The Road-RIPorter
Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. January/February 2000. Volume 5 # 1
Groups File Petition
with Forest Service to
Overhaul ORV Regs
Mired in murky management methods,
Feds must make modifications as
mandated by APA
T
he engines’ roar travels for
miles. Blue, acrid exhaust lin-
gers in the air long after they
have past. The ruts left behind by
their tires, the crushed vegetation and
the overrun meadows remain scarred
for decades, if not centuries. Off-road
vehicle (ORV) impacts to wildlife and
wild ecosystems go far beyond aesthet-
ics and scrape at the integrity of our
public lands.
On December 8, 1999, Wildlands
CPR, The Wilderness Society and more
than 100 other organizations, repre-
senting over one and a half million
people, presented a rule-making peti-
tion to the Forest Service to completely
overhaul the management of ORVs
nationwide. The petition was filed
under the Administrative Procedures
Act and requires a formal response
from the Forest Service.
Stuck in the mud with nowhere to go–a just fate.
Howard Wilshire photo.
The Petition
Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), citizens
are allowed to petition federal agencies to change the rules
under which they operate. Wildlands CPR, The Wilderness
Society and others used the APA to file the ORV rule-making
petition with the Forest Service. The petition is a formal
legal document that includes detailed information regarding
an issue and a request to the responsible federal agency that
they take remedial action.
Our petition provides a detailed analysis of the impacts
of ORVs on National Forest lands. The petition begins with
an explanation of our requests for rule-making changes. It
then covers: the multitude of laws applicable to ORVs on
public lands; the specific environmental impacts of ORVs to
soil, vegetation, wildlife, pollution, and public safety; and
the site specific impacts of ORVs on selected National
Forests throughout the system. It concludes with an analysis
of the relief we request. An online version of the Petition is
available on our website at:
http://www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR/.
While the ecological impacts of ORVs are significant
and universal, nearly regardless of ecosystem type, each
National Forest has implemented different management
practices to deal with them. The Hoosier National Forest in
Indiana and the Monongahela National Forest in West
Virginia are the only forests that have chosen to prohibit
ORV use within their boundaries. Forests like the Stanislaus
in California allow practically free reign by ORVs throughout
much of our land. And while the Shawnee National Forest
in Illinois doesn’t allow ORVs within its boundaries, this was
— continued on page 8 —
 From the Wildlands CPR Office... Wildlands
C
Center for
P
Preventing
November and December were incredibly busy months for Wildlands CPR. In R
Roads
addition to seeing more than a year’s worth of work culminating into a petition to
change ORV management on the National Forests, we also were working on things
like road removal in the Dragoon Mountains. Needless to say it was fun, but we were Main Office
thankful when things slowed down over the holidays. P.O. Box 7516
And now we are thrilled to invite you to read our second “special issue” of the Missoula, MT 59807
Road-RIPorter. This issue is focused exclusively on what’s been going on with ORVs (406) 543-9551
wildlandsCPR@WildlandsCPR.org
over the past year, and where we’re headed for in the upcoming year. We hope you www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR
enjoy it and we’ll be back to our
regular reporting in the next issue.
Colorado Office
P.O. Box 2353
Thanks Boulder, CO 80306
Though Thanksgiving was a bit In this Issue (303) 247-0998
ago, we certainly feel like we owe a lot prebles@indra.net
of thanks to a lot of people for making
1999 so successful. In addition to all Rule-Making Petition p. 1, 8-9 Wildlands Center for Preventing
the grants and individual donations we Roads works to protect and restore
received, we were also blessed with DePaving the Way, p. 3 wildland ecosystems by preventing
and removing roads and limiting
many, many dedicated volunteers and Bethanie Walder motorized recreation. We are a
interns throughout the course of the national clearinghouse and network,
year. We couldn’t have done it Odes to Roads, p. 4-5 providing citizens with tools and
without their help. For this month, strategies to fight road
Tom Youngblood-Petersen
we’d like to give special thanks to all construction, deter motorized
recreation, and promote road
those of you who made year end removal and revegetation.
Field Notes, p. 6-7
contributions, as well as the New Land
and 444S Foundations. Director
Regional Reports & Alerts Bethanie Walder
Welcome p. 10-11
Development Director
We extend a big welcome to our Tom Youngblood-Petersen
temporary ORV Campaign Coordinator Bibliography Notes p. 12-14
Jennifer Ferenstein. Jen’s worked with Office Manager
D. J. Schubert and Jacob Smith Cate Campbell
us on ORVs and other issues in the past
and is no stranger to Wildlands CPR or Interim ORV Campaign
conservation work in general. She’ll be Coordinator
Jennifer Ferenstein
working closely with Jacob to coordinate our ORV work and we are thrilled to have
her on board. In addition, Katherine Postelli has joined our Missoula office as an Motorized Wreck-Recreation
intern. Many of you spoke with her in December when we were working on the ORV Program
petition. Katherine is doing a variety of things for us, from scientific research to Jacob Smith
writing comments on road issues. Newsletter
Jim Coefield, Dan Funsch
New Resources for Road Rippers
Interns & Volunteers
Concurrent with the release of our Forest Service Petition, Wildlands CPR Carla Abrams, Noelle Brigham,
prepared a new report called, “Roaring from the Past: Off-Road Vehicles on America’s Jennifer Browne, Chuck Irestone,
National Forests.” This report is the culmination of a year’s worth of research about Katherine Postelli, Scott Thomas,
ORV management on all National Forests in the country. The report is available from
our office, or can be downloaded from our website. Speaking of websites, we have Board of Directors
Katie Alvord, Sidney Maddock,
added an extensive section dealing with the ORV petition and report, including our Rod Mondt, Cara Nelson,
database of ORV management on each National Forest and the text of the petition Mary O'Brien, Cindy Shogan,
itself. Please check it out at http://www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR/. Scott Stouder
If you are interested in getting more involved in fighting ORVs in your commu-
Advisory Committee
nity, please contact Jacob at our Boulder office or Jennifer in our Missoula office. We Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,
look forward to hearing from you. Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer,
The Natural Resources Defense Council has just released a new publication, End Timothy Hermach,
of the Road. The Adverse Ecological Impacts of Roads and Logging: a Compilation of Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,
Independently Reviewed Research. This 130 page book is filled with information and Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
citations. You can get a copy by sending $10.50 (CA residents add 7.5% sales tax) to Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
NRDC at: Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
NRDC Publications Dept. Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
40 West 20 Street
New York, NY 10011 c 2000 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000

These Trails are made for
Walkin’… Those Rigs
are made for Roads…
By Bethanie Walder
F
or years I have been asking people, telling
people, begging people to call off-road vehicles
(ORVs) just that, “off-ROAD vehicles.” Most
public land management agencies, however, have
followed the lead of the ORV users and are calling
them off-HIGHWAY vehicles (OHVs). But it seems to
me that the majority of the problems they cause
occur off the road, not just off the highway. And I
wonder, have I been mistaken–should we accept this
more benign moniker and join our opposition in
calling these vehicles off-highway vehicles? Do we
have more common ground than I ever realized?
Vehicles cause significant
and synergistic detrimental
impacts to soil, water, air and
If there must be wildlife when driven off the
motorized recreational road. The U. S. Geological
Survey studied 500 soil types
vehicles, let their users in various climatic zones and
found that virtually all were
have their wish, vulnerable to ORV damage.
rename them off- ORVs compact soils, alter soil
highway vehicles, and permeability, cause severe
rutting, destabilize soil, and
keep them, always, on cause erosion. Eroded soils
impact aquatic systems by
a road. If they want to ending up in creeks, streams
drive off the road, then and rivers. Changes to soil
quality and quantity affect
let their name stay the vegetation, wildlife and entire
same, and reflect ecosystems.
ORVs crush, trample,
what it is that they bruise, shred, tear and destroy
trees, shrubs and other plants.
actually are doing. ORV disturbances make it
easier for non-natives like
knapweed and other weeds to become established.
Seeds are carried by ORV tires and chassis, which
then disturb the soil and deposit the seed–perfect
conditions for spreading exotics into wild places, off
the road.
ORVs impact wildlife directly and indirectly,
both on and off the road. ORVs can run over wildlife
and they often are displaced from their important or
critical habitat. Finally, ORVs increase wildlife
habitat fragmentation and degradation–causing some
of the most significant impacts during the winter
months when wildlife struggle to survive.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000
ORVs are highly polluting, especially those
powered by two-stroke engines. They spew carbon
monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, MTBE,
particulate matter, and other pollutants into the air
and water. They can leak oil, antifreeze, and other
fluids onto the soil and vegetation or into water.
Many of these pollutants settle on snow and then
release toxic discharges into our streams during the
spring thaw. They can settle on the soil or vegetation
and run off during a rainstorm or flood. This can
release a significant amount of toxic chemicals into
waterways in a short period of time.
ORVs cause significant and measurable impacts
when used ON the road as well. The air and water
pollution, spread of non-native species, noise
pollution and habitat fragmentation are still present,
though perhaps at reduced levels. And that doesn’t
even take into account the overwhelming ecological
effects of the roads themselves.
So what’s the big deal with calling these things
off-highway vehicles? For starters, it certainly sounds
like they cause less damage. Are most ORVs really
used on or off Forest Service roads? In many states,
ORVs aren’t street legal and it is illegal to use them
on roads. The state of Montana, for example,
changed their regulations in 1999. Now it allows
ORVs on specifically designated, low standard and
low maintenance roads. National Forests in Montana,
therefore, now allow these vehicles off the highway
and on some of the roads.
And what about all those great sport utility
vehicle advertisements showing them ripping across
deserts, tearing through streams and scaling moun-
tains? Hardly worthy of the moniker “Off-HIGHWAY.”
If the ORV community wants to define their
machines as off-highway instead of off-road vehicles,
then they should keep their vehicles on roads. While
the impacts of roads are extremely detrimental, at
least it’s a little bit easier to manage the land if you
can manage the vehicles and the roads they are on.
Is there a place for these vehicles off the road on
National Forest lands? The answer to this question
depends on whether the various and particular
impacts of ORVs are acceptable under the mandate
of the Forest Service. And while recreation is one of
the multiple uses the Forest Service is legally
obligated to provide and manage, they aren’t man-
dated to allow recreational activities that destroy the
integrity of forest ecosystems. (Though, of course,
this hasn’t stopped them from doing just that…)
We can only conclude that all motorized vehicles
should be required to stay on roads. To put it simply,
trails are for feet (people/animals) and roads are for
motors. If there must be motorized recreational
vehicles, let their users have their wish, rename them
off-highway vehicles, and keep them, always, on a
road. If they want to drive off the road, then let their
name stay the same, and reflect what it is that they
actually are doing.
3
 Odes to Roads

The Facts ma’am…

Just the Facts
By Tom Youngblood-Petersen

T he color photo of a white-haired, grandmotherly

woman took up a third of the front page in a recent
issue of The Missoulian (reprinted from the Los
high school students featured in the Fall ‘99 Road-
RIPorter – appeared on the pages of a different
publication. It had been illegally hijacked from OUR
Angeles Times). Her wizened hands were placed with web page by an off-road enthusiasts’ web site. The
exasperation upon her weathered face. This long- web page featured captions reading, “Just Another
time resident of Elko County Nevada was frustrated Environmental Hate Group,” and “True Arrogance
with recent actions by the Forest Service to close the
teaching hypocrisy and elitism.” Below the photo of
one and half-mile Jarbidge Road. The caption? “I the students it read, “Led by their High School Science
was born here before those Forest Service boys wereTeacher, ‘teen road obliterators’ and anti-ORV zealots
even born” the elderly woman said, “If I could, I’dpause by the motor vehicles they use in daily life.
spank them all over for trying to close our road. It
WCPR wishes that motor vehicles (yours and mine) are
just makes me so mad.” eliminated from public lands while they, in their elitism
The article described the reported hardships of
are allowed to drive to the trailhead.”
the community, now that the road was closed. The The last example of “mis(sed)-information” is
road had been used to access wilderness trips the reaction to Wildlands CPR and The Wilderness
Society’s recently filed petition to the
Forest Service calling for more strictly
regulated ORV use. We received many
emails, some calling us eco-nazis or eco-
To all Road-Rippers… do not be discouraged or terrorists. Some (to put it mildly) wished
threatened by empty name-calling, hollow vehement failure on our endeavors. Most
information, redundant rhetoric, or sensationalist of the phrases were something like,
“You’re locking us out of the forests,” or
journalism. Keep educating people about why we “You just want to take away our rights.”
My point in these scenarios, the
want to close and remove damaging roads, and Jarbidge road, the photographs of
regulate the booming use of ORVs… continue to Wildlands CPR staff, Board, and high
school students, and the extreme
speak for the wild, shadow-zipping fish, the reaction to the Forest Service harks back
secretive padding of bobcat, the richness of our to an old western saying. “Just the facts,
ma’am.”
soils, and the purity of our waters. Readers of the Missoulian’s article
finally get “the facts”–buried on page
two, if they read that far. The reason the
popular to out-of-state hunters and others, bringing road had been closed in the first place was repeated
business to the area. Locals used the road to carry washouts. The old gullied Forest Service (read
them back to their favorite hunting or fishing spots. “public”) road was dumping large amounts of
The grandmother liked to go back there too. Others, sediment into the Jarbidge River. The Jarbidge hosts
fueled by rhetoric of the sagebrush rebellion–those the southernmost distinct population segment of bull
rebels attempting to privatize national lands, or to trout (Salvelinus confluentus), which recently was
dictate management of those lands by local govern- listed as a threatened species (see RIPorter, 4.6).
ments or individuals–were trying to rebuild the road The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service said this fish
themselves. population was in imminent danger of extinction,
Two other photographs – one of Wildlands CPR due in part by debris torrents, flooding from rain on
staff and Board, and another of the culvert cruising snow events, extremely steep slopes and erodible

4 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000

soils on and above the South Canyon Road. Nowhere
in the article did it mention “the fact” that (now ex)
Forest Supervisor Gloria Flora had worked out a
compromise with irritated residents to keep the road
open to all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). They not only can
walk or horseback up the mile and half road, but can
access it on their ATVs.
What’s at stake here is greater than motorized
access. A population of wild and beautiful trout,
flashing their sheening bodies as they rise for caddis
flies, could become extinct.
What impression does the media give the reader
of the Jarbidge road issue? Mainly, that the elderly
grandmother lost “her” road, and the Forest Service–
and all those who advocate for keeping the washed
out road closed to sustain bull trout in the Jarbidge–
are far and away the bad guys, deservin’ of a
whippin’. As usual, the media is focusing on the
controversy, not the issue.
Other sagebrush rebellion advocates across the
West have rallied to the locals’ cause by starting a
“shovel brigade,” with the goal of sending 10,000
shovels to the Elko County Courthouse. One promi-
nent northwest Montana timber company owner was
shown on a regional TV news broadcast brandishing
a shovel signed by Montana Lieutenant Governor
Judy Martz, who currently is running for Governor.
These individuals are defying the federal
governments reasoned decision not to rebuild the
road, and a Federal Judge’s restraining order against
the locals who started to rebuild the road themselves.
Does Montana’s Republican Gubernatorial candidate
really advocate defying federal laws, agency deci-
sions, and legal proclamations? Or is it just a sensa-
tionalist ploy designed to play on the emotions of
those less informed?
Likewise, the off-road enthusiasts’ web page is
devoid of the facts about Wildlands CPR and the high
school students’ work on road closures, focusing
instead on sensationalist journalism and name-
calling. The students’ teacher laughed off the web
page, seeing it as a great teaching opportunity,
showing how information gets skewed, twisted and
used for one’s own purposes.
We aren’t talking about banning vehicles, or
even off-road vehicles, from the face of the earth
(although that’s not such a bad idea). Yes, many of us
Bull trout. Oregon Dept. Fish and Game drawing
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000
use our vehicles, like those “anti-ORV zealots”, the
high school students, who drove on existing roads
(not off-road) to volunteer part of their summer
vacation helping the Forest Service inventory blown-
out culverts and roads on the Lolo National Forest in
Montana. Even so, the students’ research might
show that some of the roads they drove on should be
removed.
Finally, the ugly emails we’ve received about the
ORV petition miss the point, failing to look at why
Wildlands CPR, the 100 other groups that signed the
petition, and countless other Americans are con-
cerned about the rapid and rampant growth of ORVs.
The facts do not revolve around CLOSING public
lands. The facts are the serious and lasting ecological
effects of motorized recreation, documented through
reams of (factual) scientific literature: the effects of
crashing through trout-filled streams; of dashing up
snowfields home to lynx, wolverine, and bobcat; and
the effects of crushing fragile desert landscapes
which take centuries to recover.
So I say to those that think something is being
taken from them–a mile and half road, a motorized
play place, their “right” to go anywhere, anytime on
an ORV–please consider this fact: There Is Enough.
Enough money in American pockets for some to have
the luxury of buying a $6,000 ATV; enough democ-
racy in our country where we can openly, intelli-
gently, and truthfully discuss hard issues without fear
of censorship or retaliation; and more than enough
roads on our public lands (even if we remove
thousands of miles of destructive, poorly maintained
ones) to drive and drive and drive.
To all Road-Rippers and people who choose to
speak for those that cannot–the bull trout, the
bobcat, our precious waters, soil, and air–this dictum
is for you: hold firm. Do not be discouraged or
threatened by empty name-calling, hollow informa-
tion, redundant rhetoric, or sensationalist journalism.
Keep educating people about why we want to close
and remove damaging roads, and regulate the
booming use of ORVs. You must continue to speak
for the wild, shadow-zipping fish, the secretive
padding of bobcat, the richness of our soils, and the
purity of our waters.
All we want are the facts ma’am, just the facts.
5
Snowmobile Environmental Impact Inventory Form
Name: _________________________ Date: ____________
Instructions and Notes for
Filling Out the Form: Day of Week/Time: _____________________

1. Is this route officially recognized by the
agency in its formal travel system?
2. Precise and accurate location information
is critical.
3 – 5. It is important that these questions be
answered consistently in a given inven-
tory.
6. To answer this you probably will need an
official agency travel map. In some cases
the route designation on the travel map is
different from that in the Land Manage-
ment Plan; it is ideal to check both.
7 & 8, 10 & 11. In addition to checking the
appropriate box(es), the more detail the
better.
9. Self explanatory.
12 – 13. It is important these questions be
answered consistently. Supporting
photographs or videos are extremely
helpful, as can be detailed information
about the impacts.
14 – 15. It is very important to document
instances where motorized recreationists
are creating new trails and crossing
waterways. The more information you
can obtain about the location and level of
impacts, the better.
16 - 17. The more detail you can include
about wildlife and other impacts the
better.
1. Is this a system or non-system (e.g., user-created) route? ________________
2. Location: road/trail #s: _____________________________________________
site location on trail:
____________________________________________________________________
(and) Township/Range/Section (if non-system route):
____________________________________________________________________
(or) GPS coordinates (UPM preferred)
____________________________________________________________________
3. How intense is the snowmobile activity?
light _____ moderate _____ heavy _____
4. How good is the compliance with speed limits?
very high _____ high _____ moderate _____ low _____ very low _____
5. Is there non-motorized activity on the same route?
light ____ moderate ____ heavy ____
6. Is the use consistent with the route designation? yes _____ no _____
If not, how is it inconsistent?
____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

7. Ecosystem type (check all that apply):

woodland ____ old growth/late-successional forest ____ other forest ecosystems ____
grassland ____ wetlands ____ alpine ____

other/additional description: ________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Terrain (check all that apply):

steep ____ rolling ____ flat ____ dry ____ wet ____ unstable ____ stable ____

additional: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. How deep is the snow? less than 6" ____ between 7" and 12" ___ between 1' and 3' ___ deeper than 3' ___

10. Travel route design: across the slope ____ up and down the slope ____

comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000

11. Proximity to notable habitat features:
perimeter bisecting throughout photo#
wetlands: _____ _____ _______ ____
old growth forest: _____ _____ _______ ____
waterways/riparian areas: _____ _____ _______ ____
meadows: _____ _____ _______ ____
alpine areas: _____ _____ _______ ____
known wildlife migration corridors: _____ _____ _______ ____
known wildlife foraging areas: _____ _____ _______ ____
known wildlife denning/nesting areas: _____ _____ _______ ____
other sensitive habitat areas: _____ _____ _______ ____
archaeological/historical sites: _____ _____ _______ ____
Explain: (include which wildlife species are present) ___________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Soil impacts: photo #s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ light ____ moderate ____ heavy ____
Is the soil surface visible? Describe: _______________________________________________________________
Is there evidence of soil disturbance? Describe: _____________________________________________________
Is there evidence of compaction? Describe: ________________________________________________________
13. Vegetation impacts: photo #s ____ ____ ____ ____ light ____ moderate ____ heavy ____
Is there visible damage to trees/large shrubs? Describe: _________________________________________________________________
Is there visible damage to smaller vegetation? Describe: _________________________________________________________________
Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. Trail creation: photo #s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Are non-system/side trails being created (is use occurring off of system routes)? ____________________________________________
Description/comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15. Stream crossings: photo #s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Is there evidence of illegal stream crossings or travel through riparian areas? _________________
If yes, describe the impacts: _________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16. Wildlife impacts: photo #s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Is there any evidence of direct mortality (roadkill)? ____________________________________________________________________
What species and how many individuals of each? __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you observed any harassment of wildlife? Describe:_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you observed any effects of snowmobile noise on wildlife? _________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17. Describe other impacts (e.g., pollution; poaching; illegal firewood cutting; collecting of plants, animals, artifacts, etc.):
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18. Additional comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please attach additional pages explaining your comments as necessary.
Please send to: Wildlands CPR, P.O. Box 2353, Boulder, Colorado 80306-2353
For copies of WCPR’s ORV inventory sheets, contact one of our offices.

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000 7

 — continued from page 1 —
required by a court order, rather than by their choice. And the
Shawnee is working to address the court’s concerns and
reopen the gates.

National Forest Management of ORVs..

In October 1998, Wildlands CPR submitted a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request to every Forest in the U. S. to
gather information that would help us understand their ORV
management. All but 6 responded, though few were fully able
to answer our five questions.
The information we received clearly demonstrates that
current ORV management is failing to protect the natural
resources of the National Forests. User conflicts abound, and
agency monitoring and enforcement lag behind violations.
Here are a few examples:

• 71% of the responding Forests provided some record of

resource damage or motor vehicle violations. Reports
included: damage to Forest roads and trails; improper use
of Forest trails; natural resource damage; illegal use of
vehicles off-road; and violations of standards for noise,
smoke, safety, or State law.
• 66% of the respondents identified user conflicts with
ORVs, including noise, safety, and resource disturbances.
• Only 6% of the Forests provided a record of adequate
monitoring as requested in the FOIA letter for every year
from 1987-1998. 46% of the Forests either reported no
records relevant to monitoring or replied in a manner that
left it undetermined whether they had conducted adequate
monitoring. Another 43% of the Forests did not reliably
monitor ORV impacts.
• 96% of the National Forests responded to the FOIA request
within ten months. 41% of those responding open their
trails to vehicles wider than 40 inches. 30% manage trails
as closed to motorized use unless signed open. 30%
consider trails open to motorized use unless posted closed.
39% of the Forests responded in a manner that made it
impossible to determine their guiding principles of trail
management. Although in 1988 the 40-inch rule change
was proposed to “eliminate confusion and law enforcement
difficulties” for the Forest Service, the agency’s nationwide
policy toward motorized use of trails is still characterized
by confusion rather than informed cooperation.
The petitioners have provided the
Forest Service with an opportunity to
develop more effective and enforceable
regulations for dealing with ORVs on
National Forest lands.
Now the Forest Service must fulfill
their obligation to protect the
American public’s resources from
unnecessary and unacceptable
environmental degradation.
Is the Forest Service in a rut over this issue? You can help by sending off a
letter to Chief Dombeck! Big Cypress National Preserve, Bear Island Trail
System. Florida Biodiversity Project photo.
A detailed examination of 59 of the most complete FOIA
responses found that ORVs caused many adverse impacts on
Forest Service land, including resource damage, soil erosion
and compaction, wildlife impacts, vegetation damage, wetland
and riparian area impacts, sedimentation and water quality
impacts, illegal trespass, trail widening, unauthorized trail
construction, weed proliferation, damaged cultural resources,
and vandalism. While many Forest responses included
disconcerting information about ORV problems, we have
included just a few egregious quotes.
For example, a 1998 monitoring report from the Wayne
National Forest included the following statement:
“Whether we look at the designated trail system or
the non-ORV management areas, we have no control
over off road vehicle use. We install signs and they are
ripped out. We erect barriers and they are removed or
ridden around. We rehab areas and they are violated
again and again. We provide virtually no law enforce-
ment presence on the Forest when use is highest.
Whether it is the Wayne or any other Forest, the
concept of ‘off-road vehicle’ is contrary to the mission
of the National Forests. We cannot, regardless of
dollars, maintain trails that will not erode into our
streams. And we cannot control users equipped with
vehicles designed to go on all types of terrain.”

8 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000


Mark Alan Wilson photo.
While resource damage is a significant problem, user
conflicts and flagrant violations of ORV regulations were
rampant. This example from the White River National Forest
comes from a Forestry Technician’s report regarding illegal
motorized use behind a closed gate in the Hagerman Pass area
(7-18-93):
“At this time… the third motorcyclist… was
heading down the road… I stepped away from the
Forest Service truck on the edge of the road and
motioned with both of my hands, one with a portable
radio, for him to stop. The motorcyclist accelerated and
went past me. The dune buggy was 20 seconds behind
the motorcycle. I again motioned with my hands for
the dune buggy to stop but this time I stepped further
into the road as to be sure there was no way he could
miss seeing me. The dune buggy made no attempt at
slowing down along the narrow road as he was
approaching me. I needed to step off the road to avoid
being struck by the dune buggy…”
Wildlands CPR’s research found that ORV management
was both ineffective and inconsistent. As a result, the petition-
ers requested the Forest Service to take some preliminary steps
toward correcting this problem. While the rule changes we
requested would not ban off-road vehicles on all National
Forest lands, they would stop ORV use from all but specifically
designated roads and motorized routes (see sidebar). The
petitioners have provided the Forest Service with an opportu-
nity to develop more effective and enforceable regulations for
dealing with ORVs on National Forest lands. Now the Forest
Service must fulfill their obligation to protect the American
public’s resources from unnecessary and unacceptable
environmental degradation.
What can you do?
Write a letter to Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck and cc
that letter to your Forest Supervisor and to your Congressional
delegation. Make sure they understand that you want ORVs
managed and regulated on National Forest lands. See the ORV
Rulemaking Petition Alert on page 11 for details.
ORV tracks in the Canaan Valley, West Virginia.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000
Relief requested:
1. Motorized vehicle use shall be restricted to
federal, state, and dedicated county roads and to those
routes designated and posted by the USFS as open to
specific vehicle types after completion of environmental
impact analysis that includes public notice and involve-
ment, and is consistent with the management provisions
requested in this petition. The use of motorized vehicles
off roads or designated routes shall be prohibited.
2. The USFS must demonstrate that any existing or
proposed off-road vehicle use will not result in adverse
environmental impacts before such use will be permitted
or allowed to continue. The designation of ORV routes
must be based on specific criteria that include, but are not
limited to: prohibiting the designation of routes in
sensitive habitat areas; siting of specific routes to mini-
mize erosion; maintenance and protection of important
wildlife dispersal corridors; and protection of migration
routes and calving grounds.
3. The following shall not be categorically excluded
from environmental analysis under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act: designation of travel routes for motor-
ized vehicle use; construction of ORV routes and facilities
intended to support such use; upgrading, widening, or
other modification of existing facilities or routes; issuance
or re-issuance of ORV-related Special Use Permits; and
similar projects. All of these kinds of projects will be
subject to the appeal regulations at 36 CFR §215.
4. The use of motorized vehicles on USFS lands
shall be permitted only to the extent that monitoring of
the impacts and enforcement of restrictions on that use
are funded and implemented. No new motorized routes
may be designated, upgraded, or constructed until and
unless all existing routes have been subject to environ-
mental impact analysis and monitoring plans have been
prepared and approved.
5. The use of motorized vehicles shall be prohibited
on Forest Service lands in legislatively or administratively
proposed wilderness areas and other wilderness quality
lands, including inventoried roadless areas and other
areas with roadless values.
9
 Regional Reports & Alerts
Judge Declares
Temporary Snowmobile
Ban in Denali Illegal
A temporary ban on snowmobile
use in the two million acre “old park,” at
the core of Denali National Park, was
overturned last month. The temporary
ban, issued last February, did not apply
to the four million acres added to the
Park in 1980. The court struck down
the temporary ban for two primary
reasons. First, it ruled that the Park
Service failed to define and adequately
address the use of snowmobiles for
“traditional activities,” which is pro-
tected by the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act. Second, the
court found that the agency failed to
determine how many snowmobiles use
the Park and what harm they may cause.
The Park Service plans to hold public
hearings this month on a proposed rule
to permanently ban snowmobiles from
the old park, and is studying the effect
of this ruling on the proposal.
Commissioners Halt
ORV Use to Protect
Water Quality
County Commissioners in Boulder
County, Colorado voted unanimously
last week to close a county road popular
with motorized recreationists. Because
of the road’s numerous creek crossings
and ORV use on the surrounding
hillsides, motorized access to the road
has resulted in substantial water quality
degradation in James Creek, the primary
water source for the mountain commu-
nity of Jamestown.
The James Creek Watershed
Initiative (JCWI), in partnership with the
Environmental Protection Agency and
the Colorado Division of Wildlife, for
more than three years has been collect-
ing data confirming the water quality
degradation (and its relationship to ORV
access to the road). Jamestown residents
were especially concerned because of
increased water treatment costs for the
community, and repeated violations of
federal water quality standards under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. A variance
for two and a half times the turbidity
10
Braving a blizzard to
boldly bash through
the bush. SREP
photo.
standard was issued in June 1997, and
another variance for five times the A 1997 survey by Forest Guardians
standard (the largest such variance in of the Carson National Forest in north-
Colorado) was issued in 1999. JCWI ern New Mexico reached similar
volunteers also had visually documented conclusions. More than one-third of the
habitat damage to riparian areas and “closed” roads effectively remained
meadows along James Creek. open. This study also found evidence of
Although the road is primarily water quality impacts from roads
located on Forest Service land, and the constructed too close to waterways.
agency objected to the closure, the
County Commissioners felt the human
health concerns and economic costs to
Jamestown outweighed the agency’s
concerns about motorized access.
Proponents of the road-closure also
pointed to improved non-motorized
recreational opportunities in the area
should the road be closed to motorized
vehicles.
Half of “Closed” Roads
on the Lincoln NF
Remain Open
A study by Forest Guardians
concluded that motorized vehicles
continue to use over half the roads
administratively closed to motorized use
on the Lincoln National Forest. The
study evaluated closures on 131 miles of
road on the south-central New Mexico
forest. The study also found evidence
that soil erosion from roads is polluting
the water and vehicle use is causing an Uninventoried ORV trail at Pearl Creek on the
White River National Forest. R. Compton photo.
exotic weed invasion. The study
recommends that the Forest Service:
doesn’t construct any new roads; reduce
logging, motorized recreation, and
grazing; and rely on effective closure
methods when closing roads to vehicles.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000
Action Alerts
White River NF Releases Draft Forest Plan
The 2.27 million acre White River National Forest is
among the nation’s most heavily visited forests and contains
some of Colorado’s most spectacular scenery. The White River
is a major destination for dispersed recreationists around the
country, including backcountry recreation travel in the Maroon
Bells and Eagles Nest Wilderness. It is the state’s center of
developed recreational activity and host to more than 60% of
Colorado’s annual downhill skiers (and over half its ski areas).
The White River NF has released and is accepting public
comment on its draft Forest Plan. Because this plan will guide
Forest management for the next ten to fifteen years, public
support for strong conservation measures is critical.
The draft Plan has some important provisions to control
motorized recreation including restricting ORVs to designated
routes and prohibiting off-road motorized travel. The draft
Plan also would create large non-motorized areas outside of
designated wilderness. This is the first revised Forest Plan in
Colorado that includes such provisions.
However, the draft Plan still needs significant improve-
ments. For instance, it would allow motorized use in some
roadless areas. The plan also would legitimize some illegal,
user-created motorized routes. The Plan would protect less
than 16% of roadless lands on the Forest. Under the Plan,
more than half the existing roadless areas could be lost to
logging and roadbuilding. Finally, while the draft Plan would
limit ski areas to their existing permit boundaries, this still
provides for huge expansions into critical wildlife habitat and
construction of new aerial tramways that would connect
virtually every ski area in the I-70 corridor.
In your comment letter, please make the following points:
• Commend the Forest Service for restricting summer ORV
use to designated routes, but ask that they impose the same
restriction on snowmobiles.
• Urge the Forest Service to close ALL roadless areas to ALL
motorized recreation.
• Insist that the Forest Service obliterate ALL 500+ miles of
user-created motorized routes, and that monitoring and
enforcement efforts be greatly enhanced.
• Urge the Forest Service to recommend ALL 300,000 eligible
roadless acres for Wilderness designation.
• Demand that they prohibit ALL future ski area expansions,
including the construction of connecting aerial tramways.
• Voice your strong support for the Conservation Alternative
(Alternative I).
You can obtain a copy of the draft Plan by calling the
White River National Forest at (970) 945-2521 or from their
web site at www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning.html. Com-
ments are due FEBRUARY 9, 2000. Please send comments to:
Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor
White River National Forest
P. O. Box 948 -
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
For more info, contact Sloan Shoemaker at the Aspen
Wilderness Workshop, 970-544-9509.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000
ORV Rulemaking Petition
On December 9, 1999, Wildlands CPR, The Wilderness
Society, and more than 100 other organizations submitted a
rulemaking petition asking the Forest Service to strengthen its
regulations pertaining to the management of off-road vehicles.
The use of ORVs on Forest Service lands is, in many cases, out
of control, and the agency has been unable or unwilling to do
much about it. These improved regulations would clarify the
Forest Service’s duty to: manage ORVs prudently and carefully;
ensure that natural values and non-motorized recreation are
not adversely impaired; and ensure the use of ORVs is accom-
panied by fully-funded monitoring and enforcement. Specifi-
cally, the petition requested the following changes to the
current ORV management framework:
• Motorized vehicles are only allowed on system roads and
trails designated and posted as open for specific vehicle
type. Cross-country travel by motorized vehicles is
prohibited.
• Designation of ORV routes can only occur where the Forest
Service can demonstrate that use of the route by ORVs will
not cause adverse environmental impacts.
• Designation of ORV routes, upgrades of existing routes to
accommodate new or additional ORV use, and construction
or upgrades of facilities for ORV use must be fully analyzed
under the National Environmental Policy Act
• ORV use is prohibited unless adequate monitoring and
enforcement of the use and its impacts is fully imple-
mented
• ORV use is prohibited in legislatively or administratively
proposed wilderness areas, inventoried roadless areas, and
other areas with roadless values, except on roads for which
their use has been formally designated.
The science and the law are clearly on our side. However,
it is critical that the Forest Service understands that public
opinion is on our side as well. Please send a letter to the
Forest Service Chief supporting the rulemaking petition. In
your letter, please make the following points:
• Give specific examples of unacceptable ORV use, user
conflicts and/or impacts on your National Forest(s). For
more information about a specific forest, go to Wildlands
CPR’s ORV Monitoring website at
http://www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR/
• Give specific examples of how the Forest Service in your
region is incapable or unwilling to fully address ORV use.
• Urge Chief Dombeck to adopt the management measures
requested in the rulemaking petition.
Please send your letters as soon as possible to:
Michael Dombeck, Chief
U.S. Forest Service
14 th and Independence Ave., S.W. -
Washington, D.C. 20250
Please send a copy of your letter to your individual Forest
Supervisor and to your Congressional delegation.
11
 Bibliography Notes
The Impacts of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Wildlife
By D. J. Schubert and Jacob Smith
The noise of off-road vehicles is
among their least-endearing
qualities to hikers, mountain
bikers, and other non-motorized
recreationists. The noise of
ORVs can do more than simply
annoy humans, however. ORV
noise can cause significant
adverse impacts to wildlife in at
least two ways. First, exposure
to ORV noise can result in
hearing impairment or even
loss, with severe consequences
for animals dependent on their
sense of hearing for finding
prey, avoiding predators, and interacting with
other individuals of the same species. Second,
wildlife exposed to ORV noise often experience
stress and other disturbance effects.
Over time, such impacts can lead to altered
movement patterns, behavioral changes, and
long-term stress impacts, all with potentially
significant adverse results.
Hearing Impairment
Animals exposed to ORV noise often suffer from impaired
hearing. Studies have documented hearing loss caused by the
noise of dune buggies, dirt bikes, and other ORVs that is
inflicted on a wide range of species, including Mojave fringe-
toed lizard (Bondello et al. 1979, Brattstrom and Bondello
1983), kangaroo rat (Luckenbach and Bury 1983), and birds
(Marler et al. 1973). Several studies have reported bleeding
ears and nasal passages after exposure to ORV activity (e.g.,
Gibson et al. 1975 reporting on small mammals).
Hearing impairment and loss, unsurprisingly, is a very
serious concern for most wildlife species. Loss of hearing
sensitivity can lead to increased exposure to predation,
increased difficulty killing prey, and otherwise significant
disruptions in predator-prey relationships (Bondello and
Brattstrom 1979, Memphis State University 1971). The
impairment of intraspecific communication is another serious
concern (Luz and Smith 1976, Luckenbach 1975, Luckenbach
1978, Weinstein 1978). Specific problems can include the
inability to recognize mating signals, warning calls, and calls
12
Barstow to Las Vegas cross country race, early ‘70s.
Howard Wilshire photo.
by juveniles (Memphis State University 1971). Gibson et al.
(1975), for instance, reported that small mammals became
unusually aggressive and disorientated after being exposed to
the Barstow to Las Vegas motorcycle race.
Disturbance and Stress
The results of disturbance and stress-related impacts can
take longer to materialize but are no less significant. Wildlife
disturbance by ORVs is a serious problem for many species,
and ORV noise is clearly a major component of these distur-
bance impacts. Put simply, noise can stress (and thus ad-
versely impact) wildlife (Aune 1981, Baldwin 1970, Burger
1981, Bury 1980, Jeske 1985, Vos et al. 1985, Ward et al. 1973).
Wildlife exposed to noise can suffer high levels of physiologi-
cal stress even if they appear to fully adapt to the noise (Aune
1981, EPA 1971). One potential outcome of disturbance effects
is displacement. When a species is dependent on a narrow
range of habitat characteristics, displacement into marginal or
even unsuitable habitat has lasting effects on survival and
productivity. This is true, for instance, for the kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys sp.) (Brattstrom and Bondello 1983).
Some research has parceled out the effects of noise,
however, and drawn attention to specific ways in which
exposure to ORV noise adversely affects wildlife. An Environ-
mental Protection Agency (1971) report argues that noise acts
as a physiological stressor producing changes similar to
exposure to extreme heat, cold, pain, and other high-stress
environmental conditions. One consequence is the alteration
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000
of wildlife behavior. For instance, Dufour (1971) concluded
that chronic exposure to ORV noise might result in physiologi-
cal and behavioral changes, warning that these effects are
probably cumulative. Manci, et al. (1988) reports that at noise
levels above 90 decibels mammals may retreat, freeze or
become startled. Brattstrom and Bondello (1983) reported that
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals suffered deleterious
effects from moderate exposure to ORV noise. These effects
included physiological and behavioral hearing loss and the
misinterpretation of important environmental acoustical
signals.
For some species, the noise of ORVs can directly interfere
with critical life history behaviors. For instance, early summer
thunderstorms provide an essential environmental cue for the
Couch’s spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus couchi). The toads,
inhabitants of the arid southwestern U.S., emerge from their
burrows to mate and lay eggs, and the larvae are born and
undergo metamorphosis. All this occurs when the presence of
thunderstorms indicates that the appropriate temperature
conditions exist (to ensure both suitable conditions for toad
survival and adequate availability of prey) and that moisture,
another critical ingredient, is sufficient (McClanahan 1967).
Eureka dunes, East Bishop, California. Howard Wilshire photo.
The toad can mistake the thundering of ORVs across the desert
floor for the sound of early summer thunderstorms, however,
and emerge during the wrong season and in the absence of
water (Brattstrom and Bondello 1983), with significant adverse
impacts to the population (McClanahan 1967, Brattstrom and
Bondello 1983). Although the mechanisms may vary, a wide
range of species may suffer from such impacts. Rennison and
Wallace (1976) report the disruption of courtship and breeding
by desert birds as a result of ORV noise exposure.
The timing of the ORV use can play an important role as
well. Eisenberg and Isaac (1963) reported that infant survival
of kangaroo rats is jeopardized by ORV use because adults
locate their offspring by responding to repeated scratch-
whines. ORV use during the late winter and spring, before the
offspring have dispersed, poses the greatest threat. Similarly,
when the peak of ORV activity occurs during the peak of lizard
reproductive activities, reproductive success can be reduced
(Mayhew 1966a, 1966b).
Long-term exposure to the stress of ORV activity (of which
ORV noise is typically a major component), is linked to
numerous health problems. Baldwin and Stoddard (1973) note
that noise exposure is linked to stress, ulcers, tension, and
The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000
When evaluating the potential
impacts of ORV use on wildlife, the
effects of noise must be considered.
Although most of the research into
the mechanisms of noise impacts have
been conducted on desert wildlife, the
considerable literature on disturbance
effects across ecosystem types
strongly suggests that similar impacts
occur in widespread fashion.
coronary disease in humans, suggesting that similar effects
might manifest in wildlife species as well. Rats exposed to
high noise levels suffered impacts which included reduced
body weight, increased heart rate, and the shrinking of ovaries
and kidneys (Geber and Anderson 1967).
Conclusion
When evaluating the potential impacts of ORV use on
wildlife, the effects of noise must be considered. Although
most of the research into the mechanisms of noise impacts
have been conducted on desert wildlife, the considerable
literature on disturbance effects across ecosystem types
strongly suggests that similar impacts occur in widespread
fashion. The specific impact concerns discussed above are
exacerbated by four additional characteristics of ORV noise.
For one thing, ORV noise is loud and, under many
conditions, can travel long distances (e.g., Rennison and
Wallace 1976). For another, a great deal of existing ORV use
occurs in fragile habitats, such as desert and wetland ecosys-
tems, which often are home to wildlife species that are
especially sensitive to noise and other human disturbance.
Many species live in and are relatively adapted to quiet
environments, and ORV noise often greatly exceeds ambient
decibel levels. Third, although the displacement effects of
noise disturbance can be severe, many wildlife species are
limited in their ability to relocate to avoid ORV impacts.
Finally, rapidly advancing ORV technology allows for ever-
greater penetration into wild and sensitive habitats – the
blanket of ORV noise grows ever-larger.
Literature Cited
Aune, K.E. 1981. Impacts of Winter Recreationists on Wildlife in
a Portion of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Thesis,
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Baldwin, M.F. 1970. The Off-Road Vehicle and Environmental
Quality: A report on the Social and Environmental Effects
of Off-Road Vehicles, Particularly Snowmobiles, with
Suggested Policies for their Control. Conservation
Foundation. Washington, D.C., USA.
Baldwin, M. F. And D. Stoddard Jr. 1973. The Off-Road Vehicle
and Environmental Quality. Pages 8-27. Second Edition.
The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA.
13
Bondello, M. C. and B. H Brattstrom. 1979. The Experimental
Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Sounds on Three Species of
Desert Vertebrates. Fullerton, CA, Department of
Biological Sciences, California State University.
Bondello, M. C., A. C. Huntley, H. B. Cohen, and B. H.
Brattstrom. 1979. The Effects of Dune Buggy Sounds on
the Telencephalic Auditory Evoked Response in the Mojave
Fringe-Toed Lizard, Uma scoparia . Riverside, California,
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California Desert
Program. Contract CA-060-CT7-2737.
Brattstrom, B.H. and M.C. Bondello. 1983. Effects of off-road
vehicle noise on desert vertebrates. In R.H. Webb and H.G
Wilshire, editors. Environmental effects of Off- Road
Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions.
Springer-Verlag. New York, New York, USA.
Burger, J. 1981. Effects of Human Disturbance on Colonial
Species, Particularly Gulls. Colonial Waterbirds 4:28-36.
Bury, R.B. 1980. What we know and do not know about off-
road vehicle impacts on Wildlife. R.N.L. Andrews and P.
Nowak, editors. Off-Road Vehicle Use: A Management
Challenge. (Univ. Of Michigan Extension Service) Michigan
League. The University of Michigan, School of Natural
Resources. USDA The Office of Environmental Quality.
Dufour, P. 1974. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other
Animals. Memphis State University and United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Eisenberg, J.F., and D.E. Isaac. 1963. The reproduction of
heteromyid rodents in captivity. J. Mammal. 44:61-67.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Effects of Noise on
Wildlife and Other Animals. Prepared by Memphis State
University under Contract 68-04-0024, December 31,
1971.
Gerber and Anderson. 1967. Cardiac hypertrophy due to
chronic audigenic stress in the rat (Rattus norwegians
albinus) and rabbit (Lepus cuniculum). Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology 21:273-277.
Gibson, J., H. Blend, and B. Brattstrom. 1975. Sound Levels Swan View Coalition photo.
Transmitted into Burrows of Desert Mammals. Fullerton,
California, California State University, Departments of Mayhew, W.W. 1966a. Reproduction in the arenicolous lizard,
Physics and Biology. Uma notata. Ecology 47:9-18.
Jeske, C.W. 1985. Time and Energy Budgets of Wintering Ring- Mayhew, W.W. 1966b. Reproduction in the psammophilous
Necked Ducks Ayatha Collaris (L.) in North-Central Florida. lizard, Uma Scoparia. Copeia 114-122.
Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. McClanahan, L. 1967. Adaptations of the spadefoot toad,
Luckenbach, R.A. 1975. What the ORVs are doing to the Scaphiopus couchi, to desert environments. Comp.
desert. Fremontia 2(4):3-11. Biochem. Physiol. 20:73-99.
Luckenbach, R.A. 1978. An analysis of off-road vehicle use on Memphis State University. 1971. Effects of Noise on Wildlife
desert avifaunas. In Transactions of the 43rd North and Other Animals. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Printing Office. NTID300.5.
Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. Rennison, D.C. and A. Wallace. 1976. The Extent of Acoustic
Luckenbach, R.A., and R.B. Bury. 1983. Effects of off-road Influence on Off-Road Vehicles in Wilderness Areas.
vehicles on the biota of Algodones Dunes, Imperial Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
County, California. J. Appl. Ecology 20:265-286. Adelaide, Australia, 19 pp.
Luz, G.A., and J.B. Smith. 1976. Reactions of pronghorn Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of
antelope to helicopter overflight. J. Acoustical Society of breeding great blue herons (Ardea herodias) to human
America, 59:1514-1515. disturbance in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds
Manci, K. M., D. N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G. Cavendish. 8(1):13-22.
1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Ward, A.L., J.J. Cupal, A.L. Lea, C.A. Oakley, and R.W. Weeks.
Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. 1973. Elk behavior in relation to cattle grazing, forest
Fort Collins, CO, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and recreation, and traffic. Proceeding of the Thirty-eighth
Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center. North American Wildlife Conference. 38:327-337.
Marler, P., M. Konishi, A. Lutjen, and M.S. Waser. 1973. Effects Weinstein, M. 1978. Impact of Off-Road Vehicles on the
of continuous noise on avian hearing and vocal Avifauna of Afton Canyon, California. Bureau of Land
development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Management. Department of the Interior. Final Report
Science, 70:1393-1396. #CA-060-CT7-2734.

14 The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000

 Wildlands CPR Publications: Bibliographic Services:
Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members) —A Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Up-
comprehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides dated Feb. 1998) —Edited by Reed Noss. Compiled by Dave
listed below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gather- Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Humphrey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacquet
ing Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and & Susan Pierce. Contains approx. 6,000 citations — includ-
more! ing scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimen-
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-mem- tation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrologi-
bers) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting cal effects, and other information on the impacts of roads.
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmen- Use the ecological literature to understand and develop road
tal laws, road density standards & Forest Service road poli- density standards, priorities for road removal, and other
cies. road issues.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-mem- Database Searches —We will search the Bibliography on the
bers) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background subjects that interest you, and provide results in IBM or
on the National Park System and its use of roads, and out- Macintosh format (specify software), or on paper. We also
lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning. have prepared a 1-disk Bibliographic Summary with results
Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members) —By for commonly requested searches. Finally, we offer the full
Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and
bibliography. However, you must have Pro-Cite or a com-
resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in
patible database program in order to use it.
BLM decision-making processes.
Bibliography prices — Prices are based on a sliding scale. Call
Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem-
for details.
bers) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reduc-
ing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an
extensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4, $7 non-
members) —By Scott Bagley. Provides technical informa-
tion on road construction and removal, where and why
roads fail, and how you can effectively assess road removal
projects.
Trails of Destruction ($10) —By Friends of the Earth and Wild-
lands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This
report explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal fund-
ing for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV
industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

I want to join (or renew my membership with) Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:
Wildlands CPR:
Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
$250 $100 $50 business
/
$30 standard $15 low-income Other
/
Type of Membership: Individual Organization
/

Name Total of all items:

Affiliation Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.00 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.00 per item.
International Membership — $30 Minimum
Address All prices in U.S. Dollars
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

Please send this form and your check (payable to Wildlands CPR)
Phone/E-mail to the address below. Thank you!
Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

The Road-RIPorter January/February 2000 15

Visions...

Jim Coefield photo

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

“He [the trophy-recreationist] is the

motorized ant who swarms the
continents before learning to see his
own back yard, who consumes but
never creates outdoor satisfactions.”

— Aldo Leopold, Conservation Esthetic from

A Sand County Almanac.
The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, process chlorine-free bleached paper.