Winter Solstice 2006. Volume 11 No.

Road Removal Protects Fish and Creates Jobs

By Lisa Doolittle and Emily Platt, Gifford Pinchot Task Force

Targeted road removal is one of several restoration projects initiated by the Pinchot Partnership that meets their mission of
restoring the Cowlitz Valley in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest while creating high quality local economic opportunities.
Photo by Emily Platt.

Inside… Get with the Program: Restoration, Transportation, &

Road Removal Protects Fish and Creates Jobs, by Lisa
Doolittle and Emily Platt. Pages 3-5
Biblio Notes: How Many is Too Many: A Review of Road
Density Thresholds for Wildlife, by Adam Switalski.
Pages 6-8
Science Updates. Pages 9-11
Depaving the Way, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 18-19
Regional Reports & Updates. Pages 20-21.
Roadless Policy Update, by Bethanie Walder. Pages 12-13
Around the Office, Membership Info. Pages 22-23
Citizen Spotlight: Roz McClellan, by Cathy Adams. Pages
14-15
Check out our website at:
Odes to Roads: From a Wonderland Road, by Carolyn
Duckworth. Page 16-17 www.wildlandscpr.org
 P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551

W
hile we’ve tried to avoid focusing too much on politics within the pages of the www.wildlandscpr.org
Road-RIPorter, Tuesday November 7 was certainly an uplifting day for those Wildlands CPR works to protect and restore
of us who care about environmental protection. Not only did voters change wildland ecosystems by preventing and
control of both houses of Congress from republican to democratic, but some of the most
removing roads and limiting motorized
aggressively anti-environment representatives lost their seats this year, including Con-
recreation. We are a national clearinghouse
gressman Richard Pombo from California, Congressman Charles Taylor from North Caro-
and network, providing citizens with tools
lina and Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania. Representative Pombo, in particular,
and strategies to fight road construction,
had led an all-out assault on the Endangered Species Act and on the concept of public
deter motorized recreation, and promote road
lands itself, with his numerous proposals to sell off public lands to private interests.
removal and revegetation.
The loss of these pro-business, pro-privatization members of Congress gives Wild-
lands CPR staff some hope that we might finally be able to usher in a new era of restora- Director
tion on our public lands. This hope comes not only from having more environmentally Bethanie Walder
conscious folks in elected office, but from the fact that conservationists might not need
to dedicate quite as much time to defending our bedrock environmental laws like the En- Development Director
dangered Species Act. If this new Congress even stays mum on the environment, it would Tom Petersen
free up a significant amount of time to work on proactive, restorative strategies. For the
past six years, conservationists have been focused on defense, defense, defense. While Restoration Program
threats and challenges won’t go away completely, conservationists and conservation Coordinator
funders now have an opportunity to move forward with a restoration agenda. And while Marnie Criley
this should be a broad agenda, there is one vital element that it must include: Dedicated
restoration funding. Science Coordinator
Of course, any restoration work that proceeds on public lands must comply with Adam Switalski
environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act. But it is not these legal NTWC Forest Campaign
questions that have proven most difficult in implementing restoration programs, it is the Coordinator
lack of dedicated, appropriated dollars for restoration. If we can increase the funding Jason Kiely
agencies put into restoration, then we will see many more restoration programs imple-
mented on the ground, projects like the one highlighted in the cover story of this issue of Transportation Policy
The RIPorter. Coordinator
This story about collaborative restoration and conservation on the Gifford Pinchot Tim Peterson
National Forest provides a model we can learn from. The Gifford Pinchot Task Force
set out to change the way the public and the agency were approaching national forest Program Assistant
management, and especially restoration, and they have largely succeeded. Their biggest Cathy Adams
challenge now, to complete the work they want to complete, is finding additional funding.
Congress has been willing to subsidize timber sales and road construction for decades Newsletter
and decades — now it’s time to shift those allocations to watershed restoration. Not only Dan Funsch & Marianne Zugel
will this enable us to restore the land that is so vital to our health, but if we take a holistic
approach to restoration, it may also allow us to heal long-standing rifts in resource-de- Interns & Volunteers
pendent communities, as people realize the economic and ecological gains that can come Carla Abrams, Mike Fiebig, Laura Harris, Anna
from investing in on-the-ground restoration projects. Holden, Noah Jackson, Gini Porter, Tiffany Saleh

Board of Directors
Amy Atwood, Greg Fishbein, Jim Furnish, William
Geer, Dave Havlick, Rebecca Lloyd, Cara Nelson,
Sonya Newenhouse, Patrick Parenteau

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

Converting recently purchased orange groves into productive wildlife habitat for the birds of © 2006 Wildlands CPR
Pelican Island, FL. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006

Road Removal Protects Fish and Creates Jobs
By Lisa Doolittle and Emily Platt, Gifford Pinchot Task Force

T
he Cowlitz Valley of the Gif-
ford Pinchot National Forest is
nestled between the Cascade
peaks of Mount Rainer, Mount Adams,
and Mount St. Helens in Washington
State. The Cowlitz River meanders
through the valley, linking together the
communities of Randle, Mossyrock, and
Packwood. The river also ties together
the diverse stakeholders of the Pinchot
Partners collaborative group.

The Pinchot Partnership formed

in late 2002 and early 2003 after a field
tour organized by the Gifford Pinchot
Task Force (Task Force) and a diverse
steering committee that included labor
representatives, economic develop-
ment interests, Native American Indian
tribes, conservationists, loggers, local
elected officials, and others. On the
field tour, these stakeholders with
wildly divergent interests learned that Members of the Pinchot Partnership, from left to right: Bill Little, Red Rogers, Dean
they shared at least a few things in Lawrence, Kristie Miller, and John Squires. Photo by Emily Platt.
common: a deep passion for the forest
and a desire for long-term stability.
Over the following years, the relationship between these
interest groups was formalized in the Pinchot Partners, and
the Partners have developed and supported the implemen-
tation of a number of restoration projects that meet their
mission of restoring the Cowlitz Valley while creating high
quality, local economic opportunities.

Early projects supported by the Partners included

small thinning projects and culvert replacement projects
– restoration that was easy for the Partners to agree on and
that helped build trust between players whose previous
communication was mainly through barbs and bombs in the
local newspaper.

It was also at this early stage in the Partners’ develop-

ment that the group took an interest in the Iron Creek sub-
watershed, which had been identified by the Forest Service
as a high priority watershed for aquatic restoration. The
Forest Service and the Partners reached this assessment
after reviewing criteria including the presence and state of
threatened, endangered and sensitive species; road density
and location; riparian condition; and key watershed status
(Northwest Forest Plan). Iron Creek is located in the Lower
Cispus watershed and has the highest sediment delivery in
the watershed – one of the limiting factors in this area for
recovery of species including winter steelhead and coho. All
these factors combined to make it a compelling subwater-
shed on which to focus our restoration work.
Trail through former Iron Creek road site. Photo by Emily Platt.
— continued on next page —

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006 

 — continued from page 3 —
Our first restoration project in the Iron
Creek subwatershed was replacing and
right-sizing culverts along two miles of road
to restore fish passage and reduce sediment
delivery to the Lower Cispus River. This
initial project was coordinated and driven by
Conservation Northwest. After completing
the culvert project, it was clear that this and
previous restoration work implemented by
the Forest Service was threatened by two road
segments at risk of failing and dumping very
large sediment loads into the creeks and river
in the watershed. However, unlike the previous
road where we replaced culverts, there was no
need for these particular roads to remain. The
road density in Iron Creek subwatershed is 3.1
miles/per square mile, and from a larger per-
spective there are over 4,000 miles of roads on
the 1.37 million acre Gifford Pinchot National
Forest. There is also a 40-50 million dollar road
maintenance backlog that grows each year.
The condition of the road system is one of the
greatest obstacles we face in restoring wild
salmon to the streams and native wildlife like
wolves to the woods on the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest.
While the Forest Service and Task Force
were easily convinced of the need to remove
the two road segments in question, others were
not. Most notably, a hunter that was a member
of the Pinchot Partners was concerned about
motorized access. Because the Partners had
Restoration projects benefit both the local environment and the local economy. Photo by Emily Platt.
 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
been working with each other for about two years by this
time, we were able to have very honest and direct con-
versation about people’s interests and concerns. After a
meeting where the roads’ high risk of failure was described,
our hunter decided the long-term protection of fish species
The success of the Iron Creek projects
has been exciting for the Pinchot
Partners and gives us real hope that
we will truly be able to meet our vision
of restoring the Cowlitz Valley while
creating high quality jobs for local forest
workers.
and the forest’s resources were more important than be-
ing able to drive to the low-use hunting site located at the
end of one of the road segments. The meeting resulted in
the Pinchot Partners’ decision to support the removal of
the 2.2 miles of road in question, and the Task Force has
been guiding this second phase of work in the Iron Creek
subwatershed.
After we decided to remove the roads, the challenge
became funding the project. First, we wrote a proposal to
one of the Gifford Pinchot’s Resource Advisory Committees
(or RACs), which were created by Senator Wyden’s county
payments legislation in 2000. (This is the same legislation
that de-linked logging levels on federal lands from the fund-
ing of schools.) We asked the RAC for $91,500 to address

Members of the Pinchot Partnership and staff from the
Gifford Pinchot National Forest tour the completed road
removal project area. Photo by Emily Platt.
the higher priority of our two road segments.
The RAC recommended our project for funding
and resulted in the removal of .2 miles of road
that was at very high risk of failing and drop-
ping into lower Iron Creek. Large amounts of
sediment would also have reached the Lower
Restoration of public lands
could be the greatest public
works and employment project
in our country’s history.
Cispus, where winter steelhead and coho
would be heavily impacted. Finally, removal of
this road segment protected in-stream habitat
structures that were placed in Iron Creek in
2000. In fact, with the massive flooding on the
Gifford Pinchot this year, it is safe to assume
the road would have fallen into the creek.
This initial road removal work was com-
pleted by one of the most talented restoration
contractors in the Northwest, LKE Corpora-
tion. Kim Erion owns and operates LKE, the
only such business owned by a woman in
the Northwest. They work across the West
because there is not enough restoration work
in southwest Washington to keep them busy.
We hope to change that. The Pinchot Partners
visited the completed project this year and
were very pleased with LKE’s work, which went
above and beyond what was called for by the
contract.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
Mrs. Erion described the challenge of finding well-
qualified employees, who often come from a logging
background and don’t see the value of restoration. On the
other hand, those interested in restoration often aren’t as
familiar with the hazards of working in the woods, creating
a stressful situation for supervisors and other crew mem-
bers. “All restoration jobs are good jobs,” says Mrs. Erion,
“I just wish they would do more.”
The Task Force is now completing its work to secure
funding for the final two miles of road removal called for by
this project. We recently received funding from the Na-
tional Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Metro Metals that
will be matched with additional RAC money to complete
the project. The on-the-ground work will take place next
field season and will result in the removal of two miles of
road with blocked culverts that post a high risk to aquatic
habitat in the fish-bearing reach by the road. Removing
these culverts will open up more than three kilometers
of additional habitat. This road removal project will also
reduce sediment delivery to the Lower Cispus watershed
and improve habitat for steelhead and coho.
The success of the Iron Creek projects has been excit-
ing for the Pinchot Partners and gives us real hope that
we will truly be able to meet our vision of restoring the
Cowlitz Valley while creating high quality jobs for local
forest workers. The greatest obstacle we see to implement-
ing this vision is a lack of investment from the politicians
in Washington DC. Restoration of public lands could be
the greatest public works and employment project in our
country’s history. Below we talk about how you can help
make this happen.
—Lisa Doolittle and Emily Platt coordinate the restoration
program for the Gifford Pinchot Task Force and are members
of the Pinchot Partners collaborative group.
Action Alert!
Support the RAC Reauthorization
Road removal and other restoration efforts on the
Gifford Pinchot National Forest have been supported
in large part by funding from our Resource Advisory
Committee. As mentioned earlier, these RACs were
created by the county payments legislation, or the
Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000. This legislation was
a temporary, six-year fix to the problem caused by
linking rural school funding to the logging levels on
nearby federal forest lands. However, the legislation
expires this year, and its reauthorization is desper-
ately needed not only to fund important restoration
work like road removal but also to keep funding for
rural schools separate from logging on public lands.
Without this legislation, there will be a strong and
compelling push for greatly increased logging levels
on our national forests. Please call your Senators and
Representative and ask them to support reauthoriza-
tion of the Secure Rural Schools Act.

 Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 10,000 citation bibliography on the
physical and ecological effects of roads and off-road vehicles. We
offer bibliographic searches to help activists access important
biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of most
articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

How Many is Too Many:

A Review of Road Density Thresholds for Wildlife
By T. Adam Switalski

T
he negative impacts of wildland
roads on wildlife have been well
documented (e.g., Wisdom et
al. 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000).
In addition to road-kill, roads increase
animals’ vulnerability to over-hunting,
poaching, and the effects of degraded
habitat. Despite this qualitative un-
derstanding, however, the actual road
mileage that would significantly reduce
wildlife populations is still under
review. A common measure used to
gauge the impact of roads on wildlife is
road density, measured as kilometers of
roads per square kilometer of land area.
For example, if there were 2 kilometers
of road in a 1 square kilometer area,
the road density would be 2 km/km2. In
this article, I review studies that have
measured road density thresholds for
wildlife and report on research that
examined the benefits of reducing road
density.
Elk
Elk are one of the most well studied animals in the U.S., probably because of
their popularity as a game animal and their sensitivity to disturbance. Other game
species have been linked to road density, including moose (Alces alces, Crete et al.
1981, Timmermann and Gallath 1982) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus,
Sage et al. 1983), but the amount of data is limited. Lyon (1983) was the first study
to report the impact of road density on elk populations. He states, “habitat effec-
tiveness can be expected to decline by at least 25 percent with a density of 1 mile
of road per square mile and by at least 50 percent with two miles of road per square
mile…..As road densities increased to five to six miles per square mile, elk use
declined to less than 25 percent of potential” (Figure 1). A comprehensive review
of the impacts of roads on elk was recently published by Rowland et al. (2005) and
provides dozens of citations.
In addition to extensive documentation of the impacts of roads on elk, studies
have shown that closing roads has benefited elk. Irwin and Peek (1979) found that
road closures allowed elk to stay in preferred habitat longer while elk in roaded
areas were displaced. More recently, Leptich and Zager (1991) found that closing
roads extended the age structure and doubled the bulls per cow sex ratio. Gratson
et al. (2000) measured elk hunter success in relation to road density. They found
that hunter success almost doubled when open road density was reduced from 2.54
km/km2 to 0.56 km/km2. Rowland et al. (2005) reported that road closures may im-

The majority of studies on this top-

Figure 1: Average habitat effectiveness for elk
ic have identified road density thresh-
olds for large endangered carnivores with road densities ranging from 0 to 6 mi/mi2
or hunted game species. Gray wolves (Adapted from Lyon 1983).
(Canis lupus) in the Great Lakes region
and elk (Cervus elaphus) in Montana
Elk Habitat Effectiveness (percent)

and Idaho have had the most long-term

and in depth analysis. Forman and Her-
sperger (1996) were the first to review
road density thresholds at the Trans-
portation Related Wildlife Mortality
Seminar (FL). By comparing previous
studies of wolves and mountain lions
(Felis concolor), they found that in or-
der to maintain a naturally functioning
landscape with sustained populations
of large mammals, road density must be
below 0.6 km/km2 (1.0 mi/mi2). Several
studies have since substantiated their
claim. Miles of Road Per Square Mile

 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006

prove the animals’ performance, increase the amount of effective habitat, increase There have also been studies that
hunting opportunities, decrease damage to crops, improve diet quality, increase suggested closing roads to improve
hunter satisfaction, and decrease vulnerability of elk during the hunting season. survival of wolves. Thurber et al.
(1994) examined the impact of roads on
Wolves wolves in Alaska and found that wolves
Several studies have also measured road density thresholds for wolves (Table were using closed roads while avoiding
1). One of the first studies to identify a road density threshold for wolves was in open roads. They recommend gating
Wisconsin. Thiel (1985) reported that wolves could not survive in areas with road or seasonally closing roads to increase
densities higher that 0.6 km/km2. The following year, Jensen et al. (1986) document- the amount of available habitat for
ed a maximum road density of 0.6 km/km2 on the Ontario-Michigan border. Mech et wolves. Carroll et al. (2006) developed
al. (1988) found similar findings in northern Minnesota. They observed that wolves a spatially explicit model of wolf habitat
were absent if road densities exceeded 0.58 km/km2. Mech (1989) later reported in the continental U.S. They found
that wolves persisted in areas with road densities greater than 0.58 km/km2 if they that the amount of wolf habitat could
were adjacent to extensive roadless areas. increase by 24 percent if you removed
one percent of the roads each year for
20 years.
Table 1: Road density thresholds for wolves in the northern
Great Lakes region. Bears, lynx, and wolverine
Road Density Threshold Study Area Citation Other wildlife have also been found
(km/km2) to have road density thresholds. Black
bear (Ursus americanus) populations
0.6 Wisconsin Thiel (1985)
0.6 Onterio-Michigan border Jensen et al. (1986) were shown to be inversely related to
0.58 Minnesota Mech et al. (1988) road density in the Adirondacks, New
0.73* Minnesota Mech et al (1989) York (Brocke et al. 1988). There was a
0.7 (with 4 humans/km2) Minnesota Fuller et al (1992)
0.5 (with 8 humans/km2) Minnesota Fuller et al (1992) strong negative relationship between
0.45 Wisconsin/Michigan Mladenoff et al (1995) road density and population fitness of
0.23 (core areas) Wisconsin/Michigan Mladenoff et al (1995) grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in
0.63** Wisconsin Wydevan et al (2001) the U.S. Rocky Mountains (Mace et al.
*Adjacent roadless area allowed higher road density threshold 1996, Mattson et al. 1996). Similar rela-
**Changing attitudes allowed higher road density threshold tionships have also been hypothesized
for wolverine (Gulo gulo) and lynx (Felis
lynx, ICBEMP 1996b, 1996c, and Terra-
Fuller et al. (1992) was the first study to incorporate human density into Berns et al. 1997 cited in Wisdom et al.
thresholds. They found a maximum threshold of 0.7 km/roads/km2 with 4 humans/ 2000). Road closure has been recom-
km2 or a maximum of 0.5 km/roads/km2 with 8 humans/km2 in northern Minnesota. mended to reduce black bear (Powell et
Thus, the higher the density of humans, the lower the threshold for persistence al. 1996) and grizzly bear mortality risk
of wolves would be. More recently in the northern Great Lakes region, Mladenoff (Frederick 1991, USFWS 1993, Boone
et al. (1995) found few portions of any pack territory were located in areas of road and Hunter 1996, Mace et al. 1999), and
density greater than 0.45 km/km.2 Core areas (defined as 40 percent use) did not has been suggested to benefit rare for-
exceed road densities of 0.23 km/km2 and no portion of any pack area was in an est carnivores (Bull et al. 2001).
area of road density greater than 1.0 km/km2. Wydeven et al. (2001) most recently
observed that changing attitudes towards wolves has allowed them to persist in Conclusion
areas with road densities as high as 0.63 km/km2 in Wisconsin. Road density thresholds have been
identified for several species, and when
exceeded, many species cannot persist.
Closure and removal of roads has been
found to effectively provide wildlife
security and increase the amount of
available wildlife habitat. Future re-
search is needed to determine thresh-
olds for other sensitive species such as
lynx and wolverine. There is also little
peer-reviewed data on road density
thresholds for aquatic species such as
fish. Wildland managers should strive
to keep roaded lands below 0.6 km/km2
(1.0 mi/mi2) to ensure healthy wildlife
populations.

— Adam Switalski is Wildlands CPR’s

Science Coordinator. He is currently
A black bear is captured on film by remote cameras monitoring wildlife usage studying the extent that road removal
of road density study areas in the Clearwater National Forest. Photo courtesy of restores wildlife habitat in Idaho.
Wildlands CPR.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006 

References
Boone, R.B., and M.L. Hunter. 1996. Using diffused models to
simulate the effects of land use on grizzly bear dispersal
in the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecology 11(1): 51-64.
Brocke, R.H., J.P. O’Pezio, and K.A. Gustafson. 1990. A
forest management scheme mitigating the impact of
road networks on sensitive wildlife species: Is Forest
Fragmentation a Management Issue in the Northeast?
General Technical Report NE-140, U.S. Forest Service,
Radnor, PA.
Bull, E.L., K.B. Aubry, B.C. Wales. 2001. Effects of
disturbance on forest carnivores of conservation
concern in eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest
Science, 75 Special Issue: 180-184.
Carroll, C, M.K. Phillips, C.A. Lopez-Gonzalez, and N.H.
Schumaker. 2006. Defining recovery goals and
strategies for endangered species: the wolf as a
case study. Bioscience 56(1): 25-37. http://www.
klamathconservation.org/docs/carrolletal2006.pdf
Crete, M., R.J. Taylor, and P.A. Jordan. 1981. Optimization of
moose harvest in southwest Quebec. Journal of Wildlife
Management 45: 598-611.
Forman, R. T. T., and A.M. Hersperger. 1996. Road ecology and
road density in different landscapes, with international
planning and mitigation solutions. Pages 1–22. IN: G. L.
Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry (eds.), Trends
in Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Mortality.
No. FLER- 58-96, Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Frederick, G.P. 1991. Effects of forest roads on grizzly
bears, elk, and gray wolves: a literature review. USDA
Forest Service – Kootenai National Forest, Libby MT.
Publication number R1-91-73. 53p.
Fuller, T.K., W.E. Berg, G.L. Radde, M.S. Lenarz, and G.B.
Joselyn. 1992. A history and current estimate of wolf
distribution and numbers in Minnesota. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 20: 42-55.
Gratson, M.W., and C.L. Whitman. 2000. Road closures and
density and success of elk hunters in Idaho. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 28(2): 302-310.
Irwin, L.L., and J.M. Peek. Relationship between road closure
and elk behavior in northern Idaho. IN: North American
Elk: Ecology, Behavior, and Management. Editors
M.S. Boyce, and L.D. Hayden-Wing, 199-205. Laramie,
Wyoming: Univerity of Wyoming.
Jensen W.F., T.K. Fuller, and W.L. Robinson. 1986. Wolf (canis
lupus) distribution on the Onterio-Michigan border near
Sault Ste. Marie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100: 363-366.
Leptich, D.J., and P. Zager. 1991. Road access management
effects on elk mortality and population dynamics.
IN: Proceedings of the Elk Vulnerability Symposium,
compilers A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner,
126-31 Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University.
Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat
effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry 81: 592-595.
Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H. Zuuring.
1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads and
habitat in the Swan Mountains, MT. Journal of Applied
Ecology. 33: 1395-1404.
Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger.
1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in
western Montana. Conservation Biology 13(2): 367-377.
 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
Mattson, D.J., S. Herrero, G.Wright, C.M. Craig. 1996. Science
and management of Rocky Mountain grizzly bears.
Conservation Biology. 10(4): 1013-1025.
Mech, L. D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf
distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 16: 85-87.
Mech, L D. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high
road density. American Midland Naturalist 121: 387-389.
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 Nothern Great Lakes
region. Conservation Biology 9: 279-294.
Powell, J.W., J.W. Zimmerman, D.E. Seaman, and J.F. Gilliam.
1996. Demographic analysis of a hunted black bear
population with access to a refuge. Conservation Biology
10(1): 224-234.
Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A.
Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: implications
for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52.
IN: Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, The Starkey Project:
a Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer.
Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,
Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS.
Sage, R.W., W.C. Tierson, G.F. Mattfeld, and D.F. Behrend. 1983
White-tailed deer visibility and behavior along forest
roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 940-962.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. The relationships between road densities and
wolf habitat in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist
113: 404-407.
Thurber, J.M., R.O. Peterson, T.D. Drummer, and S.A.
Thomasma. 1994. Gray wolf response to refuge
boundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin
22: 61-68.
Timmermann, H.R., and R. Gollath. 1982. Age and sex
structure of harvested moose related to season,
manipulation, and access. Alces 18: 301-328.
Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological
effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities.
Conservation Biology 14: 18-30.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Grizzly bear
recovery plan. Missoula, MT. 181p.
Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A.
Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J.
Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for
terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia
basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications.
Volume 1 – Overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. http://www.
fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/gtr485vl.pdf
Wydeven, A.P, D.J. Mladenoff, T.A. Sickley, B.E. Kohn, R.P.
Thiel, and J.L. Hansen. 2001. Road density as a factor in
habitat selection by wolves and other carnivores in the
Great Lakes Region. Endangered Species Update 18(4):
110-114.
Restoration Program Update
The Restoration Program has been in full out-
reach mode this fall, primarily in the Northern Rock-
ies. Marnie gave presentations at the Wild Rockies
Rendezvous, a gathering of citizens and activists
sponsored by conservation groups working through-
out the Wild Rockies region of Montana, Idaho,
Wyoming, Washington and Oregon; the Wild West
Institute’s Nature Forum at the University of Montana;
and the Bitterroot Economic Development District,
comprising western Montana county commissioners
and economic development interests. These presenta-
tions focused on creating restoration economies that
go beyond just cutting trees and include road removal
as a key component. Along these same lines, Wild-
lands CPR helped arrange for Sungnome Madrone, a
restoration practitioner and advocate from Humboldt
County, California, to come to the Bitterroot and Yaak
Valleys in western Montana to promote the potential
of a restoration economy in these regions. Humboldt
County is probably the only place in the country that
truly has a documented restoration economy.
Locally, the Restoration Program continues to
work with a diverse group of partners to implement
some of the key recommendations that came out of
the June 2006 Montana Governor’s Restoration Sum-
mit. The work is focused on coordinating community
revitalization with wildland restoration. For example,
we are considering a follow up event to the Governor’s
Restoration Forum; such an event might focus on the
businesses that are involved in restoration, reclama-
tion and community revitalization. Our goal is for
Montana to be a model for other state-level restora-
tion and revitalization programs.
Collaboration is essential for effective, community-based
restoration efforts. Photo by Natural Trails and Waters
Coalition.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
Regionally, several Hells Canyon Collaborative members, along
with 20 students of Whitman College Professor Phil Brick, invento-
ried most of the road system in the Overlook II area of Hells Canyon.
Phil’s students are currently sorting through all the collected data,
and from this inventory we plan to prioritize needed road removal
work and get local folks out on the ground doing the work.
Finally, the Restoration Program is providing information and
potential assistance to upcoming road removal efforts in New Mexico
(Forest Guardians) and Southeast Alaska (Cascadia Wildlands Project).
Citizen Monitoring in the Clearwater National
Forest (ID)
Adam Switalski, our Science Coordinator, continues to oversee
Wildlands CPR’s Citizen Monitoring Program on the Clearwater Na-
tional Forest, ID. Adam is working closely with Anna Holden, an Envi-
ronmental Studies graduate student, to monitor decommissioned
roads on the forest with citizen scientists. With the field season
coming to an end, Adam and Anna collected, cleaned, and made
repairs to our field gear.  With most of the data in hand, they keyed
out wildlife tracks and downloaded remotely-triggered cameras. A
Missoula-based company named Rhithron has agreed to identify our
collected insects at a discounted rate. 
Anna is leading a group of University of Montana undergradu-
ate students to analyze the data collected by citizen scientists. The
class group conducted pebble counts, macroinvertebrate surveys,
and collected wildlife detections (tracks and photos) and will ana-
lyze all the wildlife data collected throughout the season.
Citizen Monitoring in the Swan Valley –
Flathead National Forest (MT)
Adam is also working with Northwest Connections (NWC) to
improve grizzly bear connectivity in the Swan Valley, MT. In October,
Adam went into the field with Tom Parker (NWC) and the UM Chap-
ter of The Wildlife Society (TWS). About 20 students attended the
fieldtrip and helped us collect data and check our remotely-triggered
cameras. We collected hundreds of photos of wildlife using the iden-
tified grizzly bear corridor. This winter we will continue to work with
NWC and students by assisting with a winter wildlife tracking class
on our study site.
Adam responded to requests for information including: roads
and road closure effectiveness for Earth Justice; corridors for Legacy
Lands Alliance; road paving for American Wildlands; restoration
planning for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility;
road removal for Pacific Rivers Council, and a contact for Woods
Hole Research Center.
— Program Updates continued on next page —

 — Program Updates continued from page 9 —

Transportation Program Update

With Forest Service Travel Planning
processes gearing up or in full swing, Wild-
lands CPR has sought to activate voices
that speak for quiet recreation and secure
wildlife habitat. The passive (motorized
recreation) crowd is well-organized, and
their assertions need a strong, principled,
counterpoint. Wildlands CPR is just
completing a draft platform for what these
travel planning processes should look like
when completed. We expect to have this
available for review shortly, with the inten-
tion that it will be an important tool for
those of you who are already engaged in
travel planning, as well as those of you who
will be engaged in the future. We are also
working with Wild Utah Project to develop
a set of Best Management Practices for
off-road vehicles (in Utah and beyond), and BARK completes an on-the-ground monitoring of off-road vehicle
we expect to have those completed by the damage during a workshop with Tim Peterson. Photo by Tim
early spring of 2007. Tools like this will Peterson.
help conservationists and quiet recreation-
ists provide that critical counterpoint to
BARK expand their monitoring program from the micro-
motorized advocates.
detail monitoring of timber sale cutting units to a more
comprehensive look at transportation networks, motor-
In addition to these new tools, Wild-
ized recreation, and recording off-road vehicle damage;
lands CPR conducted an on-the-ground
2) providing a legal and regulatory overview of the new
monitoring workshop and strategy session
Forest Service Travel Management Rule; and 3) providing
this fall for BARK (Bark Out for Mt. Hood)
assistance with constructing a citizen’s alternative for the
in Portland, OR. BARK is a regional forest
Mt. Hood national Forest travel plan. Tim Peterson, our
watch group that works to preserve the
Transportation Policy Coordinator, covered these issues
forests, waters and wildlife of Mt. Hood Na-
in a two day workshop that included one day of class-
tional Forest and surrounding regions. The
room time and one day in the field.
workshop covered three areas: 1) helping
We’d like to thank Tim for the great
workshop he put on, and for his invest-
ment in Wildlands CPR during the past
year, where he’s helped with collaboration
workshops, policy assessment, comment
writing, legal strategy and more. As of
January, Tim will be moving on to a new
position with Great Old Broads for Wilder-
ness in Durango, CO. He’ll be bringing his
extensive on-the-ground knowledge to their
Healthy Lands Program, which provides
similar types of off-road vehicle monitoring
trainings. It was great to work with you at
Wildlands CPR Tim – Great Old Broads will
be lucky to have you at their organization.
As part of Tim’s move, and in conjunction
with the larger travel planning processes
going on, Wildlands CPR is doing some
restructuring. We’ll fill you in on all the
BARK member assesses road impacts in the Mt. Hood National details in the next RIPorter.
Forest. Photo by Tim Peterson.

10 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006

 NTWC Update
Throughout the fall, the Natural Trails &
Waters Coalition (NTWC) focused on building
the communications capacity of grassroots and
regional members. To improve communications
within the community, we developed an online,
password-protected “campaign room” available to
coalition members. This campaign room is full of
useful information, much of it sensitive. Many of
the resources found in the campaign room were
developed by Wildlands CPR, such as “Planning
Pathways: A Citizen’s Guide to Controlling Off-
Road Vehicle Use on Public Lands.”
We also reorganized the NTWC listserves. In
addition, we doubled the number of visitors to
the campaign room and participants in listserves
dedicated to travel planning and other off-road
vehicle issues. Organizations are invited to join
the coalition in order to access these two valuable
resources by visiting http://www.naturaltrails.
org/join-us/.
This summer, Resource Media (www.resource-
media.org) produced messaging research and rec-
ommendations at NTWC’s request and with a con-
tribution from Wildlands CPR, the Sierra Club, and
the Colorado Mountain Club. Since then we have
held a series of conference calls to explain these
messaging materials to member organizations in
Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, California,
and Montana, with Washington state and our
hunting/angling allies still on tap for this winter. If
you need help with travel planning media, contact
Jason at Wildlands CPR for more information.
NTWC has scheduled the final two in a series
of seven regional workshops on “effective collabo-
ration” delivered by the University of Virginia’s
Creating a consistent, concise, and comprehensive message is imperative for
successful collaboration. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
Institute for Environmental Negotiations. Both
workshops will be held before December 15, with
Sierra Club hosting one in Bend, Oregon and Wild-
lands CPR hosting the other in Missoula, Montana.
In a collaborative effort to equip land manag-
ers with the best tools for travel planning, NTWC
helped introduce agency decision-makers to the
Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS)
tool. Over the past year, Wildlands CPR identified
EMDS as the premier tool for a landscape ap-
proach to travel planning and arranged a success-
ful workshop for federal and state land managers
on the benefits and applications of EMDS. This
G.I.S. tool — developed by the agency’s own
Pacific Northwest Research Station — enables a
sophisticated yet graphical assessment of which
off-road vehicle routes, roads and foot trails are
necessary for transportation, desirable for recre-
ation, and manageable given the values and limits
of the landscapes they transect. After a presenta-
tion by Wildlands CPR board member Jim Furnish
and a meeting with EMDS researchers and devel-
opers, agency leadership distributed a memo to
regional staff encouraging them to consider using
EMDS in travel planning.
The NTWC Steering Committee has been
working closely with some of our key funders this
summer to develop a more coordinated response
to travel planning efforts throughout the west.
One of the responses is the creation of a new Rec-
reation Planning Action Center at The Wilderness
Society in Denver. We’ll be working closely with
RPAC and others to continue to address travel
planning and off-road vehicle issues on public
lands. We’ll have a more complete update about
these new efforts in the next issue of The RIPorter.
11
 The Long and Winding Roadless Rule
I
t’s been two months since a district
judge in California overturned Presi-
dent Bush’s roadless rule and rein-
stated the roadless protection rule put
in place under President Clinton. And
while this decision is certainly a signifi-
cant legal victory, no one can predict
how long it will last. Before the judge’s
ink had even dried, opponents of road-
less protection were already declaring
their intent to take new legal action.
Wildlands CPR has been tracking this is-
sue for the better part of a decade, and
it is important to consider some of that
history as part of this update.
Background – Two Rules
Compared
The Clinton roadless rule, as a
reminder, protects inventoried road-
less areas from most road construction,
logging and development. It was never
a complete ban on road building and
logging, however, and would still allow
a significant amount of road construc-
tion in roadless lands (up to 2,320 miles
of roads could still be built in roadless
areas (see RIPorter 6:1).
Conservationists had other con-
cerns. For instance, Cinton’s roadless
rule had no provision for dealing with
off-road vehicle use, which has be-
come a major threat to the integrity of
roadless areas. In addition, the For-
est Service redefined roads and trails,
making it almost impossible to tell the
difference between a motorized “trail”
and a road — so even though motor-
ized “trails” might look and act just
like roads, they were never restricted
by the Clinton rule. Still, despite these
concerns, the rule was a lot more pro-
tective of roadless areas than the status
quo.
In July 2004, the Bush Administra-
tion announced it was developing a new
roadless rule that would, theoretically,
empower state governments to play a
larger role in managing roadless areas.
This rule was adopted in May 2005 and
created a petition process through
12
By Bethanie Walder
Alamosa/Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, CO. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service.
which state governors could help write
the rules for managing roadless areas
within their states. Through the peti-
tions, governors could request protec-
tion or development of roadless areas;
petitions had to be filed by mid-Novem-
ber 2006. All petitions were to be re-
viewed by a newly chartered Roadless
Area Conservation National Advisory
Committee (RACNAC), whose recom-
mendations would then be forwarded
to the Administration and the Forest
Service for action. While this process
was intended to empower states, it was
possible that a state could ask for road-
less protection and the Administration
could still say no. If governors chose
not to petition, then roadless manage-
ment would revert to the regular forest
planning process. The weaknesses of
the Clinton roadless rule were carried
forward into Bush’s rule, because most
governors who did submit petitions
based them on the language in the
Clinton rule.
Legal Ping-Pong
Shortly after the implementation
of the Clinton roadless rule, numerous
states filed legal challenges against it.
Conservationists intervened in most
of these challenges and helped defend
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
the rule in court, and over time, district
court judges issued conflicting opinions
on the rule’s legality. At the appeals
level, the Ninth Circuit upheld the rule,
while the Tenth Circuit was in the midst
of hearing an appeal of a Wyoming
decision that had found the Clinton rule
illegal. When the Bush state petitions
rule was released, the Tenth Circuit
declared that appeal moot and vacated
the Wyoming District Court decision.
Numerous challenges were filed against
the Bush rule after it was finalized, but
governors also proceeded to prepare
state petitions while the courts consid-
ered these cases.
On September 19, 2006, Judge
Laporte set aside the Bush state peti-
tions rule and reinstated the Clinton
roadless rule. The decision applies to
all national forest roadless areas with
the exception of the Tongass National
Forest, which had been excluded from
the Clinton rule through a separate
legal settlement between the State of
Alaska and the Bush Administration.
That settlement resulted in a formal
rulemaking process that was finalized in
December 2003. Judge Laporte found
that this rulemaking had undergone
proper procedure and was therefore
exempt from her ruling.
 It is important to recognize that
one of the reasons Judge Laporte was
able to fully reinstate the Clinton rule
was because the Tenth Circuit had va-
cated Wyoming Judge Brimmer’s deci-
sion that found the Clinton rule illegal.
It is highly likely that the Wyoming case
will be reheard, or that the decision will
be reinstated, so Judge Laporte’s ruling
may be short-lived.
What the California District
Court Decided
The September decision by Judge
Laporte found that the Bush state peti-
tions rule violated the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act, the Endangered
Species Act and the Administrative
Procedures Act. The decision nullified
all petitions that had already been filed
under the Bush rule. Many of these
petitions would have protected road-
less areas but now, in the wake of the
decision, petitioning takes on a whole
new meaning (see below).
In addition, Judge Laporte’s deci-
sion resulted in a November 29, 2006
injunction against road projects in road-
less areas. In the injunction, the court
decided not to halt any projects that
were already underway on the ground,
so several such projects approved
under the Bush rule are proceeding.
But the injunction does stop projects
approved, but not begun.
Large carnivores, like the endangered Florida panther, require roadless areas for their
survival. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
Interestingly, the case included a
specific example of a user-created, ren-
egade route that had been authorized
for “reconstruction” through a roadless
area. The Court found that the route
was not authorized by the Clinton rule
exceptions, because it was not “classi-
fied,” and the exceptions only apply to
classified routes. However, the Court
requested further examination of ren-
egade routes, so the injunction is not
the final word on this issue.
The Many Uses of a Petition
Under the Bush state petitions rule,
the only way to secure real protec-
tion for roadless areas was for a state
governor to file a petition, and numer-
ous governors did so. The governors
of North Carolina, California and New
Mexico, for instance, had petitioned for
complete protection of all the roadless
areas in their states. Many other states
were in the final stages of preparing
their own petitions, some protective,
some not. As mentioned, all previously
filed petitions are now invalid, because
the Bush state petitions rule has been
declared illegal.
In contrast, under the now-rein-
stated Clinton roadless rule, the only
way to get RID of protection is to file a
petition. And at the recommendation
of Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark
Rey, several states (including Idaho
and Utah) are in the process of doing
just that. These petitions have been
filed under the federal Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) and if success-
ful, would lead to federal rulemaking
to overturn roadless protection on a
state-by-state basis. The APA rulemak-
ing petitions process has been in effect
for decades, and was always available,
regardless of the Bush rule.
In essence, the September court
decision led to an about-face in terms of
strategy, with petitions now a tactic of
those governors who want to develop
roadless areas, rather than those gover-
nors who want to protect them.
What Will the Future Hold?
It is quite likely that we will see
an appeal of Judge Laporte’s decision.
Alternately, new lawsuits could be filed
against the Clinton rule, or old legal
cases revived. In a worst-case scenario,
a court could then overturn the Clinton
rule again, or the Bush rule could be
reinstated on appeal. If the Clinton
rule is overturned, and Bush rule is not
reinstated, that would put us back to
square one, where individual national
forests would determine through their
forest planning process how to treat
roadless areas. But with ten years of
roadless advocacy in place this is a
highly unlikely final outcome. Given
the importance and complexity of this
issue over the years, further judicial
wrangling could well prompt Congres-
sional action. There have been several
previous Congressional attempts to
enact the Clinton rule into law, but none
have yet succeeded – that could change
under the new Congress.
At this point in time (that is, press
time), we can consider roadless areas
largely protected from most formal
road-building under the Clinton road-
less rule. But off-road vehicle use and
the continued proliferation of user-cre-
ated routes in roadless areas remains a
key threat, under any potential sce-
nario. With the Clinton protections in
place, it is time to turn our attention to
developing some lasting solutions to
off-road vehicle use of roadless areas,
and the many problems that causes for
long-term protection of roadless values.
13

Citizen Spotlight on Roz McClellan
By Cathy Adams
I
n 1992 Roz McClellan joined the Wildlands Project,
which at the time was involved in mapping wildlife
reserves across North America in an effort to reduce
habitat fragmentation. As the group drew boundaries
around blocks of habitat, Roz noticed the blocks were
criss-crossed with lines. “I noticed that the reserves were
sliced up with lines” she said, “and then realized that
the lines were off-road vehicle trails.” She said the areas
appeared roadless, but that off-road vehicle trails had
become a new form of fragmentation. “I realized then
that our work to map large core reserves needed to start
addressing off-road vehicles.” And so Roz switched her
focus to off-road vehicles and how they could better be
regulated.
Roz got her start in advocacy in the early 1980’s help-
ing start an “Adopt-a-BLM-Wilderness” program to protect
Colorado BLM Wilderness Study Areas. During the 1980’s
she was also active with Earth First! defending old growth
forests. One incident led her and a couple of dozen others
to get arrested in California for blocking a truck carrying
redwoods bound for Japan.
In 1985, Roz became director of the University of
Colorado’s Environmental Center in Boulder, where she
coordinated national conferences on topics such as tropi-
cal deforestation, global warming and population and the
environment.
Roz McClellan at work with the Rocky Mountain
Recreation Initiative. Photo courtesy of RMRI.
14
The Citizen Spotlight shares the stories of some of the
awesome activists and organizations we work with,
both as a tribute to them and as a way of highlighting
successful strategies and lessons learned. Please
e-mail your nomination for the Citizen Spotlight to
cathy@wildlandscpr.org.
In 1992 she founded the Southern Rockies Ecosys-
tem Project (SREP) and for the next six years orga-
nized activists to map eco-regions in hopes of finding
ways to connect, restore and protect ecosystems.
Eventually Roz and the mapping coordinators formed
a non-profit, and SREP continues reconnecting habitat
to this day.
Back in the 1990’s habitat fragmentation was
recognized as the major threat to biodiversity, but the
role of off-road vehicles was less understood. “Off-
road vehicles were allowed to proliferate freely,” Roz
says, “because there were no laws against it. Off-road
vehicles were continuing the pattern of fragmentation
where roads left off,” she says.
The unchecked spread of off-road vehicles led
Roz in 1998 to branch off from SREP to start a small
organization, the Rocky Mountain Recreation Initia-
tive (RMRI), focusing on the fragmenting effects of
off-road vehicles. Roz has attempted to introduce the
principles of conservation biology into trail planning
and recreational policy at the state and federal level
in Colorado. She attributes her grounding in conserva-
tion biology to conservation champions Reed Noss
and Mike Soulé, but saw that few people were apply-
ing conservation biology to trail proliferation. “I’ve
found that I’ve been allied with wildlife biologists from
government agencies and the universities because
they best understand the impacts of recreational trails
on wildlife.”
RMRI works on off-road vehicle issues in tandem
with a network of mostly Colorado environmental or-
ganizations called the Southern Rockies Conservation
Alliance. “What’s unique about RMRI is that it focuses
not on wilderness and other issues, but on the biologi-
cal impacts of trails – motorized trails and mountain
bike trails as well.”
Roz believes dealing with off-road vehicles is
important because they are the most transformative
force on our public lands today, and unfortunately,
many of their impacts are irreversible. “Whatever is
motorized will never be wild again, whereas non-
motorized areas have a chance of retaining their
wildness. I believe we are in a critical moment in the
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
history of public lands. I want to help establish the
final balance between what is motorized and what is
non-motorized for the foreseeable future.”
Roz finds that people she works with around
Colorado experience the loss of silence as the loss of
something precious. Hikers, hunters and horseback
riders are often heart broken by the loss of their
favorite quiet haunts and the ability to find peace and
solitude. “The work is fun because we’re trying to
preserve what is a critical component of the human
experience: the ability to experience natural sound.”
Other RMRI projects include getting non-motor-
ized prescriptions into national forest plan revisions.
When a forest plan is written, the Forest Service
decides which sections of the forest will emphasize
logging, wildlife, recreation, etc. With each section
having a different management emphasis, Roz works
to make sure that wildlands are given a non-motorized
management prescription. “In my mind, keeping the
land non-motorized is a surrogate for keeping it wild.”
“The work is fun because we’re
trying to preserve what is a critical
component of the human experience;
the ability to experience natural
sound.”
RMRI also has been working to get the Colorado
Off-Highway Vehicle Program to consider environ-
mental factors in their grant program. When the state
collects OHV registration fees, that money goes into
developing motorized trails on Forest Service and
BLM lands. Roz has helped add environmental criteria
into the grant process. She also worked to protect
Wolford Mountain, near Kremmling, Colorado as a
quiet sanctuary for wintering elk.
Roz believes it helps to work cooperatively with
the motorized community. “There’s a lot of anger and
controversy involved, which is why it is helpful to
make friends with the off-road vehicle leadership. You
need to create a sense of respect between the two
sides so we can talk to each other; otherwise it’s psy-
chologically damaging to be in an atmosphere of such
intolerance.” In 2006, RMRI coordinated a collabora-
tive group of motorized and non-motorized interests,
including the Colorado Mountain Club, the Colorado
Off-highway Vehicle Coalition and the Colorado
Wildlife Federation. The group got consensus from the
entire Colorado delegation for a Congressional appro-
priation (not yet approved) that would go to Colorado
National Forests. The funding would help the Forest
Service better manage off-road vehicles. Right now
the trail systems are undefined, so off-road vehicles
don’t know where to go and off-road vehicle routes
are proliferating. “Both sides agree that if we get trails
designated and get vehicles to stay on trails through
enforcement and management then the land will be in
better shape.”
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
Roz in her element. Photo courtesy of RMRI.
But the two sides don’t always agree. “It’s interesting
to collaborate on one issue, while being at loggerheads on
other issues,” such as how many user-created trails are
going to be added to the motorized trail system.
A huge challenge is budget cuts to the Forest Ser-
vice and BLM that have made them incapable of getting
a handle on the proliferation of off-road vehicle use. The
loss of field staff and law enforcement allows vehicles to
run rampant across the land.
“The difficult thing is that the vehicles are already out
there. With a timber sale you have a decision up front, but
with vehicles they are already out of the barn and you’re
doing a rear-guard action.”
RMRI is focusing now on the national forest and BLM
lands along the Front Range, while other members of the
SRCA coalition focus elsewhere in the state. “What I enjoy
about the off-road vehicle issue is that it is so new and a
steep learning curve. It’s fascinating to try to help craft
policy where there has never been policy before.” The
downside, she says, is dealing with a lot of disappoint-
ment and the relentless loss of wildness.
However challenging, Roz remains in the fight. “We
are at a critical moment in the history of the Forest
Service. The outcome of the new off-road vehicle rule will
decisively influence Forest Service lands into the indefi-
nite future. So I plan to stay with the process and try to
see it to its conclusion.”
But it isn’t always easy. “In this work, you need toler-
ance for setbacks and an appetite for challenge. This
work is not for the faint of heart, you get burnt out fast.”
So what keeps her going? The caring and the passion of
people she works with. For her, helping them achieve
their goals of protecting wild and quiet places is the most
satisfying part of the work!
When not working to protect Colorado’s wildlands,
Roz enjoys playing in them quietly, hiking, running, down-
hill and cross-country skiing with her husband and two
sons.
—Cathy Adams is the Wildlands CPR Program and
Membership Associate.
15
From a Wonderland Road
By Carolyn Duckworth

Editor’s note: This is a condensed version of an essay that appears in our book: “A Road Runs Through It”

S
unset seems to have turned to twilight over
northeastern Yellowstone. Then the clouds
move east enough for a deep golden light
to slant over the peaks, illuminating Specimen
Ridge in the mid-distance for five more minutes.
I swing the spotting scope up and away from
Antelope Creek toward the nearest slopes of
the ridge. In this contrasty light, I sometimes
can discern a grizzly or two. Once I had in view
two bears traversing the slope when one veered
downhill at a run, pulled up in sagebrush, and
came up shaking the life out of what was prob-
ably an elk calf.
Tonight, no wildlife drama in sight, I sit back
into the twilight, feeling the wind, hearing the
faint rush of the creek. And enjoying the lack of
traffic. I sit less than ten feet off one of Yellow-
stone’s major roads, the road over Dunraven
Pass, over which more than 4,000 cars pass on
a busy summer day as they cross the flanks of
Mount Washburn. The pass has been closed for
two summers now while the road is reconstruct-
ed from the bed up—something not done since
the early 1930s when the road was finally made
fit for automobiles. It reopens in one month, and
I’ve been coming up here at least once a week to
enjoy the quiet for a little bit longer.
This year during several days at peak summer season, I counted road-
killed Uinta ground squirrels across the roads of Yellowstone’s northern
range. This was a relatively simple task: I learned to scan the road ahead
for dark spots and small lumps on the pavement. Approaching one, I’d
slow, note the mileage on the odometer, scribble it down along with “gs,
eastbound” or “gs, westbound” or “gs, center” in my field journal. Because
people have the potential to see elk, deer, bison, coyote, bear, and wolves
along this road, it’s relatively acceptable to cruise along at 35 mph instead
of the posted 45 mph.
On each of these roadkill counting trips, the return yielded different
results. A few more ground squirrels would have been killed by the time I
retraced the route, and most of the squashed squirrels from the trip out
were gone. Only a stain remained on the pavement. Ravens, magpies, and
coyotes scavenge roadkills. One time I stopped in an animal jam created
by people watching a coyote trying to yank a dead squirrel stuck to the
pavement. Sometimes I had to slow as I approached a roadkill because I
could see live ground squirrels in the road, eating their dead.
This stretch of Yellowstone road was a heavily used trail by prospec-
tors, miners, and suppliers traveling from Mammoth Hot Springs through
to Cooke City, a busy mining hamlet in the 1800s. The old dirt roads of that
time probably impacted wild animals very little, except perhaps to move
elk and other wary creatures away from the route. When you read ac-
counts or look at photographs of that era, it’s clear that speedy travel was
not possible.

At the time of the park’s establishment in

1872, European American visitors rode their
horses and drove their wagons over trails long
established by the tribes who had been visiting
and passing through Yellowstone for centuries.

The ancient Bannock Trail crosses the mod-

ern road system on Blacktail Plateau, northwest
of Mount Washburn and Specimen Ridge. I can
just barely pick out the travois twin-track wind-
ing down the same hill where the current road
sends you down in an S-curve. That curve builds
up a speed that you don’t even notice once you
are on the flat racing 10, 15, 20 miles over the
Motor vehicles in Yellowstone have increased from a few thousand per year in
speed limit. In summer, that stretch of road is the 1920’s to a few million per year today. Photo courtesy of Yellowstone National
littered with flattened ground squirrels. Park, circa 1925.

16 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006


Some of Yellowstone’s early motorized visitors encounter difficult road
conditions. Photo courtesy of Yellowstone National Park, circa 1925.
Yellowstone roads remained the domain of horses and wheeled carts
and coaches until 1915, when the first motorized vehicle was allowed in
the park. The following year, more than 3,000 automobiles entered the
park. By 1920, 13,000 cars and buses were bumping their way around Yel-
lowstone. Today, more than one million cars travel Yellowstone’s roads
from May until October.
On July 3rd this year, my Dunraven visit came at noon—considered
peak travel time on the peak weekend of the year. I counted cars for 30
minutes. Fifteen vehicles passed me as I sat on a rock listening to the creek
and watching Parnassian butterflies nectar the blooming stonecrop. The
following evening, July 4th, ten cars passed in one half-hour.
Amazingly, this road—so famous for its bear- and wolf-viewing—did
not extract a huge toll in road kills of any large mammals before recon-
struction began. Of the 310 miles of paved roads in Yellowstone, it has the
second-lowest roadkill rate of any section: one animal per ten miles per
year. During the 1990s, no grizzlies were killed on this road that passes
directly through one of their major habitat areas.
In contrast, a 17-mile stretch of U.S. 191 on the west side is the roadkill
corridor of Yellowstone. It is the only road in the park with a legal speed
limit of 55 mph; the actual speed is closer to 75 mph. It is also the only
road on which semi-tractor trailers and other heavy commercial vehicles
can legally pass through the park. During the 1990s, this stretch of road
claimed 461 large mammals at a rate of more than 2 animals per mile per
year.
The major roadkill studies of the 1990s focused on large mammals—
from beaver to bison. I wonder what we might have found out had anyone
counted the Uinta mortality on Dunraven Road before the road reconstruc-
tion so we could compare the mortality afterward. The new road will be
wider, less curvy, and safer for higher speeds than the old road, which
often stripped cars of their hubcaps with its deep potholes and high frost
heaves.
The first time I came up Dunraven this summer, ground squirrels
danced giddily close to the pavement, crossed daringly close to my ap-
proach, and chattered back and forth. They were several generations
removed from the last ground squirrels to experience the 4,000-cars-a-day
traffic. How many generations will be squished before their ancestors’ cau-
tion is relearned?
Most roadkills occur at dusk and at night in Yellowstone, no different
than other places. The difference is this is a national park, the first national
park in the world, and it set a precedent in its emphasis on individual
vehicular transportation.
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
The precedent began in the first years of
the park, when a succession of superintendents
begged the U.S. Congress for money to improve
foot and horse trails for more comfortable
wagon roads. They emphasized visitor safety
and comfort first, accessibility to the park’s
scenic and thermal wonders second. In the early
years of the National Park Service, established
in 1916, Stephen T. Mather and Horace Albright
set the standards for automobile roads, empha-
sizing the importance of designing park roads
that impacted the landscape as little as pos-
sible. Their forward-looking point of view was
somewhat maintained after the 1920s when the
federal Bureau for Public Roads took over park
road construction and maintenance.
Roads built in the 1920s and 30s finally
changed a tour through Yellowstone from a
bone-jarring ordeal to a pleasant automobile
tour. They remained the literal basis of Yellow-
stone’s road system until the late 20th century
when deterioration of the roadbeds was so
thorough that only reconstruction could repair
them. Millions of dollars pour in to Yellowstone
each year for this massive project. This highway
money is included when federal officials pro-
claim that Yellowstone’s budget has increased
each year during the current administration and
that its maintenance backlog is being reduced.
Yet employees still live in trailers toxic with
black mold and people in wheelchairs must en-
ter some visitor centers through the back door.
But the roads will be improved and main-
tained. Thanks to the daily oversight of park
employees, these roads are being rebuilt as
sensitively as possible given the constraints of
federal highway projects. Unfortunately, they
can do nothing about decisions such as the new
Dunraven Road will welcome vehicles up to 30
feet long but won’t be safe for bicycles. Nor can
they change the fact that improved roads equal
increased speeds equal increased roadkills of all
animals in Yellowstone.
During July 2005, I drove the park’s roads
more than usual. Half the trips were to count
road-killed Uintas on my way to enjoy the quiet
on Dunraven Road. Friends staying at Lake
Hotel, in the southern part of the park, provided
another reason to drive the peak-season roads.
I joined them often for meals and evening drives
to look for wildlife, but I couldn’t join them on
their hikes far from roads. Several foot prob-
lems laid me off hiking this year. That’s why
Dunraven’s quiet was especially welcomed and
will be sorely missed when the barricades come
down and four thousand cars a day pass by.
—Carolyn Duckworth is a writer, editor and
naturalist living in Gardiner, Montana. She is
one of Yellowstone National Park’s Publications
Manager.
17
Restoring Justice to our Forests,
our Communities
By Bethanie Walder
T
his fall I had the opportunity to speak to a group of
college students about gender issues in the environ-
mental movement. While I used to deal with this issue
a lot, I haven’t in a long time, so it was refreshing to see the
progress we’ve made in the last ten years in bringing better
gender balance to the conservation community. But the con-
text for my discussion with students was broader, incorporat-
ing gender as a component of environmental justice.
I’ve paid attention to the environmental justice move-
ment peripherally for many years, but I’ve always considered
Wildlands CPR to fit exclusively into the realm of traditional
conservation. What surprised me was my realization that
ecological restoration falls quite squarely within the realm
of environmental justice. In fact, restoration might provide a
valuable intersection between the conservation and environ-
mental justice communities. If so, then can restoration also
help us redefine the conservation movement to incorporate a
much broader constituency of interest?
What is environmental justice?
The environmental movement has traditionally been
split into two segments – conserving lands and wildlife on the
one hand, and preventing pollution and its effects on human
health on the other. Environmental justice focuses on the
disproportionate exposure of low-income people and people
of color to toxic pollution, most often caused by the proxim-
ity of their neighborhoods to the sources of pollution, like
factories. Migrant farmworkers are another population that
experiences severe environmental injustices through expo-
sure to pesticides and chemicals.
But environmental justice could be considered more
broadly than this. It could, for example, also focus on people
who live in rural, resource-dependent communities, where
the extraction of resources (including logging, mining, oil and
gas exploration) has significant impacts on peoples’ liveli-
hoods, communities and even their health. While logging
might not cause the same air pollution as a factory, it can
dramatically impact water quality, while also destabilizing
mountain slopes. In addition, slash burning (and natural
wildfire) can cause significant air pollution problems. Or con-
sider mountaintop removal for coal mining, and the profound
impacts that has on the people who live below those moun-
tains. Nonetheless, it is not quite as common to hear environ-
mental justice applied to rural communities.
At the first National People of Color Environmental
Leadership Summit, held in Washington DC in 1991, delegates
adopted 17 principles of Environmental Justice (see side bar).
18
Highlighted Principles
of Environmental Justice
To view all of the 17 Principles of Environmental Justice, visit
www.ejnet.org/principles.htm
• Environmnetal Justice (EJ) demands that public policy be
based on mutual respect and justice for all peoples, free from
any form of discrimination or bias.
• EJ calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, ex-
traction, production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastes
and poisons and nuclear testing that threaten the fundamen-
tal right to clean air, land, water, and food.
• EJ demands the right to participate as equal partners at
every level of decision-making, including needs assessment,
planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation.
• EJ affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work
environment without being forced to choose between an
unsafe livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right
of those who work at home to be free from environmental
hazards.
• EJ considers governmental acts of environmental injustice
a violation of international law, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on
Genocide.
• EJ affirms the need for urban and rural ecological policies
to clean up and rebuild our cities and rural areas in balance
with nature, honoring the cultural integrity of all our com-
munities, and providing fair access for all to the full range of
resources.
• EJ calls for the education of present and future generations
which emphasizes social and environmental issues, based on
our experience and an appreciation of our diverse cultural
perspectives.
As recently as six years ago, these principles were markedly
different from the conservation agenda. Since then, however,
the conservation community has broadened its message and
reached out to new constituencies for mutually increased
political power. One example is the addition of an ecological
restoration message.
In an article by University of Michigan professor Dorceta
Taylor in 2000, she compares contemporary environmental-
ism with environmental justice. She points out, for example,
that most contemporary environmentalists don’t incorpo-
rate religion or religious institutions into their work, while
environmental justice advocates do. But that is changing,
and many conservation groups now work with faith-based
organizations. She also considers worker health and safety,
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
and the need to develop environmentally safe livelihoods.
Ten years ago environmental justice advocates considered
these issues as a foundation of their work, while conserva-
tion organizations gave them limited attention. That too has
changed, as has our emphasis on the right to clean air, land,
water and food.
Ecological restoration specifically addresses the need for
developing environmentally safe livelihoods by developing
economies that heal the land instead of harming it. Ecologi-
cal restoration has at its base the idea of restoring clean air,
land, water and food. Ecological restoration, when practiced
in rural, resource dependent communities, also provides an
opportunity to maintain cultural integrity.
Ecological restoration as environmental
justice
In June, Wildlands CPR co-sponsored the Montana Gov-
ernor’s Restoration Summit. One of the main ideas to emerge
was that of pairing urban/suburban revitalization with wild-
land restoration. Storm Cunningham from the Revitalization
Institute spoke about the 12 sectors of restorative develop-
ment; they address the natural, built and socioeconomic en-
vironments. In the natural environment, restoration includes
things like fisheries and watersheds. In the socioeconomic
environment, restoration addresses things like education and
workforce development as well as cultural assets (see side
bar, this page). These twelve sectors are mostly consistent
with the 17 principles of environmental justice, though they
are not nearly as comprehensive. Nonetheless, they help
articulate how ecological restoration and revitalization really
are environmental justice issues.
Wildlands CPR is now leading a follow-up effort from
the Governor’s conference that would meld urban/subur-
ban revitalization with wildland restoration. This work has
the support of universities, labor unions, conservationists,
and, hopefully, rural communities. While the Revitalization
Institute supports such efforts, nowhere has a coordinated
revitalization/restoration campaign been undertaken at a
statewide level.
What might this look like on the ground? Let’s take
Libby, Montana, as an example. The entire town has been
declared a superfund site because of asbestos contamination
from the now-closed vermiculite mine in town. Hundreds of
people are either sick or dying of asbestosis. Some worked in
the mines, but many are ill simply because so much asbestos
was in the air, their houses, schools, buildings and shops.
Libby lies in the midst of the Kootenai National Forest,
one of the better tree-growing forests in Montana. But last
year the last mill in Libby closed. The Kootenai has an ex-
tremely high density of roads, and those roads are impacting
The 12 Sectors of Restorative Development
Natural: ecosystem, watershed, fisheries, agricultural lands
Built: brownfields remediation/redevelopment; infrastruc-
ture renovation/design/replacement; heritage restoration;
catastrophe recovery/reconstruction
Socioeconomic: social policies and services; economy
policies; education and workforce development; cultural
assets
Visit http://www.revitalizationinstitute.org/12_sectors.htm
The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006
endangered wildlife like grizzly bears, while also degrading
water quality. A combined revitalization/restoration project
in and around Libby could, for example, consider brownfields
redevelopment (revitalization) of some of the formerly con-
taminated buildings in and around Libby. This could include
retooling the Libby mill to function as a value-added work
site for small timber products (logged, for example, from fire
protection efforts in the wildland urban interface). We could
pair this with an aggressive road decommissioning program
on the Kootenai that would expand habitat for endangered
species and restore key watersheds. Both the in-town revital-
ization and the wildland restoration would provide high-wage,
high skill jobs to community members, while also restoring
the built and natural environments within and outside of the
community of Libby, ideally providing them with longer term
opportunities to maintain a vital and healthy community.
If Montana embraced this combined revitalization/resto-
ration approach, it could create a model for the nation. This
model would push the envelope of the traditional conserva-
tion paradigm directly into the heart of the environmental
justice paradigm.
If the residents of rural, resource-dependent communi-
ties are suffering from environmental injustices, then eco-
logical restoration may offer one way to resolve some of
that injustice. Ecological restoration specifically addresses
the need for developing environmentally safe livelihoods by
developing economies that heal the land instead of harming
it. Ecological restoration has at its base the idea of restoring
clean air, land, water and food. Ecological restoration, when
practiced in rural communities, also provides an opportunity
to maintain cultural integrity.
Author’s note: As I was researching this article I came
across a brand new book title, “Reclaiming Nature: Environ-
mental Justice and Ecological Restoration” by James Boyce,
Elizabeth Stanton and Sunita Narain. The book was just
released, and I could not get a copy in time, but look for a
review of this book in a future issue of The RIPorter.
References:
Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism website: http://
www.ejnet.org/principles.html
Revitalization Institute website: http://www.
revitalizationinstitute.org/12_sectors.htm
Taylor, Dorceta. 2000. The rise of the environmental justice
paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction
of environmental discourses. American Behavioral
Scientist v3, n4, 508-580 (2000).
19
Travel Restrictions Upheld
To Halt Off-Road Vehicle
Abuse In Utah
On September 19, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision upholding the legality of off-road vehicle
restrictions put in place by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to halt considerable adverse impacts caused by these
machines in Box Elder and Grand County, Utah. The motor-
ized recreation group Utah Shared Access Alliance (USA-ALL) Jeep despoils rare desert water source in Pritchett Canyon, Utah.
sued the agency, seeking to overturn the restrictions so that Photo by Kevin Walker, U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
off-road vehicle use could continue without management
oversight. Upon losing in District Court, USA-ALL appealed to
the 10th Circuit where they also sought to overturn Executive
Orders governing off-road vehicle use.
New Off-Road Vehicle
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Earthjustice,
along with Wildlands CPR, Red Rock Forests and Great Old
Broads for Wilderness intervened in the case to support the
Restrictions For Utah’s
BLM’s long-overdue restrictions on off-road vehicle abuse.
The court held, significantly, that an “emergency” is not Factory Butte
required before BLM may limit off-road vehicle use on public
lands, and that BLM’s decision is supported by substantial ev-
idence of abuse. The 10th Circuit Court found that the District
Court properly dismissed USA- ALL’s claims against the BLM. The Bureau of Land Management has decided to imple-
ment “emergency restrictions” for off-road vehicle recreation
in Southern Utah’s Factory Butte Area to protect critical
habitat. Factory Butte is a popular destination for motorized

Murkowski Plans Juneau recreationists.

Road Start
Alaska is moving forward with plans to build the first seg-
ment of a controversial road linking Juneau to the Northern
Lynn Canal and, ultimately, the state road system.
The state Department of Transportation has asked
contractors to bid on construction of 13 to 21 miles of gravel
track while it awaits permits from the Army Corps of Engi-
neers for a more permanent paved road.
Gov. Frank Murkowski said the federal permitting pro-
cess is slowing the road’s construction and could increase
the costs of building it.
This action has been expected for some time, as the land
is the endemic home of the endangered Wrights Fishhook
cactus and the threatened Winkler cactus. Factory Butte,
located near Capitol Reef National Park, has until now been
designated open for off-road vehicle use. Under the new
rules, motorized use will be limited to a 2,600-acre “play area”
known as Swing Arm City, and 220 miles of designated roads.
Officials emphasized that if the new regulations are not hon-
ored, the result could be a closure of the entire area.
This action was spurred by a petition filed last year by
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance for a more restrictive
off-road vehicle plan, citing concerns over the cactus, and
soil and water impacts due to motorized recreation. The Bu-
reau of Land Management rejected most of the petition, but
launched an analysis of cactus habitat and found significant
off-road vehicle damage to the plants.

20 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006

 California’s Algodones Dunes Will Remain Protected
A federal court has ordered that the current off-road
vehicle restrictions in the Algodones Dunes of southern
California’s Sonoran Desert will remain in effect for the fore-
seeable future. For years the dunes have been the subject of
much controversy concerning off-road vehicles and harm to
threatened wildlife.

Fifty thousand of the area’s 180,000 acres have been

closed since 2000 in an effort to protect habitat and threat-
ened wildlife, including Peirson’s milk-vetch, desert tortoises,
and flat-tailed horned lizards.

“One has but to drive Hwy 78 across the dunes to see the
remarkable difference on the north side of the highway with
protected wilderness and the south side with vehicles every-
where,” said Elden Hughes of the Sierra Club. “The north is
alive with desert plants and animals. The south side has few
plants and no animal life. The rare and threatened species of
the Dunes need the protections the judge has given them.”

The closures will remain in effect at least until the Bureau

of Land Management revises the environmental review for
the Dunes management plan and the Fish and Wildlife Service
revises the critical habitat designation for the Peirson’s milk-
Off-road vehicles damage fragile desert soil. Photo
vetch.
courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Judge Halts Wolf Creek Road

A federal judge on Thursday issued an order temporarily The developers still need permits from the Colorado
halting construction of a road to a development planned at Department of Transportation and other agencies before they
the base of the Wolf Creek Ski Area, days after the U.S. Forest can use it. The extended road would have been gated until
Service issued a permit for the road. then.

U.S. District Judge John Kane approved a 10-day tem-
porary restraining order requested by two environmental
groups. He also scheduled a hearing Tuesday on the groups’
request for a preliminary injunction, which if approved would
put any work on hold until the matter is settled in court. The
lawsuit by Durango-based Colorado Wild and the San Luis Val-
ley Ecosystem Council in Alamosa is the latest round in the
battle over the ski village. The groups want to overturn the
Forest Service’s decision that gave developers of The Village
at Wolf Creek the go-ahead. The Forest Service on Tuesday is-
sued a permit allowing developer Bob Honts and his partner,
Texas billionaire Billy Joe “Red” McCombs, to extend a road
from the ski area by 250 feet to link the site of the proposed
village and the ski area parking lots.
Construction had not started in the two days since the
permit was issued. “It’s pretty snowy up there, that’s what
Wolf Creek is all about,” Honts said. “You just deal with what
the judges do. The important thing is that it’s not very long
until we have a day in court.”
Colorado Wild and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council
claim in their lawsuit that the Forest Service didn’t analyze
the development’s full impact, a violation of the law, and only
looked at the impacts of two roads that would be built to the
nearly 300-acre plot of private land surrounded by the Rio
Grande National Forest.
The lawsuit also claims that Peter Clark, forest supervi-
sor, in August illegally amended the final decision on con-
struction of the roads when he said the developer could start
building one of them. The lawsuit claims that Clark’s action
undermines the Forest Service’s requirement for two roads.
A spokesman in the regional Forest Service office in Den-
ver declined to comment because of the pending litigation.
McCombs’ proposed Village at Wolf Creek could have
2,000 residential units for as many as 10,500 people, 250,000
square feet of commercial space and a luxury hotel on a 288-
acre parcel next to the ski area. The surrounding area is home
to fewer than 1,000 year-round residents.

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006 21

 T
he first real snow fell in and around Mis-
soula on Thanksgiving weekend – remind-
ing us that winter is really on its way. As
the calendar year comes to a close, we’re thankful
for some of our big accomplishments this year,
including the publication of our new book, and the
co-hosting of the MT Governor’s Restoration Sum-
mit. Not to mention that the Utne Reader included
this very publication, The Road-RIPorter, as “media
that matters” according to their “Street Librarian.”
The Street Librarian “highlights publications whose
creators are motivated by passion for ideas instead
of profit.” We’re very proud to be mentioned in
that context, and we hope that you, our readers,
continue to find our newsletter an important one to
keep on your bookshelf! And just one quick note of
clarification, the Street Librarian questioned why
we changed our name from Wildlands Center for
Preventing Roads to Wildlands CPR. We changed
our name for several reasons, chief among them A bald eagle draws its wings back as it comes
that the emphasis of our organization is on resto- in for a landing. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish &
ration, which is strongly implied by the concept Wildlife Service.
of CPR. Because our work encompasses so much
more than preventing road construction in wildland With our new grant, we’ve hired Gini Porter and Mike
ecosystems, we thought it was important to have a Fiebig, who will each be helping us out on a part-time ba-
name that was more encompassing, too. Sorry for sis with our Clearwater citizen science program. Gini is an
any confusion that may have caused. AmericCorps member and will be working with us through
UM as a Community Organizer to recruit and train volunteers
And now we have some people to thank and from Missoula and the surrounding area to monitor restora-
some people to welcome to Wildlands CPR… tion projects on the Clearwater. She has a bachelor’s degree
in Biology from UM with an emphasis in Zoology and she is
A big thanks from us to University of Montana currently working on a second degree in Psychology.
(UM) Environmental Studies (EVST) graduate
students Tiffany Saleh and Anna Holden for their We’ve hired Mike to work part-time as an Environmental
research expertise this fall. Tiffany is research- Educator for the same program. Mike is an EVST graduate
ing the impacts of road lighting on wildlife and student and comes to us with a wealth of outdoor education
Anna is summarizing the effectiveness of citizen experience, most recently working for the National Outdoor
science projects across the country. You’ll see Leadership School (NOLS). Mike will be teaching classes on
their reviews in the Road-RIPorter later in 2007. restoration and road removal in rural Idaho schools adjacent
Many thanks, too, to Noah Jackson, who has been to the Clearwater National Forest, and leading classroom
researching off-road vehicle enforcement for us this fieldtrips this spring.
summer and fall in preparation for a new report.
We’d also like to extend a big thank you to the Bullitt,
We’d like to offer Anna Holden a second, but Harder, New-Land and Page Foundations for their generous
bigger, thank you for her very hard work on our support for our work. And we’d like to thank all of you, our
Clearwater National Forest citizen science moni- members, who responded to either our Give Thanks or our
toring project. Thanks to Anna, this was our best Annual Gifts Campaign appeals. It’s support like yours that
field season yet - with more volunteers, more data enables Wildlands CPR to continue with our work. If you
collected and more data analysis than ever before. haven’t made a year-end contribution yet, we hope you’ll still
We’d also like to thank the National Forest Foun- consider making a holiday donation to Wildlands CPR. And if
dation, which recently awarded us a new grant to you need a belated gift, check out our holiday gift specials at
continue this project. www.wildlandscpr.org.

22 The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006

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

Consider the advantages of our Monthly Giving Program

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

Name
Phone
Street
Email
City, State,
Zip

Type of Membership: Individual/Family Organization Business

Organization/Business Name (if applicable)

Payment Option #1: Payment Option #2:

Credit Card Pledge Electronic Funds Transfer
from Checking Account

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

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

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

Credit Card Number: _________________________________

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

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

The Road-RIPorter, Winter Solstice 2006 23

 Mt. Paulik volcano in Alaska’s Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

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

Day by day, roads are advancing

further into valleys which should
be sacred to the nation as the
galleries that hold its most valued
art treasures.

— Rosalie Edge, 1936

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