road riporter 5.4

8/14/2019 Road RIPorter 5.4

1/16


2/16

The Road-RIPorter July/August 20002

2000 Wildlands CPR

WildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlandsWildlands CCCCCenter for PPPPPreventing RRRRRoads

Wildlands Center for PreventingRoads works to protect and restorewildland ecosystems by preventingand removing roads and limitingmotorized recreation. We are a

national clearinghouse and networ k,providing citizens with tools and

strategies to fight roadconstruction, deter motorizedrecreation, and promote road

removal and revegetation.

Main OfficeP.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807(406) 543-9551

[email protected]/WildCPR

Colorado OfficeP.O. Box 2 353

Boulder, CO 80306(303) 247-0998

[email protected]

DirectorBethanie Walder

Development DirectorTom Youngblood-Peterse n

Office ManagerCate Campbell

ORV Grassroots AdvocateRonni Flannery

ORV Policy Coordinat or

Jacob Smith

Roads Policy Coordinat orMarnie Criley

NewsletterDave Havlick, Dan Funsch

Interns & Volunteers

Jenn ifer Browne, Scott Thomas

Board of DirectorsKatie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari,

Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,

Ted Zukoski

Advisory Committ ee

Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer,Timothy Hermach,

Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,

Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,Michael Soul, Dan Stotter,

Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,Bill Willers, Howie Wolke

From the Wildlands CPR Office...

Hun dreds of log trucks an d protesters sh owed up in Missoula Jun e 21 to

protest Presiden t Clinton s roadless initiative. Amidst th e rh etoric, bands,

speakers, and the worlds largest picnic table-heade d to Elko, Nevada, fromthe p eople of Eureka, MT-were scores of peop le afraid of the p oten tial imp acts of

protecting roadless areas. Unfortu nately, the majority of that fear comes from

misinform ation an d scare tactics being used by the timb er and o ff-road vehicleindustries to prevent roadless protection. Read more abou t our views on this issue in

DePaving the Way on p. 3.On a brighter n ote, things have been moving forward with ou r roads an d ORV

work. The Nationa l ORV Coalition has been successfully defending th e Nationa l ParkServices snowm obile ban from several serious attacks in Con gress. More than 60

mem bers of Con gress signed a letter to FS Chief Dombeck sup portin g stronger ORV

regulations, and m ore than 50 or ganizations petitioned th e BLM to cha nge th eir ORVman agement. So keep up th e great work, everyone, and keep us informed about

your successes and your challenges!

WelcomeWildlands CPR is absolutely thrilled

to welcome Ronn i Flannery both to our

organization and to th e Nationa l ORVCoalition . Ron ni will be joining thecoalition in ear ly August as the

Grassroots Advocate for the NationalCampaign. Shell be workin g with

man y of you to assist you with your

ORV work an d to ensu re that you rvoices are well-rep resented as we craft

this camp aign. Ronni is an attorn eywho sp ent m ost of the last year working

in Californ ia, and form erly worked for

the Alliance for the Wild Rockies he rein Missoula.

It is with som e regret that we say

au revoir to board mem ber ScottStoud er. He has been incredibly helpful

the p ast two years an d well miss hishum or and p erspective in shap ing our

work. But he wont get off too easy,well still be bugging h im for ad vice

whe n we need it. We are excited,

ho wever, to welcom e Ted Zukoski to ourboard. Ted is an attorney with th e Land

and Water Fund of the Rockies in Boulder, CO. Hes worked on n um erous road andORV cases an d we cou ldnt ask for a b etter n ew boa rd m emb er. Welcome, Ted!

ThanksWe have many tha nk yous to offer this time aroun d. Thanks to Temp er of the

Times Foun dation for a grant to help us d istribute the ORV video, Motor. Thanks tothe Mounta ineers Foun dation for a grant to h elp us de velop a d etailed an alysis andcritique of the Forest Services Roads Analysis Process. And man y th anks to the

Brainerd, Norcross, and Weeden Foun dations for generou s grants for our r oads an dmo torized recreation work, as well. We also continu e to receive sma ll and large

don ations alike from individual mem bers. We couldnt do our work without you r

support, so than k you very much for helping us take roads off the m ap!Finally, we have a nu mb er of local restaurants to than k for donation s for our

ann ual board m eeting, held here in Montana in Jun e. The following eateries helpedkeep us h appily fed with delicious and n utritious food throughou t the

weekend: Bagels on Broad way, Bern ices Bakery, The Bridge, Downtown

Bakery, MacKen zie River Pizza, a nd especially, Tipus Tiger!

Reclaiming Restorat ion, p. 1, 4-5

Jasmin e Minbashian

DePaving the Way, p. 3Bethanie Walder

Odes to Roads, p. 6-7

Carolyn Duckworth

Legal Note s, p . 8-9Ethan Hasenstein

Regional Reports

p. 10-11

New Resources for

Road Rip pers, p . 11

Bibliography Notes, p . 12-14Marnie Criley & Kath erin e Postelli

In this Issue


3/16

The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000 3

By Bethanie Walder

Lies and Propaganda

Fearm ongerin g... Its an odd word. But it aptly sums up wh ats

hap pen ing aroun d the West in resp onse to President Clintonsroadless initiative. But why so much an ger and resentm ent toward

roadless p rotection? After all, its really only en forcing the status q uo...

these lands are already free of roads and they provide only 5% of thetotal timber p rodu ction from th e Nationa l Forests (which, in turn ,

provide only 5% of the nation s timb er sup ply). So Clinton s prop osal,

while ma intaining the status quo, wou ld save the Forest Service a lot oftime, hassle and even mo ney prep aring expen sive and lengthy EISs to

justify road-building in road less areas. It doesn t save quite enou gh,however, since the Forest Services p referred alternative would actually

allow more logging to occur in roadless lands than the current man age-

men t regime.So really, what is all the fuss ab out?

The timber and off-road vehicle industries, their grassroots

constituencies, and their champions in Congress are the most vocalopp one nts to the roadless plan. These indu stries, particularly the off-

road vehicle lobby, are spread ing an incredible amoun t of misinform a-tion to stir up a fervor of anti-roadless sentimen t. The roadless initia-

tive, like the Jarbidge River roa d before it, has becom e an othe r sym bolin the battle over the chan ging econ om ies and chan ging face of the New

West.

Much o f this came to a h ead on the sum mer so lstice in Missoula,Montan a. The timb er industry decided to stage a good old-fashion ed

log-truck jamb oree in pro test of the Forest Services roa dless hear ing inMissoula. The trucks, carrying logs, wood, logging equ ipmen t and o ff-

road veh icles, convoyed in from all over th e region to protest th e Forest

Services initiative. It was even rumored that several mills shutdown for the day and bussed their workers to the

rally. The peop le of Eureka, Montana, bu ilta special (Worlds Largest!) picnic table to

ship d own to the peop le of Elko, Nevada, for

their big showdown four th of July weekend.The picnic table was lined with shovels to

help reope n the closed Jarbidge road. Boththe 1 .5 mile long closed Jarbidge road a nd the Forest Services 40-60

million acre roa dless protection prop osal draw the sam e kind of ire

throu ghout th e West. Its not abou t the Jarbidge road, and its not abou tthe roadless pr oposal. It is the same old fight abo ut federal control over

federal lands th at h ave local significance.What do th e timber an d off-road vehicle industr ies do to rile up

their workers and other sympathetic folks in rural and u rban America?

They start with a targeted cam paign of misinform ation, playing onpeop les fears about th ings like wildern ess and federal control of public

lands. At the Missoula hearing, peop le were asked to sign pr e-printedcomm ent letters that h ighlighted six key points-six key points th at have

little to do with th e actu al roadless po licy.

Two of the poin ts offer som e of the mo st egregious exam ples of thedisingenuity of the anti-roadless contingen cy. The first states, It [the

roadless initiative] blatantly circumven ts both th e forest plann ingprocess an d th e Wildern ess Act.

The Forest Services preferred alternative allows logging, mining,

off-road vehicle use, grazing and a ny oth er activity that o ccurs onNational Forest lands to con tinue in road less land s as long as roads are

not n eeded. The roadless initiative is NOT de facto wilderness. And asenvironm ental activists, it is critical we m ake this clear-since the

roadless initiative will not pro tect these lan ds aswilderness, we would be rem iss to allow this

misperception to continue.The second disingenuou s point is about the

issue of access. While motorized access and access

are not synonym ous, the indu stries have likened th eroadless initiative to a lock-up of pu blic land s. They

focus specifically on th e den ial of recreationalaccess: Num erous USFS rep orts sh ow that driving

for pleasure is the num ber one use of national

forests, and that recreation is exp ected to increase inthe future. How can peop le recreate without access.

Driving for pleasure is an activity that th e ForestService docum ents, but it occurs ON roads. Roadless

areas ha ve no ro ads. If driving for pleasure is the

num ber one use of the n ational forests, then keepingroadless areas ro adless will have absolutely no

impact o n th at activity at all. Nor will it have any

impact on any o ther m otorized recreation al activity,at least not in its curren t form .

While the Forest Services unwillingness toprevent m otorized access in road less areas is one of

the m ost significant deficiencies in the plan, this

aspect m ight we ll be lauded, not cr iticized, by theORV and tim ber indu stries. Instead, they spread

falseho ods th at mo torized access will be den ied inroadless areas. Why?

Why all the fear-mo ngering? Because if the

industries told the truth- if they admitted howinsignificant the impa ct truly would be of protecting

roadless areas from n ew road construction-then theywouldn t be able to rile up the m asses, make a big

show, and foment discontent and furor with National

Forest man agemen t. To maintain th e values of the

old West, to fight p rogress toward th e inevitable n ewecono mies an d n ew lifestyles, it is critical to m otivatepeople to rise up in opp osition to those programs

which will help b ring abou t this shift, even if the

program itself doesnt significantly change th e statusquo. It is a calculated and dangerou s game. In the

end , all it will do is keep rural com mu nities fromemb racing altern ative econo mies, and alternative

jobs within similar econom ies. In the end, it keeps

people and comm unities mired in the m udwhen they could be creating their own

produ ctive versions of the futu re.

Opponents of the roadless policy brought their

theatrics to Missoula. Bethanie Walder photo.


4/16


Washingtons state population. At the sam e time, the water-shed is home to old growth forests and nu merous endan gered,

threatened, and sensitive species.

Past mana gemen t practices, however, have created serious

and exp ensive pr oblems in the watershe d today. Over acentury of commercial logging in the watershed has resulted

in the destru ction of 83% o f the original forests, the con struc-

tion of 560 miles of logging roads (thats mo re thanthe m iles of streams in the watersh ed!), and the

elimination of crucial habitat for endan gered sp ecies.In order to address th ese dam ages and satisfy federal

requirements for end angered species protection, the

City of Seattle developed a Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP), which would set aside an ecological reserve

and decomm ission 20% o f the existing roads. Theprop osed plan a llows com mercial logging to continu e

in 36% of the watershed in order to generate revenue

to fund th e HCP. Masked un der the guise of restora-tion logging, the City had plann ed to gener ate over

$84 m illion by logging tho usan ds of acres in thewatershed.

In respon se to the proposed p lan, local environm entalgroups, includin g Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, Seattle

Audu bon , and Seattle Earth First!, form ed th e Protect Ou rWatershed Alliance (POWA), a coalition of community and

environm ental organizations. POWA developed and sup por ted

a citizens alterna tive to the HCP that imm ediately ended allcomm ercial logging in the watershed an d increased funding

for road decomm issionin g. They argued tha t logging to fun dthe re storation of land s damaged b y past logging was not only

Reclaiming the Concept of Restoration continued from page 1

Even in the env ironment ally -enlightened

city of Seatt le, a senior member of the city

council recently proposed logging the

municipal w aters hed, the Cedar River, t o

improve forest healt h and raise money.

Today, forest activists are at acritical junctu re, a tran sitionpoint, where we m ust begin d evelop-ing a vision of ho w we will recover

wild, functiona l landscap es. Our firstand most immediate challenge is in

defining the term restoration. Many

forest organizations today still arefighting egregious timber sales, now

maske d as restoration or salvageprojects. A recurring theme in the

num erous justifications for comm er-

cial logging on pub lic lands isrestoration thinning. Forest

man agers tout thinning as a way toaccelerate old growth cond itions, stop

insect infestation s, and m imic the

effects of fire. The jury of sound

science, however, is still ou t. Credibleresearch to support the claims thatcomm ercial thinning can restore our

forests is sparse. In fact, there are

man y risks associated with th inning,including soil compaction, introduction of

disease or insect infestations (by dam age tolive trees), reduction of na tural tre e m ortality,

creation of too much uniformity, and impacts

to shrubs an d snags from h eavy equipmen t.Despite the lack of eviden ce, the u se of

restoration rh etoric to justify comm ercialtimber sale programs h as reached epidemic

proportions.

Even in the environmentally-enlightenedcity of Seattle, a senior m emb er of th e city

coun cil recently prop osed the idea of loggingthe mu nicipal watershed, th e Cedar River, to

improve forest health and raise mo ney

simultaneou sly. The Cedar River Watershe dis a priceless pu blic jewel: it provides clean

drinking water to roughly 1.25 m illion p eoplein King County-app roximately on e-fifth of

Restoration management , as em ployed by the Forest Service, oft en removes

stru ctural components of healthy forest s, like standing and downed dead timber.

Jim Coefield pho to.


5/16


illogical and un necessar y, but was also

ecologically and economically unsound.

POWA pointed out that for every ecologicalcost, there wou ld be an economic one, either

now or in the future. These costs would comein the form of road bu ilding and th e associ-

ated dam age that logging roads do to forest

ecosystems. In the future, there would beother major costs, including bu t not limited to

replan ting and reseed ing lost trees, stream

restoration, or capital costs such as th econstru ction of a filtration system to keep

Seattles water clean.

The campaign received an added boost

whe n th e local citizens advisory comm itteecame out in support of protecting the water-

shed . In their letter to the Mayor, they wrote:

Throu ghou t its history, logging has been

status quo in th e Cedar River watershed, an dhas con sistently provided income. As public

values have evolved fro m sh ort-term gaintoward environm ental stewardship, m anage-

men t of the system h as also changed.

However, the Com mittee be lieves that the

historical use of the land s has prejudiced thepresen t financial question before us. Westrongly advise you to reframe th e question

before the City and th e public. We shou ld not

be a sking: Should logging provide ourrevenues? We should instead be asking:

How do we wish to pa y for the HCP? ...Disengaging logging (an en vironm ental

decision) from financing (a necessary o bjec-

tive) is cru cial because it p erm its a broa der,mo re realistic discussion of the latter. It frees

us from o ur h istory.

The public also supported this position:

nearly 95% o f the 1,000 commen t lettersreceived did not sup port logging to fund

restoration. They stated their willingne ss topay th e equ ivalent of a latte a year, or 33

cents a mon th, to fund the restoration p lan.

City officials also ha d little scientific eviden ceto supp ort their claims th at thinning would

ben efit the watershed. Subsequen tly, theentire 90,000 acres were protected as an

ecological reserve off-limits to com me rcial

logging. The amou nt of fundin g for road remo val was also

increased to remove 40% of the roads in the watershed.

If the forest pr otection m ovement is to establish a similar

vision for ou r National Forests, individuals an d o rganizationswithin the m ovement must un derstand that protecting and

restoring o ur National Forests is n ot a seq uen tial process (i.e.

first protect, then restore). The twomu st be don e simultan eously. While

we work to end the comm ercialtimber sale program, old growth an d

roadless area logging, we need to

develop a stron g vision of restora-tion. Why? By defining restoration

we can do a better job at coun teringforest health claims an d limit

justifications for destroying wha t

little is left of our Nation al Fore sts. Astron g vision of restoration o ffers a

positive message and hope in the m idst of a battered land-scape, moving more individuals to action. Restoration pro jects

are also an economic alternative for rural communities facing

ha rd econ om ic time s. According to the Fores t Services PacificNorth west Region al Office, federal worker retraining an d

restoration p rograms em ployed 2,000 workers in th e PacificNorth west in 1995 at an average wage of $17.10 per hou r. A

well-fund ed restoration

pr ogram wou ld help alleviatesome of the pressure to

continue commercial loggingin ou r National Forests.

Most importantly ourvision m ust com pletely sever

the con cept of restoration froma commercial timber sale

pr ogram. The Cedar River

Watershed is now on e of the

first watersh eds in the North-west to do just this. It is thefirst time th at we h ave wit-

nessed an $84 million dollar

restoration program for onewatersh ed with ecological

objectives as the sole dr iver.The resu lts of the restora tion

pr ocess will be a mo del for ou r

nation al forests. Althoughfinding alternative sources for

fund ing the end eavor will bethe key, with continu ed

vigilance a nd a large core of

dedicated activists we willsucceed in h olding the Forest

Service accoun table to asimilar vision of r estoration.

Jasmine Minbashian is the Conservation Director for Pacific

Crest Biodiversity Project, an organization based in Seattle,

Washington whose mission is to protect and restore the

ecological integrity of forests in Cascadia.

By defining rest oration w e can do a bett erjob at count ering forest health claims and

limit just ificat ions for destroy ing what

litt le is left of our National Fores t s.

Clean water depends on intact forest ecosystem s.

File photo.


6/16


Odes to Roads

Roads of Destruction; Roads of RecoveryBy Carolyn Duckwort h

Five hu nd red miles, seven hou rs.Gardiner to Wolf Point, through

the heart of buffalo coun try incentral and eastern Montana. Road

hou rs, dropping ou t of the YellowstonePlateau, straightarrow out Paradise

Valley, clacketyclack over the he at

cracks in the Interstate, and th en h oursof rolling m iles up the h igh p lains h ills

and down into th e coulees and backout again.

Recent rains infused the landscape

with green ; a few fields looked posi-tively lush. Waves of grain a nd sun -

flowers, grazing pr ongh orn , a fewclump s of cows. No buffalo.

No bu ffalo h ave lived amon g these

fields for m ore than a centu ry. Theirhoof beats used to shake the sedimen t

for miles, un til the relentless pou ndin gof railroad spikes drove a soun d louder th an gun shot

throughou t these hills.

The role of roads in th e destru ction of buffalobecomes graphic lines on a map in the geography

classroom of Wolf Point High School. I was attend ing theannual meeting of the Montana Environmental Educa-

tion Association, and while we wa ited for the Fort Peck

Tribes geologist to get throu gh th e tra ffic (yep , in WolfPoint-road constru ction), I was staring at the m ap across

the r oom . 1870 was its date, and its lines traced th eroutes o f roads, railroad s, and trails across th e United

States and its ter ritories afte r th e Civil War. A web of red ,

yellow, and b lue lines wove east to west, thinn ing in theMidwest, then ending but for the northwest strand of th e

Bozem an Trail through Wyomin g and Montana. No roadsbefore 1870. Plenty o f buffalo.

The railroads were on their way.Businessmen on both coasts perceived the Great

Plains as a waste of space that separated commerce.How to cross this expan se? Railroads seem ed the w ay to

go, except for two problems-sixty m illion buffalo

and m ore than a dozen tribes disinclined to give up

their hu nting groun ds. These two problems wereintimately entwined . Buffalo were marketplace and

cathedr al for the tribes of th e Great Plains, andshrewd schemers in the bu siness and m ilitary

industries recognized them as the key to subdu ing

Native American s.These prob lems were enth usiastically tackled by

a m ilitary laid idle by th e en d of th e Civil War.Soldiers needed so me p lace to go and officers need ed

a camp aign. They p rovided pr otection for railroad

construction crews, they provided arms for h unterswho slaugh tered buffalo for m eat to feed the cre ws.

When the crews were fed, the shooting continued. In1872, the r ailroads throu gh Kansas an d Nebraska

shipped 1,378,359 buffalo hides and 6,751,200

poun ds of meat to the east. These iron roads broughtthe destruction and carried its remains away, and

then th ey brought even more destr uction. Tourists.The railroad s began advertising buffalo

sightseeing and h unts to entice people to ride the

railroads. This commercial ploy hauled out hundreds

of gun-toting tourists on each tr ain. They wouldtravel until they en coun tered a buffalo herd, andthen the fun began. The railroad tou rist trade also

destroyed bu ffalo in a m ore insidious way. When th e

happ y hun ters returned hom e, they bragged abouttheir trip an d sho wed off their bu ffalo robes. Of

course everyone w anted o ne. You, too, could own asymbol of the frontier!

The role of roads in t he dest ruct ion

of buffalo becomes graphic lines on a mapin the geography classr oom of

Wolf Point High School.

Perhaps no other species sym bolizes the demise of W ild America like the Bison.

Jim Coefield ph oto.


7/16


During this time, the railroad ha d no t yet

pen etrated the Great Plains of eastern Montan a. The

Northern Pacific had stopped construction inBismarck for several years while the com pan y

repaired its finan ces. In th is last stretch of pe acefultime for th e buffalo of Montan a, a traveler on a trip

between Miles City an d Poplar Creek (20 m iles east of

Wolf Point), repor ted for four days we saw noth ingelse but buffalo . . . we were in th e center it seem ed

of a h erd n umbering into the millions.Within two years of that trip, the railroad had

pen etrated Montana in two lines: the Hi Line thro ugh

Wolf Point an d Glasgow, and th e south ern routealon g the Yellowstone River th rough Miles City. The

last wild, unfen ced he rd in Amer ica was trapped. In1881, fifty thou sand bu ffalo hides were shipp ed east

on the railroads; 1882, two h undred thousand. And

then th e num bers plunged: 1883, forty thousand.1884, three h undred. When William Hornaday came

out to Montana in 1 886 to kill specime ns for a zoo (topreserve their image before they disappeared from

the face of the earth ), he spent two mon ths searching

for the few bu ffalo h e finally killed. He found th emaroun d the b uttes tha t grace the skyline of Dry Creek

coun try, exactly where th at traveler from 18 79 ha drepo rted being am ong m illions of buffalo.

In the centu ry since, especially in th e last fifty

years, we have scraped an d paved and created m ilesof paved roads in the triangle formed by the railroads

and Interstate 94 an d US Highway 2 (a road a lsoknown as the Hi Line). These roads co uld be used to

transp ort bu ffalo from the killing fields ou tside

Yellowston e Nation al Park to th is spare land o f grassand sedge an d gully. This Dry Creek coun try is big

enough for buffalo and p ronghorn, golden eagle andnor thern harr ier. Heck, it would pro bably even

continu e to tolerate cattle, if all ranch ers man aged

their land in the sustainable fashion of their most

progressive colleagues.

Up on the Hi Line, where th e m ajority of Montan as

Native Americans live today, tribes already provide

thou sand s of acres of grassland for bu ffalo. The FortBelknap tribes have a pastur e thats probably the size of

som e of our sm aller states set aside for buffalo the yhop e to reclaim from Yellowstone, should th at her d be

determined to h ave grown beyond the capacity of the

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. It is on this land wher e aquaran tine could be effectively and e thically carried ou t,

shou ld the Mon tana Departmen t of Livestock continu e to

insist th at Yellowstone s buffalo pose a r isk to cattle

because of brucellosis.How wo uld bu ffalo get up to the Hi Line? The

rom antics amo ng us, and Im on e, imagine bu ffalo

simply walking ou t of the Yellowstone Plateau,straightarro w o ut Paradise Valley, then spreading over

the h un dreds of rolling miles up th e high plains hills anddown into the coulees.

That scene w on t hap pen in my lifetime. But I can

foresee the day, within this decade, when tribal truckswill travel that sam e pa th. They will drive their tru cks

onto the h ighw ays that parallel the railroads of destruc-tion and th ey will turn tho se highways into road s of

recovery. They will bring the buffalo back.

Carolyn Duckw orth oft en walks t he trails of

Yellowst one, where she frequently encounters bu ffalo.

Some of this essay comes from her as yet unpublished

memoir, Bison to Buffalo: A Year in the Heart of

Yellowst one. She recently w as given t he Sense of Wonder

Award by the Montana Environm ental Education

Association for her writing on behalf of the environment.

... imagine buffalo simp ly walking out of

t he Yellowst one Plateau ... t hen sp reading

over t he hundreds of rolling miles

up t he high plains hills and down

into t he coulees.

Where do the tracks of progress lead?

Edgar van der Grift photo.

Along with the railroads came t he m ilitary, entrepreneurs, and settlers.

Edgar van der Grift photo.


8/16


Introduction:Sedimentation and Water Quality

In 197 2, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act, wasame nde d from its original form (dating to 1 948) and signed into law (P.L. 92-500).

While the u tility of the CWA for environm ental p laintiffs cann ot be den ied, the acthas shor tcomings when on e attempts to use it to challenge the con struction an d

man agemen t of wildland roads. Keeping in m ind th e CWAs inten t to restore and

main tain th e ch emical, physical, and biological integrity of th e Nations waters (CWA101), this summ ary will examin e how this (and su bsequ ent) legislation add resses

different type s of pollution, an d h ow to u se legislative an d po litical rou tes to influ-ence road-building from a water-quality standpoint.

The Legal Foundation of Best

Management PracticesThe Clean Water Act (33 USCA 12 51, et seq ) defines two so urce s of wat er

pollution: point an d non point (CWA 502 (14)). Point sources originate, as the nam e

suggests, from a discrete, identifiable single source. Non point so urces of po llution

are the result of substances, both toxic and n on -toxic, that enter water bodiesthrough runoff due to storm events, snowmelt, translocation by wind, and precipita-

tion.1

Congress excluded nonpoint source pollution from the regulatory scope of the

CWA in 1972 for several reason s: point so urces were pe rceived as the p rimary

causes of water pollution, the magnitude of n onpoint sou rces was not fully un der-stood, and no np oint sou rce pollution is difficult to isolate (Plater, 1998).

Sedimentation, a nonpoint source, is now the second leading cause of waterquality impairment in our nations waters (EPA, National Water Quality Inventory:

1994 Report to Congress, Exec. Sum ma ry, 7-15). Because it is nearly always defined

as a no np oint sou rce from road-bu ilding, agriculture, or other activities, sedimenta-tion is n ot regulated b y the CWA or en forced by th e Environm ental Protection Agency

(EPA). Nonp oint po llution co ntrol com pliance is largely volun tary and also does n otfall un der th e pe rm itting scop e of th e Nationa l Pollution Discharge Elimina tion

System (NPDES). To

partially m itigate th is,Congress in 1987 enacted

319 of the CWA (33 USCA1329) making grant

allocations for states to

develop n onpo int sourcemanagement programs,

including the adop tion ofBest Managem ent Practices.

In contrast to the high-

tech controls that are mostoften used to reduce point

source pollution, th e EPAcontends that nonpoint

sources are best controlled

by low-techn ology BestManagem ent Practices or

BMPs-comparatively

inexpensive land-use m easures orpractices consisting of structural or

non structural controls and operation-and -mainten ance procedur es. BMPs are

selected based o n site-specific cond i-tions that reflect the natural background

as we ll as po litical, social, econom ic,

and techn ical feasibility. Agencies suchas th e Fore st Service and BLM are

required to develop th eir own BMPs, butthe nature of how these are set is

flexible and, in essence, voluntary

(1329(b)(2)(B)).The Water Qu ality Act of 1987 (Pub.

L. 100-4) established a federal grantsystem an d set-asides for states which

elected to implement n onpoint source

pollution redu ction program s. All elevenWestern states have now a ccepted 319

grants and have implemented (or are inthe process of implemen ting) nonpoint

source programs with the guidance of

the EPA. But even if a state pr epa res anapproved management plan, implemen -

tation remains voluntary an d in th ehands of the state and polluting opera-

tors, with little govern men tal enforce-

men t available (Saper stein, 1995 ).

Susceptibility of BMPs toLegal Challenge and

AppealTo ch allenge a road , it would seem

intuitive to try to persu ade a cou rt to

deem it or one of its parts (i.e. a defec-tive culvert or su b-standard bridge) a

point sou rce, thereby subjecting it to the

full regulation of the CWA and NPDES.Although the Second Circuit decision in

Concer ned Area Residen ts for theEnvironm ent v. Southview Farms, 34

F.3d 114 (1994), cert. d en ied 115 S.Ct.1793 (1995) is encouraging in that it re-designated a n onpo int source, the cou rts

have been consistently reluctant torem and n onp oint sources to th e EPA for

re-classification. Therefore, activists

may no t want to focus narrowly on roadprevention in the case of BMPs, but

should rather merge their efforts tochallenge state non point source p ollu-

Fighting Roads with TMDLs and the Clean Water ActBy Ethan Hasenstein

When employed, Best Management Practices can reduce the

erosive impacts of roads, but legal action to compel their u se

is not often effectiv e. Steve Chambers photo.

1Just th is year EPA tried to reclassify logging as point source p ollution, but tha t attem pt failed as this article was going to press.


9/16


tion control pro grams as a whole. It is

difficult to force a state agency to

regulate or en force BMPs when theirimplem entation is specifically classified

as voluntary and non -regulated.Of course, if a states program

stipulates regulation a nd th e agency fails

to com ply, there is preced ent to su e EPAto take over the states non point

program u ntil it com plies. EPA isrequ ired to review and app rove

non point programs before they are

implem ented (with significant stateparticipation), so it may be p ossible to

structure a case on the efficacy ofapp roved BMPs. However, judicial

discretion will not likely force a ny

recommen dation on the merits of theBMPs them selves. Addin g to the

difficulty, not every Western state has acode, statute, or regulation such as a

forest practices act to create a h igher

enforceab le techn ical standard . Simi-larly, not all states even require BMPs or

have an agency that implements thesesection 319 grants.

Total Maximum Dai lyLoads and Water Quality

AssessmentThe CWA requires that each state

keep a cur rent list of streams or

stretches of stream that do n ot meetstate water quality standards for the

stream s designated use. 33 USCA1313(d) refers to th ese as Water Qu ality

Limited Segme nt s (WQLS). Segmen tscan be listed for both turb idity andwater tem peratur e, issues that weigh

heavily in road-bu ilding oper ations(303(d) CWA). After designatin g their

WQLS, states are req uire d to se t Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), themaximum allowable amo unt o r level of

spe cified pollutan ts. The TMDL calcula-tions help ensure that the cum ulative

impacts of multiple point source

discharges are accoun ted for an d areevaluated in conjunction w ith pollution

from other non point sources. States are

then required to take whatever addi-tional cleanup actions are necessary,

which include further controls on bothpoint and n onpoint pollution sources.

States mu st stay curren t on listingan d settin g TMDL every two y ears (33

USCA 1315(b)). If the sta te fails to

comply with this requiremen t, then theEPA mu st intervene and take over setting

the states TMDL. In Sierra Club v.Hankin son 939 F.Sup p. 865 (N.D.Ga.

1996), plaintiffs successfully sued EPA to take over Georgias water quality program

for insufficient an d tardy develop me nt of TMDL or WQLS (see also Alaska Cen ter for

the Environm en t v. Reilly 796 F.Supp . 1374 (W.D.Wash .1992)). A state m ay alsosimply fail to establish any TMDLs or cohesive water quality-based limitations, in

which case EPA is compe lled to intervene, without d iscretion, to uph old the in tent ofCWA and Congress. Be forewarn ed, the agency generally comp lies m inimally and

there is n o clear CWA provision to require be tter review (NRDC v. Fox 9 09 F. Supp .153

(S.D.N.Y.1995)). Activists can press th e EPA us ing Section 505(a) of th e CWA, whichauth orizes citizens to brin g suit in fede ral cou rt against th e EPA for failing to p erform

an act or duty under the CWA which is not discretionary (33 USCA 1365(a)).Since m any p rojects are com pleted in p art with federal fun ds, states failure to

imp leme nt TMDL/WQLS may b e successfu lly challen ged by filing su it against EPA.

States, in cod ifying non point sou rce program s, mu st provide for pu blic participationand are th us in violation of state admin istrative law if they fail to adeq uately accoun t

for p ublic comm ent in WQLS designation.Anoth er h and le for activists can be th e verity and efficacy in TMDL-setting.

Citizens can conduct water quality monitoring themselves and use the information to

re-designa te TMDLs. Althou gh agen cy foot-dragging is comm on , EPAs duty to en surestate compliance is non -discretiona ry and well defined .

Conclusion: The Poli tical Future of Nonpoint Source

Pollution ControlThe Clean Water Act provides poorly for the m ana gemen t of nonp oint source

activities, but TMDLs offer one route for activists to apply this law to sediment

loading and othe r road-gene rated water quality prob lems. Because non point sourcepollution is so closely tied to agricultural practices, any effort at add ressing non point

sources from road s and silviculture will do well to encom pass no t only sedimen ta-

tion, but alsopesticide app lica-

tion and animalwaste m anage-

ment.

Ethan

Hasenstein is a

soon-to-be

graduate of the

EnvironmentalStudies Program at

the University of

Montana. He just

got m arried and is

currently on his

honeymoon in the

Brooks Range of

Alaska.

REFERENCESDissmeyer, George E. 1994. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management

Practices in Meeting Water Quality Goals or Standards. Misc. Publication 1520, U.S.Forest Service, Southern Region, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Atlanta, GA.

Gould, George. 1990. Agriculture, nonpoint source pollution and federal law. 23 U.C. Davis

L. Rev. 461.

Plater, Z.G., R.H. Abrams, et al. 1998. Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and

Society, St.Paul, MN: West Group.

Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland

Hydrology.

Saperstein, Clare. 1995. State solutions to nonpoint source pollution: Implemen tation and

enforcem ent of 1990 CZARA 6217. 75 B.U. L.Rev. 889

Wilkinson, C.F. 1987. Soil conservationists and the uses of law.Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation 42: 304-312.

Total Maximum Daily Loads, required under the Clean Water Act, may

provide an avenue for activists challenging road contruct ion and its

impacts. Kraig Klugness photo.


10/16


11/16


UTAH

ORV Lawsuit VictoryA U.S. District judge last week

uph eld a Forest Service decision to close

89 m iles of roads to dirt bikes and oth erORVs on the Dixie NF, dismissing a

lawsuit brought by o ff-road en thu siasts

challenging the closure. The closure,intended to protect fish an d other

natu ral resources of the BoulderMoun tain area, left more tha n 40 m iles

of roads still open .

A coalition led by th e Utah SharedAccess Alliance challenged the road

closures, arguing that the Forest Serviceviolated th e Nationa l Environm ental

Policy Act an d th e Reha bilitation Act (a

precursor to the Amer icans WithDisabilities Act). A coalition of group s

represen ted by attorn ey Steve Bloch ofSouthern Utah Wildern ess Alliance

intervened o n beh alf of the Forest

Service in the case.Bloch comm ented on the implica-

tions of the decision: The ForestService needs to kn ow they can close

routes to dirt bike an d oth er ORV use

when that use causes resource damage.The outcome of this lawsuit, on ce again,

mad e tha t crystal clear.

Victories!OREGON

New M onument Whacks

Schoheim T-12 RoadCiting his authority under the

Antiquities Act, Presiden t Clintonestablished four n ew National Mon u-

men ts on Jun e 9. They include Cascade-

Siskiyou in southwestern Oregon,

Hanford Reach in southeastern Wash-ington, Canyons of th e Ancients insouthwestern Colorado, and Ironwood

Forest ne ar Tucson , Arizona . The use of

mo torized vehicles off-road, except foradm inistrative and em ergency use, is

proh ibited in all four new mon umen ts.BLM must also develop travel plans and

consider motorized use restrictions and

road closures in these plans.The Cascades/Siskiyou National

Monument proclamation calls specifi-cally for the closure o f the Schoheim

Jeep Trail, a long-time m emb er of

Wildlan ds CPRs Terrible Twelve list o fthe worst wildlands roads. The monu-

men t area, more comm only known asSoda Moun tain, contains a rich biologi-

cal crossroads at the junction of the

Cascade, Klamath, and Siskiyouecoregions. The area features unique

geology, biology, climate, and topogra-phy. The proclamations can be viewed

at: http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/

retrieve-documents.html

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Taku Mine UpdateIn late-breaking news, a British

Columbia (B.C.) court has issued a ruling

that could potentially stop the contro-versial Taku River mine (see The RIP-

Porter 5.3). In response to a lawsuit filed

by th e Taku River Tlingit First Nation ,the Supr eme Cour t of B.C. ruled tha t the

provincial governme nt was wron g toissue a perm it for th e 100 mile access

road and m ine development.

Environmental and native groupschallenged the p roject based on its

threat to water quality and salmonhab itat, the Tlingit citing p oten tial

damage to their territorial hun ting an d

fishing ground s. They claimed tha tRedfern Resources condu cted a h asty

and flawed en vironm ental review, andthe court agreed. The m ine would be

located n ear the B.C.-southeast Alaska

border, about 40 miles northeast ofJuneau.

Alaska wildlife officials werepleased with the r uling, and h ope it will

facilitate developm ent of a bi-nationa l

watershed plan for the region. Thecourt in structed th e B.C. Environm ental

Assessmen t Office to p repare a revisedreport that meaningfully addresses the

Tlingit concern s.

New Resources for

Road-Rippers

Shattered Solitude/Eroded Habitat:The Motorization of the Lands of Lewis and Clark

Mark Lawler; Sierra Club; June 2000; 1-800-OUR-LAND or

http://www.sierraclub.org

Lawler's report analyzes motorized and non-motorizedrou te/trail mileage acro ss the Lewis and Clark trail. Lawler

found that 42 % of all trails on th e National Forests in the 8states he analyzed a re op en to dirt b ikes and ATVs, while only

14% of trail users ride these mach ines. His study found that

non -motorized users are being more and more crowded o nto alimited n um ber of non -motorized trails, especially those

outside of wilderness.

The Blue Ribb on Coaliti on:Protector of Recreat ion or Indust ry

US PIRG; May 2000; http://www.pirg.org

While the Blue Ribbon Coalition claims to be a grassroots

group re prese nting the in dividual off-road vehicle userconcerned about recreation on public lands, this report found

that th e coalition is closely tied to timber, mining, and oil andgas industries as well as ORV ma nu facturers and dealers. This

report docum ents h ow th e Blue Ribbon Coalition works hand-

in-hand with these industries to keep our n ational forests opento logging, mining, oil and gas exploration and other destru c-

tive activities that are incom patible with recreation.

New ORV Report s from Sierra Club

and US PIRG Closing the Schoheim Jeep Trail will help protect the SodaMountain area. Dave Willis photo.

T-12


12/16


Bibliography Notes

Bibliography Notes sum marizes and highlights som e of the scientific literature in our

6,000 citation bibliography on t he ecological effects of roads. We offer bibliographic searches

to help activ ists access impor tan t biological research relevant to roads. We keep copies of

most articles cited in Bibliography Notes in our office library.

The Forest Highways Program is a triagency pro gram between the

Forest Service, states, and the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA). Accord ing to FHWA, the o bject ive of the ForestHighway Program (FHP) is to constru ct or imp rove roads which conn ect

our n ational forests to the m ain State transportation n etwork. The FHPprovides safe and adequ ate transportation access to and through

National Forest System Lands for visitors, recreationists, resource users,

and others wh ich is not met by other transportation programs. ForestHighways assist rural and comm unity econom ic development and

promotes tourism and travel.In this Bibliography Notes, the first in a se ries that w ill examin e th e

Forest Highways Program, Wildlands CPR examines the ecological

implications of tu rnin g a forest ro ad (dirt, gravel, narrow, wind ing) into aForest Highway (paved, widened , straightene d an d realigned to Ameri-

can Association of State Highway an d Transpor tation Officials stan-dards). While paving a dirt or gravel road does result in a decrease in

sedimen t yield (Reid and Dun ne 19 84) and airborn e dust, there are also

man y negative ecological consequ ences to imp roving a road to ForestHighway specifications. These impacts are d iscussed below.

Hazards to Road Construction WorkersFirst, there is the initial hazard to the

workers who lay down the asphalt for a

paved road. Bitumen -based asph altfumes, a product of using hot bitumen(> 100 C) in road constru ction, contains

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

some of wh ich are known to be carcino-genic or co-carcinogenic in an imals

(Burgaz et al. 199 8). PAH can be a b-sorbed n ot only in the lungs, but also in

the gastrointestinal track and through the

skin (Jongen eelen et al. 1986 ).A study in Turkey looked a t 28 m ale

road construction workers who h ad beenexposed to bitumen . Urine and blood

samples were taken in order to determ ine

the level of cytogenetic damage an dexpo sure to PAHs. The study found th at

bitumen fumes during road p avingoperations are absorbed by workers and

that bitum en fum es are able to significantly indu ce cytogenetic (forma-

tion an d developm ent of cells) dam age in periph eral lymph ocytes (i.e.lymph nodes, tonsils, etc.) of workers (Burgaz et al. 1998).

A study by Horvath an d Hendrickson (1998) also foun d tha t asph altfumes m ight p ose occupational exposure h azards to workers in the form

of respiratory problem s and eye an d throat irritation . However, they

could find no conclusive evidence that bitumen fumes were carcino-genic.

Chemical Pollutants Impact

Surrounding LandscapePaved roads continu e to be a source of chem ical

pollutants long after the con struction is comp lete.

One of the im plications o f upgrading a forest road toa forest highway is that there h as been an d will

continu e to be an increase in road u se. While

vehicles travelling forest roads leave beh ind ch emicalpollutants, the amounts are usually small due to the

lower level of use. However, the use levels of fores thighways create situations where chemical pollutants

can cause real harm to the roadside environmen t and

beyond. These pollutants include inorgan ic (lead,zinc, chromium, iron and chloride) and organic

(PAHs) highway tr affic po llutant s.One added source of highway pollutants is the

herbicides used to con trol weeds along and under

asph alt highways. The herbicide prometon is used toextend th e useful life of asphalt pavement by

preventing weeds from emerging through it.Prometon has a

long biodegrada-

tion half-life, an done application

can inh ibit plantgrowth for m ore

than a year. In

areas aroundtreated roads,

studies foundprometon is

present in su rface

water, groun dwaterand rainfall (Capel

et al. 1999 ).Another

source of pollution

is direct leachingof PAHs from the

asph alt road itself.In th e p ast, PAHs in

roadside ru noff were solely attributed to depo sition

from car exh aust fume s. However, research fromAustralia indicates th at relatively high concen tra-

tions of PAHs can be introd uced into soils throughleaching from b itumen surfaces (Sadler et al. 1997).

Despite the fact that Amer icans no lon ger use

leaded gasoline, lead per sists in so ils and the food

From Gravel to Pavement The Impacts of UpgradingBy Marnie Criley with research assistance from Katherine Postelli

New r oad constru ction fragment s habitat and causes soil erosion. Mark

Alan Wilson photo.


13/16


chain for long periods and, as such, rem ains a m ajor

ecological contam inan t. A study in 1978 foun d that

22-58% o f the lead emitted in exhau st was depositedon the groun d or vegetation along the roadside (Little

and Wiffen 197 8). High levels of lead h ave beenfound in bullfrog and green frog tadpoles living n ear

highways, with the average daily traffic volum e

positively correlating with th e lead concen trations inthese two species. Further, lead concen tration s in

tadpo les living nea r highways may contribute to th eelevated lead levels reported in wildlife that m ay be

tadpo le predators such as raccoon s (Birdsall et al.

1986).De-icing salt is anoth er m ajor highway p ollutant.

Piatt and Krause (1974) found that d e-icing saltsconcentrate in the leaf tissue of roadside aspens,

leading to leaf dam age and mo rtality. Ano ther

impact o f salt is that it can a ttract wildlife to ro ad-sides, putting th em in dan ger of vehicle collisions.

Highway salt can also reach streams and channelsin qu antities sufficient to affect downstream aquatic

ecosystems (Forman and Deblinger 2000 ).

A study by Gjessing et al. (1984) examined theeffect of highway traffic pollutants (zinc, lead,

chrom ium, iron , chloride an d PAHs) on lake waterquality. They foun d that the washout water and

snow from th e highway was rich in inorganic and

organic pollutants, and tha t these p ollutants areaccum ulated either in the soil and vegetation or in

the water sed imen ts. Finally, Trom bulak a nd Frissell(2000) describe that m aintenance an d use of roads

can co ntribute at least five different typ es of pollut-

ants to the en vironm ent: heavy m etals, salt, organicmolecules, ozone, and nutrients.

Impacts to WildlifeMany com pon ents of imp roving a forest road

to a forest h ighway can detrimen tally imp act wildlife.Improved roads mean improved access with the

concomitant increase in vehicle speed and noise,often leading to higher numbers of roadkill and

greater avoidance by certain species. Widening,

straighten ing and realigning th ese road s to fit ForestHighway standar ds leads to increased fragmen tation,

while widening and clearing road shoulders in-creases edge effect. When these comp onen ts are

comb ined, the impact to wildlife of a forest highway

versus a forest road can be eno rmou s.Carnivores such as grizzly bears, wolves,

wolverine, mountain lion, and lynx have large homeranges which m ake them particularly vulnerable to

highways. Studies by Mattson (1987) and Paquet

(1993 ) ind icate that h ighways displace wolves andgrizzlies. Black bears in North Carolina do n ot cross

interstate highways, althou gh they will cross roadswith less traffic (Brody and Pelton 1989).

Back in 197 4, Oxleys study o f the imp act of

roads on small mamm als noted that animals suffergreater mo rtality with higher traffic volume and

speed. Studies of various amp hibian species havefound the same to be tru e (Rosen an d Lowe 1994;

Fahr ig et al. 1995 ). Oxley also noted th at road

clearance seemed to be a major factor inhibiting the movements of

forest mamm als. Whereas forest road s often have vegetation right alon g

the road side, highway ma rgins are cleared of vegetation in order tocomp ly with sight distances for stopp ing.

Kozel and Flahe rtys (1979) study of rode nts foun d th at smallforest mam mals such as the eastern chipmun k and the white-footed

mou se were reluctant to venture on to road surfaces where the distance

between forest edges exceeded 2 0 m. Lovallo and Ande rson (1996)mad e a similar findin g for bobcat movemen ts: vehicle traffic levels and

the habitat composition of road buffer zones kept bobcats from crossingpaved roads.

Finally, Reed Noss (1995) gives a good description of the edge

effects of roads:A nar row logging road with n o m aintained verge would not be

expected to generate sub stantial edge effects, particularly if surroun dedby a tall forest can opy.... As forest roads are impr oved, road clearance

increases and allows more pen etration of sun light and wind. Edgespecies are th en a ttracted to these open ings.... A forest criss-crossed byimproved road s may be largely edge habitat, and its value for conser va-

tion of native flora an d fauna dimin ished accor dingly.

ConclusionThe Forest Highways Pro gram is designed to improve access for

visitors, recreationists, resource users, and othe rs betwee n Forest Service

lands and neighbo ring commu nities. While paving roads does includesom e positive aspects, the p rocess of widening, straightenin g, and

paving forest roads increases many environmental impacts such as

chem ical pollution, w ildlife roadkills, fragmen tation an d ed ge effects.Widening and p aving roads also leads to greater h abitat fragmentation

and m ore vehicles traveling at greater speeds brin ging in m ore peop le.All these factors con tribute to increase d wildlife mor tality and redu ced

wildlife habitat and gene flow.

Forest Highway road im provemen ts must b e evaluated carefullyand only ap plied selectively. In th e me antim e, the ecological impacts of

converting forest roads to forest highways is worthy o f further resea rchand analysis.

Marnie Criley is the Roads Policy Coordinator for W ildlands CPR. She

spends her spare time doing watershed restoration work in western

Montana.

References on next page

In addition to introducing contaminant s, paving roads induces more t raffic and

higher speed travel, increasing risks to w ildlife. Mark Alan Wilson photo.


14/16


ReferencesBirdsall, C. W., C.E. Grue, and A. Anderson . 1986. Lead

concentrations in bullfrogRana catesbeiana and green frogR.

clamitans tadpoles inhabiting h ighway drainages.

Environmental Pollution (Series A), 40: 233-247.

Brody, A.J. and M.P. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear

movements in western North Carolina. Wildl. Soc. Bull.17: 5-10.

Burgaz, Sema, O. Erdem, B. Karahalil, and A.E. Karakaya. 1998.

Cytogenetic biomonitoring of workers exposed to bitumen

fumes. Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis,

Mutation Research, 419: 123-130.

Capel, Paul D., A.H. Spexet and S.J. Larson. 1999. Occurrence and

Behavior of the Herbicide Prometon in the Hydrologic

System. Environ. Sci. Technol., 33: 674-680.

Dueck, Th.A., G.J. Endedijk and H.G. Klein Ikkink. 1987. Soil

pollution and changes in vegetation due to heavy metals in

sinter-pavements. Chemosphere, 16(5): 1021-1030.

Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor, and J.F. Wenger. 1995.

Effect of road traffic on amphibian density.Biological

Conservation, 73: 177-182.Forman, Richard T.T. and R.D. Deblinger. 2000. The ecological

road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) suburban

highway. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 36-46.

Gjessing, E., E. Lygren , L. Berglind , T. Gulbrandsen, and R. Skaane.

1984. Effect of highway runoff on lake water quality. The

Science of the Total Environment, 33: 245-257.

Horvath, Arpad and C. Hendrickson. 1998. Comparison of

Environmental Implications of Asphalt and Steel-reinforced

Concrete Pavemen ts. Transportation Research Record,

Transportation Research Board, No. 1626, pp. 105-113.

Jongeneelen, F.J., R.P. Bos, R.B.M. Anzion, J.L.G. Theuws, and P.T.

Anderson. 1986. Biological monitoring of polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health, 12: 137-143.

Kozel, Ronald M. and E.D. Fleharty. 1979. Movements of rodentsacross roads. The Southwestern Naturalist, 24(2): 239-248.

Little, P. and Wiffen, R.D. 1978. Emission and deposition of lead

from motor vehicle exhausts. II. Airborne concentration,

particle size and deposition of lead near m otorways.Atmos.

Environ., 12: 1331-1341.

Lovallo, Matthew J. and E.M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat movements

and home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildlife

Society Bulletin, 24(1): 71-76.

Mattson, D.J., R. Knight, and B. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of

developments and primary road systems on grizzly bear

habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.Int. Conf.

Bear Research and Manage. 7: 259-273.

Noss, Reed . 1995. The Ecological Effects of Roads or The Road toDestruction. Road-Rippers Handbook, Wildlands Center for

Preventing Roads, Missoula, MT.

Oxley, D.J., M.B. Fenton and G.R. Carmody. 1974. The effects of

roads on populations of small mammals. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 11:51-59.

Paquet, P.C. 1993. Summ ary reference docum ent - Ecological

Studies of Recolonizing Wolves in the Centra l Canadian

Rocky Mountains. Unpublished report by John/Paul and

Assoc. for Canadian Park Service Banff, AB. 176

Piatt, J.R. and P.D. Krause. 1974. Road and site characteristics that

influence road salt distribution and damage to roadside

Aspen trees. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 3: 301-304.

Reid, Leslie M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from

forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research, 20(11): 1753-1761.

Rosen, P.C., and C.H. Lowe. 1994. Highway mortality of snakes in

the Sonoran dese rt of southern Arizona.Biological

Conservation 68: 143-148.

Ruediger, Bill. 1998. Rare carnivores and highways - moving into

the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Conference

on Wildlife Ecology and Transporta tion, FL DOT pp. 10-16.

Sadler, Ross and C. Delamont, P. White and D. Connell. 1997.

Contaminants in soil as a result of leaching from asphalt.

Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 68, pp. 71-81.

Swihart, Rober K. and N.A. Slade. 1984. Road Crossing in

Sigmodon Hispidus and Microtus Ochrogaster. J. Mamm.,

65(2): 357-360.

Trombulak, Stephen C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review ofecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic

communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1): 18-30.

Wilkins, Kenneth T. 1982. Highways as barriers to rodent

dispersal. The Southwestern Naturalist, 27(4): 459-460.

continued from previous page

Many thank s to Ken Avidor for donating this and other t errific cartoons to W ildlands CPR!


15/16


Wildlands CPR Publications: Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members) A

comp rehen sive activist m anual that includes th e five Guideslisted below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads , Gather-ing Informat ion wit h the Freedom of Informat ion Act , andmore!

Road-Ripper's Guide to t he National Fores ts ($4, $7 non-mem-

bers) By Keith Hamm er. How-to pro cedu res for gettingroads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environ men -tal laws, road de nsity stan dards & Forest Service road poli-cies.

Road-Ripper 's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-mem-bers) By David Bahr & Aron Yarm o. Provides backgroun don th e National Park System an d its use of roads, and o ut-lines ho w activists can get involved in NPS plann ing.

Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members) ByDan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related lan d an dresource laws, and det ailed discussion s for participating inBLM decision-making processes.

Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem-bers) By Dan Wright. A com preh ensive guide to redu c-ing the use an d abuse o f ORVs on p ublic land s. Includes an

extensive bibliography.

Road-Ripper s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4 , $7 non-members)By Scott Bagley. Provides tech nical inform a-

tion on road construction and removal, where and whyroads fail, and how yo u can effectively assess road rem oval

projects.

Trails of Destruction ($10) By Friends of the Earth and Wild-land s CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith . This

repo rt explains th e ecological imp acts of ORVs, federal fund-ing for motorized recreation on p ublic land s, and the ORV

industrys role in pu shing th e ORV agenda.

Bibliographic Services:Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Up-

date d Feb. 1998) Edited by Reed Noss. Com piled b y Dave

Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Humph rey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacquet& Susan Pierce. Contains ap prox. 6,000 citation s includ-

ing scientific literature o n erosion, fragmentation, sedim en-

tation, po llution, effects on wildlife, aquatic an d h ydrologi-

cal effects, and other information on the impacts of roads.Use the ecological literature to un derstand an d develop roaddensity standards, priorities for road removal, and other

road issues.

Database Searches We will search th e Bibliograph y on thesubjects that interest you, and provide results in IBM or

Macintosh form at (specify software), or on pap er. We alsohave prep ared a 1-disk Bibliographic Summ ary with resu lts

for comm only requested searches. Finally, we offer the full

bibliography. However, you mu st ha ve Pro-Cite or a com -patible database pro gram in order to use it.

Bibliography p rices Prices are based on a sliding scale. Callfor details.

WILDLA N DS CPR MEMBERSH IP/ORD ER FORM

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

Prices include shipping: for Priority Mail add $3.00 per item;for Canadian orders, add $6.00 per item.

International Membership $30 MinimumAll prices in U.S. Dollars

Ask about reduced rates for items ordered in bulk.

Phone/E-mail

Affiliation

I want to join (or renew my membership with)Wildlands CPR:

Address

Name

Type of Member ship: Individual Organization

Other$30 standard

$50 business

$15 low-income

$100$250

Send me these Wildlands CPR Publications:

Qty: Title/Price Each: Total:

Total of all items:

/

/

/


16/16

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516

Missoula, MT 59807

Visions...

Non-profit OrganizationUS POSTAGE

PAID

MISSOULA, MT 59801PERMIT NO. 569

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

We use the t ra i ls and parks to

enjoy. . . our mount ain bikes . We do not

use our bi kes to enjoy. . . t he trai ls and

parks.

We are USERS, not ENJOYERS -

t hat i s our image.

anonymous mountain biker

road riporter 5.4

Documents