Road Riporter 4.6

The Road-RIPorter Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. November/December 1999. Volume 4 # 6

Bulltrout Rebellion?!? E LKO ROAD RAGE E RODES DEMOCRACY By Bethanie Walder

The threat was veiled, but undeniable nonetheless. Absent significant local, state or federal law enforcement, between 500 and 1000 people were expected to turn out to rebuild, in direct violation of the law, the Jarbidge River Road on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

B

efore this trouble along northeastern Nevada’s Jarbidge River reached the boiling point last month, however, a complicated mix of ingredients had been thrown into the pot. RS 2477 claims, Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for bull trout, “sage brush rebels,” and a disconnect between Forest Service law enforcement and the US Attorney’s office all teamed up to create a confusing and potentially dangerous situation.

When Elko County, Nevada took the law into their own hands and rebuilt the South Canyon road, bull trout, the Jarbidge river, and the democratic process all suffered. Photo by Don Smith.

— See Bulltrout Rebellion, page 4 —

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

I

t’s been a busy couple of months, from extensive staff travel to big political news... In mid-October, President Clinton announced he was instructing the Forest Service to develop a planning process to analyze opportunities to protect national forest roadless areas. Just one week earlier, the “bull trout” rebellion fizzled in Elko County, Nevada. And one week later, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and others filed a significant lawsuit to challenge ORV use on Bureau of Land Management land in Utah. In the midst of this, we’ve been doing strategic planning for the year 2000 and interviewing people to fill our ORV Campaign Coordinator position. So we hope you find lots of good information in this RIPorter and that you have a great winter solstice and new year. Let’s hope the clocks all keep Bulltrout Rebellion p. 1, 4-5 ticking and no environmental or human Bethanie Walder disasters occur after midnight on December 31...

In this Issue

Thanks

Depaving the Way, p. 3 Bethanie Walder

Legal Notes, p. 6-7 As Thanksgiving draws near, we Keith Hammer can’t help but appreciate all of you, our members, for your continued support. It’s been a busy and productive year for Odes to Roads, p. 8-9 Wildlands CPR and we hope you are Guy Hand happy with our accomplishments. Thanks to all of you, too, who have Regional Reports & Alerts, continually worked to protect the p. 10-11 environment in your region, to prevent and remove roads and to challenge ORV Bibliography Notes, p. 12-14 abuses! In a more traditional sense, Marcel P. Huijser thanks to the Foundation for Deep Ecology and Harder Foundation for their continuing support of our road-fighting and ORV work, and to Earthlaw for supporting our on-line ORV newsletter Skid Marks. Speaking of which, we owe a big thank you to work study student Scott Thomas for coordinating much of the Skid Marks information. Thanks also to all of you who. from our Fall Appeal, renewed your membership or sent something extra along to Wildlands CPR as the year closes out. If you haven’t responded yet to our one and only appeal, please consider! We also want to welcome new intern Katherine Postelli to our Missoula office. She’ll be getting us caught up on road issues and comments as well as doing some scientific research. In addition, Noelle Brigham is volunteering a ton of her time and some of her artwork, as seen in the pages to follow. Thanks and welcome to both of you!

New Resources for Road-Rippers In September, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) released a terrific report about off-road vehicle abuses on BLM lands in Utah. While only a very limited supply of hard copy reports are available at this time, the report is available on the web at http://www.suwa.org. If you’re interested in ORVs, it will be worth your while to check it out. Wildlands CPR’s Forest Service ORV report and database will be available by mid-December, as well. Please keep an eye on your e-mail and snail-mail boxes for more information when that report is available. The Wildlife Society is releasing a report on the effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife. This publication, due out in mid-November, will review literature and trends for Montana.

2

Wildlands C Center for P Preventing R Roads Main Office P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 (406) 543-9551 [email protected] www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR Colorado Office P.O. Box 2353 Boulder, CO 80306 (303) 247-0998 [email protected] Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads works to protect and restore wildland ecosystems by preventing and removing roads and limiting motorized recreation. We are a national clearinghouse and network, providing citizens with tools and strategies to fight road construction, deter motorized recreation, and promote road removal and revegetation. Director Bethanie Walder Development Director Tom Youngblood-Petersen Office Manager Cate Campbell ORV Campaign Coordinator Soon TBA Motorized Wreck-Recreation Program Jacob Smith Newsletter Jim Coefield, Dan Funsch Interns & Volunteers Carla Abrams, Noelle Brigham, Jennifer Browne, Chuck Irestone, Katherine Postelli, Scott Thomas, Karen Vermilye Board of Directors Katie Alvord, Mary Byrd Davis, Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt, Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien, Cindy Shogan, Tom Skeele, Scott Stouder Advisory Committee Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis, Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer, Timothy Hermach, Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner, Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell, Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss, Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter, Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox, Bill Willers, Howie Wolke c 1999 Wildlands CPR

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Clinton’s Roadless Legacy: Fact or Fiction? By Bethanie Walder

I

n the George Washington National Forest in Virginia, on October 13, 1999, President Clinton announced he was initiating a Forest Service rule-making process to re-evaluate roadless areas for permanent protection from road building and possibly other environmentally damaging activities. But let’s make things clear, his announcement does not set aside this land, his announcement does not designate roadless areas as Wilderness. Clinton has simply proposed a process for analyzing roadless areas. Haven’t these areas been the subject of just such an analysis since the roadless area moratorium was announced in January 1998? Actually, they have not. Nor does this new roadless analysis replace the long-term transportation planning process which began nearly two years ago. President Clinton, this October, effectively announced a separate, but parallel planning process for roadless areas. (Please see page 12 to find out what you can do to get involved.) The moratorium on roadbuilding in roadless areas provided some temporary protection while the Forest Service developed a comprehensive and long-term transportation plan (soon to be released). And while the long-term plan might have made it more difficult to build roads in roadless areas, it was never intended to protect those areas explicitly. Instead, it was designed to determine how to manage the Forest Service’s crumbling 380,000 mile road system more effectively, and to help the Forest Service decide which roads to keep, which to remove, and which to upgrade. The ambiguity surrounding the fate of roadless areas in the long-term plan was disconcerting to many environmental advocates, and to the American people. Clinton’s recent initiative now provides more explicit direction. The American public supports permanent roadless area protection. To their credit, the Heritage Forest Campaign spent the last year and a half proving to Congress, the media and the Clinton Administration that it would be worthwhile to permanently protect these roadless areas from destructive activities. And they proved to the Clinton Administration and Forest Service that it was critical either to include roadless areas in the long-term transportation plan or to develop a parallel track for roadless area protection. What President Clinton announced on October 13 was just such a parallel track: “The Forest Service will prepare a detailed analysis of how best to preserve our forests’ large roadless areas, and then present a formal proposal to do just that. The Forest Service will also determine whether similar protection is warranted for smaller roadless areas that have not yet been surveyed.” Prior to this announcement, the Forest Service exercised broad discretion in managing roadless areas, frequently promoting their development (and often facing activists’ challenges). Wilderness designation would eliminate this discretion and fully protect roadless areas, and it is a critical goal for many environmentalists. And while only Congress has the authority to designate Wilderness, Clinton’s proposal may encourage the Forest Service to manage roadless areas so as to preserve their Wilderness characteristics.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

So where do we go from here? The Forest Service will be completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the impact of different types of protection for roadless areas. President Clinton’s announcement, while seemingly the culmination of much grassroots work, is really just another step in our efforts to protect these areas. The timber industry, motorized recreationists and others will be galvanized by his proposal to fight it tooth and nail. Certain members of Congress are likely to try to derail the process through any number of means (e.g., withholding funds for the EIS). It will be critical to demonstrate strong public support for the most permanent and protective status for these roadless lands — Wilderness. As proposed, the Forest Service will analyze roadless area protection in two steps. First, they will consider inventoried areas of 5,000 acres or larger. Second, they will determine whether and how to protect smaller, uninventoried roadless areas and also provide more management direction. The Forest Service has not yet determined whether the roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest will be included in the rule-making process. Nevertheless, a minimum of 40 million acres will be impacted by this rule. Has Clinton left a public lands legacy with his October proposal? Certainly not yet. There is still much he can do to make sure these 40 million acres are protected permanently — from logging, roadbuilding, motorized recreation, mining, and grazing. He has set in motion a process that could protect roadless areas from many environmentally degrading activities. To make it fact he has to protect these areas from all industrial extraction. To make it fact, he has to go from process to reality.

File photo.

3

Bulltrout Rebellion Jarbidge River Bull Trout The Jarbidge River in northeastern Nevada, just south of the Idaho border, hosts the southernmost distinct population segment (DPS) of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The Jarbidge River DPS is one of five populations recently listed as threatened under the ESA, but their current status as “threatened” was immediately preceded by an emergency listing as “endangered” in August 1998. According to the Federal Register (US FWS 1998) the Jarbidge River DPS, which is comprised of a single subpopulation characterized by low numbers of resident fish, was in imminent danger of extinction from unauthorized road construction in July 1998. The population has been impacted by a variety of human activities, ranging from road construction and maintenance, to stream rechannelization, to recreational fishing and competition with introduced species such as brook and rainbow trout and kokanee salmon. Aquatic habitat in the Jarbidge is also compromised by debris torrents and flooding due to rain on snow events, and extremely steep slopes and erodible soils. Natural wildfire may also impact bull trout habitat in the basin. This combination of natural and human impacts continues to degrade the aquatic health of the Jarbidge River basin.

History of the Jarbidge Canyon Road Controversy In 1995, heavy rains caused debris torrents that washed out a 1.5 mile stretch of the Jarbidge Canyon Road in Elko County, Nevada. The road was a forest development road maintained by the county. Elko county also claims it as an RS 2477 rightof-way (see RIPorter 3.2). Prior to the washout, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been considering the Jarbidge River DPS for protection under the ESA and had also done some preliminary work to

— continued from page 1 — upgrade culverts and improve habitat in the basin. The Forest Service had proposed turning the road into an ORV route rather than reconstructing it as a full road. According to Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor Gloria Flora, the county and FS had reached a consensus to rebuild the road for ORVs rather than cause more damage to the river habitat by reconstructing it (The Missoulian 10-11-99). Nevertheless, Elko County passed a resolution on July 15, 1998 to rebuild the road on their own. One week later, they began their unauthorized road reconstruction work, acquiring none of the necessary permits. The Elko County road maintenance crew dumped material from the debris torrent and the adjacent hillside directly into the river to reconstruct the road. As a result, they completely destroyed all aquatic habitat along the 300 yards of newly constructed road (US FWS 1998). In addition to this direct impact, the reconstruction caused a 3.5 mile plume of sediment downstream from the construction site, again

. . . even if the county had a legal claim to the road, they would still have to follow environmental laws to reconstruct it. They have not. directly impacting aquatic habitat. The indirect effects of the reconstruction were likely to impact up to 28 miles of downstream habitat into the mainstem of the Jarbidge River. These indirect impacts included alteration of stream flow and water temperature, increased sediment transport, decreased invertebrate production, disruption of migration and spawning during August through September caused by stream turbidity and sedimentation, and decreased survival of eggs and juveniles from deposition of fine sediment (US FWS 1998). On July 24, 1998 the State of Nevada and the Army Corps of Engineers issued a cease and desist order to Elko County, and they stopped their unauthorized road work. The state also fined Elko County $400,000, which the county has refused to pay. Just over two weeks later, the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued an emergency listing of the Jarbidge River bull trout as endangered under the ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service felt the likelihood of continued road reconstruction was too high to wait until the regular listing process was finished (US FWS 1998). The emergency listing expired on April 8, 1999, on which date the Jarbidge River population was relisted as “threatened” under the ESA (Bechtold 1999).

Current Situation

Drawing by Noelle Brigham

4

Elko County’s beligerence in exerting their RS 2477 right-of-way claim to the Jarbidge Canyon Road has frustrated Forest Service efforts to stop its unauthorized reconstruction. Furthermore, even if the county had a legal claim to the road, they would still have to follow environmental laws to reconstruct it. They have not. But even though their claim remains unproven, apparently it has discouraged the US Attorney from prosecuting violators for the illegal road work. In the last year and a half, the Forest Service issued dozens of misdemeanor and felony citations for illegal activities on the Jarbidge Road, but the US Attorney General’s office in Nevada has not prosecuted most of these charges. The result: an atmosphere of lawlessness.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Drawing by Noelle Brigham.

Apparently realizing the law had become moot and ineffective, Elko county took the road reconstruction back into their own hands. Led by John Carpenter (a state legislator from Elko County) and two others, between 500-1000 individuals were prepared to rebuild the road on their own during the weekend of October 9/10, 1999. Calling it a “work party,” the organizers basically challenged the Forest Service to try to stop them. With little support from the US Attorney in Las Vegas, the Forest Service’s hands were tied. They didn’t have enough law enforcement to stop the event, and there was no indication the US Attorney’s office would prosecute violators if the Forest Service did issue citations. And the bull trout were spawning. Finally, on October 6, the Salt Lake Tribune broke the story for the regional press and brought the issue outside of Elko County. Speedy work by Wild Utah Forest Campaign, Southern Utah Forest Alliance and Wildlands CPR led to enough citizen outrage, directed at the US Attorney’s office, that two days later a seemingly lost cause turned around. On October 8, the US Attorney in Nevada issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the three organizers of the work party. The organizers went on the radio and called off the troops. A few dozen people showed up for a short protest on Saturday, some even moved a few boulders around, but the road remained as it had been. While the TRO was set to expire on October 22, the judge sustained it until the Forest Service, the protest organizers and the county go through a mediation process. To complicate matters, Idaho Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage is holding federal hearings in Nevada over the Elko County road issue. Chenoweth-Hage supports the sagebrush rebels in their effort to rebuild the road and may subpoena FS Supervisor Flora to appear at the hearing (The Missoulian 10-30-99).

While the county supremacy movement likes to refer to the Forest Service as a bunch of “jack-booted thugs” keeping them off their land, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The most significant threats are coming from these sage brush rebels themselves, as they try to take over land that belongs to all the American people. This puts the Forest Service, or any federal agency in a similar situation, into a very difficult position of protecting public land from private interests. And this can create a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the county forces the agency to use federal law enforcement, or reduces the federal agency to impotency for fear of violence. Why is it that those aiming to protect the environment tend to use civil disobedience and peaceful protests, and some of those who are ready to harm it seem willing to harm anyone standing in their way? The Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service have their work cut out for them to protect the Jarbidge population of bull trout in a way that doesn’t increase the controversy and unrest in rural counties surrounded by public land. But the federal land management agencies need the support of federal attorneys in order to keep the problems from escalating to the level they did in Elko County.

Photo by Jim Coefield.

References Realizing the law had become completely moot and ineffective, Elko county took the road reconstruction back into their own hands.

Moral of the story The county supremacy movement is spawning direct confrontations with federal law enforcement officers over land use and jurisdiction. What happened in Elko County, unfortunately, is not an isolated incident — similar RS 2477 claims and unauthorized reconstruction projects have occurred in southern Utah and other Nevada counties. While the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service are responsible for protecting natural resources, they need the support of the US Attorney’s office to enforce the law.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Associated Press. 1999. Idaho’s Chenoweth likely to subpoena Forest Service in bull trout dispute. The Missoulian. 10-30-99. p. C2. Bechtold, Timothy. 1999. Listing the bull trout under the Endangered Species Act: The passiveaggressive strategy of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent protecting warranted species. Public Land and Resources Law Review. 20:99-129. Chereb, Sandra. 1999. ‘Bull trout rebellion’ fizzles, but resolve remains. The Missoulian. 10-11-99. p. A1/ 8. Israelson, Brent. 1999. Road protest may spark a big debate. The Salt Lake Tribune. 10-6-99. Israelson, Brent. 1999. Elko protest fizzles: Court throws up roadblock. The Salt Lake Tribune. 1010-99. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. 63 Federal Register 42,757-42,762 (to be codified at 50 CFR 17) 8-11-98.

5

Illegal Snowmobile/ORV Trail Obliterated Using the Courts and Our Backs to Protect Roadless Areas By Keith Hammer

A

snowmobile trail illegally cut through the planning process will be used to allow, restrict, or prohibit use by dense woods of the Flathead National Forest specific vehicle types off roads [and] will analyze and evaluate current in northwest Montana was discovered and potential impacts arising from operation of specific vehicle types on during attempts to save the lives of seven soil, water, vegetation, fish and wildlife, forest visitors and cultural and snowmobilers buried by an avalanche on New Years historic resources.” Eve 1993. Among the five that would die were a 36 CFR Part 295 also requires that ORV trails and areas be located leading local snowmobile and off“to ensure the compatibility of road vehicle activist and a seven such uses with existing conditions year old Canadian boy whose in populated areas, taking into father had followed the redaccount noise and other factors,” painted blazes of the unauthorized and that, if the results of public short-cut up an avalanche chute in monitoring “indicate that the use an attempt to reach the high of one or more vehicle types off alpine country of the Swan Range. roads is causing considerable Local “wise-use” advocates, adverse effects on [these factors] hoping to nix wilderness considerthe area or trail suffering adverse ation of the northern Swan Range, effects will be immediately closed called unsuccessfully on Congress to the responsible vehicle type or to designate it a motorized types until the adverse effects have recreation area named after their been eliminated and measures fallen leader. Meanwhile, three have been implemented to prevent local conservation groups began future recurrence as provided in A small excavator digs tank traps and positions downed logs, documenting the illegal construc36 CFR part 261.” blocking the first leg of the trail to snowmobiles and ORVs. tion and maintenance of the trail. Despite openly admitting to Photo by Karen Nichols. After nearly six years and a trip to the press after the avalanche that federal court they won its closure, obliteration and the trail was unauthorized, the Forest Service refused to close the trail. revegetation. The following story describes the legal After the spring of 1994 and since, hundreds more photographs were strategy used to secure the trail’s obliteration, and the taken of continued trail maintenance, the construction of crude log need to press similar cases to establish the legal bridges, and soil erosion (caused by motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmoprecedent that will make the job easier for others. biles which scoured the soil all winter on steep pitches). Because snowmobiles had to travel five miles on a Forest Service road to reach the illegal trail, noise levels from up to two dozen snowmobiles per day A Picture is Worth a Thousand were audible inside homes over a mile away. A half-dozen neighbors Words provided affidavits supporting the lawsuit. Swan View Coalition, Montana Ecosystems Defense Council and Friends of the Wild Swan began Put Up or Shut Up documenting in January 1994 that the Krause Basin It was not until he was under oath during a preliminary hearing in trail had been illegally cut. Holes were dug in the February 1999 that the District Ranger finally admitted the trail was snow to photograph logs cut from the heavily indeed being maintained without a permit and that it was not among forested bottom of the basin, and the stumps of the specific ORV trails allowed under his 1988 ORV management plan. heavy brush cut in the avalanche chute used to reach As a result of the testimony at the preliminary hearing, District Judge the Swan Crest. These photos, and letters demanding Donald Molloy ruled that “The proof shows the trail is likely illegal and the trail be closed to motorized use, were sent to the is being maintained illegally. . . Without the trail access would be Forest Service, citing the same regulations that would severely restricted if not non-existent.” later be used in a lawsuit filed in January 1999: Rather than face a full trial, the government chose to settle the suit, 36 CFR 261.10 prohibits the “[c]onstruction, agreeing to close all portions of the two mile trail “on which vegetation placing, or maintaining of any kind of road, trail, was cut or removed, downed logs cut, or other actions were taken to structure . . . or other improvement on National alter the natural landscape or otherwise create or maintain a route.” Forest system land . . . without a special-use authoriThis left open only the uppermost quarter-mile of the naturally barren zation.” avalanche chute. Under the settlement agreement, the trail was posted 36 CFR 295.2 requires that “[o]n National Forest closed in May and, because ORV riders violated the closure, plaintiffs System lands, the continuing land management were given approval to block, obliterate and revegetate the trail.

6

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Re-securing the Roadless Area of Krause Basin In August, sixteen neighborhood volunteers invested 135 hours of labor — falling dead trees across the trail, installing log water bars to prevent erosion, and installing dozens of log barriers and tank traps with a small excavator. In October, a Montana Conservation Corps crew donated 150 hours to plant one thousand native shrubs and trees donated by Bitterroot Restoration of Corvallis, Montana. Scouler willow, mountain maple, alder, wood rose and Douglas fir, were selected to rapidly fill the trail corridor with a tangle of woody brush and trees. Prior to planting, exposed soil was sown with native grass seed provided by the Forest Service, and a layer of log duff from rotten logs.

A Successful Strategy What had become an easy one-hour hike up a well-groomed snowmobile and ORV highway is now once again a time-consuming bush-whack by foot, impassable to snowmobiles and ORVs. No violations by motorized vehicles have occurred since the trail obliteration, and a citizen monitoring program supplements the law enforcement the court required of the Forest Service. The upper Krause Basin, home to grizzly bear, lynx, wolverine and other wildlife sensitive to humans disturbance, is again secure following the surge in use by motorized vehicles, mountain bikes, trappers and hikers. By volunteering to obliterate and revegetate the trail, plaintiffs removed the last excuse of the Forest Service to remain inert. Moreover, volunteers are now personally vested in the well-being of Krause Basin, and have the political clout to stifle any ideas on the part of the Forest Service that it may initiate a process aimed at legitimizing the nowdefunct trail. Last but not least, extensive press coverage over the past six years has shown the absurdity of the Forest Service’s long-standing argument that vegetation and terrain self-limit snowmobile and ORV use — as riders now pack chainsaws on ORVs with more horsepower than a Subaru car. It is high time the Forest Service moot the term “off-road vehicle” and simplify its law enforcement by restricting all motorized vehicles to open roads only.

Still Seeking Legal Precedent While settling this lawsuit accomplished as much on-the-ground as a favorable final ruling by the court would have, it did not establish a legal precedent that could be used by others in both the administrative and legal arenas. To the degree similar cases rely on the 36 CFR 261.10 prohibition against the unauthorized establishment of roads or trails, the government’s defense likely will be that forest users, not the agency, are prohibited. Hence, our lawsuit combined this claim with a 36 CFR Part 295 claim of considerable adverse effects which warranted closing the trail to motorized vehicles. Both claims were presented within the larger context of a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, because failure to close the trail is arbitrary and capricious and constitutes an

A section of the illegal trail before and after the revegetation work. Photos by Keith hammer. The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Fourteen local residents show up on a week’s notice to block and secure a steeply eroded section of the trail with large water bars of dead logs. Photo by D. Blank.

administrative action unlawfully withheld and/or unreasonably delayed. Perhaps surprisingly, little case law exists to assist in lawsuits of this nature. The conservation community needs to continue bringing similar lawsuits with good factual foundations until a favorable final ruling is issued and good case law established. This will make the job much easier for others that follow. — Keith Hammer, author of the Road-Ripper’s Guide to the National Forests, is the Chair of Swan View Coalition, Co-Chair of Montana Ecosystems Defense Council, and works part-time for Friends of the Wild Swan.

Wise-Use Backlash The “wise-use” response to the physical closure of the illegal Krause Basin trail has been vocal, loud and aggressive. Rallies have been held, with only the calmer heads cautioning that they must follow the law or they will once again shoot themselves in the foot in Krause Basin, providing further ammunition for more lawsuits. Montana’s Senator Conrad Burns has intervened, openly acknowledging the trail was illegal and was closed pursuant to a court order, but pressing the Forest Service on the methods by which the obliteration was approved and assessed environmentally. Conservationists volunteering obliteration and revegetation services should be absolutely certain they have a signed volunteer agreement that reasonably describes the work plan. It is also recommended that a Forest Service employee be on-site to supervise the work to minimize the risk to volunteers if the agency receives complaints on the work done. Such work is not for the timid and conservationists should do all they can to ensure that the degree of “wise-use” backlash is proportional to the effectiveness of the closure, not to a poor attempt at revegetation.

7

Odes to Roads

Pining for an Oak Meadow By Guy Hand A western bluebird floats inches above October meadow grass, hovering there, its iridescent blue wings a soft blur, its head cocked downward, its eyes locked onto something hidden from my view. Then, it dives and disappears. I hear the dry rustle of fallen leaves, see a shivering in the straw-blond grass, and as the bird pops back into view, I spot the fat green grasshopper clasped within its bill. Another bluebird glides down from the immense oak, kites above the grass for a heartbeat, then dives. Then another. As my eyes adjust to the deep shade gathered under the canopy of this old tree, I see half a dozen bluebirds perched within its dusky light, embraced among thick serpentine limbs and dark leaves, like arboreal sprites, each waiting a turn.

Photo by Guy Hand

This wide, wondrous meadow. There is so much life here. Even at the far end of another rainless California summer, another of this country’s annual and utterly uncompromising six-month droughts, this place is teaming. That an oak woodland and all its attendant flora and fauna can survive a waterless half year is miraculous to me, as if the rigid rules of survival have been, in deference to the beauty of this place, waived. The more pragmatic of my biologist friends would call it simple adaption, the machinations of millennia, the inevitable evolutionary drift that pairs all species to

measured all landscapes by the deep green pine forests and rushing rivers of my Idaho youth (doesn’t everyone judge the world, consciously or not, from their childhood’s perch?) and found much of this land, by comparison, as harsh and uninviting as a summer sore throat. Even the oaks displayed the blue-grey, toughleaved look of an alien world.

This meadow changed all that. The day I stumbled into it, after a steep climb up a trail not marked on my Geological Survey map, I gave an involuntary hoot. Nearly flat, embraced by mountains, it was a That an oak woodland and all its attendant flora secret kingdom, a little Xanadu hidden in the folds of the Los and fauna can survive a waterless half year Padres National Forest. Wildflowis miraculous to me, as if the rigid rules of ers filled the meadow floor with color while moss-strung blue oaks survival have been, in deference to the broke the light into soft, shimmerbeauty of this place, waived. ing pools. Here, between hard slabs of sandstone, was a perfect savannah, a landscape that some say resonates back to the beginplace. I wonder. Over my right shoulder I hear the nings of human memory. It certainly rippled through snare-drum call of a Nuttall’s woodpecker as it launches me. This meadow became my backcountry base, my into the air. Over my left comes the querulous cry of a locus mundi; and the passageway through which I northern flicker. In this meadow I’ve found mountain traveled toward an understanding of a rare and radiant lion tracks pressed into soft clay; I’ve caught the land. metallic light of the full moon glinting in the eyes of mule deer, fox, raccoon, skunk. At the time, I barely noticed the road. It was nothing more than a pair of faint tracks snaking through the When we bought our cabin, I was slow to warm to grass beneath my feet. On the meadow’s far side, those the chaparral and oak-studded mountains that surround tracks thickened, then coalesced into an actual road, but us, this wild swath of central Californian backcountry. I a very rough, disused one. An old fire road I thought,

8

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

assuming that because so much of this nearly vacant land is national forest, this was too. Many months and many visits passed before I learned I was wrong.

species, each finetuned to the At the time, I barely noticed the road. vagaries of a climate capable of It was nothing more than a pair of faint both decade-long tracks snaking through the grass drought and Biblical deluge. It is also a beneath my feet. habitat in danger: like this meadow, eighty percent of One crisp California’s oak winter morning, as my wife and I made our way into the woodland is privately owned and weakly regulated; in meadow, we noticed something odd: a half-dozen black the past half century, one to two million acres have been plastic pots huddled along the roadside, each with a lost to development. With so little oversight, no one young pine tree quivering in the breeze. As we walked knows for sure. further we found more, dozens more, and accompanying them an arsenal of shovels and spades. With every turn I tried to contact the new owners, but they chose not of the road we spotted to return my calls or respond to my letters. Never once more pots, more did I see them in the meadow. And at the end of their shovels, more trees. first summer, the nearly two hundred potted pines — They were a ragtag lot: a still unplanted and unwatered — were dead, every one menagerie of potted of them reduced to a standing skeleton. I can only hope conifers of dubious that the meadow’s reticent owners have had second provenance, some with thoughts. I hope that as they hauled truck load after houseplants sharing truck load of ill-fated young trees down this rutted road, their soil, some with they noticed the bluebirds gliding beneath the old oak. I faded Christmas ribbons hope they heard the frogs and the flickers. I hope they tied around their slim saw the flaws in their own belief that native land is trunks, some already unproductive land, that property value is tied always to broken and dying. A human tinkering. I hope this meadow taught them, as it mission of mercy has me, that oak woodland is the essence, the pure truth perhaps, but we of this place. counted 185 saplings and couldn’t believe Yet, as long as roads cut through wild country, they that the Forest Service will hold the land vulnerable to future whims. The road would take on the mass running through this meadow is nothing more than a Photo by Guy Hand planting of non-native pot-holed portal trees. for bad ideas, a puncture wound A few phone calls later I learned that the project was that won’t heal, indeed not Forest Service sanctioned. The meadow was, allowing human in fact, an island of private property and the planting a fallibility to flow new owner’s scheme. I learned that the land had unchecked into changed hands often over the years, but because of its the delicate heart inaccessibility, had never been developed. Obviously, of healthy land. this owner planned to change that. I hear the Weeks passed as the pines stood at the side of the fluttering of road, unplanted. Then one day a notice appeared, wings. Another tacked to the thick trunk of the meadow’s largest oak. In bluebird glides an imperious tone it declared that the property would down from its “now be known as the Pathways Forest Wilderness oak perch, hovers Retreat,” and that although the new owners admitted above the grass, having “fielded complaints . . . about our choice to plant then disappears. non-native trees,” still intended to replace what they called “non productive land” with “a healthy coniferous — Guy Hand is a forest.” freelance writer whose work has The irony stung: I, who once wished I could cloak appeared in the world in the pines of my youth, had found someone Sierra, Audubon, willing to do so. Yet my perspective had changed. I’d Northern Lights, learned that California’s oak ecosystem is hardly “non Orion, and High productive,” but is actually one of the most diverse, Country news. rarest habitats in the world. It harbors thousands of Photo by Guy Hand.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

9

Regional Reports & Alerts Speak Up for Roadless Area Protection — Comment on the EIS On October 19, the Forest Service released for public comment a Notice of Intent (NOI) that lays out their proposed process to implement the President’s roadless area protection directive. They will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and promulgate federal regulations, drafts of which will be released for public comment in Spring 2000. Final regulations implementing the roadless area policy will be adopted in late 2000. The 60-day public comment period on the NOI closes on December 20.

The Process The Forest Service proposes to use a two-part regulatory process to protect roadless areas. Part 1 would provide immediate protection for inventoried roadless areas. Aside from the no action alternative, three alternatives would be considered: (1) prohibit new road construction and reconstruction; (2) prohibit both roads and commercial timber harvest; and (3) prohibit all activities, subject to valid existing rights, that do not maintain or enhance the ecological values of roadless areas. Part 2 would provide additional management direction and determine whether and how to protect uninventoried roadless areas. Any additional protection would not take effect immediately, but rather, gradually through the forest planning process. Local Forest Service managers would apply the regulatory procedures and criteria to determine whether additional roadless area protection is appropriate.

The Pitfalls The two-part process offered by the Forest Service poses a significant risk that lasting protection for roadless areas could be sidetracked, delayed, and undermined. Citing Part 2 of the process, important decisions such as whether to prohibit all logging and whether to protect the Tongass National Forest could simply be deferred to forest planning. Any issues that are assigned to the forest planning process could well be delayed for several years. Part 2 would also likely result in weaker protection for roadless areas,

10

Roadless areas of all sizes should be protected immediately, not deferred to the revision of Forest Plans. File photo.

because it would leave final decisions up to individual Forest Supervisors. The Forest Service recently proposed new regulations that would give Forest Supervisors broad discretion in revising forest plans. Furthermore, in the plan revisions completed to date, local Forest Service officials have demonstrated great reluctance to give strong protection to roadless areas. Another potential problem with the Forest Service’s NOI is that it appears to limit immediate protection to roadless areas that were “previously inventoried in RARE II and existing forest plan

♦ ♦

inventories.” This narrow definition would omit many areas that were inventoried since RARE II (1970s) and forest plans (1980s). Finally, the NOI suggests that the Forest Service will only consider protecting roadless areas from “commercial timber harvest,” rather than all forms of logging. The Forest Service has shifted its timber sale program toward insect control, forest health, and other non-commercial objectives. Limiting the prohibition to commercial logging would leave the door open for extensive logging in roadless areas conducted under the guise of “forest health.”

Points to Include in Your Comments

No new road construction on National Forests.

All roadless areas need strong, immediate, and effective protection from all damaging activities, including roads, mining, logging, off-road motorized recreation, and grazing. ♦ Do not defer protection of roadless areas to the forest planning process. All roadless areas in every National Forest should receive immediate and permanent protection as wilderness. ♦ Immediately protect uninventoried roadless areas greater than 1,000 acres.

♦ Do not exempt the Tongass National Forest (or any other forest) from the roadless area protection policy. Give immediate protection to Tongass roadless areas; do not defer protection to the forest planning process. Comments can be submitted via e-mail to: roadless/[email protected], or via regular mail to USDA Forest Service-CAET, Attn: Roadless Areas NOI, P.O. Box 221090, Salt Lake City, Utah 84122, phone 801-517-1023.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Conservation Groups EIS May Regulate Sue BLM to Control ORV Use in Northern Utah ORV Abuse Rockies

EPA Requires Vail Wetlands Restoration

A coalition of conservation groups filed suit recently in federal court to force the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to begin controlling runaway abuse of public lands by off-road vehicles (ORVs) on BLM land. The suit seeks to force the BLM to comply with its own rules to control damage by ORVs, and to close a number of proposed wilderness areas to motorized vehicles pending development of a managed trail program. The suit follows a year and a half of research into the growing problem, which showed that the BLM isn’t meeting its requirements to protect the land. ORV use on BLM lands has exploded in recent years, but the BLM has done nothing to keep pace with the increased number of users. Combined with advances in technology that are allowing ORVs to get deeper into the backcountry, this has resulted in widespread damage to the fragile deserts of Utah’s canyon country. Last month, SUWA released its report “Overriding Utah Wilderness: The Search for Balance and Quiet in Utah’s Wilderness,” (available online at www.suwa.org) documenting the toll the land has taken as a result of BLM inaction. Some areas, such as Moquith Mountain and Behind the Rocks Wilderness Study Areas have been so damaged by ORV abuse that they may no longer be eligible for wilderness protection. Ninety-four percent of BLM land is open to ORVs, including 104,000 miles of dirt trails and roads in Utah outside of the citizens wilderness proposal. Results of recent polling indicate a move to limit ORVs would enjoy broad support among Utahns. Over 68% believe that ORVs are damaging public lands, and 88% believed that there should be areas off limits to ORVs. In addition to SUWA, parties to the lawsuit include The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, American Lands Alliance, Utah Council of Trout Unlimited, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Friends of the Abajos, and Wildlands CPR, whose combined memberships is almost 800,000. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from SUWA and the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order requiring Vail Associates (VA) to restore wetlands destroyed for their Category III expansion is a step forward, conservationists report. Last October, VA bulldozed wetlands near Battle Mountain while building a new access road to the Cat III area to haul out ancient forest to make way for roads and ski trails. They had no permit for the wetlands destruction, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS) have prepared a Draft Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Plan Amendment. The Draft describes proposed management changes in off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public lands administered by the BLM and FS, Northern Region, in Montana, North Dakota, and portions of South Dakota. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were developed and analyzed.

The purpose of the amendment is to address the impacts of OHV travel on areas currently open to motorized crosscountry travel. The No Action Alternative would maintain current management — areas currently open yearlong or seasonally would remain open. Alternatives 1 and 2 would restrict motorized cross-country travel yearlong, while alternative 3 would restrict motorized cross-country travel yearlong in North Dakota, most of Montana, and portions of South Dakota. Alternative 4 would limit motorized cross-country travel seasonally. The release of the Draft EIS/Plan Amendment and the scheduled regional open houses have been delayed. Stay tuned for more information!

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

“This is the result we’ve been pushing for. We’re happy to see EPA start to fix this mess,” said Jonathan Staufer, a Vail resident and Colorado Wild activist. Conservationists, including Colorado Wild and Sinapu, had filed a 17-page letter last month showing that EPA’s only legal option was to require VA to restore the wetland. Attorneys for VA had lobbied EPA to let the company continue to use the illegal route, known as the Lime Creek haul road. In court documents filed last year, VA argued that if the Lime Creek haul road and other facilities could not be built in October 1998, VA would be unable to open CAT III in the winter of 2000-2001, thus costing the company nearly $600,000. EPA’s action means that VA will not be able to profit from its illegal activity. If VA complies with the EPA order, they will likely be forced to haul ancient forest and other timber logged for the expansion via existing routes over Vail Mountain.

Editor’s Note: Please stay tuned for information on the long-term roads policy Environmental Analysis. We’ll keep you posted!

11

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.

Europe’s Best Known Traffic Victim: the Hedgehog By Marcel P. Huijser Editor’s Note: Hedgehogs are common throughout western Europe and thrive in countries with high human population densities such as The Netherlands. In the Netherlands, hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) occur in a wide variety of habitats. They also are one of the most frequently found mammal species in roadkill surveys throughout western Europe (e.g. , Blümel and Blümel 1980, Garnica and Robles 1986, Korhonen and Nurminen 1987, Andersen et al. 1996, Rodts et al. 1998). While it may seem odd to include an article in The RoadRIPorter about a generalistic species from Europe, it provides an interesting perspective on what types of challenges North Americans may face in the future with road management. This article also makes clear that while urbanization may benefit some species, the same characteristics that improve their habitat may also harm them in the end.

Death Toll The Netherlands has extremely high road density and traffic volume. There are over three km of paved road per km2 on average, and almost seven million motorized vehicles use the ± 110,000 km paved road system (Anonymous 1998). Minimum estimates on the number of dead hedgehogs per kilometer of road per year

vary between 0.3 and 2.9 (see review in Huijser et al. 1998). However, ± 65% of hedgehog corpses disappear from the road within a day (Huijser and Bergers 1998), therefore the number of victims can easily be underestimated. Huijser and Bergers (1998) estimated that between 113,000 and 340,000 hedgehogs are killed on Dutch roads each year. Sponholz (1965) estimated that the number of hedgehog traffic victims in former western Germany also was very high: 720,0001,000,000 per year. When the impact of roads and traffic on hedgehogs is discussed, it is important to distinguish between the possible effects on individuals, populations, and the species as a whole. Many wonder whether the high number of hedgehog traffic victims affects the species’ survival probability, but since hedgehogs are relatively common in western Europe and have benefitted from human induced changes in the landscape, it is unlikely that the species will be threatened with extinction in the near future. Effects on local or regional populations may well be present, but the way humans manage the landscape has a far greater effect than the presence of roads and traffic. Large scale agricultural areas that lack cover, and compact cities with little urban green and many barriers have little to offer hedgehogs. The animals have a strong preference for edge habitat and roam over relatively large areas.

So Why Did the Hedgehog Cross the Road?

Some have suggested that hedgehogs are particularly vulnerable to traffic because of certain behaviour patterns. It is often thought that hedgehogs roll-up in defense when threatened, e.g., by an approaching car, and may therefore be hit by the car or a following vehicle. Another theory suggests that hedgehogs are attracted to roads because of food that may be present: the road surface is often warmer than the surroundings and may therefore attract insects, or, after rainfall, earthworms (e.g., Poduschka 1971). But the evidence suggests that the dynamics of hedgehog traffic mortality are driven by a more fundamental instinct. Hedgehogs, especially adult males, have relatively large home ranges (often 20-40 ha) and usually travel up to two or three kilometers per night (see Reeve 1994 for review). Males are especially active from June through August, when searching for females willing to mate. Since hedgehogs are non-monogamous and nonterritorial, a male’s reproductive success is largely determined by the ground he covers and the Despite their vulnerability to traffic, hedgehogs seem to get along quite well with number of females he finds. Because of these large human populations and have benefitted from human-induced landscape changes. home ranges and travel distances, adult males Photo by Marcel Huijser.

12

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

encounter many roads and are particularly at risk. Therefore it is no surprise to find that ± 60-70% of the traffic victims are male (Berthoud 1980, Palm and Stöwer 1990), despite a 1:1 sex ratio for all age groups (Kristiansson 1990, Huijser 1997). High activity during the mating season also explains the peak in traffic victims between June and August (Huijser and Bergers 1998, Rodts et al. 1998). In the Netherlands hedgehogs usually hibernate from November/December until April/May. As a result relatively few victims are found in winter. Research also has found that hedgehogs generally avoid roads (Bontadina 1991, Bontadina et al. 1993, and Zingg 1994), and when they do cross they do so with great speed (Bontadina 1991).

Effects on Populations The sex ratio of hedgehog traffic victims comHedgehogs spend much of their time in or close to linear features such as hedgerows bined with their mating system explains why the or a forest’s edge. These linear features can be used to guide hedgehogs toward a reproductive potential of hedgehog populations is not wildlife passage. Photo by Marcel Huijser. affected as much as one might expect. Males run a far greater risk than females, but even if only a couple of most of the efforts for wildlife are put in more males remain in an area, the females are still likely to get traditional mitigation and compensation meapregnant and produce offspring. sures. Some studies related the number of traffic victims to the Over the past decades fences combined with population size: Göransson et al. (1976): 17-22%, Esser (1984): wildlife passages have become fully integrated in 5-20%, Kristiansson (1990): 2-24%. One study (Huijser et al. managing existing roads as well as building new 1998) indicated that roads and traffic may reduce hedgehog motorways in the Netherlands (Anonymous population density by ± 30% in 200 m wide zones adjacent to 1995). It is clear that the location of wildlife roads. Estimates like these may give us a general idea of the passages should be carefully chosen for a target possible effect of traffic, but they do not show whether species or a species group. Apart from the populations are actually affected in survival probability. technical characteristics of a passage, e.g., its Reichholf and Esser (1981) and Reichholf (1983) condimensions, the use of a wildlife passage can cluded that traffic mortality played a key role in the population further be increased by altering the landscape in dynamics of hedgehog populations in small villages in Bavaria. its immediate vicinity. In some small villages no hedgehog traffic victims were found The preliminary results of one recent study for several years in a row. This was interpreted as a population indicate that hedgehogs spend most of their time that had gone extinct, mainly because of traffic mortality in in or close to hedgerows and forest edges while preceding seasons. These villages were mostly surrounded by closed forests are used infrequently. Wherever a agricultural lands that may have acted as a barrier preventing hedgerow or a forest’s edge is oriented perpenrapid recolonization. Although local populations may go dicular to a road we may expect ± 25% more extinct because of traffic, the net balance of human influences traffic victims compared to a parallel orientation on hedgehog populations seems to be positive: hedgehog of these linear features. The results suggest that density is greatest in urban areas with abundant green spaces by altering the landscape adjacent to a road, while forests have relatively few hedgehogs (see review in wildlife passages can be made more effective for Mulder 1996b). hedgehogs. However, it is clear that any changes

Mitigation It is important to note that a negative effect on a population or the possible extinction of a species are not the only legitimate reasons to take action to reduce impacts from roads and traffic. Many traffic fatalities may simply be unacceptable because of the intrinsic value of animals, and changing values in today’s society. However, if priorities have to be set, action should first be taken for species that are close to extinction. Nevertheless, it is far easier to preserve a species while it is still relatively abundant than when it has become very rare. In the Netherlands traffic volume is unlikely to decrease in the near future. In fact, there is no indication that its present growth rate is levelling off. The same applies to road density: closing and removing roads is a rare phenomenon. Building roads underground is a more realistic mitigation option, but the financial costs are usually considered too high. Currently

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

in the landscape should first be carefully evaluated for their possible effect on other species. One of the tasks that lie ahead is to determine what measures are needed to ensure effective use of wildlife passages by a broad range of target species. — Marcel P. Huijser conducted the hedgehog study for the Vereniging voor Zoogdierkunde en Zoogdierbescherming (VZZ) (Dutch-Belgian mammal society) and the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. He now is a part time PhD student at Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands and also an ecologist at the Research Institute for Animal Husbandry.

— References on page 14 — 13

Europe’s Most Common Traffic Victim

— continued from page 13 —

References Andersen, M.H., S. Andersen, H. Baagøe, A.B. Madsen, M. Nielsen, E. Rattenborg, M. Schmidt, G. Staffeldt and K. Thomsen (eds.). 1996 . Dyr og trafik. Foreningen til dyrenes beskyttelse i Danmark, Frederksberg / Falcks redningskorps a/s, København. Anonymous. 1995. Nature across motorways. Nieuwland Advies / Directorate-General for Public Works and water Management (RWS), Road and Hydraulic Division, Delft. Anonymous. 1998. Statistisch jaarboek. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Heerlen / Voorburg. Berthoud, G. 1980. Le hérisson (Erinaceus europaeus L.) et la route. La Terre et la Vie 34: 361-372. Blümel, H. and R. Blümel. 1980. Wirbeltiere als Opfer des Strassenverkehrs. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Naturkundemuseums Görlitz 54: 19-24. Bontadina, F. 1991. Stassenüberquerungen von Igeln (Erinaceus europaeus). Diplomarbeit. Zoologisches Institut der Universität Zürich. Bontadina, F., S. Gloor and T. Hotz. 1993. Igel, Wildtiere in der Stadt. Grundlagen zur Förderung der Igel in Zürich. Gartenbauamtes Zürich / Kantonalen Zürcher Tierschutzvereines. Esser, J. 1984. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Bestandsgefährdung des Igels (Erinaceus europaeus) in Bayern. Berichte Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege 8: 22-62. Garnica, R. and L. Robles. 1986. Seguimiento de la mortalidad de Erizos, Erinaceus europaeus, producida por vehículos en una carretera de poca circulación. Miscellania Zoologica 10: 406-408. Göransson, G., J. Karlson and A. Lingren. 1976. Igelkotten och biltrafiken. Fauna och Flora (Stockholm) 71: 1-6. Huijser, M.P. 1997. Hoeveel jongen krijgen egels? Zoogdier 8(1): 7-10. Huijser, M.P. and P.J.M. Bergers. 1998. Platte egels tellen: resultaten van een VZZ-actie. Zoogdier 9(2): 20-25. Huijser, M.P., P.J.M. Bergers and J.G. de Vries. 1998. Hedgehog traffic victims: how to quantify effects on the population level and the prospects for mitigation: 171-180. In: G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida. Korhonen, H. and L. Nurminen. 1987. Traffic deaths of animals on the Kuopio-Siilinjärvi highway in eastern Finland. Aquilo Series Zoologica 25: 9-15. Kristiansson, H. 1990. Population variables and causes of mortality in a hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) population in southern Sweden. Journal of Zoology (London) 220: 391404.

14

Every year 113,000-340,000 hedgehogs are killed by traffic on Dutch roads. Photo by Marcel Huijser.

Mulder, J.L. 1996a. Waarom lopen egels op de weg? Zoogdier 7(3):20-24. Mulder, J.L. 1996b. Egels en auto’s: een literatuurstudie. Mededeling 28 van de VZZ / DWW-ontsnipperingsreeks deel 27. Vereniging voor Zoogdierkunde en Zoogdierbescherming, Utrecht. Palm, S. and B. Stöwer. 1990. Untersuchungen zur Populationsstruktur von Igeln (Erinaceus europaeus L.) in der Kulturlandschaft über Straßentodfunde und Freilandbeobachtungen. Diplomarbeit Universität Bielefeld. Poduschka, W. 1971. Was kann zur Erhaltung des Igels getan werden? Natur und Landschaft 46: 218-221. Reeve, N. 1994. Hedgehogs. T and A D Poyser, London. Reichholf, J. 1983. Nehmen die Strassenverkehrsverluste Einfluss auf die Bestandsentwicklung des Igels (Erinaceus europaeus)? Spixiana 6: 87-91. Reichholf, J. and J. Esser. 1981. Daten zur Mortalität des Igels(Erinaceus europaeus) verursacht durch den Strassenverkehr. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 46: 216222. Rodts, J., L. Holsbeek and S. Muyldermans. 1998. Dieren onder onze wielen. Koninklijk Belgisch Verbond voor de Bescherming van de Vogels VUBPRESS, Brussel. Sponholz, H. 1965. Dem Igel droht der Verkehrstod. Natur und Landschaft 40: 174-176. Zingg, R. 1994. Aktivität sowie Habitat- und Raumnutzung von Igeln (Erinaceus europaeus) in einem ländlichen Siedlungsgebiet. Dissertation. Universität Zürich.

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Wildlands CPR Publications:

Bibliographic Services:

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, Gathering Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and more! Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-members) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmental laws, road density standards & Forest Service road policies. Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-members) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background on the National Park System and its use of roads, and outlines 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-members) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reducing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an extensive bibliography. Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4, $7 nonmembers) —By Scott Bagley. Provides technical information 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 Wildlands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This report explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal funding for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.

Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Updated 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 — including scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimentation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrological 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 compatible database program in order to use it. Bibliography prices — Prices are based on a sliding scale. Call for details.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM I want to join (or renew my membership with) Wildlands CPR: $250 $30 standard

$100

$50 business

$15 low-income

Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications: Qty:

Title/Price Each:

Total:

/ Other

/ Type of Membership:

Individual

Organization

/ Name Affiliation Address

Phone/E-mail

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Total of all items: Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.00 per item; for Canadian orders, add $6.00 per item. International Membership — $30 Minimum 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) to the address below. Thank you! Wildlands CPR • PO Box 7516 • Missoula, Montana 59807

15

Visions...

Reprinted with permission.

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads P.O. Box 7516 Missoula, MT 59807 “I’d Rather go to Heaven Ridin’ in a Wagon Than to Hell in an Automobile” — Jimmy Driftwood, songwriter, from the song “From Earth to Heaven”

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