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) When Elko County, Nevada took the law into their own hands and rebuilt
protection for bull trout, “sage brush the South Canyon road, bull trout, the Jarbidge river, and the democratic
process all suffered. Photo by Don Smith.
rebels,” and a disconnect between
Forest Service law enforcement and
the US Attorney’s office all teamed up
to create a confusing and potentially — See Bulltrout Rebellion, page 4 —
dangerous situation.
 Wildlands
From the Wildlands CPR Office... C
Center for
P
Preventing
R
Roads

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 Main Office
national forest roadless areas. Just one week earlier, the “bull trout” rebellion fizzled P.O. Box 7516
in Elko County, Nevada. And one week later, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Missoula, MT 59807
(406) 543-9551
others filed a significant lawsuit to challenge ORV use on Bureau of Land Manage- wildlandsCPR@wildrockies.org
ment land in Utah. In the midst of this, we’ve been doing strategic planning for the www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR
year 2000 and interviewing people to fill
our ORV Campaign Coordinator position.
So we hope you find lots of good Colorado Office
P.O. Box 2353
information in this RIPorter and that you
have a great winter solstice and new
In this Issue Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 247-0998
year. Let’s hope the clocks all keep prebles@ibm.net
ticking and no environmental or human Bulltrout Rebellion p. 1, 4-5
disasters occur after midnight on Bethanie Walder Wildlands Center for Preventing
Roads works to protect and restore
December 31... wildland ecosystems by preventing
Depaving the Way, p. 3 and removing roads and limiting
Thanks Bethanie Walder motorized recreation. We are a
national clearinghouse and network,
providing citizens with tools and
As Thanksgiving draws near, we Legal Notes, p. 6-7 strategies to fight road
can’t help but appreciate all of you, our Keith Hammer construction, deter motorized
members, for your continued support. recreation, and promote road
It’s been a busy and productive year for Odes to Roads, p. 8-9 removal and revegetation.
Wildlands CPR and we hope you are Guy Hand
happy with our accomplishments. Director
Bethanie Walder
Thanks to all of you, too, who have Regional Reports & Alerts,
continually worked to protect the Development Director
p. 10-11 Tom Youngblood-Petersen
environment in your region, to prevent
and remove roads and to challenge ORV Bibliography Notes, p. 12-14 Office Manager
abuses! In a more traditional sense, Cate Campbell
Marcel P. Huijser
thanks to the Foundation for Deep ORV Campaign Coordinator
Ecology and Harder Foundation for their Soon TBA
continuing support of our road-fighting
and ORV work, and to Earthlaw for Motorized Wreck-Recreation
supporting our on-line ORV newsletter Skid Marks. Speaking of which, we owe a big Program
Jacob Smith
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 Newsletter
your membership or sent something extra along to Wildlands CPR as the year closes Jim Coefield, Dan Funsch
out. If you haven’t responded yet to our one and only appeal, please consider! Interns & Volunteers
Carla Abrams, Noelle Brigham,
We also want to welcome new intern Katherine Postelli to our Missoula office. Jennifer Browne, Chuck Irestone,
She’ll be getting us caught up on road issues and comments as well as doing some Katherine Postelli, Scott Thomas,
scientific research. In addition, Noelle Brigham is volunteering a ton of her time and Karen Vermilye
some of her artwork, as seen in the pages to follow. Thanks and welcome to both of Board of Directors
you! Katie Alvord, Mary Byrd Davis,
Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,
Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,
New Resources for Road-Rippers Cindy Shogan, Tom Skeele,
Scott Stouder
In September, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) released a terrific Advisory Committee
report about off-road vehicle abuses on BLM lands in Utah. While only a very Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,
limited supply of hard copy reports are available at this time, the report is available Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer,
on the web at http://www.suwa.org. If you’re interested in ORVs, it will be worth Timothy Hermach,
your while to check it out. Wildlands CPR’s Forest Service ORV report and database Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,
Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
will be available by mid-December, as well. Please keep an eye on your e-mail and Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
snail-mail boxes for more information when that report is available. Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
The Wildlife Society is releasing a report on the effects of recreation on Rocky Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Mountain wildlife. This publication, due out in mid-November, will review literature Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
and trends for Montana. c 1999 Wildlands CPR

2 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 analyz-
ing roadless areas.
Haven’t these areas been the subject of just such an analysis since
the roadless area moratorium was announced in January 1998? Actu-
ally, 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 comprehen-
sive 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 Administra-
tion 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 Ser-
vice will also determine whether similar protection is war-
ranted 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 mini-
mum 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, road-
building, 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 “threat-
ened” 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 extinc-
tion 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 compe-
tition 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 right-
of-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
Drawing by Noelle Brigham
4 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999
— 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 recon-
structing it as a full road. According to Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest Supervisor Gloria Flora, the county and FS had reached a consen-
sus 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 unau-
thorized 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 recon-
struction were likely to impact up to 28 miles of downstream habitat
into the mainstem of the Jarbidge River. These indirect impacts in-
cluded 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
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 environ-
mental 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.

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 enforce-
ment 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).
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
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
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 passive-
aggressive 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. 10-
10-99.
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
dense woods of the Flathead National Forest
in northwest Montana was discovered
during attempts to save the lives of seven
snowmobilers buried by an avalanche on New Years
Eve 1993. Among the five that would die were a
leading local snowmobile and off-
road vehicle activist and a seven
year old Canadian boy whose
father had followed the red-
painted blazes of the unauthorized
short-cut up an avalanche chute in
an attempt to reach the high
alpine country of the Swan Range.
Local “wise-use” advocates,
hoping to nix wilderness consider-
ation of the northern Swan Range,
called unsuccessfully on Congress
to designate it a motorized
recreation area named after their
fallen leader. Meanwhile, three
local conservation groups began
documenting the illegal construc- A small excavator digs tank traps and positions downed logs,
blocking the first leg of the trail to snowmobiles and ORVs.
tion and maintenance of the trail.
Photo by Karen Nichols.
After nearly six years and a trip to
federal court they won its closure, obliteration and
revegetation. The following story describes the legal
strategy used to secure the trail’s obliteration, and the
need to press similar cases to establish the legal
precedent that will make the job easier for others.
A Picture is Worth a Thousand
Words
Swan View Coalition, Montana Ecosystems
Defense Council and Friends of the Wild Swan began
documenting in January 1994 that the Krause Basin
trail had been illegally cut. Holes were dug in the
snow to photograph logs cut from the heavily
forested bottom of the basin, and the stumps of
heavy brush cut in the avalanche chute used to reach
the Swan Crest. These photos, and letters demanding
the trail be closed to motorized use, were sent to the
Forest Service, citing the same regulations that would
later be used in a lawsuit filed in January 1999:
36 CFR 261.10 prohibits the “[c]onstruction,
placing, or maintaining of any kind of road, trail,
structure . . . or other improvement on National
Forest system land . . . without a special-use authori-
zation.”
36 CFR 295.2 requires that “[o]n National Forest
System lands, the continuing land management
6 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999
planning process will be used to allow, restrict, or prohibit use by
specific vehicle types off roads [and] will analyze and evaluate current
and potential impacts arising from operation of specific vehicle types on
soil, water, vegetation, fish and wildlife, forest visitors and cultural and
historic resources.”
36 CFR Part 295 also requires that ORV trails and areas be located
“to ensure the compatibility of
such uses with existing conditions
in populated areas, taking into
account noise and other factors,”
and that, if the results of public
monitoring “indicate that the use
of one or more vehicle types off
roads is causing considerable
adverse effects on [these factors]
the area or trail suffering adverse
effects will be immediately closed
to the responsible vehicle type or
types until the adverse effects have
been eliminated and measures
have been implemented to prevent
future recurrence as provided in
36 CFR part 261.”
Despite openly admitting to
the press after the avalanche that
the trail was unauthorized, the Forest Service refused to close the trail.
After the spring of 1994 and since, hundreds more photographs were
taken of continued trail maintenance, the construction of crude log
bridges, and soil erosion (caused by motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmo-
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
were audible inside homes over a mile away. A half-dozen neighbors
provided affidavits supporting the lawsuit.
Put Up or Shut Up
It was not until he was under oath during a preliminary hearing in
February 1999 that the District Ranger finally admitted the trail was
indeed being maintained without a permit and that it was not among
the specific ORV trails allowed under his 1988 ORV management plan.
As a result of the testimony at the preliminary hearing, District Judge
Donald Molloy ruled that “The proof shows the trail is likely illegal and
is being maintained illegally. . . Without the trail access would be
severely restricted if not non-existent.”
Rather than face a full trial, the government chose to settle the suit,
agreeing to close all portions of the two mile trail “on which vegetation
was cut or removed, downed logs cut, or other actions were taken to
alter the natural landscape or otherwise create or maintain a route.”
This left open only the uppermost quarter-mile of the naturally barren
avalanche chute. Under the settlement agreement, the trail was posted
closed in May and, because ORV riders violated the closure, plaintiffs
were given approval to block, obliterate and revegetate the trail.
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 viola-
tions 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 now-
defunct 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 clo-
sure 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 them-
selves in the foot in Krause Basin, providing further
ammunition for more lawsuits. Montana’s Senator
Conrad Burns has intervened, openly acknowledg-
ing 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 rea-
sonably describes the work plan. It is also recom-
mended that a Forest Service employee be on-site
to supervise the work to minimize the risk to vol-
unteers if the agency receives complaints on the
work done. Such work is not for the timid and con-
servationists 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 at-
tempt 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
measured all landscapes by the deep green pine forests
California summer, another of this country’s annual and
and rushing rivers of my Idaho youth (doesn’t everyone
utterly uncompromising six-month droughts, this place
judge the world, consciously or not, from their
is teaming. That an oak woodland and all its attendant
childhood’s perch?) and found much of this land, by
flora and fauna can survive a waterless half year is
comparison, as harsh and uninviting as a summer sore
miraculous to me, as if the rigid rules of survival have
throat. Even the oaks displayed the blue-grey, tough-
been, in deference to the beauty of this place, waived.
The more pragmatic of my biologist friends would call it leaved look of an alien world.
simple adaption, the machinations of millennia, the
This meadow changed all that. The day I stumbled
inevitable evolutionary drift that pairs all species to
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
and fauna can survive a waterless half year hidden in the folds of the Los
Padres National Forest. Wildflow-
is miraculous to me, as if the rigid rules of ers filled the meadow floor with
survival have been, in deference to the color while moss-strung blue oaks
broke the light into soft, shimmer-
beauty 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 begin-
place. 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
lion tracks pressed into soft clay; I’ve caught the traveled toward an understanding of a rare and radiant
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
the chaparral and oak-studded mountains that surround grass beneath my feet. On the meadow’s far side, those
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 species, each fine-
because so much of tuned to the
this nearly vacant At the time, I barely noticed the road. vagaries of a
land is national It was nothing more than a pair of faint climate capable of
forest, this was too. both decade-long
Many months and tracks snaking through the grass drought and Biblical
many visits passed deluge. It is also a
before I learned I
beneath my feet. habitat in danger:
was wrong. 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
Photo by Guy Hand would take on the mass running through this meadow is nothing more than a
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,
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 inventories.” This narrow definition
to individual Forest Supervisors. The would omit many areas that were
Forest Service recently proposed new inventoried since RARE II (1970s) and
regulations that would give Forest forest plans (1980s).
Supervisors broad discretion in revising Finally, the NOI suggests that the
forest plans. Furthermore, in the plan Forest Service will only consider
revisions completed to date, local Forest protecting roadless areas from “com-
Service officials have demonstrated mercial timber harvest,” rather than all
great reluctance to give strong protec- forms of logging. The Forest Service has
tion to roadless areas. shifted its timber sale program toward
Another potential problem with the insect control, forest health, and other
Forest Service’s NOI is that it appears to non-commercial objectives. Limiting
limit immediate protection to roadless the prohibition to commercial logging
areas that were “previously inventoried would leave the door open for extensive
in RARE II and existing forest plan 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/wo_caet-slc@fs.fed.us, 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.

10 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

Conservation Groups EIS May Regulate
Sue BLM to Control ORV Use in Northern
Utah ORV Abuse Rockies
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 pro-
posed 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.
The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999
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, includ-
ing 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 cross-
country travel. The No Action Alterna-
tive would maintain current manage-
ment — 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!
EPA Requires Vail
Wetlands
Restoration
An Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) order requiring Vail
Associates (VA) to restore wetlands
destroyed for their Category III expan-
sion 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.
“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 road-
kill 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 Road-
RIPorter 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 characteris-
tics 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
Despite their vulnerability to traffic, hedgehogs seem to get along quite well with
human populations and have benefitted from human-induced landscape changes.
Photo by Marcel Huijser.
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 hedge-
hogs 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: 720,000-
1,000,000 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 non-
territorial, a male’s reproductive success is largely
determined by the ground he covers and the
number of females he finds. Because of these large
home ranges and travel distances, adult males

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 com- Hedgehogs 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
males remain in an area, the females are still likely to get
pregnant and produce offspring.
Some studies related the number of traffic victims to the
population size: Göransson et al. (1976): 17-22%, Esser (1984):
5-20%, Kristiansson (1990): 2-24%. One study (Huijser et al.
1998) indicated that roads and traffic may reduce hedgehog
population density by ± 30% in 200 m wide zones adjacent to
roads. Estimates like these may give us a general idea of the
possible effect of traffic, but they do not show whether
populations are actually affected in survival probability.
Reichholf and Esser (1981) and Reichholf (1983) con-
cluded that traffic mortality played a key role in the population
dynamics of hedgehog populations in small villages in Bavaria.
In some small villages no hedgehog traffic victims were found
for several years in a row. This was interpreted as a population
that had gone extinct, mainly because of traffic mortality in
preceding seasons. These villages were mostly surrounded by
agricultural lands that may have acted as a barrier preventing
rapid recolonization. Although local populations may go
extinct because of traffic, the net balance of human influences
on hedgehog populations seems to be positive: hedgehog
density is greatest in urban areas with abundant green spaces
while forests have relatively few hedgehogs (see review in
Mulder 1996b).
Mitigation
It is important to note that a negative effect on a popula-
tion 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
most of the efforts for wildlife are put in more
traditional mitigation and compensation mea-
sures.
Over the past decades fences combined with
wildlife passages have become fully integrated in
managing existing roads as well as building new
motorways in the Netherlands (Anonymous
1995). It is clear that the location of wildlife
passages should be carefully chosen for a target
species or a species group. Apart from the
technical characteristics of a passage, e.g., its
dimensions, the use of a wildlife passage can
further be increased by altering the landscape in
its immediate vicinity.
The preliminary results of one recent study
indicate that hedgehogs spend most of their time
in or close to hedgerows and forest edges while
closed forests are used infrequently. Wherever a
hedgerow or a forest’s edge is oriented perpen-
dicular to a road we may expect ± 25% more
traffic victims compared to a parallel orientation
of these linear features. The results suggest that
by altering the landscape adjacent to a road,
wildlife passages can be made more effective for
hedgehogs. However, it is clear that any changes
in the landscape should first be carefully evalu-
ated 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 Every year 113,000-340,000 hedgehogs are killed by traffic on Dutch
roads. Photo by Marcel Huijser.
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. Mulder, J.L. 1996a. Waarom lopen egels op de weg? Zoogdier
Esser, J. 1984. Untersuchungen zur Frage der 7(3):20-24.
Bestandsgefährdung des Igels (Erinaceus europaeus) in Mulder, J.L. 1996b. Egels en auto’s: een literatuurstudie.
Bayern. Berichte Akademie für Naturschutz und Mededeling 28 van de VZZ / DWW-ontsnipperingsreeks
Landschaftspflege 8: 22-62. deel 27. Vereniging voor Zoogdierkunde en
Garnica, R. and L. Robles. 1986. Seguimiento de la mortalidad Zoogdierbescherming, Utrecht.
de Erizos, Erinaceus europaeus, producida por vehículos en Palm, S. and B. Stöwer. 1990. Untersuchungen zur
una carretera de poca circulación. Miscellania Zoologica Populationsstruktur von Igeln (Erinaceus europaeus L.) in
10: 406-408. der Kulturlandschaft über Straßentodfunde und
Göransson, G., J. Karlson and A. Lingren. 1976. Igelkotten och Freilandbeobachtungen. Diplomarbeit Universität Bielefeld.
biltrafiken. Fauna och Flora (Stockholm) 71: 1-6. Poduschka, W. 1971. Was kann zur Erhaltung des Igels getan
Huijser, M.P. 1997. Hoeveel jongen krijgen egels? Zoogdier 8(1): werden? Natur und Landschaft 46: 218-221.
7-10. Reeve, N. 1994. Hedgehogs. T and A D Poyser, London.
Huijser, M.P. and P.J.M. Bergers. 1998. Platte egels tellen: Reichholf, J. 1983. Nehmen die Strassenverkehrsverluste
resultaten van een VZZ-actie. Zoogdier 9(2): 20-25. Einfluss auf die Bestandsentwicklung des Igels (Erinaceus
Huijser, M.P., P.J.M. Bergers and J.G. de Vries. 1998. Hedgehog europaeus)? Spixiana 6: 87-91.
traffic victims: how to quantify effects on the population Reichholf, J. and J. Esser. 1981. Daten zur Mortalität des
level and the prospects for mitigation: 171-180. In: G.L. Igels(Erinaceus europaeus) verursacht durch den
Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler and J. Berry (eds.). Proceedings Strassenverkehr. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 46: 216-
of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and 222.
Transportation. Florida Department of Transportation, Rodts, J., L. Holsbeek and S. Muyldermans. 1998. Dieren onder
Tallahassee, Florida. onze wielen. Koninklijk Belgisch Verbond voor de
Korhonen, H. and L. Nurminen. 1987. Traffic deaths of animals Bescherming van de Vogels VUBPRESS, Brussel.
on the Kuopio-Siilinjärvi highway in eastern Finland. Sponholz, H. 1965. Dem Igel droht der Verkehrstod. Natur und
Aquilo Series Zoologica 25: 9-15. Landschaft 40: 174-176.
Kristiansson, H. 1990. Population variables and causes of Zingg, R. 1994. Aktivität sowie Habitat- und Raumnutzung von
mortality in a hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) population Igeln (Erinaceus europaeus) in einem ländlichen
in southern Sweden. Journal of Zoology (London) 220: 391- Siedlungsgebiet. Dissertation. Universität Zürich.
404.

14 The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999

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

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

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

Name Total of all items:

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

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

The Road-RIPorter November/December 1999 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.