Winter Solstice 2010. Volume 15 No.
Forest Service Issues Long-
Awaited Direction on
Travel Analysis
By Vera Smith and Bethanie Walder
— story begins on page 3 —
Inside…
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2
Forest Service Issues Direction on Travel Analysis, by Vera
Smith and Bethanie Walder. Pages 3-6
Field Notes: Wildlands CPR Continues Partnership with Lolo
National Forest, by A­ dam Rissien and Adam Switalski.
Pages 7-9
New Resources. Page 9
Odes to Roads: Foreward: No Place Distant, by Mike Dombeck.
Pages 10-11
DePaving the Way: by Bethanie Walder. Pages 12-13
Legal Notes: A Lesson to be Learned from Russell Country
Sportsmen vs U.S. Forest Service, by Dave Whisenand.
Pages 14-15
Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation Program
Updates. Pages 16-17
Biblio Notes: Impacts of Winter Recreation on Wolverine, by
Laura Goldberg. Pages 18-20
Around the Office. Page 21
Membership Info. Page 22
Visit us online:
wildlandscpr.org
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551

On Elections and Rhetoric

www.wildlandscpr.org

Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by

promoting watershed restoration that improves

I
’ve been trying to wrap my mind around the November election results and what fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and
they mean for environmental protection and restoration, as well as the country as enhances community economies. We focus on
reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads
a whole. We clearly have a discontented electorate, and one could argue that both
and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.
parties have tried to capitalize on this, or even stoke it with inflammatory rhetoric.

My personal discontent grows daily. Let’s start with a nonpartisan example. The
most recent Western Governor’s Association meeting was held in Las Vegas, NV in ear- Director
ly December and resulted in this headline in The Missoulian (12-8-10): “Western gov- Bethanie Walder
ernors focus on ‘nonsensical’ endangered species protections.” The article explains:
“(t)he governors complained of having their hands tied by federal policy as animal
populations described as thriving but listed as endangered ravage private ranches,
Development Director
state parks and golf courses.” I’ve got to hand it to the wolf –— it might be the one
Thomas R. Petersen
animal that has made environmental issues bipartisan again — now both parties want
to gut the ESA. Rhetoric like this certainly promotes extreme reaction — there are
a handful of bills now in Congress that would, for example, remove wolves from the Science Program Director
Endangered Species Act itself (not mere delisting but removing wolves from under the
Adam Switalski
jurisdiction of the ESA). Unfortunately, those who care about wolves are not nearly as
worked up as the small minority who hate them, so wolves get blamed for everything,
from livestock losses to failing to shoot an elk to, of course, eating grandma and Little
Red Riding Hood. Legal Liaison
Sarah Peters
Here’s another example from The Missoulian (12-12-10): “GOP takes aim at envi-
ronmental laws.” In November, the GOP won a supermajority in the MT state House
Montana State ORV
and expanded their muscle in the state Senate. And just like clockwork, they’ve an-
nounced that they will try to repeal environmental laws as part of their standard man- Coordinator
tra (along with reducing taxes, of course). As quoted in the article: ‘If we are going to Adam Rissien
have jobs, it will be in natural resources,’ says Sen Debby Barrett, R-Dillon, who chairs
the Senate Natural Resources Committee.”
Restoration Campaign
But apparently these “natural resource” jobs will be limited to resource extrac- Director
tion. Just four years ago, a Democrat-leaning MT legislature approved more than $30 Sue Gunn
million for ecological restoration projects throughout the state in order to help build
a restoration economy. A MT Department of Labor report from 2009 estimated that
restoration projects could create up to 33 jobs per million spent. But The Missoulian Program Associate
article goes on, “Republican lawmakers…already have requested scores of bills in this Cathrine L. Walters
arena, targeting everything from the Montana Environmental Policy Act to renewable-
energy mandates, which they see as unnecessary.” If they’re so interested in new jobs
and small businesses, why are they so opposed to renewable resource projects or Journal Editor
restoration? Dan Funsch

Both parties are guilty of ridiculous and often embarrassing rhetoric, be it related
to wolves, prairie dogs or renewable energy. Perhaps it’s just to keep activists busy. Board of Directors
After all, if we have to put our energy into preventing the Endangered Species Act or Susan Jane Brown, Jim Furnish,
the Montana Environmental Policy Act from being gutted, then we’ll have less time to Marion Hourdequin, Chris Kassar, Rebecca Lloyd,
undertake efforts on positive change that might actually lead to post-partisan solu- Crystal Mario, Cara Nelson, Brett Paben
tions that would diffuse all that discontent. And while such long-overdue solutions
would be really good for this country on a whole host of topics, including the environ-
ment, they would not necessarily be good for partisan politics and political parties. I
wonder how many of us would find some serious contentment in that outcome? I’m
© 2010 Wildlands CPR
guessing the wolf would, and so would I.

2 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 Forest Service Issues Long-
Awaited Direction on
Travel Analysis
By Vera Smith and Bethanie Walder
I
n January 2001, the Forest Service finalized a plan for the long-term
management of their oversized and under-maintained road system.
That plan basically directed the agency to identify an ecologically
and fiscally sustainable minimum road system that would meet resource
management and recreational access needs. The plan projected that the
agency might reduce the overall road system by more than 30%, and that
as a result “unroaded” acreage might increase by up to 15% nationally.
It was a great thing, but it never happened. The White House got
a new President, the Forest Service got a new Chief and the policy was
undermined. But it stayed on the books. Then, in 2005, the Forest Service
adopted a new Travel Management Rule and incorporated this minimum
road system analysis into the new travel management rule as “subpart A”
of the rule. But nothing else had changed politically, so it still never hap-
pened.
During all this time Wildlands CPR, The Wilderness Society and our
grassroots partners continued to push for this minimum road system
analysis, but we started to call it “rightsizing.” We met repeatedly with the
agency after they finalized the 2005 Travel Management Rule asking them
how they would incorporate subpart A into the process. But they insisted
on implementing subpart B only (the designation of roads, trails and areas
for motorized recreation). We worked aggressively on the subpart B pro-
cess, but kept on pushing the agency, through a variety of mechanisms, to
rightsize the system.
Rightsizing the road system will help the Forest Service identify clear recreation
management goals for roads and trails. Photo by Dan Funsch.
3 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010
Photo by Dan Funsch.
We thought we had made some real prog-
ress in 2009, when Congress directed the Forest
Service to rightsize the system, but they didn’t
really include any teeth. We worked harder, and
Congress made a new request in late 2009, as
part of the FY2010 appropriations bill – not only
did the Forest Service have to rightsize the sys-
tem, but they had to develop a plan and timeline
to do so.
Fast forward almost exactly one year. On
November 10, 2010, the Chief’s Office of the For-
est Service distributed a directive memorandum
entitled, Travel Management, Implementation
of 36 CFR, Part 212, Subpart A (36 CFR 212.5(b),
to all line officers and program directors. The
guidance memo directs all national forests to
identify, through a science-based analysis, an
ecologically and fiscally sustainable minimum
road system by 2015.
In addition to the five years it will take to
conduct this analysis nationally, it will likely take
decades to actually implement the minimum
system on-the-ground. But the plans developed
through this process will, over the long-term,
create a blueprint for future road maintenance
and decommissioning investments, including
Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative
funding.
— continued on next page —
 — Travel Analysis, cont’d ­—

We are extremely pleased with this policy

victory. All of our partners who signed onto
letters, made trips to DC with us, met with their
Regional Foresters, or otherwise engaged in this
nearly 10 year effort deserve a huge thank you!
But while it is a huge victory on paper, we now
have to ensure it is also a huge victory on the
ground. The agency must take this opportunity
to truly make their road system smaller, ecologi-
cally sustainable and fiscally affordable. Such
a road system will also provide dependable,
consistent recreational access for the public,
Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
as opposed to the current situation where the
agency routinely runs short of funds and closes
or downgrades road access due to lack of main-
tenance.
Background and Summary of the New Direction
For those interested in large landscape con-
nectivity for wildlife, this initiative presents an The national forest road system is more than 375,000 miles, enough
opportunity to reduce road densities as well as to circle the equator fifteen times. A legacy of big timber and mining, only
protect and restore linkages and core habitat. 17% (about 66,000 miles) of the national forest road system is open to
For those interested in clean water and fisher- passenger cars, while the remainder is either closed to public travel or
ies, it is an opportunity to improve water quality accessible only to high-clearance vehicles. It is underfunded, with only
and watershed health. And for those interested about 20% of the system maintained to standard in any given year, result-
in fiscal responsibility, it is an opportunity to ing in a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog. Because of its limited
identify a road system that the Forest Service maintenance funding, the agency has been systematically downgrading
can afford to maintain. roads from passenger to high-clearance vehicle status, thus reducing rec-
reational access. For example, between 2002 and 2009, the Forest Service
downgraded about 16,000 miles of roads from passenger vehicle to high
clearance status. Finally, roads are a primary cause of aquatic degrada-
tion, habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive weeds among other
impacts. These impacts are increasingly problematic in the context of
climate change.

Below are the key provisions of the guidance memo:

• the travel analysis report must be completed by September 30,

2015
• the minimum road system should be smaller than the current
system
• after 2015, roads that have not undergone this analysis no longer
qualify for road maintenance money
• the analysis must include all maintenance level 1-5 roads, and
must be science-based
• the final report should include both a map of the minimum road
system and a list of roads to be decommissioned
• the national lead for the process is the Director of Watersheds,
Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants; the Directors of Engineering
and Recreation are also on the national team
• each region should set up a regional leadership team following
the same format, and that regional leadership team has to certify
that each forest’s final travel analysis meets the requirements
Rather than maintain their entire road system to the standards
• this process should be interactive with the ongoing Watershed
required for passenger vehicles, the Forest Service sometimes Condition Framework process and vice versa
downgrades roads and reclassifies them as suitable for high clearance
vehicles only. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
— continued on next page —

4 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 — Travel Analysis, cont’d ­—

The Travel Analysis Process

Each forest must use the Travel Analysis Process (TAP) to identify
the minimum road system as well as roads that are no longer needed and
should be decommissioned or converted to other uses, such as trails. The
analysis must include all Maintenance Level (ML) 1-5 roads. As defined in
36 CFR §212.5(b), the minimum road system is “the road system deter-
mined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives
adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part
219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect
long-term funding expectations, [and] to ensure that the identified system
minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construc-
tion, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance.”

Results from the TAP must be documented in a Travel Analysis Re-

port, and must, per the Forest Service Handbook 7709.55, 20 and the direc-
tive memorandum, include:
• A map displaying the recommended minimum road system;
• A list of unneeded roads;
• A list of the key issues;
• A prioritized list of the risks and benefits associated with chang-
ing the part of the forest transportation system under analysis;
• A prioritized list of opportunities for addressing those risks and
benefits;
• A prioritized list of actions or projects that would implement the
minimum road system; and
• A list of proposed changes to current travel management direc-
tion, including proposed additions to or deletions from the forest
transportation system.

The details of the TAP process are explained in Forest Service Hand-
book (FSH) 7709.55, Chapter 20. However, it is important to recognize that
the TAP itself is not a NEPA process, though the forests have been directed
to engage the public in some unspecified way. Information presented in
final TAP reports will be incorporated into NEPA processes – such as road
system specific proposals, timber projects, or watershed restoration proj-
ects -- that occur after the TAP is completed. Implementation of the TAP
Looking ahead towards the future Forest Service
will only happen through these future NEPA processes. road system. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land
Management.
Though the agency did not provide new funding to the field to conduct
the TAP analysis, they did provide some significant motivation. The direc-
tive memorandum explains that, “(b)eyond FY 2015, no Capital Improve-
ment and Maintenance (CMCM) funds may be expended on NFS roads
(maintenance levels 1-5) that have not been included in a TAP or RAP.”
Basically, if, by the beginning of FY 2016, a road has not been subject to
analysis to determine whether it should stay or go, it cannot be maintained
using CMCM funds until it goes through such an analysis. Similarly, start-
ing in FY 2016, if the Forest Service wants to decommission a road but it
has not been included in a TAP analysis, they cannot use CMCM funds for
that either. Legacy Roads and Trails funds are part of the overall CMCM
category. However, there is no proposed prohibition for using other funds,
such as fish and wildlife funds, to pay for critical maintenance or road
decommissioning if forests do not complete their TAPs in time.

— continued on next page —

5 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010


— Travel Analysis, cont’d ­—
Recommendations for Engaging in the Process
This new road rightsizing process is a remarkable restoration and
stewardship opportunity because the designated road system is the
foundation for nearly all management undertaken by the agency.  The
proposed process is sound but as always the challenge lies in the details.
If this rightsizing effort is to live up to its potential, activists need to ensure
the Forest Service conducts scientifically rigorous analyses, produces the
required products, and, importantly, implements the minimum system stra-
tegically and expeditiously once the analysis is complete.
Grassroots and regional engagement will make a big difference in the
outcome. We do not yet know what type of public process the agency will
be using, because the TAPs are not NEPA analyses (or whether this will
vary from region to region and forest to forest). The Wilderness Society
(TWS) and Wildlands CPR can provide you with suggested recommenda-
tions and a list of tools and examples of good analyses. Please contact
Josh Hicks, 303-650-5818 x 107, josh_hicks@tws.org; or Adam Rissien, 406-
543-9551, arissien@wildlandscpr.org for assistance as your forest begins
this process.
6 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010
Photo by Dan Funsch.
Conclusion
The agency has taken an important step
by finally setting a timeline for the rightsizing
analysis. This analysis will be critical for future
Legacy Roads and Trails spending, as well as
standard maintenance spending. We look for-
ward to working with the agency and concerned
citizens to ensure the process is effective and ac-
curately reflects both the spirit and letter of the
November 10 guidance memo and the original
2001 long-term transportation plan. The agency
has given us a very nice holiday gift, but it’s up
to us to use this gift effectively and ensure it
reaches its potential!
— Vera Smith is Director of The Wilderness
Society’s National Forest Action Center. Bethanie
Walder is Executive Director of Wildlands CPR.
 Field Notes
Wildlands CPR Continues Partnership
with Lolo National Forest
By Adam Rissien & Adam Switalski

In the Beginning
In 2009, Wildlands CPR partnered with the Lolo National Forest
(LNF) (Montana) to assess the condition of old roads, evaluate past
road removal work, and document instances of illegal off-road vehicle
use. Our work provided detailed information that enabled Forest
Service planners to generate restoration project proposals addressing
problems found in three different areas. For example, the Rennic-Stark
project, roughly 30 miles west of Missoula, would decommission 25
miles of road, rehabilitate unauthorized ORV routes, and implement
some vegetative management treatments. Two other projects, Anti-
mony and Clear Creek, would decommission 31 miles of roads, store Center Horse area, road #17653A untreated, heavily vegetated.
32 miles (keeping them for future use), remove or upgrade several cul- Wildlands CPR photo.
verts and conduct prescribed burning along with some tree thinning.

Using GPS devices, string boxes, clinometers, and other data col-
lection methods Wildlands CPR provided the LNF with extensive and detailed road
assessments. For example, our field crew recorded
erosional hazards such as the presence and condition
of culverts, fillslope failures, and roadbed erosion and
gullying. They also recorded ecological data and doc-
umented instances of weed infestations and wildlife
sign such as tracks and scat. Finally, they corrected
old Forest Service maps that still showed roads that
were no longer on the ground, or in some cases, they
added old jammer roads that were not on the maps.

2010 Road Reconnaissance

The success of our 2009 efforts enabled Wild-
lands CPR to continue this work in two new areas of
the LNF in 2010. The first project area, Mormon John,
was just off Highway 12 west of the town of Lolo
(MT). Our skilled field crew surveyed nearly 50 miles
of roads, most of which were old timber harvest jam-
mer roads abandoned decades ago. Working with the
LNF specialists, we refined our protocols to extrapo-
late conditions to assess more miles than by walking
each individual road. Using this method, we general-
ized the condition of jammer roads based upon the Fieldworker Graham Bryd surveys a culvert at inlet of John Creek, half filled with
lowest road in the complex or by walking drainages sediment. Wildlands CPR photo.
to survey for the presence of culverts. For example, if

— continued on next page­—

7 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 — Field Notes, cont’d ­—
flax or tumble mustard. Also encourag-
ing was the lack of ORV impacts or the
presence of user-created routes, though
there was one campsite with significant
ORV use. We commonly encountered
wildlife sign on most surveyed roads,
including grizzly bear and two sightings
of northern goshawks.

When compared to last year, we

nearly doubled the miles surveyed
and refined our assessment protocols
to be more efficient. We anticipate the
LNF will develop project proposals to
address problems based on our results,
leading to a less impactful road system.

Goshawk off road 5402 in the Center Horse area. Wildlands CPR photo.
Cost Share Agreements
With two field seasons completed,
the road lowest on the hillside was stable and did not have any erosional concerns, Wildlands CPR looks forward to main-
we would assume all roads/crossings above to be similar. taining our Forest Service partnership,
possibly through the continuation of
For all roads in the area with problems, typical findings included erosional haz- our Cost Share Agreement. This is a
ards such as plugged culverts with associated scouring at the inlet or outlet, cut- mechanism that acts like a contract in
slope/fillslope failures, and roadbed erosion. We also found widespread instances that it represents a binding agreement,
of knapweed, and some areas with meadow hawkweed complex, and tall buttercup. but the total project costs are shared
Off-road vehicle (ORV) use and illegal route creation was prevalent in three distinct based on specific percentages; the LNF
areas. There was a user-created route going up Mormon Peak ridge, accessed by requires at least a 20 percent match.
going around ineffective barriers; here we found evidence of wood cutting and When looking for matching funds, it’s
some erosion. We found a second cluster of ORV activity near the South Fork of important to remember they must not
Lolo Creek, where again the closure devices were ineffective. Finally, another inef-
fective closure allowed ORV use on a road in the Dick Creek Area. Using the new — continued on next page­—
protocols, along with excellent support from LNF staff, we were able to complete all
of the Mormon John assessment. We recorded sign or direct sightings of numer-
ous wildlife species, including wolves, which are listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The Center Horse area near Seeley Lake (MT) was

the second place we worked. It includes lands formerly
owned by the Plum Creek timber company and recently
acquired by the Forest Service. Again, we surveyed around
50 miles of road for erosional hazards, noxious weeds,
and wildlife sign, in addition to the partial surveys using
the prioritization protocols. We found significant road
decommissioning in the project area especially around
the headwaters of Dunham Creek, though often this only
included the placement of waterbars one typically sees
when the agency stores a road. However, treatments
varied, with some entrances partially recontoured to the
original slope, while other roads were fully recontoured.
Some stream crossings were also restored, although in
a few instances, more fill could have been removed. We
commonly encountered this at stream crossing sites
— future restoration efforts should pull back more fill.
When we found problems with road conditions, they were
similar to those found in the Mormon John area: plugged
culverts, road bed erosion, cutslope/fillslope failures and Ponding from saturated hillslope on upper switchback of Rd. #2157. Wildlands CPR
infestations of knapweed, hawkweed and yellow toadflax. photo.
Interestingly though, we did not find any Dalmatian toad-

8 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 — Field Notes, cont’d ­—

come from or be administered by any federal agency, such

as Resource Advisory Committee dollars. State agencies
often have programs meant to improve fisheries or wildlife
habitat or increase recreational opportunities that may have
grant opportunities. Unfortunately, some state programs that
administer federal funds cannot be used as a match, because
they also come from federal sources.

Cost Share Agreements are nothing new to the Forest

Service and in recent years more conservation groups and
coalitions have used them to complete work germane to their
specific interests. For example, Trout Unlimited has restored
several stream miles affected by abandoned mines, and the
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has an agreement that will
increase elk foraging habitat. Cost Share Agreements may
be an option for other organizations who want to implement
specific projects in partnership with the Forest Service. Typi-
cally the agency favors this approach not only for the obvious
cost-savings, but also as a way to increase its capacity, since
these agreements free up forest staff and resources for other
projects. Additionally, this is a good way to build relation- The end of the field season, a time to analyze results and plan next summer’s data
ships with agency staff and line officers. collection. Photo by Dan Funsch.

Conclusion
This year’s Cost Share Agreement represents a continuing effort for Wildlands CPR.
We’re collecting data the Forest Service needs to help inform projects that will lead to
better functioning watersheds. Eventually we hope to expand on these efforts and de-
velop specific services the Forest Service can rely upon when it comes to rightsizing its
road system. Finally, we want to thank the Lolo National Forest for continuing this great
partnership, and most importantly we want to thank our field crew — Adam Bender, Gra-
ham Byrd and Mo Essen — for all their fine work and diligence in the field.

Road Management in the Context of Watershed Restoration

Notes from the Second Meeting of the Pacific Northwest Forest Restoration Learning Network
By Liane Davis

T his paper synthesizes information from presentations and

discussions that occurred as part of a two-day work-
shop, titled: “Road management in the context of watershed
restoration.” The workshop was the second annual meeting
of the Pacific Northwest Forest Restoration Learning Network
(see below) and emphasized planning and prioritization of
road management treatments, public/private/tribal partner-
ships, and specific strategies to improve effectiveness of road
upgrading and decommissioning projects. It was hosted by
The Nature Conservancy and Wildlands CPR in Astoria, OR,
on April 23-24, 2009, and included a field tour of watershed
restoration treatments at the Conservancy’s Ellsworth Creek
Preserve in southwestern Washington. The information
presented in this paper is a high-level summary representing
years of innovative thinking and experience on the part of
several individuals, many of whom were in attendance. Pre-
sentations from the workshop can be viewed and downloaded
here: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/ellsworth.creek.

9 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

Foreward: No Place Distant
By Mike Dombeck
Editor’s Note: This excerpted Foreward is from No Place Distant by David G
Havlick. Copyright © 2002 David G Havlick. Reproduced by permission of Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
E
very American is affected in some way by roads on
public lands. Roads affect our pocketbooks, our rec-
reation experiences, the quality of the water we drink,
and much more. Over one-half million miles of roads have
been constructed on the lands that you and I, as citizens of
the United States, own. In other words, we have built enough
roads to circle the Earth twenty times on less than one-quar-
ter of the total land base of the United States.
As a young boy growing up in northern Wisconsin’s
Chequamegon National Forest, I observed on more than one
occasion the after-effects of a road built into a vast acreage
of forest — usually for the purpose of timer harvesting. No
longer could I hike in those areas and enjoy the solitude and
wilderness that I once imagined Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone,
and the ancestors of our neighboring Chippewa Indians
experienced. No longer were they the magical, distant places
Photo by Dan Funsch.
10
far from the growl of a Jeep or the whine of
a snowmobile. Spring ponds, with native
brook trout bigger than a twelve-year old
could imagine, soon became fishing holes
littered with beer cans and candy wrappers,
their banks chewed up by vehicle tracks. The
character of the lands was altered, perhaps
irrevocably.
…
Roads have had a significant influence
on how humans interact with and use the
land, as well as a profound and lasting im-
pact on the land itself. Once a road or trail is
etched on the land, more than just physical
changes occur; our attitudes also change. We
become accustomed to traveling along its
route. Soon we perceive it to be our “right” to
travel that route, regardless of the impacts.
This “I have the right” mind-set is much more
pervasive on public lands. Though many
citizens are very respectful of public lands,
others are not. Certainly, I know of no private
landowners who allow anyone to go any-
where at anytime on their land with any kind
of motorized or even non-motorized vehicle.
Today, we can go to more places easier
and faster than at any other time in history.
In recent years, our ability to reach even
the most remote areas has only increased.
Traditional impediments to distant places—
water, ice, snow, desert, or mountains—are
no longer barriers to access. We are produc-
ing bigger and better off-road vehicles in
larger numbers than ever before. Just a few
decades ago the Jeep and snowcat were cut-
ting edge, owned only by a very few. Now we
invade the wildlands en masse on off-road ve-
hicles, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and jet skis.
— Continued on next page —
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010
 — Odes to Roads, cont’d —

What about the ecosystem health of wild places? Wild Something will have gone out of
lands are immensely important for their high-quality, undis-
turbed soil, water, and air. These three key resources are the
us as a people if we ever let the
foundation of ecosystem and watershed function, upon which remaining wilderness be destroyed
long-term sustainability and all other resource values and
uses depend. Healthy, functioning watersheds catch, store
and release water over time. They reduce the downstream
effects of flooding, providing clean water for domestic, agri-
cultural, and industrial uses, and help maintain abundant and
healthy fish and wildlife populations. Undeveloped wild lands
serve as biological strongholds for threatened and endan-
gered species and are essential to their long-term survival.

Another critical purpose of a watershed is to keep water

on the land longer. The porous, vegetated topsoil of undis-
turbed watersheds acts as a sponge, soaking up moisture
to replenish groundwater tables and aquifers. By contrast,
when land is disturbed or has poorly maintained dirt roads,
torrents of runoff can erode stream banks and roadways and
carry tons of rich topsoil and silt downstream or downslope.
Maintaining these areas relatively intact ultimately saves
downstream communities millions of dollars in water-filtra-
tion costs.
Wildlands CPR Science Program DIrector Adam Switalski cuts a wolverine
Pristine areas are far more likely than roaded and developed track in the backcountry. Photo by Erin Switalski.
areas to support healthy ecosystem function, including the diver-
sity of native plants and animals. And areas of higher biological
diversity are more resilient in response to such natural distur-
bances as storm events or drought. Unspoiled areas are more resistant to the proliferation of
exotic invasive species, which is a major and growing problem throughout the country. Many
species, such as the grizzly bear, elk, and wolf, are dependent on large, undisturbed areas of
land for their survival. Roads and trails, especially those that are poorly maintained, are major
sources of sediment, which adversely impacts aquatic species.

Opportunities to enjoy nature by hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunt-

ing, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing must never be lost. Opportunities to pursue
scientific and cultural studies must never be lost. Opportunities to experience firsthand the
solitude of undisturbed landscapes must never be lost. As Wallace Stegner said in “Coda: Wil-
derness Letter,” published in The Sound of Mountain Water (Doubleday, 1969):

Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be
destroyed; if we permit the last virgin forests to be turned into comic books and plastic ciga-
rette cases; if we drive the few remaining members of the wild species into zoos or to extinc-
tion; if we pollute the last clear air and dirty the last clean streams and push our paved roads
through the last of the silence, so that never again will Americans be free in their own country
from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste.

— Mike Dombeck is former Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, a fisheries biologist, and is a
University of Wisconsin System Fellow and Professor of Global Conservation at the University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

11 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 DePaving the Way
Multiple Levels of Connectivity
By Bethanie Walder

S
hortly after Wildlands CPR was
founded in 1994, The Wildlands
Project (now the Wildlands Net-
work) became our fiscal sponsor. It was
a natural fit – Wildlands Network (WN)
was working with grassroots groups
around the country to create plans
for rewilding North America. They
were supporting multiple large scale
landscape connectivity projects, and
Wildlands CPR was working on getting
roads removed. The two efforts went
hand in hand, since roads are one of the
major causes of habitat fragmentation
and loss of connectivity. In those areas
where our work overlapped, the idea
was that they would help determine
where priority protection and restora-
tion was needed, and we would help Once an intellectual pursuit of science professionals and non-profit organizations,
implement the road reclamation por- enhancing habitat connectivity is gaining popularity with government officials.
Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
tion of that work.

While this made a lot of sense in
theory, it was not so simple to imple-
ment. First, people had barely even
heard of road removal, so we had to
start with basic education about its im-
portance before we could accomplish
much on the ground. Second, we began
assisting grassroots groups all over the
country in fighting road construction
and off-road vehicle abuse as part of
basic wildland protection, regardless
of whether it was part of coordinated
large landscape efforts. And third,
habitat mapping was still in its early
phases, and not everything was ready
for prime time.
A few years after we were founded,
Wildlands CPR became an independent
organization, and though we continued
to work with WN and many of their
partners, we also took on our own
campaigns, such as roadless protection,
off-road vehicle planning, and most
recently, road rightsizing (see cover sto-
ry). But our work has always been root-
ed in the same science that underpins
WN’s efforts – the idea of creating large
landscape and watershed connectiv-
ity, protection and restoration. As the
science has evolved, so has our work,
expanding the places where restoration
makes sense and introducing mitigation
into the mix in areas where full restora-
tion may not be possible due to ongoing
human use.
Wildlands CPR isn’t the only
organization that has been influenced
by these ecological concepts – WN has
had an enormous impact on land-based
conservation in North America, regard-
less of whether they have been directly
involved with every project. Landscape
connectivity and habitat based plan-
ning took off in the 1990s, with projects
like the Northern Rockies Ecosystem
Protection Act (a federal wilderness bill
that would designate wilderness in 5
different states, while funding restora-
— Continued on next page —
tion in the corridors between the core
areas to secure wildlife connectivity
across the landscape); the Yellowstone-
to-Yukon Conservation Initiative (which
advocates for conservation across
multiple states and Canadian prov-
inces, again with a focus on landscape
connectivity); and numerous other
landscape-scale projects.
In addition to these nonprofit ef-
forts, the concepts of landscape and
watershed connectivity have now
become popular with elected officials.
The Western Governor’s Association,
for example, has created a wildlife
council that is identifying crucial habi-
tat and connectivity areas that should
be protected from development. Each
state is supposed to develop a decision
support system to help guide future
energy, transportation and residential
development away from crucial wildlife
habitat (see RIPorter Vol.14 No.4).

12 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 — DePaving the Way, cont’d —
In November all of this work came
full circle again. I attended a workshop
co-hosted by Wildlands Network and
the Society for Ecological Restoration
(SER). The topic: how to make large
landscape conservation and restoration
a reality on the ground. This time, both
the mapping and the advocacy work are
more advanced. Participants included
restoration ecologists, GIS experts,
wildlife biologists and policy wonks like
me. We met in western Colorado, thanks
in part to the generosity of the own-
ers of the High Lonesome Ranch, who
are working to restore their ranch and
the wildlife habitat and connectivity it
provides. Their involvement illustrates
some of the advances in this work, as
they could look at rewilding maps and
see that their land was ideally situated
for protection and restoration to benefit
wildlife movement at the landscape
level.
While meetings like this have
happened before, the urgency is only
increasing as development continues to
threaten wildlife habitat and intercon-
nectedness at the very same time that
climate change is potentially forcing
wildlife to migrate in ways they have
not for millennia. The large landscape
connectivity theories long-advocated
by WN are now considered mainstream,
with private consultants, federal land
managers and university researchers
all participating in the meeting because
their work is all moving towards the
same objectives.
It was fascinating to learn about
advancements in GIS technologies that
are providing new methodologies for
identifying habitat protection and resto-
ration priorities to secure wildlife move-
ment over the long-term. However,
though GIS mapping visually presents
the physical connectivity needs and
opportunities for wildlife, policy change
is the vehicle we need to bring this work
together.
The WGA wildlife connectivity work
is one way to start integrating public
policy with nonprofit advocacy and uni-
versity research. The Forest Service’s
recently announced initiative to identify
a minimum road system (see our cover
13
The Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group completed a
Statewide Analysis in December 2010. Photo courtesy of the Washington Connected
Landscapes Project.
story) is another way. The agency, after
all, is responsible for nearly 200 million
acres of federal land. The “rightsizing”
initiative, as we call it, is one of the best
opportunities in decades to directly
restore both terrestrial and watershed
connectivity. If we can apply the excel-
lent GIS mapping tools from the many
different participants in the SER/WN
workshop to the rightsizing process,
we can start to identify and prioritize
places where the Forest Service can
focus their road reclamation efforts.
So after 15 years, the science and
the advocacy have reached a level
where we can integrate them in new
and very exciting ways. While advo-
cates will have to work outside of the
Forest Service rightsizing process as
well, national forest lands provide some
of the most important terrestrial and
aquatic habitat in the country, espe-
cially in the western US. If we can use
this rightsizing process to ensure that
roads are having the least possible
impact on wildlife and water quality,
then we can create a foundation upon
which to build larger landscape con-
nectivity efforts. That foundation will
enable advocates to work with private
and public landowners to implement the
visions depicted in their maps, through
a variety of land protection, mitigation
and restoration efforts.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010
By integrating rightsizing efforts
with ongoing large landscape plan-
ning, we can also help prioritize limited
restoration and mitigation dollars to
ensure that the most important habitat
is protected and restored. Reclaiming
unneeded roads will be a key activity in
that process. Reclaiming roads can ben-
efit highly interactive species, ensure
that wildlife can move from one place to
another, restore aquatic connectivity for
migrating salmonids and other anad-
ramous species, and reconnect local
people to the land, by providing high-
wage, high-skill jobs in their backyards.
Linking aquatic and terrestrial is-
sues, connecting big wildlife and small,
understanding the roles different spe-
cies of wildlife have on a cascading set
of factors in the natural world, integrat-
ing economics and ecology… these
multifaceted issues will dictate the
conservation and restoration practices
of the future. Rightsizing the Forest Ser-
vice road system can be the first step
in that process, and provides, perhaps,
the best opportunity in at least a gen-
eration to truly reconnect wildlife and
watershed habitat, as first envisioned so
many years ago.
 Legal Notes
A Lesson to be Learned from
Russell Country Sportsmen v. U.S. Forest Service
By Dave Whisenand

Introduction
A recent decision from the Federal District Court for the
District of Montana serves as a cautionary tale for how the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes
designed to protect our public lands can actually be used to
undermine that protection. In Russell Country Sportsmen v.
U.S. Forest Service, 2010 LEXIS 22211 (D. Mont. Mar. 10, 2010),
the court determined that the Forest Service violated NEPA
by selecting an alternative that was not adequately analyzed
in the draft NEPA document. The decision also found that
the Forest Service exceeded its authority under the Montana
Wilderness Study Act (MWSA) when it selected an alternative
that was more restrictive than what was contemplated at the
time that act was signed into law. While it is possible that the
MWSA issue was wrongly decided, as will be discussed below, Photo by Dan Funsch.
the NEPA issue may stand, which, at a minimum illustrates the
need for careful analysis and disclosure to the public before a and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) were
decision is made. released; however, the final alternative selected was not one
of those presented in the DEIS. Instead, based on public
comments concerned about the impacts from the project, the
Background Forest Supervisor constructed an alternative that combined
A 1986 Forest Plan divided the Lewis and Clark National and modified some of the alternatives presented in the DEIS.
Forest into management zones, each with its own goals and Changes included an overall reduction in motorized routes,
standards. The management zone at issue in Russell Country additional trail closures, a shortened snowmobile season,
Sportsmen includes the Little Belt, Castle, and the north half and removal of the 300-foot off-road-travel rule in favor of a
of the Crazy Mountains. That 1986 Forest Plan opened the for- “vehicle plus trailer length” restriction.
est to vehicle travel except for roads, trails, or areas specifi-
cally restricted. With the passage of the Montana Wilderness Study Act
in 1977, the Middle Fork Judith was designated a Wilderness
In addition to the Forest Plan, the Forest Service (FS) Study Area. This area is included in the Little Belt, Castle,
developed a Travel Management Plan (TMP) to analyze and and North Half Crazy Mountains management zone and was
direct activities within specific areas of the forest. In 2000, therefore included in the 2007 Travel Plan. Before 2007, the
the agency initiated the TMP revision process by conducting Middle Fork Judith had 112 miles of roads comprised of 54
outreach, and five years later, published a notice of intent in miles of highway vehicle roads and 58 miles of ATV/trail bike
the Federal Register and compiled a list of “significant issues.” routes. The FEIS designated thirty-eight miles of routes for
In 2006 a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was motor vehicles, of which 20 miles are for highway vehicles
distributed to agencies, organizations, and individuals; it pre- and 18 are for ATV/trail bike routes.
sented seven alternatives, four for summer and three for win-
ter recreation. The agency received a total of 1,783 comments
to the DEIS. They did not identify a preferred alternative, nor Procedural History
did they make one available for public comment. The Plaintiffs Russell Country Sportsmen challenged the
decision in the United States District Court of Montana, and
In October 2007, the Forest Service issued a Record of the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA) intervened as a
Decision (ROD), adopting a TMP for the area that affected Defendant. In March 2010 the Court granted summary judg-
1,050,110 acres, or about 53% of the entire forest. The ROD
— Continued on next page —

14 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 — Legal Notes,
ment for the Plaintiffs finding violations of both NEPA and the MWSA, and
in July entered a final judgment on the remedy. MWA and the FS have since
appealed both decisions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and briefing
is currently underway.
NEPA Ruling
The court held that the FS failed to consider or supplement reason-
able and viable alternatives in the DEIS, as required by NEPA. Under NEPA,
federal agencies must identify alternatives to their proposed actions in an
EIS. An adequate EIS must consider all reasonable alternatives and provide
detailed information on their impacts, but is not expected to consider
every possible alternative. If an “agency makes substantial changes in the
proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns,” a supple-
mental EIS is required. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(i) (2009).
A supplement is required if the changes “present a seriously different
picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project.” Keys Citi-
zens Coalition, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 374 F.Supp.2d 1116 (S.D.
Fla. 2005). But reducing motorized routes from 1,397 miles to 1,366 miles
arguably does not present a “seriously different picture” of the impact.
Instead, it could be seen as a “logical outgrowth” of the analysis completed
in the DEIS and appropriate measures taken to reduce the impacts from
the project. See Half Moon Bay Fishermans’ Marketing Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857
F.2d 505 (9th Cir.1988).
When the FS changed restrictions on motorized access from the draft
EIS to the final, the changes were probably not substantial enough to re-
quire a supplement. The modifications were made in response to exten-
sive public comment, and reducing or mitigating impacts raised by public
comment does not require a supplement. See Half Moon Bay.
So why did the judge rule that a supplemental EIS was required? While
the FS probably did not make “substantial changes” to the DEIS when
they selected an alternative not found within it, the Court found that they
selected an alternative that was “qualitatively outside the spectrum of the
alternatives discussed in the draft.” The opinion appears to ignore certain
facts presented by the defendants and defendant-interveners to show that
the decision was within the scope of alternatives and embrace the facts
as described by the plaintiffs. However, in none of the cases cited by the
defendants and defendant-intervenors did the agency modifications result
in a final alternative that was more restrictive than any of the draft alterna-
tives. This makes it possible that the Ninth Circuit will agree with Judge
Haddon on the NEPA issue.
It remains to be seen how the Ninth Circuit will rule on this conun-
drum, but in the meantime activists should advocate for a wide range of
alternatives and encourage the FS, if it decides that the alternatives were
not protective enough, to issue a supplemental EIS before making its final
decision so that NEPA cannot be used to obstruct an overall good result.
MWSA Decision
Regardless of what the Ninth Circuit concludes regarding the FS’ com-
pliance with NEPA, Judge Haddon’s interpretation of the Montana Wilder-
ness Study Act (MWSA) is troubling and counter to the MWSA. The Court
held that the FS violated the MWSA by restricting motorized use within the
Middle Fork Judith WSA below the amount thought to have existed in 1977.
15
cont’d ­—
Because the MWSA requires a managing agency
to maintain the wilderness character that existed
in 1977 and there was motorized use within the
Middle Fork Judith prior to 1977, the FS’s at-
tempt at “enhancement or creation of wilderness
character in the Middle Fork WSA” exceeded its
authority under MWSA.
The MWSA provides that WSA’s “designated
by this Act shall, until Congress determines oth-
erwise, be administered by the Secretary of Agri-
culture so as to maintain their presently existing
wilderness character and potential for inclusion
in the National Wilderness Preservation System.”
Pub. L. No. 95-150, 91 Stat. 1243 (1977). While
the FS was directed to maintain the wilderness
character, the MWSA did not prevent the FS from
allowing motorized use within the WSA, unless it
was designated as formal Wilderness. Montana
Wilderness Assoc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 146 F. Supp
2d. 1118, 1122 (D. Mont. 2001). The MWSA also
did not prevent the FS from reducing motorized
use within the WSA. It is within the discretion
of the FS to determine what the appropriate use
for the WSA is, so long as the levels of motor-
ized use do not exceed the 1977 levels and the
wilderness character is maintained. Despite
this, Judge Haddon turns the MWSA on its head
in ruling that the MWSA prevents the FS from
restricting motorized use within a WSA. The
result is an interpretation of the MWSA that says
the FS cannot provide for less motorized access
in WSAs.
Conclusion
While there is potential that the FS should
have provided a supplement to its DEIS, it seems
well within its discretion to restrict motorized
use in the Middle Fork Judith WSA. The District
Court appears wrong when it determined that
the MWSA prevents the FS from reducing the
amount of motorized use in a WSA to a level less
than what existed in 1977. The Ninth Circuit
should overturn the District Court on the MWSA
issue, but, depending on how the Ninth Cir-
cuit interprets the facts of the case (are they a
“logical outgrowth” or “outside the spectrum”
of alternatives), could affirm on the NEPA issue
requiring the FS to develop a supplement before
they can implement their TMP.
— Dave Whisenand is a second year law student
at the University of Montana. He was Wildlands
CPR’s excellent legal intern during the summer of
2010.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010
Program Updates, Winter 2010
Restoration Program
T
he big news we’ve been crowing about since November is the For-
est Service’s national guidance to the field to rightsize their road
system! (For details, see p.3) Wildlands CPR has pressed for this
action for years, through a variety of venues. We’re pleased the agency has
finally released the guidance, and we’ll continue meeting with national For-
est Service leadership, regional teams and individual forests to watchdog
its implementation on the ground. This new guidance is an extraordinary
opportunity to restore watershed health, aquatic connectivity, and large
landscape connectivity. It is also a major opportunity to increase the acre-
age of unroaded lands.
During the last quarter, Wildlands CPR’s Restoration Campaign
Director, Sue Gunn, and Executive Director Bethanie Walder participated
in meetings with top officials in the Forest Service regarding the (then
pending) guidance and its intersection with ongoing climate change and
watershed analysis work. We are perhaps most pleased to point out that
the Watersheds, Fisheries and Wildlife department will lead the rightsizing
effort concurrent with a watershed analysis effort that was launched about
a month earlier. In December, we met with the new national leadership
team for the rightsizing effort to learn more about their plans for imple-
mentation and to share some of our concerns about ambiguities within the
guidance. In addition, Sue coordinated a thank-you letter to the Chief that
was signed by more than 50 groups from around the country.
While the rightsizing analysis is in its earliest stages, our Legacy
Roads and Trails (LRT) efforts are maturing. Months of hands-on orga-
nizing work came to fruition in October when we introduced the new
Montana Legacy Roads, Trails and Jobs Coalition, with 28 initial member
organizations, including seven unions, the Confederated Salish and Koote-
nai Tribes, and the Montana Association of Conservation Districts among
others. Key members of the coalition met with Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)
to inform him about the importance of Legacy Roads and Trails to water
quality, wildlife connectivity and green jobs in the state of Montana (the
state has received $16 million in LRT funds over the past three years).
In addition to policy work, we continue to engage on the ground.
Science Program Director Adam Switalski wrapped up our Lolo National
Forest (MT) Road Survey Project for the season. Our field crew surveyed
abandoned and closed roads to identify hydrologic risks, weeds, and signs
of wildlife. Adam S. summarized the key restoration needs in each project
area, including places with high weed concentrations and evidence of use
by threatened, sensitive, or endangered species. Adam S. presented the
field data to the Forest Service and have now begun discussing inventory
and analysis projects for 2011.
16
Restoring watershed health can be a job for
heavy equipment. Photo courtesy of Bureau of
Land Management.
Adam S. also coordinates our new program
to monitor Legacy Roads and Trails projects.
Earlier in the year he worked with the agency
to identify sites and ensure that our monitor-
ing would be additive and not redundant with
their limited monitoring efforts. This enabled
him to design a monitoring program to collect
pre-decommissioning baseline data, and set up
permanent photo points. Near the end of the
field season, Adam S. worked with several spe-
cialists in vegetation monitoring to set up a new,
robust vegetation monitoring program on the
five forests (Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, Helena,
Gallatin and Clearwater) where we were already
collecting wildlife data (through motion sensi-
tive cameras). At each site, they established five
vegetation transects along the roadbeds, two
reference transects, and a photo point on each
transect, for a total of 50 permanent vegetation
plots, 20 reference vegetation sites and 70 photo
points. It was a lot of work over a very short
time period, but we’re hopeful it will pay off over
the long-term with data we can use to analyze
the effectiveness of different road reclamation
treatments.
— Cont’d o
­ n next page —
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010
Program Updates, cont’d
Transportation Program
N ow that the Forest Service has begun releasing final decisions on
travel plans, our multi-year travel planning campaign is entering a
new stage, at least at the national level. Here in Montana, however, both of
our priority forests (the Bitterroot and Beaverhead-Deerlodge) are behind
schedule. Adam Rissien, our Montana Transportation Coordinator, con-
tinues to prepare for the eventual release of travel plans on these forests.
The Bitterroot NF announced in October that they were pushing back the
release of the updated travel plan to next spring. (The plan was initially
expected last April.) However, as a complicated effort that includes the en-
tire forest with both summer and winter use, we understand the delay, and
support the agency undertaking an effective analysis. A District Ranger
working on the draft plan said, “This is, by far, one of the most complex
analyses that we’ve ever done.” We remain hopeful that the final decision
will protect roadless areas from summer motorized recreation (and we’re
pressing for the same protections from winter motorized recreation as
well).
As one example of Adam R.’s efforts to protect Bitterroot roadless ar-
eas, he partnered with American Wildlands, Trout Unlimited and Hellgate
Hunters & Anglers to develop a map illustrating a proposal for road re-
moval and new protections between a Wilderness Area and a game range.
We hope to effectively counter the Bitterroot NF’s draft proposal to create
an off-road vehicle loop at the border of the Welcome Creek Wilderness, a
popular hunting and fishing area.
While the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) still hasn’t
begun its travel planning process on several districts, we continue to try
to improve their recently revised forest plan. In September, we filed a
lawsuit challenging the BDNF for failing to follow its own rules (really?!)
regarding winter recreation. The forest plan designated winter motorized
recreation across 60 percent of the forest, including Mt. Jefferson, the West
Pioneer Wilderness Study Area, the West Big Hole, and other roadless
Citizens need to get involved in Travel Planning processes to ensure that
opportunities for quiet recreation remain. Photo by Dan Funsch.
17
areas. We believe the agency failed to analyze
how allowing snowmobile use on more than two
million acres would affect elk, wolverine and
mountain goats, among other species. Friends
of the Bitterroot and Montanans for Quiet Recre-
ation joined us on the litigation, which requests
that the agency undertake a formal winter travel
planning process before designating such use.
In other BDNF news, Adam created a moni-
toring report and associated Google Earth map
(available for download here) summarizing our
summer field monitoring. The map displays
waypoints with associated photos for each trip,
along with roadless area boundaries. He’s sent
all of this data to the Forest Service as part
of the travel planning record and pre-scoping
process.
Our Staff Attorney/Legal Liaison Sarah Pe-
ters helps Adam with legal and administrative ef-
forts (like the BDNF forest plan challenge) while
also providing strategic and legal assistance to
grassroots groups throughout the west. With so
many decisions out, Sarah has been swamped
assisting groups throughout the country on
appeals and possible litigation for final travel
plans that don’t comply with the regulations.
This quarter she’s provided support to groups
addressing problematic travel plans on the Stan-
islaus (CA), Salmon-Challis (ID), and Humboldt-
Toiyabe (NV) National Forests, among others.
In addition, Sarah took the lead in both writing
and resolving an appeal on the Fremont-Winema
on behalf of Wildlands CPR and several local Or-
egon groups. After the agency removed several
egregious provisions from the final decision,
Wildlands CPR and our local partners withdrew
our appeal.
The fall equinox RIPorter included a Legal
Notes explaining a recent Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals decision ruling that run-off from logging
roads is subject to regulation under the Clean
Water Act as a point source. Defendants in the
case have requested a re-hearing, and Sarah
has been working overtime to put together a
comprehensive amicus brief supporting the
original decision – we’ll keep you posted on the
outcome.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010
 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 20,000 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.

The Impacts of Winter Recreation and

Snowmobiles on Wolverines
By Laura Goldberg

R
ecently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found wol-
verines (Gulo gulo) to be warranted (but precluded)
for endangered species protection because of their
low numbers and disappearing habitat. Indeed, these elusive
creatures are emblematic of the backcountry and make their
home in remote mountainous terrain. The largest member
of the Mustelidae (weasel) family, wolverines’ large home
range, alpine habitat, and aversion to humans makes them
difficult to study. And while little research has been done on
the effects of human presence and activity on wolverines,
these animals possess many characteristics that make them
particularly vulnerable to recreation related disturbances.
These characteristics include low population densities, low
Gulo gulo, the wolverine. Public domain photo.
reproductive rates, large home ranges, elusive behavior, and
avoidance of humans (Olliff et al. 1999). Wolverines’ low
dispersal and colonization rates also make them sensitive
to human impacts (Claar et al. 1999). While backcountry
winter recreation has gained popularity in recent years, little research has
examined its impacts on wolverine. This paper reviews some specific im- Human disturbance can lead to direct loss
pacts of winter recreation and points to management strategies that could of habitat, increased habitat fragmentation,
mitigate these impacts. and the indirect effect of avoidance behavior in
wildlife (Johnson et al. 2005). Allowing snowmo-
bile access can also increase trapping mortality
Impacts of Winter Recreation (Weaver 1993), and in rare cases wolverines may
Winter recreation activities such as snowmobiling, cross-country
experience mortality due directly to recreational
and backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing can have harmful effects on
uses, such as an accidental collision with a
wolverine populations (Hornocker and Hash 1981, Copeland 1996, Olliff
snowmobile. Other indirect impacts of snow-
et al. 1999). Backcountry snowmobiling and skiing are most popular in
mobiling may include avoidance or displace-
the late winter and early spring, during wolverines’ most sensitive time of
ment due to noise or human presence (Olliff et
year - the denning season. Disturbance from snowmobile noise or even
al. 1999). When wolverines opt to avoid an area
the presence of humans during this time can be of particular concern. Ad-
due to human presence, they may be forgoing
ditionally, advances in snowmobile technology now allow the vehicles to
access to resources that area provided (Claar et
travel farther, climb steeper slopes and cover more rugged terrain, making
al. 1999, May et al. 2006). For example, should
it easier to reach remote wolverine natal den habitats and thereby further
snowmobile use cause wolverines to avoid an
increasing risks to wolverine (Heinemyer and Copeland 1999; Heinemeyer
area rich in ungulate carrion, they may seek out
et al. 2001).
areas that provide lesser food sources and as a
result, experience poor nutrition.

— Continued on next page ­—

18 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 — Biblio Notes, cont’d ­—

Snowmobile and other recreational trails

may cause a change in the species composition
of an area by facilitating the movement of spe-
cies that would otherwise be excluded due to
snow depth. Species such as wolves, coyotes,
or bobcats that move into wolverine habitat via
human-created trails could alter predator-prey
relationships in the area by either directly prey-
ing on wolverines or increasing competition for
carrion (Claar et al. 1999). In addition, snowmo-
bile use near natal dens may cause wolverines
to seek out other, less secure den sites, which in
turn could impact kit and adult female mortality
(Olliff et al. 1999).

Management Implications Snow machines have the potential to disturb denning wolverines.
Considering that “the essential component
Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.
of wolverine habitat may be isolation and the
total absence of disturbance by humans,” land
use, recreation, and wildlife management plans
ines, and carefully monitoring wolverine activity and human use in areas
must account for the negative impacts humans
recognized as potential wolverine habitat (Austin 1998).
can have on wolverines (Lyon et al. 1994: 130).
Furthermore, due to a general lack of knowledge
In some instances, human presence and activity should be limited in
about wolverines, land managers need to prac-
wolverine habitat. Strategic trail closures and limits on the type and level
tice “adaptive management” and use “profes-
of human use may mitigate the negative impact of humans on wolverines
sional judgment” and “common sense” when
(Austin 1998). The use of existing winter trails, as well as the develop-
land use planning in wolverine habitat areas
ment of new trails, should be considered likely to create negative impacts
(Olliff et al. 1999: 69). Other general consider-
on wolverines. Others have proposed management guidelines such as
ations include raising awareness of the impact
excluding recreational activities from denning and foraging areas in the
snowmobile and ski trails may have on wolver-
winter, as well as managing for minimal recreational impacts through the
use of quotas or weekend closures, and establishing five mile buffer zones
around predicted denning habitat (Olliff et al. 1999).

Banci (1994:109) notes that “refugia may be the best means of ensur-
ing persistence of wolverine populations.” Refuge areas must be large
enough to accommodate the wide home range of wolverines and include
travel corridors that allow for dispersal. Land managers should plan at
multiple scales when managing wolverine habitat. Planning at the “stand”
or small scale should account for food and denning requirements, while
planning at the landscape scale should address wolverines’ large home
range, travel, and dispersal (Banci 1994).

Conclusion
Wolverines are sensitive animals that avoid contact with humans.
And while this iconic species represents wildness in its purest form, their
long-term survival will require deliberate choices on our part to limit the
impacts of our own enjoyment of wild country. By managing for conserva-
tive recreational use and habitat protection land managers can ensure that
this rare species will thrive in the remote alpine environments it inhabits.
Little research has examined the impacts of winter
recreation on wolverines. Photo by Adam Switalski.
­ Laura Goldberg is a University of Montana Environmental Studies graduate
—
student.

— references on next page —

19 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 — Biblio Notes, cont’d —

Literature Cited

Austin, M. 1998. Wolverine Winter Travel Routes and

Response to Transportation Corridors in Kicking Horse
Pass Between Yoho and Banff National Parks. Thesis.
University of Calgary.
Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine.” Pages 99-127 in L.F. Ruggiero,
K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski,
Technical Editors, The Scientific Basis for Conserving
Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx,
and Wolverine in the Western United States. General
Technical report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Photo by Steve Hillebrand, USFWS.
Claar, J. J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conard, R.
Hompesch, S. Miller, G. Olson, H. Ihsle Pac, J. Waller, T.
Wittinger, and H. Youmans. 1999. Carnivores. Pages 7.1–
7.63 in Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects
of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review
for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on
Wildlife. Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.
Copeland, J. P. 1996. Biology of the Wolverine in Central Lyon, L.J., K.B. Aubry, W.J. Zielinski, S.W. Buskirk, L.F.
Idaho. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho. Moscow. 138pp. Ruggiero. 1994. The Scientific basis for conserving
Heinemeyer, K.S., B.C. Aber, and D.F. Doak. 2001. Aerial forest carnivores: Considerations for management.
surveys for wolverine presence and potential winter Pages 128-137 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk,
recreation impacts to predicted wolverine denning L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, Technical Editors, The
habitats in the southwestern Yellowstone ecosystem. Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores:
GIS/ISC Laboratory, Department of Environmental American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the
Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, 21 pp. Western United States. General Technical report RM-254.
Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.P. Copeland. 1999. Wolverine Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Denning Habitat and Surveys on the Targhee National Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Forest, 1998-1999 Annual Report. Unpublished Report. Station.
GIS/ISC Laboratory, Department of Environmental May, R., A. Landa, J. van Dijk, J.D.C. Linnell, and R. Andersen.
Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz. 2006. Impact of infrastructure on habitat selection of
Hornocker, M.G., and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biology 12(3): 285-295.
Wolverine in Northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, editors. 1999. Effects of
of Zoology 59:1286-1301. Winter Recreation on Wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone
Johnson, C.J., M.S. Boyce, R.L. Case, H.D. Cluff, R.J. Gau, Area: a Literature Review and Assessment. Report
A. Gunn, and R. Mulders. 2005. Cumulative effects to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee.
of human developments on arctic wildlife. Wildlife Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 315 pgs.
Monographs 160: 1-36. Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, Wolverine, and Fisher in the Western
Krebs, J., E.C. Lofroth, and I. Parfitt. 2007. Multiscale habitat United States: Research Assessment and Agenda. USDA
use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. Journal Forest Service Intermountain Research Station Contract
of Wildlife Management 71(7): 2180-92. No. 43-0353-2-0598. Missoula, Montana.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

W
ith snow on the ground, and hopefully
more on the way, it’s been an early and
glorious winter so far in Missoula. It’s
also been surprisingly busy, as we all try to wrap
up projects before the new year. But with 2011 fast
approaching… the staff and board at Wildlands CPR
want to wish you happy holidays!

Thank You
It’s the time of year when we have to say thank
you and goodbye to board members who have
bumped up against their term limits, and as always,
it’s a challenge. This year Cara Nelson and Jim
Furnish are leaving the board at the end of December.
Keep an eye on this space to learn who will replace
them beginning in 2011…

Cara Nelson has the longest history with Wild-

lands CPR of any board or staff member! She partici-
pated in the original 1994 meeting in Healdsburg, CA
that resulted in the founding of Wildlands CPR. That
meeting, called the “Road Fighting Strategy Session”
brought activists, conservation biologists and con-
servation lawyers together to discuss the ecological
impacts of wildland roads and to develop strategies to fight them. Cara
was working on a dual masters in Forestry and Conservation Biology/Sus-
tainable Development at University of Wisconsin-Madison at the time. She
earned her PhD in Forest Ecosystem Analysis in 2004 from the University
of Washington, worked on several postdoctoral projects, and was hired
in 2007 as the first professor in the University of Montana’s new wildland
restoration degree program (in the UM College of Forestry and Conserva-
tion). She joined our initial steering committee/board in 1995 and served
until December 2003 when she was term-limited off the first time. We gave
her a whole year off before asking her to rejoin in 2005. Alas, she is term-
limited again and will be stepping down from her formal role on the board.
But she has assured us she will continue to act as a key science advisor
and we are looking forward to continuing our work with her. She’s been an
extraordinary asset to Wildlands CPR since we were founded - there are so
many projects that wouldn’t have been the same without her input. Thank
You Cara!
Jim Furnish joined the board in January 2005, after an impressive
career with the Forest Service, culminating in his service as Deputy Chief
under Chief Mike Dombeck. We first learned about Jim when he was the
Supervisor of the Siuslaw National Forest and oversaw a cutting edge pro-
gram to profoundly reduce the size and impact of the road system on that
forest. When Jim moved to Washington, he helped oversee the develop-
Photo by Dan Funsch.
ment of the 2001 long-term roads policy that
called for the identification of a minimum neces-
sary road system on national forest lands. As
the political winds shifted, so did the fate of his
signature program, but it’s back on that table, as
explained in our cover story of this issue of The
Road RIPorter. Shortly after he left the agency,
we began contracting with him on off-road ve-
hicle issues, and a little while after that we asked
him to join our board. He’s been an immense
resource for us, a truly dedicated board member
who served as president for the past several
years. We will miss his insights, leadership and
guidance. Thank You Jim!
Thanks, too, to all of you who have made
donations as part of our annual gifts campaign,
or just as a year-end contribution. We can’t do
this work without your support! Finally, a big
thank you to the following foundations for their
generous support this fall: 444S, Harder, Jubitz,
New-Land and Wilburforce.

21 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 Support Wildlands CPR Today!
We’ve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier — and more effective — than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

• Reducing Overhead
Monthly giving puts your contribution
directly into action and reduces 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 con-
tain 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:

Electronic Funds Transfer Credit Card Pledge
from Checking Account

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

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

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

Credit Card Number: _______________________________

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

Signature: ________________________________________
NOTE: If you would prefer to make an annual donation, * The Card Security Code (CSC) is usually a 3 - or 4 - digit number, which is not
please visit our website (www.wildlandscpr.org) or send your part of the credit card number. The CSC is typically printed on the back of a credit
check to the address below. card (usually in the signature field).

Please send this form and your payment option to:

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

22 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2010

 Photo by Dan Funsch.

Put roads into unroaded country

and you sign a warrant of ill health
or even death for numerous species.

— Ted Kerasote, Heart of Home