogue between environmental and commu-
nity-based forestry groups; and,
3. Broaden the understanding of restoration and build agreements
around difficult issues surrounding restoration in order to take leadership
positions on restoration publicly.
The NRC has new members, a staff person and renewed energy and
looks forward to a productive year. Marnie is Chair of the “Restoration
Beyond Trees and Fire” working group. The working group’s plan for the
year is to conduct at least one media/Congressional field tour of a water-
shed restoration site in order to bring more national attention to non-tim-
ber restoration projects.
Road Removal
Upper Lolo Creek
Now that Wildlands CPR has created the road removal toolkit, we
will be testing it on-the-ground and begin promoting it. We are excited
about the prospect of utilizing the toolkit to ensure a successful 40-plus
mile road removal project for upper Lolo Creek near Lolo, Montana. The
Lolo Watershed Group will host community meetings and field trips to
engage local community members; Marnie will work with them to find
additional funding for the project in order to leverage federal funding (see
Policy Primer on utilizing partnerships to leverage funding). On June 15
Sungnome Madrone from Redwood Community Action Agency will lead a
one-day restoration workshop focusing on the upper Lolo Creek project.
Wildlands CPR envisions this project as a model for community-supported
road removal with ecological and economic benefits.
Research
Wildlands CPR’s Science Coordinator Adam Switalski continues to co-
ordinate road removal research, building our knowledge of this understud-
ied topic. This winter, Adam worked with Lisa Eby (University of Montana
Forestry professor) and Magnus McCaffery (UM Forestry PhD candidate)
on a study examining the effects of road decommissioning on bull tout.
They found some interesting preliminary results: Wilderness areas had
less cobble embeddedness (the extent that larger cobbles or gravel are
surrounded by or covered by fine sediment) than roaded areas. Cobble
embeddednes can suffocate trout eggs and trap developing embryos. The
Photo by Dan Funsch.
study also found suspended sediments to be
higher after piecemeal decommissionings than
when entire watersheds were decommissioned.
Thus, the data supports restoring entire water-
sheds, not just pieces here or there. Magnus
presented our results at the Montana Chapter
of the American Fisheries Society meeting (MT).
Adam presented the research at the Clark Fork
Symposium (MT) as well, and has submitted
an abstract for the Society for Conservation
Biology’s annual meeting this summer.
Citizen Science
Adam worked with Katherine Court (UM
Environmental Studies [EVST] student) and Len
Broberg (UM EVST professor) to develop a citi-
zen science protocol and strategize how to best
recruit citizen scientists. Katherine has finished
a draft protocol and sent it off for peer-review.
She and Adam are now contacting student and
community groups in Missoula and rural Idaho
where the decommissioning work is occurring.
If you are interested in monitoring removed
roads on the Clearwater National Forest please
contact Katherine at kcourt@gmail.com.
Adam also worked closely with Jolanta Gla-
bek (UM EVST student), who examined different
revegetation techniques following road removal
on the Mt. Hood National Forest. They created
and presented posters of her work at the Soil
and Water Conservation Society meeting (MT),
the Montana Chapter of the American Fisher-
ies Society meeting (MT), and the Northwest
Chapter of the Society for Ecological Restoration
meeting (WA).

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005 11

Partnerships and Privatization
By Bethanie Walder
A
t a speech in California in April, Forest Ser-
vice Chief Dale Bosworth boasted that while
spending only $500 million of its own mon-
ey, the Forest Service completed $1 billion worth of
work by partnering with private and non-profit enti-
ties. With declining budgets, especially for activities
that are not based on resource extraction, public
land management agencies have been forced to look
for alternate means of funding and public/private
partnerships have become a key source.
As an organization we have condemned pub-
lic/private partnerships because they can lead to
privatization of public lands, but in this issue of the
Road RIPorter, we raise the question: is it possible
to use partnerships to advance ecological principles
as well? Our policy primer (pages 8-9) discusses op-
portunities to increase restoration funding through
partnerships, and in this article we discuss some
of the pros and cons we’ve been debating as we
consider the partnership concept.
Partnerships: Pros and Cons
Pros
• Partnerships can bring funds to a public land management
agency to complete important work
• Public interest partnerships can steer limited agency funds
into critical restoration or habitat protection by requiring the
agency to match the non-federal funds
• Partnerships help change the community perception of
needed work, by engaging local community members in efforts
to restore or enhance public lands
Cons
• Partnership funding enables the congress to continue defund-
ing public land management agencies, as private entities pick
up the tab for public work
• Partnerships give private entities a certain amount of implicit
and sometimes explicit management authority over public lands
• Partnerships can provide economic incentives to manage pub-
lic lands for private profit, leading to the privatization of nature
• Pertnerships transform the government’s role from looking
after the interests of all Americans to promoting the interests of
its partners
12
To begin, there is no debating the fact that
multiple privatization efforts are coming together,
and they have the potential to dramatically change
the future of our “public” lands. For instance, the
Bush Administration has been aggressively out-
sourcing all sorts of federal tasks, while reducing
appropriated funds for good land management and
stewardship. Also, Congress recently formalized
the recreation fee demonstration program for Forest
Service and BLM lands.
Recreation is at the vanguard of many other
privatization schemes: companies like Walt Disney
now offer vacation tours in Yellowstone and other
national parks. The American Recreation Coalition
continues to develop partnerships with federal
agencies to advance their “pay to play” philosophy
and their motorized recreation agenda. These
changes are leading to more developed recreation,
and they are being forced, in part, by funding short-
falls precipitated by a Congress hell-bent on chang-
ing public land management.
These privatization efforts are fairly straightfor-
ward, as are land exchanges or proposals to divest
the public lands. Public/private partnerships, on
the other hand, seem more innocuous on their
face, but are they? In mid-May, the Congressional
Research Service released a report on “Quasi-Gov-
ernmental” organizations and their influence on
public policy and democracy. The report raises a
key philosophical issue: “Thus, the emergence and
growth of the quasi government can be viewed as
either a symptom of a decline in our democratic
system of governance or as a harbinger of a new,
creative management era where the principles of
market behavior are harnessed for the general well-
being of the nation.” According to the CRS report,
partnerships are particularly indicative of privatiza-
tion. “Critics believe that the historic wall between
the governmental and private sectors is being
breached not merely as a managerial convenience,
but as a matter of policy; so rather than a wall,
entrepreneurs are forging a web of public/private
partnerships.”
Because they often involve cost-share agree-
ments, partnerships can be used by a private entity
to leverage scarce agency resources to support
their management agenda. For example, if an off-
road vehicle group partners with the Forest Service
to develop or harden trails, they ensure that public
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005

How far will land managers go to accomodate “helpful”
private constituencies? Photo by Dan Funsch.
money is invested in the project, too. Or, if KOA
puts up money to develop an RV accessible camp-
ground, they are likely to “win” the concession to
run it, and then keep the revenue. It’s not often that
you can get free land for private ventures, but many
public/private recreation partnerships now work
that way. With appropriated funds for recreation
and restoration at an all-time low, private funds and
partnerships have become a critical source for the
agencies and dramatically affect what type of activi-
ties the agencies are investing in and promoting.
It then stands to reason — if, through partner-
ships, we bring money to federal agencies to benefit
public resources instead of projects that generate
private profit, would this slow the trend toward
privatization and help agencies reaffirm steward-
ship priorities? While conservationists have fought
some partnerships and their management implica-
tions, the battles have been challenging and we are
not winning — advancing a different type of partner-
ship might have the potential to shift the debate.
On the other hand, it also has the potential to create
“greenwashed” partnerships, a clear risk in such a
strategy.
What do good partnerships look like on the
ground? The Nez Perce Tribe currently provides ap-
proximately 50% of the funding for the road removal
and watershed restoration program on the Clear-
water National Forest (CNF). While this is a unique
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
partnership because of the tribe’s treaty rights to
the land, it is still a valued public interest partner-
ship promoting restorative management. It does
not provide monetary profit to the tribe. Former
CNF Supervisor Jim Caswell said that if the CNF
had to cut programs because of limited funding, the
road-decommissioning program would be the last to
go. The example raises a reasonable argument for
using the tools at hand to improve agency manage-
ment. After all, if, as the CRS report states, this is
becoming the new paradigm in management — and
we don’t participate — then special interests will
prevail.
The bottom line is that there is no easy answer
to this question. Public/private partnerships can
be used for the public benefit, for private profit, or
both. While some might argue it is a slippery slope,
Wildlands CPR is experimenting with this ques-
tion on a small scale with our citizen monitoring
program focusing on the benefits of road removal.
We’ll be fully implementing the program this sum-
mer on the Clearwater National Forest. We are also
continuing to work hard at the Congressional level
to ensure that the FS receives the budget it needs
to manage appropriately for both recreation and
restoration.
Check out the policy primer in this issue for
more ideas about experimenting with the partner-
ship approach. We’d also be very interested to hear
your concerns about it, as well as ideas for using
creative financing to leverage good work on pub-
lic lands without promoting privatization. At this
point, we’re not convinced that partnerships are
exclusively about privatization. We think there’s an
opportunity to use this tool to do good work on the
public lands. Perhaps, by playing the partnership
game, we can help the agencies do more with more.
The bottom line is that there is no easy
answer to this question.
Public/private partnerships
can be used for the public benefit,
for private profit, or both.
References
Moe, R.C. and K.R. Kosar. 2005. Quasi Govern-
ment: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government
and Private Sector Legal Characteristics. CRS report
RL30533. Washington DC.
13
 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles.
We offer bibliographic searches to help activists access
important biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies
of most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

Effects of Roads and Off-Road Vehicles on

Reptile Populations
By Allison Clark

Introduction Effects on Habitat

Much of the existing literature ex- ORVs can also reduce the quality tat found that roads created barriers
amining the effects of roads on wildlife and quantity of habitat. A 2003 study through previously contiguous habi-
communities has tended to focus on found a direct connection between tats, fragmenting them and separating
ungulates or large carnivores, perhaps disruption of native vegetation caused female turtles from their preferred
because they tend to cause the most by ORV use and decline in reptile popu- nesting habitats (Baldwin et al. 2004).
damage when involved in vehicular lations on the Owyhee Front (Munger Roads also help spread other dangers,
collisions. Roads and off-road vehicles et al. 2003). Heavily used ORV routes such as exotic vegetation, raven preda-
(ORVs) also have a profound impact on disrupted the native vegetation on tion, and collection by humans (Boa-
other species, however, including rep- which reptiles depend and caused a man et al. 1997).
tiles. Roads and ORVs result in direct subsequent increase in dense nonnative In addition to the fragmentation of
mortality, reduced habitat and frag- species like cheatgrass that are known habitat and destruction of food sources,
mentation, and behavioral and physi- to favor disturbed habitats. In addition, roads and ORVs contribute to a general
ological changes in reptiles. This paper the dense nature of the supplanting degradation of conditions that affect
reviews recent literature examining cheatgrass hindered reptile movement, all species in an ecosystem, includ-
road and ORV impacts on reptiles and making foraging, escaping from preda- ing reptiles (Spellerburg 1998, Maxell
assesses proposed methods of mitigat- tors, and moving through habitats more and Hokit 1999). Soil disruption from
ing negative impacts. difficult. ORV use can also destroy the road construction, runoff, and ORV
preferred food sources of reptiles like use causes increased sedimentation in
the tortoise that are highly selective adjoining aquatic habitats, impacting
Direct Mortality foragers (Jennings 1997). water quality (Maxell and Hokit 1999).
Roads and ORVs are directly re- Roads, too, can have undesirable Cars and ORVs can also contribute to
sponsible for the death of many reptile consequences for reptile habitat. A chemical contamination of the ecosys-
species (Garber and Burger 1995, Gibbs recent study on turtle nesting habi- tem (Maxell and Hokit 1999).
and Shriver 2002, Luchenbach and Bury
1983, Maxell and Hokit 1999, Speller-
berg 1998, Rudolph 2000.) Reptiles on
roads obviously risk being struck by
cars (Spellerberg 1998, Maxell and Hokit
1999), but ORVs also contribute directly
to reptile mortality. For example, in a
1983 study of ORV effects on the biota
of Algodones Dunes in Imperial County
California, Luchenbach and Bury (1983)
determined that there were frequent
encounters between ORVs and reptiles
that resulted in the animal’s death.
Also, although most incidences of road-
kill are accidental, it should be noted
that one researcher “demonstrated that
people will often turn their vehicles
towards . . . turtles to hit them inten-
tionally.” (D. Sheppard, pers. comm., in This healthy bull snake was enjoying the thermal gain offered by a well worn
Boarman et al. 1997) trail surface. Photo by Paul Shively.

14 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005

Effects on Populations
When habitats become fragmented, populations become
isolated and face a higher risk of local extinction. Shine et
al. (2004) found that if reptile species actively avoid roads
(which they may do because of the dangers roads pose to
individual survival) highway mortality may be minimized,
but fragmentation of local populations will occur. A study
on the efficacy of mitigation efforts on desert roads similarly
pointed to studies that had determined roads were barriers
to tortoise populations (Boarman and Sazaki 1996). Other
studies have also noted the dangers of inbreeding depression
for populations isolated by roads and road activity (Boar-
man et al. 1997, Spellerberg 1998.) Roads may also be more
dangerous to breeding females because of higher rates of
movement associated with their nesting migrations (Steen
and Gibbs 2004).

To be fair, not everyone has a problem with reptile roadkill!

Other Effects Photo by Paul Shively.
A number of other indirect impacts have also been
documented. Luchenbach and Bury (1983), for instance,
found an increase in the frequency of tail loss among lizards
following an increase in ORV activity in the area. Tail loss is an escape mechanism (Jackson and Griffin 2000; Hartman
usually correlated to predator density. This impact is significant because females 2002). However, more limited move-
without tales produce fewer eggs than those with tails. Tail loss could likely lead to ment and a lower capacity for learning
reduced survivorship and fecundity (Luchenbach and Bury 1983). may make underpasses less useful for
Maxell and Hokit (1999) also point to the noise generated by ORVs as a po- reptiles than for other small animals
tential problem. This noise may induce fear in many reptiles, whose instinctual (Rudolph 2000).
response is to freeze, thus increasing the likelihood they will be run over. Constant
exposure to loud noises may also result in hearing loss, making the animals less fit
to survive in the wild (Maxell and Hokit 1999). In Conclusion
Roads can also alter reptile behavior. Roads attract reptiles because the cold- Roads, road construction, and
blooded animals are attracted to the heat of road surfaces (Rosen and Lowe 1994). off-road vehicle use all pose signifi-
In desert ecosystems, roads are known to be favored by reptiles (especially snakes) cant dangers to wildlife. Though most
as thermoregulation sites (Rudolph 2000). This attraction to roads obviously puts studies have focused on mammals,
reptiles at risk for vehicle mortality. Other studies have demonstrated that male these forces also have consequences
iguanas are attracted to roads as display sites (Rodda 1990) and that female turtles for reptiles. The best proposal for
may be attracted to them for nesting purposes (Wood and Herlands 1997, March- protecting reptiles, if preventing road
and and Livatis 2004). However, although some of these effects could be argued construction or removing roads are not
to be beneficial, Rudolph (2000) points out that: “they also have the potential of options, seems to be a combination of
increasing road related mortality and exposure to pollutants to the detriment of barrier fencing to prevent reptiles from
populations.” getting on to roads, and underpasses
and/or culverts to allow individuals
free movement between habitats and
Strategies for Mitigation populations. This, coupled with mitiga-
There have been a number of studies in recent years assessing the viability of tion methods for other species, seems
strategies to mitigate the effects of roads. At present, there seem to be few or no to represent the best way to protect
studies suggesting mitigating strategies for ORVs; presumably then, at present the wildlife from the detrimental effects of
only way to mitigate ORV effects is to limit ORV use in reptile habitats. roads. However, further study is neces-
In general, the two methods of mitigation most discussed in the literature are sary to determine the real efficacy of
using fencing to prevent reptiles from getting onto roads and using culverts and un- these methods.
derpasses to allow them to move from one side to the other without being exposed
to roadways. Barrier fencing can reduce the number of roadkills by preventing
reptiles from getting onto roads, but must be properly designed and maintained to — Allison Clark is a graduate student in
be effective (Boarman and Sazaki 1996, Dodd et al 2003.) Environmental Studies at the University
Using barrier fencing alone might mitigate the direct mortality of roadkill, but of Montana.
would only serve to enhance the population-fragmenting effects of roads. It is
therefore important that tunnels and culverts be used in tandem with fencing to
allow immigration and emigration. These, too, must be carefully designed, consid-
ering such factors as size, shape, light needs or preferences, temperature, noise, Literature citations
depth, approaches, fencing, human disturbance, and interaction with other species on next page

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005 15

References
Baldwin, Elizabeth A., Michael N. Marchand, and John A.
Litvaitis. 2004. Terrestrial Habitat Use By Nesting
Painted Turtles in Landscapes with Different Levels of
Fragmentation. Northeastern Naturalist. 11(1):41-48.
Boarman, William I., and Marc Sazaki. 1996. Highway
Mortality in Desert Tortoises and Small Vertebrates:
Success of Barrier Fences and Culverts. In: Highways
and Movement of Wildlife: Improving Habitat
Connections and Wildlife Passageways Across Highway
Corridors, editors Gary Evink, David Ziegler, Paul Garret,
and John Berry. Proceedings of the Florida Department
of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration
Transportation-Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar.
1996:169-173.
Boarman, William I., Marc Sazaki, and W. Bryan Jennings.
1997. The Effect of Roads, Barrier Fences, and
Culverts on Desrt Tortoise Populations in California,
USA. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and
Management of Tortoises and Turtles—An International
Conference. 1997:54-58.
Dodd, C. Kenneth Jr., William J. Barichivich, and Lora L.
Smith. 2004. Effectiveness of a Barrier Wall and
Culverts in Reducing Wildlife Mortality on a Heavily
Traveled Highway in Florida. Biological Conservation
118:619-631.
Garber, S.D., and J.B. Burger. 1995. A 20-yr Study
Documenting the Relationship Between Turtle Decline
and Human Recreation. Ecological Applications 5(4):
1151-62.
Gibbs, James P. and W. Gregory Shriver. 2002. Estimating
the Effects of Road Mortality on Turtle Populations.
Conservation Biology 16(6): 1647-1652.
Hartman, Maureen. 2002. An Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing
Structures: Their Use and Effectiveness. The Road-
RIPorter 7(0): 12-14.
Jackson, S.D. and C.R. Griffin. 2000. A Strategy for Mitigating
Highway Impacts on Wildlife. In: Messmer, T.A. and B.
West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to
an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife
Society. pp. 143-159.
Jennings, W. Bryan. 1997. Habitat Use and Food Preferences
of the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, in the
Western Mojave Desert and Impacts of Off-Road
Vehicles. In: Proceedings of Conservation, Restoration,
and Management of Tortoises and Turtles—An
International Conference. 1997:42-45.
16
Luchenbach, Roger A. and R. Bruce Bury. 1983. Effects of
Off-Road Vehicles on the Biota of the Algondones Dunes,
Imperial County, California. The Journal of Applied
Ecology 20(1): 265-286.
Marchand, M.N. and J.A. Litvaitis. 2004. Effects of Landscape
Composition, Habitat Features, and Nest Distribution on
Predation Rates of Simulated Turtle Nests. Biological
Conservation 117: 243-251
Maxell, Bryce, and Grant Hokit. 1999. Amphibians and
Reptiles. In: Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain
Wildlife: A Review for Montana, coord. G. Joslin and
J. Youmans 2:1-29. Montana Chapter of The Wildlife
Society, Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife.
Munger, James C., Bruce R. Barnett, Stephen J. Novak and
Aaron A. Ames. 2003. Impacts of Off-Highway Motorized
Vehicle Trails on the Reptiles and Vegetation of the
Owyhee Front. Idaho Bureau of Land Management
Technical Bulletin 03-3: 1-23.
Rodda, G.H. 1990. Highway Madness Revisited: Roadkilled
Iguana iguana in the Llanos of Venezuela. Journal of
Herpatology 24(2): 209-11.
Rosen, P.C., and C.H. Lowe. 1994. Highway mortality of
snakes in the Sonoran desert of southern Arizona.
Biological Conservation 68:143-148.
Rudolph, D. C. 2000. An Overview of the Impact of Roads on
Amphibians and Reptiles. In: T. A. Messmer and B. West
eds. Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an
Ecological and Socio-Economic Dilemma. pp. 143-159.
Shine, R., M. Lemaster, M. Wall, T. Langkilde, and R. Mason.
2004. Why did the snake cross the road? Effects of roads
on movement and location of mates by garter snakes
(Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis). Ecology and Society 9(1):
9.
Spellerberg, Ian F. 1998. Ecological Effects of Roads and
Traffic: A Literature Review. Global Ecology and
Biogeography Letters 7(5): 317-333.
Steen, David A. and James P. Gibbs. 2004. Effects of Roads
on the Structure of Freshwater Turtle Populations.
Conservation Biology 18(4): 1143-1148.
Wood, Roger C. and Rosalind Herlands. 1997. Turtles and
Tires: The impact of roadkills on northern diamondback
terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin terrapin, populations on
the Cape May Peninsula, southern New Jersey. In: J. Van
Abbema (ed.), Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration,
and Management of Tortoises and Turtles—An
International Conference. New York Turtle and Tortoise
Society, New York. pp. 46–53.
Photo by Dan Funsch.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005

Keeping the Primitive Arts Alive
Spotlight on Scott Stouder
By Kiffin Hope
S
cott Stouder, one might think, is an unlikely champion of
wilderness and roadless areas. Born into a logging fam-
ily, Scott, among other things, spent a few years in the
logging industry and another few years as a motorbike racer
in the 60’s and 70’s. But from his childhood days near the
Oregon coast until today, there has been one observable con-
stant in Scott’s life: the outdoors. And as Trout Unlimited’s
western field coordinator for Idaho roadless lands protection,
it’s up to him to protect it – both in the courts and the field.
But what was Scott’s path from logger a few decades ago
to respected wilderness advocate and writer? He says it was
through his experiences as a hunter. “One of the reasons we
hunt is to experience the connection to wilderness and the
land. As a hunter, I have watched, over the years, the quali-
ties of the landscape and hunting deteriorate because of road
building and illegal off-road vehicle use. As wilderness prob-
lems have increased I have evolved in how I view wilderness
and how I approach it.” Scott’s approach to hunting is one of
the most traditional in America – mule train.
Scott and his wife will often spend two weeks on primi-
tive outings in Idaho’s Frank Church-River of No Return Wil-
derness with their six mules and three horses. During such
outings they renew their spirits and stock up on their winter
meat supply. The wildness and quietness of non-motorized ar-
eas during a hunt, Scott says, gives one a tangible connection
to life and death. “Here a person can experience the natural
predator-prey relationship that has always existed between
humans and animals. You come to truly respect the life you
have taken away and that will soon power your own. At these
moments, all things fall aside, even religion, and you come to
fully know that life is sustained by death. My wife and I have a
philosophy that we should take a few people new to hunting
out each year so that they can take part in or at least witness
a hunt. Even though this may be inconvenient for us, we feel
that it is important in advocating wilderness and traditional
hunting. In fact, we’re scheduled to take Mike Dombeck with
us sometime next year on an elk hunt. It’s time that he expe-
rienced firsthand what he’s worked so long to protect. For us,
it’s about sharing the wilderness experience with others.”
The wild areas where these types of raw experiences can
occur are relentlessly under attack by industry and national
and local political wrangling. The frustration, Scott says, at
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some
of the awesome activists we work with, both as
a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
email your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to
kiffin@wildlandscpr.org.
Scott and his wife Holly cutting wood. Photo courtesy of Scott
Stouder.
losing wild, motor free places is what’s bringing together
traditional hunters and anglers from across the social,
economic, and political spectrums. “Regardless of political
alignment, the common thing that the hook and bullet crowd
is looking for is a healthy and non-motorized wilderness
where their sport can be enjoyed. That’s what my work with
Trout Unlimited has been about: creating a platform where
our constituency’s conservation values and concerns can be
shared and voiced more loudly. This platform also allows us
to share our core value with other environmental groups: a
quiet backcountry experience.”
Before working with Trout Unlimited, Scott wrote for
several publications including the Corvallis Gazette-Times,
and Outdoor America. He also is former editor of Mule Deer
Magazine. With Trout Unlimited he is presently concentrating
his efforts on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests’
Comprehensive Management Plan Revision and looking into
the implications for Idaho of the Bush administration’s recent
dismantling of the “roadless rule.”
As always in closing an interview, I asked Scott what
author or poet’s words have inspired him in his endeavors.
Scott thought for a moment, and through the phone I could
hear him thumbing through several books. He settled on Aldo
Leopold. Scott read, “I suppose some will wish to debate
whether it is important to keep these primitive arts alive. I
shall not debate it. Either you know it in your bones, or you
are very, very old.”
17
Bush’s New Roadless Rule Judge Orders 700
On May 4, 2005, the Bush Administration announced the newest incarnation of Miles Of Eldorado
the roadless rule. In effect, it reverses the Clinton-era roadless rule and purports
to provide more local control of roadless areas. The rule allows governors who
Road Closed
have roadless lands within their states to submit a petition to the Forest Service to On May 9, a federal judge ordered
protect or develop those lands. The states are responsible for leading the analysis the Forest Service to close more
of whether or not areas should be protected or “released” from roadless status. than 700 miles of roads and trails in
California’s Eldorado National Forest to
Governors have eighteen months to submit their petitions, which will then off-road vehicle use. Judge Lawrence
be reviewed by a committee for potential endorsement. The review committee’s Karlton’s closure order came after a
endorsements will then have to go through a NEPA analysis before being imple- remedy hearing in a lawsuit brought by
mented. environmental groups that contested
the management of off-road vehicles
The entire rule is nonsensical, in that governors could expend significant effort in the area, and it follows his February
on a petition only to have it changed by the Administration. This new rule really decision that the agency’s 1990 plan
provides no more local control or authority than did the previous rule, although for off-road vehicles didn’t follow the
it certainly reduces roadless area protections. If a governor does not petition for National Environmental Policy Act.
roadless areas to be protected, then the areas are to be managed as defined by the
most recent forest plan. Activists are now developing plans and strategies to deal The plaintiffs, Center for Sierra Ne-
with this new roadless evaluation process on a state by state basis. vada Conservation (CSNC), Center for
Biological Diversity and California Wil-
For more information or to get involved contact the Heritage Forests Campaign derness Coalition, called the closures a
at (202) 887-8800, or visit www.ourforests.org. good start. “The non-system routes are
largely unplanned, user-created running
sores on the landscape that contribute
to sediment in our streams, habitat frag-
mentation and wildlife disturbance,”
said Karen Schambach of CSNC.

In addition to being ordered to

close the roads, the Forest Service was
given 30 days to propose a schedule
for completing the forest-wide NEPA
analysis for its off-road vehicle plan.
In February, the court found that the
agency had violated both NEPA and its
own regulations by allowing off-roaders
to create illegal routes throughout the
forest over the course of 15 years, even
though it knew about resulting environ-
mental damage in the forest.

For more information, contact the

Center For Sierra Nevada Conservation,
(530) 333-1106.

Unprotected roadless lands like these in Montana’s Snowcrest range

(background) are under threat from the new roadless rule.
Photo by Dan Funsch.

18 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005

Decision Reached on Jarbidge Road
Nearly 10 years after a flood blew out part of the Jarbidge road adjacent to bull
trout habitat in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada, the Forest Service
issued a record of decision in April that would keep 1.2 miles of South Canyon Road
in a primitive state for four-wheel-drive vehicles and restrict motorized use on the
last two-fifths of a mile that leads to a wilderness area.
Bull trout. Photo courtesy of National
Forest Supervisor Robert L. Vaught said he reached his decision after ruling Park Service.
out several of the other alternatives laid out in the draft environmental impact
statement. Initially, the most promising alternative appeared to be building a new
road in the area, he said, but the area’s steep hills would have made road construc- Benson, who represents the Wilder-
tion difficult and costly — at least $3 million. Instead, Vaught decided that leaving ness Society and Great Old Broads for
the road in place would give off-road vehicle users access to the area without jeop- Wilderness. Nevertheless, the Fish and
ardizing the bull trout or impinging too much on taxpayers. Wildlife Service determined the Forest
Service’s action would not jeopardize
Not everyone views the decision that way, however. The Endangered Species the survival of the bull trout. Neither
Act and the Forest Service’s own regulations require that the entire road be closed the county nor the environmental
to motorized traffic, said Michael Freeman of the Denver-based law firm Faegre & groups plan to appeal the decision.

BLM Releases
Plan For Mojave,
Algodones Dunes
The Bureau of Land Management
released its plans on March 20 for ac-
commodating recreation, development
and wildlife in the western Mojave and
the Algodones Dunes. This is the largest
habitat conservation plan in the United
States, setting guidelines for 9.3 million
Ahh, springtime, when roads so often wash out, like this one in acres.
Montana’s Centennial Valley. Photo by Dan Funsch.
The plan, which has been in the
works for 10 years, encourages trade-
offs by developers: it allows home
Tongass Amendment Vote Blocked builders, miners, water and sewage
in House companies and others to destroy
endangered and threatened species
One year ago, a strong bi-partisan majority of the House of Representatives in exchange for setting aside wildlife
passed the Chabot/Andrews amendment to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for logging habitat in other places. In addition to
road construction in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. Unfortunately, the amend- the pressures of development, the area
ment was dropped from the appropriations bill that Congress ultimately accepted. plays host to thousands of off-road
vehicle riders annually, and the plan
This year, Representatives Steve Chabot (R-OH) and Robert Andrews (D-NJ) re-opens thousands of acres to all-ter-
took the lead again to end the fiscally irresponsible Tongass subsidies by re-offering rain vehicles that had previously been
their amendment to the annual Interior Appropriations bill. However, procedural closed.
maneuvering in the House of Representatives blocked a straight yes or no vote on
the amendment. “The House was denied a chance to vote on Congressman Steve Conservationists were outraged
Chabot’s amendment, which would both save taxpayers’ dollars and protect the by the plan, and say they will sue if
natural treasures in the Tongass, America’s largest national forest,” said Jim DiPeso, necessary to keep it from being imple-
REP (Republicans for Environmental Protection) America policy director. mented. Daniel Patterson of the Center
for Biological Diversity says the plan
Last year, the U.S. Forest Service spent $49 million preparing timber sales in ignores its stated goals and prior ef-
the Tongass, while the Forest Service earned $800,000 from those timber sales. The forts to preserve habitat for rare plants
Chabot/Andrews amendment received strong support from a broad range of con- and creatures like the desert tortoise.
stituencies, including taxpayer advocates, sport hunting and fishing organizations, Details of the plan for the Imperial Sand
religious leaders, and numerous Alaska businesses. Dunes can be found at: www.ca.blm.gov.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005 19

Guidelines for Citizen Scientists Monitoring
Wildlife on Removed Roads
By Katherine Court

C
itizen science is a powerful way to monitor the long-term trends and
conditions of natural systems while also encouraging a steward-
ship ethic for natural resources. Citizen science is popular across
the United States: according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
there were more than 772 citizen monitoring projects across the country
in 1998, mostly focusing on stream ecosystems. Participants in these
projects become intimately acquainted with the systems they monitor, and
often become advocates for their protection and conservation.
The following guidelines are part of a continuing series, and were
developed to assist citizen scientists in monitoring changes in wildlife
activity after road removal.

Background
Many species of terrestrial wildlife are heavily influenced by roads.
Wisdom et al. (2000) reviewed the impacts of forest and range roads on
animals. They reported that roads and road-associated factors had a
negative effect on more than 70 percent of the species reviewed. Roads
directly or indirectly lead to habitat loss and fragmentation, poaching,
over-trapping, snag reduction, negative edge effects (including increased
noxious weed infiltration), movement barriers, displacement or avoid-
ance, harassment or disturbance at specific use sites, and chronic negative
interactions with humans. Additionally, intact habitat has been proven
more valuable for various species of wildlife, so removing wildland roads
will likely benefit wildlife.
Measuring wildlife use on removed roads can be a powerful indica- Typical installation for a camera station. Photo by
tor of ecological health and well-being. By implementing these methods, Katherine Court.
citizen scientists can gain information on how road removal affects wildlife
species composition and abundance, changes in animal movement pat-
terns, and the rate of colonization of patches of suitable habitat by species
that were previously absent from those areas (Townsend and Switalski
2004). No studies have been published on the monitoring of wildlife use of geared toward capturing the sign of mammals
closed roads, though this method has been tested as part of a preliminary of different size-classes. Camera stations can
pilot study. That pilot study was used to create the techniques for these be adjusted to capture small, medium, or large
methods for citizen scientists. sized mammals, but are used primarily for me-
dium- and large-sized mammals. Track stations
work best for smaller and medium-sized mam-
Setting Up the Study mals, due to the fact that they are covered and
Wildlife should be monitored on both removed and open roads. A therefore limit the size of animals with access to
minimum of 4 to 5 replicate plots per treatment type make it more likely the tracking medium. Sand track plates can cap-
that differences between treatments can be detected statistically. Each ture mammals of various sizes, but work best for
group of plots on a removed road should be paired with a group of untreat- medium and large mammals because an animal
ed or “control” plots on an open or gated road in similar habitat (aspect, needs considerable weight to make an impres-
elevation, soils, etc.), and preferably nearby. sion in the sand. By using these three tracking
Three different techniques can be employed to monitor mammals techniques concurrently, a monitoring program
on removed roads, with the aim of capturing the widest variety of mam- will be more successful than if only one or two
mals possible. Camera stations, track stations, and track plates are each of the techniques are used.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005

Camera Stations Track Plates
Camera stations are one of the easiest Sand track plates consist simply of flattened areas of ground spread
ways to track wildlife, and also one of the most with a layer of sand (about 1-2 inches thick), which is then flattened to al-
rewarding. Catching a photo of an elk, moose, low for tracks to be imprinted in the surface. Use a small shovel or trowel
or black bear can be exciting. In our pilot study to make a flat area on the uphill side of the removed road you are monitor-
we used MC2-G “Stealth Cams” — they have a ing, which is where wildlife generally makes a trail. Track plates should
passive infrared sensor that triggers the 35 mm be roughly 2’ x 2.’ When a track is made in a sand plate, photograph and
camera. Mount the cameras on trees adjacent to measure it using calipers. Note on the data sheet where the photograph
gated and removed roads (see photo), or next to was taken and any other significant information pertaining to the site or
existing wildlife trails on removed roads. Cam- the conditions in which the track was found. Also be sure to include an
era stations automatically photograph animals object in the photograph as a size reference. A ruler works best, but any
that interrupt the infrared “trip” beam. Adjust easily recognizable object will work (a hand, a pen or pencil).
the height of the beam to capture medium and
large-sized mammals.
Program the cameras to take three photos
consecutively when triggered, with a 60-second
delay between each. The camera should be set
T hese three wildlife monitoring techniques should give an accurate
impression of how wildlife use an area after roads have been removed.
Over time, the data collected by citizen scientists employing these three
to record the date on each photo. Maintain the techniques can be used to gain a better understanding of the effects of
stations once a week at a minimum and twice a road removal on wildlife. Data sheets for this and other road removal
week ideally by recording the number of photos monitoring will be available soon on Wildlands CPR’s website at www.
taken and changing the film and batteries if wildlandscpr.org.
necessary. The maintenance interval can be ad-
justed based on the frequency of photo captures
at various sites. When removing film, be sure to References
mark the canister with the station location and
the date. Townsend, S., and T.A. Switalski. 2004. Guidelines for wildlife monitoring
A combination of track and camera stations following road decommissioning. Wildlands CPR, Missoula, MT. 15 p.
should be set out concurrently — as little as Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C.
one camera station could be set in combination Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R.
with 5 to 8 track plates. Camera stations have Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in
the distinct advantage of being able to identify the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management
individual animals and they function in nearly all implications. Volume 1 – Overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485.
types of weather, except extreme cold. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. Available at: <http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/
pubs/gtr485/gtr485v1.pdf>
Track Stations
Track stations consist of an 18” X 36” sheet
metal plate covered with a tracking medium of
blue carpenter’s chalk sprayed onto the metal
surface and allowed to dry. In the center of the
plate, place a 12” X 18” piece of white contact
paper sticky side up and affixed with double- — Katherine Court is
sided carpet tape. The contact paper can be a graduate student in
removed so that any track recorded can be Environmental Studies
kept as a permanent record. Place a small can at the University of
of cat food in the center of the contact paper Montana.
and secure it to the surface with double-sided
tape. Stake down the edges of the metal track
plate with tent stakes, and cover the plate with
aluminum roofing, forming an arch to protect
the plate from rain (see photo). Wear work
gloves and be careful when handling the sheet
metal and aluminum roofing, as the edges may Katherine records
be sharp. data at a track station.
Inspect the stations weekly at a minimum, Photo by Adam
or every 2-3 days, ideally. Identify any wildlife Switalski.
tracks, collect and save the tracks in sheet pro-
tectors and record information on a data sheet.
If there are prints on the metal sheet, take a
picture and make a note of it on the data sheet.
Recoat the plates with chalk, place a new piece
of contact paper in the center, and re-bait the
station if all the cat food has been consumed.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005 21

A T
fter a very dry winter, it’s been raining, raining, and
raining this spring! The hills are green, the rivers
are up, the wildflowers are blooming and the snow
is melting. Our nation’s environmental laws, however, are
wilting under intense heat and pressure from Congress. In
April, the Bush Administration finalized the new roadless
rule, allowing governors to petition for roadless protection or
development (or both) in their states. We continue to wait for
the Forest Service to release their final off-road vehicle rule,
curious as to how well it is holding up under all the scrutiny
it’s received.
Here in the office, we’ve spent much of the last month
helping other organizations raise money to challenge off-road
vehicles. We were also delighted to learn that the National
Forest Foundation (NFF) will continue to fund our unique
citizen monitoring experiment on the Clearwater National
Forest. A big thanks goes out to the NFF for funding this im-
portant work. The project is coordinated with the Nez Perce
Tribe and the University of Montana, and we’ll have quite a
few people out on the ground this summer. We’d also like to
thank the Pope and Young Club for a grant to enable us to add
wildlife monitoring to some of the aquatic monitoring under-
way on the Clearwater.
Speaking of wildlife monitoring — we are delighted to
have Sonya Germann joining us this summer to implement an
intensive wildlife monitoring project on the Flathead National
Forest. Sonya is doing this research for her senior project at
the University of Montana. We’ve also contracted with Steph-
anie Naftal to help us coordinate additional model restoration
workshops in the pacific northwest and the southwest this
fall. Welcome to both Stephanie and Sonya – we’re thrilled to
have you on board.
And finally, we want to welcome Dan Funsch back to the
RIPorter after a one-issue absence. Though Jessie McQuillan
did a great job for us with the newsletter, she took a fulltime
newspaper job and she wasn’t able to continue working on
our newsletter. Dan came back and is now partnering with
Marianne Zugel to put the Road RIPorter together and bring it
to your doorstep. Thanks Dan and Marianne.
22
he Natural Trails and Waters Coalition recently pub-
lished “Five Off-Road Vehicle Reform Efforts: A Look at
Why They Were Successful.” The report looks at state
and federal efforts to control off-road vehicles, and identifies
the following key factors for success:
• A key decision-maker must demonstrate commitment
and follow through to drive a process to conclusion. This
person also must be open to working with the conservation
community;
• Off-road vehicle interests must be brought to the
negotiating table with appropriate political dynamics and
pressure;
• Independent information (i.e., not coming from conser-
vationists) is needed to reveal the extent and nature of the
problem and the need for reform;
• The conservation community must have information
and knowledge about ORV use, routes, and damage to the
land that is equal to or surpasses that of the local ORV club;
and,
• Collaborative processes must be professionally and
independently facilitated.
To get a copy of the report, which includes case stud-
ies from California, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and Washington,
contact The Natural Trails and Waters Coalition at: (202)
429-2696.
Springtime is blooming! Photo by Dan Funsch.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005
 Join Wildlands CPR Today!
We’ve made joining Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

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

Name
Phone
Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership: Individual/Family Organization Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge Electronic Funds Transfer
from Checking Account

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

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

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

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

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

Signature: __________________________________________
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual membership
* The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is donation ($30 standard membership, or more), please visit
not part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your check to the
a credit card (usually in the signature field).
address below.
Please send this form and your payment option to:
Thank you for your support!
Wildlands CPR • P.O. Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2005 23

 Sunset at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Photo by Paul Shively.

Non-profit Organization
US POSTAGE
PAID
MISSOULA MT, 59801
PERMIT NO. 569

“... if you were able to realize

what the result of the automobile
will be in that wonderful
uncomparable [Yosemite] valley,
you will keep it out.”

— James Bryce, British

Ambassador to the U.S., 1913

The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper with soy-based ink.