The Road RIPorter, Volume 16.2, Summer Solstice 2011

The Road RIPoRTeR
Summer SolStice 2011. Volume 16 No. 2
Tapping inTo Clean WaTer from our naTional foresTs

By Bethanie Walder
inside
A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie Walder. Page 2 Tapping into Clean Water from our National Forests, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 3-7 Policy Primer: Watershed Condition Framework, by Adam Rissien. Pages 8-13 DePaving the Way: Logging Roads and Clean Water Dont Mix, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 14-16 Get with the Program: Restoration and Transportation Program Updates. Pages 17-18 Legal Notes: Agreement Protects Southern California Roadless Areas, by Jeff Kuyper. Pages 19-21 Odes to Roads: Killer Road in the Serengeti?, by Tom Petersen. Pages 22-24 Biblio Notes: Restoration after Road Decommissioning: Effect of Seed Mix on Vegetative Establishment, by Ashley S. Grant and Cara R. Nelson. Pages 25-28 Around the Office. Page 29 Membership Info. Page 30
Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org
Despite its importance, clean water is something that Americans have taken for granted. Wildlands CPR is getting back to basics in an effort to make the connection between healthy forests and this irreplaceable resource. Photos by Dan Funsch.
story begins on page 3
A Look Down the trAiL

a WaTershed momenT
ack in August 2009, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack gave an inspirational speech about the future of the Forest Service highlighting the important link between the overall health and vitality of our forest ecosystems and the supply of clean drinking water for more than 60 million Americans.
P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org
Since then, the agency has taken numerous steps to realize the Secretarys vision about protecting and restoring clean drinking water supplies. In early June, for example, they announced some initial results of one of those important steps, the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF). I was pleasantly surprised when I saw on page one of the WCF document, the following quote (oftreferenced by Wildlands CPR) from Vilsacks August 2009 speech: Restoration, for me, means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources while making our forests far more resilient to climate change. In many of our forests, restoration will also include efforts to improve or decommission roads, to replace and improve culverts, and to rehabilitate streams and wetlands. Restoration will also mean the rehabilitation of declining ecosystems. The Forest Service has been working on the WCF for several years, and we applaud the effort. It includes a six-step process intended to improve national forest water quality. The first step, an assessment of the condition of all national forest watersheds, is complete. The FS announcement of the WCF on June 3 included publication of a set of maps with 6th HUC watersheds highlighted in green, yellow or red, respectively indicating high function, at risk, or impaired watersheds. The limited number of red watersheds looks good for the agency, but does raise questions about the accuracy of the assessment. It seems likely that more watersheds may be functionally impaired than show in these maps. Now that all national forests have finished step A, they will move on to the next step, or identifying priority watersheds on each national forest. From there, they will develop watershed action plans to improve the condition of those priority watersheds, followed by implementation, tracking and monitoring. When meeting with the agency to discuss timing, we were informed that the identification of priority watersheds, and the development of a watershed action plan for at least one of those priority watersheds should be completed by September 30, 2011. At this point in time, the watershed action planning may prove the most important to us, because this is the stage where the agency will discuss on-the-ground road (or other) management opportunities to improve water quality. The people who worked on the WCF should be proud of their effort, as it sets the stage for a new conversation about water quality within the national forests. Perhaps even more importantly -- at least from an on-the-ground perspective -- this is not a stand-alone effort. They are working to integrate the WCF into numerous ongoing agency initiatives, from their budgeting proposal for integrating restoration funding (Integrated Resource Restoration) to the identification of a minimum road system. Check out our Policy Primer on pages 8-13 for an overview, including strengths and weaknesses, of the WCF specifically as it relates to roads. The Wilderness Society has also developed a more comprehensive review of the WCF as a whole. Kudos to the Forest Service for taking watershed condition and water quality seriously. Theyve acknowledged that there will be some bumps in the road, and probably some changes with the system over time, but theyve taken a major step towards more effective watershed management. We hope they continue with this positive trend as they identify priorities and develop watershed action plans. And to help them along, weve dedicated half of this issue of The RIPorter to roads and water issues read on...
Wildlands CPR revives and protects wild places by promoting watershed restoration that improves fish and wildlife habitat, provides clean water, and enhances community economies. We focus on reclaiming ecologically damaging, unneeded roads and stopping off-road vehicle abuse on public lands.
Director Bethanie Walder
Development Director Thomas R. Petersen Science Program Director Adam Switalski
Legal Liaison Sarah Peters Policy Specialist Adam Rissien Program Associate Cathrine L. Walters Journal Editor Dan Funsch Board of Directors Susan Jane Brown, Dave Heller, Marion Hourdequin, Rebecca Lloyd, Crystal Mario, Brett Paben, Jack Tuholske
2011 Wildlands CPR
The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011
Tapping inTo Clean WaTer from our naTional foresTs

By Bethanie Walder Americans often assume that our health and well-being are separate from the health of our natural world. But I return again to the simple act that we Americans often take for granted every day: turning on those water faucets. The clean water that emerges is made possible in large part by the stewardship of our working rural land and our forests in particular. My hope, and I trust you share it, is that together we can foster a greater appreciation in this country for our forests and that all Americans, regardless of where they live, see the quality of their lives, and the quality of their forests as inseparable. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, August 2009
ts true. Healthy forests, the watersheds and headwaters they support, and the clean water they supply are often taken for granted when Americans turn on their taps. In fact, many people are entirely unaware of the link between national forests and clean drinking water. Reflecting on this, we took Secretary Vilsacks statement to heart and challenged ourselves to create new ways to make these connections clear in our work. We couldnt do so, however, without also addressing the most pervasive threat to water quality on our national forests: roads.
We thought about this message, the science behind it, and how to best make the connections. We also remembered that nothing tells a story like a picture. And so Wildlands CPR developed, in partnership with the Ashland, Oregon-based Geos Institute, a set of maps and an associated presentation illustrating and explaining the connections between national forests, roads and clean water. With a focus on Oregons municipal water supply, our presentation hits close to home and has already been effective. In addition to laying out the basic tenets of watershed health as it relates to forests and roads, the maps and presentation promote water quality restoration through the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program.
the problems with roads
The Forest Service is responsible for more than 375,000 miles of system roads making the agency, likely, the largest road management entity in the world. And those roads wreak havoc on water quality and wildlife habitat. Below is a quick summary of the impacts of roads on water quality, fisheries and drinking water: X Chronic sediment runoff from roads and trails ends up in streams and rivers, thus reducing water quality for people and aquatic species (e.g. smothering fish eggs and inhibiting nest building). X Roads constructed on highly erodible soils are prone to severe landslides. Sediments released from landslides have interrupted and damaged the drinking water supplies of numerous communities. X Poorly constructed forest road systems can move water from one subwatershed to another, changing water availability. Road interactions with stream systems can also change peak flows and runoff regimes. X Chronic sediment can degrade municipal water supplies, potentially requiring municipalities to install or upgrade filtration systems. X Blocked, undersized or improperly installed culverts can prevent fish from reaching spawning habitat. X Compacted road beds alter hydrology by impeding water infiltration and blocking subsurface water flow.
Indeed, a river runs through it lets just hope that it is an intact watershed. Photo by Dan Funsch.
continued on next page
Tapping inTo Clean WaTer, contd

In addition to the hydrologic and aquatic impacts of roads, roads also severely fragment wildlife habitat, lead to the spread of non-native invasive species, cause direct wildlife mortality through roadkill, and increase access for poaching and illegal off-road vehicle use. Reducing the impacts of roads is the first and most important step the Forest Service can take, in many ecosystems, to improve aquatic and hydrologic conditions. This is even more important in the context of climate change, as severe weather events, including intense storms and spring flooding, are becoming more common and only exacerbating the negative impacts of roads. Second, according to a draft Forests to Faucets report from the Forest Service, Oregon has the highest number of people dependent on national forests for their drinking water. (The Forests to Faucets analysis was national in scope and included non-federal forests if the assessment were re-calculated only for the west and only for federal forests, its possible the results would change.) Third, Oregon is important in the context of climate change. Severe pacific storms are becoming more frequent and more damaging, resulting in more under-maintained logging road failures, spewing sediment into fish-bearing streams and municipal water supplies. We even learned, after developing the maps and showing them to Congressional staff in Washington DC, that the city of Portland had paid for road reclamation and other road mitigation in their municipal watershed, on national forest lands, precisely because of the link between national forests, roads and clean water. The accompanying series of maps (see following page), focusing on Eugene, OR, begins with a base layer that clearly delineates the geographic boundaries of Eugenes surface water source area. This is the subwatershed from which Eugene secures its municipal water supply. From there, we layered on the land ownership and the 303d listed streams. These streams have been identified as impaired under the Clean Water Act. Finally, we added the national forest roads layer atop these other layers. Thus the final map shows the significant intersection between roads and streams within the Eugene watershed. With the watershed stretching more than 50 miles away from the city, the maps also provide a visual guide to why people should care about lands that they might not consider to be their backyard.
National forests and drinking water
Okay, so we know roads are bad, but how much impact does that really have on drinking water for Americans? In the west alone, approximately 50% of Americans depend on national forests for their drinking water. Nationally, federal forests provide about 20% of our drinking water. And clean drinking water isnt the only municipal benefit from protecting water quality. Municipalities also use this same clean water for agriculture, industry, recreation and more. As a matter of fact, the Forest Service estimates that the clean water generated by national forests is worth approximately $7.2 billion/year. Major cities such as Los Angeles, Portland, Denver and Atlanta depend on national forests for some or all of their drinking water supplies. But how can we make the link between forests and faucets especially if those forests are often dozens of miles away, or more? In partnership with Geos, we developed a set of proof of concept maps to illustrate the specific connection between municipal water supply, national forests and roads. The maps are intended to create a direct visual link between a municipality and its water supply. Based on a variety of factors, we decided to focus our effort specifically on Oregon, ultimately developing maps for seven different cities within the state. Oregon is particularly emblematic of the intersection between national forests, roads and clean water. First, Oregon has more national forest roads than any other state in the country nearly 70,000 miles!
Roads have many impacts on water quality, from sedimentation to changes in flow regimes and water temperatures. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management.

mAP 1. Base surface water source area
Map Facts
Land Ownership
73% of the Eugene municipal watershed is Forest Service land. BLM manages just under 4%, with the rest privately owned.
Stream Crossings
mAP 2. Source area with ownership/303d listed streams
Road/stream crossings are one of the primary places where sediment is delivered to streams: 430 within the municipal watershed.
Riparian Area Impacts

188 miles of streams are within 300 feet of a road, thus 188 linear miles of riparian area are impacted by roads.
Water Quality Impaired Streams
mAP 3. Source area with FS roads, streams and ownership
The two top reasons stream segments are listed as impaired under 303d in this watershed are temperature and sedimentation. Roads are the leading cause of sedimentation in forested ecosystems. Temperature is likely directly related to sedimentation in certain instances (it is also directly related to loss of cover, for example from logging). Out of 185 total segment listings, 69 are likely related to roads and/or logging.
Note: maps adapted from GeoS & Wildlands cPr; data from eugene Water & electric Board, u.S. Forest Service The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

reclaiming roads to restore water quality
Since 2008, the Forest Service has received $225 million for the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program (LRT) to reduce the hydrologic and aquatic impacts of their road system. These funds have been used to reclaim nearly 3,000 miles of unneeded roads, to restore fish passage by fixing nearly 600 culverts, and upgrading or performing critical maintenance on more than 8,000 miles of roads. The attached chart shows how LRT money was spent specifically in the state of Oregon between 2008-2010 (the FY11 funds were just released as we were finishing this article). As you can see from the chart below, the agency has made increasing progress towards removing unneeded roads in Oregon over the past three years, with their overall road mileage now dropping below 69,000 miles. While we have not had time to perform a qualitative analysis regarding how much of this road work occurred in priority watersheds, it does appear they are spending their funds in a way that is clearly consistent with the intent of LRT. To ensure that that is the case, however, Wildlands CPR will continue to work with the agency in Oregon and beyond as they identify an ecologically and fiscally sustainable minimum road system (see cover story, RIPorter 16.1). This process will help provide a blueprint for future LRT spending, and it will also intersect with the agencys ongoing efforts to improve watershed health through their Watershed Condition Framework, (see Policy Primer this issue, p8).
oregon legacy roads and trails Accomplishments 2008-2010

Activity Accomplishments
2008 Miles of road maintained or improved Miles of road decommissioned Miles of trail maintained or improved No. of bridges constructed/ reconstructed No. of stream xings constructed/ reconstructed for fish passage 529 52 120 1 8 2009 779 156 1 1 8 2010 598 222 1 2 19
cumulative totals
2008-2010 1906 430 122 4 35
Funding
2008 Total CMLG Investments $4,869,000 2009 $5,698,000 2010 $12,268,230 2008-2010 $22,835,230
transportation System Summary

2008 Open Road System Closed Road System Total System Miles 49,087 20,303 69,389 2009 46,492 22,462 68,954 2010 45,321 23,435 68,756
Data courtesy of Forest Service Pacific NW Regional Office.

LRT, combined with the WCF, will help the agency remove unneeded roads while also fixing the roads we do need. And fixing the road system can provide many benefits. Following are some examples.
ecological benefits
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Improved water quality Reduced sedimentation Less fluctuation in water temperature Reduced pollution Improved fish habitat Improved riparian habitat and flow patterns Cold, clear water Restored fish connectivity Improved wildlife habitat Restored wildlife connectivity Improved habitat and food availability Improved population resilience and genetic diversity
Travel restrictions are designed to limit damage to soils and water. Wildlands CPR file photo.
Social Benefits
X Reliable and consistent road access to both developed and non-developed recreational activities. X The Forest Service reduced passenger vehicle access on national forest roads by 20% between 2002-2009 because of a lack of maintenance funding. This trend will continue if the agency does not identify and implement a minimum road system X Improved recreational opportunities X Improved hunting/fishing opportunities
conclusion
economic Benefits
X Reduced water filtration costs for municipal water suppliers. X Reduced long-term FS maintenance liability/costs. X Over time, investments in road reclamation are cheaper than continued maintenance expenses. X Increased number of high-wage, high-skill green jobs. X For each million spent on road reclamation, between 13-17 direct and indirect jobs are created. X Road reclamation and storm-proofing jobs typically go to local workers.
As Secretary Vilsack said, turning on the faucet and having clean water come out is something that Americans take for granted every day. The link between national forests, roads and clean water is inextricable. Over the past two years, the Forest Service has paid more and more attention to the connection between these issues. Nonetheless, few people understand or are aware of how important forests, including national forests, are as a source for clean drinking water. The more we can increase awareness about the link between national forests and water quality, including the specific and profound impacts roads have on drinking water, the more we can work to improve the situation. Mapping municipal watershed boundaries and the associated threats to water supplies is a critical first step in the process. And flowing from this recognition of the direct link between healthy forest watersheds and pure, clean, tap water, we believe, will be an upwelling of support for reclaiming roads as a primary tool for protecting and restoring this vital repository of clean water.
Photo by Dan Funsch.
PoLicy Primer
WaTershed CondiTion frameWork synopsis and revieW
By Adam Rissien
or years Wildlands CPR has urged the Forest Service to implement policies that focus on restoring whole watersheds in order to improve water quality as well as aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It seems our efforts are paying dividends: the USDAs current strategic plan makes watershed restoration a core objective for the Forest Service. In response the agency created the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF), which fundamentally changes its restoration approach. The previous agency paradigm was to treat the worst watershed problems through small projects, resulting in scattered, uncoordinated activities that rarely achieved whole watershed restoration. The WCF represents a more holistic approach and a new way to plan and conduct improvement and maintenance projects across entire watersheds rather than in piecemeal fashion. This marks a significant gain, and while certainly not perfect, demonstrates a change in agency priorities that was long overdue.
In short, the WCFs goal is to maintain or improve whole watersheds; it does so through a six-step process that classifies current conditions and prioritizes watersheds in need of restoration. It also requires development and implementation of action plans followed by monitoring to determine the plans effectiveness. The WCF describes each step: Step A: Classify the condition of all 6th-level watersheds in the national forest by using existing data layers, local knowledge, and professional judgment. Step B: Prioritize watersheds for restoration: establish a small set of selected watersheds for targeted improvement equivalent to a 5-year program of work. Step C: Develop watershed restoration action plans that identify comprehensive project-level improvement activities. Step D: Implement integrated suites of projects in select watersheds. Step E: Track restoration accomplishments for performance accountability. Step F: Verify accomplishment of project activities and monitor improvement of watershed and stream conditions. (WCF p. 5) The WCF is designed to work within existing budgets, use GIS technology with quantitative measures when possible, and focus on factors that have the greatest influence on watershed conditions, [Watershed Condition Class Technical Guide, p. 4 (hereafter: Tech Guide)]. Ultimately, the WCFs goal is to return areas to a more natural, pristine state with high watershed functionality (e.g. integrity).
overview
The Forest Service describes the WCF as a comprehensive approach for classifying watershed condition, proactively implementing integrated restoration in selected watersheds on national forests and grasslands, and tracking and monitoring outcome-based program accomplishments for performance accountability. (WCF p. 1).
It should come as no surprise: wilderness watersheds (like the Selway River) contain the most pristine water in our national forests. Photo by Dan Funsch.
policy primer, contd

Watershed condition classification
The frameworks crux rests upon the first step, which assigns a condition class using a one to three scale, where (1) means the watershed is functioning properly, (2) the watershed is at risk and (3) indicates it is impaired. The Watershed Condition scores are tracked to one decimal point Class 1 = scores of 1.0 to 1.66; Class 2 = scores >1.66 and <2.33, and Class 3 = scores from 2.33 to 3.0, (Tech Guide, p.12). These classifications are central to the framework since forest officials need to show success by moving watersheds up to a higher quality condition class. In determining the classification rankings, the WCF uses four general process categories. Additionally, each category has corresponding indicators with attributes that most influence watershed conditions. The following table shows each category with the percent it is weighted in calculating scores, along with each indicator and its corresponding attributes. The Forest Service derives condition class scores by first assigning a 1, 2 or 3 for each attribute based on existing data; officials may decide a specific attribute is not applicable and forego assigning a score. Next, all attributes are added and averaged to derive a score for the corresponding indicator, and then indicator scores for each process category are summed and averaged as well. Finally, each of the four categorys scores are averaged together based on their assigned weights. It is important to note that pre-existing data, not new site-specific analysis, is the foundation of this process. Therefore, scores can be adjusted based on professional expertise and judgments.
Watershed Condition Indicators - (12 Indicator Model)

Aquatic Physical (weighted 30%) Indicator Water Quality Water Quantity Aquatic Habitat Attribute(s) Impaired waters (303d listed), Water quality problems (not impaired) Flow characteristics Habitat fragmentation, Large woody debris, Channel shape & function Aquatic Biological (weighted 30%) Aquatic Biota Riparian/Wetland Vegetation Life form presence, Native species, Exotic and/or invasive species Vegetation condition Terrestrial Physical (weighted 30%) Roads and Trails Soils Open road density, Road maintenance, Proximity to water, Mass wasting Productivity, Erosion, Contamination Terrestrial Biological (weighted 10%) Fire Regime or Wildfire Forest Cover Rangeland Vegetation Terrestrial Invasive Species Forest Health Wildfire condition class OR Wildfire effects Loss of forest cover Vegetation condition Extent & rate of spread Insect & disease, Ozone (Adapted from the Tech Guide, p. 11)
Next Steps
Looking back at each of the six steps listed above, all national forests have completed Step A (the classification process). Individual forests are currently selecting priority watersheds for improvement or maintenance (Step B) based, in part, on the resulting condition class scores. However, forests can only choose a limited number of priority watersheds since activities must fit within current budget levels and be finished within 5 years (WCF p. 11). Those activities become essential projects in priority watershed action plans that each forest must develop (Step C) to improve condition class scores. Step D involves actually implementing these action plans, which will take several years since projects must still go through appropriate environmental analysis. It would not be unusual to anticipate a 5-year or longer timeframe from analysis through completion. Once projects are finished, the forest will record accomplishments in its internal databases (Step E) to track project completion and changes in watershed condition classes.
Lastly, in Step F, the WCF proposes a twotiered approach for verifying and monitoring effectiveness. Tier 1 is performance monitoring an administrative verification of condition classes to determine if they were properly assigned. This is done by annually reviewing a sample of priority watersheds and associated projects to judge if they can reasonably be expected to improve conditions. Tier 2 addresses effectiveness monitoring the agency will monitor watersheds in detail to measure improvement on the ground. Both performance and effectiveness monitoring can only take place upon completion of all essential projects in the priority watershed action plan, so it will be some time before verification reports become available.
A non-functional culvert diverts water away from the creek and down a road. Photo by Adam Switalski.
WcF concerns
While the WCF represents a paradigm shift toward holistic watershed improvement, significant shortcomings still exist. We are most concerned about potential biases, problems with monitoring/tracking, and specific issues related to road/ trail density and road/stream interactions.
Additionally, officials may have a bias because forests are only credited when a watershed moves from one condition class to another (a 3 to 2, or a 2 to 1) even though scores are calculated in decimal points. Some officials may be tempted to choose priority watersheds right on the upper edge of a class score since moving it to an improved condition would be easier. For example, the score for condition class 2 ranges from 1.66 2.33, so if a watershed has a 1.72 score it will be easier to move it to a condition class 1 as compared to a score of 2.29.
Biases
tracking success and monitoring
Forest officials are under pressure to show results so its not unreasonable to expect some watersheds will be chosen as priorities for the sake of expediency. For example, the WCF defines five different cost categories, ranging from under $100,000 to over $15 million. Managers must estimate the total cost for improving the watershed, which includes environmental analysis as well as implementation. It is highly likely the agency will prioritize watersheds that require less expensive work, and thus fall into the least expensive categories. Watersheds that require a significant amount of road reclamation or culvert work are not likely to fare well in such a scenario.
The WCF directs managers to record improvements in condition classes upon completion of all essential projects in the priority watershed action plan. One glaring problem with this approach is that condition classes will move before managers actually verify the project results. In other words, moving watershed condition classes is a paper exercise based on completing all essential projects from the priority watershed action plan instead of whether or not those projects actually improved watershed conditions. It is understandable that the Forest Service would want to demonstrate the WCFs success, but the agency should have a multi-tiered approach both for crediting managers in order to reduce the potential for bias, and to actually track whether watersheds are improving based on effectiveness monitoring. To measure success, managers should get credit at three stages: one for applying project-specific treatments; next for completing all essential projects within a priority watershed action plan; and then for actually moving a watershed condition class after effectiveness monitoring verifies the improved watershed conditions. A watershed should not be moved to a new condition class until actual improvements are verified on the landscape. That said, we recognize that some treatments, including road reclamation, could take years to change water quality measurements like sedimentation.
10

roads/trails and the WcF
Aside from concerns with how the WCF tracks improvements to condition classes and the potential for bias in choosing priority watersheds, there are problems with specific attributes among key indicators, most notably the roads and trails indicator. For roads and trails, the FS is using four attributes to assess condition: open road density, road maintenance, proximity to water and mass wasting. These attributes have some shortcomings, for example: X total road density should be listed instead of open road density X in addition to proximity to water, the agency should be assessing the number/ presence of road/stream crossings X in addition to mass wasting, the agency should be assessing the percent of road miles sited on steep slopes, as all soil types are not at risk of mass wasting, but might still experience significant failures due to slope steepness. Overall, however, the road/trail attribute is a step in the right direction, and the WCF Condition Classification Technical Guide includes an appendix with additional, helpful guidance. Still, here are examples of how two of these attributes might be problematic. road/trail density Looking at Figure 1, the chart reads Open Road Density for the attribute label, yet the description includes linear features. In fact, additional guidance states, for the purposes of this reconnaissance-level assessment, the term road is broadly defined to include roads and all linear features on the landscape that typically influence watershed processes and conditions in a manner similar to roads, (Tech Guide, p. 43). This section explains that even closed roads (with or without a closure order) should be included if they are still hydrologically connected to the watershed. However it does not allow an on-the-ground assessment to verify this, so a manager would either have to assume that all closed roads are (or are not) hydrologically connected to the stream, or would have to know which specific roads are problematic. Other linear features in the density calculation can include temporary roads and motorized trails. This latter category is especially important given that some forests have renamed hundreds of miles of roads as trails without ever physically treating them to reduce impacts. In addition, many motorized trails function as roads ecologically, even if they were never built to convey cars. Unfortunately this clarifying guidance is in an appendix, not in the chart that provides the initial overview, thus managers could have included only open, system roads in density calculations rather than all linear features. Since calculations for watershed condition classes are already finished, there is limited opportunity to go back and ensure each forest applied the additional guidance, especially since there was no public review of condition class calculations. This is especially concerning
Figure 1. road and trail condition
(WCF Condition Class Technical Guide, p. 43)
11

because the WCF directs that reassessment of condition classes be updated annually, but only for select watersheds that may have shown significant improvement or changes due to a natural event like fire or flood. More comprehensive recalculations for all watershed conditions are supposed to occur every five years, but budget constraints may preclude this. Therefore, faulty calculations that dont give appropriate emphasis to the stress roads cause on aquatic and hydrologic conditions could persist for years. decide to remove 5 miles of roads in the headwaters of the watershed (not within 300ft of the stream) in order to improve the watershed while leaving the lower streamside section of road in place. The WCF calculation now changes to one mile of road out of five that is within 300ft of a stream with the result that now 20% of the road is in proximity to the stream. At 20%, the area is reclassified as functioning at risk - even though the road length was cut in half and there was no further impact to the stream. So while the road density calculation decreased, the percent of road next to the stream increased, effectively canceling the gains made by removing part of the road. To fix this problem and more accurately measure the proximity to water attribute, the WCF should use the percent of stream miles within 300ft of a road rather than the other way around.
Proximity to water
While our concerns with the open road density attribute relate to a lack of clarity, more troubling is how the WCF measures the proximity to water attribute. For a good score (functioning properly) the WCF directs, No more than 10% of road/trail length is located within 300 feet of streams and water bodies or hydrologically connected to them, (Tech Guide, p. 43). But this particular language, though perhaps well-intended, could actually work as a disincentive to remove roads or other linear features that are not close to water. Basically, if roads are removed outside of the 300-foot streamside buffer zone to reduce road density, for example, the percent of roads within the buffer zone could increase, which could downgrade the watershed condition. To explain further, consider the following scenario, as shown in Figure 2: A forest road follows a creek up a watershed and then climbs up a mountainside. One mile of the road (out of ten) is within 300ft of a stream (equaling 10% of the road length). Managers
Figure 2. Proximity to Water Attribute example

This example of a hypothetical ten-mile road shows how the proximity of roads to streams attribute can backfire. As currently defined, the WCF measures the percent of road miles within 300 ft of a stream, instead of the reverse. 1 road mile/10 road miles = 10% The WCF considers 10% as functioning properly (good) If a project removes 5 miles of road that is not within 300 ft of a stream, then the calculation becomes: 1 road mile /5 road miles = 20% The WCF considers 20% as functioning at risk (fair) So, even though the watershed condition was improved by reducing the road density, the percent of the road within 300 ft of the stream increased. To fix this, the attribute should use the percent of stream miles within 300 ft of a road, not percent of road miles within 300 ft of a stream. 1 mile within 300 ft. Stream 10 mile road
5 miles to remove
12

conclusion
The WCF is a huge step in the right direction and shows the Forest Service is planning to walk its talk. Nonetheless, it has several shortcomings that could reduce its effectiveness on the ground. Specifically, it would be helpful if each region could verify that calculations for indicators and attributes were informed by the additional guidance, and class scores adjusted where needed. In addition, while it makes sense to choose watersheds that can realistically be improved, and possibly even to prioritize some watersheds that could reach a high level of function quickly, the prioritization process should not be entirely constrained by budgets and timelines. And on the reporting side, the agency should adopt a multi-tiered approach for documenting accomplishments. Finally, changes to condition classes should be based on the verification of each projects effectiveness in addition to the completion of all essential projects. Nonetheless, the Forest Service deserves credit not only for creating the WCF but for already implementing the first step and assigning condition classes to all watersheds. Their initial map, unsurprisingly, seems to show that most high quality watersheds are largely situated in roadless and wilderness areas, providing further justification for protected areas. But there are five more steps yet to complete, and with each new phase the agency will come closer to improving watershed health on the forests. According to recent conversations, they should be identifying priority watersheds before September 30. They also want to engage the public in some way in that process, so it would be good to contact your local forest about their process. Overall, the Watershed Condition Framework provides the opportunity to restore whole watersheds, but it will need careful monitoring and adjustments to ensure its success.
Ratings based on assessments of National Forest System land in sixth-level watersheds MAY 12, 2011
USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification - Region 6
Watershed Condition Classification

Functioning Properly Functioning at Risk
0 125 250 Miles
Impaired Function
13
DePAving the wAy

logging roads and Clean WaTer donT mix
By Bethanie Walder
early a year ago, in August 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a major ruling related to logging roads and water quality. The case, NEDC v. Brown, revolved around whether or not the pipes, ditches, and culverts associated with logging roads should be regulated as point sources of pollution under the Clean Water Act. (For an excellent review of the case, see RIPorter 10.3.) In a nutshell, the court found that they should, basing its decision on years of prior law and the text of the Clean Water Act itself. The case has received great attention from the timber industry, Forest Service, lawmakers (especially in Oregon and Washington), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and conservationists. As a result of this case, the pipes, ditches, and culPhoto courtesy of Burea of Land management. verts associated with logging roads must now be regulated as point sources under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitWhen the Ninth Circuit denied the request for en ting process. The ruling concluded that NPDES permits are required, and should banc review, defendants then asked the Ninth to have always been required, for point-source pollution from logging roads and stay that decision while they considered appealing that the silviculture exemption was a misinterpretation of the regulation. On to the Supreme Court. The Ninth again said no, thus the other hand, the timber industry views this as a huge regulatory burden and remanding the case back to the District court for a theyre pulling out all the stops to try to prevent it. hearing on the merits. That rehearing will determine whether any violations occurred, and identify an apFollowing the decision, defendants petitioned for en banc review of the case propriate remedy. by a full nine-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. In May 2011, the court rejected that petition while simultaneously issuing a revised opinion upholding the August In the meantime, the defendants have about 60 days 2010 decision and clarifying that the issue was properly in front of the court. left to appeal to the Supreme Court and we wont be surprised if they do so. While the idea of getting the Supreme Court to overturn the case must be enticing to the defendants, the Court only accepts a The reality is that even the Forest Service is not fully in small number of cases each term, so it is hard to predict whether the Court would even hear the appeal. compliance with the BMPs and, even if they were, it is But appealing to the Supreme Court is only one way doubtful that they would bring the streams and rivers on to fight the decision; the other method is to get Congress to amend the Clean Water Act or otherwise FS lands in Washington up to minimum CWA standards. prevent EPA from developing a permitting process. While the clock continues to run on a Supreme Court
Forest practices like clearcutting contribute to increased erosion and water quality impacts.
14
depaving the Way, contd
appeal, opponents of the ruling have already taken action on the congressional side. On May 23, 2011, 44 members of the House of Representatives, from both parties, signed a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urging her to reaffirm that the BMP approach is the correct one for responsible forest management legally, environmentally, and economically by defending the regulations in all appropriate proceedings and by taking the steps necessary to limit the scope of this ruling to the extent possible, particularly in the face of conflicting case law. The letter to the EPA argues that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the appropriate way to protect water quality from logging road impacts. But logging roads are already subject to BMPs, and yet, according to our previous review on this case by attorney Chris Winter: In 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency found that sediment associated with logging activities was the fifth leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and streams nationwide. Across the West, roads are the leading source of sediment from logging activities.
The health of aquatic insect populations can be used to gauge water quality. Wildlands CPR photo.
The letter to Congress argues repeatedly that BMPs are the best tool for addressing sediment from logging roads. There is no dispute that BMPs are useful and can be effective, but there are a host of reasons why applying BMPs alone does not work. Here are just three: X Most BMPs associated with logging roads are focused on the location and design of the road itself and do not actually prevent pollutants, like sediment, from entering a stream; X BMPs are both inconsistently written and inconsistently applied from state to state, and; X BMPs are rarely enforced, making them a voluntary measure for improving land management on the ground. Our work with the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative (WWRI) provides a compelling example of why BMPs arent sufficient to regulate the effects of logging roads on clean water. For starters, the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program began, in part, because Forest Service logging roads in the state of Washington were not in compliance with minimum Clean Water Act (CWA) standards within the state. In 2000, the Forest Service and the state entered into a Memorandum of Agreement engaging the Forest Service to bring its road system up to minimum CWA standards by 2015. By 2007, the agency had made almost no progress, and they projected that at then-current funding levels it would take 100 years to come into compliance with the standards. BMPs
Removing unneeded or problematic roads improves water quality. Photo courtesy of US Forest Service.
15
depaving the Way, contd

already existed and should have been applied. The reality is that even the Forest Service is not fully in compliance with the BMPs and, even if they were, it is doubtful that this would bring the streams and rivers on FS lands in Washington up to minimum CWA standards. BMPs are neither enforceable, nor do they fully protect or enhance water quality. Legacy Roads and Trails was created in response to this situation with funds dedicated to reclaiming unneeded roads and performing critical maintenance and stormproofing on needed roads. By funding this program, Congress is helping reduce the impacts of national forest roads on water quality, so why wouldnt they want to enhance that by supporting the EPA in its effort to comply with NEDC v. Brown? Unfortunately, the Congressional letter to the EPA shows quite the opposite approach. But lets go back to the heart of the industrys complaint with the NEDC v. Brown decision. Theyre worried that permitting will be overwhelming, cost-prohibitive and burdensome, and they dont seem to think it will help water quality, either. As quoted in the Congressional letter to the EPA: Decisions like this regarding the silviculture definition do not further the protection of water quality but rather hasten the conversion of forestland into other uses. As new housing starts remain at their lowest levels in decades, and with forest products markets losing jobs as well, this is hardly the time to impose unnecessary new regulatory burdens. But is this really the wrong time to impose new regulations? The EPA has significant experience with CWA permitting options and can develop a system that would provide flexibility to the timber industry while better regulating discharges from logging roads. In the original NEDC v. Brown August 2010 decision, the Court itself tried to head off this argument by stating, we are confident, given the closely analogous NPDES permitting process for stormwater runoff from other kinds of roads, that EPA will be able to do so effectively and relatively expeditiously. With this new decision in place, its irresponsible and illegal for the EPA to fail to regulate these roads under NPDES. Moreover, this decision allows municipal water suppliers, state and federal land managers, the environmental community, and others interested in improving water quality an excellent opportunity to better regulate, and therefore reduce, the damage being caused by logging roads. The NPDES process also requires reporting, making it easier for the timber industry and regulatory agencies to manage and document how much logging-road-associated sediment is going into streams. Furthermore, those involved with the case point out the ruling applies to a finite number of timber roads. Under the CWA one needs to demonstrate that a pollutant has been added to a regulated body of water from a point source and that that addition is occurring without a NPDES permit or in violation of such a permit. Hence those roads that have no hydrologic connection to water bodies (e.g. ridge top roads) may not require a permit. Also, logging roads not associated with an industrial activity, such as active log hauling, may also be exempt from permitting requirements (whether or not they are causing pollution). Neither Congress nor the EPA should fall prey to fearmongering by the timber industry. Unfortunately, the rumor is already circulating that some in Congress will move to amend the Clean Water Act in response to this ruling. Will we step forward or backwards when it comes to one of our nations most important environmental laws? For EPA and Congress to fail to respond positively to this excellent decision by the Ninth Circuit would be negligent and will result in the continued degradation of water quality for fish, wildlife, and, perhaps most importantly, people.
A landslide caused by a steep road cutslope on the Squaw Creek road, Clearwater NF. Photo by Geoff Fast.
16
get with the ProgrAm

ProgrAm UPDAtes, sUmmer 2011
Travel managemenT Campaign
e spent much of the last quarter hunkered down, in the strategic depths of different projects related to both our off-road vehicle travel planning efforts and the new rightsizing guidance
Sarahs also been working to prevent a travel-planning train wreck on the Umpqua National Forest. Shes coordinating activist efforts at several levels, and were encouraged, as the acting Supervisor seems receptive to our concerns and interested in working towards a better solution. Meanwhile, Sarah and Adam Rissien, our Policy Specialist, have been elbow-deep preparing for the next stages of engagement in our ongoing lawsuit against the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest over travel planning. New Wildlands CPR board member Jack Tuholske is the lead attorney on that case. Adam continues to follow other BDNF efforts. For example, one of our partner groups was considering appealing a new Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF Madison District decision. Adam worked with them and the BDNF to prevent the appeal by getting the agency to close several contentious roads. Outside of the travel planning context, Adam also took the lead on Wildlands CPRs engagement on the National Forest Management Act Planning Rule rewrite. He submitted detailed comments, focusing specifically on recreation. He also partnered with our Science Program Director Adam Switalski to question the agencys failure to include road density standards as requirements. Adam is now acting as our liaison to the Three Forests Coalition in Utah, and partnered with them as they created UT specific comments on the NFMA rule as well.
rightsizing/legacy roads and trails

The big news to report this quarter is bittersweet: Congress finally adopted a budget in April, which included $45 million in funding for the Forest Services Legacy Roads and Trails program. Why bittersweet? Well, bitter because the Forest Service had received $90 million for LRT in FY10, so the FY11 level was just 50% of that level a big hit to an important program. But, in this era of insane budget cutting, we consider it rather sweet that the program was funded at all. It is our understanding that the $45 million number was not seen as a 50% cut, however. Congress basically went back to the proposed FY11 Presidents budget, which included LRT at only $50 million (yes, that was disappointing, but at least the FY12 Presidents budget proposes to fund LRT at $75 million). They then cut LRT by 10% from the proposed FY11 budget to get to the $45 million number. Were still waiting for the regional allocations to be publicized, but well pass them along as soon as we know them. Speaking of getting information, we did finally receive the final LRT project reports from FY10. They are posted on our website at: www.wildlandscpr.org/2010legacy-roads-and-trails-final-project-data. You can use these allocation spreadsheets to see exactly what projects the FS implemented in FY10. While LRTs been on a funding rollercoaster this spring, our Restoration Campaign Director, Sue Gunn, has been on a beeline to secure strong support for that $75 million number in the Presidents budget.
travel Planning
The Forest Service is finally starting to wrap up their off-road vehicle travel planning process, keeping our Staff Attorney/Legal Liaison Sarah Peters very busy assisting activists as they review and respond to final agency decisions. Among others, Sarah has worked with activists focusing on the Routt and White River National Forests in Colorado and the Kaibab-Tusayan NF in Arizona.
Wildlands CPRs monitoring of trail use on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF has revealed numerous violations. Photo by Adam Rissien.
17
program updates, contd

Shes been working with grassroots groups throughout the west to engage more decision-makers as supporters of LRT. Adam Rissien has also been working this issue hard in Montana, promoting the excellent on-the-ground projects and their many benefits, including high-wage, high-skill jobs. Just before we went to press, for example, Adam co-authored a great opinion-editorial with Brianna Randall of the Clark Fork Coalition about maintaining Legacy Roads and Trails funding in light of the severe flooding thats occurring in Montana this spring. The op-ed appeared in the Missoulian (the daily paper in Missoula, MT) on June 7. His op-ed thanked Senators Tester and Baucus for their support of this important program. But our LRT work is not limited to national policy. Were also monitoring Forest Service LRT projects on the ground, and thats where Adam Switalski has been focusing his time lately. With a second year of support from the National Forest Foundation, Adam is expanding our monitoring project in partnership with an extensive group of collaborators to check field cameras and record data: Sierra Club, Northern Rockies Chapter of the Wildlands Restoration Corps, Friends of the Clearwater, Montana Conservation Corps, Hawkins Creek Stewardship Committee, Yaak Valley Forest Council, Nez Perce Tribe and University of Montanas Wilderness Institute. Having people closer to some of our field sites not only saves us time and energy, it has the added benefit of involving local citizens in this great monitoring project. In addition to finding and training all of these grassroots partners, Adam hired two field techs to conduct vegetation surveys and collate the data for all six field sites. The LRT monitoring has also given Adam time to photo-document the high number of new road failures caused by spring flooding, So far hes seen few, if any, problems on reclaimed roads. Our funding from NFF was in the form of a 1:1 challenge grant. So in addition to Adams work involving all sorts of grassroots groups, Development Director Tom Petersen and Program Associate Cathrine
Repairing culvert failures like this one on the Kootenai NF (MT) are a primary use of Legacy Roads funds. Photo by Adam Switalski.
Walters crafted a great email campaign to secure matching funds for a portion of the grant. Our goal was $2500, but we beat that and raised $3435 in just three weeks! Thanks to all who contributed, this helps us get those field techs out there on the ground. In a related effort, Adam S. and Cara Nelson, Assistant Professor of Restoration Ecology at the University of Montana (and former Wildlands CPR Board member), revised and resubmitted a paper documenting our Clearwater National Forest (ID) monitoring. The paper, Efficacy of Road Removal for Restoring Wildlife Habitat: Black Bear in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA, was recently accepted by the journal Biological Conservation. Congratulations Adam and Cara! All this on-the-ground work provides important guidance to our rightsizing campaign, which is designed to create a blueprint for spending future Legacy Roads and Trails funding. The Forest Service is starting, just barely, to dip its toes into the rightsizing waters. Wildlands CPR is pushing and prodding them to get their feet a little wetter. We continue to meet with the national
rightsizing team, while also engaging with specific regions regarding the actual implementation of the rightsizing guidance. For example, Adam Rissien has been meeting regularly with regional staff in Montana to better understand their approach to rightsizing in Montana and Northern Idaho. Adam and Executive Director Bethanie Walder developed a set of recommendations for use in their conversations with regional and national staff about how to craft an effective rightsizing effort on the ground. Were also knee-deep, as evidenced by numerous articles in this RIPorter, in assessing the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) and its intersection with rightsizing. Bethanie and Adam R. met with members of the national WCF team to increase our understanding of this effort. Bethanie also partnered with the Geos Institute to develop a set of proof-of-concept maps (see cover story, this issue) that begin to highlight the connections between national forests, roads and drinking water. Information like this will play an important role in our long-term efforts to rightsize the Forest Service road system.
18
LegAL notes
agreemenT proTeCTs 1 million roadless aCres in souThern California naTional foresTs
conservation Groups and Agency officials embark on landmark effort to identify Priority roads for Decommissioning
By Jeff Kuyper, Los Padres ForestWatch
he four national forests of southern California the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests include more than 3.5 million acres of public land, from the famed Big Sur coast south to the Mexican border. The forests host a high diversity of ecosystems, including chaparral, oak woodlands, savannas, deserts and alpine areas that provide a refuge for imperiled plants and animals, diverse outdoor recreation opportunities, and clean water for local farms and communities. The four southern California forests also harbor more than 5,000 miles of roads. Many of these roads are part of the forests official system of roads, and are formally authorized by the Forest Service, regularly maintained, and necessary for public access and forest management. However, nearly one-third of these roads are unclassified, meaning they have not been formally approved by the Forest Service because they do not meet federal road standards or were not officially constructed. These informal roads fragment habitat, promote the spread of invasive weeds, increase fire risk, and send sediment into mountain streams.
The new agreement will protect roadless lands and decommission roads. Photo courtesy of Los Padres ForestWatch.
In January, conservation groups, the State of California, and the U.S. Forest Service reached a landmark agreement to protect more than one million acres of roadless areas from development. The agreement now approved by a federal judge will also jump-start efforts to right size the extensive road network within these four forests. The agreement resolves a federal lawsuit brought by several conservation groups challenging Forest Service management plans for four Southern California national forests. The challenged plans issued by the Forest Service in 2005 opened up 900,000 roadless acres for possible road building and other development across the four forests. In 2008, seven groups filed suit over this and several other flaws in the plans. The groups included the Center for Biological Diversity, Los Padres ForestWatch, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, California Wilderness Coalition and The Wilderness Society, all represented by Earthjustice attorneys Erin Tobin and Trent Orr. In 2009 a federal district court agreed with the groups, ruling that the plans violated the National Environmental Policy Act. After that ruling was issued, the parties agreed to negotiate a settlement.
Under the agreement, the Forest Service will reconsider how the management plan can better protect roadless areas. The agency will also seek funding for restoration projects in roadless areas, and refrain from approving road building and other activities that could diminish the areas chances of qualifying for permanent protection as Congressionally-designated wilderness. While the analysis is underway, a stakeholder group will identify and prioritize road decommissioning projects in those areas.
19
legal noTes, contd

The Agreement The agreement was reached after more than a year of negotiations between the Forest Service, conservation groups, and off-road vehicle user groups (which formally intervened in the lawsuit). Specific terms of the agreement include: X By December 2012, the Forest Service will complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in which they will propose rezoning 37 priority Inventoried Roadless Areas as Recommended Wilderness, the highest level of protection set forth in the management plan. X Until the agency completes the SEIS, all roadless areas will be protected from harmful activities. X The agencies and groups will work together to identify unclassified roads that are degrading roadless areas, and will prioritize these roads for decommissioning and restoration by July 2011. X The Forest Service will identify and apply for federal, state, and private sources of funding to carry out priority decommissioning and restoration projects in the four forests. X The Forest Service will increase public disclosure about which proposed development activities will affect roadless areas. X The Forest Service will evaluate ways to improve how it monitors the impacts of land uses on the national forests. The Forest Service will summarize the results of its monitoring in a report made available to the public each year.
Under the agreement, conservationists will work with the Forest Service to identify priority roads for decommissioning. Photo courtesy of Los Padres ForestWatch.
Over the years, many of these roads were constructed in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the Forest Service estimates that as of 2005, 522 miles of roads cross through these areas that are supposed to be roadless.
Photo courtesy of Los Padres ForestWatch.
20
legal noTes, contd
The settlement agreement requires the Forest Service and conservation groups to conduct a series of workshops to identify priority roads for decommissioning.
Next Steps
Photo courtesy of Los Padres ForestWatch.
Right-Sizing the Road System As part of the forest plan revision process, the Forest Service began looking at the extent of roads in the four southern California forests. And what officials found was astonishing: more than 5,535 miles of roads criss-cross the four southern California forests, including 1,755 miles of temporary and unclassified roads (mainly user-created roads and trails that do not meet forest standards and that are not formally part of the national forest road system). Over the years, many of these roads were constructed in Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the Forest Service estimates that as of 2005, 522 miles of roads cross through these areas that are supposed to be roadless. To begin addressing this problem, the land management plan for the four forests establishes a strategy to reduce the number of unnecessary or redundant unclassified roads. The plans set a goal of evaluating 30% of the forests unclassified roads by the year 2020, using a site-specific analysis to determine whether to restore the roadways to natural conditions or convert them to trails. However, in the five years since the plan went into effect, no site-specific analysis has been conducted on any of the four southern California forests. The January 2011 settlement agreement jump-starts this process, requiring the Forest Service and conservation groups to conduct a series of workshops to identify priority roads for decommissioning. Once a list of priority roads is finalized, the groups and agencies will work together to identify and secure funding to implement these priority projects and conduct the appropriate environmental analyses.
The Forest Service will complete its SEIS by December 2012. In that document, officials will evaluate whether to rezone many roadless areas as Recommended Wilderness. When the draft is released, conservation groups will carefully review it to ensure the highest level of protection for these pristine roadless areas. Between now and when the SEIS is finalized, the groups will work to identify illegal roads in roadless areas that are harming the environment. Using our on-the-ground knowledge of these areas, ForestWatch will help identify which roads to prioritize for decommissioning, and will work to identify funding sources to carry out the work. Januarys agreement represents the first step towards right-sizing the road system in the four southern California national forests. Stay tuned for updates as this exciting and long-awaited effort unfolds. Jeff Kuyper is Executive Director of Los Padres ForestWatch. To track the progress of the agreements implementation, visit www.lpfw.org
21
oDes to roADs
killer road in The serengeTi?
By Tom Petersen
Editors note: Although this important road issue is far from home, it has potential effects to wildlife that are as familiar as our own backyard.
magine being in the east African savannah. Youd feel the ground trembling, but no earthquake here. In the distance youd start to see what is making your feet shake: wildebeests, thousands of them, the herd stretching a dark earth brown as far as you can see, and as they come closer you start to smell their raw rich animal smell. If you waited for all of them to pass, youd be there for days. It is the wildebeest migration.
Each year, more than a million wildebeests, along with hundreds of thousands of gazelles and zebras, move through the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem of Tanzania and Kenya, following the rains. Some call it the last great migration on earth, as an individual wildebeest may cover more than 1,300 miles, more than the distance all the way down the west coast of the U.S., from Seattle to San Diego. But a literal roadblock may inalterably change not only this phenomenal migration, but the entire Serengeti ecosystem as well, for the wildebeest define the ecosystem and drive its dynamics. The problem is a proposed major road the Tanzanian government is preparing to build through the northern part of the park, through a designated wilderness area, through the migration route. Road-RIPorter readers are familiar with the problems of roads, and they are as similar on public land roads in Oregon, California, Alabama or Florida as they are in the Serengeti thousands of miles away. Roads allow the spread of invasive weeds; roads slump in wetter seasons, dumping tons of sediment into streams, harming fisheries and dirtying drinking water.
The tree is a Candelabra. Along with the elephant, they are common sights in the serengeti in Tanzania, Africa. Public domain photo.
22
odes to roads, contd
But in the case of the Serengeti (and certainly a serious impact in the U.S. and other parts of the world) the biggest problem is that roads fragment habitat and disrupt animal movements. Many animals are reluctant to cross roads, even those with little traffic. And when there is a lot of traffic, the lives of both animals and humans are at risk. More common mitigation usually involves fencing the road, or building overpasses, or tunnels for wildlife. But in the Serengeti fencing the road might keep the wildebeest off the road, but would also block them from what they are after north of the road: water (the lands south of the proposed road have become dry). Tens of thousands of animals would die of hunger and thirst, and many would become tangled in the fence. In this case, tunnels and overpasses may be economically prohibitive, but beside that, wildebeest are particularly sensitive to disturbance: they already avoid areas frequented by poachers, and are alarmed by cars. The proposed road, says the Tanzanian government and some villagers along the way, is for cheaper goods, for connecting outlying villages whose residents now drive on bone-crunching gravel tracks, and for a better chance of someday getting electricity and cellphone service. And the Maasai who have been evicted from their lands for the sake of conservation before, and where fertile grasslands nearby are mostly reserved for the wild animals are struggling, with young men now being drawn to the towns to try to hustle any work they can find. It is true, good roads are an important part of economic development, and one challenge of conservationists worldwide is balancing the needs of humans today while protecting the resources of tomorrow.
Wildebeest. Public domain photo.
But, interestingly, this particular road situation is not a case of humans versus wildlife. There is an alternative: a road to the south of the park that would connect five times more people, and cost less to build. It would also be easier, since the landscape there is flatter. And, significantly, it would not affect the animal migrations. The northern route has been proposed at least twice before, and roundly rejected on environmental grounds before. And so, why now? There are recent investigations linking the northern route to surprise! commercial development and resource extraction. In 2011 the President of Tanzania announced intentions to move forward with a soda ash factory on the shores of Lake Natron, which lies along the path of the northern route through the Serengeti. But the Lake is critical breeding grounds for 2.5 million endangered Lesser Flamingoes. Such a factory was stopped in 2008 after studies showed it would disrupt breeding. But the government vows to go ahead.
This proposed transportation route, whether highway or railway, would go through the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and bisects the Serengeti National Park in a critical area for the migration. A section of the Park would be removed, breaching a UN World Heritage Agreement.
23
odes to roads, contd
But thats not all: a new harbour is proposed at Mwambani Bay, which would then be the terminus of the northern commercial route that would run through the Serengeti. The new port would extend the port of Dar es Salaam, notoriously congested, but some say just poorly managed with crippling government bureaucracy. However, Mwambani Bay is the location of Coelacanth Marine Park. The park protects coelacanth, a living fossil, and one of the rarest and most protected fish in the world. Last, the always alluring prospect of gold has reared its glittering head. Between the boundaries of the Serengeti National Park and Lake Victoria to the northwest are buried riches waiting to be unearthed. Tanzania is already Africas third largest producer of gold, and global mining giants have their eye on morewere it not for the absence of a highway, supporting heavy vehicles and the constant movement of workers and machinery. Transport to the new port, through the migration route, would be inevitable. Scientists say the ecological damage is hard to predict but potentially enormous. During the annual migration, the wildebeest produce more than 800,000 pounds of dung per day which nourishes the grasslands. If the highway fragments that migration and makes the wildebeest turn back, the whole ecosystem could crash, said Bernard Kissui, a research scientist for the African Wildlife Foundation. The economic engine could crash too. Hundreds of thousands of people in the Serengeti depend on tourism for a living. And the Serengeti is like a giant ATM for Tanzania, attracting more than 100,000 visitors each year, producing millions of dollars in park fees and helping drive Tanzanias billion-dollar safari business, an economic pillar. Grassroots groups have been mobilizing around the world, circulating petitions, gaining the support of leading scientists, trying to pressure the Tanzania government to reconsider. The government of Germany has even stepped in, offering to help fund the alternative route. But to date, the Tanzanian government is holding firm, and appears ready to build. Officials say the original (northern) route through the Park is better, and that construction will start soon. The Serengeti is the reference for other wildlife migrations around the world along with the caribou migration across
It is true, good roads are an important part of economic development, and one challenge of conservationists worldwide is balancing the needs of humans today while protecting the resources of tomorrow.
Umbrella Acacia (Acacia tortilis) tree at sunset at Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Public domain photo.
the AmericanSerengeti. We can work and hope that the Serengeti will remain, now and for all time, a Tanzanian and world icon of unfettered wildlife movement. Learn more at www.savetheserengeti.org. Much of the information above came from the following sources: Serengeti Road Plan Offers Prospects and Fears by Jeffrey Gettleman, The New York Times, October 30, 2010 The Corridor of Destruction- From the Coast to the Lake by Wolfgang Thome (blog post, on http://wolfganghthome.wordpress.com/ May 1, 2011. Road Kill in the Serengeti? by Olivia Judson, The New York Times, June 15, 2010
24
BiBLiogrAPhy notes
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.
resToraTion of naTive planT CommuniTies afTer road deCommissioning in The roCky mounTains: effeCT of seed mix ComposiTion on vegeTaTive esTablishmenT
By Ashley S. Grant and Cara R. Nelson
introduction
oads are a primary cause of ecosystem degradation in wildland settings (Wemple et al. 2001, Forman et al. 2003). Habitat fragmentation and degradation of hydrologic processes caused by road networks directly impact wildlife (Mladenoff et al. 1995), fish (McCaffery et al. 2007) and water quality (Sugden & Woods 2007), and increase invasion by nonnative plants (Tyser & Worley 1992). Furthermore, lack of adequate road maintenance has led to landslides and culvert failures, increased deposition of sediment into aquatic ecosystems and degradation of down-stream habitats (Harr & Nichols 1993). To address these issues, the U.S. Forest Service is decommissioning 3,000 km of hazardous roads (Schaffer 2003) annually from its total network of more than 885,000 km (Foltz & Yanosek 2005). The removal of hazardous roads, which can substantially decrease watershedwide erosion risk (Madej 2001), is a step forward in the restoration of these disturbed ecosystems (Forman 2000); however, there is little information available about the efficacy of conventional road-removal practices for achieving ecological restoration goals in general (Grace 2000) or restoration of native plant communities in particular. A main objective of revegetation treatments is to quickly establish vegetation in order to deter erosion (Orr 1970). Nonnative species are often favored because of the availability of relatively inexpensive seed of species that are thought to have rapid rates of growth and establishment. By seeding with nonnative species the potential for invasion into the surrounding landscape increases, potentially setting off a cascade of negative ecosystem effects. A collaborative project between the University of Montana, USFS Native Plant Materials Program (Region One) and Wildlands CPR began in 2007 to examine alternative revegetation strategies. This collaborative project has been investigating the short-term effects of road decommissioning on plant community composition: looking specifically at the effects of seed-mix origin (native vs. nonnative), species diversity, and seeding density on vegetative establishment.
Monitoring revegetation success on a restored road, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (MT). Photo by Adam Switalski.
methods
This study was conducted on thirteen road segments, ten on the Kootenai National Forests Three Rivers Ranger District in northwestern Montana and three on the Clearwater National Forests Powell Ranger District in northeastern Idaho. Each of these sites is located in moist Pacific Maritime influenced vegetative communities. Experimental transects were established along roadbed segments and pre-treatment vegetation data was collected before roads were removed in the summer of 2007. In the autumn of 2007, after road decommissioning, experimental plots at each site were hand seeded with one of six seed-mix treatments or left as an unseeded control. Seed mixes varied by three factors, with two
25
biblio notes, contd
possible levels of each factor: seed origin (native versus nonnative), seed-mix diversity (three grass species versus six species [grasses, forb and shrubs]), and seeding density (low [15 lbs/ace] versus high [30 lbs/acre]). During the summer of 2008, one year after road removal, vegetation data was collected at each of the experimental sites.
results / Discussion
Comparing pre- to one year post-treatment we found total vegetative cover declined by 60%, with nonnative plants showing the greatest magnitude of response (ca. 90%; Table 1).
Road removal in progress on the Clearwater National Forest. Photo by Tim Brown.
Table 1. Mean cover of total, native, and nonnative vegetation pre- and oneyear- post road decommissioning. Cover (%) Totalvegetation Nativevegetation Nonnativevegetation df 12 12 12 p 0.001 0.013 0.014 pre 34.1 26.0 8.0 post 13.6 12.8 0.8 %change -60 -51 -90
Numerous studies have shown that both roads and disturbance can increase the presence of nonnative plant species. In contrast, our findings indicate that nonnative plants were present at less than 1% cover one year after treatment. Given the low levels of nonnative species immediately after road decommissioning, this time period may be crucial for establishing native vegetation on highly disturbed former roadbeds, before nonnatives have the opportunity to colonize. Although managers often justify the use of nonnative seed by the need for rapid vegetative establishment on disturbed sites, we did not find significant differences in percent cover of total vegetation between plots seeded with native versus nonnative species. Furthermore, cover of native species was significantly higher on plots seeded with natives compared to those of other treatments (12.3% vs. 7.8%, respectively; Figure 1). On treatments seeded with native species, 43% of total vegetative cover was due to cover of seeded species; in comparison, seeded species accounted for only 18% of total vegetative cover on nonnative treatments.
Road removal on Ellswoth Creek (WA). Photo by Adam Switalski.
Montana Conservation Corps revegetating removed road and landing. Photo by Adam Switalski.
26
biblio notes, contd

Figure 1. Mean percent cover of total, native and nonnative vegetation by seed-mix origin. P-values are only provided for significant differences (p<0.05).
These findings suggest that native seed mixes may outperform nonnative ones in terms of vegetative establishment after road removal. Despite the fact that federal land managers often favor nonnative seed mixes (Grant et al. unpublished data) due to their alleged rapid establishment rates, our results indicate that native seed mixes may in fact result in faster vegetative establishment. This study was not effective at testing for the effect of seed-mix diversity on vegetative establishment. The two shrubs that were included in the high-diversity native seed mix, snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus) and kinnikinnik (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), did not establish on any plots, one year after treatment. Fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) was also included in our high-diversity native seed mix. In contrast to the shrub species, fireweed was present in all of our experimental plots. The lack of difference in cover between seeded and unseeded plots was likely due to two factors. First, it was present in greater than 25% of the roadbed plots prior to road removal, and many of the residual plants were able to persist after road decommissioning. Secondly, the large pre-treatment abundance of this species suggests an abundant soil seed bank. Consequently, seeds may have been available on plots where they were not seeded. The lack of establishment of these shrub species, coupled with the ubiquitous establishment of fireweed, reduced the effective diversity of the high-diversity treatment to that of the low-diversity treatment. One year after road decommissioning, we found no difference in vegetative cover between high- and low-density treatments (Figure 3). Although policies are in place to increase the use of native plants (USDA 2008), budget limitations continue to restrict their use (Robichaud et al. 2006). Our data suggest that it may be possible to reduce the cost of using native seed by decreasing seeding density. The high-density treatment that we tested utilized the standard seeding density employed by the national forests where our sites are located (USDA 2005); our low-density treatment used half the seed of the high-density application. Despite this large difference in seed application rate, seed density did not affect any vegetation response variable. Thus, cutting the current seeding density in half could halve the cost of seed for revegetation projects.
20 15 10 5
Control (unseeded) Nonnative seeded treatments Native seeded treatments p=0.038
Cover (%)
p=0.036
Total vegetation
Nonnative vegetation
Native vegetation
Figure 2. Mean percent cover of total, native and nonnative vegetation by seeding density.
20
Control (unseeded) Low density High density
Cover (%)
15
10
Total vegetation
Nonnative vegetation
Native vegetation
27
biblio notes, contd
conclusion
Our results present convincing evidence that native seed mixes can be more effective than nonnative ones in facilitating rapid establishment of vegetation one year after road decommissioning. These results, although short term, are significant given that the first year after disturbance is a critical time period for erosion control a driving factor in many revegetation projects. The extent to which treatments vary with respect to longer-term vegetation responses remains to be seen with future years of monitoring on these and other sites. Longer-term observations are also needed to assess the extent to which seeded species may compete with or facilitate the establishment of colonizing native and nonnative species, the dispersal of seeded species into the surrounding landscape, and the resistance and resilience of treatments to climatic stressors. Ashley conducted this study for her Masters degree in the College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana. Cara is Assistant Professor of Restoration Ecology at the University of Montana.
liTeraTure CiTed
Foltz, R.B., and K.A. Yanosek. 2005. Effects of road obliteration on stream water quality. Pages 1-12 in G. E. Moglen, editor. Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts: Engineering, Ecological, and Economical Challenges. American Society of Civil Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia. Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. Winter, editors. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington D.C. Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35. Grace, J.M. 2000. Forest road sideslopes and soil conservation techniques. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55:96101. Harr, D.R., and R.A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: a northwest Washington example. Fisheries 18:18-21. Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:175-190. McCaffery, M., T.A. Switalski, and L. Eby. 2007. Effects of road decommissioning on stream habitat characteristics in the South Fork Flathead River, Montana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:553-561. Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley, R.G. Haight, and A.P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the northern Great-Lakes region. Conservation Biology 9:279-294. Orr, H.K. 1970. Runoff and erosion control by seeded and native vegetation on a forest burn: Black Hills, South Dakota. Research Paper RM-60, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Robichaud, P.R., T.R. Lillybridge, and J.W. Wagenbrenner. 2006. Effects of postfire seeding and fertilizing on hillslope erosion in north-central Washington, USA. Catena 67:56-67. Schaffer, R. 2003. National Forest Service road decommissioning: an attempt to read through the numbers. URL http://www. wildlandscpr.org [accessed 15 May, 2007]. Sugden, B.D., and S.W. Woods. 2007. Sediment production from forest roads in western Montana. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:193-206. Tyser, R.W., J.M. Asebrook, R.W. Potter, and L.L. Kurth. 1998. Roadside revegetation in Glacier National Park, U.S.A.: effects of herbicide and seeding treatments. Restoration Ecology 6:197-206. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Road decommissioning program: monitoring report 2005 excerpt. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, ID. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Native Plant Material Policy Forest Service Manual 2070. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. RIN 0596AC44. Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones. 2001. Forest roads and geomorphic process interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:191-204.
28
AroUnD the office

ere feeling a bit bedraggled and waterlogged after the wettest, coolest spring in recent memory here in Montana. Severe flooding is affecting many parts of the state, and most of the snow hasnt even begun to melt yet. Actually, with how cool and wet its been, were still getting new snow in the mountains. Were looking forward to actually seeing the sun, and hoping that when things warm up, they do so slowly so that the runoff doesnt exacerbate the flooding that is already occurring. That said, early reports from the Forest Service indicate a high number of road failures. And weve had a flood of projects to work on in the office as well, keeping us busy both inside and outside!
Hate to see you go
Montana Share Raffle Helps Wildlands CPR

Here is a link to a flyer with tickets and prizes for the 17th annual Montana Shares Raffle. Make a donation ($10/tic, 3 for $25 is suggested) and help Wildlands CPR by supporting Montana Shares, a partnership of nonprofits working together to improve the quality of life in communities across Montana. Wildlands CPR is an active member of Shares. The 43 member groups of Montana Shares address issues such as health care, sustainable living, children and families, the humanities and the arts, justice, wildlife habitat, womens needs, and animal welfare. They work together to bring each others important messages to audiences in public presentations as part of the Montana Shares workplace giving campaigns. By donating through Montana Shares, employees can choose where they want their gifts to go. Eighty-five percent of the donations go to the designated groups including Wildlands CPR the remainder funds the workplace giving program. Take a moment to look over the flyer and the many different prizes you could win. Your donation will help Montana Shares in its work to support Wildlands CPR and other member groups. To enter the raffle, print out the flyer, fill in as many tickets as youd like, and return the tickets along with your donation ($10/tic suggested donation; 3 for $25) by September 9 to: Montana Shares, P.O. Box 883, Helena, MT 59624. Thank you for your support of Montana Shares and Wildlands CPR!
Wow, as much as we hate to say it, our Restoration Campaign Director extraordinaire, Sue Gunn, is leaving Wildlands CPR. Sue is almost singlehandedly responsible for the incredible success of our Legacy Roads and Trails Campaign, resulting in $225 million in new Forest Service funding for watershed restoration between 2008-2011, with more to come, were sure. As part of her work for Wildlands CPR, Sue also leads the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, engaging with the Forest Service on how LRT is implemented on the ground. Sues terrific sense of humor, passion for the environment, strategic vision and policy savvy made her an invaluable member of the Wildlands CPR team. She leaves enormous shoes to fill, but she also leaves a program that is in top-shape and will continue to move forward while we seek a replacement. Sues not quite sure what shes going to do next, but she has big plans in the works and we know that whatever she decides to take on, shell probably win so watch out!!! Sue, well miss you, and we cant thank you enough for the incredible work youve done to build this program and restore watershed health on the ground YOU ROCK!
Welcome
Wildlands CPR received a grant from the National Forest Foundation to continue our Montana/Idaho Legacy Roads and Trails monitoring program. Adam Switalski is leading up the effort, and has hired Abby Lane and Cody Stekly to do the field work. Welcome also to Emily Koekkoek, who is a legal intern for us this summer in Eugene, OR. Emily will be a third year law student at the University of Oregon this fall.
thanks
Many thanks to the Cinnabar and National Forest Foundations, and the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, for grants to support our restoration work. The National Forest Foundation grant is a matching grant so we also want to thank all of you who responded to our online challenge to help match it. We raised $3,435 dollars for that project, which will be matched by the same dollar amount from NFF! Thanks to all of you who helped us double those dollars (and to Y2Y and Cinnabar, because they are also helping match that NFF grant).
29
SuPPoRT WIldlandS cPR Today!

Weve made supporting Wildlands CPR easier and more effective than ever before.
Please consider making a monthly pledge!
Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

Reducing Overhead
Monthly giving puts your contribution directly into action and reduces our administrative costs. The savings go to restoring wildlands and building a more effective network.
Name Street City, State, Zip Email
Making Your Gift Easier

Say goodbye to renewal letters! Your credit card or bank statement will contain a record of each gift; we will also send a year-end tax receipt for your records.
Our Promise To You

You maintain complete control over your donation. To change or cancel your gift at any time, just write or give us a call.
Type of Membership:
Organization/Business Name (if applicable)
Payment Option #1: Electronic Funds Transfer from Checking Account

$5/Month $10/Month
Payment Option #2: Credit Card Pledge
$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: _______________________________
Please include a voided check. All information will be kept confidential. Transfers will be processed on the first Friday of each month, or the following business day should that Friday be a bank holiday.
CSC Number: ________________ *(see below) Expiration date: _____________________________ Signature: ________________________________________
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
* 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, SummeR SolSTIce 2011
30
Capitol Reef National Park. Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road RIPorter, Volume 16.2, Summer Solstice 2011

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Road RIPorter, Volume 16.2, Summer Solstice 2011

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Road RIPoRTeR

Summer SolStice 2011. Volume 16 No. 2

Tapping inTo Clean WaTer from our naTional foresTs

Visit us online: wildlandscpr.org

A Look Down the trAiL

P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 www.wildlandscpr.org

Director Bethanie Walder

Development Director Thomas R. Petersen Science Program Director Adam Switalski

2011 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

Tapping inTo Clean WaTer from our naTional foresTs

the problems with roads

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

Tapping inTo Clean WaTer, contd

National forests and drinking water

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

Tapping inTo Clean WaTer, contd

mAP 2. Source area with ownership/303d listed streams

Riparian Area Impacts

Water Quality Impaired Streams

mAP 3. Source area with FS roads, streams and ownership

continued on next page

Tapping inTo Clean WaTer, contd

continued on next page

oregon legacy roads and trails Accomplishments 2008-2010

transportation System Summary

Data courtesy of Forest Service Pacific NW Regional Office.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

Tapping inTo Clean WaTer, contd

Photo by Dan Funsch.

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

Watershed Condition Indicators - (12 Indicator Model)

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

tracking success and monitoring

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

continued on next page

Figure 1. road and trail condition

(WCF Condition Class Technical Guide, p. 43)

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

continued on next page

Figure 2. Proximity to Water Attribute example

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

policy primer, contd

USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification - Region 6

Watershed Condition Classification

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

DePAving the wAy

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

depaving the Way, contd

continued on next page

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011

depaving the Way, contd

The Road-RIPoRTeR, SummeR SolSTIce 2011