The Road RIPorter

Spring Equinox 2011. Volume 16 No. 1

Inside…
Legal Victory Spares A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2

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

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

Off-Road Vehicle Abuse Wildlands CPR 2010 Annual Report Pages 9-12
DePaving the Way: Continuing Resolutions: No Resolution
At All, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 13-14
By Sarah Peters
Biblio Notes: From Silk to Pavement: The Rapid
Development of Roads in China, by Monica Perez-
Watkins. Pages 15-17
Policy Primer: Second Chance for Wilderness Quality Lands
Throughout the West, by Heidi McIntosh. Pages
18-19
Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation
Program Updates. Pages 20-21
Around the Office. Page 22
Membership Info. Page 23

Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org

Two visions for the Salmon-Challis Na-

tional Forest: one of serenity and wildness
(above); and the other, a mechanized play-
ground. Photos courtesy of Idaho Conser-
vation League.

— story begins on page 3 —

 A Look Down the Trail
Rules & Regulations, who Needs ‘em?

S
P.O. Box 7516
ince the late 1990s, the Forest Service has been trying in vain to solidify a new forest planning Missoula, MT 59807
rule in accordance with the National Forest Management Act. At some point they will adopt a (406) 543-9551
rule, the courts will let it stand, and new political leaders won’t undermine it. We’re probably www.wildlandscpr.org
nearing that point now, making this revision all the more important.
Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by
In late-February, the agency released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on their pro- promoting watershed restoration that improves
posed rule. The DEIS includes some great language, but language can be deceiving. If we hadn’t fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and
read the fine print, we’d think the rule was terrific, but it’s long on vision and short on requirements. enhances community economies. We focus on
The agency did a good job addressing many public concerns while providing maximum discretion reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads
and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.
and a minimum of red tape.

As far as substance, we see pros and cons. On the plus side, the rule is visionary in nature, and
specifically recognizes the importance of water, climate, and ecosystem services. In addition, the Director
rule includes language about watershed protection – a significant improvement over previous rules. Bethanie Walder
On the down side:
• The rule lacks specific requirements to ensure the agency’s vision for the future is met.
• The Forest Service adopted a biased and seemingly impossible process for protesting and Development Director
challenging forest plans. Thomas R. Petersen
• Threatened, endangered and sensitive species receive fewer protection than under previous
rules, especially the 1982 requirement to maintain “viable populations.” The proposed rule Science Program Director
would make the viability standard discretionary, limit monitoring, and reduce the geographic Adam Switalski
area over which a species should be protected. Whereas the current viability rule ensures
that “common species remain common,” under the new rule, protections may not kick in until
species are in danger. Legal Liaison
• While the agency has included new language on watershed and water quality restoration, Sarah Peters
it doesn’t go far enough to guarantee positive change on the ground.
• The agency fails to require the use of the best available science in forest planning.
Policy Specialist
• Climate change is acknowledged as a stressor to forest, watershed and wildlife health, but
Adam Rissien
the rule does not include clear mandates for addressing its impacts.

Our initial comments on the proposed rule include:

Restoration Campaign
• The agency must improve public participation by allowing extensions on the objection pe-
Director
riod, ensuring the data used to make decisions is available during the objection period, and Sue Gunn
allowing objections to be raised at any time during plan development.
• Plans must provide for viable populations of all native and focal species across the planning
area. Program Associate
• The final rule should adopt enforceable standards that require protections for streams, rivers, Cathrine L. Walters
lakes, and riparian areas.
• The final rule should require road density standards to protect and improve watershed (and
Journal Editor
wildlife) conditions.
Dan Funsch
• The agency must require the use of the best available science instead of just recommending
that forest managers consider such science.
• The agency should require that forest plans assess the risks of climate change and take eco- Board of Directors
logically sustainable actions to reduce those risks and the expected impacts of human caused Susan Jane Brown, Marion Hourdequin,
stressors on natural resources. Rebecca Lloyd, Crystal Mario,
• The final rule should require that forest plans preserve existing refugia for climate-sensitive Brett Paben, Jack Tuholske
species and protect migration corridors and linkage zones.

To download a copy of the final rule, the DEIS, or the schedule for regional meetings, click here:
www.fs.usda/gov/planningrule. For specific ideas about issues to raise related to the planning rule, © 2011 Wildlands CPR
don’t hesitate to contact our office.

2 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 Legal Victory Spares Salmon-Challis From
Off-Road Vehicle Abuse
Travel Management Rule Requires Minimizing ORV Impacts
By Sarah Peters

T
he Salmon-Challis National Forest encompasses 4.3 million
acres of land in Idaho, and includes large portions of the
iconic Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. Of the
forest area not already designated as Wilderness, over 70% is
either inventoried roadless or recommended wilderness.  Despite
the remote nature of the Salmon-Challis, motorized recreation has
slowly crept onto the land and eroded the unique values that de-
fine this wild Idaho landscape. But if the beginning of this story
sounds eerily similar to the stories of other quiet places threatened
with rampant motorized use, it ends with an inspiring conclusion,
due to the tireless efforts of citizen activists and a much-heralded
recent ruling by the District Court of Idaho.

Background: Travel Planning

Responding to unmanaged off-road vehicle use, the Forest Ser-
vice set out to complete a new forest travel plan, which eventually
closed the forest to cross country travel and was also supposed
to address the noise, dust and resource damage caused by off-
road vehicle abuse. Travel planning officially began on August Sawuger Lakes Trail in the Borah Peak Recommended Wilderness. Photo
3, 2007 when the Forest Supervisor published a Federal Register courtesy of Idaho Conservation League.
notice announcing the agency’s proposed action — initiating the
“scoping” period called for by National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations.

Throughout the travel planning process, Idaho Conservation problems. These same concerns over resource damage were
League (ICL) and The Wilderness Society (TWS) documented wide- raised again when ICL and TWS filed an administrative appeal of
spread abuse from motor vehicle use, including torn-up riparian the decision on October 30, 2009, which was ultimately denied
areas, deep tire ruts, and evidence of ATV violations in protected by the Forest Service.
areas. To bolster their already strong on-the-ground knowledge
of the forest, ICL volunteers and staff spent the summer of 2008
surveying numerous roads and trails in areas of high resource
A Lawsuit of Last Resort
With no other avenue left to make their voices heard, ICL and TWS
concern on all but one ranger district of the Salmon-Challis.  ICL
called on attorneys at Earthjustice to represent them in challenging
employed a systematic protocol for inventorying roads and trails
the Forest Service decision. They filed suit in the District Court of
using photos, global positioning system (“GPS”) waypoints, and
Idaho in January 2010 asking the Court to enforce federal envi-
written data forms.
ronmental laws that require responsible use and better balance
between motorized recreation and other forest values. Just over a
All of the information collected, and the accompanying recommen-
year later, on February 4, 2011, a federal magistrate overturned
dations and basis for them, were provided to the Forest Service
the Forest Service decision on the Salmon-Challis National For-
during the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact
est travel management plan. The decision is a big win for both
Statement (DEIS). ICL also met with Forest Service representatives
protecting resources on the Salmon-Challis from off-road vehicle
in January 2009 to highlight areas of concern and to discuss the
abuse, and for all those advocating for responsible Forest Service
monitoring protocol and damage they discovered. Unfortunately,
travel management decisions.
the Forest Service continually ignored the well-documented dam-
age caused by motorized use to sensitive resources, and issued a
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and decision on Au-
gust 24, 2009 that failed to address these documented resource — continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 3

 Salmon-Challis Legal Victory, cont’d
Salmon-Challis case confirms that the two
land management agencies’ obligations to
minimize impacts from route designations
are the same, notwithstanding variations
in wording between the agencies’ regula-
tions.
The Forest Service regulation [or the trav-
el management rule (TMR), at 36 C.F.R.
212.55(b)] states that the agency “shall
consider effects ... with the objective of
minimizing.” On the other hand, the Ex-
Borah Peak Recommended Wilderness.
Photo courtesy of Idaho Conservation
League.
While this decision is only binding on the
Salmon-Challis with regards to its travel
plan, it provides a clear mandate that the
Forest Service must not only protect public
lands from off-road vehicle abuse, but also
show how they’ve done it. 
Therefore, in all decisions dealing with
off-road vehicle use on trails and areas,
the Forest Service, at least on the Salmon-
Challis at this point in time, must not only
consider the “minimization” criteria set out
in the TMR, but must also document in the
record how they applied the criteria in their
designations. Otherwise, the designations
are invalid.
Minimum Road System/
Subpart A of the Travel
Management Regulation
Another exciting element of the ruling is
the Judge’s decision to revoke the minimum
road system determination that was made
by the Salmon-Challis literally at the last
hour and noticed to the public for the first
time in the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the travel plan.  The administrative record
did not contain the requisite science-based
analysis, and the agency did not inform
the public that it was identifying, let alone
designating, the minimum road system until
the ROD’s release. 

Travel Management Rule

and ORV Executive Order:
Minimum is Maximum
Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the
Court’s ruling deals with the “minimization
criteria” from the off-road vehicle Executive
Orders (EOs) signed by Presidents Nixon
and Carter. The Court ordered the Forest
Service to show how their decision actually
minimized impacts from off-road vehicle
designations, as opposed to simply show-
ing that the forest had considered minimiz-
ing impacts on watersheds, soil, vegeta-
tion, wildlife, recreational users. 
Indeed, the case record reflected that the
Forest Service had considered the EO mini-
mization criteria, but had failed to demon-
strate how that information was applied in
designating routes.  In 2009, a different
Court reached a similar conclusion re-
garding the BLM’s obligations to apply the
minimization criteria (See Road-RIPorter
Vol. 14.4 for more on that decision).  The
An area used for “highmarking” in the Lemhi
Mountains. Photo courtesy of Idaho Conserva-
tion League.
ecutive Order (EO) on which this particular
part of the rule is based, as well as the
current BLM regulations and the pre-2005
Forest Service regulations, clearly require
that, “areas and trails shall be located to
minimize damage....”
The Court soundly rejected the govern-
ment’s argument that the Forest Service
travel management rule only required the
agency to consider impacts.  Though def-
erence is warranted to the Forest Service’s
Hay Creek-Knapp Creek Trail. Photo cour-
interpretation of its own regulations, when
tesy of Idaho Conservation League.
that interpretation is unreasonable, the
Court cannot give it deference.
— continued on next page —

4 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 Salmon-Challis Legal Victory, cont’d

Here, the government took the mization criteria described

position in litigation that the above as a matter of law and
Salmon-Challis had not identi- directed the Forest Service in-
fied or implemented a minimum stead to respond to plaintiffs
road system through its TMP, and demonstrate how its deci-
even though the ROD clearly sion responded to the surveys. 
stated that such a determination The Court would not put itself
was being made. The Court in the place of the Forest Ser-
disagreed, stating that “in the vice and apply the substantive
byzantine world of federal en- minimization criteria of the
vironmental and administrative Executive Orders. That is the
law, such an assurance is of responsibility of the agency.
little currency, particularly when
measured against the express The Court also found that the
statement in the ROD to the Forest Service violated NEPA
contrary.”  The Judge therefore because the record did not
agreed with ICL and TWS that support the agency’s deci-
minimum road system determi- sion to exclude from its cu-
Documenting resource damage was a key component of the lawsuit’s success.
nations, when incorporated into mulative impacts analysis the
Photo courtesy of Idaho Conservation League.
NEPA documents, must be sub- combined effect of motorized
jected to public input and must routes less than one-half mile
show how that decision has long on the wilderness values
been made. and roadless characteristics of the forest’s Recommended Wilder-
ness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas.
In summary, the Forest Service may not insert statements in its
NEPA documents indicating that it has completed the requirements ICL and TWS also lost three of their claims, including an argument
of Subpart A without actually completing the required steps and that the agency failed to immediately close trails in the face of
providing the public notice that it was doing so. significant evidence that a trail was causing considerable adverse
effects, a “range of alternatives” argument, and a broader cumula-
National Environmental Policy Act Viola- tive impacts argument. 
tions and Other Claims With regard to the failure to close routes where ICL and TWS felt
The Court ruled that the Forest Service failed to address the exten- that considerable adverse effects were occurring, the Court stated
sive evidence submitted by ICL and TWS documenting substantial that it cannot force the Forest Service to take action to close routes
resource damage from off-road vehicle use. Some 400 miles of because “the agency does not have a discrete, nondiscretionary
motorized routes were surveyed by these groups and documenta- duty to close trails under 36 C.F.R. § 212.52(b).” Therefore, the
tion was submitted of former hiking trails and meadows reduced Court found that the Forest Service did not err by not immediately
to muddy bogs, deep tire ruts, crushed vegetation and significant closing certain routes Plaintiffs claimed were causing significant
stream bank erosion. resource damage.

The Court stated (p. 40):

The Forest Service cannot meet its obligations under the
2005 Travel Management Rule or NEPA without some
explanation of how it considered Plaintiffs’ site-specific
evidence of what appear to be significant environmental
effects occasioned by motorized use.
Stayed Tuned for “Return of the Travel Plan”
Because of the Judge’s decision, the Forest Service will have to go
back and develop a new travel plan that designates motorized
roads and trails in a manner that demonstrates it actually mini-
mized damage and conflicts. 

The Forest Service must demonstrate on the record that it has con-
sidered site-specific evidence of damage done by ORV use that
is submitted by the public during comment periods, and it must
provide a rational explanation for making decisions in the face of
conflicting evidence.
However, the Court did not find the evidence presented was suf-
ficient to show that the Forest Service failed to apply the mini-
ICL and TWS are in discussions with the Forest Service over the
on-the-ground remedy that will be issued by the Court, so it remains
to be seen what the final effects are for the Salmon-Challis and its
travel plan. But, for the rest of us, this decision should be placed
in our everyday collection of cases to be used when commenting
on Forest Service travel management plans and projects, and we
should be making sure that the Forest Service hears loud and clear
that this decision should be applied to all national forests, not just
the Salmon-Challis.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 5

 Odes to Roads
Best Wild Places: Exploring Gila Country
by Kirk Deeter
Editor’s note: This is a story ostensibly about a fly-fishing trip. However,
this Field and Stream editor found much more in this sportsman’s para-
dise, some of which was surprisingly disturbing.

I
joined photographers Kevin Cooley and Bridget
Batch, as well as Trout Unlimited’s Chris Hunt, Greg
McReynolds, and Dylan Looze in Silver City, New
Mexico. Silver City has a trendy restaurant row, art
boutiques, and plenty of allure for outdoor aficiona-
dos, especially anglers, hunters, mountain bikers, and
hikers.

My main objective wasn’t about finding a new out-

doorsy place to be, however. I wanted to catch a rare
Gila trout (oncoryhchus gilae gilae), a fish that can only
be found in this area. Genetically related to cutthroats
and rainbow trout, it is believed that as ancient oceans
and floodwaters receded and the deserts enveloped
this region, the Gila trout evolved and adapted in what
is now a relatively tiny high country oasis, where cold-
water streams still flow in alpine meadows. Once pres-
sured to the brink, through the efforts of Trout Unlimited,
New Mexico wildlife officials, and other conservation
organizations, the Gila trout have made an impressive
resurgence of late.
Looking out over the expansive, remote Gila watershed. Photo by Dan Funsch.
As this trip evolved, however, it would become much
more than a quest to tick off a “bucket list” species on
the fly. It was an eye-opening odyssey through a unique ecosystem that supports Trout Unlimited’s mission in this area simply revolves
a wide array of animals. Frankly, having never been here, I came prepared for around keeping the road access throughout the Gila
dusty mountains and tumbleweed. What I found instead were vast glades of limited, and also limiting the amount of ATV traffic
vibrant wildflowers, and lush green thickets through which flowed crystalline off established trails… avoiding the so-called “chick-
brooks. And more animals—bigger, stronger, and more numerous—than I had en foot effect.” As much as hunters and anglers real-
planned to see. ize the benefits of open access, one cornerstone of
conservation thinking—particularly in this region—is
For example, the area is home to some of the most prolific elk in the world (it’s that some places are best left alone… or at least we
one of the most coveted, and difficult-to-draw licenses in New Mexico). Local should tread on them very lightly.
guides will tell you that they expect a herd bull to be 380-class, and 350-scoring
satellite bulls are commonplace. It was conservation icon Aldo Leopold who once
said: “Recreational development is a job not of
I am told it is the uniquely mild high desert-meets-alpine-climate that produces building roads into lovely country, but of building
the habitat and forage needed to yield such species. But, almost ironically, the receptivity into the still unlovely human mind.”
delicate balance that produces such natural wonder may also be the region’s
Achilles’ heel. I was struck by the palpable fragility of this landscape.

— Continued on next page —

6 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 — Odes to Roads, cont’d —
A rare Gila Trout. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlfie
Service.
Species like the Gila trout benefit when their frag-
ile spawning runs are not disturbed. Migrating elk
herds flourish away from the noises and pressures
roads bring. And so on, and so on…
As such, this would be a trip that involved a lot of hik-
ing. We had noticed that the monsoon rains turned
the main stem of the Gila River into a raging torrent
of chocolate, but were able to find some clear water
in the west fork of the Gila River. Chris Hunt caught a
small brown trout on a grasshopper fly, but we didn’t
find the elusive Gila trout that day.
On day two we got up early, and decided to head
into the high country of the Black Mountains, in or-
der to find a feeder creek that would be above most
of the monsoon runoff. We knew if we could find
clear water, we would also find Gila trout that would
eat flies.
Trout Unlimited’s (TU) New Mexico Public Lands
Coordinator, Greg McReynolds, led the way, and
we were joined by TU volunteer and avid outdoors-
man Garrett Veneklasen. Veneklasen runs a fishing
travel business that connects anglers with some of
the most exotic fishing locales in the world. Yet he
also reminded me that he lives in New Mexico for a
reason: this is some of the most stunning hunting and
fishing land in the world.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011
That said, Veneklasen also pointed out that the high desert and alpine areas of
New Mexico are also extremely fragile, which is part of the reason TU and Field
& Stream organized this expedition.
The particular concern in this area is that the Gila National Forest is devising
a “Travel Management Plan” for the area, which would establish a designated
system of motorized trails. The problem, according to Trout Unlimited, is that
the proposal could include a huge loophole by allowing motorized big game
retrieval for up to a mile from any road.
That sounds good for many hunters… but there’s a catch. “The problem is that
would make the off-road limits utterly unenforceable in a practical sense,” said
McReynolds.
According to Veneklasen, who considers himself an avid ATVer, there is a point
where we need to draw clearer boundaries in order to protect the overall experi-
ence.
“I’m a 17-year ATV guy, but as an elk hunter, I have also come to learn that
engine noise is definitely equated by elk with predation,” said Veneklasen. “The
point is to have a regressive experience, and in fact, that is a huge reason why
the elk hunting, bird hunting and fishing experience is so unique here.”
“The problem is, the more you drive off road, the more the elk are pushed away,
and the more need there is to hunt with an ATV. It’s a spiral effect. We need to
prevent that from happening.”
Indeed, it isn’t an issue of irresponsible ATVers rip-snorting around the mountains
and marking up the landscape as much as it is a matter of people who love the
landscape—hunters, anglers, and ATVers included (often one in the same)—per-
haps loving it so much, and wanting to experience it so easily, that we risk loving
the region to death. By the same token, we limit hunting licenses in the Gila,
which is one of the most prolific trophy elk areas in the world. We also should
look at the way we access the resource. In conservation icon Aldo Leopold’s
spirit, keeping the true wilderness nature of an area requires maintaining road-
less areas.
The Gila cuts through high plateaus and quiet canyons. Photo by Dan Funsch.
7
 — Odes to Roads, cont’d —

What that boiled down to for us anglers on this day was some se-
rious hiking—a few miles along a creek, through a canyon, and
over a small ridge to a spot where we could see the Gila Trout
shimmering in the runs of the narrow creek.

On the first cast, I lobbed a size #10 Stimulator fly into the heart
of a choppy run, and a Gila trout surged to inhale the bug.
They’re sporty little fish; this one bulldogged upstream on a first
run, and then turned back into an eddy, where I could cradle it
in my hand, unhook it, hold it for a few images by photographer
Kevin Cooley, and then let it go.

Mission accomplished. As I held that small fish in my hands, con-

sidering the fragility of the ecosystem and the rarity of this spe-
cies, I ranked it right up there with the most rewarding outdoor
adventures I have ever had.
Box canyon in the lower Gila River. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
The trick now is finding ways to work together to ensure that same Service.
impression and experience for future generations.

The trip also forced a reckoning with a difficult issue that faces all of us hunters
and anglers who hope to experience as much as we can… share that opportu-
nity with as many others as possible… and at the same time, preserve the natural
landscape (and the fish/animals therein) for future generations as best we can.
Trout Unlimited volunteer Garrett VeneKlasen summed it up with a question he
asked as we hiked up the Gila River on day three: “Is wilderness really wilder-
ness if you build roads through it?”
“chicken-foot” effect, where trails encroach virtually
unchecked into critical habitat.
“The chicken foot effect is when a trail ends, and
someone creates a new fork, then the next person
comes along, and forks off that trail… eventually
there’s a chicken foot network of trails that might not
have been intended, but form because of regula-
tions that can’t be effectively enforced,” explained
McReynolds.

I was struck by the palpable fragility of “I think all sportsmen, from hunters, to anglers, to
ATVers, and hikers share a common goal. The trick
this landscape. now will be working together to achieve the best
scenario for the Gila.”

Garrett’s query wasn’t unique by any stretch. It reflects a concern sportsmen and
women have wrestled with for generations.
Aldo Leopold wrote in his classic A Sand County Almanac decades ago: “The
trophy-recreationalist has peculiarities that contribute in subtle ways to his undo-
ing. To enjoy he must possess, invade, appropriate. Hence the wilderness that
he cannot personally see has no value to him. Hence the universal assumption
that an unused hinterland is rendering no service to society. To those devoid of
imagination, a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the most
valuable part.”
And therein lies the rub.
As I thought on what Veneklasen and McReynolds
had to say, it occurred to me that, while there are
few universal “truths” in the finicky fly fishing world,
one constant I have always experienced is that the
further one ventures from the road or the parking
lot… the more foot miles you put on… the better the
experience is.
And so that would be the mantra for the final day of
our Gila country adventure. We walked up the West
Fork of the Gila River. And walked… and walked
some more.

The Gila National Forest’s proposed travel management hopes to designate cer- It is, without question, one of the most beautiful wild
tain routes for all-terrain vehicles and others for motorized use. Done right, it places I have seen. And it is worth experiencing
could open opportunity in this amazing place. Done wrong, however, TU New yourselves… and protecting for many generations
Mexico public lands coordinator Greg McReynolds, thinks it could lead to a that will follow us.

8 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 Wildlands CPR 2010 Annual Report
R
eviewing economic headlines from 2010, one might have predicted that
Wildlands CPR’s campaigns, staffing, and budget would have experi-
enced a year of retrenchment. We’re happy to report, however, that we
bucked the trend, solidifying and expanding our signature campaigns, while
also beginning research and development for new programs. For example,
we significantly expanded our summer inventory and monitoring fieldwork, de-
veloping new partnerships with the Forest Service and grassroots groups. We
continued to act as a watchdog on agency decisions, paying close attention to
the multitude of motor vehicle use maps being issued by the Forest Service across
the country. And we continued to lead the wildly successful Legacy Roads and
Trails Campaign, while working to improve its results on the ground. Our efforts
were almost universally successful, with a few hiccups here and there. This left us
well positioned to both continue our successful programs and begin implement-
ing new efforts in 2011.
Organizational Development
We had no changes to our permanent staff in 2010. However, we did add four
summer field techs, in addition to numerous summer volunteers and a few short-
termers for intensive data collection at the end of the summer.
From a funding perspective, we expanded our fee-for-service work and reduced
our dependence on philanthropic grants as a percentage of our overall budget.
There was a change in the timing of our grant funding, however, in that several
grants typically received in the fourth quarter of the year were pushed to the first
quarter of 2011. The result is clear in the accompanying financial charts, where
our expenditures top our income by nearly $80,000. That difference should be
fully made up in early 2011 (since all of the funding would have been for 2011
work, anyway, this had no impact on our cash flow or overall financial health).
Campaigns
Wildlands CPR’s 2010 work revolved around two major campaigns: 1) The
Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative; and 2) The Forest Service Travel
Management Rule (which includes both off-road vehicle management, and iden-
tifying an ecologically
and fiscally sustainable
minimum road system).
We’ve built a bridge
between these two cam-
paigns by successfully
pressuring the Forest
Service to identify their
minimum road system
(or “rightsize” it). While
rightsizing was incor-
porated into the Travel
Management Rule, it will
also provide a blueprint
for future Legacy Roads
Educating policy makers and members of the media and Trails spending.
through scientific research and field tours is key to building
support for wildlands restoration. Wildlands CPR photo.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011
Under the Legacy Roads program, hundreds of culverts have
been replaced or removed to facilitate movement of aquatic
species. Photo by Adam Switalski.
Legacy Roads and Trails
The year began well, after Congress approved a
record $90 million for the Legacy Roads and Trails
(LRT) program for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10). When
Congressional champions warned us that this might
be a “high water mark” for the program, we re-
sponded by educating decision-makers about the
important benefits LRT provides, including clean
drinking water, green jobs, and improved fisheries
and wildlife habitat. This year, the budget-cutting
chaos that took over Congress after the November
election will make our work even more challeng-
ing. Our Restoration Campaign Director Sue Gunn
continues to run this campaign for Wildlands CPR
and our several related coalitions. In FY10, the For-
est Service accomplished more than ever with LRT
funds, including:
• 261 culverts fixed to provide aquatic organ-
ism passage
• 1509 miles of system and non-system road
decommissioned (split about evenly)
• 887 miles of road improved
• 2618 miles of road maintained
• 76 bridges treated (e.g. maintained, re-
placed, upgraded, or installed) to reduce
water quality impacts/restore fish passage.
These accomplishments are significant (trail data
is not yet available), but we are frustrated that the
agency doesn’t report on ecological benefits in ad-
dition to mileage treated. (One of our main policy
objectives for 2011 is to change this.)
— Continued on next page —
9
 — 2010 Annual Report, cont’d —
N
ever content, we began three new projects
related to LRT in 2010. First, we received
funding from the National Forest Founda-
tion to develop a wildlife and vegetation monitor-
ing program for LRT projects in Montana/Northern
Idaho (Forest Service Region One). We partnered
with the University of Great Falls, Yaak Valley Forest
Council and Friends of the Clearwater to set up wild-
life monitoring sites on five different national forests.
We hired a field technician and began collecting
baseline data. We partnered with staff and gradu-
ate students from the University of Montana to set up
a robust vegetation monitoring protocol, and hired
more field techs. We set up plots for a 5-10 year
monitoring program to measure changes in wildlife
use of reclaimed roads, and to look at the reasons
for these changes (e.g. return of vegetation that pro-
vides food post-treatment). Our baseline data was
collected before roads were reclaimed, and in 2011
we will begin post-treatment data collection. Our
Science Program Director, Adam Switalski, devel-
oped and oversaw this program.
We set up plots for a 5-10 year
monitoring program to measure
changes in wildlife use of re-
claimed roads, and to look at the
reasons for these changes.
Second, in the fall we created an ad-hoc coalition
to support LRT in Montana, the “Montana Legacy
Roads, Trails and Jobs Coalition.” Its 27 organiza-
tions include six unions, one tribe, and a soil/ag-
ricultural coalition that understands how important
national forest water is to agriculture. The coalition
is broad-based and has already been successful.
For example, we met with Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)
in October to stress the link between LRT and the
emerging restoration economy. Senator Tester is
now taking a much more active role in supporting
LRT in the halls of Congress!
The third new project was developing a series of
maps demonstrating the relationship between mu-
nicipal watersheds/water supply, roads, and water
quality. We partnered with the Geos Institute in Or-
egon, and are now using the maps in our advocacy.
It took us much of the year to collect the key data
10
Our efforts on Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule are paying off with on-the-
ground protections. Wildlands CPR file photo.
from the Forest Service for this project. With Geos, we developed “proof of
concept” maps for several cities in Oregon, showing a likely causal link between
high road densities and “water-quality limited” streams (more research will clarify
which watersheds are impaired because of roads as opposed to other problems).
We are discussing revisions to the initial maps, and expect them to become an
important tool in our efforts to better explain the connections between national
forests, roads and clean water. These maps have the potential to become a
powerful tool that will be important not just to secure continued funding for LRT,
but also to influence future Forest Plan Revisions, efforts to identify a minimum
road system, and more.
Travel Management Planning (includes Subparts B & A below)
Since 2005, Wildlands CPR has partnered with The Wilderness Society to co-
lead a westwide campaign to ensure a positive outcome from the Forest Service’s
designation of roads, trails and areas for motorized recreation (known as sub-
part B of the Travel Management Rule). Since that rule was issued, we’ve also
been pushing the agency to implement subpart A by identifying and implement-
ing an ecologically and fiscally sound minimum road system (as mentioned, this
is also related to LRT). These two components made up the bulk of our Travel
Management Planning Campaign, largely led by Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney
Sarah Peters and Policy Specialist Adam Rissien.
Subpart B
We are starting to see our efforts on this portion of the travel management rule
come to fruition across the west. As of December 2010, 68% of the national
forests had issued subpart B decisions designating roads, trails and areas for off-
road vehicle use. The results are impressive:
• 32.2 million acres of Forest Service land have been closed to cross-
country travel by off-road vehicles
• More than 31,000 miles of renegade, user-created routes have not been
added to the formal transportation system
• More than 8,000 miles of system roads have been closed to motorized
recreational use
— Continued on next page —
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011
 — 2010 Annual Report, cont’d —

T Science
hese numbers are based on final decisions in travel management plans,
but we didn’t succeed everywhere. The California National Forests, for
example, mostly added routes to their system. And one of our top priority
forests, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge in Montana, still hasn’t formally begun their
off-road vehicle route designation process on a majority of its districts. Speaking
of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, we did bring a lawsuit against the forest for their
approach to winter travel management, and we are awaiting a decision on that
case as well as several others in Montana and beyond. We’re pleased to report
that our campaign partners (Idaho Conservation League and The Wilderness
Society) won an important lawsuit against the Salmon-Challis National Forest
re-affirming the primacy of the off-road vehicle Executive Orders, and the need
to “minimize impacts” to many different resources when designating off-road
vehicle use (see cover story, this issue). Sarah also provided strategic assistance
to partners on nearly a dozen other legal challenges that arose as a result of
subpart B decisions, including several that we are participating in as co-plaintiffs.
Victory: on November 10, 2010 the agency
released new guidance to the field directing all
national forests to finally complete subpart A.
Subpart A
Yes, we know A comes before B in the alphabet, but the Forest Service decided
to start with Subpart B, so we did too (at least in this annual report). That said,
we are extremely pleased to announce one of our most important victories from
last year – on November 10, 2010 the agency released new guidance to the
field directing all national forests to finally complete subpart A as well! We’ve
been pushing for this for many years, and we see it as a once-in-a-generation
opportunity to improve overall Forest Service management on the ground by
rightsizing the transportation system (see RIPorter 15.4, cover story).
The agency set a deadline of September 2015 for completing this work – any
roads not analyzed by then will lose their road maintenance funding. So there’s
a real “stick” to pressure the national forests to follow through. Since the release
of the guidance in November, we’ve helped coordinate meetings in four of the
nine Forest Service regions on implementing the guidance, we co-developed a
memo to our partners explaining Subpart A, and we have met regularly with the
national/Washington DC Forest Service team leading the effort to express both
our concerns and our optimism about the initial stages of the process.
2010 saw several scientific projects come to frui-
tion, allowing Adam Switalski to submit two articles
for publication in peer-reviewed journals. One was
accepted and published in early 2011; the second
is under minor revision based on favorable reviews
and will hopefully be accepted for publication upon
final submission. Adam worked in collaboration
with other ecologists on these and two other pend-
ing publications to advance the science of road rec-
lamation.
We also expanded our fieldwork, undertaking a
second year of “road reconnaissance” or “road in-
ventory” work through a cost-share agreement with
the Lolo National Forest. Adam’s top-notch crew
surveyed hundreds of miles of roads, adapting and
advancing the protocols being used and providing a
fairly comprehensive set of data to the Forest Service
for future planning efforts. This road inventory work
provides some of the critical data needed for the
agency to begin identifying their minimum road sys-
tem in accordance with subpart A of travel planning.
Our scientific work is now more effectively combin-
ing on-the-ground field efforts with policy needs, re-
sulting in more focused use of time and resources,
and, as mentioned above, much of Adam’s work
feeds directly into our core campaigns (e.g. LRT mon-
itoring). For example, Adam S. answered dozens
of information requests from agency staff, grassroots
activists, ecologists and others who needed scientific
information related to the impacts of roads and off-
road vehicles, as well as the ecological outcomes
associated with road reclamation. He also oversaw
the biennial update of our bibliographic database
on the ecological effects of roads. The database
now contains more than 20,000 citations on scien-
tific articles related to road and off-road vehicle im-
pacts and road reclamation.

As a community, we can only achieve this once-in-a-generation opportunity if

grassroots groups, local policy makers and interested individuals across the
country participate in this process from day one. The municipal watershed maps
we’re developing, along with several other resources, will provide important
tools to help people succeed in their efforts.
Monitoring wildlife use of restored roads continues as one
of Wildlands CPR’s major programs, and is key to building
support for restoration. Photo by Adam Switalski.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 11

 — 2010 Annual Report, cont’d —
Conclusion
Wildlands CPR continues to make great strides in our primary campaigns and related efforts. We’re
thankful for the continued support we’ve received from philanthropic foundations and individuals, mak-
ing 2010 a bona-fide success. Though we have only a small fulltime staff, we are making huge impacts
on the ground, as noted in the accomplishments above! Respected by grassroots activists and agencies
alike, Wildlands CPR is building from success to success, providing effective solutions to often-intractable
environmental problems on the ground. And we are using those successes to help us map out new
strategies and program opportunities for 2011 and beyond.

2010 financial report

Income
Contract Income Individual Contributions
$67,881 $36,955
Sales/Other
$18,194

Photo by Dan Funsch.

Foundations/Grants
$278,413
Expenses
Admin & Fundraising
$58,658
Organizational
Development
total income Transportation
$48,921

$401,442 $159,710

Restoration
$215,881

Footnotes
* Volunteer and in-kind contributions are not represented here, but totalled
252 hours valued at $3,888.
* Wildlands CPR’s expenses exceeded our income by nearly 20%, but this
is largely due to two things:
1) we received nearly $60,000 from foundations in the first quarter of
2011, instead of the fourth quarter of 2010
2) our fiscal year (the calendar year) never exactly matches up with our
Total expenditures
grant income.
* Our finances and cash flow are healthy and we expect them to remain
$483,170
so in 2011.

12 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 DePaving the Way
Continuing Resolutions: No Resolution at all
By Bethanie Walder

F
ebruary was a busy month for people interested in national
forest management. The Forest Service finally released their
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) proposing a re-
vised forest planning rule, Congress took up debate on funding the
government for the remainder of 2011, and the president released
his budget for fiscal year 2012. I’ll focus here on the FY11 and
FY12 budgets, for more information about the planning rule, see
“A Look Down the Trail” on page 2.

Congressional Budget Shenanigans

The US government operates on an October 1- September 30 fis-
cal year, and if all goes according to schedule, Congress adopts
a new budget well before September 30 rolls around. They’ve
been missing this deadline more frequently, however, forcing them
to adopt “continuing resolutions” (also called “CRs”) to keep the
government operating. The November 2010 election and related
political jockeying were partly to blame for the failure to adopt an
FY11 budget on time last year, and while Congress came close to
adopting a budget during the lame duck session, they didn’t get it
done. (We wish they had, as the provisions we care most about
were well-funded in two of the three proposals that were on the
table back in December.) The fiscal austerity drumbeat became
louder as the new Congress took office, resulting in the political
theater we’ve been forced to endure since then.
If we count the pre-election negligence and the lame duck sessions
as Acts 1 and 2, then we’re probably in the midst of Act 3. The
House, bowing to incoming freshman fiscal conservatives, adopt-
ed a bill with severe cuts to discretionary spending. The bill tar-
geted many things Wildlands CPR considers critical from a broad-
based social welfare and environmental perspective, but it also
included cuts to two things that we specifically focus on: off-road
vehicle enforcement and the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation
program. Neither these nor many of the other cuts proposed make
any sense, but then not much seems to make sense in the halls of
Congress these days.
If you’ve been reading the The Road-RIPorter for a while, you’ve
probably heard us talk about the ABC’s of Travel Planning. Sub-
part A requires the agency to identify a minimum road system,
subpart B directs them to identify roads, trails and areas for off-
road vehicle recreation, and subpart C deals with snowmobile
planning. We’re making huge progress on subparts A and B, (see
Annual Report, this issue) which will result in profound improve-
Is Congress working around the clock to come to
an agreement on the budget? You’re right, that’s a
rhetorical question. Photo by Laurel Hagen.
ments to land and water quality on national forests. So what did
the House of Representatives do in the budget they adopted? They
approved the “Herger Amendment” (Amendment 177, introduced
by Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)), which would prevent the Forest Ser-
vice from spending any money on implementing or enforcing sub-
part B of travel planning. Interestingly, the agency has no specific
line item for this work, it’s part of their general law enforcement
budget, which Herger did not propose cutting, thus fully illustrating
that this has nothing to do with cutting spending.
As of December, 68% of the national forests had finished subpart
B and issued Motor Vehicle Use Maps designating where off-road
vehicles can travel. If Herger’s amendment becomes law, then the
agency cannot enforce the designations on those lands, and off-
road vehicles can effectively drive anywhere. On the remaining
lands, where planning is nearly done, the Forest Service would
have to stop the planning process, at least until the next fiscal year.
On these forests, since subpart B isn’t finalized, it’s possible the
agency could continue to enforce whatever off-road vehicle rules
they had in place, but that remains unclear.

— Continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 13

 — DePaving the Way, cont’d —

T
he Herger Amendment is purely ideological – promoting off-
road vehicle recreation above all other uses – non-motorized
recreationists, wildlife and water be damned. Two weeks
after passage, however, we’re seeing some cracks in this ideologi-
cal wall. The new Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, Congressman Mike Simpson (R-ID), has changed
his mind and is now opposing the amendment. At a budget hear-
ing in mid-March, both Simpson and Forest Service Chief Tom
Tidwell said that defunding subpart B makes no sense. Tidwell
is quoted in an article from Environment and Energy Daily (FOR-
EST SERVICE: House chairman blasts amendment to halt agency’s
OHV planning (03/11/2011)) as saying, “Not allowing us to go
forward with this planning is not going to be helpful to the motor-
ized recreation community in the long term,” while Simpson stated
that stopping the process is not the right way to deal with any
controversy the process has generated. Let’s hope this means the
amendment won’t see the light of day in any final FY11 bill or CR
when the House and Senate finally pass a budget.

While the Herger Amendment may die, we probably can’t say

the same for proposed cuts to the Forest Service Legacy Roads
and Trails Remediation Program (LRT). The CR adopted by the
House would cut Legacy Roads and Trails funding nearly in half
for the remainder of FY11 (from $90 million in FY10 to $50.6
million). According to the House budget documents we reviewed,
LRT was cut more than any other Forest Service program. The only
explanation we can find is that Congress had been funding LRT at
a much higher level than that proposed in the President’s budget.
The budget documents compared the proposed FY11 budget to
the proposed President’s budget, where LRT was only funded at
$50 million. So perhaps it was an easy cut for the House to make.
And that brings us to the little bit of light we do see on the budget-
ary horizon…
The FY12 Budget
While the news was generally all bad on the FY11 front, that’s not
the case with FY12. If our assessment is right and the House cut
LRT to match the FY11 President’s budget, then that makes the Presi-
dent’s FY12 budget even more important. In it, LRT was increased
from $50 to $75 million. While this is still a decrease from FY10’s
$90 million, nearly every program will decrease in FY12, and this
cut seems more manageable than that proposed in the FY11 CR.
But there are some other budgetary changes worth noting.
The Forest Service has, once again, proposed integrating many
budgetary line items into one large fund called “Integrated Re-
source Restoration” or IRR (see RIPorter V.15.1). This year, unlike
last year, they moved Legacy Roads and Trails into the IRR. While
IRR is one huge fund, it includes three sub-line items – one of which
is LRT. The second sub-line is an $80 million fund for “Priority Wa-
tersheds and Job Stabilization,” which includes road reclamation
and culvert work – possibly increasing available funds. The third
sub-line item relates to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Resto-
Thousands of culverts in this condition can be found on
national forest lands, including an undetermined number
within municipal watersheds. Perhaps this is one reason
why LRT funding is so important. Wildlands CPR file photo.
ration Program (CFLRP), at $40 million, which is focused on haz-
ardous fuels. Many CFLRP projects, however, also include road
reclamation and stormproofing. While we’re not thrilled about LRT
being a sub-line item, we’ve been assured that the agency would
still be able to account for the program. We’ve also been assured
that road projects could move forward whether they are part of a
larger “integrated” project or not.
We were adamantly opposed to IRR last year, but the agency has
made significant changes that make it more viable. They still have
a ways to go to ensure accountability, and we continue to discuss
this with them, but their proposal is gaining some traction with
Congress, so we wouldn’t be surprised to see it adopted – if, that
is, Congress actually adopts an FY12 budget in a reasonable time
frame.
We’ll continue to monitor developments with both budgets and
keep you posted about what happens to LRT and whether or not
the Herger Amendment lives or dies. We’re hopeful for a positive
outcome for many threatened programs that will benefit fish, wild-
life, municipal drinking water, public health, jobs, and more. We
hope that Congress stops playing games and starts doing their job
again soon, but we’re not holding our breath.

14 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 Bibliography Notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the scientific literature
From Silk to Pavement: 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
The Rapid Development of Roads in China access important biological research relevant to roads.

By Monica Perez-Watkins

Introduction
While China’s rapid economic growth has garnered much attention in recent
years, its associated boom in road building is neither well-documented nor well-
understood. With more than 3.5 million km of roadways already in place (CIA
2010, Li et al. 2010), China continues to build roads at an amazing rate. For
example, China’s network of expressways has increased from 652 km in 1992,
to more than 65,000 km today (CIA 2010). Such expansive road networks are
powerful drivers of regional ecosystem change (Liu et al. 2008), and China’s
continued road construction and expansion projects will cause an increasing loss
in habitat (Li et al. 2003), posing a grave risk to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Recent research has found China’s road building to result in habitat fragmenta-
tion (Li et al. 2010, Liu et al. 2008), altered wildlife migration patterns (Li et al. Transportation infrastructure is key to any country’s economic
development. Photo © Marcel Huijser.
2003, Xia et al. 2007), the spread of invasive species (Ding et al. 2008), soil
erosion (Liu et al. 2008), increased impervious surfaces (Elvidge et al. 2007),
and an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions due to increased travel and
the quantity of cars. In this paper, I review the ecological consequences of the
unprecedented growth of China’s road system.
Wildlife Impacts
The expansion and construction of new roads may
lead to increased mortality through direct wildlife-
Habitat Fragmentation vehicle collisions, but also through behavioral
A leading cause of habitat fragmentation in China today is road development. changes such as road avoidance and disruption
Roads greatly alter an area’s environment and landscape structure, producing in migration and movement patterns. As a result,
edge habitat (Liu et al. 2008). Such induced habitat fragmentation can pose a connectivity between habitats is greatly reduced or
threat to the ecological flow of an ecosystem. This may influence many important restricted, leading to habitat loss (Li et al. 2003, Xia
ecological processes, such as animal movement, water runoff, and erosion (Fu et al. 2007, Eigenbrod et al. 2008). For example,
and Chen 2000), gene flow, and sustained biodiversity (Li et al. 2010). Soil the snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and giant panda
nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen may be captured and processed (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are two such species that
differently due to habitat fragmentation. The degree to which these nutrients will researchers have found to be significantly threat-
be affected depends upon the differing patch types that occur in a fragmented ened by habitat loss caused by road construction in
landscape, along with vegetation and soil conditions (Fu and Chen 2000). China (Xu et al. 2008, Zhang et al. 2007). In fact,
Zhang et al. (2007) found that, as of 2007, only
100 km2 of suitable habitat remained for the giant
panda, down from 1330 km2 in the 1950s, in the
Daxiangling Mountains of Sichuan Province. Con-
sequently, only 17 giant pandas inhabit the area, a
decline from a population of approximately 50 in
the 1970s (Zhang et al. 2007).

Researchers studying the effects of the Golmud-Lhasa

highway and the new Qinghai-Tibetan railway on
the Tibetan plateau found that both cut through the
summer migration route of the Tibetan antelope (Pan-

Despite challenges posed by terrain, China’s transportation network

— Continued on next page ­—
is expanding at an alarming rate. Photo © Marcel Huijser.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 15

 — Biblio Notes, cont’d —
tholops hodgsonii), also known as the chiru (Xia et
al. 2007). Xia et al. (2007) observed that the rail-
way acts as a physical barrier to chiru activity and
that the tourists and construction workers traveling
or working on the highway and railway negatively
affected the chiru, causing the herd to separate and
scatter on several occasions.

Invasive Species
China now has more than 250 international entry
points (airports, seaports, railway and motorway
stations). This, plus a staggering increase in interna-
tional trade, has resulted in an increase in invasive
species (Liu et al. 2007). Invasive species are det-
rimental to the environment because invasives may
replace native wildlife, reduce biodiversity, and in-
crease the risk of extinction in some species (Ding Balancing the needs of sensitive native wildlife with economic progress
et al. 2008). Invasive species enter China at one of will likely prove challenging. Photo © Marcel Huijser.
its many international entry points, and then spread
throughout the landscape along China’s growing
highway network. By 2005, the amount of destruc-
tive invasive species intercepted at Chinese borders
grew 10-fold from 1990 levels (Ding et al 2008).
Increasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Due to the vast expansion of transportation networks in China, domestic transport
Soil Erosion has significantly increased. The quantity of private-use vehicles, which were
Road construction has been shown to cause soil formerly government controlled, has increased by 20-fold since 1978 (Ding et
erosion, which leads to further land degradation al. 2008). More Chinese citizens drive now than ever before such that China’s
(Zhang et al. 2006) in the road-affected zone (the largest cities now attribute 80% of their carbon monoxide and 40% of their ni-
distance from the roadway in which impacts are felt trous oxides to motor vehicle emissions (Hu et al. 2010). From 1980 to 2005,
in the ecosystem), and the greater the road density, total annual emissions in China from methane and carbon dioxide increased by
the greater the risk of erosion. Studying the eco- 7440% and 3290%, respectively. Furthermore, China surpassed the U.S. in
logical risk of soil erosion from road construction in 2006 as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, with emissions reaching
the Lacang River Valley, Liu et al. (2008) found that 7,050 million tons (Mt) in 2008 (Yan and Crookes 2010).
expressways held a medium risk of soil erosion, and
that a mild risk was found across all road types.
Conclusion
The National Expressway Network Planning of China intends to expand the
Impervious Surfaces country’s expressways by an additional 20,000 km by 2025, for a total of
China has the greatest amount of man-made imper- 85,000 km (Planning and Research Institute of China 2010). As China contin-
vious surfaces in the world (87,182 km2; Elvidge ues to add new roads and expressways, the impacts to the environment will only
et al. 2007). The impervious surface of roads and get worse if the country expands without sustainable planning and development
expressways causes hydrological and ecological efforts. Sustainable development would include efforts to reduce fragmentation
disturbances (Elvidge et al. 2007), including: an wherever possible, encourage alternative sources of fuel, and promote the use
alteration in heat fluxes, resulting in increased sur- of public transportation. As more China-specific research is conducted, a better,
face temperature (Changnon 1992); the reduction comprehensive understanding of road-induced impacts will reveal the magnitude
of carbon sequestration from the atmosphere in pre- of the impact that China’s exponential expansion is having on its environment.
viously dense vegetation sites (Milesi et al. 2003);
an increase in the magnitude and occurrence of — Monica is a graduate student in the University of Montana’s Environmental
surface runoff into watersheds (Booth 1991); and Studies Program.
changes to the shape of stream channels caused by
an increase in overland flow from rainwater travel-
ing more quickly across the ground, which adds pol-
lutants from urban areas into streams and increases
water temperature (Beach 2002, Carlson 2008). — References on next page —

16 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 — Biblio Notes, cont’d —

Literature Cited
Beach, D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The effects of urban design on
aquatic ecosystems of the United States, Pew Oceans Com-
mission. Arlington, Virginia USA.
Booth, D. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage system -
impacts, solutions, and prognoses. Northwest Environmental
Journal 7: 93-118.
Carlson, T.N. 2008. Impervious surface area and its effect on
water abundance and water quality. In: Remote Sensing of
Impervious Surfaces. Pp 353-367. Q. Weng (Editor). CRC
Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
CIA (The Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book). China.
Accessed online on 11-30-10 https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html. China’s road building boom is impacting much more than charismatic mega-
Changnon S. A. 1992. Inadvertent weather modification in ur- fauna. Photo by Gary M. Stolz, courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
ban areas: Lessons for global climate change. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society 73: 619-627.
Liu, J., B. Cui, S. Dong, J. Wang, and S. Zhao. 2007. The
Ding, J., R.N. Mack, P. Lu, M. Ren, and H. Huang. 2008.
changes of community components and their horizontal
China’s booming economy is sparking and accelerating bio-
patterns caused by highway construction in the Longitudinal
logical invasions. BioScience 58(4): 317-324.
Range-Gorge Region. Chinese Science Bulletin 52: 213-
Eigenbrod, F., S.J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2008. Accessible habi-
224.
tat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and
Liu, S. L., B.S. Cui, S.K. Dong, Z.F. Yang, M. Yang, and K. Holt.
roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology 23(2):
2008. Evaluating the influence of road networks on land-
159-168.
scape and regional ecological risk - A case study in Lancang
Elvidge, C. D., B.T. Tuttle, P.C. Sutton, K.E. Baugh, A.T. Howard,
River Valley of Southwest China. Ecological Engineering 34:
C. Milesi, B.L. Bhaduri, and R. Nemani. 2007. Global
91-99.
distribution and density of constructed impervious surfaces.
Milesi, C., C.D. Elvidge, R.R. Nemani, and S.W. Running.
Sensors 2007(7): 1962-1979.
2003. Assessing the impact of urban land development on
Fu, B. and L. Chen. 2000. Agricultural landscape spatial pattern
net primary productivity in the Southeastern United States,
analysis in the semi-arid hill area of the Loess Plateau, China.
Remote Sensing of Environment 86: 401-410.
Journal of Arid Environments 44: 291-303.
Planning and Research Institute, Ministry of Communications of
Hu, X., S. Chang, J. Li, and Y. Qin. 2010. Energy for sustain-
China. 2004. National Expressway Planning, Beijing.
able road transportation in China: Challenges, initiatives and
Xia, L., Q. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Wu, and Z. Feng. 2007. The effect of
policy implications. Energy 35: 4289-4301.
the Qinghai-Tibet railway on the migration of Tibetan antelope
Li, T., F. Shilling, J. Thorne, F. Li, H. Schott, R. Boynton, and A.M.
Pantholops hodgsonii in Hoh-xil National Nature Reserve,
Berry. 2010. Fragmentation of China’s landscape by roads
China. Oryx 41(3): 352-357.
and urban areas. Landscape Ecology 25: 839-853.
Xu A., Z. Jiang, C. Li, J. Guo, S. Da, Q. Cui, S. Yu, and G. Wu.
Li, Y., Y. Hu, X. Li, and D. Xiao. 2003. A review on road ecol-
2008. Status and conservation of the snow leopard Pan-
ogy. Journal of Applied Ecology 14(3): 447-452.
thera uncia in Gouli Region, Kunlun Mountains, China. Oryx
42(3): 460-463.
Yan, X. and R.J. Crookes. 2010. Energy demand and emissions
from road transportation vehicles in China. Progress in En-
ergy and Combustion Science 36: 651-676.
Zhang, K., X. Li, W. Zhou, D. Zhang, Z. Yu. 2006. Land
resource degradation in China: Analysis of status, trends and
strategy. International Journal of Sustainable Development
and World Ecology 13: 397-408.
Zhang, W., Y. Hu, B. Chen, Z. Tang, C. Xu, D. Qi, and J. Hu.
2007. Evaluation of habitat fragmentation of giant panda
(Ailuropoda melanoleuca) on the north slopes of Daxiangling
Mountains, Sichuan Province, China. Animal Biology 57(4):
485-500.
Road-building always entails problems such as erosion.
Photo © Marcel Huijser.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 17

 Policy Primer
The Interior Department Gives a Second Chance to Magnificent
Wilderness Quality Lands Throughout the West
By Heidi McIntosh, Associate Director Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
I
n a great feat of foresight, Congress gave the Department of Interior the au-
thority to manage some federal public lands “in their natural condition” when
it passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. However,
in 2003, former Interior Secretary Gale Norton struck a deal with then-Utah
Governor Mike Leavitt in which she tried to give away the Bureau of Land Man-
agement’s authority to protect scenic, natural landscapes throughout the West. In
doing so, she ignored federal law and 27 years of BLM history.
On December 23, 2010, Secretary of Interior Salazar announced that he was
reinstating the Bureau of Land Management’s long-standing authority to identify
and protect the last remaining scenic and undeveloped federal public lands in
the West. Under the “Wild Lands” policy, issued as Secretarial Order 3310,
BLM will inventory lands with wilderness character and then decide whether to
protect them as a necessary part of the agency’s “multiple use” mission. If the
BLM determines that specific wilderness-quality lands should be protected, it will
identify them as “Wild Lands” and manage them accordingly.
It is now up to the BLM to ensure that its implementation lives up to the “high
priority” that the secretarial order places on wilderness landscapes. Although
the BLM manages more land than any other federal land management agency,
including some of our nation’s most spectacular landscapes, it has less wilderness
than any other agency. Importantly, BLM can remedy that imbalance without
bringing energy development to a halt. Even if all wilderness-quality lands were
protected, the vast majority of BLM would remain available for both renewable
and conventional energy development.
Lockhart Basin, Utah, photo by Ray Bloxham.
18
A Little History . . .
The 2003 agreement with the State of Utah, which
became known as the “No More Wilderness” poli-
cy, broke with history by disavowing the Interior De-
partment’s well-established authority to protect the
wilderness character of spectacular landscapes. Be-
fore 2003, every administration had used its author-
ity under Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) to identify “wilderness
study areas,” or WSAs, and protect their wilderness
character. However, as a result of the 2003 Utah
agreement, well-known western icons were at risk
from oil and gas drilling and rampant off-road ve-
hicle abuse, including Utah’s redrock canyons, New
Mexico’s Otero Mesa, Oregon’s Steens Mountain,
Colorado’s Roan Plateau, and Wyoming’s Adobe
Town.
Under the No More Wilderness policy, wilderness
became the only resource which the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is specifically precluded from
managing or protecting, and the impacts have been
profound. After 2003 the Interior Department auc-
tioned off leases for millions of acres of public lands
to oil and gas companies. Additionally, BLM land
use plans released late in 2008 included thousands
of miles of off-road vehicle trails in areas the BLM
itself found to qualify for wilderness protection.
Preserving these last remaining unprotected wilder-
ness-quality lands is particularly important given
BLM’s history of neglect of these national treasures.
Only 3% of BLM lands are now protected by Con-
gress as Wilderness.1 Secretary Salazar’s order
will restore needed administrative protective tools to
nearly 6 million acres of wilderness quality land in
Utah, 650,000 acres in Colorado, more than 5.5
1 http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_
special_areas/NLCS/Wilderness.html.
— Continued on next page ­—
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011
 Policy Primer, cont’d
million acres in Arizona, and more than 2 million
acres in New Mexico (out of the approximately 256
million acres of surface lands managed by the BLM).

Republican politicians in Congress have squawked

loudly about the policy claiming – wrongly – that it
will bring an end to economic development like oil
and gas drilling. But even if all currently unprotected
BLM lands that still qualify for Wilderness designa- Utah’s Red Desert. Photo by Ray Bloxham.
tion were protected now, the vast majority of BLM
lands would still be available for energy develop-
ment.
propriate” and consistent with governing laws and other resource demands, a
provision that gives us all heartburn.
In New Mexico, of the 13.4 million acres managed
by the BLM, less than 2 million are proposed for
To breathe life into the policy, the Secretary required the BLM to produce two
wilderness protection outside existing WSAs, while
guidance documents that instruct the state and field office staff how to implement
nearly 5.5 million are under lease to oil and gas
the policy. The first guidance documents came out on February 25, 2011 and
companies. Similarly, in Colorado, as of the end
are available at:
of fiscal year 2009, the oil and gas industry held
4.9 million acres of public lands and some 85%
H6301: Wilderness Characteristics Inventory
of the BLM lands in Colorado are open to oil and
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_
gas development. In contrast, only 205,000 acres
Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.34706.File.dat/6301.pdf
(or 1.7%) of BLM lands are currently protected as
wilderness. Protection of the all of the lands pro-
H6302: Consideration of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the Land Use
posed for wilderness in Colorado would increase
Planning Process
the amount of protected BLM lands to only 17%, still
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_
leaving the vast majority of BLM land open to extrac-
Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.46960.File.dat/6302.pdf
tive uses and off-road vehicle recreation. 2
H6303: Consideration of LWCs for Project-Level Decisions in Areas Not Ana-
In Utah, an analysis of BLM’s 2008 resource man-
lyzed in Accordance with BLM Manual 6302
agement plans shows that if lands that the BLM itself
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_
identified as eligible for wilderness protection were
Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.46960.File.dat/6302.pdf
protected, 86% of the proposed oil and gas wells
could still be drilled.
While the guidance does include some positive steps forward, like requiring
new wilderness inventories whenever a project is proposed or new land use plan
Additionally, the oil and gas industry has millions of
developed, there are a few red flags. One is that the guidance creates a distinc-
acres under lease and thousands of drilling permits
tion between “impacts” and “impairment” of wilderness character. It’s unclear
that it has simply chosen not to put into production.
when an impact crosses the line into impairment, but BLM’s policy is to avoid
Through FY 2009, 45,365,695 acres of BLM lands
only impairment. Bottom line: this may open the door to projects that “impact”
were under lease, yet only 12,842,209 were actu-
wilderness character lands.
ally in production. In other words, oil and gas com-
panies now hold leases on over 32.5 million acres
In addition to this guidance document, the BLM must provide the Secretary with
of public lands throughout the West that they are not
a plan by the end of June describing how it will address flawed wilderness inven-
developing.
tories and decisions in recently completed resource management plans. This is
a critical step and unless it is done right, we will be living with Bush-era land use
What now? plans for the next twenty years.
The Secretarial Order and the Wild Lands policy
alone do not protect a single acre of wild BLM land. In the end, the effectiveness of the new policy will depend on the knowledge,
In fact, the policy includes a loophole that would data, maps and advocacy work of countless wilderness supporters who will have
allow wilderness character lands to be developed to watch the BLM in their states to make sure they make wilderness a “high prior-
anyway if BLM decided that development was “ap- ity,” as the Secretarial Order mandates. As we know, too many at the BLM have
2 Special thanks to Nada Culver with The Wilder- a long history of finding that development trumps wilderness preservation. Our
ness Society for providing oil and gas data for CO & job is to marshal the support and the data that makes it very hard for the BLM to
NM. fall back on bad habits.

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 19

 Get With the Program
Program Updates, Winter 2010
Travel Management Campaign

S
ince 2005, Wildlands CPR has been co-leading a westwide campaign to address
subpart B of the Travel Management Rule while simultaneously pushing the Forest Ser-
vice (FS) to implement subpart A. Subpart B addresses designating roads, trails and
areas for motorized use, while subpart A focuses on identifying an ecologically and fiscally
sustainable minimum road system.

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

Wildlands CPR Executive Director Bethanie Walder and Restoration Campaign Director Sue
Gunn met with the FS national leadership team for subpart A in December and early March
to discuss progress with the new policy. In addition, we’ve met with regional implementation
teams in four of the nine FS regions, with a fifth regional meeting planned. For example, in
January, Sue coordinated a meeting between the Pacific Northwest (R6) staff and members Wildlands CPR has conducted extensive
of the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, and Adam Rissien, our Transportation monitoring in the Pioneer Mountains. Wild-
Policy Coordinator, pulled together a meeting between several Montana groups and the lands CPR photo.
Northern regional staff (R1). In February we partnered with Southern Appalachian Forest
Council on a meeting in Atlanta (R8), and with the Center for Biological Diversity and other her work, we formed an Oregon Advisory
groups on a meeting with the Southwest Region (R3). We also partnered with numerous Board (see Around the Office on page 22).
groups on a meeting with the Intermountain Region (R4) team in March, and finally, we’ve One of the first things Sarah is tackling is
also sent support letters to many of the regions, signed by a broad coalition of local groups. the subpart B travel planning process on the
Umpqua NF, which could use some serious
These meetings have helped us identify themes, ideas and concerns about the process, which improvement. She’s also continuing her in-
will become part of the mix as the regions and forests interface with other interest groups. volvement with the Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area motorized trail designa-
As to subpart B, Adam and our Legal Liaison/Staff Attorney Sarah Peters are following up on tions, as well as work in the Rogue River-
our lawsuit against the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF (Montana) challenging its revised forest Siskiyou NFs.
plan as it pertains to winter motorized use. Sarah is working with local environmental attor-
ney (and new Wildlands CPR Board member) Jack Tuholske on this case. To substantiate our Sarah helped coordinate several panels at
claims, Adam has been coordinating monitoring, working with Lighthawk and Friends of the the 29th annual Public Interest Environmental
Bitterroot to schedule over-flights of protected areas in the West Big Hole, complete with vid- Law Conference (PIELC) in Eugene, includ-
eographer and GPS specialist. Adam also coordinated volunteers to measure snowmobile ing one on subpart B and one on a recent
use in the West Pioneers Wilderness Study Area, where we settled a lawsuit with the FS last 9th Circuit decision related to logging roads
year to eliminate snowmobile grooming. The volunteers checked FS infrared counters, which and the Clean Water Act. Both were stand-
indicated mixed effectiveness. This data will be used in the agency’s winter travel planning. ing room only, and the subpart B panel was
featured in a Los Angeles Times article! (On
Sarah is also assisting with travel planning litigation on the Custer NF (MT), the Klamath- a related note, Sarah co-authored an excel-
Siskiyou NF (OR), the Salmon-Challis and Sawtooth NFs (ID), and the Pike-San Isabel NF lent amicus brief on the 9th Circuit decision,
(CO). While Wildlands CPR wasn’t a plaintiff in the Salmon-Challis case, Sarah’s strategic arguing that it should stand and not be re-
support helped result in the court’s ruling that the agency must follow the plain language of heard.) Bethanie also coordinated a PIELC
the off-road vehicle Executive Orders by minimizing the impacts of off-road vehicles on natu- panel about subpart A/rightsizing the road
ral resources and other users (see our cover story). system that was well attended and provided
an overview of this important process.
Both within and outside litigation, Sarah is getting more involved in OR national forest plan-
ning as a result of a new grant we received from the Jubitz Family Foundation. To help guide
— Continued ­on next page —

20 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 Program Updates, cont’d
Legacy Roads and Trails
S
ue coordinates our other primary campaign, the Legacy
Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative (LRT). It’s challeng-
ing to report on LRT because Congress still hasn’t adopted a
budget for fiscal year 2011 (FY11), and we don’t know how much
funding the program will receive (see DePaving the Way, this issue,
for more details). We’ve been on a roller coaster since December,
when Congress nearly passed a budget that would have continued
“level” funding (the same as FY10) for LRT at $90 million. But that
died, and two short-term continuing resolutions since then have not
made any changes. In February the House proposed a budget
that cut all sorts of programs including LRT (shrinking it from $90
million to ~$50 million), but at press time, the actual FY11 budget
remains unknown. The bright news is that the President’s proposed
budget for FY12 includes $75 million for LRT. Though still a cut
from FY10, everything is likely to get cut from FY10 levels. We’ll
keep you posted as this plays out.
In the interim, Sue has had her hands full organizing sign-on letters
from diverse constituents in MT, OR, CA, AZ, NM, CO, ID and WA
to key Congressional offices articulating broad support for LRT.
Sue and Bethanie also spent a week in DC educating new and old
Congressional supporters about the importance of this program to
green jobs, clean water and recreational access.
To increase support for Legacy Roads and rightsizing, Wildlands
CPR partnered with Geos Institute on a series of maps illustrating
the connections between roads and clean water. We used our first
“proof of concept” maps in presentations at USDA, on the Hill,
and with some new potential partners. The maps will become a
powerful tool for making links between clean water and roads as
we are able to add more municipalities to the mix.
The minimum road system
analysis, taking place between
now and 2015, is one of the most
important opportunities in the
past generation to improve forest
and watershed health.
From an on-the-ground perspective, Science Program Director
Adam Switalski is knee-deep in planning and hiring for the sum-
mer field season and year two of our LRT monitoring program. Last
year we conducted baseline monitoring on five different national
forests, and this year we’ll go back to those same sites for the first
year of post-decommissioning monitoring, while ideally also add-
ing at least two more sites. This project has the full support of the
FS, and Northern Regional Forester Leslie Weldon.
The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011
Wildlands CPR continues to monitor wildlife use of restored roads on the
Clearwater National Forest. Wildlands CPR photo.
Other projects
I
n addition to our LRT field monitoring, Adam S. is coordinating
our road reconnaissance surveys on the Lolo National Forest.
Unfortunately, we may not be able to finalize our agreement
with the Lolo until Congress passes a FY11 budget. We’re hopeful
the project will be funded so we can continue to provide informa-
tion for the agency’s rightsizing process.
During the winter, Adam focused on data analysis and building
the scientific basis for our advocacy, including submitting papers
for publication in peer-reviewed journals. For starters, Adam co-
authored a paper published in the March 2011 issue of Restora-
tion Ecology, “Restoration of Native Plant Communities after Road
Decommissioning in the Rocky Mountains: Effect of Seed-Mix Com-
position on Vegetative Establishment,” (the lead author was Ashley
Grant, who recently completed her Masters at University of Mon-
tana). He also partnered with former board member/University of
Montana professor Cara Nelson to finalize analysis and submit a
paper to Biological Conservation about wildlife response to road
removal on the Clearwater National Forest. In addition, Adam
is partnering with The Nature Conservancy on a climate change
“call to action” paper that they will submit for publication soon.
Wildlands CPR also hired several contractors to help develop new
business plans for our future restoration work. Betsy Hands com-
pleted a plan for a restoration training and certification program
related to road reclamation/stormproofing/critical maintenance.
Adam R. is overseeing next steps in implementing that plan. In
addition, Ryan Atwell completed a strategic action plan for de-
veloping “Payment for Ecosystem Services” programs to secure
private dollars to reclaim unneeded forest roads in watersheds that
provide municipal drinking water. The maps we developed with
Geos Institute will be critical for this ecosystem markets project.
21
 Around the Office

T
he big news from Missoula this quarter is that we moved to a new office! It
wasn’t a big move distance-wise, just one block, but it was a very big move
office-wise. Our old office, though fun and funky, had severe limitations on
natural light. Our new office is a bit of a dream, with east and north light stream-
ing into (almost) every office! We’re sharing the space with Missoula’s Commu-
nity Food and Agriculture Coalition – a coalition working to address community
needs related to food and agriculture in a creative and comprehensive way.

Welcome
In the last RIPorter we announced the departure of two of our long-time board
members who had reached their term-limits – Cara Nelson and Jim Furnish.
While of course they’re irreplaceable, we still have to replace them. We’re
pleased to announce the addition of Jack Tuholske and Dave Heller to Wildlands
CPR’s board. Due to prior obligations and projects, Dave won’t be officially join-
ing our board until May, but Jack joined us in February.

Jack is an environmental attorney in Missoula, Montana. Since graduating from

The University of Montana School of Law with honors in 1985, Jack has been
in private practice in Missoula, Montana, with an emphasis on public interest
environmental litigation in state and federal court in Montana and the West.  He
has been lead counsel for over 45 published decisions, including over a dozen
successful cases at the Montana Supreme Court.  These cases span environmen-
tal, land use, water, constitutional, and natural resource management law.  In
recognition of his work on behalf of public interest groups, Jack was awarded the
William O. Douglas Award by the Sierra Club in 2002 and the Kerry Rydberg
Award in 2010 by the University of Oregon Public Interest Environmental Law
Conference. More recently, Jack has combined teaching with his practice.  He
has taught a variety of courses and lectured frequently at The University of Mon-
tana and Vermont Law School. Jack has represented Wildlands CPR on several
cases in the past, including one ongoing case against the Beaverhead-Deerlodge
National Forest over winter travel planning.
Dave recently retired from the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Region, where
his most recent position was Regional Program Leader for the Forest Service Fish
and Aquatic Resource Program in the Pacific Northwest. During his work with
the Forest Service he was involved in several international projects, including
watershed restoration (mostly related to salmon) in British Columbia, Russia and
Mexico. He also worked on several Forest Service partnership and cost share
programs for fish and aquatic resources, serving on the boards of Wolftree and
the Native Fish Society. He currently serves on the Oregon Fish Passage Task
Force, an advisory group to the Director of the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. We’re also happy to report that Dave was very involved in the regional
implementation of the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative, one of
Wildlands CPR’s signature campaigns. Dave will be joining Wildlands CPR’s
board in May 2011.
We’re delighted to have them both “on board,” and are looking forward to their
participation in our June board meeting.
The northern Rockies has enjoyed an abundance
of snowfall this winter. Wildlands CPR file photo.
As mentioned in the program updates, Wildlands
CPR has recently put together an Oregon Advisory
Committee. The members of the committee are:
Wildlands CPR Board member and Western Envi-
ronmental Law Center attorney Susan Jane Brown,
Bark Executive Director Alex Brown (no relation),
The Freshwater Trust’s Brett Brownscomb, Chandra
LeGue from Oregon Wild, and Trout Unlimited’s
Alan Moore. Sarah has been talking with each of
the OR advisory members to help set her Oregon
agenda and we are very appreciative to have all of
their support! Thank you.
Thanks
We’d like to extend a big thank you to the Bullitt,
Firedoll, and High Stakes Foundations for their gen-
erous support for our restoration program. We are
also very thankful to all of you who participated in
our annual gifts campaign. While we didn’t raise
quite as much as we hoped, we did raise enough
to make a big difference in our budget. And, of
course, it’s never too late. So if you forgot to send a
donation at the end of 2010, don’t hesitate to send
one in now, instead!

22 The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011

 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

Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership:

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Electronic Funds Transfer Credit Card Pledge
from Checking Account

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

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: _______________________________

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.

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

The Road-RIPorter, Spring Equinox 2011 23

 Photo by Laurel Hagen.

Recreational development is a job not of

building roads into lovely country, but of
building receptivity into the still unlovely
human mind.”

— Aldo Leopold