The Road-RIPorter

Bimonthly Newsletter of the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads. July/August 2000. Volume 5 # 4

Reclaiming the Concept of Restoration

A Story from the Pacific Northwest
By Jasmine Minbashian

T
hroughout the last century, thousands of organizations
and individuals have been working to protect ancient
and native forests, stop corporate subsidies on public
lands, and protect our rivers and streams. The combination of
their vigilance and a century of over-cutting have resulted in
substantial declines in logging levels and stronger protections on
our national forests.

The work, however,

is far from over.
Some would say it
has only just begun.
The aftermath of
nearly a century of
logging, grazing, and
mining has left
today’s generation
with a difficult
legacy: more than
400,000 miles of
logging roads,
millions of acres of
clear-cuts, and a
In an effort to maintain timber harvest levels and generate public support for logging, land managers drastic decline in
have employed “restoration” treatments to public lands. But these techniques, although sometimes
creating the appearance of a mature forest, fail to protect ecological processes and therefore, the life native biodiversity.
that depends upon them. Jim Coefield photo.

— continued on page 4 —
 From the Wildlands CPR Office... Wildlands
C
Center for
P
Preventing

H R
Roads
undreds of log trucks and protesters showed up in Missoula June 21 to
protest President Clinton’s roadless initiative. Amidst the rhetoric, bands,
speakers, and the world’s largest picnic table-headed to Elko, Nevada, from
the people of Eureka, MT-were scores of people afraid of the potential impacts of Main Office
protecting roadless areas. Unfortunately, the majority of that fear comes from P.O. Box 7516
misinformation and scare tactics being used by the timber and off-road vehicle Missoula, MT 59807
industries to prevent roadless protection. Read more about our views on this issue in (406) 543-9551
WildlandsCPR@WildlandsCPR.org
DePaving the Way on p. 3. www.wildrockies.org/WildCPR
On a brighter note, things have been moving forward with our roads and ORV
work. The National ORV Coalition has been successfully defending the National Park Colorado Office
Service’s snowmobile ban from several serious attacks in Congress. More than 60 P.O. Box 2353
members of Congress signed a letter to FS Chief Dombeck supporting stronger ORV Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 247-0998
regulations, and more than 50 organizations petitioned the BLM to change their ORV prebles@indra.net
management. So keep up the great work, everyone, and keep us informed about
your successes and your challenges! Wildlands Center for Preventing
Roads works to protect and restore
wildland ecosystems by preventing
Welcome
Wildlands CPR is absolutely thrilled
In this Issue and removing roads and limiting
motorized recreation. We are a
to welcome Ronni Flannery both to our national clearinghouse and network,
organization and to the National ORV Reclaiming Restoration, p. 1, 4-5 providing citizens with tools and
Jasmine Minbashian strategies to fight road
Coalition. Ronni will be joining the construction, deter motorized
coalition in early August as the recreation, and promote road
Grassroots Advocate for the National DePaving the Way, p. 3 removal and revegetation.
Campaign. She’ll be working with Bethanie Walder
Director
many of you to assist you with your Bethanie Walder
ORV work and to ensure that your Odes to Roads, p. 6-7
voices are well-represented as we craft Carolyn Duckworth Development Director
Tom Youngblood-Petersen
this campaign. Ronni is an attorney
who spent most of the last year working Legal Notes, p. 8-9 Office Manager
in California, and formerly worked for Cate Campbell
Ethan Hasenstein
the Alliance for the Wild Rockies here ORV Grassroots Advocate
in Missoula. Ronni Flannery
Regional Reports
It is with some regret that we say
au revoir to board member Scott p. 10-11 ORV Policy Coordinator
Jacob Smith
Stouder. He has been incredibly helpful
the past two years and we’ll miss his New Resources for Roads Policy Coordinator
humor and perspective in shaping our Road Rippers, p. 11 Marnie Criley
work. But he won’t get off too easy, Newsletter
we’ll still be bugging him for advice Bibliography Notes, p. 12-14 Dave Havlick, Dan Funsch
when we need it. We are excited, Marnie Criley & Katherine Postelli Interns & Volunteers
however, to welcome Ted Zukoski to our Jennifer Browne, Scott Thomas
board. Ted is an attorney with the Land
and Water Fund of the Rockies in Boulder, CO. He’s worked on numerous road and Board of Directors
Katie Alvord, Karen Wood DiBari,
ORV cases and we couldn’t ask for a better new board member. Welcome, Ted! Sidney Maddock, Rod Mondt,
Cara Nelson, Mary O'Brien,
Thanks Ted Zukoski
We have many thank yous to offer this time around. Thanks to Temper of the Advisory Committee
Times Foundation for a grant to help us distribute the ORV video, “Motor.” Thanks to Jasper Carlton, Libby Ellis,
the Mountaineers Foundation for a grant to help us develop a detailed analysis and Dave Foreman, Keith Hammer,
critique of the Forest Service’s “Roads Analysis Process.” And many thanks to the Timothy Hermach,
Marion Hourdequin, Lorin Lindner,
Brainerd, Norcross, and Weeden Foundations for generous grants for our roads and Andy Mahler, Robert McConnell,
motorized recreation work, as well. We also continue to receive small and large Stephanie Mills, Reed Noss,
donations alike from individual members. We couldn’t do our work without your Michael Soulé, Dan Stotter,
support, so thank you very much for helping us take roads off the map! Steve Trombulak, Louisa Willcox,
Finally, we have a number of local restaurants to thank for donations for our Bill Willers, Howie Wolke
annual board meeting, held here in Montana in June. The following eateries helped
keep us happily fed with delicious and nutritious food throughout the
weekend: Bagel’s on Broadway, Bernice’s Bakery, The Bridge, Downtown
Bakery, MacKenzie River Pizza, and especially, Tipu’s Tiger! © 2000 Wildlands CPR

2 The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000

Lies and Propaganda
By Bethanie Walder
F
earmongering... It’s an odd word. But it aptly sums up what’s
happening around the West in response to President Clinton’s
roadless initiative. But why so much anger and resentment toward
roadless protection? After all, it’s really only enforcing the status quo...
these lands are already free of roads and they provide only 5% of the
total timber production from the National Forests (which, in turn,
provide only 5% of the nation’s timber supply). So Clinton’s proposal,
while maintaining the status quo, would save the Forest Service a lot of
time, hassle and even money preparing expensive and lengthy EIS’s to
justify road-building in roadless areas. It doesn’t save quite enough,
however, since the Forest Service’s preferred alternative would actually
allow more logging to occur in roadless lands than the current manage-
ment regime.
So really, what is all the fuss about?
The timber and off-road vehicle industries, their “grassroots”
constituencies, and their champions in Congress are the most vocal
opponents to the roadless plan. These industries, particularly the off-
road vehicle lobby, are spreading an incredible amount of misinforma-
tion to stir up a fervor of anti-roadless sentiment. The roadless initia-
tive, like the Jarbidge River road before it, has become another symbol
in the battle over the changing economies and changing face of the New
West.
Much of this came to a head on the summer solstice in Missoula,
Montana. The timber industry decided to stage a good old-fashioned
log-truck jamboree in protest of the Forest Service’s roadless hearing in
Missoula. The trucks, carrying logs, wood, logging equipment and off-
road vehicles, convoyed in from all over the region to protest the Forest
Service’s initiative. It was even rumored that several mills shut
down for the day and bussed their workers to the
rally. The people of Eureka, Montana, built
a special (“World’s Largest!”) picnic table to
ship down to the people of Elko, Nevada, for
their big showdown fourth of July weekend.
The picnic table was lined with shovels to
help reopen the closed Jarbidge road. Both
the 1.5 mile long closed Jarbidge road and the Forest Service’s 40-60
million acre roadless protection proposal draw the same kind of ire
throughout the West. It’s not about the Jarbidge road, and it’s not about
the roadless proposal. It is the same old fight about federal control over
federal lands that have local significance.
What do the timber and off-road vehicle industries do to rile up
their workers and other sympathetic folks in rural and urban America?
They start with a targeted campaign of misinformation, playing on
people’s fears about things like wilderness and federal control of public
lands. At the Missoula hearing, people were asked to sign pre-printed
comment letters that highlighted six key points-six key points that have
little to do with the actual roadless policy.
Two of the points offer some of the most egregious examples of the
disingenuity of the anti-roadless contingency. The first states, “It [the
roadless initiative] blatantly circumvents both the forest planning
process and the Wilderness Act.”
The Forest Service’s preferred alternative allows logging, mining,
off-road vehicle use, grazing and any other activity that occurs on
National Forest lands to continue in roadless lands as long as roads are
not needed. The roadless initiative is NOT de facto wilderness. And as
environmental activists, it is critical we make this clear-since the
The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000
Opponents of the roadless policy brought their
theatrics to Missoula. Bethanie Walder photo.
roadless initiative will not protect these lands as
wilderness, we would be remiss to allow this
misperception to continue.
The second disingenuous point is about the
issue of access. While motorized access and access
are not synonymous, the industries have likened the
roadless initiative to a lock-up of public lands. They
focus specifically on the denial of recreational
access: “Numerous USFS reports show that ‘driving
for pleasure’ is the number one use of national
forests, and that recreation is expected to increase in
the future. How can people recreate without access.”
Driving for pleasure is an activity that the Forest
Service documents, but it occurs ON roads. Roadless
areas have no roads. If driving for pleasure is the
number one use of the national forests, then keeping
roadless areas roadless will have absolutely no
impact on that activity at all. Nor will it have any
impact on any other motorized recreational activity,
at least not in its current form.
While the Forest Service’s unwillingness to
prevent motorized access in roadless areas is one of
the most significant deficiencies in the plan, this
aspect might well be lauded, not criticized, by the
ORV and timber industries. Instead, they spread
falsehoods that motorized access will be denied in
roadless areas. Why?
Why all the fear-mongering? Because if the
industries told the truth- if they admitted how
insignificant the impact truly would be of protecting
roadless areas from new road construction-then they
wouldn’t be able to rile up the masses, make a big
show, and foment discontent and furor with National
Forest management. To maintain the values of the
old West, to fight progress toward the inevitable new
economies and new lifestyles, it is critical to motivate
people to rise up in opposition to those programs
which will help bring about this shift, even if the
program itself doesn’t significantly change the status
quo. It is a calculated and dangerous game. In the
end, all it will do is keep rural communities from
embracing alternative economies, and alternative
jobs within similar economies. In the end, it keeps
people and communities mired in the mud
when they could be creating their own
productive versions of the future.
3
Reclaiming the Concept of Restoration
— continued from page 1 —

Today, forest activists are at a

critical juncture, a transition
point, where we must begin develop-
ing a vision of how we will recover
wild, functional landscapes. Our first
and most immediate challenge is in
defining the term “restoration.” Many
forest organizations today still are
fighting egregious timber sales, now
masked as “restoration” or “salvage”
projects. A recurring theme in the
numerous justifications for commer-
cial logging on public lands is
“restoration” thinning. Forest
managers tout thinning as a way to
accelerate old growth conditions, stop
insect infestations, and mimic the
effects of fire. The jury of sound
science, however, is still out. Credible
research to support the claims that “Restoration” management, as employed by the Forest Service, often removes
structural components of healthy forests, like standing and downed dead timber.
commercial thinning can restore our
Jim Coefield photo.
forests is sparse. In fact, there are
many risks associated with thinning,
including soil compaction, introduction of
disease or insect infestations (by damage to Washington’s state population. At the same time, the water-
live trees), reduction of natural tree mortality, shed is home to old growth forests and numerous endangered,
creation of too much uniformity, and impacts threatened, and sensitive species.
to shrubs and snags from heavy equipment.
Despite the lack of evidence, the use of Past management practices, however, have created serious
restoration rhetoric to justify commercial and expensive problems in the watershed today. Over a
timber sale programs has reached epidemic century of commercial logging in the watershed has resulted
proportions. in the destruction of 83% of the original forests, the construc-
tion of 560 miles of logging roads (that’s more than
the miles of streams in the watershed!), and the
elimination of crucial habitat for endangered species.
In order to address these damages and satisfy federal
Even in the environmentally-enlightened requirements for endangered species protection, the
city of Seattle, a senior member of the city City of Seattle developed a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP), which would set aside an ecological reserve
council recently proposed logging the and decommission 20% of the existing roads. The
municipal watershed, the Cedar River, to proposed plan allows commercial logging to continue
in 36% of the watershed in order to generate revenue
improve forest health and raise money. to fund the HCP. Masked under the guise of “restora-
tion logging,” the City had planned to generate over
$84 million by logging thousands of acres in the
watershed.

Even in the environmentally-enlightened In response to the proposed plan, local environmental

city of Seattle, a senior member of the city
council recently proposed the idea of logging
the municipal watershed, the Cedar River, to
improve forest health and raise money
simultaneously. The Cedar River Watershed
is a priceless public jewel: it provides clean
drinking water to roughly 1.25 million people
in King County-approximately one-fifth of
groups, including Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, Seattle
Audubon, and Seattle Earth First!, formed the Protect Our
Watershed Alliance (POWA), a coalition of community and
environmental organizations. POWA developed and supported
a citizen’s alternative to the HCP that immediately ended all
commercial logging in the watershed and increased funding
for road decommissioning. They argued that logging to fund
the restoration of lands damaged by past logging was not only

4 The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000

illogical and unnecessary, but was also
ecologically and economically unsound.
POWA pointed out that for every ecological
cost, there would be an economic one, either
now or in the future. These costs would come
in the form of road building and the associ-
ated damage that logging roads do to forest
By defining restoration we can do a better timber
job at countering forest health claims and develop a strong vision of restora-
limit justifications for destroying what
little is left of our National Forests.
ecosystems. In the future, there would be
other major costs, including but not limited to
replanting and reseeding lost trees, stream
restoration, or capital costs such as the
construction of a filtration system to keep
Seattle’s water clean.
The campaign received an added boost
when the local citizens advisory committee
came out in support of protecting the water-
shed. In their letter to the Mayor, they wrote:
“Throughout its history, logging has been
status quo in the Cedar River watershed, and
has consistently provided income. As public
values have evolved from short-term gain
toward environmental stewardship, manage-
ment of the system has also changed.
However, the Committee believes that the
historical use of the lands has prejudiced the
present financial question before us. We
strongly advise you to reframe the question
before the City and the public. We should not
be asking: ‘Should logging provide our
revenues?’ We should instead be asking:
“How do we wish to pay for the HCP?’ ...
Disengaging logging (an environmental
decision) from financing (a necessary objec-
tive) is crucial because it permits a broader,
more realistic discussion of the latter. It frees finding alternative sources for
us from our history.”
The public also supported this position:
nearly 95% of the 1,000 comment letters
received did not support logging to fund
restoration. They stated their willingness to
pay the equivalent of a “latte a year,” or 33
cents a month, to fund the restoration plan.
City officials also had little scientific evidence
to support their claims that thinning would
benefit the watershed. Subsequently, the
entire 90,000 acres were protected as an
ecological reserve off-limits to commercial
The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000
logging. The amount of funding for road removal was also
increased to remove 40% of the roads in the watershed.
If the forest protection movement is to establish a similar
vision for our National Forests, individuals and organizations
within the movement must understand that protecting and
restoring our National Forests is not a sequential process (i.e.
first protect, then restore). The two
must be done simultaneously. While
we work to end the commercial
sale program, old growth and
roadless area logging, we need to
tion. Why? By defining restoration
we can do a better job at countering
forest health claims and limit
justifications for destroying what
little is left of our National Forests. A
strong vision of restoration offers a
positive message and hope in the midst of a battered land-
scape, moving more individuals to action. Restoration projects
are also an economic alternative for rural communities facing
hard economic times. According to the Forest Service’s Pacific
Northwest Regional Office, federal worker retraining and
restoration programs employed 2,000 workers in the Pacific
Northwest in 1995 at an average wage of $17.10 per hour. A
well-funded restoration
program would help alleviate
some of the pressure to
continue commercial logging
in our National Forests.
Most importantly our
vision must completely sever
the concept of restoration from
a commercial timber sale
program. The Cedar River
Watershed is now one of the
first watersheds in the North-
west to do just this. It is the
first time that we have wit-
nessed an $84 million dollar
restoration program for one
watershed with ecological
objectives as the sole driver.
The results of the restoration
process will be a model for our
national forests. Although
funding the endeavor will be
the key, with continued
vigilance and a large core of
dedicated activists we will
succeed in holding the Forest
Service accountable to a Clean water depends on intact forest ecosystems.
similar vision of restoration. File photo.
— 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.
5
 Odes to Roads

Roads of Destruction; Roads of Recovery

By Carolyn Duckworth

F
ive hundred miles, seven hours.
Gardiner to Wolf Point, through
the heart of buffalo country in
central and eastern Montana. Road
hours, dropping out of the Yellowstone
Plateau, straightarrow out Paradise
Valley, clacketyclack over the heat
cracks in the Interstate, and then hours
of rolling miles up the high plains hills
and down into the coulees and back
out again.
Recent rains infused the landscape
with green; a few fields looked posi-
tively lush. Waves of grain and sun-
flowers, grazing pronghorn, a few
clumps of cows. No buffalo.
No buffalo have lived among these
fields for more than a century. Their Perhaps no other species symbolizes the demise of Wild America like the Bison.
hoof beats used to shake the sediment Jim Coefield photo.
for miles, until the relentless pounding
of railroad spikes drove a sound louder than gunshot go, except for two “problems”-sixty million buffalo
throughout these hills. and more than a dozen tribes disinclined to give up
The role of roads in the destruction of buffalo their hunting grounds. These two “problems” were
becomes graphic lines on a map in the geography intimately entwined. Buffalo were marketplace and
classroom of Wolf Point High School. I was attending the cathedral for the tribes of the Great Plains, and
annual meeting of the Montana Environmental Educa- shrewd schemers in the business and military
tion Association, and while we waited for the Fort Peck industries recognized them as the key to subduing
Tribe’s geologist to get through the traffic (yep, in Wolf Native Americans.
Point-road construction), I was staring at the map across These problems were enthusiastically tackled by
the room. “1870” was its date, and its lines traced the a military laid idle by the end of the Civil War.
routes of roads, railroads, and trails across the United Soldiers needed some place to go and officers needed
States and its territories after the Civil War. A web of red, a campaign. They provided protection for railroad
yellow, and blue lines wove east to west, thinning in the construction crews, they provided arms for hunters
Midwest, then ending but for the northwest strand of the who slaughtered buffalo for meat to feed the crews.
Bozeman Trail through Wyoming and Montana. No roads When the crews were fed, the shooting continued. In
before 1870. Plenty of buffalo. 1872, the railroads through Kansas and Nebraska
shipped 1,378,359 buffalo hides and 6,751,200
pounds of meat to the east. These iron roads brought
the destruction and carried its remains away, and
The role of roads in the destruction then they brought even more destruction. Tourists.
of buffalo becomes graphic lines on a map The railroads began advertising buffalo
sightseeing and hunts to entice people to ride the
in the geography classroom of railroads. This commercial ploy hauled out hundreds
Wolf Point High School. of gun-toting tourists on each train. They would
travel until they encountered a buffalo herd, and
then the “fun” began. The railroad tourist trade also
destroyed buffalo in a more insidious way. When the
The railroads were on their way. happy hunters returned home, they bragged about
Businessmen on both coasts perceived the Great their trip and showed off their buffalo robes. Of
Plains as a waste of space that separated commerce. course everyone wanted one. You, too, could own a
How to cross this expanse? Railroads seemed the way to symbol of the frontier!

6 The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000

 During this time, the railroad had not yet
penetrated the Great Plains of eastern Montana. The
Northern Pacific had stopped construction in
Bismarck for several years while the company
repaired its finances. In this last stretch of peaceful
time for the buffalo of Montana, a traveler on a trip
between Miles City and Poplar Creek (20 miles east of
Wolf Point), reported “for four days we saw nothing
else but buffalo . . . we were in the center it seemed
of a herd numbering into the millions.”
Within two years of that trip, the railroad had
penetrated Montana in two lines: the Hi Line through
Wolf Point and Glasgow, and the southern route
along the Yellowstone River through Miles City. The Along with the railroads came the military, entrepreneurs, and settlers.
last wild, unfenced herd in America was trapped. In Edgar van der Grift photo.
1881, fifty thousand buffalo hides were shipped east
on the railroads; 1882, two hundred thousand. And Up on the Hi Line, where the majority of Montana’s
then the numbers plunged: 1883, forty thousand. Native Americans live today, tribes already provide
1884, three hundred. When William Hornaday came thousands of acres of grassland for buffalo. The Fort
out to Montana in 1886 to kill specimens for a zoo (to Belknap tribes have a pasture that’s probably the size of
preserve their image before they disappeared from some of our smaller states set aside for buffalo they
the face of the earth), he spent two months searching hope to reclaim from Yellowstone, should that herd be
for the few buffalo he finally killed. He found them determined to have grown beyond the capacity of the
around the buttes that grace the skyline of Dry Creek Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. It is on this land where a
country, exactly where that traveler from 1879 had quarantine could be effectively and ethically carried out,
reported being among millions of buffalo. should the Montana Department of Livestock continue to
In the century since, especially in the last fifty
years, we have scraped and paved and created miles
of paved roads in the triangle formed by the railroads
and Interstate 94 and US Highway 2 (a road also
known as the Hi Line). These roads could be used to
... imagine buffalo simply walking out of
transport buffalo from the killing fields outside the Yellowstone Plateau ... then spreading
Yellowstone National Park to this spare land of grass
and sedge and gully. This Dry Creek country is big over the hundreds of rolling miles
enough for buffalo and pronghorn, golden eagle and up the high plains hills and down
northern harrier. Heck, it would probably even
continue to tolerate cattle, if all ranchers managed into the coulees.
their land in the sustainable fashion of their most
progressive colleagues.
insist that Yellowstone’s buffalo pose a risk to cattle
because of brucellosis.
How would buffalo get up to the Hi Line? The
romantics among us, and I’m one, imagine buffalo
simply walking out of the Yellowstone Plateau,
straightarrow out Paradise Valley, then spreading over
the hundreds of rolling miles up the high plains hills and
down into the coulees.
That scene won’t happen in my lifetime. But I can
foresee the day, within this decade, when tribal trucks
will travel that same path. They will drive their trucks
onto the highways that parallel the railroads of destruc-
tion and they will turn those highways into roads of
recovery. They will bring the buffalo back.

— Carolyn Duckworth often walks the trails of

Yellowstone, where she frequently encounters buffalo.
Some of this essay comes from her as yet unpublished
memoir, Bison to Buffalo: A Year in the Heart of
Yellowstone. She recently was given the Sense of Wonder
Award by the Montana Environmental Education
Association for her writing on behalf of the environment.
Where do the tracks of “progress” lead?
Edgar van der Grift photo.

The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000 7

Fighting Roads with TMDLs and the Clean Water Act
By Ethan Hasenstein

Introduction: inexpensive land-use measures or

practices consisting of structural or
Sedimentation and Water Quality nonstructural controls and operation-
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or “Clean Water Act,” was and-maintenance procedures. BMPs are
amended from its original form (dating to 1948) and signed into law (P.L. 92-500). selected based on site-specific condi-
While the utility of the CWA for environmental plaintiffs cannot be denied, the act tions that reflect the natural background
has shortcomings when one attempts to use it to challenge the construction and as well as political, social, economic,
management of wildland roads. Keeping in mind the CWA’s intent to “restore and and technical feasibility. Agencies such
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (CWA as the Forest Service and BLM are
§101), this summary will examine how this (and subsequent) legislation addresses required to develop their own BMPs, but
different types of pollution, and how to use legislative and political routes to influ- the nature of how these are set is
ence road-building from a water-quality standpoint. flexible and, in essence, voluntary
(§1329(b)(2)(B)).
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub.
The Legal Foundation of Best L. 100-4) established a federal grant
Management Practices system and set-asides for states which
The Clean Water Act (33 USCA §1251, et seq) defines two sources of water elected to implement nonpoint source
pollution: point and nonpoint (CWA §502 (14)). Point sources originate, as the name pollution reduction programs. All eleven
suggests, from a discrete, identifiable single source. Nonpoint sources of pollution Western states have now accepted §319
are the result of substances, both toxic and non-toxic, that enter water bodies grants and have implemented (or are in
through runoff due to storm events, snowmelt, translocation by wind, and precipita- the process of implementing) nonpoint
tion.1 source programs with the guidance of
Congress excluded nonpoint source pollution from the regulatory scope of the the EPA. But even if a state prepares an
CWA in 1972 for several reasons: point sources were perceived as the primary approved management plan, implemen-
causes of water pollution, the magnitude of nonpoint sources was not fully under- tation remains voluntary and in the
stood, and nonpoint source pollution is difficult to isolate (Plater, 1998). hands of the state and polluting opera-
Sedimentation, a nonpoint source, is now the second leading cause of water tors, with little governmental enforce-
quality impairment in our nation’s waters (EPA, “National Water Quality Inventory: ment available (Saperstein, 1995).
1994 Report to Congress, Exec. Summary, 7-15). Because it is nearly always defined
as a nonpoint source from road-building, agriculture, or other activities, sedimenta- Susceptibility of BMP’s to
tion is not regulated by the CWA or enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Nonpoint pollution control compliance is largely voluntary and also does not Legal Challenge and
fall under the permitting scope of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Appeal
System (NPDES). To
To challenge a road, it would seem
partially mitigate this,
intuitive to try to persuade a court to
Congress in 1987 enacted
deem it or one of its parts (i.e. a defec-
§319 of the CWA (33 USCA
tive culvert or sub-standard bridge) a
§1329) making grant
point source, thereby subjecting it to the
allocations for states to
full regulation of the CWA and NPDES.
develop nonpoint source
Although the Second Circuit decision in
management programs,
Concerned Area Residents for the
including the adoption of
Environment v. Southview Farms, 34
Best Management Practices.
F.3d 114 (1994), cert. denied 115 S.Ct.
In contrast to the high-
1793 (1995) is encouraging in that it re-
tech controls that are most
designated a nonpoint source, the courts
often used to reduce point
have been consistently reluctant to
source pollution, the EPA
remand nonpoint sources to the EPA for
contends that nonpoint
re-classification. Therefore, activists
sources are best controlled
may not want to focus narrowly on road
by low-technology Best
When employed, Best Management Practices can reduce the prevention in the case of BMPs, but
Management Practices or
erosive impacts of roads, but legal action to compel their use should rather merge their efforts to
is not often effective. Steve Chambers photo. BMPs-comparatively
challenge state nonpoint source pollu-

1
Just this year EPA tried to reclassify logging as point source pollution, but that attempt failed as this article was going to press.

8 The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000

tion control programs as a whole. It is
difficult to force a state agency to
regulate or enforce BMPs when their
implementation is specifically classified
as voluntary and non-regulated.
Of course, if a state’s program
stipulates regulation and the agency fails
to comply, there is precedent to sue EPA
to take over the state’s nonpoint
program until it complies. EPA is
required to review and approve
nonpoint programs before they are
implemented (with significant state
participation), so it may be possible to
structure a case on the efficacy of
approved BMPs. However, judicial
discretion will not likely force any
recommendation on the merits of the
BMPs themselves. Adding to the
difficulty, not every Western state has a
code, statute, or regulation such as a
forest practices act to create a higher
enforceable technical standard. Simi-
larly, not all states even require BMPs or
have an agency that implements these
section 319 grants.
Total Maximum Daily
Loads and Water Quality
Assessment
The CWA requires that each state
keep a current list of streams or
stretches of stream that do not meet
state water quality standards for the
stream’s designated use. 33 USCA
§1313(d) refers to these as Water Quality
Limited Segments (WQLS). Segments
can be listed for both turbidity and
water temperature, issues that weigh
heavily in road-building operations
(§303(d) CWA). After designating their
WQLS, states are required to set Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), the
maximum allowable amount or level of
specified pollutants. The TMDL calcula-
tions help ensure that the cumulative
impacts of multiple point source
discharges are accounted for and are
evaluated in conjunction with pollution
from other nonpoint sources. States are
then required to take whatever addi-
tional cleanup actions are necessary,
which include further controls on both
point and nonpoint pollution sources.
States must stay current on listing
and setting TMDL every two years (33
USCA §1315(b)). If the state fails to
comply with this requirement, then the
EPA must intervene and take over setting
the state’s TMDL. In Sierra Club v.
Hankinson 939 F.Supp. 865 (N.D.Ga.
The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000
1996), plaintiffs successfully sued EPA to take over Georgia’s water quality program
for insufficient and tardy development of TMDL or WQLS (see also Alaska Center for
the Environment v. Reilly 796 F.Supp. 1374 (W.D.Wash.1992)). A state may also
simply fail to establish any TMDLs or cohesive water quality-based limitations, in
which case EPA is compelled to intervene, without discretion, to uphold the intent of
CWA and Congress. Be forewarned, the agency generally complies minimally and
there is no clear CWA provision to require better review (NRDC v. Fox 909 F. Supp.153
(S.D.N.Y.1995)). Activists can press the EPA using Section 505(a) of the CWA, which
authorizes citizens to bring suit in federal court against the EPA for failing to perform
an “act or duty” under the CWA which is not discretionary (33 USCA §1365(a)).
Since many projects are completed in part with federal funds, states’ failure to
implement TMDL/WQLS may be successfully challenged by filing suit against EPA.
States, in codifying nonpoint source programs, must provide for public participation
and are thus in violation of state administrative law if they fail to adequately account
for public comment in WQLS designation.
Another handle for activists can be the verity and efficacy in TMDL-setting.
Citizens can conduct water quality monitoring themselves and use the information to
re-designate TMDLs. Although agency foot-dragging is common, EPA’s duty to ensure
state compliance is non-discretionary and well defined.
Conclusion: The Political Future of Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
The Clean Water Act provides poorly for the management of nonpoint source
activities, but TMDLs offer one route for activists to apply this law to sediment
loading and other road-generated water quality problems. Because nonpoint source
pollution is so closely tied to agricultural practices, any effort at addressing nonpoint
sources from roads and silviculture will do well to encompass not only sedimenta-
tion, but also
pesticide applica-
tion and animal
waste manage-
ment.
— Ethan
Hasenstein is a
soon-to-be
graduate of the
Environmental
Studies Program at
the University of
Montana. He just
got married and is
currently on his
honeymoon in the
Total Maximum Daily Loads, required under the Clean Water Act, may
Brooks Range of
provide an avenue for activists challenging road contruction and its
Alaska.
impacts. Kraig Klugness photo.
REFERENCES
Dissmeyer, 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: Implementation and
enforcement 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.
9
 Regional Reports
Great Burn Trail Monitoring Project
Volunteer Opportunity

The Great Burn extends across 270,000 roadless acres,

straddling the Montana-Idaho border. It forms a wildlife travel
corridor between the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the
Cabinet-Yaak, and is home to wolves, lynx, wolverine, fisher,
moose, bears, old growth cedar, and ponderosa pine, among
others. The Great Burn is also unprotected wilderness and Adding insult to injury: the Forest Service wants to re-open
illegal off-road vehicle use is compromising the wild character this road five years after massive landslides closed it. Steve
of this unique region. Chambers photo.
Wildlands CPR, several other conservation groups, and the
U.S. Forest Service (FS) have formed a partnership to monitor,
document, and report resource damage along a 10-mile Conservation Groups Sue Forest Service
section of trail on the Bitterroot Crest in the heart of the Great Over Road Reopening
Burn. The partnership hopes to provide the FS with informa-
tion that can be used to mitigate the current level of illegal use
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Ventana
and associated resource damage.
Wilderness Alliance (VWA) filed suit in early June to require the
Already our monitoring has discovered a new campsite
Forest Service (FS) to conduct a full environmental analysis
and trail pioneered by ORV users. Monitoring will also
before reopening the Indians-Arroyo Seco Road. According to
document unlawful motorized use, spread of noxious weeds,
the groups, the agency plans to reopen the remote road
noise levels, and
without carefully examining impacts on the environment. The
displacement of other
FS claims that the project will have no detrimental effects, and
users. We will provide
plans to move ahead using a “categorical exclusion” from full
training on low impact
analysis, omitting careful study and citizen participation.
camping and accurate
The 18-mile stretch of dirt road in Monterey County has
monitoring. The
been closed since 1995, when two massive landslides made it
project runs through
impassible. It traverses steep terrain from Memorial Park to the
September 18th. We
Arroyo Seco Campground, and during the past few decades
are looking for a 4-day
has suffered numerous costly landslides and washouts. The
commitment from
road also bisects a section of the Ventana Wilderness and runs
volunteers to hike the
immediately east of the Arroyo Seco River, a Wild river
eleven miles into the
candidate, the only undammed major tributary of the Salinas
monitoring area. Film
River, and home to the threatened red-legged frog.
and some food and
In the suit filed in U.S. District Court, CBD and VWA
travel costs will be
contend the FS illegally sidestepped the National Environmen-
covered by the partner-
tal Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, and
ship. For more infor-
ignored safety concerns from landslides and heightened
mation or to volunteer,
wildfire risk. The suit also cites impacts to threatened and
contact Fran Coover,
endangered species from reconstruction, disposal of landslide
Project Coordinator at
debris, and subsequent increased recreational use.
frannick@ixi.net or
Mid-Trio Lake in the Great Burn, site of For more information, contact the Ventana Wilderness
406-728-2207.
ORV monitoring project. Great Burn Alliance, 831-423-3191, or the Center for Biological Diversity,
Study Group photo. 510-841-0812.

Bowhunters Call for ORV Restrictions

The Professional Bowhunters Society, the largest and one of the oldest bowhunting/ that the use of ORVs for hunting “contrib-
conservation groups in North America, recently announced its position on the use of off- utes to tarnishing the reputations of
road vehicles. Their proclamation calls for limiting ORV use to roads and trails formally serious bowhunters who strive to hunt
designated as open to motorized travel. The Society’s new rules prohibit ATV travel with with the highest ethical standards while
a bow unless the weapon is unstrung or fully encased. Similarly, drawing or shooting a ‘doing it the hard way.’” They also
bow and arrow at any game animal while in or on an ORV is prohibited. Society recommend that states restrict the use of
members are also encouraged, when hunting on private lands, to have written permis- ATVs in hunting units open for general
sion from the landowner, abide by the rules of the landowner, and limit the use of ORVs. archery seasons regardless of whether or
Violations of these rules by Society members may lead to disciplinary sanctions. not the archery seasons are in session.
The move was prompted by the proliferation of ORV use, their growing environmen- Visit their web page at
tal impacts, and the threat posed by ORVs to the rules of fair chase. The Society believes www.bowsite.com/pbs.

10 The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000


Victories!
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Taku Mine Update
In 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 the Taku River Tlingit First Nation,
the Supreme Court of B.C. ruled that the
provincial government was wrong to
issue a permit for the 100 mile access
road and mine development.
Environmental and native groups
challenged the project based on its
threat to water quality and salmon
habitat, the Tlingit citing potential
damage to their territorial hunting and
fishing grounds. They claimed that
Redfern Resources conducted a hasty
and flawed environmental review, and
the court agreed. The mine would be
located near the B.C.-southeast Alaska
border, about 40 miles northeast of
Juneau.
Alaska wildlife officials were
pleased with the ruling, and hope it will
facilitate development of a bi-national
watershed plan for the region. The
court instructed the B.C. Environmental
UTAH
ORV Lawsuit Victory
A U.S. District judge last week
upheld a Forest Service decision to close
89 miles of roads to dirt bikes and other
ORVs on the Dixie NF, dismissing a
lawsuit brought by off-road enthusiasts
challenging the closure. The closure,
intended to protect fish and other
natural resources of the Boulder
Mountain area, left more than 40 miles
of roads still open.
A coalition led by the Utah Shared
Access Alliance challenged the road
closures, arguing that the Forest Service
violated the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Rehabilitation Act (a
precursor to the Americans With
Disabilities Act). A coalition of groups
represented by attorney Steve Bloch of
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
intervened on behalf of the Forest
Service in the case.
Bloch commented on the implica-
tions of the decision: “The Forest
Service needs to know they can close
routes to dirt bike and other ORV use
when that use causes resource damage.
The outcome of this lawsuit, once again,
OREGON
New Monument Whacks
Schoheim T-12 Road
Citing his authority under the
Antiquities Act, President Clinton
established four new National Monu-
ments on June 9. They include Cascade-
Siskiyou in southwestern Oregon,
Hanford Reach in southeastern Wash-
ington, Canyons of the Ancients in
southwestern Colorado, and Ironwood
Forest near Tucson, Arizona. The use of
motorized vehicles off-road, except for
administrative and emergency use, is
prohibited in all four new monuments.
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 of the Schoheim
Jeep Trail, a long-time member of
Wildlands CPR’s “Terrible Twelve” list of
the worst wildlands roads. The monu-
ment area, more commonly known as
Soda Mountain, contains a rich biologi-
cal crossroads at the junction of the
Cascade, Klamath, and Siskiyou
ecoregions. The area features unique
geology, biology, climate, and topogra-
phy. The proclamations can be viewed
at: http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/
retrieve-documents.html

12
Assessment Office to prepare a revised made that crystal clear.”

-
report that “meaningfully” addresses the

T
Tlingit concerns.

New Resources for

Road-Rippers
New ORV Reports from Sierra Club
and US PIRG Closing the Schoheim Jeep Trail will help protect the Soda
Mountain area. Dave Willis photo.

Shattered Solitude/Eroded Habitat: The Blue Ribbon Coalition:

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-motorized
route/trail mileage across the Lewis and Clark trail. Lawler
found that 42% of all trails on the National Forests in the 8
states he analyzed are open to dirt bikes and ATVs, while only
14% of trail users ride these machines. His study found that
non-motorized users are being more and more crowded onto a
limited number of non-motorized trails, especially those
outside of wilderness.
Protector of Recreation or Industry
US PIRG; May 2000; http://www.pirg.org
While the Blue Ribbon Coalition claims to be a grassroots
group representing the individual off-road vehicle user
concerned about recreation on public lands, this report found
that the coalition is closely tied to timber, mining, and oil and
gas industries as well as ORV manufacturers and dealers. This
report documents how the Blue Ribbon Coalition works hand-
in-hand with these industries to keep our national forests open
to logging, mining, oil and gas exploration and other destruc-
tive activities that are incompatible with recreation.

The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000 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.

From Gravel to Pavement — The Impacts of Upgrading

By Marnie Criley with research assistance from Katherine Postelli

T
he Forest Highways Program is a triagency program between the
Forest Service, states, and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). According to FHWA, “the objective of the Forest
Highway Program (FHP) is to construct or improve roads which connect
our national forests to the main State transportation network. The FHP
provides safe and adequate transportation access to and through
National Forest System Lands for visitors, recreationists, resource users,
and others which is not met by other transportation programs. Forest
Highways assist rural and community economic development and
promotes tourism and travel.”
In this Bibliography Notes, the first in a series that will examine the
Forest Highways Program, Wildlands CPR examines the ecological
implications of turning a forest road (dirt, gravel, narrow, winding) into a
Forest Highway (paved, widened, straightened and realigned to Ameri-
can Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials stan-
dards). While paving a dirt or gravel road does result in a decrease in
sediment yield (Reid and Dunne 1984) and airborne dust, there are also
many negative ecological consequences to improving a road to Forest
Highway specifications. These impacts are discussed below.
Hazards to Road Construction Workers
First, there is the initial hazard to the
workers who lay down the asphalt for a
paved road. Bitumen-based asphalt
fumes, a product of using hot bitumen
(>100° C) in road construction, contains
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
some of which are known to be carcino-
genic or co-carcinogenic in animals
(Burgaz et al. 1998). PAH can be ab-
sorbed not only in the lungs, but also in
the gastrointestinal track and through the
skin (Jongeneelen et al. 1986).
A study in Turkey looked at 28 male
road construction workers who had been
exposed to bitumen. Urine and blood
samples were taken in order to determine
the level of cytogenetic damage and
New road construction fragments habitat and causes soil erosion. Mark is direct leaching
exposure to PAHs. The study found that
Alan Wilson photo.
“bitumen fumes during road paving
operations are absorbed by workers and
that bitumen fumes are able to significantly induce cytogenetic (forma-
tion and development of cells) damage in peripheral lymphocytes (i.e.
lymph nodes, tonsils, etc.) of workers” (Burgaz et al. 1998).
A study by Horvath and Hendrickson (1998) also found that “asphalt
fumes might pose occupational exposure hazards to workers in the form
of respiratory problems and eye and throat irritation.” However, they
could find no conclusive evidence that bitumen fumes were carcino-
genic.
Chemical Pollutants Impact
Surrounding Landscape
Paved roads continue to be a source of chemical
pollutants long after the construction is complete.
One of the implications of upgrading a forest road to
a forest highway is that there has been and will
continue to be an increase in road use. While
vehicles travelling forest roads leave behind chemical
pollutants, the amounts are usually small due to the
lower level of use. However, the use levels of forest
highways create situations where chemical pollutants
can cause real harm to the roadside environment and
beyond. These pollutants include inorganic (lead,
zinc, chromium, iron and chloride) and organic
(PAHs) highway traffic pollutants.
One added source of highway pollutants is the
herbicides used to control weeds along and under
asphalt highways. The herbicide prometon is used to
extend the useful life of asphalt pavement by
preventing weeds from emerging through it.
Prometon has a
long biodegrada-
tion half-life, and
one application
can inhibit plant
growth for more
than a year. In
areas around
treated roads,
studies found
prometon is
present in surface
water, groundwater
and rainfall (Capel
et al. 1999).
Another
source of pollution
of PAHs from the
asphalt road itself.
In the past, PAHs in
roadside runoff were solely attributed to deposition
from car exhaust fumes. However, research from
Australia indicates that “relatively high concentra-
tions of PAHs can be introduced into soils through
leaching from bitumen surfaces” (Sadler et al. 1997).
Despite the fact that Americans no longer use
leaded gasoline, lead persists in soils and the food

12 The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000

chain for long periods and, as such, remains a major
ecological contaminant. A study in 1978 found that
22-58% of the lead emitted in exhaust was deposited
on the ground or vegetation along the roadside (Little
and Wiffen 1978). High levels of lead have been
found in bullfrog and green frog tadpoles living near
highways, with the average daily traffic volume
positively correlating with the lead concentrations in
these two species. Further, “lead concentrations in
tadpoles living near highways may contribute to the
elevated lead levels reported in wildlife that may be
tadpole predators” such as raccoons (Birdsall et al.
1986).
De-icing salt is another major highway pollutant.
Piatt and Krause (1974) found that de-icing salts
concentrate in the leaf tissue of roadside aspens,
leading to leaf damage and mortality. Another
impact of salt is that it can attract wildlife to road-
In addition to introducing contaminants, paving roads induces more traffic and
sides, putting them in danger of vehicle collisions.
higher speed travel, increasing risks to wildlife. Mark Alan Wilson photo.
Highway salt can also reach streams and channels
“in quantities sufficient to affect downstream aquatic
ecosystems” (Forman and Deblinger 2000).
A study by Gjessing et al. (1984) examined the clearance seemed to be a major factor inhibiting the movements of
effect of highway traffic pollutants (zinc, lead, forest mammals. Whereas forest roads often have vegetation right along
chromium, iron, chloride and PAHs) on lake water the roadside, highway margins are cleared of vegetation in order to
quality. They found that the washout water and comply with sight distances for stopping.
snow from the highway was rich in inorganic and Kozel and Flaherty’s (1979) study of rodents found that “small
organic pollutants, and that “these pollutants are forest mammals such as the eastern chipmunk and the white-footed
accumulated either in the soil and vegetation or in mouse were reluctant to venture onto road surfaces where the distance
the water sediments.” Finally, Trombulak and Frissell between forest edges exceeded 20 m.” Lovallo and Anderson (1996)
(2000) describe that maintenance and use of roads made a similar finding for bobcat movements: vehicle traffic levels and
can contribute at least five different types of pollut- the habitat composition of road buffer zones kept bobcats from crossing
ants to the environment: heavy metals, salt, organic paved roads.
molecules, ozone, and nutrients. Finally, Reed Noss (1995) gives a good description of the edge
effects of roads:
Impacts to Wildlife A narrow logging road with no maintained verge would not be
expected to generate substantial edge effects, particularly if surrounded
Many components of “improving” a forest road
by a tall forest canopy.... As forest roads are “improved,” road clearance
to a forest highway can detrimentally impact wildlife.
increases and allows more penetration of sunlight and wind. Edge
Improved roads mean improved access with the
species are then attracted to these openings.... A forest criss-crossed by
concomitant increase in vehicle speed and noise,
improved roads may be largely edge habitat, and its value for conserva-
often leading to higher numbers of roadkill and
tion of native flora and fauna diminished accordingly.
greater avoidance by certain species. Widening,
straightening and realigning these roads to fit Forest
Highway standards leads to increased fragmentation, Conclusion
while widening and clearing road shoulders in- The Forest Highways Program is designed to improve access for
creases edge effect. When these components are visitors, recreationists, resource users, and others between Forest Service
combined, the impact to wildlife of a forest highway lands and neighboring communities. While paving roads does include
versus a forest road can be enormous. some positive aspects, the process of widening, straightening, and
Carnivores such as grizzly bears, wolves, paving forest roads increases many environmental impacts such as
wolverine, mountain lion, and lynx have large home chemical pollution, wildlife roadkills, fragmentation and edge effects.
ranges which make them particularly vulnerable to Widening and paving roads also leads to greater habitat fragmentation
highways. Studies by Mattson (1987) and Paquet and more vehicles traveling at greater speeds bringing in more people.
(1993) indicate that highways displace wolves and All these factors contribute to increased wildlife mortality and reduced
grizzlies. Black bears in North Carolina do not cross wildlife habitat and gene flow.
interstate highways, although they will cross roads Forest Highway “road improvements” must be evaluated carefully
with less traffic (Brody and Pelton 1989). and only applied selectively. In the meantime, the ecological impacts of
Back in 1974, Oxley’s study of the impact of converting forest roads to forest highways is worthy of further research
roads on small mammals noted that animals suffer and analysis.
greater mortality with higher traffic volume and
speed. Studies of various amphibian species have — Marnie Criley is the Roads Policy Coordinator for Wildlands CPR. She
found the same to be true (Rosen and Lowe 1994; spends her spare time doing watershed restoration work in western
Fahrig et al. 1995). Oxley also noted that road Montana.
— References on next page —

The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000 13

 — continued from previous page —
References
Birdsall, C. W., C.E. Grue, and A. Anderson. 1986. Lead
concentrations in bullfrog Rana catesbeiana and green frog R.
clamitans tadpoles inhabiting highway 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 Pavements. 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 rodents
across 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 motorways. Atmos.
Environ., 12: 1331-1341.
Many thanks to Ken Avidor for donating this and other terrific cartoons to Wildlands CPR!
14
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 to
Destruction. Road-Ripper’s 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. Summary reference document - Ecological
Studies of Recolonizing Wolves in the Central 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 desert 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 Transportation, 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 of
ecological 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.
The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000
 Wildlands CPR Publications: Bibliographic Services:
Road-Ripper's Handbook ($15.00, $25 non-members) —A Ecological Impacts of Roads: A Bibliographic Database (Up-
comprehensive activist manual that includes the five Guides dated Feb. 1998) —Edited by Reed Noss. Compiled by Dave
listed below, plus The Ecological Effects of Roads, Gather- Augeri, Mike Eley, Steve Humphrey, Reed Noss, Paul Pacquet
ing Information with the Freedom of Information Act, and & Susan Pierce. Contains approx. 6,000 citations — includ-
more! ing scientific literature on erosion, fragmentation, sedimen-
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Forests ($4, $7 non-mem- tation, pollution, effects on wildlife, aquatic and hydrologi-
bers) —By Keith Hammer. How-to procedures for getting cal effects, and other information on the impacts of roads.
roads closed and revegetated, descriptions of environmen- Use the ecological literature to understand and develop road
tal laws, road density standards & Forest Service road poli- density standards, priorities for road removal, and other
cies. road issues.
Road-Ripper's Guide to the National Parks ($4, $7 non-mem- Database Searches —We will search the Bibliography on the
bers) —By David Bahr & Aron Yarmo. Provides background subjects that interest you, and provide results in IBM or
on the National Park System and its use of roads, and out- Macintosh format (specify software), or on paper. We also
lines how activists can get involved in NPS planning. have prepared a 1-disk Bibliographic Summary with results
Road-Ripper's Guide to the BLM ($4, $7 non-members) —By for commonly requested searches. Finally, we offer the full
Dan Stotter. Provides an overview of road-related land and
bibliography. However, you must have Pro-Cite or a com-
resource laws, and detailed discussions for participating in
patible database program in order to use it.
BLM decision-making processes.
Bibliography prices — Prices are based on a sliding scale. Call
Road-Ripper's Guide to Off-Road Vehicles ($4, $7 non-mem-
for details.
bers) —By Dan Wright. A comprehensive guide to reduc-
ing the use and abuse of ORVs on public lands. Includes an
extensive bibliography.
Road-Ripper’s Guide to Wildland Road Removal ($4, $7 non-
members) —By Scott Bagley. Provides technical informa-
tion on road construction and removal, where and why
roads fail, and how you can effectively assess road removal
projects.
Trails of Destruction ($10) —By Friends of the Earth and Wild-
lands CPR, written by Erich Pica and Jacob Smith. This
report explains the ecological impacts of ORVs, federal fund-
ing for motorized recreation on public lands, and the ORV
industry’s role in pushing the ORV agenda.

WILDLANDS CPR MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

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

Name Total of all items:

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

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

The Road-RIPorter July/August 2000 15

Visions...

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

Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads

P.O. Box 7516
Missoula, MT 59807

We use the trails and parks to

enjoy... our mountain bikes. We do not
use our bikes to enjoy... the trails and
parks.
We are USERS, not ENJOYERS -
that is our image.

— anonymous mountain biker

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