The Road-RIPorter
Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. January/February 1999. Volume 4 # 1
In Eastern Idaho, the
Targhee National Forest
is on the verge of
making a crucial
decision. Large swaths
of the nearly two
million acre Forest,
after a quarter century
of clearcutting, are
riddled with a dense
network of roads.
This has resulted in
siltation of streams and
unrelenting pressure
from snowmobilers, dirt
bike riders, and four
wheelers.
Showdown
on Roads and
Motorized Recreation
Targhee Decision Sets Tone for Forest Management
The Targhee’s excessive road system threatens the size and health of elk herds,
the comeback of the grizzly bear, and the clean water that Yellowstone cutthroat
trout depend on. At long last, the Forest Service is considering closing some roads
and placing limits on motorized recreation. Both steps would begin to restore
balance on the Targhee. Like a stone cast into a pond, this decision will send
ripples of change across the West. These ripples of change may crash head on into
a similar decision on the Stanislaus National Forest that was recently overturned
on appeal (see sidebar).
ORV Community Flexes its Muscle
The off-road vehicle (ORV) community, locally, regionally and nationally, is up
in arms over Forest Service travel planning processes. In some places, like the
Stanislaus National Forest in California, that pressure is focused on legal appeals in
conjunction with Congressional pressure. In other instances, individuals have
become so angry they are threatening Forest Service employees that do not
support ORV use. Last fall, a bomb was placed on the steps of a Targhee NF District
Ranger office. The proposed travel plan/road closures seem to be the most likely
cause for this extreme form of protest, though the case remains unsolved. Fortu-
nately, the bomb was defused quickly, a happy ending for now.
In both the Stanislaus and Targhee instances, the ORV community went to
their Congressional representatives for assistance in maintaining motorized access
to these Forests. On the Targhee, Congressional pressure resulted in the Forest
Service voluntarily stopping their road obliteration program until their new
environmental analysis is completed. Non-motorized users either have not found
the same type of Congressional support, or they have not sought similar support
from their representatives. Regardless, the Forest Service is getting significantly
more pressure from motorized users than from nonmotorized users, even though
Continued on Page 4
 From the Wildlands CPR Office...
The age of industrial recreation is upon us. In November, Wildlands CPR and
Friends of the Earth brought environmental activists together on the motorized
recreation portion of this issue. This meeting was the first step in a long term effort to
reign in motorized and industrial recreation. To understand some of the implications,
check out our cover story. And don’t forget to check out the rest of our regular
Wildlands
features, too! New year’s greetings to everyone from the Wildlands CPR staff.
C
Center for
P
Preventing
New Year, New Staff... R
Roads
With heavy hearts the Wildlands P.O. Box 7516
CPR staff said goodbye to Dana Jensen,
our office assistant and information
In this Issue Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
specialist extraordinaire for the past year wildlandsCPR@wildrockies.org
and a half. But we happily welcome Cate Showdown on Roads and www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR
Campbell as our new Office Manager. Motorized Recreation, p. 1, 4-5 Colorado Office
Cate brings year’s of experience manag- P.O. Box 2353
Depaving the Way, p. 3 Boulder, CO 80306
ing non-profit organizations in Montana (303) 247-0998
and a passion to fight the increasing Bethanie Walder prebles@ibm.net
destruction of our public lands from
ORVs. She found us while looking for Bibliography Notes, p. 6-7 Wildlands Center for Preventing
assistance with ORV trespass in the Jacob Smith Roads works to protect and restore
wildland ecosystems by preventing
Beaverhead National Forest. We are and removing roads and limiting
thrilled to have her on board. She will be Regional Reports, Alerts p. 8-9 motorized recreation. We are a
taking on some of Bethanie’s manage- national clearinghouse and network,
ment activities, taking over the books providing citizens with tools and
Odes to Roads, p. 10-11 strategies to fight road
from Su Gregerson (thanks Su!!), and
Colin Chisholm construction, deter motorized
answering information requests, so keep recreation, and promote road
‘em coming. Though we’ll miss Dana’s removal and revegetation.
Field Notes, p. 12-13
laughter and energy in our office, she
Dave Havlick Director
promised to help us out with some of her
projects, and get Cate up to speed as Bethanie Walder
quickly as possible. Wildlands CPR Resources, p. 15
Development Director
Tom Youngblood-Petersen
A time to renew... Office Manager
Speaking of thanks, we want to thank all of you who responded to our annual Cate Campbell
membership survey and renewal. We also want to encourage those of you who Motorized Wreck-Recreation
haven’t responded to pull the survey out of the pile it landed in and send it back to us Program
(filled in, of course). If there is a red mark on your label, that means this could be Jacob Smith
your last issue of the Road-RIPorter. Don’t miss a single issue. Renew your member- Newsletter
ship today!!! (And if you’ve lost your membership survey, we’d be more than happy to Jim Coefield, Dan Funsch
send you another one, just give us a holler.)
Interns & Volunteers
Than Hitt, Vivian Roland, Carla
And More Thanks... Abrams, John Brooke, Deb Kmon,
We offer our heartfelt thanks to the Temper of the Times and Mountaineers Mary Anne Peine, Karen Vermilye
Foundations for providing funding to publish a special section on the ecological Board of Directors
impacts of roads. It won’t be out until late ‘99 or 2000, in Conservation Biology, but it Katie Alvord, Mary Byrd Davis,
wouldn’t be possible without their generous grants. It also wouldn’t be possible Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,
without the hard work of Marion Hourdequin—former Wildlands CPR Co-Director, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,
who has been coordinating the peer review process for this section. Thanks also to Tom Skeele, Scott Stouder
everyone who has sent in donations in the last two months and especially to an Advisory Committee
anonymous donor! We’d like to thank the Dillon, Montana Patagonia outlet for Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,
offering t-shirts to people who renewed their WCPR membership, and the Harder Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer,
Foundation for a supplemental grant for our ORV program. Timothy Hermach,
Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,
We also want to thank all the amazing people who have volunteered their time Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
for us last year and mention some new folks by name: Jack Wade and Dan Brister who Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
completed research projects for Wildlands CPR, and recent volunteers Carla Abrams, Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
John Brooke and Deb Kmon. In addition, we owe a huge thank you to Jon Jensen, who Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
volunteered around the clock to make sure our ORV meeting was a success. Other Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
ORV meeting volunteers were Mara Bourassa, Jodi Kennedy, Sandy Adkland, and
Robert Ukeiley. Many thanks to all!

2 The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999

H
By Bethanie Walder
and-wringing
and Thumb Twiddling:
Wither the Moratorium?
It has been almost a year since the Forest Service (see
RIPorter 3:1) announced their proposal to temporarily halt
road construction in roadless areas while they develop a long
term transportation plan. Since then, the Forest Service has
held field hearings on roads and roadless areas, receiving over
50,000 comments nationwide. Newspapers throughout the
country have editorialized on the importance of both protect-
ing roadless areas and managing them more effectively.
Within the last twelve months, the Forest Service assigned a
team of people the difficult task of creating a nationwide long-
term policy on roads and transportation for every acre of every
forest. In addition, new environmental networks have devel-
oped to strengthen the grassroots fight to protect roadless
areas, as well as to ensure an ecologically-based long-term
transportation policy. And of course, the people who love
roads have gone kicking and screaming to their Congressional
representatives asking them to intervene and promote motor-
ized access and extractive activities. But one critical thing
hasn't happened since Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck
announced the proposed moratorium on road construction in
roadless areas: the moratorium has not been implemented.
While the Forest Service continues to stall on the morato-
rium, the fate of many roadless areas wait in limbo. Roadless
areas in the Cove-Mallard region of Idaho are some of the most
critical areas whose fate hangs in the balance while the Forest
Service and administration twiddle their thumbs. Roadless
areas in the east, all smaller than 5,000 acres, may or may not
be protected. And while the long-term transportation policy
(currently in the development stage) will affect road construc-
tion, reconstruction, maintenance and removal, it is not clear
whether it will address the long-term fate of roadless areas.
As the Forest Service and Clinton Administration waiver
over the temporary moratorium, and which roadless areas
themoratorium will protect, the Forest Service continues to
develop its long-term transportation policy. These two
concurrent strategies are integrally linked, and working to
create the best policies at each level will ensure the broadest
protection for National Forest lands.
While the Forest Service grapples with a dual approach for
roadless areas and forest roads/transportation, a two-pronged
approach has emerged within the environmental community
as well. The first is a campaign to protect all roadless areas
larger than 1000 acres.
The American’s for Heritage Forests has focused attention
on the importance of protecting existing roadless areas. This
The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
campaign is working not only to gain a strong roadless area
moratorium, but to have roadless area protection extended
from temporary to permanent status as part of the long-term
transportation plan.
The second environmental response is focused specifi-
cally on the long-term transportation policy and the impact it
will have on all road construction, reconstruction, mainte-
nance, removal and motorized recreation. The goal of this
coalition is to help create a policy that will provide opportuni-
ties to re-create roadless areas by removing roads and restoring
the watersheds that contain them.
As simple as it may seem,
if we can stop the roads now, then we
have a lot less timber sales, mines and
motorized recreation to stop later.
While at first it may seem confusing to have these issues
dealt with at separate levels, it should ensure that one issue
won't be ignored for the sake of the other. But it also means
that individuals and organizations need to pay attention to
what is going on with both roadless areas and roads. The long-
term transportation policy in particular is likely to affect every
aspect of forest management, because nearly every extractive
activity that takes place on public lands occurs in conjunction
with roads. If the long-term transportation policy is not based
on ecologically sound scientific principals, but instead falls
prey to party politics, the result will be more roads, clearcuts,
industrial recreation, mining and grazing.
By setting good criteria for transportation planning at the
National, Regional and Forest levels, we can influence the
overall development of the National Forests. The Forest Service
has opened the door for this type of planning and the pro-road
people have walked right in. It is up to us to make sure they
don't close the door behind them and lock us out. For if they
do, they also lock out our work to protect and restore ecologi-
cal systems from all of the extractive activities that currently
occur within our National Forests. As simple as it may seem, if
we can stop the roads now, then we have a lot less timber
sales, mines and motorized recreation to stop later. Seems like
a good use of our time.
3
 Continued from Page 1
they only comprise about 10% of recreationists nationally—a
small, but vocal, minority.
Bombs and Congressional pressure aside, the motorized
recreation community also has held protests against proposed
road closures. They staged one protest at a road that has been
closed for years, and which they have been illegally accessing.
Perhaps it is fitting that ORV users think of the National Forests
as nothing more than playgrounds. Playgrounds, after all, are
for children, many of whom are still just learning definitions
of respect and sharing and how to control their anger.
While the Targhee National Forest has not yet decided on
their new travel plan, if any closures are involved (and many
will be), it is likely to raise the ire of the off-road community.
The Crossroads
This decision could mark a positive new beginning! If the
Forest Service goes forward with closing the Targhee’s exces-
sive roads, the agency will begin proving that its new Chief
Mike Dombeck actually meant what he said on July 1, 1998:
“In fifty years, we will not be remembered for the re-
sources we developed; we will be thanked for those we
maintained and restored for future generations.”
But the Forest Service still may choose a different direc-
tion. Under pressure from snowmobilers, four-wheelers, dirt
bike riders, and Congress, the agency abruptly called a halt in
October to its program of closing damaging roads. This about-
face demonstrated the agency’s willingness to abandon the
best available science and be manipulated by overzealous
“wise use” groups who are choosing to ignore the cumulative
damage from too many roads.

Targhee Road Impacts Still Plenty of Room to Roam

When all is said and done, the Targhee’s efforts still don’t
Fractured Habitat and Broken Promises close most roads and trails on the Forest. Over 2100 miles will
After three decades of runaway roadbuilding and remain open to motorized recreation - enough to stretch from
clearcutting, the Targhee National Forest stands out in photo- Chicago to Seattle! In addition, every major section of the
graphs taken from space as a gaping hole in the forested Targhee will still be accessible, leaving a lot more work in store
Northern Rockies — splintered every which way by more than for the Targhee to truly protect ecosystems and wildlife
3,600 miles of roads and motorized trails. When it began impacted by roads and motorized recreation.
escalating its timber program in the early 1970s, the Forest
Service acknowledged impacts, and promised to close many
roads once the trees were removed. But the agency has
repeatedly gone against its word, the Targhee’s sprawling road
network continues to grow, and there has been an increase in
damage to fish and wildlife.
In the wake of excessive clearcutting and road building on
the Targhee:

• Grizzly bears have all but disappeared from the forest;

• Elk populations have declined precipitously. The Targhee’s
elk hunting season, once among the longest in the state of
Idaho, has dwindled to a five-day spike-only hunt;
• Yellowstone cutthroat trout face increasing pressure from silt-
ation in the Henrys Fork and Burns Creek drainages. Much of
the siltation is being caused by illegal all terrain vehicle use.

The Draft Travel Management Plan

The Forest Service released a Draft Travel Plan which will
guide motorized use on the Targhee. The document needs
public support because it finally acknowledges environmental
damage from excessive roads. The Forest Service proposes to:

• Restrict uncontrolled and damaging cross-country motorized

travel on 63 percent of the Targhee. Without these limits on
off-trail motorized travel, elk, grizzly bears and other wildlife
have lost quiet and secure areas, even away from roads;
• Restore key wildlife areas by closing 1,200 miles of road;
• Close the far-flung network of unofficial “ghost” roads, cre-
ated by ORV users. Due to the unplanned nature of these
roads, they are often quite environmentally damaging. The
Forest Service proposes to close these unofficial roads except
in specific cases where they will be signed “open.”

Clark Fork of the Sanislaus, Stanislaus National Forest.

John Buckley photo.

4 The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999


After three decades of runaway
roadbuilding and clearcutting,
the Targhee National Forest stands out
from space as a gaping hole in the
forested Northern Rockies — splintered
every which way by more than 3,600
miles of roads and motorized trails.
What You can do
The Targhee Draft Travel Plan is not reasonable; too many
roads will remain open to motorized use, particularly along
streams where Yellowstone cutthroat trout are likely to suffer
from degraded habitat. Nonetheless, the Draft Travel Plan can
be a step in the right direction. Please take a moment to send
a letter to the Targhee National Forest Supervisor, encouraging
the Forest Service to adopt alternative 3M(-) and not to bow to
pressure from snowmobilers, dirt bike riders and four wheelers.
You can also review the DEIS at HTTP://WWW.FS.FED.US/
TNF/ and send comments to the Targhee via email:
pcomment/r4_targhee@fs.fed.us. Please include your full
name and physical address.
Address letters by Feb. 1, 1999 to:
-
Supervisor Jerry Reese
Targhee National Forest
420 N. Bridge St.
St. Anthony, ID 83445
Suggestions:
Dear Supervisor Reese,
I support the Targhee National Forest’s draft Travel
Management Plan’s alternative 3M(-). While not perfect, it
takes positive steps to strike a balance between motorized
recreation and the needs of fish and wildlife. The more than
2,100 miles of road and motorized trail to remain open to
motorized use is more than enough.
In addition, it is critical that the Targhee:
• use effective closure methods to prevent illegal use of closed
roads;
• keep the cross-country closures and the “closed unless signed
open” measures in place;
• maintain road densities as provided for in the revised Forest
Plan.
Thank you for taking positive steps towards restoring the
Targhee National Forest.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
Flip-Flop on the Stanislaus
In 1991, the Stanislaus Forest Plan (California) required
the Forest Service to develop a long-delayed plan to control
ORV use on the forest. For seven years, the Stanislaus Forest
held public meetings, field trips and planning sessions,
culminating in a February 18, 1998 decision to approve a
“motor vehicle travel plan.”
Conservationists were extremely disappointed with the
plan, as it failed to identify specific trails or areas within the
Forest where problems would be fixed. However, the plan
restricted ORV use to trails and routes that were either
signed “open” or designated as open on maps. Many forests
have similar “closed unless signed open” policies. In
addition, the plan identified certain wildlife areas as too
sensitive to allow snwomobiles during the winter to protect
fishers and martens, two species at risk within the
Stanislaus.
The Stanislaus Plan, however, proposed to close a mere
24,000 acres, leaving approximately 540,000 acres (95% of
previous use areas) open to motorized use. The FS esti-
mates this to include 1669 miles of ORV routes (866 miles
of which are open to snowmobiles). But even with its
minimal closures, this plan raised the hackles of local,
regional and national ORV groups. Thirteen groups ap-
pealed the decision to the Regional Forester, with the
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC)
intervening on behalf of the Forest Service to support their
plan, even while recognizing how weak that plan was.
Similar to the Targhee National Forest Travel Plan
situation, Congressional representatives pressured the
Forest Service on behalf of the ORV user groups. In addi-
tion, the California State Recreation Commission withheld
“green sticker” funding that would normally have been
given to the Stanislaus for managing ORVs.
On November 12, 1998, Deputy Regional Forester
Gilbert Espinosa bowed to ORV pressure and overturned the
Stanislaus decision. While upholding the Forest Service on
all administrative and procedural matters, he completely
gutted the two main control measures provided by the plan.
He determined the Stanislaus cannot have a “closed unless
designated open” policy, allowing ORV users to travel
anywhere on the Forest unless a sign is posted marking an
area as closed (except designated wilderness and roadless
areas). He also eliminated the snowmobile restrictions. At
press time, activists are hoping Forest Service Chief Mike
Dombeck will review Espinosa’s appeal. The Washington
Office is the last opportunity for administrative relief, and it
is questionable whether a lawsuit can be filed.
Ask FS Chief Mike Dombeck to support and strengthen
the Stanislaus NF motor vehicle travel plan.
Mike Dombeck, Chief USFS
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
-
fax (202) 205-1765
—Thanks to Tim Stevens, Marv Hoyt, John Buckley, and the
Wildlands CPR staff for contributing to this article. For more info
about the Targhee, contact Marv at: 208/522-7927, or Tim at:
406/586-1593, and for the Stanislaus call John at: 209-586-7440.
5

Bibliography Notes
Bibliography Notes summarizes and highlights some of the
scientific literature in our 6,000 citation bibliography on the
ecological effects of roads. 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.
ORV Pollution
By Jacob Smith
The dramatic increase in ORV use on public lands is
responsible for a host of adverse impacts on wildlife, vegeta-
tion, soils, water quality, and nonmotorized recreationists. The
contamination of air, water, and soil by ORV pollution is
among the most significant of these impacts.1 There are at
least four major ORV pollution concerns:
* air pollution – toxic emissions (e.g., carbon monoxide)
* air pollution – particulates (e.g., dust)
* soil, snow, and water pollution – direct contamination, air
pollution settling on surfaces, all of these pollutants concen-
trating in waterways
* pollutants discharged directly into water bodies – motorized
watercraft (e.g., jet skis)
Toxic Emissions
Air pollution is probably the best studied of these, and air
quality problems relate both to emissions and dust (Fritsch
1994, Hare and Springer 1974,
Kockelman 1983, USDI 1978). The two-
stroke engines that typically power ORVs
are highly inefficient and produce
relatively high emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocar-
bons (White et al. 1993). Kasnitz and
Maschke (citing California Air Resources
Board 1996:7) report that: “One two-
stroke off-road motorcycle or all-terrain
vehicle emits as much hydrocarbon
pollution per mile as 118 passenger cars,
while relatively cleaner four-stroke
engines still emit more than seven times
the level of carbon monoxide as new
cars.” Fussell (1997), Sluder (1995), and
Killman et al. (1973) report similarly
startling results.
These concerns are compounded by the fact that ORVs are
not typically regulated in the same way as most other motor
vehicles, and are not equipped with pollution control equip-
ment (White et al. 1993).
Areas where ORVs are operated in large numbers, espe-
cially under certain topographic and climactic conditions, are
especially prone to severe air pollution problems. One of the
best examples of this is the west entrance to Yellowstone
National Park during the winter snowmobile season. Although
the National Park Service has not yet adequately studied the
effects of this pollution on wildlife and plants, health impacts
to Park Service employees and Park visitors have become a
serious concern (Fussell 1997).
1
More generally, roads and road edges are documented sources of air pollution
(Noss 1996, Reed et al. 1996, Santelmann and Gorham 1988).
6 The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
During the winter of 1994-1995, air quality monitoring at
the Park’s west entrance “detected carbon monoxide (CO)
levels exceeding Federal standards” (Ingersoll et al. in press:
103 citing USDI NPS, Air Quality Division 1996). Despite
researchers identifying air quality as a sometimes significant
problem in Yellowstone National Park as early as 1981 (Aune
1981), little is known about the consequences of this type of
air pollution, especially the cumulative and longer-term
impacts.
Particulate Emissions
In drier conditions, ORVs are notorious for sending
quantities of dust and particulates into the air (Baldwin 1970,
Kasnitz and Maschke 1996, Kockelman 1983). The large
quantity of particulate air pollution (dust) caused by ORV travel
on unpaved roads and trails is “a serious health risk” (Kasnitz
and Maschke 1996:7). They explain that “[r]ecent health
studies have also associated particulate pollution with im-
paired lung function, increased emergency room visits and
increases in mortality” (Kasnitz and Maschke 1996:7).
Surface Contaminants
Much of the pollution that ORVs emit into the air eventu-
ally ends up settling on the soil and water, and on the snow
during winter months (see, for example, Aune 1981, Elgmark et
al. 1973, Ferrin and Coltharp 1974); much of this contamina-
tion works its way into nearby waterways (Aune 1981). That
these processes can occur slowly (Cole and Landres 1995)
doesn’t mitigate their potential severity. ORVs can leak fuel,
oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals.
For instance, one study found that “[c]oncentrations of
ammonium, nitrate, and sulfate in snowmelt positively
correlate with vehicle [snowmobile] usage” (Ingersoll et al. in
press: 103). Similarly, lead contamination has been well
documented near ORV travelways and roads (Cannon and
Eating dust at a small
motorcycle race.
Sheridan Valley,
W. Mojave Desert.
Howard Wilshire
photo.
Bowles 1962, Collins and Snell 1982, Warren and Delavault
1960). Although lead has probably diminished in significance
as an ORV pollutant, this research suggests the potential for
vegetative damage and wildlife consumption of other fuel
components and additives is severe. Sheridan (1979) reported
that ORV ruts can also contribute to water pollution levels.
Water Pollution
Water pollution can be a particularly severe problem with
motorized watercraft (such as personal watercraft), as they also
produce large volumes of toxic pollutants (including the toxic
fuel additive MTBE), but their emissions end up directly in the
water (Tahoe Research Group 1997, Fiore et al. 1997,
Tjarnlund et al. 1995, Tjarnlund et al. 1996, Mele 1993).
Liddle and Scorgie (1980) report that freshwater motorized
boating results in outboard motor pollution, wash, and sewage.
Thus, not only does this pollution have the potential to
harm soils, soil organisms, and plants, it often ends up in
aquatic habitats (Geological Society of America 1977, Hagen
and Langeland 1973), where many species are especially
sensitive to it. Adams (1975) determined that the hydrocar-
bons and lead emitted from snowmobiles was adversely
affecting brook trout. Similarly, Luckenbach (1978) noted that
amphibians and other desert water source inhabitants can be
susceptible to ORV pollution.
There are other concerns. For instance, Kasnitz and
Maschke (1996, citing California Air Resources Board 1996)
note that many ORV recreation areas are located adjacent to or
in urban areas already suffering from seriously degraded air
quality. Trash and human waste is another potential concern,
although these are rarely addressed in the scientific literature
(Baldwin 1970). In short, in addition to habitat degradation
and fragmentation, wildlife harassment, and the crushing and
disrupting of vegetation and soils, land managers must take
careful stock of ORV-caused air, soil, and water pollution in
their efforts to manage responsibly and prudently the recre-
ational uses of public lands.
Literature Cited
Adams, E. S. 1975. Effects of lead and hydrocarbons from
snowmobile exhaust on brook trout. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 104 (2): 363-73.
Aune, K. E. 1981. Impact of winter recreationists on wildlife in a
portion of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. M.S.
Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 111 Pp.
Baldwin, M. F. 1970. The snowmobile and environmental quality.
Trends 7 (2): 15-17.
California Air Resources Board. 1996. Program update for off-
highway motorcycles and ATVs. CA. Air Resources Board. El
Monte, CA.
Cannon, H. L. and J. M. Bowles. 1962. Contamination of
vegetation by tetraethyl lead. Science 137: 765-766.
Cole, D. N. and P. B. Landres. 1995. Indirect effects of
recreationists on wildlife. In Wildlife and Recreation:
Coexistence through management and research. R. L. Knight
and K. J. Gutzwiller (eds.). Wash. DC: Island Press.
Collins, B. J., and N. J. Snell. 1982. Lead contamination associated
with snowmobile trails. Environmental Research 27: 159-63.
Elgmark, K., A. Hagen, and A. Langeland. 1973. Polluted snow in
southern Norway during the winters of 1968-71.
Environmental Pollution 4: 41-52.
Ferrin, R. S. and G. B. Coltharp. 1974. Lead emissions from
snowmobiles as a factor in lead contamination of snow.
Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters
51 (1): 116-18.
Fiore, M., C. Hoonhout, V. Herbert, J. Herz, S. Sotomy, and G.C.
Miller. 1997. Interim Report on the Lake Tahoe Motorized
Watercraft Study. Department of Environmental and
Resource Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Fritsch, A. 1994. Off-road Ethics: Environmental Resource
Assessment of Recreational Off-road Vehicles, Appalachian
Science in the Public Interest. Mt. Vernon, KY.
Fussell, L. M. S. 1997. Exposure of snowmobile riders to carbon
monoxide: Emissions pose potential risk. Park Science:
Integrating Research and Resource Management 17(1): 1, 8-10.
Geological Society of America, Committee on Environment and
Public Policy. 1977. Impacts and Management of Off-road
Vehicles. Report of the Committee on Environment and
Public Policy. Boulder, CO. 8 pp.
Hagen, A., and A. Langeland. 1973. Polluted snow in southern
The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
Norway and the effect of the meltwater on freshwater and
aquatic organisms. Environmental Pollution 5: 45-57.
Hare, C. T., and K. J. Springer. 1974. Snowmobile Engine
Emissions and their Impact. Southwest Research Institute.
Ingersoll, G.P., J.T. Turk, C. McClure, S. Lawlor, D.W. Clow, and M.A.
Mast. 1997. Snowpack chemistry as an indicator of
pollutant emission levels from motorized winter vehicles in
Yellowstone National Park. Proceedings of the 65th Annual
Meeting for the Western Snow Conference. May 4-8, 1997.
Banff, Alberta. pp. 103-113.
Kasnitz, M. and E. Maschke. 1996. Backcountry giveaways: How
Bureaucratic Confusion Subsidizes Off-highway Vehicle
Harms. A Report for the California Green Scissors Project.
CALPIRG, Santa Barbara, CA.
Kockelman, W. J. 1983. Management concepts. Environmental
Effects of Off-road vehicles: Impacts and Management in
Arid Regions. H. Wilshire and R. Webb (eds.). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Killman, R. E., S. S. Lestz, and W. E. Meyer. 1973. Exhaust
Emissions Characteristics of a Small 2-stroke Cycle Spark
Ignition Engine. Society of Automotive Engineers and
Pennsylvania State University. New York, NY.
Liddle, M. J., and H. R. A. Scorgie. 1980. The effects of recreation
on freshwater plants and animals: A review. Biological
Conservation 17: 183-206.
Luckenbach, R. A. 1978. An analysis of ORV use on desert
avifaunas. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 43: 157-62.
Mele, A. 1993. Polluting for Pleasure. NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
Noss, Reed F. 1996. The ecological effects of roads. Road-
Ripper’s Handbook. Wildlands CPR, Missoula, MT
Reed, R. A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W. L. Baker. 1996.
Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky
Mountains. Conservation Biology 10 (4): 1098-106.
Santelmann, M. V., and E. Gorham. 1988. The influence of
airborne road dust on the chemistry of Sphagnum moss.
Journal of Ecology 76: 1219-31.
Sheridan, D. 1979. Off-road Vehicles on Public Land. U.S.
Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, D.C. 84 pp.
Sluder, C. S. 1995. Development of a Method for Determining
Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption of Vehicles in On-
road Operation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Tahoe Research Group. 1997. The Use of 2-cycle engine
Watercraft on Lake Tahoe: Water Quality and Limnological
Considerations. University of California, Davis, CA.
Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, G. Akerman,
and L. Balk. 1996. Further studies of the effects of exhaust
from two-stroke outboard motors on fish. Marine
Environmental Research 42 (1-4): 267-71.
Tjarnlund, U., G. Ericson, E. Lindesjoo, I. Petterson, and L. Balk.
1995. Investigation of the biological effects of 2-cycle
outboard engine’s exhaust on fish. Marine Environmental
Research 39: 313-16.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1978. Interim Management Plan:
ORV Use of Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Draft. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, NC.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996. Carbon Monoxide and
Particulate Matter Levels at Yellowstone, W. Entrance Station:
Results of an Ambient Air Quality Study, Winter 1995.
National Park Service, Air Quality Div.
Warren, H. V. and R. E. Delavault. 1962. Contamination of
vegetation by tetraethyl lead. Science 137:765-766.
White, J. J., J. N. Carroll, J. G. Lourenco, and A. D. Iaali. 1993.
Baseline and Controlled Exhaust Emissions from Off-highway
Vehicle Engines. Presented at the Small Engine Technology
Conference. Pisa, Italy.
7

Regional Reports & Alerts
4.5 Steps Forward
1 Step Back!
As the fight rages over off-road vehicles (ORVs), it’s critical
for environmentalists to pay attention to the victories that have
happened throughout the country. Below are short updates
about ORV and road victories in Vermont, Oregon, Minnesota
and Montana, in addition to a longer story about a BLM ORV
closure in California. Hopefully these victories will stand up
over time, though ORV user-groups continue to pressure public
land agencies to open up more areas. Congratulations to the
hard-working activists who made this possible!
Lamb Brook
The oft-threatened Lamb Brook area in the Green Moun-
tain National Forest in Vermont has been protected from road-
building and logging yet again (see RIPorter 1:3). The Forest
Service requested permission for road construction and
logging prior to completing a court-ordered environmental
impact statement for activities within the area. The Federal
District Court in Brattleboro determined the prior court
injunction against activities in the area applied to the Forest
Service’s new request. This is the fourth court defeat for the
Forest Service in their quest to develop Lamb Brook.
This time the USFS claimed the substantial clearing and
excavation work proposed along the Old Stage Road would be,
technically speaking, not road building since it is now a trail,
not a road. Forest Watch (VT) and other environmental groups
responded by saying that the USFS claims were, technically
speaking, putting the cart before the horse. The Forest Service
had hoped to widen the Old Stage Road and place culverts in
sections to make it available for snowmobile use.
Northern Rockies Half-step
Two federal agencies have gotten together in Montana,
North Dakota and South Dakota to assess cross country ORV
travel on all federal lands in Montana and the Dakota Prairie
Grasslands in North and South Dakota. The Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management have proposed a ban on travel-
ling off of designated roads and motorized “trails.” Before they
can implement this ban, though, they have to go through
scoping and environmental analyses of the proposal and look
at other alternatives. Interestingly, both the environmental
analysis and the proposed ban are limited to wheeled ve-
hicles—ignoring snowmobile activities. And while a ban may
sound exciting, it is limited to cross country or off-route travel.
This interagency, interstate planning process will require
close scrutiny from activists and strong participation from
citizens to ensure wheeled recreation doesn’t simply drive
right through the NEPA process and onto our public lands.
Lolo Snowmobile Closure
In December, the Lolo National Forest closed over 400,000
acres of backcountry to snowmobiles and ORVs. The closure
was a direct result of a threat by the Montana Wilderness
Association to sue the Forest Service for failing to protect these
lands from motorized intrusion. Much of this area is proposed
wilderness, and the rest designated to be managed as roadless.
Even though the Forest Service had illegally allowed the
8 The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
snowmobilers access to this area, 250 snowmobilers recently
held a demonstration, and violated the upcoming closure by
‘biling into the heart of the area. They also plan to sue the
Forest Service to keep the areas open.
Millican Valley, OR
The Central Oregon Forest Issues Committee in Bend, OR
won a court case stopping the implementation of the Millican
Valley Off-Highway Vehicle plan in the BLM’s Prineville
District. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife pro-
jected a loss of 2,200 out of 5,500 mule deer, and 100 of 150
antelope if the project were implemented. The suit was based
on a flawed cumulative effects analysis, specifically focusing
on the related impacts from the adjacent East Fort Rock ORV
area on Forest Service land. The Court agreed and required the
Bureau of Land Management to complete a revised analysis
including the cumulative impacts before proceeding with the
project. They have not made plans to proceed with further
analysis at this point in time.
MRR Stops Snowmobile Trail in Duluth
For the first time in Minnesota history, construction of a
snowmobile trail has been stopped! For the past five to ten
years a handful of businessmen and business developers in
city government have been scheming to bring snowmobiles
through West Duluth neighborhoods to the Duluth Entertain-
ment and Convention Center. These get-rich-quick-at-all-costs
tycoons want to bring the “Next Millennium,” a worldwide
snowmobile expo to Duluth on an annual basis and they want
snowmobile access to the front door.
This trail would have connected Duluth as well as two
state trails with Minnesota’s 18,000 miles of snowmobile
trails—a nightmare of noise, fumes and chaos. But because of
the Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation (MRR), the people
of Duluth and the city council have voted NO! on the proposal.
This is MRR’s first big victory for peace and quiet, fresh air,
personal safety and a healthy environment in Minnesota.
Setbacks
The much heralded Oregon Back Country Discovery Route
is a few steps closer to reality. This project by the Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department would provide a 700 mile
route for ORVs through Oregon, beginning southeast of
Lakeview and ending near the Washington border just south-
east of Walla Walla, WA.
The route will pass through
the west side of the
Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest. It follows dozens of
different roads, both paved
and dirt, though some of the
route is on state highways.
While it appears that new
ORV roads weren’t specifi-
cally constructed for this
route, it does provide the
state of Oregon with a clever
vehicle for advertising
increased ORV use of
backcountry areas.
Protestor at the Lolo ORV rally.
At least he spelled Kaczynski
right! Wildlands CPR photo.
Lost Coast Loses ORVs
One of the most controversial and difficult decisions ever
proposed by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Arcata
Field Office is one step closer to being implemented. On
October 1, the Arcata Field Office decided to close Black Sands
Beach in the King Range National Conservation Area (NCA) to
off-road vehicles.
Located in SW Humboldt County, the King Range NCA on
California’s “Lost Coast” is one of the BLM’s most popular
holdings. The area has been featured in major newspapers and
national magazines, and use of the area by hikers and back-
packers has increased tremendously. The BLM estimates that
in 1996 the Lost Coast Trail in the western portion of the King
Range received 14,000 recreation visitor days.
The area’s popularity is mostly due to a spectacular blend
of beach, surf, marsh, ancient forest, grassland, chaparral, and
streamside habitats. This diversity of ecosystems hosts a great
variety of plants and wildlife.
The vast majority of the NCA is closed to motor vehicles.
Over the last few years the BLM has even closed and restored a
few old roads by planting native plants and scarifying the
roadbed. This, coupled with the fact that the BLM supports
wilderness designation for much of the NCA (conservationists
have proposed far more) made the continued use of motorized
Black Sands Beach stretches for
25 miles along the longest
wilderness coastline in the lower 48.
With this ORV closure, the only way to
explore it will be on your own two feet!
vehicles on Black Sands Beach a sad anomaly.
The BLM first proposed closing the beach to ORVs in
October 1997. In the next year, the BLM weathered a blistering
storm of criticism from vehicle enthusiasts. BLM staff have
been harassed and called everything from “bigots” to “jack-
booted thugs,” and some were concerned for their safety.
In addition to this informal pressure, ORV enthusiasts sent
650 comments opposing the closure, and two members of
Congress joined their cause. Opponents of the closure domi-
nated a public hearing in Redway, California where BLM staff
were verbally abused throughout the meeting.
To counteract this assault against the BLM, the California
Wilderness Coalition (CWC), the Environmental Protection Info
Center (EPIC), Northcoast Environmental Center, and the Sierra
Club generated 859 pro-closure comments from the public.
Since the BLM, Forest Service, and other agencies consider
personal letters (as opposed to petitions and form-letters) the
most powerful form of communication, it is significant that
conservationists sent 253 personal letters to the BLM as
opposed to the 70 sent by opponents. The CWC also won the
support of eight members of Congress.
In September, the BLM cleared the last hurdles necessary
before rendering a final decision. First, the California Coastal
Commission reviewed the proposed closure for consistency
with the California Coastal Act. The ORV lobby argued that the
closure violated the Act by reducing public access to the beach.
At a meeting in Eureka, the Commission voted 10-1 to support
the BLM’s proposed closure. Republican Governor Wilson’s
appointees joined Coastal Commission Democrats in voicing
support for the BLM.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
The last hurdle was more difficult. A few years ago
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt created resource advisory
councils (RACs) composed of members of the public and
various established interest groups. These RACs were instru-
mental in developing BLM grazing reform policies and generat-
ing public support for them. Normally, such wide-ranging and
(hopefully) meaningful reforms would have been held up in
federal court for years.
The Northwest California RAC encouraged the BLM to
leave Black Sands Beach open to vehicles for a trial period
during which the ORV users would have to prove that they
would speed, litter, shoot, and harass hikers less than in the
past. If they could demonstrate courtesy, then they would be
allowed to use the beach indefinitely. The RAC passed this
recommendation over the strenuous objection of its conserva-
tionist members (a CWC staff member serves on the Northwest
California RAC). After this tremendously contentious meeting,
the BLM discovered that the rules of order for the RACs specify
that a consensus is necessary to forward major recommenda-
tions to the BLM—the RACs proposed compromise was invalid.
This is fortunate since the Arcata BLM has always followed
RAC recommendations in the past.
Despite the BLM’s official closure announcement, ORV
enthusiasts may appeal and sue in federal court. Given the
BLM’s firm legal ground and extensive public support, it is
unlikely the agency’s decision will be reversed.
Meanwhile, nature also cast its vote for the closure by
sending a sleeper wave to destroy the Black Sands Beach
parking lot. Anyone now wishing to ride on the beach must
winch their ORV down a cliff with cables (a few diehards have
actually done this to avoid walking). The BLM says it does not
have the money to repair the parking lot, and conservationists
have urged the agency to spend its money elsewhere.
Activists should note that the conservation community did
not have an active campaign to encourage the BLM to close
Black Sands Beach to motor vehicles. The BLM’s wilderness
proposal for the King Range specifically excludes Black Sands
Beach so that vehicle use could continue there. The closure
proposal was initiated by BLM staff, not because of public
pressure, but because it was the right thing to do. In a nation
where public land managers are often overly timid and afraid
of controversy—even to the point of ignoring ecological
harm—the Arcata Field Office’s decision to close Black Sands
Beach is refreshing and gratifying. What you can do:
Please let the BLM know how much you appreciate what
they have done by contacting:
Lynda Roush, Area Manager, BLM, Arcata Field Office
1695 Heindon Road
Arcata, CA 95521-4573
Phone: (707) 825-2300
Fax: (707) 825-2301
-
E-mail: lroush@ca.blm.gov
—Thanks to Ryan Henson and the California Wilderness
Coalition for this article.
Black Sands Beach on the south end of the Lost Coast. Jim Coefield photo.
9
 Odes to Roads

the
Wild Places
L osing

of our Childhoods
— by Colin Chisholm

Every year for a decade now my friend, Tom, and I meet somewhere in the
desert. Our goal—and it is, increasingly, a very difficult one—is to find a place where
we won’t see a human soul for a week. Going off tips from friends or map guess-
work, we’ve managed to spend lots of time alone in the canyons. Our quest for
solitude is addictive; a need to get away from the ever-increasing speed of our
everyday lives.
This year we return to a remote area we visited many years ago. Back then there
was no trailhead, no trail, no cairns. We’d parked the car beside the highway and
vanished into the desert. This year we arrive late on a March day, appalled to find
that a trailhead has been bulldozed, as well as the beginnings of a road. A bulldozer
rests nearby. At once a vacuous feeling I recognize but can’t name slithers into my
gut. Tom shakes his head; no words are necessary.
Despite this transgression, we stick with the plan; we have come too far to turn
around. Our plan is to hike up one canyon, over the mesa top and down into
another. Let’s call them Billy and Bob Canyons. Both have long, sinuous narrows
and require rock climbing and a few rappels. We shoulder our packs and hike east
up Billy. Potholes brim with water, primrose bloom, cottonwood leaves glow
translucent in the twilight. At nightfall we find a slickrock shelf where we cook
dinner to an owl’s soft, reedy hooting.
Later, we lie back and watch the sky, emblazoned by the Hale-Bopp comet,
which comes around once every 10,000 years. I huddle in my bag, feeling like a
child on Christmas morning. All those stars, each with its own story. I try to fathom
what the earth was like the last time Hale-Bopp came around. I sleep so well in the
desert.
Canyon wrens wake us in the morning, their descending trills echoing off
canyon walls. The desert bestows rituals like small gifts; time and again they
surprise. Waking to canyon wrens is one of these; sleeping on slickrock, because it is
clean and smooth and soft; the search for water; silence. To fall into these rituals is
to rest and heal. They are rituals desert people have always followed, as far back as
Hale-Bopp’s last journey, maybe farther. Who are we to change them?
As soon as the sun hits us we begin hiking. The canyon constricts, until my
elbows bump the frigid, fluted walls, colored like the flesh of salmon. Goose bumps
pepper my arms. Deep in Billy’s guts, where the sun may never warm the walls, we
swim up to our necks through longer and deeper stretches of water. My clicking
teeth echo.
Shivering and laughing hysterically at once, we come to the end, where a climb
through an angled slot leads to a patch of sunshine; we sprawl naked like drenched
lizards. I am euphoric that a place like this still exists away from the human throng.
But the trailhead? The bulldozers and the new road? Suddenly my joy is tainted by a
deep sadness; I am mourning the loss of this place even while I wade through its

10 The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999

 profundity.
I am no stranger to this mourning, nor are most people. Many of us have lost
the wild places of our childhoods. Before I’d turned eighteen my childhood
meadow had been bulldozed for a golf course. I began to believe that any place I
loved would be plowed over or paved under in the name of progress. All around
us wild places slip away, and we’re in a kind of frenzy to know them before
they’re gone. Thus the boom in outdoor recreation and the rabid growth of the
new west, where funhogs rule the land.
Night births a full eclipse of the moon. It’s been twenty years since I saw
one, when my little brother woke me with his cries, afraid of what he thought
was God’s eyeball in the sky. I fall asleep quickly, waking only once to Hale-Bopp,
a waterfall of light spilling onto the silken land.
On the fourth day we cross a freshly graded dirt road. I ask Tom where it’s
going and he reminds me that most roads lead nowhere. From high on a mesa I
stare into the vast desert, and everywhere these nowhere roads criss-cross the
land like so many lines on a map. A spume of dust rises from one like a harbin-
ger of the teeming masses waiting for the light to turn green just beyond the
horizon.
Bob is much like Billy. Lush gardens spill from cracks in leviathan boulders.
Water seeps from springs, potholes glimmer in the shadows, bobcat tracks wind
leisurely through the mud. We stumble upon an Anasazi ruin; thumb prints of
the makers cover the walls like a sea of tiny waves. At night, coyote calls spiral
from the canyon rim.
On the last day we find a
Snickers wrapper, a bloody band-aid,
The desert bestows rituals like small a Nike sneaker and blooms of toilet
gifts; time and again they surprise. paper. Boot prints abound. The spell
is broken; for the first time all week I
Waking to canyon wrens is one of these; can’t hear the little things. My brain
sleeping on slickrock, because it is floods with white noise. I smell the
bulldozer before I see it, tearing its
clean and smooth and soft; the search way into the desert.
for water; silence. To fall into these People are coming, whether I
like it or not.
rituals is to rest and heal. In the long run, perhaps none of
this matters. The desert thrives on a
geological time scale, while humans
think mostly in terms of our short
lives. Billy and Bob Canyons will be here in a thousand years, relatively un-
touched. The road, our bones, will blow as sand into the desert.
Tom and I make the mistake of driving back through Moab, where Jeeps
seethe around us. I want to be angry at these people, but what I feel is shame
because I am not so different. My complicity is apparent in my own desires, only
slightly different from their own.
I roll down the window and breathe in the sweet smell of sage. Only when
we are twenty miles out of town do I calm. We stop to camp, and looking up at
the night sky I find Hale-Bopp. I stand there, silent, wondering what this place
will be like the next time Hale-Bopp comes around.

..

Colin Chisholm is a
writer from
Missoula, MT
whose pieces have
appeared in
Audubon and The
Sun. He comet-
watches as often as
possible, in the
darkest parts of the
desert he can find.

The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999 11

Travelway and Road Closure
Inventory Form
The Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Forests includes a
sample data inventory sheet for monitoring ghost roads and road
closure effectiveness. Many groups have used the original form
from the Guide, and many find they need to modify it to fit their
particular needs.
This form is the most recent version used by Predator
Project’s Roads Scholar Project (RSP). The RSP has been monitor-
ing ghost roads and road closure effectiveness and watershed
impacts of roads in the northern Rockies for several years. It is
fairly self-explanatory once you know where to look for closures
and ghost roads. To do that, you can refer to the Road Ripper’s
Guide to the National Forests or call Wildlands CPR for more
information. You should find this revised form a bit more effective
than the version in the 1995 Road-Ripper’s Guide.
Just four simple steps will take you from the Forest Service
office into the field to document illegal roads and ineffective road
closures with this form.
1. Get a forest road map and copy of the Forest Plan.
2. Ask for a list of all road closures and a map showing the
closures.
3. Use aerial photos from the Forest Service to look for roads
that exist on the ground but aren’t recorded on the Forest Service
maps. Draw these possible ghost roads onto your forest map. Also
draw in all closures.
4. Go into the field, with maps, camera and inventory sheets
and field check all closures and suspected ghost roads. Don’t
forget to photo-document everything you see!
Once you’ve done that, put the information into a report and
meet with the Forest Service to discuss your findings and push for
more effective road management, including closures and
removal.
For more information on developing a road monitoring
program, order a copy of the Road-Ripper’s Handbook or call
Wildlands CPR to setup a Road Inventory Workshop in your
region.
— Thanks to Dave Havlick and the Roads Scholar Project for
this form.

1. Travelway (TW) Id Number: [______ / _________________ / ____ ] or FS Road #: [________ ]

Quad # Twn-Rng-Sec Suffix #

2. Forest: [ ] 1. IPNF [ ] 2. Colville [ ] 3. Kootenai [ ] 10. Other

[ ] 4. Targhee [ ] 5. Gallatin [ ] 6. Bridger-Teton _______________
[ ] 7. Lewis & Clark [ ] 8. Boise [ ] 9. Helena

3. Unit Name [_______________________________________ ]

4. What is the status of this road segment according to the FS inventory? [____ ]
[ ] 1. Open [ ] 2. Closed [ ] 3. Restricted [ ] 4. Segment not included in FS inventory

5. What is the ground-truthed (RSP) status of this road segment?

[ ] 1. Open [ ] 2. Closed [ ] 3. Restricted [ ] 4. Could not find

6. What closure devices are in place on this TW or connecting road segments that affect this TW’s closure status?
Enter appropriate number: [______ ]
0 = no device 6 = slash/deadfall
1 = post and sign 7 = wood gate w/ wire fence
2 = earth berm (kelly hump) 8 = roadbed obliterated/revegetated
3 = posts and rail 9 = multiple closure devices (list #s or describe): ___________
4 = steel gate 10 = other (describe): ___________________
5 = boulders
If there is no closure affecting this TW, skip to question 14.

7. Closed to vehicle type (according to FS inventory): [_____ ]

1 = Motorized > 50 inches
2 = All vehicles
3 = Closure does not appear in FS inventory.
4 = Restricted use; please specify :
[________________________]

8. Closed to vehicle type according to RSP

ground-truthed inventory: [____ ]
1 = Motorized > 50 inches
2 = All vehicles
3 = Segment is not closed to any vehicle
4= Segment open with gate key or combination
Ineffective road closure. WildlandsCPR file photo.

12 The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999

 9. FS Authorized closure dates: [____ ]
1 = All year
2 = Seasonal: From __________ to _________
3= Not in FS inventory

10. Is the closure being checked within the FS authorized closure dates?
[ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 3. Not in FS inventory

11. Status of closure device as described by RSP inventory: [_____ ]

1 = Exists and effectively closes road segment to all vehicles.
2 = Indicated by FS inventory, but no device found in field check.
3 = Exists but does not effectively close road to some or all vehicles.

If #3 above, answer question 12. Otherwise, skip to question 13.

12. Why is closure not effective? [___ ]

1 = Vandalism 4 = Open access to anyone with a gate key.
2 = Unlocked gate 5 = Detour that allows all motorized vehicles
3 = Detour that allows ORVs to bypass closure.

13. Please photograph all closures: Roll # ______ Frame # ______

14. Total segment length—measured by odometer or estimated from map: [_________ ]

15. What kind of road is this? [ ___ ]

0 = user created (4WD, dirtbike or ORV) 5 = private access road or driveway
1 = logging system road 6 = powerline access
2 = skid trail 7 = ranch/fenceline
3 = fire road 8 = firewood cutting
4 = mining road 9 = other: _______________

16. Rate the degree of use on road: [___ ]

0 = no use evident
1 = game, non-motorized, or foot use evident
2 = ORV tracks visible
3 = standard vehicle or 4WD tracks visible
4 = bare soil evident from tire wear; no distinct tracks

17. Rate the vegetation present on TW: [___ ]

0 = primarily trees (< 50% of cover is brush, grass or soil)
1 = primarily brush (< 50% of cover is grass or soil)
2 = primarily grass (< 25% bare soil exposed)
3 = grass/forbs intermittent with bare soil (bare soil area is between 25-50%)
4 = primarily bare soil (bare soil is > 50% of surface)

18. What is status of the worst erosion on TW? [___ ]

0 = erosion negligible, surface stable with no ruts
1 = TW surface flow, wheel ruts > 1” deep
2 = overland surface flow channeled down TW (seasonal channel)
3 = live stream channeled down TW
4 = unstabilized slumping of TW cut slopes

19. How many stream crossings are there on TW? [___ ]

20. Evidence of illegal dumping? [ ] 1. Yes [ ] 2. No

21. Photograph of road: Film roll # _______ Frame # _______

22. Comments: (e.g. evidence of noxious weeds, notes on road or closure, is the road getting use?)

Inspected by: ____________________________ Date: __________________

use initials or full name

The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999 13

 Call for Papers and Posters:
1999 International Conference on Wildlife
Ecology and Transportation
The Environmental Management Office of the Florida
Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the Federal
Highway Administration, US Forest Service and Defenders of
Wildlife, will host the third “International Conference on
Wildlife Ecology and Transportation” from September 13-16,
1999, in Missoula, MT.
The conference will bring together an international mix of
individuals working to reduce or eliminate the impacts of
transportation on wildlife. There is no registration fee.
Wildlands CPR participated in the last ICOWET confer-
ence, as the lone voice proposing road prevention or road
removal as a way to eliminate the impacts of transportation on
wildlife. While we will submit a paper for the 1999 confer-
ence, we strongly encourage other road activists to submit
papers or posters for this conference. And since it’s in
Missoula, if you decide to come, we’ll find free housing for ya!
So put a paper together talking about how you’ve worked
to protect wildlife from the effects of transportation—aquatic
wildlife included! Feel free to send us a copy of your paper.
What to send: title, brief abstract, author, author bio, estimate of
presentation time (generally 30 minutes).
When to send it: by March 1, 1999.
Where to send it:
David Zeigler
Florida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee St. MMS# 37
Tallahassee, FL 32399
850/922-7209
david.zeigler@dot.state.fl.us
Note: ICOWET is looking for papers that report on: methodologies, actual
studies, remedial measures, designs and other actions to address
problems. They will only accept one paper about the problems of roads!
Errata...
Three citations were missing from the Bibliography Notes
in the last issue of the Road-RIPorter. We apologize for the
error and have included the complete citations below.
Eaglin, G.S. and W.A. Hubert. 1993. Effects of logging and roads
on substrate and trout in streams of the Medicine Bow
National Forest, Wyoming. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 13:844-846
Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, J.E. Williams,
et.al. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and
habitats. In: Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J.;
technical editors. 1997. An Assessment of Ecosystem
Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions
of the Klamath and Great Basins.4:1059-1496. PNW-GTR-
405 . USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. Portland, OR.
McGurk, B.J. and D.R. Fong, 1995. Equivalent roaded area as a
measure of cumulative effects of logging. Environmental
Management 19(4)609-621.
14
Join
Wildlands CPR
Today!
Membership benefits both you and Wildlands CPR.
You lend your support to our efforts, giving us more
leverage in submitting comments, filing lawsuits, and
creating pressure to prevent and close roads on public
lands. In addition, your financial support helps us
continue providing information and resources to ac-
tivists throughout North America.
As a Wildlands CPR member, you'll have better ac-
cess to these resources, because you’ll receive:
❇ Our bimonthly newsletter, The Road-RIPorter.
❇ 10 free bibliography searches per year.
❇ National support for your campaign through our
newsletter and alerts.
❇ Access to activist tools and public education
materials.
❇ Connections with groups working on similar issues,
and networks with experienced road-fighting activ-
ists, lawyers and scientists.
❇ Discounts on Wildlands CPR publications.
Job Announcement:
Wildlands CPR Outreach/Issues Coordinator
Wildlands CPR is looking for an energetic,
motivated, self-directed outreach/issues coordina-
tor to develop and implement an integrated
outreach program and track road issues of na-
tional significance.
This person will spend about half to two
thirds of their time in our Missoula office, follow-
ing road issues, writing comments on road
projects of national significance and developing
outreach tools. The rest of their time will be spent
presenting this information throughout the
country.
The outreach/issues person will conduct
workshops, develop volunteer opportunities and
generally expand the scope of Wildlands CPR’s
programs.
This is a permanent, full-time position, salary
ranging from $22-24,000 depending on experi-
ence. Please send resume and cover letter to
Wildlands CPR by February 10, expected start date
March 15. For a complete job description, contact
Wildlands CPR.
The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
 Wildlands CPR Publications:
Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members) —A
comprehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides
listed below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gather-
ing Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and
more!
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-mem-
bers) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmen-
tal laws, road density standards & Forest Service road poli-
cies.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-mem-
bers) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background
on the National Park System and its use of roads, and out-
lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members) —By
Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and
resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in
BLM decision-making processes.
Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem-
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 Wildlands CPR:
$250 $100 $50 business
$30 standard $15 low-income Other
Name
Affiliation
Address
Phone/E-mail
The Road-RIPorter January/February 1999
Bibliographic Services:
Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Up-
dated Feb. 1998) —Edited by Reed Noss. Compiled by Dave
Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Humphrey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacquet
& Susan Pierce. Contains approx. 6,000 citations — includ-
ing scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimen-
tation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrologi-
cal effects, and other information on the impacts of roads.
Use the ecological literature to understand and develop road
density standards, priorities for road removal, and other
road issues.
Database Searches —We will search the Bibliography on the
subjects that interest you, and provide results in IBM or
Macintosh format (specify software), or on paper. We also
have prepared a 1-disk Bibliographic Summary with results
for commonly requested searches. Finally, we offer the full
bibliography. However, you must have Pro-Cite or a com-
patible database program in order to use it.
Bibliography prices —Sliding scale (all prices include ship-
ping):
1) Non-profits with budgets under $100,000/yr.
2) Non-profits with budgets $100,000-$500,000/yr.
3) Non-profits with budgets over $500,000//Universities
4) Government Agencies
5) For-profits and others
Full Bibliography: $45 (1) / $100 (2) / $200 (3) / $300 (4) /
$1000 (5)
Summary (one disk): $7 (1) / $10 (2) / $15 (3) / $25 (4) /
$35 (5)
Searches (add material costs of 15 cents/page, $3 minimum,
and/or $3 per disk):
$3 (1) / $5 (2) / $10 (3) / $15 (4) / $25 (5) (The first 10 searches/
year are free for members. )
Please send me the following publications/resources:
Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:
/
/
/
Total of all items:
Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.00 per item;
for Canadian orders, add $6.00 per item.
Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.
Please send this form and your check (payable to Wildlands CPR)
to the address below. Thank you!
Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807
15
Visions...

Reprinted with permission of the artist.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

Babies have been birthed with less

straining than the Forest Service is
going through in producing its road
policy. – Missoulian editorial

“Red” on your label means your membership has expired. Please renew! See page 2.

The Road-RIPorter is printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, non-chlorine bleached paper.