INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE CONCERNING
CONSTRUCTION OF AR OAD INCOSTA RICA ALONG THESANJUAN
RIVER
(NICARAGUA V. OSTA RICA)
M EMORIAL
OF THREPUBLIC NFICARAGUA
VOLUME II
(ANNEXES FROM1TO40)
19 December 2012 LIST OF ANNEXES
VOLUME II
Annex DOCUMENT Page
No.
1 G. Mathias Kondolf, Danny Hagans, Bill Weaver and Eileen 1
Weppner: “Environmental Impacts of Juan Rafael Mora Porras
Route 1856, Costa Rica, on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua,”
December 2012.
2 Costa Rican Ministry of Environment, Energy and 161
Telecommunications, National Conservation Area System,
Ministry of Public Works and Transportation, National Road
Council, and National Risk Prevention and Emergency
Response Commission, “Environmental Management Plan:
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road,”April 2012.
3 National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models of 203
University of Costa Rica, “Report INF-PITRA-014-12: Report
from Inspection of Route 1856 - Juan Rafael Mora Porras
Border Road,” May 2012.
4 Federated Association of Engineers and Architects of Costa257
Rica, “Report on Inspection of the on the Border Road, Northern
Area Parallel to the San Juan River CFIAReport,” 8 June 2012.
TREATIES, AWARDS, AGREEMENTS, LAW, DECREES
AND JUDGEMENT
5 Treaty of Limits between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, 15 Apri287
1858.
6 (1)Award of theArbitrator, the President of the United Sta297,
upon the validity of the Treaty of Limits of 1858 between
Nicaragua and Costa Rica (ClevelandAward), reprinted United
Nations, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2006), pp.207-211 Washington, D.C., 22 March 1888.
iii (2) First Award of the Umpire EPAlexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.215-221, San Juan del Norte, 30 September 1897.
(3) SecondAward of the Umpire EPAlexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.223-225, San Juan del Norte, 20 December 1897.
(4) ThirdAward of the Umpire EPAlexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards,Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.227-230, San Juan del Norte, 22 March 1898.
(5) FourthAward of the Umpire EPAlexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards,Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.231-235, Greytown, 26 July 1899.
7 Agreement on Border ProtectedAreas, between Costa Rica and 329
Nicaragua, “SI-A-PAZ” agreement, signed at Puntarenas, Costa
Rica, 15 December 1990.
8 Nicaraguan Executive Decree 527, 17April 1990, published in 333
Official Gazette Nº 78 of 23April 1990
9 The Borderline Corridor Conformed by the Territories 339
Encompassed along the Border with Nicaragua, from Punta
Castilla in the Caribbean Sea up to Salinas Bay in the Pacific
Ocean is Hereby Declared as a National Wildlife Refuge , Nº
22962 – MIRENEM, 15 February 1994.
10 Nicaraguan Decree No. 66-99, “Update and Definition of 343
categories and limits of ProtectedAreas located in Nicaragua’s
southeast territory,” 31 May 1999.
11 Official Daily Gazette No. 46, Decree No. 36440-MP, Year 355
CXXXIII. La Uruca, San Jose, Costa Rica, 07 March 2011.
iv12 By-laws and regulations, Presidency of the Republic, Nation361
Commission on Risk Prevention andAttention to Emergencies,
DecisionNo.0362-2011,SpecificBy-Lawsregardingpurchasing
and contracts procedures under exception mechanisms regime
by virtue of the Declaration of a State of Emergency by virtue
of Decree No. 36440, 21 September 2011.
13 Central American Court of Justice, Case No. 12-06-12-2011, 369
Decision of 21 June 2012.
DIPLOMATIC NOTES
14 Diplomatic note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 393
Nicaragua, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
Ref: MRE/DVM/AJST/500/11/11, 29 November 2011.
15 Diplomatic note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and 397
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, Ref: DM-AM-601-11, 29 November 2011.
16 Diplomatic note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 401
Nicaragua to the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Costa Rica, Ref:
MRE/DVS/VJW/0685/12/11, Managua, 10 December 2011
17 Diplomatic note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and 405
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, Ref: DVM-AM-286-11, 20 December 2011
CORRESPONDECE
18 Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources409
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to the United Nations Environmental
Program (UNEP), 10 December 2011.
19 Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources413
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to UNESCO, 10 December 2011.
v 20 Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources417
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to the Secretary General, RAMSAR
Convention, 28 November 2011.
21 Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources421
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to the CentralAmerican Commission
on Environment and Development (CCAD), 10 December 2011.
MEDIAREPORTS
22 University Seminar, Costa Rica, “Environmental damage 425
feared due to construction of highway parallel to Rio San Juan”,
1 November 2011.
23 Diario Extra, Costa Rica, "Nicaragua requests studies on the31
Soberania road", 13 December 2011.
24 El País, Costa Rica, “Chinchilla Defends Highway Criticized435
by Nicaragua, Rejects Dialogue”, 14 December 2011 (Source:
EFE / 13 December 2011).
25 El Nuevo Diario, Nicaragua “Outrage everywhere over San 439
Juan River parallel highway. No studies Done for Costa Rican
Highway”, 15 December 2011.
26 La Prensa, Nicaragua, "Surroundings Damage Could not be 445
hidden", 14 January 2012.
27 La Prensa, Nicaragua, "Costa Rica’s difficulties due to road49
construction", 16 January 2012.
28 El Nuevo Diario , Nicaragua, "Central American Parliament 455
supports CCJ decision on environmental damage by Costa
Rica", 27 February 2012.
29 La Prensa, Nicaragua, "Central American Parliament urges 459
Costa Rica to respect environmental security in the San Juan
River", 27 February 2012.
vi30 La Prensa , Nicaragua, "San Jose should respect the river", 463
28 February 2012.
31 La Nación, Costa Rica, “Conavi Built a Dirt Road along the 467
Border without a single Design Plan”, 23 May 2012.
32 El País, Costa Rica " Faced with criticism, Conavi confirms 471
to have done work on 332 kilometers of roads around Route
1856", 26 May 2012.
33 La Nación, Costa Rica, "The damage had already taken place", 475
24 May 2012.
34 CONAVI Press Release, 25 May 2012. 479
35 La Nación, Costa Rica, "Serious Errors Expose Trail to Risk of83
Collapse during the Rainy Season”, 28 May 2012.
36 Diario Extra, Costa Rica “Government acknowledges mistakes 487
in the construction of the trail”, 30 May 2012.
37 El Pais,Costa Rica, "Environmental Court Confirms Excessive 491
Felling in the Construction of Trail 1856", 15 July 2012 .
38 El País, Costa Rica “Road 1856: First Study by the TAAPoints 497
Out Impacts to the Protection Area of the San Juan River”,
26 July 2012.
39 La Nación , Costa Rica, “Border Roadway presents more 503
Collapsing”, 13August 2012.
40 La Nación, Costa Rica "The Ministry for Public Works and 507
Transport will sign contracts for conclusion of project", 29
August 2012.
viiviii Annex 1
Environmental Impacts of Juan Rafael Mora Porras Route 1856,
Costa Rica, on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua
G. Mathias Kondolf, Danny Hagans,
Bill Weaver and Eileen Weppner
Berkeley, California USA
December 2012
12 Annex 1
▯
Environmental Impacts of Juan Rafael Mora Porras Route 1856, Costa Rica,
on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua
1 2 2 2
G. Mathias Kondolf , Danny Hagans , Bill Weaver , and Eileen Weppner
1Consulting Geomorphologist, 2241 Ward Street, Berkeley CA 94705 USA, and Professor of
2nvironmental Planning, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
Pacific Watershed Associates, 1652 Holly Drive, McKinleyville CA 95519
Berkeley, California USA
December 2012
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
The Río San Juan drains from the outlet of Lake Nicaragua, dropping 33m as it flows 200 km to the
Caribbean. The lower 130 km of the Río San Juan form the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica,
with the border itself following the south (Costa Rican bank) of the river, rather than the center line.
Since 2011, Costa Rica has been constructing a road along the border, downstream to the Río Colorado
bifurcation, designated as the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Route 1856 (Route 1856).
This report analyzes the length of Route 1856 where it follows the Río San Juan (i.e., where the river
bank forms the Costa Rican border, approximately 10km downstream of El Castillo) down to the Río
Colorado bifurcation in the Delta. The objectives of this study were:
1. To assess the environmental impacts of the road and its construction, based on prior scientific
literature, decades of field experience working on road-related erosion impacts, site-specific
observations from a river boat and a helicopter overflight, and from analysis of aerial
photography, satellite imagery, and topographic maps; and
2. To identify measures needed to address serious problems of slope instability and soil erosion that
are adversely affecting the Río San Juan and Nicaragua.
1.2 Author Biographies
G. Mathias (Matt) Kondolf is a fluvial geomorphologist and environmental planner, specializing in
environmental river management and restoration. He is Professor of Environmental Planning at the
University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches courses in hydrology, river restoration,
environmental science, and Mediterranean-climate landscapes, and serves as Chair of the Department of
Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning. He is a recognized expert on human-river
interactions broadly, with emphasis on the management of flood-prone lands, sediment management in
reservoirs and regulated river channels, and river restoration. He co-edited the reference work▯ on
methods in the field, Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology (John Wiley & Sons 2003, 2nd edition
1
▯
3Annex 1
▯
forthcoming in 2013). He recently served as the Clarke Scholar at the Institute for Water Resources of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Washington, D.C., and formerly served on the Environmental
Advisory Board to the Chief of the Corps and on the Science Board for the CALFED Ecosystem
Restoration Program. Professor Kondolf lectures and conducts research on river geomorphology,
management, and restoration in the United States and abroad. He has provided expert testimony on
river-related issues to the U.S. Congress, the California Legislature, the California Water Resources
Control Board, and in various legal proceedings. He received his AB in Geology (cum laude) from
Princeton University, a masters in Earth Sciences from University of California, Santa Cruz, and a PhD
in Geography and Environmental Engineering from the Johns Hopkins University.
Danny K. Hagans is principal geologist and co-owner of Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA), a
professional geological consulting firm headquartered in northern California. He has a Bachelors degree
in Geology from Humboldt State University (Arcata, California) and has worked as a geolog▯ist for the
U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. National Park Service and, since 1990, as ▯owner and Principal Geologist
for Pacific Watershed Associates. Mr. Hagans is a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Specialist
and a member of various professional geological organizations. He has extensive experience and
specializes in conducting and managing large-scale, basin-wide erosion inventories and sediment
assessments, as well as implementing watershed rehabilitation and restoration projects in the western ▯
United States. He has 12 years professional experience as a National Park Service geologist at Redwood
National Park, California, during which he conducted steepland erosion research, conducted technical
reviews of proposed timber harvesting and road construction proposals, a▯nd worked on the development
and implementation of the park’s internationally recognized watershed rehabilitation program for the
2
725 km Redwood Creek watershed. Mr. Hagans is considered a leading national e▯xpert on the role of
forest land use and road construction on erosion and sedimentation, and on the preparation and
implementation of watershed-wide erosion and sediment control plans for road systems in the steep
forested watersheds of the Pacific Northwest. He has co-authored a number of publications on the
assessment of logging and road construction on watershed erosion processes, and the development and
implementation of restoration plans for sediment impaired watersheds. Mr. Hagans has conducted
literally hundreds of technical trainings and workshops on erosion and sediment control, specifically
focused on public and private road systems. He has co-authored books and publications including the
Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads, a technical field guide for road planning, design and
construction, as well as Upslope Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control Guidance; Storm-proofing
Forest Roads; Sediment Treatments and Road Restoration; and Road Upgrading, Decommissioning and
Maintenance - Estimating Costs on Small and Large Scales, among others.
William E. Weaver is principal geomorphologist and co-owner of Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA),
a professional geological consulting firm in northern California. He has a Bachelors degree in Geology
from the University of Washington (Seattle) and a PhD in Geomorphology (Earth Resources) from
Colorado State University (Fort Collins). From 1976 to 1989 he served as the lead Engineering
Geologist for the U.S. National Park Service, Redwood National Park, and▯ then as owner, CEO and
Principal Geomorphologist for PWA. Dr. Weaver is an Adjunct Professor of Geology at Humboldt
State University (Arcata, California) and has served on various Advisory Panels for the state of▯
California regarding forest practices and road construction impacts, and best management practices to
protect water quality. As the principal Engineering Geologist at Redwood National Park for 13 years,
Dr. Weaver was instrumental in designing, initiating, and monitoring the internationally recognized
watershed rehabilitation and erosion control program covering the park and the 280-square mile
▯ 2
4 Annex 1
▯
Redwood Creek watershed. Most recently his work has concentrated on sediment source investigations
and road-related sediment control projects throughout the Pacific Northwest. Dr. Weaver is considered
a leading national expert in the field of steepland erosion processes, t▯he impacts of road construction, the
effects of land management on watershed sediment yield, and the design and control of road-related
erosion processes in steep, forested environments. Dr. Weaver has conducted literally hundreds of
technical trainings and workshops on erosion and sediment control, specifically focused on public and
private road systems. He has co-authored books and publications including the Handbook for Forest
and Ranch Roads, a technical field guide for road planning, design and construction, as▯ well as Upslope
Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control Guidance; Storm-proofing Forest Roads; Sediment Treatments
and Road Restoration; and Road Upgrading, Decommissioning and Maintenance - Estimating Costs on
Small and Large Scales, among others.
Eileen M. Weppner is a geologist specializing in watershed erosion assessments, sediment budget
studies, development of erosion and sediment control plans for steepland road systems, and the
implementation of road-related erosion and sediment control projects. She is a senior geomorphologist
and Watershed Division Manager at Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA), a professional geological
consulting firm headquartered in northern California. She has a Bachelors degree in Ge▯ology from the
State University of New York at Buffalo, and a pending Masters Degree from Humboldt State
University (Arcata, California). She is a California Professional (l▯icensed) Geologist and a registered
geologist in Oregon and Washington. Ms. Weppner has been a lead geologist for the Watershed
Assessment and Restoration Division of PWA since 2000. She is considered a leading regional expert
in the assessment of road-related erosion problems, development of erosion control and erosion
prevention plans, and the implementation of large-scale sediment control projects for road systems in
steep forested watersheds. Ms. Weppner’s professional experience includes extensive work on
watershed analyses and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in a number of large California watersheds. Her publications include co-
authorship of Upslope Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control Guidance, the official state-adopted
protocols for assessing and controlling road-related erosion in forested▯ watersheds of California.
1.3 Summary
1.3.1.Methods
We analyzed high-resolution satellite imagery to map the footprint of Route 1856 for the 108 km that it
follows Río San Juan, and the extent of disturbance from the road and attendant quarries and related
disturbances. In October 2012, we conducted reconnaissance by both helicopter and riverboat, noting
and photographing features along the road, including evidence of slope instability and erosion.
From the riverboat, we also examined sites of road construction through sloping land visible from the
river, noting approximate size and condition of road fills, while estimating approximate percentages or
volumes eroded to date. We identified locations where sediment has been delivered into the Río San
Juan from the southern bank, such as from gullies carved by concentrated road runoff, as well as
landslides in unstable road cuts and poorly constructed road fills along the newly built road. We
sampled sediment from debris cones and other marginal sediment deposits in the channel of Río San
Juan, all clearly derived from road-induced erosion.
▯ 3
5Annex 1
▯
We estimated erosion from areas disturbed by the road construction, including ex▯posed bare soil on
unpaved sections of road and other cleared areas such as quarries, using chronic erosion rates published
in the scientific literature. We also estimated potential sediment delivery from mass wasting by taking
the total area that has been cleared or disturbed, subtracting the 7-m road width, and then assuming,
based on our in situ observations, that 40-50% of the disturbed cut- and fill-slopes has bee▯n affected by
gullies or landslides.
1.3.2 Environmental Effects of Road Construction
Roads disturb pre-existing natural drainage patterns, increasing storm runoff from a given rainfall, and
more importantly, concentrating surface runoff such that it is capable of eroding gullies and transporting▯
sediment and contaminants to surrounding river systems. Roads cutting across steep hillslopes
concentrate runoff even more by virtue of the steep slopes. If runoff d▯own roads and adjacent ditches is
not diverted and spread to infiltrate into the soil and groundwater, the effect of gullying and road surface
erosion is exaggerated because of the steep topography. The cut and fill required to put the road across a
slope also has the potential to induce the landslide failure of the cut banks and failure of fill prisms. In
essence, the entire volume of material moved to make the road becomes vulnerable to mass wasting and
particulate erosion. As a result of these multiple effects, road-related sediment can dominate the
sediment budget in river systems located near such roads (Reid and Dunne 2003). The increased
sediment loads to rivers are documented to have caused degraded water quality, as well as the loss of
aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and valued fish species. These effects have been
documented in multiple sites around the globe in a wide range of ecosystems.
1.3.3 Location and Characteristics of the Road
While some of Route 1856 has been constructed on pre-existing local roads, more than half is
completely new construction, much of it on steep terrain. A comparison of the 2012 footprint of Route
1856 with 2009 pre-construction satellite imagery of the same location indicates that 56.3 km (52%) of
the road is completely new construction. Even where Route 1856 follows sections of pre-existing road,
it has a significantly larger footprint, and therefore creates significantly more impermeable surface. Of
the 56.3 km of Route 1856 that is new construction, 24.6 km is located on steep terrain, much of which
used to be densely forested. Within the 41.6 km of the road upstream of the Río San Carlos – the
section of Route 1856 that traverses the steepest topography and is 86% new construction – there was a
total of 99.8 ha of disturbed land, of which 41.6 ha involved the removal of previously undisturbed
forest. Over 30 km of Route 1856 has been built across steep hillslopes, many composed of deeply
weathered, unconsolidated, or otherwise weak material, which is prone to erosion and slope failure.
A large portion of Route 1856 encroaches into the 50-m setback from the bank of the Río San Juan
specified by Costa Rican law, with the road coming within approximately 5 m of the river bank at a
number of locations. The section of the road above Río San Carlos has t▯he highest rate of setback
violation, with 30 % of that stretch located within 50 m of the river bank. 100 m is a more reasonable
buffer to prevent the transport of sediments to the Río San Juan. Nearly half of the road is located
within 100 m of the river bank, creating a high likelihood that sediment eroded from the road will enter
the river.
▯ 4
6 Annex 1
▯
The poor siting of Route 1856 – across steep, unstable hillslopes and in close proximity to the river –
was a serious error with significant short- and long-term environmental consequences. There is no
technical or environmental reason that the road needed to go where it was put. In fact, the ▯contrary
would be true: better sites with more stable ground, located a greater distance from the river, would have
resulted in far less environmental impact, and over the long run, far less expense in attempting to
maintain a poorly-sited, poorly-constructed road.
1.3.4 Construction Errors and Violations of Best Management Practices
The problem of the erodibility of the steep new slopes located unreasonably close to the Río San Juan
are exacerbated by the additional poor practices that were employed during and after the construction of
Route 1856, which occurred without plans and without the benefit of an environmental impact analysis.
Our aerial and riverboat reconnaissance, analysis of aerial imagery, and the reports and images presented
by CFIA (2012) and LANAMME (2012) make plain that the construction of Route 1856 has involved
excessive and disorganized earthmoving works. There are many places along Route 1856 where it is
obvious that the construction crew began to put the road along one route, only to abandon the partially
completed route and build the road elsewhere, effectively doubling the impa▯ct of the road.
Construction of Route 1856 has left large areas of exposed soil, disrupted hillslope topography, steep
cutbanks, and mounds of loose, unengineered (uncompacted) fill. We observed numerous examples of
steep cutbanks that have already failed, both along the road itself and in nearby rock quarrie▯s. Along
most of the road, fill materials were clearly sidecast downslope, i.e., pushed to the edge of the road and
allowed to fall down the slope. We observed few newly constructed fillslopes that did not clearly
exhibit widespread settlement, slope failure and mass movement of material following construction.
Several fillslopes appeared to have large pieces of dead wood incorporat▯ed into them. These
construction methods – sidecasting, lack of compaction, and incorporation of woody debris in fill
materials – are a recipe for continued slope failure and off-site sediment delivery.
From our field inspection (from aerial overflight and from riverboat inspections) of approximately 60
recently constructed stream crossings, we observed that essentially all road-stream crossings exhibited
some form of serious design and/or construction deficiency, which will likely lead to failure during
future intense rains. At virtually all the observed stream crossings, some volume of sediment has been
introduced directly to the receiving tributary stream and to the Río San Juan duri▯ng construction of the
crossing. More importantly, most road-stream crossings along the newly built road pose a moderate to
high risk of future failure because they are significantly undersized or they were poorly constructed.
Erosion potential is a function not only of the extent and nature of exposed earth, but also of the
intensity of expected rainfall. In this tropical region, rainfall intensities can be very high, especially▯
during tropical storms and hurricanes. In the two years since construction began, rainfall has been
relatively modest, so the disturbed road surfaces and attendant works have not yet been put to a real test.
The extensive disturbance caused by the sloppy construction of Route 1856 has set the stage for
significant damage during the next hurricane to hit the region.
A construction project of this sort should be protected from rain impact and landsliding through the use
of erosion control and slope stabilization measures. To prevent the washing away of exposed earth, it is
▯ 5
7Annex 1
▯
standard procedure to cover exposed areas with mulch, vegetative cover, or geotextile substitutes.
However, most of the bare exposed ground surfaces of Route 1856 have not been protected in any way,
and where geotextiles have been installed, they have mostly failed.
Route 1856 has long lengths of road surfaces that drain to inboard ditches, which yield concentrated
runoff. Not only is the runoff from a given rainfall increased because the compacted road surface does
not infiltrate, but the runoff is collected and concentrated such that road surface and ditch erosion is
virtually guaranteed to occur. Where these concentrated flows are discharged onto adjacent fills and
native slopes, severe gullying results. The lack of adequate road surface drainage structures along Route
1856 is reflected in the consequent widespread and serious gully erosion already taking place, which
efficiently delivers eroded sediment directly to the Río San Juan. This problem is compounded by the
unnatural concentrations of water resulting from the disruption of natural surface and groundwater flow
paths, which can reduce slope stability and trigger landslides and debri▯s flows.
The lack of proper drainage has resulted not only in erosion and gullying of the road works and
attendant features, but also to substantial “hydrologic connectivity” between the road and the many
watercourses in the project area, including the Río San Juan and many of its tributaries, which are
receiving improperly drained, sediment-laden runoff from Route 1856.
By way of comparison, all of these construction practices were commonplace in the Pacific Northwest
of North America in the 1950s and 1960s, and they created a legacy of problems that persist to this day,
including continued slope instability in many sites, excessive sediment supply persisting in many rivers
such that aquatic habitats are still degraded and cannot support fish an▯d other species as they once did,
as well as damaged fish populations that have never recovered their pre-disturbance lev▯els. As a result,
these destructive road-building practices are now prohibited by law in much of the United States.
1.3.5 Road-Derived Sediment Pathways to Río San Juan
Sediment eroded from Route 1856 has already reached the Río San Juan through a number of pathways.
These include shallow failures of sidecast fill material on sections of road located on hillslopes directly
adjacent to the river channel, and erosion and mass wasting of the massive, un-engineered road-fill
prisms. Concentrated road runoff has carved substantial gullies through these earthen fills, and shallow
slumps are also commonly observed; many of these features are directly connected to the Río San Juan.
We observed direct evidence that sediment from gullies in earthen road fill has been delivered to the Río
San Juan, including over 50 stream/gully input points where we documented road-derived sediments that
had been deposited in fans, mud, and other materials in the river. In some locations, we documented a
trail of angular sand and gravel across an alluvial flat to finally disc▯harge into the river, where we could
find its deposited cone of similar-sized (and finer) sediment underwater, projecting from the bankline.
Numerous slumps have developed on these road fills, but the failed material had not always yet reached
the river. The earthen fills are extensively rilled and gullied, and much of the material eroded from these
fills enters the river system at stream crossings located along the road. Similarly, sediment eroded from
the road surface enters the stream system at road crossings; these are the lowest points in the road
system, so roads drain towards them, carrying eroded sediment into the tributary, and ultimately into the
Río San Juan.
▯ 6
8 Annex 1
▯
1.3.6 Estimated Ongoing Sediment Contribution
There are two main ways that Route 1856 produces sediment that gets into the river: from chronic
erosion of soil particles transported by water; and from mass wasting, whose products can be transported
to the river directly by mass soil movement or by flowing water. Measured erosion rates commonly
exceed rates of sediment delivery to rivers, because some sediment is stored (at least temporarily) in
sites between the point of erosion and the river. Thus, in addition to estimating the volume of sediment
eroded at the road itself, it is important to identify potential routes by which sediment can be transported
to the river. In our field work, we documented direct delivery of sediment from road erosion to the river
at 54 sites along the road.
Our estimate of surface erosion rates for the upstream 41 km of Route 1856, upstream of Río San Carlos,
indicates that surface erosion is producing 17,800 to 21,300 cubic meters of sediment per year. For the
41-km section of road upstream of the Río San Carlos confluence, we estimated 218,400 to 273,000
cubic meters of sediment eroded by mass wasting and gullying per year, roughly ten times the amount
estimated for surface road erosion. We estimate that 40% of all of this sediment is reaching the Río San
Juan, implying an annual and ongoing sediment input of 87,000 to 109,000 cubic meters. Future erosion
and sediment delivery during a tropical storm or hurricane will likely be greater than the current
sediment transfer by a factor of at least ten.
2. METHODS
2.1 Characterization of Hydrologic Setting and Literature Review
We reviewed relevant available information on rainfall, runoff, and sediment loads to provide a context
for specific observations on the roads. We reviewed relevant scientific literature on the hydrological and
environmental impacts of road construction generally, and empirical studies of road impacts undertaken
in the humid tropics.
2.2 Analysis from aerial imagery
We reviewed numerous potential sources of satellite imagery. To provide a basis for measuring change
due to construction of Route 1856, we sought high quality imagery for current conditions and for
conditions immediately prior to construction of the road. We ultimately obtained (from a commercial
source, Spatial Solutions of Bend, Oregon USA) the following imagery of the river and road corridor
through the study area:
x Pleaides Satellite pan-sharpened multi-spectral imagery with 50cm resolution for September-
October 2012; and
x RapidEye Satellite multi-spectral imagery with 5m resolution acquired December 2009.
Given that the region is cloudy much of the time, we searched for suitably cloud-free imagery to provide
a clear view of the road corridor and river bank. In addition, we reviewed existing topographic maps
and other aerial imagery.
▯ 7
9Annex 1
▯
Using this imagery, we used ArcMap GIS to digitize the entire length of Route 1856 from the
international border (13 km east-southeast of El Castillo) downstream along the south bank of the river
to the staging area near the point where the Río Colorado splits off from the Río San Juan. On our
digital representation, we recorded whether the road was situated on gentle/flat slopes or steeper▯ slopes.
Steep areas were determined by evident topography and the presence of la▯rge, bare cutslopes. Areas of
gentle topography were those displaying little relief and few cuts, typically on river terrace or alluvial
flats. We also documented whether the road was native surface or rock surfaced. Using the 2009
imagery as the pre-road baseline against which to map road-induced changes, we:
1. Documented the extent, condition and location of pre-existing road segments (prior to
construction of Route 1856);
2. Overlaid the footprint of pre-existing and newly constructed road along the alignment; and
3. Evaluated the distribution of road segments found on flat and steep terrain, the latter with a
higher risk of erosion and sediment delivery to the river.
We scaled a 50-m buffer in GIS around the river’s right bank to determine the length of road that lies
within the 50-m designation for “Agricultural Property of the State” as defined in Article 7 of the Lands
and Colonization Law of Costa Rica, and the protected zone of 50 m from a stream bank as specified for
“uneven” land by Costa Rican Forest Law No.7575 Art.33 Sec.ii. In▯ addition, we also scaled a 100-m
buffer to identify sections of road that were so close as to be likely to deliver eroded sediment to the
river.
We also identified locations where the road crossed streams based on appearance of stream channels on
the 2009 and 2012 orthophotography, 1:50,000 topographic maps, October 2012 field reconnaissance
maps, our field notes and photography, as well as photography provided in prior repo▯rts.
2.3 Aerial Overflight Observations
We conducted aerial reconnaissance from a helicopter (flying at an elevation of approximately 300 m
above sea level) along the entire length of road adjacent to the Río San Juan, passing once in the
downstream direction, and a second time in the upstream direction, taking notes and photographs. The
flight paths were solely within Nicaraguan air space. On each pass, we documented existing road
construction practices, design standards and erosional conditions along the route through still
photographs and the hand mapping of road segments on topographic maps, in order to document the
current status of road construction, selected erosion features and the p▯roximity of the newly pioneered
road to the Río San Juan. As a part of the assessment, we identified road reaches that either have
already delivered eroded sediment to the river, or that pose a moderate to substantial risk of future
sediment delivery to the Río San Juan.
2.4 Field Observations/Measurements from River
In October 2012, we conducted two days of reconnaissance from the river, inspecting the road where it
runs adjacent to the river. In particular, from a riverboat, we examined road construction sites cutting
▯ 8
10 Annex 1
▯
through sloping land that was visible from the river, noting approximate size and condition of road fills
and estimating approximate percentages or volumes eroded to date. We identified numerous sediment
delivery locations from the south bank of the Río San Juan, including gullies carved by conc▯entrated
road runoff and landslides in unstable road cuts and poorly constructed road fills along the newly built
road. We recorded on topographic maps the most problematic sections of road to identify road reaches
that have already delivered sediment to the Río San Juan or pose a high risk of future sediment delivery.
We documented pathways of sediment visible from eroding sites to the river channel, and we further
documented details of such well-connected sediment sources. We examined each tributary confluence
for evidence of sediment delivery (limited by water depth and turbidity at confluences). We consulted
map, aerial imagery (when available), and notes from the aerial overflight to assess the size of the
contributing catchment. Remaining within Nicaraguan waters, we sampled sediment from debris cones
and fine sediment deposits in the channel of the Río San Juan, all clearly derived from road-induced
erosion, along a 17-km length of river between km 0.75 near Finca Chicochele and km 17.95 loca▯ted
just downstream from Las Crucitas and the Cano Crucitas (see Appendix D for grain size data from
samples and sample locations).
2.5 Estimates of Erosion and Sediment Delivery from Areas of Exposed Soi▯l
We estimated the volume of erosion from areas disturbed by the road construction, including exposed
bare soil on unpaved sections of road and other cleared areas such as qu▯arries, using chronic erosion
rates published in the scientific literature. In GIS, we first buffered the road to create a polygon layer
and edited to incorporate all bare soil areas, including the road alignment, cutslopes, and fill prisms
where visible. This bare soil polygon layer included all of the road att▯ributes discussed above to
facilitate analysis and was used to calculate the total bare soil area, according to road surface type and
slope location. From our aerial analysis, we distinguished four categories of road based on topo▯graphy
(steep/gentle) and whether the road surface was “rocked” or “native surface.” Due to time constraints,
we completed this analysis only for the upstream 41 km of the road, upstream from the Río San Carlos
confluence. We treated this section with priority because it has the steepest topography overall. We
drew upon published studies of road surface erosion rates in tropical areas and in the Pacific Northwest
of North America where logging roads formerly were constructed using precisely the same practices
utilized in the construction of Route 1856 (Sidle et al., 2004; Douglas, 2003; Washington DNR, 2011),
in order to estimate road erosion rates from the following four categories of road surface to yield volume
estimates of surface erosion in cubic meters and tonnes: 1) Rocked surface/Gentle slope; 2) Rocked
surface/Steep slope; 3) Native surface/Gentle slope; and 4) Native surface/Steep slope. Chronic road
surface erosion can be an important component in the sediment budget, especially as it produces
suspended sediment-laden runoff from even small rainstorms, which would not otherwise produce
muddy runoff.
In terms of overall annual contributions to the sediment budget for roads crossing steep terrain, surface
erosion is typically dwarfed by mass wasting (Reid and Dunne 2003). We, therefore, also estimated the
volume of sediment delivery from mass wasting. To calculate that volume, during our field
reconnaissance we documented significant slope failures such as landslides and slumps that have already
occurred at several sites, also estimating the percentage of the total fill volumes that had failed. Many
more show clear signs of pending failure and will likely fail in a future storm event. Using these
observed rates, we estimated potential sediment delivery from mass wasting by taking the total area that
▯ 9
11Annex 1
▯
has been cleared or disturbed, subtracting the 7-m road width, and then ▯assuming, based on our in situ
observations, that 40-50% of the disturbed cut- and fill-slopes has been affected by gullies or landslides.
3. RESULTS: LITERATURE REVIEW AND LAND DISTURBANCE
3.1 Environmental Effects of Road Construction
Constructing a road such as this has well-documented environmental effects, especially where roads are
constructed in steep terrain and through weak geological materials (e.g., Ziegler and Giambelluca 1997,
Spinelli and Marchi 1996, Douglas 1976, 2003).
3.1.1 Hydrologic Impacts
Constructing a road across formerly natural or agricultural land will convert formerly pervious surface
into impervious surface. Falling rain can no longer infiltrate into the soil and groundwater, but flows on
the compacted road as surface runoff. Moreover, by virtue of its linear nature (and depending on how
the road is graded), the road tends to channel surface runoff, often in a ditch adjacent to the road surface.
Thus roads produce concentrated surface runoff, not only because of the lack of infiltration on the road
surface, but also because they collect dispersed runoff into concentrated flow. The longer the distance
that surface runoff travels along or across the road, the more water accumulates, the deeper the flow
becomes, and the more it can erode the road surface itself and the fillslopes over which it is drained,
creating gullies. When eventually discharged from the road, the concentrated runoff has a high erosive
potential, and is capable of rapidly eroding gullies in the hillslopes below the road. Unpaved roads are
prone to high, chronic erosion from surface runoff, and the concentrated surface runoff from the road
can cause gullies and other downstream impacts in virtually any topographic setting. As a general rule,
the more traffic on an unpaved road, the more chronic erosion will occur. Paving such roads normally
reduces chronic erosion (provided the road is otherwise well-constructe▯d) on the road surface, but the
bare fillslopes, cutslopes and unpaved turnouts are still sources of runoff and chronic surface erosion.
Concentrations of surface water can also result in concentrated infiltration into parts of the hillslope that
were not naturally subject to so much water, creating elevated pore pressures and increasing the
potential for slope instability and landsliding.
3.1.2 Cut and Fill Slopes
Where roads are constructed across steep hillslopes, another set of problems ensues. The typical
construction method is “cut and fill,” whereby heavy equipment is used to excavate the hillside on the
upslope side of the road, creating a flat road surface adjacent to a now-steeper slope (the “cutslope”)
(Figure 1A, 1B). The material that is removed is placed on the downslope side so that it forms the outer
part of the road (the “fill prism” or “fill slope”). The cut-and-fill interrupts the flow paths of shallow
groundwater, which causes the groundwater to seep out of the cutbank.
The stability of the cutslope depends on the nature of the geologic material into which it is cut (e.g.,
whether it is competent bedrock or weak material, be it from inherently weak rock type or deep
weathering; the orientation of bedding planes if any; and the degree of ▯fracturing of the material).
Cutting into and removing rock and soil materials removes lateral support for the upslope hillside.
Cutslope stability can also be compromised by the positive pore pressure produced by flowing and
▯ 10
12 Annex 1
▯
emerging groundwater, which can cause failure of the cutbank, sometimes by small chunks breaking off,
and sometimes in the form of larger, deep-seated slides. The movement of large blocks of soil and rock
under the influence of gravity (as opposed to being transported in water ▯ ) is termed “mass movement” or
“mass wasting.” Such mass movements or landslides are possible in the cutbank, in the fill prism, and
in the underlying slope below (Figure 1C).
The stability of the fill prism depends largely on how it is constructed. If the underlying slope has been
properly cleaned and the fill compacted to engineering standards, it may be stable for years or decades.
(Because it is a mass of sediment perched on a slope, it is vulnerable to gravity, and thus to mass
wasting, eventually.) If the underlying slope is not cleared and scarified (prepared) before placing fill,
and if the fill is not compacted to engineering standards, the fill prism will be highly unstable. “Side
casting” refers to the bulldozer blade simply pushing material (removed from the cutbank) “over the
edge” so that it tumbles down the bank. Such sidecast fill is prone to failure as a mass movement, often
failing along the former (buried) ground surface, or partial failure of sediment within the fill prism. If
the fill prism includes dead trees and other such debris, either because the underlying slope was not
properly cleared or such debris was incorporated in the cutting of the b▯ank, the likelihood of failure is
increased. Failure of such poorly constructed fill prisms was one of the principal sources of the high
sediment loads entering rivers of the Pacific Northwest of the United States d▯uring the 1940s–1960s.
Where heavy fillslopes now crush and block subsoil drainage pores, or where water collects in the
inboard ditch (commonly due to debris clogging drain structures) and induces concentrated infiltration
of water into the subsurface, elevated pore pressures can result, and deeper-seated landslides can be
induced and triggered (Figure 1). Changes in mass balance on the surface of the hillslope, as well as
changes in subsurface flow paths and pore pressures, can trigger both slope stability problems and mass
soil movement.
▯ 11
13Annex 1
▯
Figure 1. Diagram showing cut-fill
construction sequence and consequences
(drawing prepared by Jennifer Natali from draft
by Matt Kondolf).
A. Natural, forested hillslope, on which most
rainfall is intercepted by plant leaves or
infiltrates into the soil to recharge
groundwater, and supporting shallow
groundwater draining downslope. Tree roots
help to stabilize the soil.
B. To build a road across the slope usually
involves cut and fill: cutting a steeper slope
in the hillside to create a flat surface, and
using removed material to build out the road,
over a fill prism. The cut has interrupted the
downslope flow of shallow groundwater, so
water seeps from the cutbank. The road
surface concentrates runoff, which collects in
the inboard ditch, where concentrated water
can infiltrate.
C. The downslope-flowing water creates a
positive pore pressure behind the cutslope,
which in effect pushes out chunks of earth
and induces landslides. Concentrated
infiltration of water along the inboard ditch
can increase saturation and pore pressure
along potential failure planes in the hillslope.
The fill prism is inherently unstable by virtue
of its location perched on the slope. These
fills commonly fail along the former ground
surface beneath the fill (a potential failure
plane).
12
▯
14 Annex 1
▯
3.1.3 Stream Crossings
Among the most critical points in road design and planning are stream crossings. Bridges large enough
to pass large floods (typically the 100-year flood) are the best way to cross, as they do not limit the flow
of water, and if designed to be high and with long clear spans (i.e., no bridge piers or wide openings
between bridge piers) they are unlikely to trap debris. However, bridges are expensive, so cheaper
options are often used, such as earthen fill crossings with culverts (Figures 2, 3). These are inherently
unstable features, because they involve placement of massive volumes of fill within the stream channel
and valley, where it can easily be eroded and enter the river system, and depend on the culvert to
successfully pass all flood flows through a constricting pipe. To build such crossings well, the culvert
should be constructed of strong material, either concrete pipe or box culvert, or corrugated steel conduit▯,
and should be sized to pass a large design flow, usually specified at 50 or 100 years recurrence interval
flood discharge. To prevent debris (such as trees and logs) from being caught at the culvert entrance,
trash racks are installed upstream to intercept large debris before it plugs the inlet and causes the
crossing to “wash out” and fail. The earthen fill material in the crossing should be compacted to
engineering standards so that it can bear the weight of the anticipated traffic and should be designed so
that in the event the culvert plugs, water upstream has a path by which to overflow the road and return
flow to the same stream channel without diverting down the road or washing out the earthen fill of the
crossing.
Undersized culverts (culverts whose openings are smaller than a suitable design flow) will back up
water during floods, are more likely to be blocked by debris, and thus pose a greater threat of washing
out the entire earthen fill during high flows. Culverts constructed of ▯weak materials may collapse under
the weight of the fill and truck traffic, blocking drainage and damaging the functioning of the road
crossing. Common design standards require the culvert to be installed on the original ▯streambed,
aligned with the natural stream channel above and below the crossing site, be sized to accommodate the
design flood flow (preferably the 100-year flood discharge), have a fill that is properly compacted to
engineering standards with stable 2:1 upstream and downstream fillslopes, and have a low point or dip
places on or near the fill’s left or right hinge line to prevent stream flow from being diverted down the
road in the event of overtopping.
13
▯
15Annex 1
▯
Figure 2. Earthen-fill road crossings are created by installing a box culvert or pipe along the bed
of the stream or swale, and filling with earth, then siting the road on top of the fill (drawing
prepared by Jennifer Natali from draft by Matt Kondolf). While less expensive than bridges,
earthen crossings are prone to erosion and/or failure of the earthen fil▯l, or culvert blocking and
washout of the earthen fill, which contributes sediment directly to the stream. Common design
standards require the culvert to be installed on the original streambed, aligned with the natural
stream channel above and below the crossing site, be sized to accommodate the design flood flow
(preferrably the 100-yr flood discharge), have a fill that is properly compacted to engineering
standards (with stable 2:1 upstream and downstream fillslopes), and have a low point or dip
placed on or near the fill’s left or right hinge line to prevent stream flow from being diverted
down the road in the event of overtopping. By contrast, the earthen-fill crossings on Route 1856
appear to have uncompacted and over-steep fillslopes and substandard culverts. Some appear to
be undersized and many consist of substandard materials that will fail.
▯
▯ 14
16 Annex 1
▯
Figure 3. Photo #78a at km 18.25 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Large fill
volume at culverted stream crossing with very poorly constructed fills at the crossing and along
the approaches. Culvert is positioned high in the fill and likely not sized for the 100-year
discharge.
▯
▯
3.1.4 Ecological Impacts
The combination of the hydrologic changes and increased erosion and sedimentation that result from
road construction results in significant increases of sediment loading to rivers and streams, which in turn,
have been documented to cause a range of serious environmental problems (e.g., Wood and Armitage
1997). To understand these problems, it is useful to distinguish betwe▯en coarse sediment (i.e., gravel
and sand) and fine sediment (silt, clay and sand, which is intermediate in its properties), because they
move through the environment and usually affect river stability, ecosystems, and water quality
differently. Increased delivery of coarse sediment to rivers can result in significant changes to river
processes, causing aggradation (increase in land elevation from sediment) of the river channel with
consequent loss of channel capacity, increased flood risk to settled areas, threats to infrastructure such as
bridges downstream, and channel destabilization as flow is displaced from sediment-choked channels
towards the banks. Aggradation also results in the burial of important aquatic habitats and consequent
loss of native species, impacts that have been documented to persist for decades (USDA Forest Service
1999, Ziemer and Lisle 1992, Madej and Ozaki 2009).
The contribution of large volumes of fine sediment into rivers is known to result in increased turbidity,
reduced light penetration, and consequently, reduced primary productivity, which can have effects up
the food chain; loss of periphyton and consequent impact on the food chain; clogging and damage to
gills of fish from high concentrations of suspended sediment; infiltration of fine sediments into formerly
clean gravel substrate needed by aquatic macroinvertebrates, juvenile fish, and other organisms as
habitat; loss or reduction of macroinvertebrate populations; reduced exchange of stream and shallow
groundwater by clogging gravel and sand beds; and burial and loss of aquatic vegetation (Wood and
▯ 15
17Annex 1
▯
Armitage 1997, Yamada and Nakmura 2002, Cederholm et al. 1981, Petts 1984a, Pringle and Ramirez
1998, Brookes 1986, Nuttall 1972, Edwards 1969, Van Nieuwenhuyse and Lap▯erriere 1986, Connolly
and Pearson 2007, and Davies-Colley et al. 1992). Where these effects persist (as has been the case in
areas impacted by road construction), the additive nature of individual on-site road erosion processes
and erosion features, coupled with the consequent changes/impacts to off-site physical and hydrologic
processes and biological resources, are referred to as “cumulative effects” (Ziemer and others 1991, Reid
1993).
The delivery of massive volumes of sediment to rivers has resulted in significant ecological damage.
The scientific literature reports many examples of pools, gravel riffles, and other important habitats
buried in fine sediment such that fish and other aquatic organisms are unable to reproduce, feed, or find
cover, leading to the loss of formerly productive fisheries (e.g., Cordone and Kelley 1961, Iwamoto et al
1978). For example, Fossati et al. (2001) documented impacts of sediment releases from road
construction on aquatic ecology of the Río Coroico, in the tropical humid-climate Yungas region of
Bolivia, concluding that “Suspended solids … had a clear negative ▯effect on invertebrate density (200-
fold decrease in abundance) and diversity (6-fold decrease in number of taxa)”.
While the literature reports these effects from all parts of the globe, including Asia, Europe, Australia,
and Latin America, and in a wide range of climates from northern-latitudes to the tropics, the effects
have been especially well-documented in North America, in the forests of California and the Pacific
Northwest, where logging roads were once constructed using exactly the s▯ame practices that we
documented on Route 1856. For example, roads built with similar problems to Route 1856 constructed
to cut timber in the Quinault River basin, Washington, were identified as key sources of erosion and
sediment to the river, resulting in a near-complete destruction of a sockeye salmon run that formerly
numbered a million adult fish annually (Brown 1982), and which has still not recove ▯ red after over four
decades in which such practices have been outlawed and numerous restoration projects attempted.
Another example of road-related impacts and devastating consequences to salmon populations in
Washington occurred in the Clearwater River catchment. Road-related landslides, sidecast erosion,
gullies, and debris-flows delivered substantial amounts of sediment to the river (Reid et al. 1981), and
resulted in severe impact to spawning salmon populations (Cederholm et al 1981). Redwood National
Park in northern California, home to the tallest trees in the world, is still recovering from the effects of
high sediment loads, as described in the Literature Review presented in Appendix C. Of course, every
river has a different ecosystem, but these examples illustrate the principle that the contribution of large
volumes of fine sediment to river systems can significantly impact riverine ecology.
3.1.5 Summary
In sum, roads disturb pre-existing natural drainage patterns, increasing storm▯ runoff from a given rainfall,
and more importantly, concentrating surface runoff such that it is capable of eroding gullies and
transporting sediment and contaminants to the river system. Roads cut across steep hillslopes
concentrate runoff even more by virtue of the steep slopes, and if runof▯f down roads and adjacent
ditches is not frequently diverted and spread to infiltrate, the effect of gullying and road surface erosion
is exaggerated with the steep topography. More importantly, the cut and fill required to put the road
across a slope has the potential to induce landslide failure of the cut banks and failure of fill prisms. In
essence, the entire volume of material moved to make the road becomes vulnerable to mass wasting and
particulate erosion. As a result of these multiple effects, road-related sediment can dominate the
▯ 16
18 Annex 1
▯
sediment budget in many river systems (Reid and Dunne 2003). The increased sediment loads to rivers
are documented to have caused the loss of aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and
valued fish species, as well as degraded water quality. These effects have been documented in multiple
sites around the globe in a wide range of ecosystems.
3.2 Increased Area of Disturbance by Route 1856 over pre-existing roads
While some of Route 1856 has been constructed on pre-existing local roads, more than half of the road
is completely new construction, much of it on steep terrain. Our analysis of conditions appearing under
the 2012 footprint of Route 1856 on the 2009 satellite imagery indicates that 51.7 km (48%) of the
Route 1856 alignment follows sections of pre-existing road, and 56.3 km (52%) is completely new
construction (Table 1). Even where Route 1856 follows sections of pre▯-existing road, Route 1856 has a
significantly larger footprint. The pre-existing road segments were mostly located across broad, flat or
gentle floodplain/river terrace settings, where roads were easily put across the landscape without heavy
construction equipment, and where they provided access to areas cleared for agriculture. The new road
has a larger footprint, so creates significantly more impermeable surface (Figures 4, 5). Moreover, the
fact that Route 1856 can support higher vehicular use levels means that it will also lead to higher future
erosion rates emanating from the roadbed and traveled surface. Sections of pre-existing flat road
converted to larger road by construction of Route 1856 will cause higher rates of er▯osion and sediment
delivery to the Río San Juan, depending in large measure on how these sections of Route 1856 are
surfaced and drained.
Table▯1.▯▯Road▯status▯by▯terrain▯type▯for▯Juan▯Rafael▯Mora▯Porras▯Route▯1856,▯Costa▯Rica▯▯
Gentle▯terrain Steep▯terrain Total
Preexisting▯ New▯ Preexisting▯ New▯ Preexisting▯ New▯
Road▯segment▯ road▯ construction▯ road▯ construction▯ road▯ construction▯
(km)▯ (%)▯ (km) (%) (km) (%) (km) (%) (km)▯ (%) (km) (%)
▯▯▯À▯▯▯▯▯ ͵Ǥͳ▯ ͺΨ▯ ͳ͵ǤͶ ͵ʹΨ ʹǤ Ψ ʹʹǤͷ ͷͶΨ ͷǤ▯ ͳͶΨ ͵ͷǤͻ ͺΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯À▯ ʹͶǤͷ▯ ͷͻΨ▯ ͳͳǤͶ ʹͺΨ ͶǤͳ ͳͲΨ ͳǤʹ ͵Ψ ʹͺǤ▯ ͻΨ ͳʹǤ ͵ͳΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯▯ ͳǤͶ▯ ͻΨ▯ Ǥͻ▯ ʹΨ Ͳ ͲΨ ͲǤͻ ͶΨ ͳǤͶ▯ ͻΨ Ǥͺ ͵ͳΨ
Total▯ 45▯ 42%▯ 31.7 29% 6.7 6% 24.6 23% 51.7▯ 48% 56.3 52%
▯
▯ 17
19Annex 1
▯
Figure 4. Extent of ground disturbance, deforestation and site conditions as shown on 2009 photography
(pre-Route 1856) and 2012 photography (after Route 1856 construction) at Isla Reloj – Palo Seco.
Isla Reloj
Isla Reloj
Rio San Juan Palo Seco Rio San Juan Palo Seco
Pre-existing route Route 1856
2009 2012
Pre (2009) and post (2012) Route 1856 construction ground disturbance comparison (near Isla Reloj and250 500
Palo Seco), Costa Rica Meters
▯
Figure 5. Extent of ground disturbance, deforestation and site conditions as shown on the 2009
photography (pre-Route 1856) and 2012 photograph y (after Route 1856 construction), 2.3 km
downstream from Boca San Carlos and across from the mouth of Quebrada Guapote).
Quebrada Guapote
Quebrada Guapote
Rio San Juan Rio San Juan
Pre-existing route
Route 1856
2009 2012
stream from Boca San Carlos and across from the mouth of Quebrada Guapote), Costa Ricakm 0own- 200 400 800
Meters ▯
▯ 18
20 Annex 1
▯
Perhaps more significantly, of the 56.3 km of Route 1856 that consists of entirely new construction, 24.6
km is located on steep terrain, much of it densely forested areas (Table 1, above) (Figure 6). Newly▯-
constructed roads across steep topography are prone to erosion and landsliding by virtue of their setting.
The erodibility of the steep slopes has combined with the poor construction practices employed in the
construction of Route 1856 to produce multiple landslides, extensive gullying and other easily
identifiable erosional features.
Figure 6. Photo #50b at km 14.3 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Newly
constructed road crosses very steep topography resulting in a >50m wide area of bare soil prone
to surface, gully and landslide erosion with a high risk for sediment de▯livery to the Río San Juan.
3.3 Deforestation
Where a new road is constructed through forested terrain, the pre-existing vegetation must be removed
to make way for the road, its attendant quarries, and spoil areas. The resulting deforestation constitutes
another impact of the road.
Deforestation results in loss of important ecological habitats, carbon sequestration, and other ecological
values, especially in the humid tropics, where cutting of forest is acknowledged to be a principal
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Tropical forests have high diversity of plant and animal
species, and high levels of endemism (unique ecological features to a limited geographic area). Thus,
any project affecting large areas of mostly undisturbed forest will have a high potential for
environmental impact, and should be subject to careful, scientifically sound environmental impact
assessment. (No such assessment was conducted for Route 1856.)
Deforestation is known to increase soil erosion by removing the protective layer of vegetation cover,
decreasing the amount of rain that infiltrates into the soil and groundwater, and increasing the amount of
storm runoff (which increases soil erosion), and as roots decay, leading to▯ loss of slope strength and
▯ 19
21Annex 1
▯
increased rates of shallow and deep-seated landsliding. Looking at the 41.6 km of the road upstream of
the Río San Carlos confluence, which traverses the steepest topography and where 86% of Route 1856 is
new construction, there was a total of 99.8 ha of disturbed land, of which 41.6 ha involved removal of
previously undisturbed forest (Tables 1, 2, 3).
Table▯2.▯▯Road▯and▯crossing▯status▯by▯terrain▯type▯for▯Juan▯Rafael▯Mora▯Porras▯Route▯1856,▯Costa▯Rica
Gentle▯terrain Steep▯terrain Total
Stream▯ Stream▯ Stream▯
Road▯segment▯ Length▯ Length▯ Length▯
crossings▯ crossings▯ crossings▯
(km)▯ (%)▯ (#)▯ (%) (km) (%) (#) (%) (km)▯ (%) (#) (%)
▯▯▯À▯▯▯▯▯ ͳǤͷ▯ ʹͳΨ▯ ͵Ͳ▯ ͷʹΨ ʹͷǤͳ ͺͲΨ ͷ ͺʹΨ ͶͳǤ▯ ͵ͻΨ ͺ ͺΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯À▯ ͵ͷǤͻ▯ ͶΨ▯ ʹͶ▯ ͶͳΨ ͷǤ͵ ͳΨ ͳʹ ͳͺΨ ͶͳǤʹ▯ ͵ͺΨ ͵ ʹͻΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯▯ ʹͶǤͶ▯ ͵ʹΨ▯ Ͷ▯ Ψ ͲǤͻ ͵Ψ Ͳ ͲΨ ʹͷǤ͵▯ ʹ͵Ψ Ͷ ͵Ψ
Total▯ 76.8▯ 100%▯ 58▯ 100% 31.3 100% 68 100% 108▯ 100% 126 100%
Table▯3.▯▯Area▯of▯disturbance▯and▯areas▯of▯▯forest▯harvesting▯preǦ and▯postǦ▯Route▯1856▯
construction▯by▯terrain▯type▯for▯the▯road▯upstream▯of▯the▯Río▯San▯Carlos,▯Costa▯Rica
Forest▯
Gentle▯terrain▯ Steep▯terrain▯ Total▯
disturbance▯▯
time▯period▯ (km)▯ (Ha)▯ (%) (km) (Ha) Area▯(%) (km)▯ (Ha)▯ Area▯(%)
ʹͲͲͻǣ▯▯Ǧ▯▯
▯ ͳͷǤͺʹ▯ ʹǤͺ▯ ʹΨ▯ ͲǤͶ▯ ͵ͳǤͶ▯ ͵ͳΨ▯ ͳǤͶ▯ ͷͺǤʹ▯ ͷͺΨ▯
ʹͲͳʹǣ▯▯Ǧ▯▯ ͳͳǤͻͳ▯ ͲǤ▯ ͳΨ▯ ͳ͵Ǥʹ͵▯ ͶͲǤͻ▯ ͶͳΨ▯ ʹͷǤͳͶ▯ ͶͳǤ▯ ͶʹΨ▯
▯
Total▯ 27.73▯ 27.5▯ 28%▯ 13.87▯ 72.3▯ 72%▯ 41.6▯ 99.8▯ 100%▯
▯ 20
22 Annex 1
▯
4. RESULTS: PROBLEMS DOCUMENTED WITH ROUTE 1856 CONSTRUCTION
Based on our observations from aerial and field reconnaissance, and supported by analysis of aerial
imagery, we have identified the following specific deficiencies with the construction of the Route 1856.
4.1 Lack of Planning
As noted by CFIA (2012), Route 1856 has been built without plans and without benefit of an
environmental impact analysis. Transportation planning, involving a team of qualified and trained
specialists, was not employed. The lack of planning has resulted in siting the road across ste▯ep, unstable
hillsides, as discussed below where alternative (less damaging) routes were available. There are many
places along Route 1856 where it is obvious that the construction crew began to put ▯the road along one
route, only to abandon the partially completed route and build the road elsewhere (Figure 7). In such
cases, the disturbance that would be expected from constructing a road i▯s effectively doubled.
Figure 7. Photo #60b at km 15.0 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Example of
non-right-of–way pioneered road cuts that have not be properly located, designed or
decommissioned. To the right of the abandoned road, note the large stream crossing with
actively eroding fillslopes and severe sedimentation in the foreground.
▯
▯ 21
23Annex 1
▯
4.2 Encroachment of Route 1856 into 50-m setbacks
Our analysis showed that a total of 17.9 km of Route 1856 has encroached into the 50-m setback
(specified by Costa Rican law) from the bank of the Río San Juan (Table 4), with the road coming
within approximately 5 m of the river bank at a number of locations (Figures 8, 9). The upstream
section of the road (above the Río San Carlos confluence) had the highest rate of setback violation, with
12.3 km of the road, or 30% of the stretch, located within 50 m of the river bank. It should be noted that
this measurement includes only the road itself, and does not include the numerous new driveways,
residential clearings and initial attempts to construct the road that were abandoned in favor of another
route. Many of these clearings and disturbances were also within the setback.
Table▯4.▯▯Length▯of▯road▯within▯50Ǧm▯buffer▯by▯terrain▯type▯for▯Juan▯Rafael▯Mora▯Porras▯Route▯1856,▯Costa▯
Rica▯▯
Gentle▯terrain Steep terrain Total
Within▯50Ǧm▯ Outside▯50Ǧ Within▯50Ǧm▯ Outside▯50Ǧ Within▯50Ǧm▯ Outside▯50Ǧ
Road▯segment▯ ▯ ▯ ▯ ▯ ▯ ▯
buffer m▯buffer buffer m▯buffer buffer m▯buffer
(km)▯ (%)▯ (km) (%) (km) (%) (km) (%) (km)▯ (%) (km) (%)
▯▯▯À▯▯▯▯▯ ͻǤͳ▯ ʹʹΨ▯ ǤͶ▯ ͳͺΨ ͵Ǥʹ ͺΨ ʹͳǤͻ ͷ͵Ψ ͳʹǤ͵▯ ͵ͲΨ ʹͻǤ͵ ͲΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯À▯ ͵Ǥ▯ ͻΨ▯ ͵ʹǤʹ ͺΨ ͳǤͻ ͷΨ ͵ǤͶ ͺΨ ͷǤ▯ ͳͶΨ ͵ͷǤ ͺΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯▯ Ͳ▯ ͲΨ▯ ʹͶǤͶ▯ ͻΨ▯ ͲǤͲ▯ ͲΨ▯ ͲǤͻ▯ ͶΨ▯ Ͳ▯ ͲΨ▯ ʹͷǤ͵ ͳͲͲ
Ψ▯
Total▯ 12.8▯ 12%▯ 64.0 59% 5.1 5% 26.2 24% 17.9▯ 17% 90.2 83%
Figure 8. Photo #40 at km 8.3 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. 17% of Route
1856 has been constructed within 50 m of the Río San Juan, and upstream of the Río San Carlos,
30% of the road is within 50 m (Table 4, above). Many of these locations, exhibit active and
ongoing sediment delivery to the Río San Juan.
▯ 22
24 Annex 1
▯
Figure 9. Photo #121b at km 39.0 from upstream e nd of Route 1856 along border. Route 1856
has been constructed well within 50 m of the Río San Juan. Note the extensive surface erosion
along the road, as well as large cutbank landslides, the poorly constructed stream crossing in the
middle right, and the lack of any erosion control or wet-season stabilization efforts.
While the precise pathways of sediment delivery from an eroding road to a nearby water body depend
on local topography and other factors, it is an accepted principle that ▯building close to a river or other
water body increases the likelihood that sediment from the road will reach the water body. This
principle is the basis for establishing setbacks to protect rivers and other waters from disturbance by
roads, farming, and other activities. Based on our experience assessing impacts of▯ roads and other land-
use disturbances, we consider 100 m to be a more appropriate buffer distance, as an indication of which
sections of road are likely to contribute eroded sediment directly to the river. Our analysis showed that
49.5 km of the road was within 100 m of the riverbank, 17.8 km of which was built on steep terrain
(Table 5). Thus, nearly half of the road was built within 100 m of th▯e river, greatly elevating the
potential for the road to negatively impact the Río San Juan.
Table▯5.▯▯Length▯of▯road▯within▯100Ǧm▯buffer▯by▯terrain▯type for▯Juan▯Rafael▯Mora▯Porras▯Route▯1856,▯
Costa▯Rica ▯▯
Gentle▯terrain Steep▯terrain Total
Within▯100Ǧm▯ Outside▯100Ǧ Within▯100Ǧ Outside▯100Ǧ Within▯100Ǧ Outside▯100Ǧ
Road▯segment▯ buffer▯ m▯buffer▯ m▯buffer▯ m▯buffer▯ m▯buffer▯ m▯buffer▯
(km)▯ (%)▯ (km) (%) (km) (%) (km) (%) (km)▯ (%) (km) (%)
▯▯▯À▯▯▯▯▯ ͳͶǤͷ▯ ͵ͷΨ▯ ʹǤͲ▯ ͷΨ ͳ͵Ǥͺ ͵͵Ψ ͳͳǤ͵ ʹΨ ʹͺǤ͵▯ ͺΨ ͳ͵Ǥ͵ ͵ʹΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯À▯ ͳͶǤͻ▯ ͵Ψ▯ ʹͳǤͲ ͷͳΨ ͶǤͲ ͳͲΨ ͳǤ͵ ͵Ψ ͳͺǤͻ▯ ͶΨ ʹʹǤ͵ ͷͶΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯▯ ʹǤ͵▯ ͻΨ▯ ʹʹǤͳ ͺΨ ͲǤͲ ͲΨ ͲǤͻ ͶΨ ʹǤ͵▯ ͻΨ ʹ͵ǤͲ ͻͳΨ
Total▯ 31.7▯ 29%▯ 45.1 42% 17.8 16% 13.5 12% 49.5▯ 46% 58.6 54%
▯ 23
25Annex 1
▯
4.3 Poor Siting of Road
One of the principles of sound practice in road construction is selecting the best route, through the most
stable terrain, and avoiding sensitive wetlands. Route 1856, however, which was not the subject of
planning or impact analysis, was built across potentially unstable hillslopes in many localities. Over 30
km of Route 1856 has been built across steep hillslopes, many composed of deeply weathered,
unconsolidated, or otherwise weak material, which is prone to erosion and slope failure (Tables 1 & 2,
above). As noted above, nearly half of the road is located within 100 m of the river bank, greatly
increasing the likelihood that sediment eroded from the road will enter the river (Table 5).
The poor siting of the road – across steep, unstable hillslopes and i▯n close proximity to the river – was a
tragic error with significant short- and long-term environmental consequences. There is no technical or
environmental reason the road needed to go where it was put. In fact, the contr▯ary would be true: better
sites with more stable ground and located a greater distance from the river would have resulted in far
less environmental impact, and over the long run, far less expense in attempting to maintain a ▯poorly-
sited, poorly-constructed road.
4.4 Disorganized Cuts and Fills
As obvious from our aerial and riverboat reconnaissance, from analysis of aerial imagery, and from the
reports and images presented by CFIA (2012) and LANAMME (2012), the construction of Route 1856
has not been carried out in an organized or professional manner. The construction has involved
excessive and disorganized earthmoving works, a function of the lack of planning. By failing to
implement the measures necessary to protect the resulting cuts and fills from wind, rain, runoff, and
even gravity, the disorganized construction of this road in a fragile environment created a situation in
which sediment transfer to the Río San Juan and the tributaries that feed it was inevitable.
▯ 24
26 Annex 1
▯
4.5 Steep Cutbanks and Unstable Fill
As a general rule, the steeper the cutbank, the more prone it is to slop▯e failure. We observed numerous
examples of steep cutbanks that have already failed, both along the road itself and in nearby rock
quarries (Figure 10). As the exposed cutbanks continue to weather, and as the area is exposed to▯ more
intense rains, these vulnerable slopes will inevitably experience a high rate of slope failure and
continuing erosion.
Figure 10. Photo #100b at km 24.2 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Unstable
quarry located well within 50 m of Río San Juan displaying widespread surface erosion, as well
as cutbank and hillslope instabilities resulting in direct sediment delivery to the Río San Juan.
Along most of Route 1856, fill materials were clearly sidecast downslope (i.e., simply pushed to the
edge of the road and allowed to fall down the slope). Fillslopes created in this way are inherently
unstable, because they exist at excessively steep slopes, and because they consist of loose fill, without
the benefit of compaction. From our helicopter aerial and riverboat inspections, we observed few newly
constructed fillslopes that did not clearly exhibit widespread settlement, slope failure, and mass
movement of material following construction (Figure 11).
▯ 25
27Annex 1
▯
Figure 11. Photo #41 at km 8.2 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Poorly
constructed, primarily sidecast, fillslopes are nearly ubiquitous where Route 1856 is located on
steeper hillslopes. These failing road fills actively deliver significant quantities of sediment to the
Río San Juan. We observed limited to no efforts to implement emergency erosion control efforts.
Several fillslopes appeared to have large pieces of dead wood incorporated into the fills, or living trees
that were buried by sidecast fill (Figure 12). These construction methods – sidecasting, lack of
compaction, and incorporation of woody debris in fill materials – are a recipe for continued slope failure
and off-site sediment delivery. These poorly built cuts and fills represent “loaded guns” on the
landscape that are waiting to be triggered to fail during storms and floods.
▯ 26
28 Annex 1
▯
Figure 12. Photo #70c at km 18.3 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Lack of any
plans, design or construction standards along Route 1856 has resulted in▯ excessive sidecasting,
incorporating woody debris in the fills, burying live trees. These poorly constructed road
segments currently impact the Río San Juan, and will pose long term threats to water quali▯ty.
Similar construction practices were commonplace in the Pacific Northwest of North America in the
1950s and 1960s, and they created a legacy of problems that persist to this day, including fish
populations that have never recovered their pre-disturbance levels, cont▯inued slope instability in many
sites, excessive sediment supply persisting in many rivers such that aquatic habitats are still degraded
and cannot support fish and other species as formerly. These destructive road-building practices were
prohibited in California by the Forest Practice Act of 1974, in other states by comparable legislation, and
are effectively banned by the federal government for all publicly owned forest lands in the United States,
as discussed below in Section 4.10.
The observed construction practices of Route 1856 point to the apparent ▯lack of geotechnical
assessments as well as failure to apply standard engineering and construction practices for the location
of the right-of-way, cut and fill design, appropriateness of spoil disposal locations, road surface drainage
and stream crossing designs, and material compaction standards. These deficiencies are pervasive, with
examples of resultant, severe fillslope, cutbank and native hillslope failur▯es associated with various
locations along Route 1856 (Figure 13). Because so much of the steeper sections of Route 1856 are
within 100 m of the river bank (of the total 31.3 km that crosses steep terrain, 17.8 km is within 100 m
of the bank), the risk of ongoing and future sediment delivery to water▯courses and to the river is very
high (Table 5).
▯ 27
29Annex 1
▯
Figure 13. Photo #77 at km 18.5 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Unstable
cutbanks and fill prisms are common where Route 1856 has been constructed across steeper
topography. Where the road is close to the Río San Juan, the risks of sediment delivery will
remain high into the future, even with the implementation of very costly engineering measures.
These road segments should be properly decommissioned and the road re-routed well away from
the river.
At many locations, fillslopes appear to be actively adjusting and virtually “▯melting” downslope with
little evidence of maintenance or corrective effort along the route (Figures 14, 15). As a▯ consequence,
accelerated human-caused erosion processes remain unchecked, and sediment continues to be delivered
directly to the Río San Juan.
▯ 28
30 Annex 1
▯
Figure 14. Photo #74 at km 17.8 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Examples of
poorly constructed fillslopes that are unstable, and are literally “melting away” immediately
following construction. These construction practices coupled with the location of the road
adjacent the Río San Juan are now and will continue to impact water quality for decades.
▯
Figure 15. Photo #42 at km 8.4 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Examples of
poorly constructed fillslopes that are incredible unstable, and are literally “melting away”
immediately following construction. These construction practices and the location of the road
adjacent the Río San Juan are now and will continue to impact water quality for decades.
▯ 29
31Annex 1
▯
4.6 Deficient, Eroding Stream Crossings
From our field inspection (from aerial overflight and riverboat inspections) of approximately 60 recently
constructed stream crossings, we observed that essentially all road-stream crossings exhibited some
form of serious design and/or construction deficiency, such as:
1. Poorly sized culvert drainage structures, clearly insufficient to accommodate 50-year or 100-year
design peak flows (the lack of plans for the road mean there is no statement available regarding
design flows) (Figure 3, above);
2. Culverts too short to construct stable fillslopes (Figure 16);
3. Excessive sidecasting and poorly compacted fills on the approaches to individual road-stream
crossings (Figure 17);
4. Use of logs and other non-conventional, inappropriate drainage structure▯ materials (instead of
metal culverts or bridges) that are already in the process of failing (F▯igure 18);
5. Use of logs for headwalls and slope retaining walls that will eventually▯ rot and fail (Figure 19);
6. Stream crossings lacking any formal drainage structure (Figure 20);
7. Large, deep fill crossings on some stream channels with elevated drainage structures (culverts)
that have dammed streams and caused the creation of ponds and small reservoirs with unknown
fill and spillway stability (Figures 3, 17, 21); and
8. Misaligned culverts placed outside the natural stream channel, with poorly designed man-made
ditch outlets that carry flow downslope directly to the Río San Juan (Figure▯ 22).
At virtually all the observed stream crossings, some volume of sediment has been introduced directly
into the receiving tributary stream and to the Río San Juan during construction of the crossing. More
importantly, most road-stream crossings along the newly built road pose a moderate to high risk of
future failure because they are significantly undersized or they were poorly constructed (Figure 23).
Stream crossing failures will occur when storm flows cause culverts to plug or culvert capacity to be
exceeded, and the fill is eroded or the stream is diverted onto adjacent, unprotected hillslopes leading to
the Río San Juan. These diverted streams cause road and hillslope gullies that will result in additional
volumes of gully erosion and sediment delivery to the receiving tributaries and to the Río San Juan.
▯ 30
32 Annex 1
▯
Figure 16. Photo #93b at km 20.1 from upstream e nd of Route 1856 along border. Culvert has
been installed with insufficient length to construct stable 2:1 fillslopes. Between the culvert
outlet and the Río San Juan, an over-steepened man-made ditch conveys runoff to the river. Note
the submerged delta of recently deposited sediment in the foreground.
▯
▯
Figure 17. Photo provided by INETER based on 1st of December, 2011 site visit. Excessive
sidecasting, poor compaction and the culvert placed high in the fill are combining to cause
immediate sedimentation in the Río San Juan. This style of road construction will ensure long-
term impacts to the Río San Juan in the future.
▯
▯ 31
33Annex 1
▯
Figure 18. Photo from CFIA report dated June 2012. Stream crossing built with non-
conventional materials are already failing and delivering sediments to tributary streams during
every rainfall and runoff event. It is also likely the drainage structure is not properly sized for 50-
or 100-year discharges. ▯
▯
▯
Figure 19. Photo #95e at km 21.75 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Use of logs
as headwalls and other inappropriate crossing materials will increase the failure potential of the
drainage structure and result in additional sedimentation to the Río San Juan.
▯
▯ 32
34 Annex 1
▯
Figure 20. Photo from CFIA Report dated June 2012. Several Costa Rican reports have
identified many locations along Route 1856 where stream drainage structures are totally lacking,
undersized, poorly installed and are actively delivering sediment to the tributary streams crossed
by the road. In addition, the photo illustrates no efforts at protecting bare soil areas adjacent the
stream from surface and gully erosion processes. ▯
▯
Figure 21. Photo #29 at km 7.1 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Several new
reservoirs where observed where Route 1856 crossed larger watercourses with big fill crossings.
Based on the methods of construction observed elsewhere along the road, it is likely the stream
drainage structures are undersized and poorly installed, and likely have inadequate spillways at
these new earthen dams. ▯
▯
▯ 33
35Annex 1
▯
Figure 22. Photo #51c at km 11.3 from upstream end of Route 1856 at border. Road and
culvert (not visible) are in the distance in the sunlight. Man-made ditch has been constructed to
convey runoff to the Río San Juan where the photo was taken. Note the poor design and over-
steepened sideslopes to the ditch.
▯
▯
Figure 23. Photo of bridge being constructed across Cano Curenita about 58 km downstream
from the upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Bridges are appropriate for this larger stream,
however significant volumes of sediment are being delivered to the Río San Juan as a result of
construction activities including extensive ground disturbance, sidecasting and perching over-
steepened fill over the stream, and the lack of surface erosion control measures.
▯ 34
36 Annex 1
▯
4.7 Rainfall Intensity and Erosion Potential
Erosion potential is a function of both the extent and nature of exposed earth, and the intensity of the
expected rainfall. In this tropical region, rainfall intensities can be very high, especially during tropical
storms and hurricanes. In general, precipitation increases toward the Caribbean: average monthly
rainfall for July is 417 mm at El Castillo, but 748 mm near the coast at Barra del Colorado. The
maximum monthly totals for July were 666 at El Castillo and 1719 mm at Barra Colorado. With more
than a meter and a half of rain falling in a single month, this region can experience very intense and
prolonged rains, and consequently erosion potential can be viewed as high. And these numbers do not
reflect the rainfall likely during a hurricane, when rainfall intensitie▯s over just a few hours can be very
high. The high erosion rates and extensive landsliding during Hurricane▯ Mitch in 1998 (Molnia and
Hallam 1999) resulted from four-day rainfall totals in Honduras of 896 mm and maximum rainfall
intensities of 58 mm per hour (Hellin and Haight 1999).
However, it is important to recognize that hurricanes are natural events, the effects of which are made
much worse by prior land disturbance. It is the combination of prior bad land management and the
intense rainfall that occurs during hurricanes and tropical storms that leads to serious damage. The
extreme destructiveness of Hurricane Mitch (with extensive landsliding and 11▯,000 lives lost) was due
not to unusually high totals or intensity of rainfall, because rainfalls, while clearly high, were “less than
values from the updated maximum potential rainfall curve.” Rather, “already saturated soils and
denuded hillsides, were largely responsible for the damage caused” (Hellin et al. 1999). Looking ahead
to the next hurricane to hit the region, we can see that the extensive disturbance caused by the sloppy
construction of Route 1856 has set the stage for significant damage.
Since construction of Route 1856 began in 2011, the region has experienc▯ed relatively modest rainfalls.
Estimated monthly rainfalls for El Castillo in 2011-2012 have been less than 285 mm, except for three
months: October 2011 (437 mm), May 2012 (537 mm), and July 2012 (544 mm) (Accuweather 2012).
These rainfalls are certainly enough to erode soil and deliver sediment to the river, as we have
documented. However, all of the rain falling in the wettest month of 2011-20▯12 could fall in a few days
during a hurricane, resulting in vastly greater erosion, landsliding, and sediment delivery to the river.
4.8 Poor Drainage and Lack of Preparation for Wet Season
Construction of Route 1856 has left behind large areas of exposed soil, disrupted hillslope topography,
steep cutbanks, and mounds of loose, unengineered (uncompacted) fill. Normally any such construction
project should be protected from rain impact and landsliding by erosion control measures and slope
stabilization measures. To prevent the washing away of exposed earth, it is standard procedure to cover
exposed areas with a complete cover of mulch, with quick-growing vegetation (e.g., grass), or, where no
vegetation exists (or it has been planted but has not yet grown in), p▯rotective geotextiles and erosion-
control fabrics. Measures such as replanting with native plant species are recommended by the Costa
Rican Management Plan, but we observed evidence of little successful effort in this direction. Most of
the bare exposed ground surfaces of Route 1856 have not been protected by mulch, vegetative cover, or
geotextile substitutes. In cases where geotextiles have been installed, they have mostly failed. In some
cases, large plastic sheets have been placed over cutslopes in an evident attempt to prevent slope failure,
but this approach works only to control surface erosion, not landslides, which may have deep failure
planes, nor have any of the poorly implemented measures been maintained or successfully repaired.
▯ 35
37Annex 1
▯
Route 1856 has long lengths of road surfaces that drain to inboard ditches. Not only is the runoff from a
given rainfall increased because the compacted road surface does not infiltrate, but the runoff is
collected and concentrated such that road surface and ditch erosion is virtually gua▯ranteed to occur, and
where these concentrated flows are discharged onto adjacent fills and native slopes, severe gullying
results. The lack of adequate road surface drainage structures is reflected in the consequent widespread
and serious gully erosion, which efficiently delivers eroded sediment directly to the Río San Juan
(Figure 24). Moreover, the disruption of surface and groundwater flow paths by the road results in
unnatural concentrations of water, which can reduce slope stability and trigger landslides and debris
flows.
Figure 24. Photo #33 at km 7.5 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. On steeper
terrain, massive gully and surface erosion are occurring on all road related disturbed areas. Along
the road, three > 2 m wide by > 2 m deep gullies associated with concentrated road runoff are
present. Likewise, the quarry area exhibits extensive actively enlarging gullies during every
rainfall event. Note the youthful grasses over deltaic deposit in the foreground.
An important component of any road construction project of the scale of Route 1856 is to stabilize or
“put the project to bed” before the onset of the rainy season. This involves the application of well-known
storm water pollution prevention measures (best management practices or “BMPs”) that are designed to
control erosion and prevent the off-site transport of eroded sediment. These BMPs include water bars,
berm breaks, sediment basins, mulching, erosion-control fabrics, filter fences, seeding and other
temporary road surface drainage and erosion control measures. However, we observed unprotected,
eroding bare soil areas to be ubiquitous throughout virtually all construction areas along the alignment.
The evident lack of measures to prepare for the wet season and lack of erosion control measures along
the route has resulted in persistent and serious erosion of bare soils all along the recently bulldozed
alignment and at disturbed rock quarry sites. Much of this eroded sediment has been delivered to the
Río San Juan.
▯ 36
38 Annex 1
▯
4.9 Impacts on Tributaries and Hydrologic Connectivity to Río San Juan
We mapped 126 stream and river crossings along Route 1856 (Table 2, above). Each crossing is a
potential location for delivering road-derived sediment to tributary streams and ditches, which serve as
conduits to efficiently transport sediment to the Río San Juan (Figure 24, above). Rainfall erodes
sediment from exposed road surfaces and its attendant cuts and fills, washing sediment into nearby water
courses, thereby posing a threat to the tributary streams and the mainstem river to which they drain.
In our observations from helicopter, boat, and aerial imagery, we documented that a large proportion of
the road is hydrologically connected to nearby streams, and through them, to the mainstem river.
Hydrologic connectivity means that rain running off the road will flow directly into the channel system,
instead of taking a slower path through vegetation or infiltrating throu▯gh the groundwater, as was
dominantly the case prior to road construction. The new road was built with inside ditches and flat or
in-sloped road surfaces, thereby efficiently routing most runoff and eroded sediment directly to adjacent
streams. If the approaches to a road-stream crossing are long and/or steep leading to the adjacent
tributary stream crossing, road surface gullying adds to the sediment load in road surface runoff.
Hydrologic connectivity greatly accelerates man-caused sediment delivery to off-site, downstream areas
and can seriously impact channel morphology and aquatic habitat a great distance from the construction
site. In fact, depending on how road beds are shaped and drained (i.e., do they collect and concentrate
runoff or disperse road runoff at many non-stream drainage points along the road) dictates whether the
road’s segments are well connected or the opposite, “shaped to be hydrologically invisible” on the
landscape, which would be typical of best management practices today in North America. Highly
connected roads can be significant and persistent sources of man-caused accelerated sediment delivery,
and they represent active sediment sources even in light rainfall events.
Construction of Route 1856 has significantly affected all of the watercourses crossed by the road, by
changing or interrupting their natural flow patterns and by causing eroded sediments and other materials
to be transferred into them. Such effects have serious implications for the Río San Juan because all
these tributary bodies of water discharge into the river. As the charac▯ter and quality of these tributaries
are altered or compromised, so are the character and quality of the Río San Juan (Figure 25).
▯ 37
39Annex 1
▯
Figure 25. Photo #58a at km 14.1 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Markedly
elevated sediment loads from the Río Infiernito enter the Río San Juan. Extensive earth-moving
has resulted in large areas of bare soil that, as a result of poor road drainage practices, is
concentrating runoff along both road approaches and delivering erosional▯ products to the rivers.
This is a classic example of hydrologically connected roads, and a practice that should be avoided.
4.10 Route 1856 Practices Now Illegal in the U.S.
The regulations established under the California Forest Practice Act (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 §§ 923.1,
943.1, 963.1, 923.2, 943.2, 963.2) specifically prohibit many of the practices documented in the
construction of Route 1856, such as constructing a road without detailed▯ plans, building on steep slopes
near streams, intentionally discharging water and sediment directly into streams, sidecasting fill near
streams, creating excessively steep cutbanks, using non-standard culvert materials, installing undersized
culverts, and leaving unengineered fill, including eroding unengineered earthen road-crossing fi▯lls. By
way of example, California’s statute requires that “[e]xcess material from road construction and
reconstruction shall be deposited and stabilized in a manner or in areas where downstream beneficial
uses of water will not be adversely affected,” “oversize culverts, trash racks, or similar devices shall be
installed in a manner that minimizes culvert blockage,” and “[certain] sidecast or fill material … shall be
seeded, planted, mulched, removed, or treated … to adequately reduce soil erosion.” Cal. Code ▯Regs. tit.
14 §§ 923.2, 943.2, 963.2.
Similarly, the State of Washington Forest Practice Rules (Wash. Admin. Code §§ 222-24-010 – 060)
prohibit most of the practices employed in the construction of Route 1856. Generally, Washington
requires road construction to employ practices proven effective at “[p]reventing mass wasting,”
“[l]imiting delivery of sediment and surface runoff to all typed waters,” “[p]roviding for the passage of
some woody debris,” and “protecting stream bank stability.” Wash. Admin. Code § 222-24-010.
Specifically, Washington forbids the construction of “new stream-adjacent parallel roads … within
natural drainage channels, channel migration zones, sensitive sites, equipment limitation zones, and
▯ 38
40 Annex 1
▯
riparian management zones when there would be substantial loss or damage to fish or wildlife habitat.”
Wash. Admin. Code § 222-24-020. Moreover, where stream crossings are necessary▯, Washington
requires engineers to “(a) [d]esign stream crossings to minimize alterations to natural features; (b)
[l]ocate and design culverts to minimize sediment delivery; and (c) [whenever] practical, cross streams
at right angles to the main channel.” Wash. Admin. Code § 222-24-020. Among many other
requirements, Washington also requires that “[e]rodible soil disturbed during road construction and
located where it could reasonably be expected to enter the stream network must be seeded with
noninvasive plant species,” “[a]ll permanent culverts must be designed to pass the 100-year flood event
with consideration for the passage of debris likely to be encountered,” and “fills or embankments shall be
built up by layering.” Wash. Admin. Code §§ 222-24-020 – 040.
Likewise, the Oregon Forest Practices Rules (Ore. Admin. Rules §§ 629-625-0000 – 0650) specifically
ban the types of haphazard construction methods used to build Route 1856. The Rules state:
▯
“A properly located, designed, and constructed road greatly reduces potential impacts to water
quality, forest productivity, fish, and wildlife habitat. To prevent improperly located, designed, or
constructed roads, a written plan is required in the sections listed below. ▯
▯
“Operators must describe the specific practices, as directed by a geotechnical specialist, they will
use to reduce landslide risk in a written plan. This written plan shoul▯d describe specific actions
taken to comply with the following rules. Avoid locating roads on high landslide hazard
location…Design road no wider than necessary. Design cut and fill slopes to minimize the risk of
landslides. Avoid road drainage discharge into high landslide locations…Do not place debris,
sidecast, or other waste materials on high landslide hazard locations. ▯
▯
“Maps must show the exact road location and all potentially affected high landslide
locations. Cross drainage structures, cuts, and fills should also be shown. As a minimum, proposed
road grades must be shown on the plan. … Use of fill on steep landslide hazard locations (60
percent) is unacceptable unless a slope stability analysis indicates such a fill will remain
stable. Roads across steep landslide hazard locations should have no more than one foot of
sidecast. Width should be the minimum that can be safely constructed with an excavator, typically
[5 m], including the ditch.”▯
▯
Moreover, while road construction in the United States is mostly regulated by states under restrictions
like those cited above, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Forest
Service, have published guidance for proper road construction methods where part of federal forestry
and other projects. 36 Code Fed. Regs. § 212; U.S. Forest Service, Forest Road Construction and
Maintenance; EPA Technical Bulletin No. 0672, Forests as Nonpoint Sources of Pollution and
Effectiveness of Best Management Practices; EPA, Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance for Dirt and
Gravel Roads. Like the state regulations discussed above, these guidance policies p▯rohibit road
construction without preconstruction engineering planning to mitigate erosion and sediment delivery and
also prohibit building on steep slopes, intentionally discharging of wat▯er and sediment directly to
streams, sidecasting fill, creating steep cutbanks, and using non-standard culvert materials. 36 Code Fed.
Regs. § 212; U.S. Forest Service, Forest Road Construction and Maintenance; EPA Technical Bulletin
No. 0672, Forests as Nonpoint Sources of Pollution and Effectiveness of Best Manag▯ement Practices;
EPA, Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance for Dirt and Gravel Roads. ▯
▯ 39
41Annex 1
▯
In addition, in enforcing the Clean Water Act, road-related erosion is a▯ddressed by the EPA or state
agencies to whom enforcement is delegated in various contexts, including the setting of Total Maximum
Daily Load standards for individual waterbodies. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d). For rivers listed as “impaired”
by sediment, road-related erosion is commonly cited as a significant sediment source and Best
Management Practices for road construction are required. For existing roads, B▯MPs typically include
improved road surface drainage and installing new drainage structures, disconnecting road drainage so it
no longer flows into streams, paving the road, upgrading culvert sizes for the 100-year flood event, and
stabilizing or removing unstable road fills. For new roads, construction of hydrologically connected
road approaches to stream crossings is normally prohibited to reduce/minimize man-caused fine
sediment inputs to streams, reduce cumulative watershed effects and protect water quality for beneficial
uses.
4.11 Observed Sediment Delivery from Route 1856 to the Río San Juan
As discussed above, Route 1856 has already increased sediment delivery t▯o the Río San Juan, and more
significantly, increased vulnerability to massive influxes of sediment in future years. Sediment eroded
from Route 1856 has reached the Río San Juan through a number of pathways▯ already. These include
shallow failures of sidecast fill material on sections of road located on hillslopes directly adjacent to the
river channel (Figure 26A). Our field reconnaissance in these setting▯s identified only shallow fill
failures as directly connected to the river channel now, but this is the▯ result of only modest rainfalls that
have occurred over the two years since road construction began. During future hurricanes and other
large storms, deep-seated landslides are likely to occur in such settings, and these events will deliver
significantly larger quantities of sediment to the river.
The most impressive and visible erosion and sediment delivery pathways are associated with the
massive, un-engineered road-fill prisms. Concentrated road runoff has carved substantial gullies
through these earthen fills, and shallow slumps are also commonly observed (Figure 26B); many of
these features are directly connected to the Río San Juan. This direct sediment delivery has impacts on
the Río San Juan.
▯ 40
42 Annex 1
▯
Figure 26. Sediment eroded from Route 1856 has
reached the Río San Juan through a number of
pathways already (drawing prepared by Jennifer
Natali from draft by Matt Kondolf).
A. On sections of road located on hillslopes directly
adjacent to the river, shallow failures of sidecast
fill material have entered the river. We observed
only shallow fill failures directly connected to
the river channel at present, but during future
storms, deep-seated landslides are likely to
deliver significantly larger quantities of
sediment to the river by this mechanism.
B. The most impressive and visible erosion and
sediment delivery pathways are associated with
the massive, un-engineered road-fill prisms.
Concentrated road runoff has carved substantial
gullies through these earthen fills, and shallow
slumps are also commonly observed, many
directly connected to the Río San Juan. The
earthen fills are extensively rilled and gullied,
and numerous slumps have developed on them.
Some of this eroded sediment has been
transported across an alluvial flat (leaving a trail
of angular sand and gravel) to finally discharge
into the river, leaving a deposited cone of
similar-sized (and finer) sediment underwater,
projecting from the bankline. Some of the
material eroded from these fills enters the river
system at stream crossings located along the
road, and some has not reached the river, but has
settled on an alluvial flat of typically 10-30 m
wide (where present).
C. Sediment eroded from the road surface enters
the stream system at road crossings; these are
the lowest points in the road system, so roads
drain towards them, carrying eroded sediment.
Once in the tributary, the sediments are
delivered to the Río San Juan.
41
▯
43Annex 1
▯
We also observed direct evidence that sediment from gullies in earthen road fill has been delivered to
the Río San Juan. In just the 35.75 km reach between El Jardin (about 5 km upstream from the Río San
Carlos confluence) and the upstream river border, we documented sediments at 43 stream/gully input
points as fans, mud, etc., and documented another 11 between the Río San Carlos and the Río Colorado.
In some locations, we documented a trail of angular sand and gravel across an alluvial flat to fina▯lly
discharge into the river, where we could find its deposited cone of similar-sized (and finer) sediment
underwater, projecting from the bankline (Figures 27, 28). Numerous slumps have developed on these
road fills (Figure 29), but the failed material had not always yet reached the river. The earthen fills are
extensively rilled and gullied, and much of the material eroded from these fills enters the river system at
stream crossings located along the road (Figure 30). Similarly, sediment eroded from the road surface
enters the stream system at road crossings; these are the lowest points in the road system, so roads drain
towards them, carrying eroded sediment (Figure 26C, above). All of this sediment is then carried
directly to, and discharged into, the Río San Juan via these tributary streams.
Figure 27. Photo #27a at km 6.4 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Insloped and
bermed roads collect and concentrate runoff along lo ng lengths of road, producing large gullies
where the runoff exits the road. We estimated over 90% of the sediment derived from road
erosion and the newly formed gully has been delivered to the Río San Juan, as manifest in the
actively building fan/delta at the outlet of this transport pathway.
▯
▯
▯ 42
44 Annex 1
▯
Figure 28. Photo #27c at km 6.4 from the upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Close up
of the cone of sediment displaying the range of grain sizes being delivered to the Río San Juan.
This is one of several dozen locations where such depositional features could be clearly seen, as
depicted in Figure 26B, above.
Figure 29. Photo #75 at km 17.8 from the upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Where
Route 1856 is constructed across steep topography, tall road cuts have been created, generating
large volumes of fill, most of which appears to have been sidecast creating steep and long, un-
compacted fillslopes. 100% of the fillslopes in the photo are exhibiting progressive failures and
slumping.
▯
▯ 43
45Annex 1
▯
Figure 30. Photo #71 at km 17.6 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Construction
along this section of road is incomplete, yet the inappropriate road design, construction, erosion
control and maintenance practices used are resulting in ubiquitous fillslope gully and landslide
erosion. Poor road drainage practices are likely responsible for most of the gullies.
The fresh deposits of sediment in the Río San Juan that had clearly been transported directly from Route
1856 were of a range in grain sizes, from gravels over 90 mm down to clay. Where we could identify
fresh deposits of sediment carried from the road into the river, such as in the form of cones of sediment,
we documented with notes and photographs, and collected samples from a subset of the observed
deposits that were directly accessible from the river, mostly cones of sediment deposited below the
outflow points of transport paths from the eroding road (Figure 31). See Appendix D for photographs of
the samples, along with locations and data such as percent sand, silt, and clay. We collected samples
representing the range of sediment sizes observed, coarse gravels (e.g., Samples 2-1, 2-10, 2-12), well-
sorted sands (Sample 2-27), and fine silt-clay (Sample 2-18, which we collected from the river margin
within emergent aquatic vegetation, which had trapped silt and clay being transported from the eroding
road). It is important to note that the sediment we could sample was only the “lag deposit” from a much
larger sediment load that was carried into the river. The cones of sand and gravel we sampled probably
represent less than 5% of the total amount of sediment that passed at those points into the river. Most of
the finer sediment has been flushed deeper into the river and carried downstream. Thus, even under the
conditions of modest rainfall over the past two years, our field work demonstrated that sediment eroded
from the road has reached the river in substantial amounts. The intense rains that will inevitably occur
during the next hurricane or other major storm will produce vastly greater erosion, mass wasting, and
sediment delivery to the river.
▯ 44
46 Annex 1
▯
Figure 31. Photo #4d at km 0.8 from upstream end of Route 1856 along border. Sediment
samples were collected at several of the observed outwash deltas along the margins of the Río
San Juan associated with eroding sections of Route 1856.
4.12 Estimated Ongoing and Projected Sediment Sources from Route 1856
There are two main ways that Route 1856 produces sediment, which gets to the river: 1) from chronic
erosion of soil particles transported by water; and 2) from mass wasting, whose products can be
transported to the river directly by mass soil movement or by flowing water. Geomorphologists have
long distinguished between upland erosion rates and rates at which sedime ▯ nt is actually delivered to the
river channel. Measured erosion rates commonly exceed rates of sediment delivery to rivers, because
some sediment is stored (at least temporarily) in sites between the point of erosion and the river. Thus,
in addition to estimating the volume of sediment eroded at the road itself, it is important to identify
potential routes by which sediment can be transported to the river. In our field work, we documented
direct delivery of sediment from road erosion to the river at 54 sites along the road.
Our estimates of surface erosion rates for the upstream 41 km of Route 1856, upstream of Río San
3 -1
Carlos, indicate that surface erosion is producing 17,800 to 21,300 m y . Assum3 -1that 40% of this
sediment reaches the river in a given year, this amounts to 7,120 to 8,520 m y . The estimated 40%
sediment delivery ratio is based on:
1. Our field observations and professional experience;
2. The observations, comments and photos included in reports by Costa Rican professionals who
reviewed conditions along Route 1856 (CFIA 2012, LANAMME 2012);
3. The high stream density (86 stream crossings in this section of road);
▯ 45
47 Annex 1
▯
4. The high percentage of Route 1856 in this section constructed across steeper hillslopes (60%);
and
5. The high percentage of the road that has been constructed within 50 m (30%) and within 100 m
(68%) of the Río San Juan.
Consistent with published studies of sediment budgets in the Pacific Northwest of North America (e.g.,
Reid et al. 1981) and our observations of road-related erosional impacts elsewhere, we anticipate that the
volumes of sediment produced by surface erosion will be considerably less that those produced by mass
wasting processes. To gain a sense of the potential scale of mass-wasti▯ng and gully erosion, we
measured the area of steep road cuts and fill for the 41-km section of road upstream of the Río San
Carlos confluence. From this, we subtracted (in GIS) the 7-m wide roa▯dbed itself as less likely to fail,
and then conservatively estimated that landslide and gully erosion is occurring on 40-50% of the steep
disturbed land (21.8 to 27.3 ha) and that this landslide/gully erosion▯ averages 1 m deep (i3 -1 lowering
the land surface by 1 m on average). This calculation yields a total of 218,400 to 273,000 m y of
sediment eroded by mass wasting and gullying. If (as above) we assume that 40% of this is reaching the
3 -1
Río San Juan, that implies a sediment input of 87,000-109,000 m y , roughly ten times the amount
estimated for surface road erosion (Tables 6 & 7).
Table▯6.▯▯Road▯surfacing▯by▯terrain▯type▯for▯Juan▯Rafael▯Mora▯Porras▯Route 1856,▯Costa▯Rica
Gentle▯terrain Steep▯terrain Total
Rocked▯surface▯ Native▯ Rocked▯ Native▯ Rocked▯ Native▯
Road▯segment▯ road▯ surface▯road▯ surface▯road▯ surface▯road▯ surface▯road▯ surface▯road▯
(km)▯ (%)▯ (km) (%) (km) (%) (km) (%) (km)▯ (%) (km) (%)
▯▯▯À▯▯▯▯▯ ͳǤͻ▯ ͷΨ▯ ͳͶǤ ͵ͷΨ ͳʹǤͲ ʹͻΨ ͳ͵Ǥͳ ͵ͳΨ ͳ͵Ǥͻ▯ ͵͵Ψ ʹǤ Ψ
▯▯▯À▯▯À▯ ͳ͵Ǥͺ▯ ͵͵Ψ▯ ʹʹǤʹ ͷͶΨ ͶǤͶ ͳͳΨ ͲǤͺ ʹΨ ͳͺǤʹ▯ ͶͶΨ ʹ͵ǤͲ ͷΨ
▯▯▯À▯▯▯ ʹʹǤ▯ ͺͻΨ▯ ͳǤͺ▯ Ψ ͲǤͻ ͶΨ Ͳ ͲΨ ʹ͵Ǥͷ▯ ͻ͵Ψ ͳǤͺ Ψ
Total▯ 38.3▯ 35%▯ 38.6 36% 17.3 16% 13.9 13% 55.6▯ 51% 52.5 49%
Table▯7.▯▯Areas▯used▯to▯calculate▯surface,▯fluvial,▯and▯mass▯wasting▯erosion▯estimates▯for▯Route▯1856▯
above▯the▯Río▯San▯Carlos,▯Costa▯Rica.▯
Area▯of▯ Disturbed▯ %▯Disturbed▯ Total▯
Road▯ %▯Area▯ area▯outside▯ %▯Total▯
Terrain▯ Deforestation▯ length▯ road▯ of▯road▯ of▯road▯ area▯outside▯ disturbed▯ disturbed▯
type▯ time▯period▯ (km)▯ bench1▯ bench▯ bench▯▯ of▯road▯ area▯▯ area▯
(Ha)▯ bench▯ (Ha)▯
(Ha)▯
▯▯▯ ͳͷǤͺʹ▯ ͳͳǤͳ▯ ͵ͺΨ▯ ͳͷǤͺ▯ ʹʹΨ▯ ʹǤͻ▯ ʹΨ▯
▯
▯ ▯▯▯
ͳͳǤͻͳ▯ ͺǤ͵▯ ʹͻΨ▯ ʹ͵ǤͲ▯ ͵͵Ψ▯ ͵ͳǤ͵▯ ͵ͳΨ▯
▯
▯▯▯ ͲǤͶ▯ ͲǤͶ▯ ͳΨ▯ ͲǤ͵▯ δͳΨ▯ ͲǤ▯ ͳΨ▯
▯
▯▯ ▯▯▯
ͳ͵Ǥʹ͵▯ ͻǤ͵▯ ͵ʹΨ▯ ͵ͳǤ▯ ͶͷΨ▯ ͶͲǤͻ▯ ͶͳΨ▯
▯
Total▯ 41.6▯ 29.1 100% 70.7 100% 99.8▯ 100%
ͳ▯▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯ 46
48 Annex 1
▯
5. RECOMMENDED EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES TO PREVENT CONTINUING AND FUTURE IMPACTS TO THE RÍO SAN
JUAN
5.1 Extent of Impacts
Most all of the road reaches and stream crossings we observed are exhibiting varying degrees of active,
ongoing erosion as a result of inadequate planning (location), design,▯ construction and maintenance
practices. The extent of observed erosional impacts is extraordinary in scale, especially considering that
the region has experienced only mild rainfall patterns over the last two years since construction began.
In a hurricane or other major storm, the rate of hillslope failure and surface erosion will inevitably
increase dramatically. Immediate emergency actions are needed to curtail ongoing and future erosion
and sediment delivery to the Río San Juan, and these emergency actions should be of the highest priority
to all parties involved.
Based on our extensive experience in controlling and normalizing wildland road erosion processes to
protect water quality on both public and private road systems, we recommend the following mitigation
and emergency erosion/sediment control measures be undertaken immediately. The measures include
those designed to mitigate and prevent damage from 1) fillslope instability and mass wasting, 2) stream
crossing erosion and failure, and 3) surface erosion from road surfaces, and 4) erosion and gullying from
road surfaces, cutbanks, fillslopes and other bare soil areas. These measures are those that are required,
at a minimum, to control ongoing impacts and reduce the risk of future sediment delivery to the Río San
Juan from the existing road work. Their implementation should be overseen by qualified engineers and
geologists specifically trained and experienced in road restoration and erosion control.
5.2 Task 1: Reduce the rate and frequency of road fill failure slumps an▯d landslides where the road
crosses the steeper hillslopes, especially in locations where failed or eroded soil materials have been or
could potentially be delivered to the Río San Juan.
A. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving equipment to
excavate all unstable and potentially unstable sidecast fills and fill materials. Hydraulic
excavators will be required, and in many locations temporary benches and access spur roads will
be required to reach all the unstable and failing fill materials. Long boom excavators may be
useful for reaching and removing unstable spoil materials where a temporary access road cannot
be safely built.
B. Dump trucks will be required for endhauling the excavated spoil materials for disposal at stable,
low gradient locations where the materials will have no potential for re-mobilization and delivery
to streams or wetlands.
C. It should be noted that seeding, mulching or planting unstable and failing fills, or employing
various fabrics designed for surface erosion control, are not acceptable methods for controlling
mass wasting processes.
D. Once the unstable fills have been excavated and removed, the road will largely consist of a full
bench road bed with little or no part of the remaining road constructed on potentially unstable fill
▯ 47
49Annex 1
▯
material. If road widths are insufficient to accommodate the expected traffic in these treated
reaches, either the cut portion of the road can be moved farther into the hillslope (provided the
earth materials are stable) or a well designed and constructed engineered fill can be built along
the outside of the road. The structural fill should be designed by a qualified engineer who should
also be present during construction.
5.3 Task 2: Eliminate or significantly reduce the risk of future erosion▯ and sediment delivery at all
stream crossings along Route 1856.
A. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving equipment to
stabilize failing stream crossings by excavating all unstable or potentially unstable, poorly
compacted and over-steepened fills at all road-stream crossings.
B. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving equipment to
stabilize failing or potentially unstable road fills on the immediate road approaches to stream
crossings by excavating all unstable or potentially unstable, poorly compacted and over-
steepened fills.
C. Endhaul the excavated spoil materials to stable spoil disposal locations where the soils will not
be eroded and delivered to the Río San Juan or its tributaries.
D. Poorly designed road-stream crossings should be immediately removed until they can be
properly designed and reconstructed.
These sites include those crossings where:
i. road-stream crossing culverts and bridges have been constructed with unsuitable
materials (e.g., logs, metal shipping containers, etc.), or
ii. stream crossing structures have not been designed (engineered) to accommodat▯e the 100-
year return interval runoff event, or
iii. road-stream crossing bridges or culverts are misaligned with the natural channels.
Removal of these poorly designed and/or constructed road-stream crossings should consist of:
i. excavating and removing the drainage structure,
ii. excavating the fill materials out of the stream crossing so as to "exhume" the original
channel bed, re-establish the natural thalweg channel gradient and flood flow width, and
provide stable sideslopes with maximum 2:1 sideslope, and
iii. seed and mulch bare exposed soils for temporary erosion control.
E. The stream crossings can be properly reconstructed in the future once they have be▯en properly
designed using a) the proper materials, locations, orientations, and sized drainage structures to
accommodate the 100-year flow along with woody debris that will be in transport, and b)
sufficient drainage structure length to construct stable, compacted fillslopes, and transport stream
flow beyond the construction site right-of-way.
5.4 Task 3: Immediately reduce road surface erosion and sediment deliver▯y by improving
dispersion of concentrated road runoff and increasing the number and frequency of road drainage
▯ 48
50 Annex 1
▯
structures. This measure will address gully erosion and hydrologically connected road segments that are
currently delivering sediment to the Río San Juan and its tributaries.
A. As weather and soil conditions permit, and after excavating all the fillslopes exhibiting
instabilities referenced in Recommendation #1 (above) along Route 1856, immediately construct
temporary rolling dips, cross road drains and/or waterbars at average 15-m intervals (or more
frequently) to drain road surface runoff to the outside edge of the road.
B. Construct surface drainage structures at close enough intervals so they will not result in new
gully formation capable of transporting eroded sediment to the Río San Juan or its tributaries.
Some erosion of the road fillslopes can be expected, but sediment should be deposited on the
native hillslope beyond the base of the fill and not transported to the river or a stream. Culvert
down drains can be constructed to carry road surface runoff down the fil▯lslope wherever the road
is too close to the river to prevent sediment delivery.
C. Ensure that every drain or waterbar is constructed at a slightly steeper▯ slope angle/gradient than
the existing road gradient where the drain is constructed, so that they will be self-flushing and
self-maintaining.
D. Ditches should be drained under the road using ditch relief culverts installed at sufficient
intervals to prevent gullying of the fillslope or the natural hillside where they discharge.
E. Ditch drains and road surface drains should be placed close to each road approach to tributary
stream crossings so as to divert surface runoff onto adjacent, undisturbed (vegetated) hillslopes,
and thereby prevent or minimize road surface runoff delivery to streams that flow into the Río
San Juan.
F. Maintain all surface drainage structures and ditch drains so they continue to function as intended
and so eroded sediment is not discharged to the Río San Juan or its tributaries. If drainage
structures are damaged by traffic or equipment, they should be rebuilt immediately, and before
the next rainfall and runoff event.
5.5 Task 4: Control surface erosion and resultant sediment delivery from bare soil areas that were
exposed during clearing, grubbing and construction activities in the last several years.
A. Concurrent with the completion of the excavation and road drainage improvements in
recommendations outlined in #1, #2 and #3 above, seed and mulch all bare soil ▯areas with any
potential for sediment delivery to nearby streams/wetlands with straw mulch at a rate of 4,485
kg/ha and native seed at a rate of 56 kg/ha. If mulches other than whea▯t or rice straw are
employed, ground coverage should be at least 95%.
B. Cutbanks with slopes steeper than 50% will likely require the combined use of seeding,
mulching and installation of rolled erosion control fabrics, stapled to the slope, to control surface
erosion.
▯ 49
51Annex 1
▯
C. Inspect, re-treat and maintain all erosion control measures so they continue to function as
intended and they prevent sediment delivery to the Río San Juan and its tributaries.
5.6 Engineering and Geological Evaluation
Once these temporary emergency measures have been implemented to control erosion, mass wasting,
and sediment delivery to the Río San Juan and its tributaries, we strongly recommend that qualified
engineers and geologists evaluate the location, design, and construction▯ measures that were employed in
the last several years, as well as those that are planned for any future earthmoving activities. Protective
road design and construction standards, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new and
reconstructed roads, should have been employed in the construction work that has occurred to date. It is
clear that most of these measures were not followed, and the resulting high rates of mass wasting and
gully erosion on steeper areas reflect this shortcoming. In addition to the emergency erosion and
sediment control measures detailed above, it is imperative that any new or continued const▯ruction work
on the Route 1856 needs to follow more formal, protective planning, design and construction BMPs if
they are to avoid additional damage to the Río San Juan.
Portions of Route 1856 that have already undergone some measure of construction, and are currently
exhibiting severe erosion rates or slope instabilities, will need to be ▯completely reconstructed or
realigned to more favorable locations. Ideally, any road in this genera▯l vicinity should be aligned farther
inland, so as to take advantage of favorable terrain while not threatening the river or delivering eroded
sediment that could impair downstream river morphology or ecology.
Sections of the current road alignment that have been pioneered or constructed close to the river, where
sediment delivery is highly likely or has already occurred, should be evaluated for relocation and
realignment. All future road construction should be completed only after sound professional
engineering and geologic design has been completed, and only under the field supervision of engineers
and geologist trained in road location, design and construction, as well as effective road-related erosion
and sediment control measures.
The scientific and engineering literature is clear about the environmental and economic benefits that
accompany thoughtful and sound transportation planning, road design and on-the-ground construction
practices. Employing Best Management Practices for road construction and road management in the
forest environment will help minimize the potential environmental impacts of the construction project, it
will also minimize future maintenance requirements and storm-related impacts during seasonally wet
weather and when large floods occur. Poor practices, as were employed in many locations along Route
1856 not only result in high cost, high maintenance roads that perform poorly during bad weather, they
also result in unnecessarily high costs when portions of the road fail a▯nd become impassable, and when
such sections need to be rerouted and the old alignment requires expensive road restoration and
decommissioning measures to be permanently closed.
▯ 50
52 Annex 1
▯
6. CONCLUSION
Route 1856 along the Río San Juan was badly sited and has been poorly constructed, using many of the
same practices that caused extensive damage in North America in the 1950s and 1960s, and which are
now explicitly prohibited. Building the road on steeply-sloping land, close to the river, has
unfortunately guaranteed that serious erosion problems would result. Many of these erosion problems
are clearly visible from aerial reconnaissance and from the river, and sediment transported from the
eroding road can be seen and sampled in the river. Importantly, the erosion and sediment delivery to the
Río San Juan documented to date represent only a small fraction of the amount that is certain to occur
during a hurricane or other large storm. To a large extent, this poorly-sited, poorly-constructed road
(and its extensive deforestation, slope destabilization, and extensive bare, exposed ground) has simply
“set the table” for massive erosion and road failures that will occur in a major storm. The situation is
exacerbated by the nearly complete lack of competent erosion control measures, leaving many parts of
the road highly vulnerable to continued or increased erosion and landsliding during intense rains. The
proximity of the road to the Río San Juan means that the sediment produced will be efficiently
transported to the river, where it will continue to impact river ecology.
The road works suffer from a significant lack of physical and environmental planning and protection,
and failed to follow international and Costa Rican river, stream and wetland setback and protection
standards. Because the road was not planned and no environmental impact analysis was conducted in
advance to inform the project construction, the road was sited on steeply-sloping lands too close to the
river. Massive earthmoving in inappropriate locations demonstrates a lack of recognition and avoidance
of potentially unstable hillslope locations. This has resulted in numerous, active fillslope and hillslope
failures, ranging in size from shallow sidecast failures to large deep-seated landslides, with consequent
downstream sediment delivery into the Río San Juan.
The lack of road surface drainage design, lack of road maintenance, and lack of erosion control and
other environmental protections that are standard practice has resulted in numerous gullies of varying
dimensions on the inadequately compacted fillslopes along the route. The co▯nstructed ditches and
eroded gullies are both sources of sediment (as they rapidly erode) and act as channels that efficiently
convey eroded sediment to the Río San Juan. As gullies continue to enlarge with subsequent rainfall and
runoff, they can generate increasing quantities of sediment production, and further exacerbate fillslope
landslides and instability.
Route 1856 crosses at least 126 streams along its 108-km length, of which 68 crossings occur in steeply-
sloping terrain. Most of these road-stream crossings appear to have been deficiently constructed, based
on our aerial and riverine reconnaissance, and the on-the-ground observa▯tions of CFIA (2012) and
LANAMME (2012). Many are too small for the likely flows, fill material was simply dumped and not
engineered for stability, and/or they have culverts constructed of unacc▯eptable materials that are unlikely
to bear the weight of truck traffic and are unlikely to survive flooding▯ and erosion, including flimsy thin
metal and wood that will rot, probably within a decade. These deficient stream crossing structures are a
serious concern. The inadequately sized drainage structures and use of inappropriate construction
materials at poorly constructed stream crossings have ensured that future stream crossing failures will
further degrade downstream channels and the Río San Juan.
▯ 51
53Annex 1
▯
Moreover, construction of Route 1856 has involved the intentional re-routing and diversion of natural
stream channels, which has focused concentrated flow to areas where erosion is accelerated and
sediment delivery to the Río San Juan is virtually assured. The observed poor road drainage designs
have hydrologically connected Route 1856 to the numerous stream channels it crosses, posing a
significant long-term, persistent threat of cumulative, road-related and man-caused fine sediment
impacts to the Río San Juan. The construction practices and inadequate design of the road and its stream
crossings has effectively guaranteed that road surface erosion and fine sediments are delivered directly
to tributary streams and thence to the Río San Juan.
In virtually all disturbed land area, mass wasting, gully erosion and surface erosion processes are
widespread and common with few obvious efforts having been employed to control the ongoing erosion
and sediment transport processes. Our review of numerous ground photos taken by Costa Rican entities,
together with our own reconnaissance in October 2012, have revealed a near complete lack of secondary,
post-construction erosion control measures at the many areas of exposed, bare soil created by the road-
related construction and quarrying. This serious omission has resulted in significant and continuing
accelerated erosion and sediment delivery to local streams and the Río San Juan. Instead of erosion
control measures, it appears that little maintenance or corrective work has occurred for some time, and
that the contractors rapidly demobilized their equipment and crews and left the site with little effort to
stabilize the work sites or install erosion and sediment control measures prior to the beginning of the
rainy season. The lack of prudent on-the-ground corrective actions continue to impact downslope and
downstream water quality and resources of the Río San Juan.
The rapid, unplanned, poorly designed and poorly constructed road has cl▯early resulted in both on-site
and off-site environmental impacts as a direct result of accelerated erosion and landsliding along the
road alignment. Work on the project did not follow generally accepted or scientifically developed
engineering standards and Best Management Practices related to protecting water quality and natural
resources. Consequently, past and continuing erosion is widespread and unchecked, with no obvious
efforts being put forth to address the observed serious problems where the road alignment crosses
steeper terrain. For the 41 km of Route 1856 upst3 -1 of Río San Carlos only, we estimate that s3 -1ce
road erosion is approximately 18,000-21,000 m y , and mass wasting of 220,000-270,000 m y . If
approximately 40% of these eroded volumes reach the river, this implies a sediment input into the river
of approximately 100,000 m y . When it happens, future erosion and sediment delivery during a
tropical storm or hurricane will likely be greater than the current sediment transfer by a factor of at least
10.
▯ 52
54 Annex 1
▯
7. REFERENCES CITED
Accuweather. 2012. Website www.accuweather.com, accessed November 2012.
Brookes, A. 1986. Response of aquatic vegetation to sedimentation downstream from river
channelization works in England and Wales. Biological Conservation 38:352-367.
Brown, B. 1982. Mountain in the clouds: a search for the wild salmon. Touchstone Books, Simon &
Schuster, New York.
Cederholm, CJ, LM Reid, EO Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment on salmonid
populations in the Clearwater River basin, Jefferson County, Washington.▯ In Proceedings of the
Conference on Salmon Spawning Gravel: A Renewal Resources in the Pacific▯ Northwest? State of
Washington Water Research Center Report 39, Pullman, Washington, pp. 38-74.
CFIA (Association of Federated Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica). 2012. Verification of work
done toward the construction of “Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856.” Rep▯ort: DRD-INSP-0299-2012, 8 June
2012. 28 pp.
Connolly N. & Pearson R. G. 2007. The effect of fine sedimentation on tr▯opical stream
macroinvertebrate assemblages: a comparison using flow through artificial stream channels and
recirculating mesocosms. Hydrobiologia (2007) 592:423–438.
Cordone, AJ and DW Kelley 1961. The influence of fine sediment on the aquatic life of streams.
California Fish and Game 47:189-228.
Davies-Colley, R, JCW Hickey, JM Quinn, and PA Ryan. 1992. Effects of clay discharges on stre▯ams. 1.
Optical properties and epilithon. Hydrobiologia 248:215-234.
Douglas, I., 1976, Natural and man-made erosion in the humid tropics of Australia, Malaysia and
Singapore, In: Landforms and Geomorphology: Concepts and History, C. A. M. King, ed., Benchmark
Papers in Geology no. 28, p. 353-36.
Douglas, I., 2003, Predicting road erosion rates in selectively logged t▯ropical rain forests, In: Erosion
Prediction in Ungauged Basins: Integrating Methods and Techniques, Proceedings of IAHS Symposium
I-IS01, July 2003, Sapporo, Japan, p. 199-205.
Edwards, D. 1969. Some effects of siltation upon aquatic macrophyte vegetation in rivers.
Hydrobiologia 34:29-27.
Fossati, O, J Wasson, C Hery, G Salinas, and R Marin. 2001. Impact of sediment releases on water
chemistry and macroinvertebrate communities in clear water Andean streams (Bolivia). Arch.
Hydrobiol., 151(1): 33-50.
Hellin, J, and MJ Haigh. 1999. Rainfall in Honduras during Hurricane Mit▯ch. Weather 54(11): 350–359.
▯ 53
55Annex 1
▯
Hellin, J, M Haigh, and F Marks. 1999, Rainfall characteristics of hurri▯cane Mitch. Nature 399, 316 (27
May 1999) | doi:10.1038/20577.
Iwamoto, RN, EO Salo, MA Madej, and RL McComas 1978. Sediment and water quality: a review of
the literature. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle.
LANAMME (Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales). 2012. ▯Report on
reconnaissance trip to Route 1856 – Juan Rafael Mora Porras. Prepared by Transport Infrastructure
Program, PITRA-LanammeUCR. May 2012. 52 pp.
Madej, M.A., Ozaki, V. 2009. Persistence of effects of high sediment loading in a salmon-bearing river,
northern California, in James, L.A., Rathburn, S.L., and Whittecar, G.R., eds., Management and
Restoration of Fluvial Systems with Broad Historical Changes and Human Impacts: Geological Society
of America Special Paper 451, p. 43–55.
Molnia, BF, and CA Hallam. 1999. Open skies aerial photography of selected areas in Central Ameri▯ca
affected by Hurricane Mitch. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1181. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston
VA, USA.
Nuttall, PM. 1972. The effects of sand deposition upon the macroinverteb▯rate fauna of the River Camel,
Cornwall. Freshwater Biology 2:181-186.
Petts, GA. 1984. Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecological management. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, 236 pp.
Pringle, CM, and A Ramirez. 1998. Use of both benthic and drift sampling techniques to assess tropical
stream invertebrate communities along an altitudinal gradient, Costa Rica. Freshwater Biology 39:359-
373.
Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-141.
Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Reid, LM, and T Dunne. 2003. Sediment budgets as an organizing framework in fluvial geomorphology.
pp 463-500 in Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology, GM Kondolf and H Piegay, editors. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Reid, LM, T Dunne, and JC Cederholm. 1981. Application of sediment budget studies to the evaluation
of logging road impact. Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand) 20 (1):49-62.
Spinelli, R. and Marchi, E., 1996, A literature review of the environmental impacts of forest road
construction, In: Proceedings of the Seminar on Environmentally Sound Forest Roads and Wood
Transport, June 17–22, 1996, Sinaia, Romania.
USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest
Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service.
222 p.
▯ 54
56 Annex 1
▯
US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Summary of the Clean Water Act. Available online
at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html, accessed November 2012.
Van Nieuwenhuyse, EE, and JD Laperriere. 1986, Effects of placer gold mi▯ning on primary production
in subarctic streams of Alaska. Water Resources Bulletin 22:91-99.
Wood, PJ, and PD Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment.
Environmental Management 21(2):203-217.
Yamada, H, and F Nakamura. 2002. Effect of fine sediment deposition and channel works on periphyton
biomass in the Makomanai River, northern Japan. River Res. Applic. 18: 481–493.
Ziegler, A.D. and Giambelluca, T.W., 1997, Importance of rural roads as source areas for runoff in
mountainous areas of northern Thailand, Journal of Hydrology, v. 196, p. 204–229.
Ziemer, R.R., Lisle, T.E. 1992. Evaluating sediment production by activities related to forest uses - A
Pacific Northwest perspective. In Proc. Tech. Workshop on Sediments, Corvallis, OR. U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency and Forest Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, DC.
Ziemer, R.R., Lewis, J., Rice, R.M., Lisle, T.E. 1991. Modeling the cumulative watershed effects of
forest management strategies. Journal of Environmental Quality 20(1): 36-42.
APPENDICES
A. Index Map of Location
B. Photo Atlas of Route 1856 Upstream of Río San Carlos
C. Detailed Literature Review
D. Grain Size of Sediment Samples
E. Large-Format Maps of Route 1856 and Río San Juan Upstream of Río San Carlos
F. Author CVs
▯ 55
57Annex 1
58 Annex 1
APPENDIX A: Index Map of Location
59Annex 1
Caribbean Sea
Greytown
El Castillo
Rio San Juan
(
Nicaragua ( Costa Rica
San Carlos
Lake Nicaragua
Mora Porroas Road adjacent Rio San Juan de Nicaragua.
Managua
( Pan American Highway Greytown RioColorado
Pacific Ocean
Rio Chirripo
Ü
Kilometers Rio San Juan
Rio San Juan
Project area
El Castillo
Rio Sarapiqui
San uittownrrorforaedfserence
12.5 Scale 1:2,400,000(
(
0 25 50 Rio San Carlos
AppendixA. Location of Costa Rica Route 1856 - Juan Rafael
60 Annex 1
APPENDIX B: Photo Atlas of Route 1856 Upstream of Río San Carlos
61Annex 1
1
cation where the border leaves
current conditions along the RSJ above the
APPENDIX B
Aerial and river-based ground photographs depicting ongoing and
potential risks of erosion and sediment delivery, caused by the 41.6 kil▯ometers of
construction, winterization erosion control and subsequent maintenance ▯along Route 1856.
Costa Rican Route 1856, to the Rio San Juan de Nicaragua (RSJ) above t▯he mouth of Rio San Carlos.
These selected photographs document major deficiencies by Costa Rica in ▯abiding by international road practices
intended to minimize on-site and off-site impacts to water quality, chan▯nel morphology, navigation and riverine ecology,
as well as national and international physical and biological resources.▯ The deficiencies are related to the design, location,
The photograph and their unique numbers generally proceed in a downstream direction through the RSJ starting at the upstream lo
Reconnai1o80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfa11/21/2012oahncyThe photographs illustrate issues related to:s,o.ehertclathemouth of the Rio San Carlos as observed and located on the September 2012 high resolution satellite photographs (Appendix E).
62 1
cation where the border leaves
current conditions along the RSJ above the
APPENDIX B
Aerial and river-based ground photographs depicting ongoing and
potential risks of erosion and sediment delivery, caused by the 41.6 kil▯ometers of
construction, winterization erosion control and subsequent maintenance ▯along Route 1856.
Costa Rican Route 1856, to the Rio San Juan de Nicaragua (RSJ) above t▯he mouth of Rio San Carlos.
These selected photographs document major deficiencies by Costa Rica in ▯abiding by international road practices
intended to minimize on-site and off-site impacts to water quality, chan▯nel morphology, navigation and riverine ecology,
as well as national and international physical and biological resources.▯ The deficiencies are related to the design, location,
The photograph and their unique numbers generally proceed in a downstream direction through the RSJ starting at the upstream lo
Reconnai1co80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatt11/21/2012hncysenThe photographs illustrate issues related to:la.rRs,orpeeiifieathe mouth of the Rio San Carlos as observed and located on the September 2012 high resolution satellite photographs (Appendix E).Annex 1
3
95b
100c
77
100b
67c 97a
Reconnai1co80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
64 Annex 1
4
34a
121a
ReconnOai1c280onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfattent11/21/2012ysent
65Annex 1
37 78a 5
Culuvnesrttaosliothpestllw
the upper RSJ
36 65b
ate over-steepened fillslopes that are actively failing. Various degrees o▯f
all exhibited multiple deficiencies in design standards, construction
MasnefandesenheSsJdaetlaivlleurvsial
29 51c
We have estimate there are approximately 86 streams/man-made channels with varying sized drainage areas crossed by Route 1856 in
ErobdeiluusnthtadcdreroacsinhsisanntgoneaRltirooaSdan
Dammed streams
Artificial lake
ReconnOais.c8otataayntjcrossings and maehrnn1n/-m/a1d2e ditches:teycwnvtrersticciaesn.gatotmeaol-mserveed▯shtotngcdinsotsyitnsn.riaianec,fpororbltgcasiipaslcdiirui:llapdesquand
66 Annex 1
93b 105 6
AcstitveeedleotdrniageimllanneJcadanrn-eenlt directly
91b
103c
Mabnr-idngaaracilteaoedleibnlellelfetd
91a 95e
ReconnO ai1cso80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfattentijapooa11/21/2012
67Annex 1
7
33 42
background gllies
g erosion
Lar
Gradsesletad covered Rio San Juan
27b 39
seasonal construction activities.
splacing tens of thousands of cubic meters of soil, and given the close
d fillslopes, as well as on bare soil areas exhibiting any slope steepness. The
y
gll
e erosion
g Sediment Delta
Lar
3 34
In the upper RSJ above the Rio San Carlos, fluvial erosion processes along Route 1856 have been astronomically accelerated over
gllies
g erosion
Lar
ReconnOai3sc2orctjncntrated fluvial erosiarva11/21/r01cesses (gullies):rndgtuarsl,ueinincteuttonrairnuprifcrelhraaocadpoeernrssnaeirloiutaoiiuhifRourritnoaoJhinna.thaaoisstoiftheogst-llies erosion is associated with poorly constructed and compacted fills,
68 Annex 1
8
68 118b
64e 77
71
56
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
69Annex 1
32 58a 9
rlos. Utilized archaic “cut and fill
27b 50b
d ofhe RSJ is resulting in significant accelerated erosion and sediment deli▯very
excavators to retrieve all the failing fills and creating a “full be▯nch” road),
23 41
The following photos illustrate the widespread extent of fill failures along Route 1856 within the upper RSJ above Rio San Ca
ReconnOai4scoandTshitdoetcsgionoa“Seaaoeicionasttucotsotorethtosidsstiandstdce. htilhscouteioindsercihceeuooo▯steotorsitlsylatzss.preesrfnadesitdhillhlespuet,oe(l.uritieznaof t
70 Annex 1
70b 78b 10
delta
64b 75
delta
59 74
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatten11/21/2012cysent
71Annex 1
95d 11
88a
119b
delta
83 109
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatten11/21/2012cysent
72 Annex 1
4c 20 12
y confluences along the south banks of
4b 18b
These persistent cumulative impacts will continue to occur without an
edimgrainedsurface runoff, and re-routing many road segments farther from the RSJ.
4a 4d
The following individual photos and photo suites document current conditions at several dozen Costa Rican tributary stream/gull
ReconnOaiscono6enhysetntation photo suiuons1te21/2012iersasdeondiucntifgJenMoerntxnhibntaevseavirinnctartrogarrdrieeddgesroeresalabesiesae,arc,tdfeantiv/eoyoniaspiosteseRroSaJd.
73Annex 1
44 13
27a
26c 28
26a 27c
ReconnOai1c280onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
74 Annex 1
14
43c 61
43b
45
43a 43d
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
75Annex 1
15
51c 80
51b 58b
51a 58a
Reconnai1co80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
76 Annex 1
66a 84 16
65b 70b
Sediment delta
65a 66b
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatten11/21/2012cysent
77Annex 1
17
76d 81b
76b 81aa
76a 76e
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatten11/21/2012cysent
78 Annex 1
18
87 88d
85b 88b
85a 88a
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
79Annex 1
91a 93b 19
90b 93a
90a 911b
Reconnai1c280onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfat11/21/2012ahncysent
80 Annex 1
20
97b 106
95e
103d
92 99
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
81Annex 1
21
121b
118c
ReconnOai1co80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfattent11/21/2012ysent
82 Annex 1
54 22
104b
38 95c
theand delivery to streams.size dispersing road runoff rather than
ment to nearby stream channels crossed by the road. The practice of des▯igning
14 73
The following photos along Route 1856 road segments in the RSJ above the▯ mouth of the Rio San Carlos illustrate road design and construction methods that
ReconnOais.c05,tpocyitntlroanlernogadsroufn“1yf2s/2l12gsi:cally connected” roads that will during every future rainfall and runoff event deliver sediffuterder.eddrrrnn)ttranPsspinrt
83Annex 1
11 40 23
ociated with roads are:
9 24
floodplains in close proximity to streams, rivers and wetlands. Theproduce and deliver
o San Carlos, we estimate 12.3 km (30%) of the 41.6 km road has been
7 19
Two of the most effective professionally accepted standards to minimize the potential for water quality and habitat impacts ass
Reconnai7sc2ortdpdystesign/location tosaeoc1o21e2to2Rio San Juan:uwadraedbrndiors,anr(Tf)orteseseloaan(i.e▯)hGcepetrdstrrc2bi.3lre.dA(eo▯ngs)hfsabstvpeaandneohucoeiigweirtos
84 Annex 1
24
70a 95a
64a 86
50a 82
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatten11/21/2012cysent
85Annex 1
25
102 121a
100b 119a
98 1122
Reconnai1cs80onorei5,godcuoa6rsiatdfatte11/21/2012ncysent
86 Annex 1
57 26
104a
16 67b
few of these locations along the RSJ above the confluence with the Rio
. As along most of Route 1856, there is little evidence of Costa Rican
delivery to the Rio San Juan.
There are many additional newer pioneered road cuts and fills representing aborted Route 1856 alignments or that
13 60b
ReconnOaiscoappSeaarftfortlas. Meinnstofnetshtetredptirounclsronadseronadhacanvsdiesiosaaellrceeureoederoetihnal5oootrr1le0easdeu.rshtromrltveentgardeiroonaillredtaetente
87Annex 1
88 Annex 1
APPENDIX C: Detailed Literature Review
89Annex 1
Outline of Literature Summary
Introduction
Lessons from evolving forest road standards in the United States
Erosional impacts of forest roads
Mass wasting
Stream crossing failures
Surface erosion
Magnitude and timing of road erosion
Hydrologic effects of forest road construction
Redwood National Park – A World Heritage Site example
Best management practices: minimizing impacts from forest road construction
Environmental analysis
Planning
Design and Construction
References
Soil erosion in the tropics with reference to the San Juan River basin
Road-related erosion in the tropics
Best management practices in tropical areas
Road location
Road design
Road construction
Road maintenance
References
Literature Summary
The existing science on roads goes far in establishing what and where
problems are likely to arise. More than half a century of research and
experience supports (proper methods for) designing, building, and
maintaining forest roads. Most of the major engineering problems
associated with roads have been solved, and a wealth of information exis▯ts
on many of the physical effects of roads, particularly on hydrologic and▯
geomow ratirrocdesses.
(Gucinski and others 2001)
Introduction
Roads have well-documented short- and long-term effects on the environment. This brief
synthesis describes both the environmental consequences of road building, as well as the
techniques that can either lead to improved environmental outcomes or serious
environmental consequences, with examples from the scientific literature of the United
States.
The scientific and engineering literature on forest roads in the United States is substantial
and covers more than 60 years of research and practice. In North America, especially in
the Pacific Northwest, the Rocky Mountains, the Appalachian Mountains and the coastal
1
90 Annex 1
plain of the southeastern United States, research reports and papers hav▯e described road
management practices and their environmental effects since the 1950s. As road practices
and standards have evolved and improved, so too has the science of roads and their effect
on the environment.
Modern road design and construction standards are greatly improved compa▯red to those
practiced even 30 years ago, and reflect both our increased understanding of the
geomorphic and hydrologic effects of roads, as well as the improved equipment and
methods that are now routinely employed in road planning and building (e.g., EPA 1975,
Swift 1985). These methods, whether developed in the tropics or in semi-tropical and wet
temperate environments, have generally been employed and practiced around the world
(e.g., Larse 1971, Haanshus 1998, Spinelli and Marchi 1998, Aulerich 19▯98).
In public wildland development and forestland management, road systems represent the
largest human investment as well as the single most potentially damaging land
management activity, if done carelessly or incorrectly (Gucinski and others 2001,▯ Reid
and others 1997, Furniss and other 1991, Swift 1985, Spinelli and Marchi▯ 1998). The
choices that are made regarding the location, length, type, and nature (design) of the road
have financial, social and ecological implications (Larse 1971, Aulerich 1998). Roads
have well documented short term and long term effects on the environment that can be
classified into 2 categories: beneficial and adverse (Gucinski and others 2001). The most
apparent group of beneficial effects is related to access and consequent▯ economic
development, while significant adverse effects are usually related to altered geomorphic
and hydrologic processes (runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and pollution), human
dislocation, habitat fragmentation, and a variety of direct and indirect ecologic
consequences associated with subsequent land development and management (Reid and
others 1997).
Lessons from evolving forest road standards in the United States
In both the Pacific Northwest (marine wet temperate) and Southern Appalachian
Mountains (humid subtropical) of the United States, where much of what we have
learned about solving problems with forest roads originates, there now exists more than
60 years of published record in the evolving methods of public and private land forest
road planning, design, and construction in various environments. Not only is there a long
and well-published record of the evolving standards and methods for all phases of forest
road building, there also exists a substantial record of the causes and effects of the
consequent geomorphic and ecological impacts attributed to the various strategies and
practices that have been employed. While well supported by field, small watershed, and
plot studies, as well as by retrospective studies at the broader landscape level, the specific
effects of road construction at a given location or along a continuous road alignment are
also strongly influenced by local factors, including road location, road▯ building
techniques, soil and geology, precipitation and runoff regimes, and topography
(McCashion and Rice 1983, Swanson and others 2000).
One of the clear lessons derived from the long history of land management activities in
forested areas of the western and southeastern United States is that roads are clearly one
of the most impacting land use activities that occurs in developing and managing the
wildland landscape (Gucinski and others 2001, EPA 1975, Furniss and others 1991, Larse
1971, Swanson and others 2000). The impacts of road construction vary with the type of
2
91Annex 1
planning (location), design, and construction standards that are employed, as well as the
continuing use levels, maintenance, and erosion control activities that occur in the years
following initial road building (Furniss and others 1991, McCashion and▯ Rice 1983,
Kochenderfer 1970, Swift 1985, Aulerich 1998). Finally, subsequent large storms then
“test” these poor design and construction methods and trigger widespread failure, erosion
and sedimentation, and degradation of the receiving streams and rivers (Hagans and
others 1986, Copestead and Johansen 1998, Doyle and Ketcheson 2007, Furn▯iss and
others 1998). For example, in response to the regionally intense, 100-year storm and
flood event that occurred in 1964, streams and large rivers in northern California suffered
massive sedimentation and channel filling that is still expected to persist for many
decades into the future. These once-productive main stem rivers remain heavily impacted
and now support greatly diminished runs of anadromous salmon. Similar impacts
occurred regionally in response to the flood event of 1997 in Washington▯, Oregon, and
Northern California (Furniss and others 1991, Copestead and Johansen 19▯98, Doyle and
Ketcheson 2007, Furniss and others 1998).
The following two sections describing the erosional and hydrological effects of forest
road building are largely drawn from the literature of road building and scientific studies
in mountainous areas of the Pacific Northwest, the southern Appalachians and▯ the
forested piedmont of the United States. These findings and study results are informative
because they reflect the important role that evolving design and construction standards
have had in diminishing the environmental impact of road building, road upgrading and
road management in the forested environment. Further, they exemplify how improving
standards, and the scientific studies that have accompanied these improving practices,
have pointed the way to more protective best management practices that lessen
environmental impacts while resulting in transportation systems that require less
maintenance, are more resilient, and have fewer adverse on-site and off-site ecological
impacts (EPA 1975, Furniss and others 1991, Weaver and others 1994, Swanson and
others 2000).
Erosional impacts of forest roads
Forest roads have both geomorphic and hydrologic effects on the landscape through
which they pass. These range from long term increases in surface runoff and chronic fine
sediment erosion to mass failures of road cuts and fills.
The geomorphic effects of forest road construction range from increases in surface
erosion and chronic fine sediment delivery from bare soil areas exposed during and
following construction, including the new road bed and adjacent cuts and fills, to
catastrophic mass failures of road fills and cutslopes (road-related landslides) and ▯failures
of poorly designed, constructed or maintained stream crossings (Murphy 1995, Hagans
and others 1986, Copestead and Johansen 1998, Furniss and others 1998, S▯pinelli and
Marchi 1998, Swanson and Dyrness, 1975).
Mass wasting - Where roads cross steeplands, road building increases landsliding,
including slumps, debris slides and more fluid debris flows (Amaranthus and others 1985,
Rice and Lewis 1986, Gucinski and others 2001, Mersereau and Dyrness 197▯2, Murphy
1995). In steep forested areas, mass erosion rates of 30 to 300 times the rate of
undisturbed forest lands have been found to occur with road construction▯, with the rate of
increase greater in areas of steep topography, unstable geology/soil, we▯t climates and
3
92 Annex 1
where poor road location, design, and construction methods have been employed
(Gucinski and others 2001, Furniss and others 1991, McCashion and Rice ▯1983,
Mersereau and Dyrness 1972, Murphy 1995). Amaranthus and others (1985) found
erosion rates on roads and landings to be 100 times greater than on undisturbed forest
slopes in the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon. The magnitude of mass
wasting along new road alignments is dependent on the climate, geology, soil erodibility
and stability, slope steepness, soil moisture, as well as road location, design standards and
construction practices (McCashion and Rice 1983).
Mass wasting is usually not a significant source of post-construction erosion and
sedimentation where slopes are gentle or moderate and stable, or where endhauling
techniques are employed during road construction. Endhauling involves excavating the
new roadbed and using dump trucks to haul away the excavated spoil materials to stable
spoil disposal sites far away from streams and rivers. In contrast, landsliding of unstable
fillslopes becomes common and potentially catastrophic where roads built across steep
slopes are built using sidecast construction methods, with bulldozers creating the road cut
and pushing the loose, uncompacted spoil materials on the steep slopes below the road
(Mersereau and Dyrness 1972, Murphy 1995). It is commonly the case that erosion and
sedimentation due to road-related landsliding is spatially discrete, with a relatively small
amount of the new road length responsible for contributing a large proport▯ion of the
landsliding and resultant downstream/downslope sedimentation. For example, major
erosional features occupied only 0.6 percent of the length of roads stud▯ied by Rice and
Lewis (1986) in the northern California coastal mountains.
Mass failures are most frequently associated with improper placement and compaction of
road fills, especially where roads are built across steep slopes, and by deep cutting into
the steep, potentially unstable hillsides during construction. They are also triggered by
poor road siting (e.g., constructing the road across naturally unstable slopes or erodible
soils), and where surface or subsurface drainage has been collected or diverted onto loose
fills. If receiving waters (streams, rivers or lakes) are in close proximity to the road, these
mass wasting process can directly deliver large volumes of sediment to downstream areas
and result in significant ecological damage and alteration of the natural stream channels.
Gullying of steep road cuts and fills, caused by collecting and concentr▯ating direct
rainfall and runoff on the bare soil areas along the newly constructed r▯oad, are also a
common source of accelerated erosion and downslope/downstream sedimentation.
Stream crossing failures – Roads interact directly with stream channels in ▯a variety of
ways, depending on the location, proximity, and orientation of the road relative to the
stream or river. Road-stream crossings are considered one of the most vulnerable and
sensitive parts of a road system; being subject to floods, high stream flows, high sediment
loads, and woody debris in transport that can cause the design capacity of the cross▯ing
structure to be exceeded. (Furniss and others 1998, Weaver and others 1995). Once
exceeded, the crossing is subject to partial or complete failure and washout (erosion) and
then the entire volume of eroded sediment is transported downstream. The impacts may
be direct, as where erosion from the road is delivered directly to the stream or river, or
indirect, where erosion and sediment delivery originates upstream and then impacts off-
site downstream aquatic habitat and channel processes (USDA Forest Service 1999).
4
93Annex 1
Roads like Route 1856 that are constructed on floodplains, in riparian zones or on lower
hillslopes in close proximity and parallel to mainstem channels of large streams and
rivers may have the most direct impact on channel morphology and water quality
(LaFayette and others 1993, Swanson and others 2000). Erosion that occurs in these
alignments requires minimal sediment transport distances to reach the waterbody. Roads
that cross mainstem or tributary stream channels require the design and construction of
road-stream crossings that are resilient to failure during storm and flood events (▯Furniss
and others 1997, Weaver and others 1995). This practice is referred to as storm-proofing
or “constructing a hydrologically invisible road,” where the road does not act to divert
natural flow paths (Weaver and Hagans 1999, Doyle and Ketcheson 2007). Poorly
designed or constructed road-stream crossings, including culverts and bridges, account
for regionally significant watershed erosion and sediment delivery, and consequent
channel aggradation and damage to downstream channel morphology, aquatic habitat,
and water quality (Murphy 1995, USDA Forest Service 1999, Madej and Ozaki, 2009).
These indirect storm-caused impacts of road-stream crossing failures include increased
erosion and sedimentation rates, off-site changes in channel morphology, and aquatic
habitat degradation (Gucinski and others 2001, Harr and Nichols 1993, H▯agans and
others 1986).
Post-flood studies in the Pacific Northwest of the United States reveals the importance of
designing roads to accommodate comparatively infrequent, large magnitude storm and
flood events in order to lessen both the probability and magnitude of consequent erosion
and downstream sedimentation caused by road-stream crossing failures (Furniss and
others 1997, Copestead and Johansen 1998, Doyle and Ketcheson 2007, Furn▯iss and
others 1998, Weaver and others 1995, Weaver and Hagans 1999). Road-stream crossings,
which are implicated in many documented road failures in the Pacific Northwest (Furniss
and others 1998), have been the focus of research and improved road design and
construction practices over the last three decades. Under-designed or po▯orly built
culverted stream crossings are highly vulnerable to plugging and overtopping; processes ▯
which frequently result in catastrophic washouts, fillslope erosion, stream diversion and
consequent gully development, and downstream sedimentation (Furniss and others 1998,
Murphy 1995, Weaver and others 1995). Culvert plugging and overtopping and
subsequent stream diversion onto adjacent unprotected hillslopes is recognized as one of
the most significant and damaging forest road impacts that occur during storm events
(Weaver and others 1995, Furniss and others 1998). In addition, poorly lo▯cated and
designed bridges are also susceptible to washout during flood events if ▯their abutments
cause channel constriction or if their height above the stream bed is insufficient to allow
for design flood flows, sediment and woody debris in transport, and the backwater from
adjacent rivers (Doyle and Ketcheson 2007).
Surface erosion – Surface erosion occurs wherever there is bare, exposed soil that is
subjected to rainfall. Rainfall dislodges soil particles and surface run▯off both causes
erosion and transports the eroded soil to downslope and off-site areas, ▯including stream
channels. Surface erosion on newly constructed roads occurs on bare fillslopes and
cutslopes, as well as on the road surfaces and within roadside ditches, and can represent a
significant or even dominant source of road-related sediment input to nearby streams.
Surface erosion on roads has been well documented in the literature of the western (Bilby
and others 1989, Donald and others 1996, Megahan and Kidd 1972, Reid and▯ Dunne
5
94 Annex 1
1984, Rothacher 1971, Sullivan and Duncan 1981) and eastern United States
(Kochenderfer and others 1997, Swift 1985, 1988).
Surface erosion products consist of mostly fine-grained sized sediments that are eroded
by raindrop impact and Hortonian overland flow (often called sheetwash erosion) and
transported from road surfaces, cutbanks and ditches to nearby streams. Rates of surface
erosion are typically highest during and for the first few years followi▯ng road
construction when soils are most exposed (Megahan and Kidd 1972, Megahan 1974,
Burroughs and King 1989, (Mercereau and Dyrness 1972, Washington Department of
Natural Resources 2011), but are also highly correlated to the volume and type of road
traffic that occurs subsequently on both rocked and native surfaced roads (Reid and
Dunne 1984, Sullivan and Duncan 1981). Surface erosion is highest where the bedrock is
highly fractured and weathered, and where soils are granular and low in ▯rock fragments
and clay content. Connectivity and consequent sediment delivery occurs wherever road
runoff has a direct path from the area of erosion, through the point of discharge on the
road, to a nearby stream; such paths may be ditches, road surface drainage structures
(e.g., ditch relief culverts), rills, gullies or any other path where ▯storm runoff is delivered
(Wemple 1994, Wemple and others 1996). The closer a road is to a stream or river, or the
higher the density of road-stream crossings, the greater the hydrologic connectivity and
likelihood of surface runoff and eroded sediment being delivered directly to the adjacent
waterbody (Wemple and others 1996).
Magnitude and timing of road erosion - The magnitude of erosion during or following
road construction is a function of a variety of factors, including climate, the timing and
intensity of post-construction rain and flood events, the geologic stabi▯lity and erodibility
of soils, landscape topography, stream crossing density, as well as the layout, location,
and design standards of the road; and construction practices that are emp▯ loyed
(McCashion and Rice 1983, Swanson and others 2000, Swift 1985, Ziemer and Lisle
1992). Roads built with little or no adherence to proper planning (location) or engineering
designs, or those that employ careless construction methods, including excessive ground
disturbance or deep cuts on steep, potentially unstable hillslopes, are most likely to result
in high rates of post-construction mass wasting (landslides), fluvial (gully) and surface
(rill and sheetwash) erosion (Kochenderfer 1970, Murphy 1995, Aulerich 1998).
Road-related impacts also vary over time (Ziemer and Lisle 1992). Some impacts occur
immediately, or as soon as the first rains fall on the newly exposed road c▯uts and fills. For
example, surface erosion from bare soil areas will occur as soon as the first rainfall and
runoff event affects the construction site (USDA Forest Service 1999). These rains
generate short term, but persistent and chronic impacts that will affect the road corridor
as long as there is bare soil. Surface erosion occurs with every runoff event and its
magnitude is dependent on the duration and intensity of rainfall. Over dec▯ades, and in
some environments, the volume of eroded sediment contributed by surface erosion
processes (raindrop erosion, sheetwash and rilling) can equal or exceed that contributed
by more visually apparent slope failure and gully erosion processes (Murphy▯ 1995). The
degree of connectivity between a road and the streams through which it passes is one
measure of the degree of potential long term impact from surface erosion that can be
attributed to road construction and maintenance over time (Wemple and others 1996).
The more the road system is hydrologically connected or draining to streams through
6
95Annex 1
which it passes, the greater the potential for long term, chronic sedimentation and
downstream, off-site biological impacts (Wemple 1994).
In contrast to chronic surface erosion, episodic erosion processes and downstream
impacts may not occur until the site experiences a significant external event such as a
heavy rain or flood that triggers slope failures, culvert plugging, and gully development
(Weaver and others 1995, Furniss and others 1998, Murphy 1995). For example, if
stream crossings along the road were built with poorly designed, undersized or
improperly installed drainage structures (e.g., culverts), these stream crossings will be
likely to fail during a future flood event that exceeds their capacity. In the Pacific
Northwest, stream crossing design standards for forest roads have increased through the
decades. From the 1940s through the mid-1970s, there were few design standards for
road construction and equipment operators did whatever was easiest and least costly.
Similar practices occurred in the southeastern United States (Swift 1985). Where they
have not yet been upgraded to current standards, these roads have continued to
experience high rates of erosion and stream crossing failure and the affected watersheds
may not attain a steady state of erosion for a century or more (Ziemer and Lisle 1992).
Beginning 35 years ago, California forest land regulations required forestland stream
crossings be designed to accommodate a minimum 25-year recurrence interval peak flood
flow. In the early 1990s, this design standard was increased to a 50-yea▯r flood flow and
by 2000, both state and federal agencies throughout forested lands in the Pacific
Northwest were required to design stream crossings to pass the 100-year design flood
flow. These evolving design standards were adopted to reduce the frequen▯cy of road
failures and the magnitude of watershed erosion and downstream impacts to aquatic
habitat (USDA Forest Service 1999).
Some features along a road will also degrade over time and may continue to cause
erosion, slope failure, and off-site sediment delivery for years or decades after initial
construction (Ziemer and Lisle 1992). For example, delayed failures and impacts can
occur where road fills were built or placed by sidecasting onto steep slopes without using
proper compaction methods or efforts, where the steep ground surface was not properly
grubbed and scraped clean of organic matter prior to fill placement, or where organic
debris was incorporated into the fill material as it was placed. These compromised road
fills and fillslopes are subject to episodic instability and failure during wet weather storm
events as the loosely placed spoil materials become saturated, settle and adjust on the
steepened slopes, and the wood and organic matter decays and provides weakened
interior slip surfaces. Fillslope failures on poorly constructed forest roads built on steep
slopes in the Pacific Northwest continue to show instability and fail many decades after
their initial construction. Large magnitude winter storms that trigger widespread fillslope
failures and debris slides along forest road systems have caused extensi▯ve off-site channel
aggradation and damage to aquatic habitat (USDA Forest Service 1999, Madej 1995,
Nolan and Marron 1995, Pitlick 1995, Ziemer and Lisle 1992, Madej and Ozaki 2009).
The ecological effects of increased road-related erosion and sedimentation, whether from
chronic or episodic sediment sources, are thought to be widespread and may affect
streams and rivers far downstream (USDA Forest Service 1999). Widespread failures of
road cutbanks, fillslopes and stream crossings during flood events may cause massive
downstream sedimentation and result in widespread, persistent channel bed aggradation,
filling, loss of navigation, and damage to aquatic life (Madej and Ozaki 2009). Chronic
7
96 Annex 1
sediment delivery can be detrimental to aquatic life that depends on water clarity for
feeding and streambeds that are aerated and unimpacted by fine sediment (Megahan
1977). The additive nature of these individual on-site road erosion processes and erosion
features, coupled with the consequent changes/impacts to off-site physical and hydrologic
processes and biological resources, are referred to as “cumulative effects” (Ziemer and
others 1991, Reid 1993). Roads that exhibit extensive and persistent on-site erosion
following construction are very likely to be resulting in significant off-site cumulative
watershed effects to both channel morphology, as well as aquatic biology (Swanson and
others 2000, Ziemer and Lisle 1992, Cederholm and others 1981).
Hydrologic impacts of forest road construction
The hydrologic effects of forest road construction have been less well studied and only
within the last several decades have the importance of those interactions become
apparent. Most engineering studies have emphasized traditional geotechnical issues
related to water on roads, including road drainage design, subsurface drainage techniques,
culvert sizing and placement, and erosion control from road surfaces (Keller and Sherar
2003, Swift 1988). Small watershed studies including some component of forest road
hydrology include those by Rothacher (1965, 1970, 1971, 1973), Harr an▯d others (1979),
Jones and Grant (1996), and Thomas and Megahan (1998) in western Oregon; Ziemer
(1981, 1998) and Wright and others (1990) in northern California; King and Tennyson
(1984) in central Idaho; Reinhart and others (1963), Hewlett and Helvey (1970), Swank
and others (1982, 1988) in the southern Appalachians, Helvey and Koche▯nderfer (1988)
in the central Appalachians; and Hornbeck (1973) and Hornbeck and others (1997) in the
northern Appalachians (Gucinski and others 2001).
More recent studies have focused on how roads affect the hillslope hydro▯logy by
diverting and increasing surface runoff, streamflow and fine sediment pollution through
hydrologic connectivity, and how roads act to divert streamflow during infrequent, large
magnitude flood events when culverts and other drainage structures become plugged
(Furniss and others 1998, Weaver and others 1995, Murphy 1995). The hydrologic effect
of roads on a landscape include increased interception of rainfall and emergent
groundwater wherever the road has been cut into the native hillside and ▯now intercepts
soil water throughflow and local groundwater. Increased surface runoff generated from
bare road cuts and compacted road surfaces is collected, concentrated and diverted onto
uncompacted road fills and adjacent native hillslopes where it may cause erosion and
gullying of erodible soil materials.
Where roads cross natural stream channels the crossing sites are especially vulnerable to
failure during flood events and streamflow can either washout the road or divert onto the
adjacent, unprotected hillslope where massive gullying and soil loss is possible. Recent
studies after large floods in the Pacific Northwest highlight the importance of water
diversion by roads and road-related structures when culverts and ditches plug and
diverted flow contributes to road-related failures (Donald and others 1▯996, Furniss and
others 1997). Cascading failures, where diversion or concentration of stream or ditch
flow at one location led to a series of other erosional events downslope▯, ultimately
resulted in loss of one or more roads or initiation of hillslope landslides and debris flows
(Gucinski and others 2001, Weaver and others 1995, Furniss and others 1998).
8
97Annex 1
Redwood National Park – A World Heritage Site example
The geomorphic and hydrologic impacts of forest road construction have previously been
described in the context of evolving design and construction standards in the United
States. Forest management and road construction practices in the Redwood Creek basin
of northern California, United States, mirror those elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest and
have been uniquely accompanied by extensive research regarding the impacts and effects
of forest and road management on rivers and streams. In this context, Redwood Creek
provides a relevant case example of the on-site impacts of road building and its potential
physical and ecological cumulative effects in off-site, downstream areas.
In 1850, old-growth redwood forests covered more than 8,100 km 2 (3,100 mi ) of the
nor2hern Cali2ornia coast. Some of the world's tallest living trees were located in the 725
km (280 mi ) Redwood Creek watershed north of Eureka, California. Prior to 1968, most
of the Redwood Creek watershed was privately owned and managed for timbe▯r and forest
products. Road construction and logging of old growth redwood and Dougla▯s-fir forests
in the watershed accelerated after World War II and during the economic boom of the
1950s and 1960s and continued unabated, with little regard to design sta▯ndards or
environmental consequences (Best 1995). By the 1960s the lower main stem channel of
Redwood Creek had locally aggraded with up to 5 meters of sediment derived largely
from poor road building and logging practices in the upstream watershed areas (Janda
and others 1975, Madej 1995, Madej and Ozaki 2009). Continued aggradation and bank
erosion was threatening to kill the world-renown old growth redwood groves along the
Redwood Creek channel.
It wasn’t until 1968 that Redwood National Park was established by an▯ act of the U.S.
Congress, largely in response to the immediate threats to the world's ta▯llest trees growing
along its stream2anks in 2he lower watershed (Agee 1980). In 1978, Congress added
another 195 km (75 mi ) of forest land for additional watershed protection that included
both logged and unlogged portions of the Redwood Creek watershed. As a part of this
protective legislation, Congress also provided funding for a 20-year, multimillion dollar
program to control the high rates of erosion and to conduct research to better understand
the relationship between land use practices, effects on erosion processe▯s, and watershed-
wide impacts. Today, these lands are undergoing large-scale restoration by the Park’s
resource managers. In recognition of its rare ecosystem and cultural history, the United
Nations designated the Park as a World Heritage Site on September 5, 1980, and an
International Biosphere Reserve on June 30, 1983.
Research into the causes of widespread channel aggradation and exception▯ally high rates
of erosion in the Redwood Creek watershed were conducted by the U.S. Geo▯logical
Survey (USGS), the research arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and other
university and federal researchers. Some of these studies were reported in USGS
Professional Paper 1454, published in 1995. For example, significant increases in
sediment yield and runoff caused by ground disruption and road construction as▯sociated
with timber harvesting have been documented by Marron and others (1995), Weaver and
others (1995), Nolan and Janda (1995), and Best and others (1995). Redwood Creek
became a living laboratory for research on the geomorphic and ecological effects of
logging and road building in steep forest lands of the United States (N▯olan and others
1995), and later for its internationally acclaimed program to restore and rehabilitate the
heavily degraded and disturbed landscape (Coates, 1981, Madej 2001). Th ▯ e lessons
9
98 Annex 1
learned at Redwood National Park and in the Redwood Creek watershed have served to
establish and guide more progressive land use practices and watershed protection in other
parts of the United States and around the world.
Many of the Redwood Creek research projects conducted from the 1970s thr▯ough the
present have focused on road building practices and their impacts on geomorphic
processes and erosion rates. For example, studies identified, for the first time in the
scientific literature, that the persistent, widespread geomorphic effects identified in
stream and river channels, characterized by channel aggradation and bank erosion, are
significantly attributed to poor road construction and land management practices in
upstream areas (Hagans and others 1986). At least 40 percent of the erosion an▯d
sedimentation in the period 1947 to 1980, a period characterized by widespread timber
harvesting and the construction of 2,000 km of forest road with few controlling standards
or regulations, was found to be associated with stream diversions at logging road and skid
trail stream crossings. Hillslope erosion and downstream sediment accumulations in the
main stem river channel were triggered by large magnitude storms and flood events, and
the introduced sediments are thought to have residence times of decades to centuries
based on present rates of channel recovery (Madej 1995).
A number of relevant conclusions have been drawn from the geomorphic research
conducted in Redwood Creek, and especially those related to the off-site impacts of road
construction and ground disruption on the landscape and the downstream r▯iver system.
x Disruptive land use practices, especially road construction on steep slopes, have
caused persistent geomorphic effects at the land use site, on downslope areas, and
in far removed stream channels. These effects are cumulative and include on-site
increases in drainage density and channel dimensions, off-site, downslope
increases in fluvial erosion rates, drainage density and stream channel ▯dimensions,
and off-site, downstream increases in the volume of stored sediment and
incidence of bank erosion, as well as decreases in pool volume and number
(Hagans and others 1986).
x Little attention was paid to potential impacts of poor road location and▯
topographic setting during road building in the watershed. Roads were bu▯ilt across
steep slopes, unstable areas, erodible soils and close to and within str▯eam
channels. These practices subsequently resulted in widespread slope failure and
high rates of erosion during subsequent winter periods and in response t▯o large
storm events (Janda and others 1975, Best 1995).
x Persistent cumulative effects of erosion and sedimentation measured in Redwood
Creek are a direct result of land use practices conducted during a period of little
land use regulation. Low gradient main stem river and tributary stream channels
were the repository for sediment eroded from steep hillslopes and upstream areas,
and these channels are expected to require decades to centuries to cleanse
themselves and recover from aggradation (Madej and Ozaki 1996, Pitlick 1995,
Madej 1995, Nolan and Marron 1995).
x The most significant periods of erosion and off-site, downstream impacts from
landslides and road failures occurred during relatively short lived, large
magnitude storms and floods that followed periods of intensive land use and road
building (Harden 1995, Nolan and Marron 1995). These climatic events triggered
watershed-wide geomorphic responses to previous land management and to
10
99Annex 1
poorly located, designed and constructed forest roads that had been buil▯t in
previous periods.
x Past road building practices continue to significantly affect fluvial er▯osion rates,
lower order and main stem channel geometry, drainage densities, streambed
structure, and the volume and residence time of stored sediment. Old roads that
have not been upgraded or removed continue to fail during winter storm, decades
after their construction (Madej 2001).
x Gully erosion from failed stream crossings represents a significant source of
erosion and sediment yield from roaded and logged hillslopes in the Redwood
Creek watershed. Plugged culverts, failure to install culverts at logging-road
stream crossings, and bulldozing of soil and logging slash into shallow hillslope
stream channels were the leading causes of stream diversions and consequent
gullying. Most gully erosion occurred in certain high-yield terrain types, of
restricted aerial extent, which were characterized by thick, erodible soils deficient
in rock fragment and clay content (Weaver and others 1995).
x The greatest volume of road-related erosion and sediment delivery originated at
stream crossings with undersized culverts, or poorly designed culverts that were
subject to plugging, which also exhibited a diversion potential. When culverts
plugged and streamflow was diverted down the road or across adjacent
unprotected hillslopes, they generated large volumes of erosion and downstream
sediment delivery (Hagans and Weaver 1987, Weaver and others 1995, see also
Furniss and others 1998).
x The landscape within the Redwood Creek basin is particularly sensitive n▯ot only
because ground disruption associated with road building and land management
can easily increase erosion at a specific location but also because such increases
can affect areas downslope and downstream, and such off-site impacts are both
significant and persistent (long term) (Nolan and others 1995).
x Data from hillslopes in Redwood Creek clearly illustrate how past and present
land use practices have "primed" the logged watersheds for additional, future
erosional events and subsequent drainage basin response (Hagans and Weaver
1987, Hagans and others, 1986).
x Subsequent watershed restoration in the Redwood Creek basin has been
conducted continuously since 1978 on lands previously logged and roaded by
private timber companies. Over $40,000,000 has been expended to reduce erosion
and sedimentation rates and to restore geomorphic processes on Park lands alone,
and additional millions of dollars have been expended on private and public lands
in upstream areas. Watershed restoration and erosion control on logging road has
been effective, but expensive (Fay and others 2012, Weaver and Hagans 1996,
1999, 2006; Madej 2001).
x Almost all watershed restoration in the Redwood Creek watershed has been
focused on treating active and abandoned forest roads, as they have been▯
identified as the most threatening and potentially preventable sources of future
accelerated erosion and sedimentation in the basin. Most treatments have involved
road closure and road decommissioning in which potential and existing sediment
sources are permanently treated or eliminated (Weaver and Hagans 1999, Weaver
and others 2006, Madej 2001).
x Watershed restoration, erosion prevention, and road rehabilitation pract▯ices
developed in the Redwood Creek watershed have now been routinely deployed
11
100 Annex 1
throughout forested lands in the Pacific Northwest. The greatest emphasis on both
public and private forest lands has been to decommission and remove roads that
were built in unstable, erodible or high hazard geomorphic settings (such as steep
streamside locations), so as to prevent catastrophic failures and sediment inputs to
streams and rivers during large magnitude, infrequent storm and flood events.
x The second regional emphasis for road restoration and watershed protection in the
Pacific Northwest over the last decade has been to "storm proof" existing forest
roads that are to be retained for continued forest management and public access
(Weaver and Hagans 1994, 1999; Weaver and others 2006). Storm proofing
consists of upgrading old forest roads to current design standards that are
considered sufficient to provide protection to downstream aquatic habitat for both
chronic and episodic sources of erosion and sedimentation. New roads are always
planned, designed and constructed to high standards required by Best
Management Practices, but pre-existing roads are now either being
decommissioned or brought up to current standards through the process of storm- ▯
proofing and upgrading.
Best management practices: minimizing impacts from forest road construction
It is much better to have a bad road in a good location than it is to ha▯ve a
good road in a bad location. A bad road can be fixed. A bad location can▯not.
S2aeae)r
There are a number of ways forest road construction can occur while providing maximum
protection to the physical environment through which the road passes and to the adjacent
and downstream areas that might otherwise be adversely affected by road construction
and the long term presence of the road (EPA 1975, Furniss and others 1991, LaFayette
and others 1993, Megahan 1977, Moll 1993, Swift 1985, Ziemer and Lisle 1992). A
variety of basic planning, design, and construction standards are employed to minimize
the potential environmental impacts of a newly constructed or rebuilt forest road; each of
which affects post-construction erosion rates, mass wasting, sediment delivery to streams,
and the level of downstream off-site physical and biological impacts (Kochenderfer 1970,
Megahan 1977, Moll 1993, Swift 1985). Practical field observations and ▯scientific studies
often point to similar solutions to the most common and significant road-related
environmental problems that typically surround road construction and road management
activities (LaFayette and others 1993).
Current, comparatively protective standards for road location, design an▯d construction are
found throughout the technical literature as planning practices, design ▯manuals,
construction standards, and maintenance manuals (e.g., EPA 1975, Keller and Sherar
2003, Weaver and others 1994, Furniss and others 1991, Kochenderfer 1970). The▯y are
the focus and outcome of practicing professionals in the engineering, geological, and
biological sciences (Larse 1971, Aulerich 1998). Most federal and regi▯onal governments
adhere to these "best standards" and require their practicing professional engineers▯ and
scientists to meet these industry standards. They mark the state of the profession and they
represent the current standards for "best management practices" (BMP) (Murphy 1995).
Practices formally change and become the new standard when new data is available,
findings have been confirmed and proposed changes in practice have been vetted through
12
101Annex 1
the professional and regulatory community. Improved practices often evolve in response
to scientific and ecological assessments of the impacts of then-current or past practices or
as new, improved products are tested and brought to the field by the construction ▯
industry. They are sometimes developed or refined in response to environmental damage
to ecological systems, habitat and endangered species, or in response to changing public
attitudes and regulatory pressures.
Environmental analysis - Perhaps the single most important concept in developing low
impact transportation systems is preparation of an interdisciplinary environmental
analysis, in which various alternatives for road location, design and co▯nstruction
standards are explored, compared and evaluated, and the environmental consequences of
the alternatives have been analyzed (Moll 1993). This step naturally precedes any
earthmoving activities. It is a thoughtful and consultative process designed to result in the
best fit of the road to the environment, the terrain, and the community which it will serve.
Keller and Sherar (2003) outline an eight step environmental analysis process that takes
the project from identification through scoping, data collection, design, impact analysis,
review of alternatives, public review and decision, and implementation (construction).
Depending where it occurs, this process is often required by law and is ▯intended to
produce sound plans, good decisions, and a cost-effective low impact road (Moll 1993).
Planning - Road planning and analysis is undertaken to ensure that the road will meet the
needs of its current and future users and that it can be built while minimizing adverse
effects on the environment (Kochenderfer 1970). Road building guides, manuals and
standards employed throughout the industry largely adhere to similar principles to protect
the environment during road construction and related road management activities. Roads
are located to minimize ground disturbance and avoid environmentally sensitive or
potentially unstable terrain. Wherever possible, they follow the contours rather than cut
across the landscape. Steep slopes are avoided wherever possible, as are wetlands,
riparian zones, floodplains, waterbodies and other problem sites and obstacles.
Roads should be located to minimize the number of stream crossings and to stay as far
away from rivers, streams and lakes as possible by utilizing broad, heavily vegetated
buffer strips anytime they must come in close proximity (Murphy 1995, Barling and
Moore 1994). The most common buffer widths for preventing sediment movement to
watercourses is 30 meters, but distances depend on sites factors including geology, slope,
vegetative cover, and precipitation (climate). Protection from runoff in humid tropical
areas, where rainfall and surface runoff from disturbed areas is high, would likely require
greater buffer widths. Filter strips are most effective when the flow is shallow, slow and
enters the strip uniformly along its length. In steeper terrain, where flow is more likely to
collect and discharge in concentrated volumes through swales or gullies, the greater
velocities and larger flow depths can rapidly submerge the vegetation and significantly
reduce the effectiveness of the filter strip (Barling and Moore 1994).
Design and construction - There are too many design and construction engineering
standards for forest land and public land road systems to describe in detail in this brief
review, but a few of the most relevant and important in this setting are included here.
Slight variants of these basic measures are employed in various climates and terrains and
their origin and use is typically supported by published scientific literature and field tests.
These measures and standards are well known and accepted, and are well documented in
13
102 Annex 1
published technical literature, BMP manuals, regulatory standards and trade journals, and
are considered standard operating procedures and best-practices e.g., EP▯A 1975, Moll
1993). Proper design and construction control is mandatory for new roads that are to have
the minimum possible effect on the environment (Aulerich 1998).
They consist of standard engineering concepts for road cuts and fills, stream crossings,
and road surface drainage, as well as post-construction erosion control measures, that are
intended to protect roadbed integrity and minimize on-site erosion and off-site impacts
(e.g., Swift 1985, Fay and others 2012). If diligently and correctly e▯mployed, BMPs for
forest road design will result in the construction of cost-effective, low impact roads with
reduced storm damage and maintenance requirements (Moll 1993, Swanson and others
2000). Responsible, professional engineers and geologists should visit construction sites
in the field during both the design and construction phases of a project▯ to ensure that
there are adequate inspectors and quality control testing during construction (Aulerich
1998).
Protective road design and construction standards and best management practices for new
and reconstructed roads should include at least the following measures (see e.g., Keller
and Sherar 2000 and 2003, EPA 1975, Furniss and others 1991, Weaver and Hagans
1994, Murphy 1995, Fay and others 2012):
Cuts and fills:
x Designs for new or reconstructed roads are developed using standard plan▯s and
specifications, and they are implemented (constructed) under professional
oversight and control. Detailed technical drawings are developed for spe▯cific
problem sites and road reaches requiring engineering expertise along the proposed
right-of-way;
x Road clearing, the area of soil disturbance opened during construction, ▯and road
surface width are all strictly minimized. The amount of disturbed ground open at
any one time does not exceed that which can be stabilized and protected against
erosion prior to the occurrence of erosive rainfall;
x Road alignments should avoid steep ground (>35% to 50%) where lower slope
alternatives are available;
x Road embankments and subgrade materials are properly stabilized and compacted
during their placement using standard engineering compaction methods and
effort;
x Balanced cut and fill construction techniques are employed on moderate terrain
while full bench endhaul construction techniques are used when traversing slopes
exceeding 50%, especially where sidecasting of spoil could result in slope
failures, high rates of erosion, or sediment discharge to nearby streams or rivers;
x Excess spoil and excavated materials generated during road construction are
endhauled by truck or otherwise disposed in locations far from waterbodi▯es
where erosion will be minimized and water quality and other resource values will
not be adversely impacted; and
x Stable cut and fill slope angles are constructed with cut slopes at grades of 1:1 or
flatter, and properly compacted fillslopes at 2:1 or flatter. Effective erosion
control and rapid revegetation measures are applied to stabilize cut and fill slopes
(e.g., Fay and others 2012).
14
103Annex 1
Stream crossings and waterbodies:
x Avoid problematic or environmentally sensitive features such as wet and unstable
areas and highly erodible soils;
x Avoid alteration of natural drainage patterns;
x Maintain an adequate distance or separation from rivers, streams and lakes
(minimum 100 meters in steep and moderately steep, tropical terrain);
x Minimize the number of drainage crossings and eliminate stream “diversion
potential” at all stream crossings;
x Design culverts and bridges that are large enough to span the ordinary h▯igh water
width of flow (bankfull width) and culverted stream crossings with adequate peak
flow capacity for design floods (recommended 100-yr peak flow);
x Construct stream crossings with clean fill and with stable compacted fillslopes
around the culvert or bridge at either 2:1 slope angles or through the u▯se of
properly sized armor (rip-rap) or constructed headwalls;
x Never use wood or logs as drainage structures or incorporate woody material in
any fill;
x Avoid encroaching on stream and river banks or constriction of the active
(bankfull) stream channel width when crossing streams; and
x Design stream crossings to allow for fish passage at all life stages.
Drainage and erosion control:
x Minimize earthwork activities when soils are very wet or very dry or before
oncoming storms. Time road construction activity and road use for the milder,
drier seasons;
x Use slope stabilization measures, drainage structures, and road surface shaping as
needed to prevent slope instability or to correct failures as soon as they are
identified;
x Apply special techniques and soil stabilization BMPs when crossing wetlands,
wet meadows, riparian areas, and streams;
x Provide effective, dispersed road surface drainage to avoid collecting and
concentrating runoff than could result in excessive erosion and gullying▯ of
construction sites, fillslopes, road cuts and native hillsides;
x Minimize the number of “connections” between roads and watercourses by
employing frequent cross-road drainage utilizing a combination of inboard ditch
relief culverts, rolling dips, mildly outsloped road shaping, and berm
breaches/cutouts along the outside edge of the road bed;
x Require a final erosion control plan (ECP) and interim erosion control measures
during seasonal shutdowns. Stabilize all disturbed areas, work areas, spoil
disposal sites, quarries, and temporary roads. Include typical drawings and
specifications for seeding and mulching, sediment traps, silt fences, sediment
barriers, biotechnical structures, and other erosion and sediment control measures;
x Reduce erosion by providing vegetative or physical ground cover on cuts,▯ fills,
drainage outlets and any bare, exposed or disturbed areas with any risk or
potential for sediment delivery to nearby streams and watercourses;
x Provide filter strips or infiltration areas along the base of construction areas to
trap sediment between drain outlets and adjacent waterways; and
15
104 Annex 1
x Perform adequate erosion control during and following construction activities,
and prior to periods of extended shut down, to minimize erosion and prevent off-
site transport of eroded soil.
Off-season inspections and maintenance:
x Provide thorough, periodic inspections and maintenance of all road cuts, fills,
surface drainage structures, and road-stream crossing structures (culverts and
bridges), as well as all erosion and sediment control measures along the road
alignment. Maintain and repair any structures or features that are not functio▯ning
correctly or that could fail in a storm event, and add any additional measures that
may be required to minimize erosion and prevent sediment delivery to streams or
adjacent waterbodies;
x Identify and immediately correct any potential road failures, erosion sites or
future sediment sources that could be triggered by normal rainfall or large
magnitude storm events (hazard reduction inspections and treatments);
x Immediately correct identified ongoing erosion problems that are impacting water
quality through the use of effective heavy equipment and/or labor intensive
methods.
Long term project Best Management Practices:
x If and when serious hillslope stability problems are identified or develop along the
road alignment, consider relocating that road section to a better, more stable
location and fully decommissioning the abandoned, unstable route;
x If portions of a constructed road are located too close to the river, or▯ too close to
an ecologically sensitive waterbody or wetland, to prevent off-site impacts to
those waters, those road sections should be considered for realignment to move
them farther away. Once a road segment has been realigned, the abandoned
sections should be fully decommissioned to eliminate the potential for future road
failures and sediment delivery to streams;
x Effectively close, decommission, and restore all unused access roads, borrow
sites, and construction areas as soon as they are no longer needed or being used.
Any ancillary project sites or access routes that are to be retained for▯ continued or
future use should be storm-proofed and treated to minimize erosion and sediment
delivery. Employ well documented, effective road decommissioning techniques,
erosion control practices and hydrologic restoration techniques that will minimize
erosion and eliminate the disturbed areas as future sediment sources.
16
105Annex 1
References
▯
Agee, James K. 1980. Issues and impacts of Redwood National Park expansion.
Environmental Management. 4(5): 407-424.
Amaranthus, M.P., Rice, R.M., Barr, N.R., Ziemer, R.R. 1985. Logging and forest roads
related to increased debris slides in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Fo▯restry 83(4): 229-
233.
Aulerich, E. 1998. Better engineering and control of the construction of forest roads. In:
Proceedings of the Seminar on Environmentally Sound Forest Roads and Wood
Transport, Sinaia, Romania, 17-22 June 1996. FAO, Rome, Italy. 7 p.
Barling, R.D., Moore, I.D. 1994. Role of buffer strips in management of waterway
pollution: A review. Environmental Management Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 543-558.
Best D.W., 1995. History of timber harvest in the Redwood Creek basin, Northwestern
California. In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C. eds. Geomorp▯hic processes
and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California.▯ U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office: C1-C7.
Best D.W., Kelsey H.M., Hagans D.K., Alpert M. 1995. Role of fluvial hillslope e▯rosion
and road construction in the sediment budget of Garrett Creek, Humboldt County,
California. In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C. eds. Geomorp▯hic processes
and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California.▯ U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office: M1-M9.
Bilby, R.E., Sullivan, K., Duncan, S.H. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface
sediment in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington. Forest Science 35(2): 453-
468.
Burroughs, E.R., Jr. & King, J.G. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on for▯est roads. G.T.R.
INT-264, Ogden, UT. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station.
Cederholm, C.J., Reid, L.M., Salo, E.O. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road ▯
sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County,
Washington. In: Salmon spawning gravel: A renewable resource in the Pacific
Northwest. Report 39. Pullman: State of Washington Water Resource Center, 38-74.
Coates, R.N. (ed). 1981, Watershed rehabilitation in Redwood National ▯Park and other
Pacific coastal areas. In: Proceedings of a symposium on watershed rehabilitation in
Redwood national Park and other Pacific coastal areas. John Muir Institute, Center for
Natural Resource Studies in cooperation with the National Park Service. ▯340 p.
17
106 Annex 1
Copstead, RL, and DK Johansen. 1998. Water/road interactions: examples from three
flood assessment sites in Western Oregon. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service,
Technology Development Program, 98771805-SDTDC. 33 p.
Donald, J.A., Wemple, B.C., Grant, G.E., Swanson, F.J. 1996. Interaction of logging
roads with hillslope and channel processes during the February 1996 flood in western
Oregon. [Abstract]. EOS Transactions, American Geophysical Union: AGU Fall
Meeting, December 15-19, 1996, San Francisco, CA 77(46): F273. Washington, DC:
American Geophysical Union.
Doyle, J. Ketcheson, G. 2007. Lessons learned from management responses to flood
damaged roads in the western Washington Cascades. IN: M Furniss, C Clifton, and K
Ronnenberg, eds., 2007. Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest
Service National Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004,
PNWGTR-689, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1975. Logging roads and protection of w▯ater
quality. Seattle, Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, EPA 910/9-
75-007. 312 p.
Fay, L., Akin, M., Shi, X. 2012. Cost-effective and Sustainable Road Slope Stabilization
and Erosion Control. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
Synthesis 430. A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Report Number: NCHRP-SYN-430
ISBN 978-0-309-22362-1. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 70 p.
Furniss, M.J., Ledwith, T.S., Love, M.A., McFadin, B.C., Flanagan, S.A. ▯1998. Response
of road stream crossings to large flood events in Washington, Oregon, an▯d Northern
California. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Technology Development Program,
98771806-SDTDC. 42 p.
Furniss, M.J., Love, M.A., Flanagan, S.A. 1997. Diversion potential at r▯oad-stream
crossings. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series, 9777-1814-SDTDC. San Dimas,
CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development
Program. 12 p.
Furniss, M.J., Roelofs, T.D., Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In:
Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management. Special Pub. 19.
Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 297-324. Chapter 8.
Gucinski, H., Furniss, M.J., Ziemer, R.R., Brookes, M.H. 2001. Forest roads: a
synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.
Haanshus, S. 1998. Environmentally sound construction methods and use of appropriate
equipment. In: Proceedings of the Seminar on Environmentally Sound Forest Roads and
Wood Transport, Sinaia, Romania, 17-22 June 1996. FAO, Rome, Italy. 13 p.
18
107Annex 1
Hagans, D.K., and W.E. Weaver. 1987. Magnitude, Cause and Basin Response to Fluvial
Erosion, Redwood Creek Basin, Northern California. Publication 165:419-4▯28. In:
Beschta, R.L., T. Blinn, G. E. Grant, F. J. Swanson, and G.G. Ice, eds. ▯Erosion and
Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim: International Association of Hydrologic Sciences.
Hagans, D.K., Weaver, W.E., Madej, M.A. 1986. Long term on-site and off-site effects
of logging and erosion in the Redwood Creek basin, Northern California. In: Papers
presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting on cumulative effects, December
1985. Technical Bulletin 490. New York: National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement: 38-66.
Harden, D.R. 1995. A comparison of flood-producing storms and their impacts in
Northwestern California. In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C.▯ eds.
Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern
California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office: D1-D9.
Harr, R.D. McCorison, F.M. 1979. Initial effects of clearcut logging on size and timing of
peak flows in a small watershed in western Oregon. Water Resources Research 15(1): 90-
94.
Harr, R.D., Nichols, R.A. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: a
northwest Washington example. Fisheries, Vol. 18, No. 4, pages 18-22.
Helvey, J.D., Kochenderfer, J.N. 1988. Culvert sizes needed for small drainage areas in
the central Appalachians. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 5(2):123-127.
Hewlett, J.D., Helvey, J.D. 1970. Effects of forest clear-felling on the storm hydro▯graph.
Water Resources Research 6(3): 768-782.
Hornbeck, J.W. 1973. Storm flow from hardwood-forested and cleared watersheds in
New Hampshire. Water Resources Research 9(2): 346-354.
Hornbeck, J.W., Martin, C.W., Eagar, C. 1997. Summary of water yield experiments at
Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 27(12): 2043-2052.
Janda RJ, Nolan KM, Harden DR, Colman SM. 1975. Watershed conditions in the
drainage basin of Redwood Creek, Humboldt County, California as of 1973. Open-File
Report 75-568. US Geological Survey: Menlo Park, CA.
Jones, J.A., Grant, G.E. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and ▯roads in small and
large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4): 959-974.
Keller, G., Sherar, J. 2000. Practicas Mejoradas de Caminos Forestales (Manual of Best
Management Practices for Forest Roads). Manual written in Spanish for US Agency▯ for
International Development (Forestry Development Project) and ESNACIFOR (Honduras
National School for Forestry Sciences), Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 95 p.
19
108 Annex 1
Keller, G., Sherar, J. 2003. Low volume roads engineering - Best management practices
field guide. U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) and U.S Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Washington D.C. 158 p.
King, J.G., Tennyson, L.C. 1984. Alteration of streamflow characteristics following road
construction in north central Idaho. Water Resources Research 20(8): 1159-1163.
Kochenderfer, J.N., Edwards, P.J., Wood, F. 1997. Hydrologic impacts of logging an
Appalachian watershed using West Virginia's best management practices. Northern
Journal of Applied Forestry 14(4): 207-218.
LaFayette, R.A., Pruitt, J.R., Zeedyk, W.D. 1993. Riparian area enhancement through
road management. In: Preserving our environment--the race is on: Proceedings of
conference XXIV of the International Erosion Control Association, 1993 February 23-26,
Indianapolis, IN. Steamboat Springs, CO: International Erosion Control Association:
355-368.
Larse, R.W. 1971. Prevention and control of erosion and stream sedimentation from
forest roads. In: Morris, J., ed. Proceedings of a symposium: Forest land uses and stream
environment, 1970 October 19-21, Corvallis, OR. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University, Continuing Education Publications: 76-83.
Madej, M.A. 1995. Changes in Channel-Stored Sediment, Redwood Creek, Northwestern
California, 1947 to 1980. In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C▯. eds.
Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern
California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office: O1-O27.
Madej, M.A. and V. Ozaki. 1996. Channel response to sediment wave propagation and
movement, Redwood Creek, California, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Vol. 21: 911-927.
Madej, M. A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 175-190.
Madej, M.A., Ozaki, V. 2009. Persistence of effects of high sediment loading in a
salmon-bearing river, northern California, in James, L.A., Rathburn, S.L., and Whittecar,
G.R., eds., Management and Restoration of Fluvial Systems with Broad Historical
Changes and Human Impacts: Geological Society of America Special Paper 451, 43–55.
Marron, D.C., Nolan, K.M., Janda, R.J. 1995. Surface erosion by overland flow in the
Redwood Creek basin, Northwestern California - Effects of logging and rock type. . . In:
Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C. eds. Geomorphic processes and aquatic
habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: H1-H6.
McCashion, J.D., Rice, Raymond M. 1983. Erosion on logging roads in northwestern
California: how much is avoidable. Journal of Forestry. 81(1): 23-26.
20
109Annex 1
Megahan, W.F., Kidd, W.J. 1972. Effect of logging roads on sediment production rates in
the Idaho batholith. Res. Pap. INT-123. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p.
Megahan, W. F. 1974. Erosion over time on severely disturbed granitic soils: a model.
USDA Forest Service. Research Paper INT-156.
Megahan, Walter F. 1977. Reducing erosional impacts of roads. In: Kunkle▯, S., Thames,
J., eds. Guidelines for watershed management. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: 237-251.
Mersereau, R.C., Dyrness, C.T., 1972. Accelerated mass wasting after logging and
slash burning in western Oregon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 27,
112–114.
Mills, K. 1997. Forest roads, drainage, and sediment delivery in the Kilchis River
watershed. Final report prepared for the Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project. Oregon
Department of Forestry. Salem, OR. 24 p. plus appendices.
Moll, J.E. 1993. Reducing low-volume road impacts on the environment: success in the
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Transportation Research
Record. 1426: 10-14.
Murphy, Michael L. 1995. Forestry Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of Anadr▯omous
Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska--Requirements for Protection and
Restoration. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 7. NOAA
Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 156 p.
Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., Marron, B.C. 1995. Summary of research in the Redwood
Creek basin, 1973-1983. . In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C▯. eds.
Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern
California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office: A1- A6.
Nolan, K.M., Marron, D.C. 1995. History, causes, and significance of cha▯nges in channel
geometry of Redwood Creek, Northwestern California, 1936 to 1982. In: Nolan, K.M.,
Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C. eds. Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the
Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: N1-N22.
Pitlick J. 1995. Sediment routing in tributaries of the Redwood Creek Basin,
Northwestern California. In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C.▯ eds.
Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin, northwestern
California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office: K1- K10.
Reid, L.M., Dunne, T. 1984. Sediment production from road surfaces. Water Resources
Research 20(11): 1753-1761.
21
110 Annex 1
Reid, L.M., Ziemer, R.R., Furniss, M.J. 1997. What do we need to know about roads?
Interagency Workshop on Watershed Analysis, Humboldt Watershed Analysis Center,
McKinleyville, Unpublished manuscript:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reid/4Roads.htm
Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-GTR-141. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Reinhart, K.G. Eschner, A.R., Trimble, G.R. 1963. Effect on streamflow of four forest
practices in the mountains of West Virginia. Res. Pap. NE-1. Upper Darby, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Research Paper NE-1. 79 p.
Rice, R.M., Lewis, J. 1986. Identifying unstable sites on logging roads.▯ In: 18th IUFRO
World Congress, Division 1, Vol. 1. Forest environment and silviculture. Vienna,
Austria: IUFRO Secretariat: 239-247.
Rothacher, J. 1965. Streamflow from small watersheds on the western slope of the
Cascade Range of Oregon. Water Resources Research 1(1):125-134.
Rothacher, J. 1970. Increases in water yield following clear-cut logging in the Pacific
Northwest. Water Resources Research 6(2): 653-658.
Rothacher, J. 1971. Regimes of streamflow and their modification by logging. In:
Proceedings of a symposium, forest land uses and stream environment, October 19-21,
1970. Corvallis: Oregon State University: 40-54.
Rothacher, J. 1973. Does harvest in west slope Douglas-fir increase peak▯ flow in small
forest streams? Res. Pap. PNW-163. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 13 p.
Spinelli, R., Marchi, E. 1998. A literature review of the environmental impacts of forest
road construction. In: Proceedings of the Seminar on Environmentally Sound Forest
Roads and Wood Transport, Sinaia, Romania, 17-22 June 1996. FAO, Rome, Italy. 21 p.
Sullivan, K.O., Duncan, S.H. 1981. Sediment yield from road surfaces in response to
truck traffic and rainfall. Weyerhaeuser Research Report. Centralia, WA: Weyerhaeuser,
Western Forestry Research Center. 46 p.
Swank, W.T., Douglass, J.E., Cunningham, G.B. 1982. Changes in water yield and storm
hydrographs following commercial clearcutting on a Southern Appalachian catchment.
Vol. 2. In: Hydrological research basins and their use in water resource▯ planning.
Proceedings of the international symposium, 1982 September 21-23, Berne, Switzerland.
Berne, Switzerland: National Hydrologic Service: 583-594.
Swank, W.T., Swift, L.W., Jr., Douglass, J.E. 1988. Streamflow changes associated with
forest cutting, species conversions, and natural disturbances. In: Swank▯, W.T., Crossley,
22
111Annex 1
D.A., Jr., eds. Forest hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. Ecological Stud▯ies, Vol. 66.
New York: Springer-Verlag: 297-312.
Swanson, F.J., Dryness, C.T. 1975. Impact of clear-cutting and road cons▯truction on soil
erosion by landslides in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology. 3: ▯393-396.
Swanson, F., Jones, J., Wemple, B., Snyder, K. 2000. Roads in forest watersheds--
assessing effects from a landscape perspective. In: Slaughter, Charles W., ed.
Proceedings of the seventh biennial Watershed Management Council conference, 1998
October 19-23, Boise, ID. Water Resources Center Rep. 98. Riverside, CA: Centers for
Water and Wildlife Resources, University of California. 11 p.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest road design to minimize erosion in the southern
Appalachians. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings, Forestry and water quality: a mid-
South symposium, Little Rock, Arkansas, May 8-9, 1985. Monticello: University of
Arkansas, Department of Forest Resources: 141-151.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1988. Forest access roads: design, maintenance, and soil loss. In: Swank,
W.T., Crossley, D.A., Jr. eds. Forest hydrology and ecology at Coweeta. ▯Ecological
Studies, Vol. 66. New York: Springer-Verlag: 313-324.
Thomas, R.B., Megahan, W.F. 1998. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in
small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: a second opinion. Water ▯Resources
Research 34(12): 3393-3403.
USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing
the National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Forest practices watershed analysis
manual, Appendix B - surface erosion, Olympia, Washington. B1-B47.
Weaver, W.E., Hagans, D.K., Popenoe, J.H. 1995. Magnitude and causes of gully eros▯ion
in the lower Redwood Creek basin, northwestern California. In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey,
H.M., and Marron, D.C. eds. Geomorphic processes and aquatic habitat in ▯the Redwood
Creek basin, northwestern California. U.S. Geological Survey Professiona▯l Paper 1454.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: I1- I21.
Weaver, W.E., Hagans, D.K., Weppner, E. 2006, Part X: Upslope erosion inventory and
sediment control guidance, in Flosi, G., Downie, S., et al., eds., California salmonid
stream habitat restoration manual, 3d. ed.: Sacramento, CA, California Department of
Fish and Game.
Weaver W.E., Hagans D.K. 1999. Storm-proofing forest roads. In: Proceedings of the
International Mountain Logging and 10th Pacific Northwest Skyline Symposium.
Sessions J.C., Chungs W.C., (eds). April 1999. Oregon State University Department of
Forest Engineering and the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations:
Corvallis, Oregon. p. 230-245.
23
112 Annex 1
Weaver, W. and D. Hagans. 1996. Sediment treatments and road restoration: protecting
and restoring watersheds from sediment-related impacts. pages 105-134 in The Pacific
Rivers Council, Inc. 1996 Healing the watershed: a guide to the restorat▯ion of watersheds
and native fish in the West.
Weaver, W.E. and D.K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a guide f▯or
planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, and closing wildland
roads. Produced for the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District,▯ in
cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 163 p.
Wemple, B.C. 1994. Hydrological integration of forest roads with stream networks in two
basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Corvallis: Oregon State University, Department of
Geosciences. 88 p. M.S. thesis.
Wemple, B., Jones, J., Grant, G. 1996. Channel network extension by logging▯ roads in
two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 1195-1207.
Wright, K.A., Sendek, K.H., Rice, R.M., Thomas, R.B. 1990. Logging effects on
streamflow: storm runoff at Caspar Creek in northwestern California. Water Resources
Research 26(7): 1657-1667.
Ziemer, R.R. 1981. Storm flow response to road building and partial cutting ▯in small
streams of northern California. Water Resources Research 17(4): 907-917.
Ziemer, R.R. 1998. Flooding and stormflows. In: Ziemer, R.R., tech coord. Proceedings
of the conference on coastal watersheds: the Caspar Creek story, 1998 May 6, Ukiah, CA.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW GTR-168. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 15-24.
Ziemer, R.R., Lewis, J., Rice, R.M., Lisle, T.E. 1991. Modeling the cumulative
watershed effects of forest management strategies. Journal of Environmental Quality
20(1): 36-42.
Ziemer, R.R., Lisle, T.E. 1992. Evaluating sediment production by activities related to
forest uses - A Pacific Northwest perspective. In Proc. Tech. Workshop o▯n Sediments,
Corvallis, OR. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency and Forest Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric.,
Washington, DC.▯
▯
24
113Annex 1
Soil erosion in the tropics with reference to the San Juan River basin
Throughout the world, soil erosion is the most destructive process degrading landscapes
and delivering fine sediment to streams and rivers. In particular, humid tropical regions
exhibit significantly higher levels of soil erosion in comparison to temperate areas (El-
Swaify and Dangler 1982). The factors affecting elevated levels of soil erosion in the
tropics include: (1) high annual precipitation (2) prolonged rainfall duration and high
rainfall intensities, (3) high peak stream flows, (4) topography, (5) erodible geology and
soils, (6) poorly drained soils, and (7) land use (Sessions 2007, Sheng 1982, Dunne and
Dietrich 1982, Foster and others 1982, Akbarimehr and Naghdi 2012).
Rainfall intensities and peak stream flows in the tropics may be 10 times greater than
observed in temperate regions (Sessions 2007). Tropical erosion studies have shown that
subsurface flow and saturation overflow are the major runoff processes in tropical
forested catchments (Dunne and Dietrich 1982). High rainfall intensities often exceed the
infiltration capacity of poorly drained and erodible soils resulting in ▯increased Hortonian
overland flow and intense soil erosion (Ziegler and Giambelluca 1997, Dunne and
Dietrich 1982, DeFranco and others 1993). In addition to natural environmental factors of
climate, geology, and soils; soil erosion is exacerbated further by land use activities that
strip protective vegetation, such as timber harvesting, road constructio▯n, cultivation, and
rural development. Although some studies suggest that tropical soils are no less erodible
than soils in other climatic regions, other studies indicate that erosion is a major problem
if protective vegetation is removed (Douglas 1976, Sheng 1982).
The San Juan River basin of Costa Rica and Nicaragua experiences 2,500 m▯m to 6,000
mm of annual rainfall. Accelerated soil erosion originating from the upper and middle
portions of the basin is a result of heavy rainfall, erodible volcanic soils, and land use
activities including deforestation and agriculture (MINAE and MARENA 19▯97). The
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road (Route 1856) is built in areas underlain by erodible
volcanic soils (Typic and Oxic Dystropepts and Aeric Tropaquept) deriv▯ed from alkalic
lava flows, pyroclastic rocks, and lahars; and young, poorly drained soils (Typic
Hydraquent) derived from Quaternary alluvial deposits (Perez and others 1978).
Road-related erosion in the tropics
Unpaved roads surfaces are considered to be a large anthropogenic (human caused)
contributor to excess Hortonian overland flow and consequent road surface erosion and
sedimentation (Ziegler and Giambelluca 1997). For example, studies suggest that 90% of
soil erosion resulting from timber harvesting activities in the tropics is caused by roads
(Douglas 2003). Compacted road surfaces have very low infiltration capacity, and as a
result interrupt normal drainage patterns and convey sediment-laden surface flow, which
in turn causes rilling and gullying and delivery of fine sediments to hydrologically
connected streams and waterways (Sidle and Ziegler 2012, Ziegler and Giambelluca
1997). In addition, tropical roads have the potential to discharge chemical and nutrient
pollutants to local waterways, increase the invasion of exotic vegetation, and create
barriers to sensitive wildlife (Goosem and others 2010, Laurence 2012).
In steep tropical areas, the largest source of road-related sediment is from large landslides
and debris flows (Anderson and MacDonald 1998). According to Bruijnzeel (1993),
hillslope gully erosion is a relatively rare source of erosion on undisturbed landscapes in
the wet tropical and humid zones. However, gully erosion is apparent in areas that have
25
114 Annex 1
been disturbed by overgrazing, burning, and poor agriculture activities; as well as from
roads and road construction sites due to poor road surface drainage (Bruijnzeel 1993).
In tropical areas underlain by gentler topography or lowland settings, t▯he primary sources
of road-related erosion are from unstable cut and fill slopes, surface erosion from poorly
drained road surfaces, and fluvial erosion from poorly designed stream crossings
(Anderson and MacDonald 1998, Ziegler and Giambelluca 1997). Road surfaces have the
potential to be chronic sources of erosion and sedimentation through the following
processes: (1) vehicle traffic; (2) surface erosion by rainfall impact, rilling, and gullying
of bare soils and road surfaces; (3) livestock usage, and (4) other biological activities
(Ziegler and Giambelluca 1997). For further information on the environmental impacts of
road construction, Spinelli and Marchi (1998) provide an extensive ref▯erence list of
worldwide publications discussing road-related erosion and impacts to hydrogeology,
soils, and water quality.
Best management practices in tropical areas
“Concern for the environment and for rising costs has increased the
importance of engineering for all levels of forest roads. It is no longer
feasible to "eye-ball" (the) design and (then) construct a forest road that
may not meet the needs of the users or has a higher probability of failu▯re
with the resulting costs and environmental degradation.” (Aulerich 1996)
Depending on soil conditions, climatic factors, and usage, poorly designed roads can
cause significant erosion that results in landscape degradation, poor water quality,
socioeconomic impacts, and high costs for operation and maintenance. Road-related
erosion can be minimized through careful road planning, design, construction, and
maintenance (Mrema and others 2011). Specific road design and construction guidelines,
and best management practices (BMPs) tailored to tropical environments, are necessary
in order to develop a road system that is cost-effective to construct and maintain, and
results in minimal environmental degradation.
In the last two decades, progress has been made to develop road construction guidelines
and BMPs specifically tailored for the tropics. Prior to this time, road BMPs developed in
temperate regions of the United States (e.g., Pacific Northwest) and Europe were used as
the standard practice for tropical countries. The physics of erosion and mass wasting, and
the general effects of climate and soils on post-construction geomorphic processes, have
been researched for over 60 years and are fairly well understood. Much o▯f this
understanding has originated from research conducted in North America, and specifically
in temperate, wet-temperate and subtropical areas of the western and southeastern United
States. More recent research in the humid tropics has begun to elucidate additional
elements that are unique to that climatic regime. All these studies are designed to more
accurately represent the different environmental and socioeconomic conditions, and
landscape heterogeneity of tropical regions (Harden 1990). For example, recent research
has began to address the development of specific harvesting codes of practice, including
road construction guidelines for tropical regions. Several tropical countries, with support
from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), developed
harvesting codes of practice that include road construction guidelines and measures
specific to each country or region’s needs.
26
115Annex 1
The earliest harvesting codes of practice (including guidelines for roa▯d construction)
were developed in 1990 for the Republic of Fiji with the assistance of the International
Labor Organization (ILO) and FAO. In 1996, the FAO “Model Code of Harvesting
Practice” was developed by Dennis Dykstra, Center for International Forestry Research,
Indonesia, in order to provide a general guidebook of techniques and practices for
sustainable tropical forest management. This guidebook was used until 2006 by 30
tropical countries as the template for harvest planning and practices, and road
construction (Sessions 2007). Further development of harvesting codes of practice, road
engineering guidelines, and BMPs were developed for tropical regions in ▯Asia and the
Pacific, and West and Central Africa (FAO, 1999, FAO 2005). The FAO/ILO harvesting
codes of practice were developed to promote harvesting practices that improve standards
of utilization and reduce environmental impacts (Sessions 2007).
In addition to specific harvesting codes of practice, the FAO outlined general techniques
for road construction, design, and planning in the “Watershed Management Field
Manual: Watershed Survey and Planning” and the “Guide to Forest Road Engineering in
Mountainous Terrain” published in 1990 and 2007, respectively (Sheng 1990, Fannin and
Lorbach 2007). The “Guide to Forest Road Engineering in Mountainous ▯Terrain” is
intended as a companion to the FAO “Model Code of Harvesting Practice.”
Between 2004 and 2006, the Tropical Forest Foundation (funded by the In▯ternational
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)), developed four technical procedures manuals
intended to provide clear, technical guidance on the implementation of a Reduced Impact
Logging management strategy in dipterocarp forests of Indonesia (Klassen 2006). The
fourth manual specifically deals with the planning, location, design, construction, and
maintenance of “low impact” forest roads tailored to tropical forest management.
Early examples of road BMP manuals for Latin America include "Caminos rurales con
impactos minimos" (minimum impact rural roads) (Keller and others 1995) and
Dz▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯ dz▯ȋManual of Best Management Practices
for Forest Roads)▯ȋKeller and Sherar 2000). Both were ▯▯▯▯▯▯▯Ǥ▯Ǥ▯
▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯ȋ▯▯▯▯▯Ȍ▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯Ǧ▯
Ǥ▯ ▯▯
Ǧ▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ ▯▯
▯▯̶▯Ǧ▯▯▯▯▯▯Ǧ▯
▯▯▯▯▯
▯ ▯
̶▯ȋKeller and Sherar 2003). Similarly, in 2007,
John Sessions, Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State University▯, published a
general guidebook for the planning, construction and maintenance of forest road systems
in the tropics. This guidebook provides a comprehensive approach to road design and
construction, BMPs, specifications for road drainage structures, require▯d heavy
equipment, and estimated road construction and maintenance costs based on the unique
conditions of a tropical environment and its potential issues.
In general, the objective for forest road construction is low-cost desig▯n, construction and
maintenance for the intended use, while maintaining safe operation and environmental
protection (Sessions 2007). As with temperate locations, road system development in
tropical areas requires a four-phase process including (1) planning, (▯2) design, (3)
construction, and (4) operation and maintenance. Tropical road constru▯ction must
27
116 Annex 1
incorporate cost-effective and proper design and engineering to mitigate the effects of
prolonged wet periods and high rainfall intensities, high peak stream flows, poorly
drained soils, and unstable geology, as well as the lack of good quality on-site fill
materials and road rock (Sessions 2007).
The FAO harvesting codes of practice and guidelines for road construction, and oth▯er
guidebooks and technical manuals discussed above, contain detailed design specifications
for planning and best management practices for road construction in the tropics. The
following section outlines general guidelines and basic best management practices to be
implemented during construction in tropical areas. These practices compliment those
BMP measures already outlined for forest roads built in more temperate and subtropical
settings.
Road location
A well planned road location can be one of the most important factors when constructing
a road. If improperly located, a road may increase erosion and fine sediment delivery to
streams and waterbodies. Field reconnaissance of the potential route for road construction
should be conducted prior to road design and construction in order to id▯entify the best
location for a proposed road and to identify potentially unstable hillslopes, problematic
site features and obstacles, and unfavorable site locations.
x Roads should be widely spaced on the landscape. The best locations for roads are
on ridgetops, along the margins of stream valleys, or on stable bench locations
and low gradient hillslopes where effective road drainage can be easily developed.
x The two riskiest locations for roads are directly adjacent to streams and rivers, and
on steep, potentially unstable slopes adjacent to watercourses. In locations that
experience high rainfall intensities and peak stream flows, streamside roads can
become flooded and eroded. Roads built on steep slopes are subject to mass
wasting and failure of road-stream crossings when culverts become plugged and
streamflow diverts across the road or down adjacent hillslopes. Although, stream
valleys can be a good location for forest roads, they should be construc▯ted outside
the riparian zone and floodplain, and above flood flow elevations (Adams and
Andrus 1990).
x Roads should be constructed on stable hillslopes. Locations on steep and▯ concave
hillslopes with poor soils or unstable geology should be avoided. In areas that
experience high rainfall intensities, concave slopes between 50% and 70% slope
gradient may be at a higher risk of mass failure (Adams and Andrus 1990).
x ▯▯▯▯
▯▯▯▯▯
▯▯▯
▯▯Ǥ▯
x ▯▯▯▯▯
▯▯ǡ▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯Ǥ▯
x Avoid steep and unstable areas, including: gullies, wet terrain, swamps and
mangroves, wetlands/watercourses, conservation/reserve areas, and areas with
large rock hillslopes that may be prone to rock falls or rock topples (FAO 1999,
Klassen 2006).
x Roads should be located to reduce the frequency of stream crossings. Road
approaches to stream crossings should be constructed at right angles to the stream
channel to avoid stream channel and fill erosion. ▯
28
117Annex 1
Road Design
A properly designed road is extremely important in order to control road-related erosion
and sediment delivery to streams. Table 1 illustrates the typical design characteristics of
tropical forest roads developed by Heinrich (1975).
x Road width is an important road design element that may have significant effects
on road-related erosion. Although road width and road length (together ▯with
hillslope steepness) control the amount of ground disturbed by road construction,
road width can extend well beyond the road tread surface and is directly related to
the nature and steepness of the cutbank and fillslope (Adams and Andrus 1990).
Where feasible, minimize road widths as much as possible without affecting road
integrity or road functionality.
Table 1. Characteristics for forest roads in the tropics (modified from Sessions (2007) and Heinrich
(1975))
Road width Width Truck Cost estimate
Road (including of travel Minimum Maximum loads per Traffic (relative cost
Road type use shoulders) way curve gradient day speed units per meter
a radius (m) (%) (km/h)
(m) (m) (#) of road)
Access Truck 9-12 7-10 50 6 (8) More than 50-60 10-15
50
Main Truck 8-10 6-8 30 8 (10)b Up to 50 25-40 7-10
Secondary Truck 6-8 5-6 20 10 (12)c Up to 6 15-25 1-7
a
In steep and difficult terrain conditions the road widths given have to be reduced considerably.
bMaximum gradient in steep, difficult terrain for unloaded trucks when driving uphill.
cMaximum gradient in steep, difficult terrain for a short distance.
x Slope embankments should not exceed 1:1 on well-drained soils and stable
geology. For wet soils, slope embankments should not exceed 1:3 (Mrema and
others 2011). If possible avoid cut and fill construction in unstable areas.
x Attempt “full bench” construction wherever possible in order to reduce the
likelihood of mass failure of fillslopes and elevated surface erosion rates (Adams
and Andrus 1990).
x Wood and organic materials should be removed from fill materials used in road
construction. Wet and clayey soils should be avoided as fill materials.
x Evaluate peak flows in order to correctly size stream crossing culverts or design
other stream crossing structures (e.g., bridges). Stream crossings must be designed
to withstand high peak flows without erosion. In the humid tropics, peak flows of
a 10- or 25-yr return interval storm can be 10 times greater than in temperate
watersheds of similar size. Therefore, culverts may only be suitable for
watersheds of a relatively small size (Adams and Andrus 1990). ▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯▯▯Ǧ▯
▯▯
▯▯▯ͳͲͲǦ
▯▯▯Ǥ
x Install culverts with wing walls and controlled overflow structures (e.▯g.,
emergency spillways or rocked outboard fillslopes) in case of extreme flow events
(Mrema and others, 2011).
x ▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯▯▯▯Dz▯
dz▯▯▯▯ Ǥ▯▯
29
118 Annex 1
x Install well-designed low water fords and bridges at locations where hig▯h water is
expected (Adams and Andrus 1990).
x Drain the road surface using road shaping treatments intended to effectively shed
and disperse runoff from the road surface, thereby reducing concentrated surface
runoff (e.g., road outsloping).
x Minimize the use of ditch relief culverts. In the humid tropics where high peak
flows are common, the drainage capacity of ditch relief culverts is easily
exceeded. Instead use a combination of road shaping techniques and frequently
spaced rolling dips.
x Road surface erosion can be reduced by applying rock surfacing. Use good
quality, clean rock or gravel applied in thicknesses dictated by traffic▯ volume and
road grade. Although road rock may be expensive or difficult to procure in rural
tropical areas, the cost investment may be offset by easier road access and
utilization, and lower maintenance costs compared to an unsurfaced road.
Road construction
Constructing roads in the tropics where annual precipitation is extremely high can be
very challenging. Care should be taken in the timing and sequencing of road construction
activities by developing schedules and timetables for proposed road building activities.
x Prior to construction activities, the engineered road route should be staked for the
equipment operators. All locations of seepage, soft boggy areas, and streams
should be clearly marked and included in the construction log and technical
drawings.
x Road construction should occur at the onset of the dry weather season. Avoid
equipment operations during wet periods or directly after periods when soils a▯re
wet or saturated.
x Drainage structures should be constructed as soon as possible during the▯
construction of the road subgrade. The road subgrade should be properly
constructed to effectively control seepage and shed any runoff that occu▯rs during
the construction period (Klassen 2006).
x Compact the road subgrade immediately after or concurrent with construction in
order to minimize surface erosion during potential rainfall events.
x Apply surface erosion control measures, such as planting and seeding/mulching
with well adapted plant species, or organic slash packing, on bare soil ▯areas
concurrent with or immediately after construction activities to reduce surface
erosion. These erosion control measures should be implemented on open
construction areas prior to forecast rainfall events and over the entire construction
sites prior to the wet weather season.
x Culvert pipes should be placed at a minimum of 600mm below the high point of
the road (FAO 1999).
x Stream crossing culvert gradients should be installed at 1-3% in order to redu▯ce
siltation in the pipe or excessive scouring at the culvert outlet (FAO 1999). In
mountainous terrain, culverts should be set into the bottom of the channel at the
natural channel grade and orientation. Rock armor may be needed at the culvert
outlet to prevent erosion.
30
119Annex 1
Road maintenance
Proper road maintenance is a key component to the cost, functionality, and integrity of a
road, as well as providing essential protective measures for soil stability and water
quality.
x Roads should be inspected regularly to ensure that drainage structures are
working effectively and to identify locations of existing or potential sources of
road erosion. This is extremely important during wet weather periods and
following storm and flood events.
x Ditches and culverts should be inspected and maintained free of debris.
x Road shape should be maintained as designed during road grading activiti▯es. Care
should be taken not to build berms along the outboard edge of the road alignment
during road re-grading and maintenance activities. Efforts should be taken to
ensure that road surface runoff is well dispersed and not collected and
concentrated on the road surface or in ditches so as to cause rilling and gullying.
Road planning, design, construction and maintenance standards developed for tropical
regions include the same basic elements developed over the last 60 years for temperate
and semi-tropical climates. Tropical best management practices are modified to include
basic design and construction techniques that are focused and relevant to the climates and
soils characteristic of tropical environments. These include BMPs that account for
differences in rainfall intensity and duration, as well as soil characteristics common to
perennially wet volcanic terrains such as those in the Rio San Juan Rive▯r basin and
elsewhere. Basic geomorphic processes that are affected by road construction in the
tropical environment, including mass wasting, gullying, stream crossing failures, and
surface erosion, are controlled by the same physical principals of erosion and
sedimentation. Tropical climatic, geologic, and pedologic conditions simply add a few
additional factors into the equation of how to plan and build forest road systems that meet
the needs of the users while providing environmental protection to on-site and
downstream off-site resources.
31
120 Annex 1
References
Adams, P.W. and Andrus, C.W., 1990, Planning secondary roads to reduce erosion and
sedimentation in humid tropic steeplands, In: Research needs and applications to reduce
erosion and sedimentation in tropical steeplands, 1990 June; Suva, Fiji, IAHS Pub. No.
192, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences,
p. 318-327.
Akbarimehr, M. and Naghdi, R., 2012, Reducing erosion from forest roads and skid▯ trails
by management practices, Journal of Forest Science, v. 58, no. 4, p. 165-169.
Anderson, D.M. and MacDonald, L.H., 1998, Modeling road surface sediment production
using a vector geographic information system, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v.
23, p. 95-107.
Aulerich, E., 1996, Item 5: Better engineering and control of the construction of forest
roads, In: Proceedings of the Seminar on Environmentally Sound Forest Roads and Wood
Transport, Sinaia, Romania, 17-22 June 1996, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations), Rome.
Bruijnzeel, L.A., 1993, Land-use and hydrology in warm humid regions: where do we
stand?, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication v. 216, p. 1-34.
De Franco, M.A., Glomsrod, S., Hoie, H., Johnsen, T., and Castillo, E.M.▯, 1993, Soil
erosion and economic growth in Nicaragua, Notater 93/22, Statistics Norway, Oslo.
Douglas, I., 1976, Natural and man-made erosion in the humid tropics of Australia,
Malaysia and Singapore, In: Landforms and Geomorphology: Concepts and History, C.
A. M King, ed., Benchmark Papers in Geology no. 28, p. 353-36.
Douglas, I., 2003, Predicting road erosion rates in selectively logged t▯ropical rain forests,
In: Erosion Prediction in Ungauged Basins: Integrating Methods and Techniques,
Proceedings of IAHS Symposium I-IS01, July 2003, Sapporo, Japan, p. 199-205.
Dunne, T. and Dietrich, W.E., 1982, Sediment sources in tropical drainage basins, In:
Soil Erosion and Conservation in the Tropics, ASA Special Publication 43, American
Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 41-
55.
El-Swaify, S.A., Dangler, E.W., and Armstrong, C.L., 1982, Rainfall erosion in the
tropics: A State-of-the-Art, Soil Erosion and Conservation in the Tropics, ASA Special
publication no. 43, Fort Collins, CO, edited by the American Society of Agronomy, Soil
Science Society of America, p. 1-25.
Fannin, R.J., and Lorbach, J., 2007, Guide to forest road engineering in▯ mountainous
terrain, Forest Harvesting and Engineering Working Paper 2, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 88 p.
FAO, 1999, Sustainable roads?, The FAO Forest Harvesting Bulletin, v. 9, no. 1,
Accessed on 11/1/2012 at http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2314e/x2314e00.htm.
32
121Annex 1
FAO, 2005, Regional code of practice for reduced-impact forest harvesting in tropical
moist forests of West and Central Africa, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, 134 p.
FAO and RAP, 1999, Code of practice for forest harvesting in Asia-Pacific, Asia-Pacific
Forestry Commission, RAP (Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Ban▯gkok,
Thailand) publication, 1999/12, 44 p. Accessed on 10/30/2012 at
www.elaw.org/system/files/Code+of+Practice+in+Asia+Pacific.pdf.
Foster, G.R., Moldehauer, W.C., and Wischmeier, W.H., 1982, Transferability of U.S.
technology for prediction and control of erosion in the tropics, In: Soil Erosion and
Conservation in the Tropics, ASA Special publication no. 43, Fort Collin▯s, CO, edited by
the American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, p. 135-149.
Goosem, M., Harding, E. K., Chester, G., Tucker, N. and Harriss, C., 2010, Roa▯ds in
Rainforest: Science Behind the Guidelines, Guidelines prepared for the Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads and the Australian Government’s Marine and
Tropical Sciences Research Facility, Published by the Reef and Rainforest Research
Centre Limited, Cairns, 76 p.
Harden, C., 1990, Evaluation of soil tropical erosion at the catchment/basin scale, In:
Tropical Steeplands, Proceedings from The International Symposium on Research Needs
and Applications to Reduce Erosion and Sedimentation, Suva, Fiji, June, 1990, IAHS-
AISH Publ. No. 192, p. 270-278.
Heinrich, R., 1975, Problems of forest road construction in tropical high forests,
Technical Report of FAO/Austria training course on forest roads and harvesting in
mountainous forests, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Rome, p. 153-164.
Keller, G., Bauer, G., and Aldana, M., 1995, Caminos rurales con impactos minimos
(minimum impact rural roads), Training Manual written in Spanish for U.S.D.A., Forest
Service, International Programs, USAID, and Programa de Caminos Rurales, Guatemala
City, Guatemala, 800 p.
Keller, G. and Sherar, J., 2000, Practicas Mejoradas de Caminos Forestales (Manual of
Best Management Practices for Forest Roads), Manual written in Spanish for US Agency▯
for International Development (Forestry Development Project) and ESNACIFOR
(Honduras National School for Forestry Sciences), Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 95 p.
Keller, G. and Sherar, J., 2003, Low volume roads engineering - Best management
practices field guide, U.S Agency for International Development (USAID) and U.S
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington D.C., 158 p.
Klassen, A., 2006, Planning, location, survey, construction and maintenance for low-
impact forest roads, Fourth Technical Procedures Manual, 82 p.
Laurance, W., 2012, As Roads Spread in Rainforests, The Environmental Toll Grows,
Yale Environment 360 Magazine,12 January 2012, Accessed on 11/19/2012
www.e360.yale.edu/feature/as_roads_spread_in_tropical.../2485/.
33
122 Annex 1
MINAE (Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica)-MARENA (Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua)/OEA., 1997, Diagnostic study of the
San Juan River Basin, Guidelines and Action Plan, Governments of Costa Rica and
Nicaragua, Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment, Organization of the
United Americans, UNEP, Washington, D.C., 334 p.
Mrema, G.C., Gumbe, L.O., Hakgmalang, J.C., and Agullo, J.O., 2011, Rural structures
in the tropics: Design and development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome, 483 p.
Perez, S., Alvarado, A., and Ramirez, E, 1978, Asociacion de sub-grupos de suelos de
Costa Rica (Mapa preliminary), San Carlos, San Jose, OPSA, 1:200,000.
Sessions, J., Boston, K., Wing, M., Akay, A., Theisen, P., and Heinrich, R., 2007, Forest
Road Operations in the Tropics, Tropical Forestry Series, v. 4, Springer, 170 p.
Sheng, T.C., 1982, Erosion problems associated with cultivation in humid tropical hilly
regions, In: Soil Erosion and Conservation in the Tropics, ASA Special p▯ublication no.
43, Fort Collins, CO, edited by the American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society
of America, p. 27-39.
Sheng, T.C., 1990, Runoff plots and erosion phenomena on tropical steeplands, In:
Tropical Steeplands, Proceedings from The International Symposium on Research Needs
and Applications to Reduce Erosion and Sedimentation, Suva, Fiji, June, 1990, IAHS-
AISH Publ. No. 192, p. 154-162.
Sidle R.C. and Ziegler, A.D., 2012, The dilemma of mountain roads, Nature Geoscience,
v. 5, p. 437–438.
Spinelli, R. and Marchi, E., 1996, A literature review of the environmental impacts of
forest road construction, In: Proceedings of the Seminar on Environmentally Sound
Forest Roads and Wood Transport, June 17–22, 1996, Sinaia, Romania.
Ziegler, A.D. and Giambelluca, T.W., 1997, Importance of rural roads as source areas for
runoff in mountainous areas of northern Thailand, Journal of Hydrology, v. 196, p. 2▯04–
229.
Ziegler, A.D. and Giambelluca, T.W., 1997, Simulation of runoff and erosion on
mountainous roads in northern Thailand: a first look, In: Human Impact on Erosion and
Sedimentation, Proceedings of Rabat Symposium S6, April 1997, IAHS Publ. no. 245, p.
21-29.
▯
34
123Annex 1
124 Annex 1
APPENDIX D: Grain Size of Sediment Samples
125Annex 1
Humboldt State University Geology Soils Lab, Arcata, California
Río San Juan de Nicaragua sediment sample analysis for Pacific Watershed Associates
December 2, 2012
Table 1: Results of particle size analysis of soil samples with soil texture and corresponding colors to soil texture
triangle, Figure 1.
Sample Location Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Soil
(km) Sample Sand Sand Silt Silt % Clay Clay Texture
see map Weight Weight % Weight Weight % Family
(g) (g) (g) (g) Class
2-1 0.75 Three (3) 6 to 10 cm pebble clasts
2-10 6.25 25.5 9.8 40.3 7.9 32.4 6.6 27.3 Loam
(red)
2-11 6.50 24.5 11.4 49.2 6.5 28.1 5.3 22.7 Loam
(blue)
2-12 6.80 23.7 13.9 84.21.5 9.0 1.1 6.8 Loamy
Sand
(green)
2-18 8.50 24.9 3.4 14.1 14.6 61.2 5.9 24.7 Silt
Loam
(yellow)
2-27 17.95 22.9 10.9 62.4 4.0 22.9 2.6 14.7 Sandy
Loam
(orange)
Figure 1: A textural triangle displaying Samples #2-10 (red), #2-11(blue), #2-12 (green), #2-18 (yellow), and
#2-27 (Orange).
126 Annex 1
Table 2: Results of rock fragments analysis greater than 2 mm.
Sample Weight of sample (g) Total weight gravel of Total % of gravels > 2
> 2 mm (g) mm
2-1 Three (3) 6 to 10 cm pebble clasts
2-11 126.5 65.4 51.7
2-27 357.9 86.5 24.3
Samples #2-10, #2-12, and #2-18 had no gravels > 2 mm. Upon drying, what a▯ppeared to be
large pebbles were determined to be well indurated aggregations of sand, silt, and clay that had
been rounded by fluvial transport processes.
Standard Laboratory Procedures for Humboldt State University Soils Laboratory
Samples were assigned a Humboldt State University Laboratory number, air dried, hand sieved
to separate gravels from sands, silts, and clays, then divided for various tests using a splitter to
ensure representative proportions for each component.
Organic Matter Content
A 3-5 g split was heated to 105 C and compared to the air dry weight to determine water content,
reported here as moisture factor. The sample was then heated to 450 C and compared to the 105 0
C weight to determine loss on ignition (loi), reported in %, a proxy for organic matter (OM)
content, reported in grams (Singer and Janitsky, 1986).
Particle Size Distribution
All samples were treated with 0.5N hydrochloric acid (HCl) to dissolve calciu▯m carbonate,
which inhibits deflocculation, then rinsed with distilled water. Samples were then treated with
~30% hydrogen peroxide to burn off organic matter. Twenty-five ml of sodium
hexametaphosphate was then added to the sample and was allowed to react for a minimum of 24
hours. Twenty minutes of ultrasonic treatment was also used to encourage deflocculation.
Samples were wet sieved with distilled water to recover the sand portion of the sample. The
remaining portion of the sample was then brought up to a total volume of 1 liter of solution using
additional distilled water as needed, then analyzed by pipette to determine the silt and clay
proportions of the sample as per Singer and Janitsky (1986).
127Annex 1
128 Annex 1
Sample 2-1
129Annex 1
Sample 2-1
130 Annex 1
Sample 2-10
131Annex 1
Sample 2-11
132 Annex 1
Sample 2-11
133Annex 1
Sample 2-12
134 Annex 1
Sample 2-18
135Annex 1
Sample 2-27
136 Annex 1
APPENDIX E: Large-Format Maps of Route 1856 and Río San Juan
Upstream from Río San Carlos
137Annex 1
Photo 7
Photo 6
Photo 16
Photo 13
Photo 11
Photo 9
!(
!(
Photo 5
Photo 13
!( Photo 16
Photo 8
Photo 11
Photo 19
J
J
Photo 3
!(
33 kkiilloomeetteerrss ---->>
!(
!(
!(
Pht9o
<-- 4 kilometers
!( J J Photo 19
!(!(
!(
!(
Photo 2
P8 o J
6 o Photo 7 J !((
5r s m
J
22 kkiilloomeetteerrss ---->>
!(
Photo 5
!(
Pht3o
Photo 10 Photo 14 Photo 15
J Photo 18a
J
!(
Photo 2
11 kkiilloomeetteerrss ---->>
!(!(
Photo 1
!(
Photo 1
J
Photo 4b
Photo 4a Photo 12 Photo 18b
Sheet #6
UpRpeerMacRahipo#S1ShaenetJsu#a1n-6 #4
Sheet #5
Sheet #3
Sheet #3b
Sheet #1 Sheet #2
Photo 4c
Meters
Kilometers
Ü 1
1,000
photographic basemap, 1:6,000 scale.
Photo 17
Scale 1:6,000 1 cm = 60 m
0.5 500
sibility based on available data.
0.25 250
Geoin-rerefelaretinocnedtopRhiootoSpanoiJnutalnocations
RivberypdairsataAerialRpihgohAttopspodtrruiiortbehxuceittmrainorayntbeaasltnairtikeyratpmohRolotioocaiSdtiaeonnntsJifuiaend
J !(
!(
J !( 0 0 PrePpaacrwiefwdi(cw7bW0y.p7:aa)tce8irf3si9ch-we5da1tA3e0rssshoecdia.cteosm
!( MaLpanbRoeitlvesaes/ncr:dablamlnookustasan,icdpehsdotrfteooarfmrbasemsitneptseo,rsapsnriedbtlepedhvofirtoompoaiinrtsphhoatvoesddiefnfeorteendt.cIomloargsetroyadiadtein: 2v0is1u2a.l Idmifafegreernytisaetlieocntiovfelpyhoptroosc.essed
ApapnednpdlaoiextrtieAadl.opLnhaortgthoeegfSroaerppmhtesam ,tambloearnpg2s0hth1ee2et4s#a1t1.e6ldlkiistielpayeitnegr ugpeop-erreR feiroenScaendJsueaqnudenetN iailcpahraogtouaat(lRasSJo)fRrievaecrh-b#a1se,d
138 Annex 1
J
J
14 kilometers -->
1 3 k i l o m e t e r s - - >
Photo 54
Photo 46 Photo 53
Photo 54
Photo 41 Photo 48 Photo 50a Photo 49
!(
J J
!(
!(
1kmt->-
Photo 29 Photo 42
Photo 52
!(
Pht5a !(!(!(
Photo 45 Photo 47 !(
J-- 11 kilometers
Photo 48 J
Photo 36 !(
!(
6 o
Photo 40 Photo 51c
J
J
!(!(
!(
Photo 44
10 kilometers -->
Photo 41 2
!(
!(
<-- 9 kilometers
J
Photo 30 J
Photo 25 !(
!(!(!(
Photo 51b
!(
J
J
!(
!(!(
8 kilometers -->
Pht36
!(
t9o
!(
!(
!(
t0o !(
!(
Photo 24 Photo 43b
Photo 43d
!(!(
!(!( Photo 35 Photo 51a
t5o Photo 43a
Photo 24 Photo 43c
J Photo 38
J
7 kilometers -->
!(
Photo 19
Photo 20
Photo 31 Photo 34a
!(!(!(
Photo 39
ktr sm !(!(!( Sheet #6
J !(
J
!( !( !(
Sheet #4
UpRpeerMacRahipo#S1ShaenetJsu#a1n-6
Sheet #5
Sheet #3
Sheet #3b
Photo 28
Sheet #1
Sheet #2
Photo 23
Photo 34
Photo 2Photo 27a Photo 32
Photo 37
Meters
Kilometers
Ü 1
1,000
Photo 21
Scale 1:6,000 1 cm = 60 m
Photo 22 Photo 33
Photo 26a Photo 26b Photo 27c Photo 27b 0.5 500
sibility based on available data.
0.25 250
Geoin-rerefelaretinocnedtopRhiootoSpanoiJnutalnocations
RivberypdairsatalAerialRpihgohAttopspodtrruiiortbehxuceittmrainorayntbeaasltnairtikeyratpmohRolotioocaiSdtiaeonnntsJifuiaend
J !(
!(
!( 0 0 PrePpaacrwiefwdi(cw7bW0y.p7:aa)tce8irf3si9ch-we5da1tA3e0rssshoecdia.cteosm
J !( MaLpanbRoeitlvesaes/ncr:dablamlnookustasan,icdpehsdotrfteooarfmrbasemsitneptseo,rsapsnriedbtlepedhvofirtoompoaiinrtsphhoatvoesddiefnfeorteendt.cIomloargsetroyadiadtein: 2v0is1u2a.l Idmifafegreernytisaetlieocntiovfelpyhoptroosc.essed
~ Legend ~
Apppheonutdpoipx2ae0tA rl1a.2sLisooaafrStgeraielvnlifeaahnasotdetoegN aarnpaidcpsahharieeacergitbuaadoiSsatJpop)lg,aRr1yae:ip6nah,cg0sh0,g0#ael1oso,-cnrpaegllfeoet.thrteeend4c1oe.nd6tskheieqlouSm
139Annex 1
Photo 93b Photo 93a
!(
!(
!(
Photo 86
Photo 63 Photo 89 Photo 91a J
J
!(!(
Photo 91a, Photo 89 Photo 92
!(
!(
20 kilometers -->
!(!(
6 o
Photo 88ao 88b
!( Photo 88c 88d
!(
!(!(!(
Pht3o !(
Photo 62
Photo 83
Photo 82 Pht2o !(
!(!(
Photo 67b Photo 87 Photo 91b
J J
!(
Photo 85ao 85b
Photo 84
!(
19 kilometers -->
Photo 64a t7o
Photo 77
Photo 81a Photo 81b
!(
Photo 80 !(
!(
!(
Photo 64b Thd isea ta rielaos nhS oh wenetin 3b
Photo 79a
!( !(!(
Photo 70b PhotoPhoto 69 !(
Photo 58a Photo 60a Photo 78b
Photo 70a Photo Photo 90b
!(
!(
!(!( PhotPhoto 79b
Photo 55 !(
Photo 70b Photo 70d
!( Photo 70c
!(
Photo 70a !(
Pt7b Photo 67a PhotoPhoto 78a
Photo 76c
Photo 76a J
Photo 74
!( !( !((!( Photo 78d
Photo 75
Pht67a
Photo 73 !(
Photo 72 !( 1mr> -
Photo 71 Photo 76d
Pht4b !( !( Photo 76b
!(
!( Photo 76e
Photo 67c
Photo 68
Photo 65a 65bo 66b 66a !(
Photo 64a !(
!(
!(
!(!(
J
J
Photo 60b
!( 17 kilometers -->
Photo 50b
!(
Pht2o
!(
!(
J
!( J
Photo 63
16 kilometers -->
!(
tbo
Photo 56
!(
J
!( J
!(
Pa o
15 kilometers -->
Ptao Sheet #6
Photo 64e UpRpeerMacRahipo#S1ShaenetJsu#a1n-6t #4
Sheet #5
Sheet #3
!(!( Sheet #3b
Pht0b
Photo 64d
P55o
Photo 64c
Sheet #1
Sheet #2
Photo 61
!(
!(
!( J Meters
!( Photo 56 J Kilometers
Ü 1
1,000
photographic basemap, 1:6,000 scale.
14 kilometers -->
Scale 1:6,000 1 cm = 60 m
Photo 59 Photo 57
Photo 58b
0.5
500
J J
sibility based on available data.
0.25 250
1 3 k i l o m e t e r s - - >
Rivberypdairsatallnecletoinrikgihlotmbaentekrs- denotedocations
AerialRpihgohAttopspodtrruiiortbehxuceittmrainorayntbeaasltnairtikeyratpmohRolotioocaiSdtiaeonnntsJifuiaend
J !(
!(
!( PrePpaacrwiefwdi(cw7bW0y.p7:aa)tce8irf3si9ch-we5da1tA3e0rssshoecdia.cteosm
J MaLpanbRoeitlvesaes/ncr:dablamlnookustasan,icdpehsdotrfteooarfmrbasemsitneptseo,rsapsnriedbtlepedhvofirtoompoaiinrtsphhoatvoesddiefnfeorteendt.cIomloargsetroyadiadtein: 2v0is1u2a.l Idmifafegreernytisaetlieocntiovfelpyhoptroosc.essed
!(
~ Legend ~ ApapnednpdlaoiextrtieAadl.opLnhaortgthoeegfSroaerppmhteasm ,tambloearnpg2s0hth1ee2et4s#a1t3.e6allkditiielsopmlaeytienrgugpepoe-rrR
Photo 54
140Annex 1
141Annex 1
Photo 105
!(
Photo P10h3oato 102 Photo 100b Photo 103b Photo 103c Photo 104a
Pht05
!(
<-2klmtse
P14a J
J
!(!(
P0Po3c
!(
J
J
26 kilometers -->
!(
Sheet #6
Sheet #4
UpRpeerMacRahipo#S1ShaenetJsu#a1n-6
!( Sheet #5
Sheet #3
J Sheet #3b
Photo 102, Photo 103a J
!(!(
Photo 100a Photo 98
Sheet #1
Sheet #2
25 kilometers -->
!(
Meters
Pt8o !( Kilometers
Ü 1
1,000
!(
Photo 103d Photo 104b Scale 1:6,000 1 cm = 60 m
Photo 100a J 0.5 500
!( J
Photo 97a
!(
0.25 250
24 kilometers -->
Photo 97b
Geoin-rerefelaretinocnedtopRhiootoSpanoiJnutalnocations
RivberypdairsatallAerialRpihgohAttopspodtrruiiortbehxuceittmrainorayntbeaasltnairtikeyratpmohRolotioocaiSdtiaeonnntsJifuiaend
J !(
!(
!( PrePpaacrwiefwdi(cw7bW0y.p7:aa)tce8irf3si9ch-we5da1tA3e0rssshoecdia.cteosm
J MaLpanbRoeitlvesaes/ncr:dablamlnookustasan,icdpehsdotrfteooarfmrbasemsitneptseo,rsapsnriedbtlepedhvofirtsooibmpiolaiitinyrtspbhahsoaetvodesoddniefanfevorateeinldat.bclIoemlodaragsteatr.oyadiadtein: 2v0is1u2a.l Idmifafegreernytisaetlieocntiovfelpyhoptroosc.essed
!(
~ Legend ~
J
J
23 kilometers --> Photo 101
!( Photo 100c
tbo
Photo 99
!(
Pht7a
Photo 95a
!(
!(
a o
J
J
!(
22 kilometers -->
!(
!(
!(
Photo 96
Photo 94 Photo 95b Photo 95c Photo 95e Photo 95d
!(
J
J
Pht4o
21 kilometers -->
Aprpievne(R dr-iSbxJaA)seR .dLeaaancrghde#afe1or,ripamlloaptthtm eodtaopognsrahthpeehetsS,#ea4plotdenim sgpbtlheareyi24n01g1.6g2eksoial-toreem
142 Annex 1
Photo 116b Photo 116a
Photo 1P12hoto 111b Photo 113
Photo 111a
Photo 114
!(
!(
!( !(
Photo 111b
ta11 12o
31o
!(
Photo 115
Photo 114
!(
J
J
29 kilometers --> !(
!( Photo 118a
!(
!( <--J30 kilometers
J !(!(!(
J Photo 115
J
Photo 116b16a
28 kil!(eters -->
<-- 31 kilometers
J
J
!(
!(
Pht18a
Photo 117
Photo 111c
Photo 109
Photo 106
Photo 117
<-- 32 kilometers
JJ
Photo 110
Photo 10P7hoto 108
J J
<-3klm rse
Sheet #6 J
J
34 kilometers -->
UpRpeerMacRahipo#S1ShaenetJsu#a1n-6et #4
Sheet #5
Sheet #3
Sheet #3b
Sheet #1
Sheet #2
o-referenced sequential photo atlas of river-based
Meters
Kilometers
Ü 1
1,000
photographic basemap, 1:6,000 scale.
Scale 1:6,000 1 cm = 60 m
0.5 500
0.25 250
Geoin-rerefelaretinocnedtopRhiootoSpanoiJnutalnocations
RivberypdairsataAerialRpihgohAttopspodtrruiiortbehxuceittmrainorayntbeaasltnairtikeyratpmohRolotioocaiSdtiaeonnntsJifuiaend
J !(
!(
!( PrePpaacrwiefwdi(cw7bW0y.p7:aa)tce8irf3si9ch-we5da1tA3e0rssshoecdia.cteosm
J MaLpanbRoeitlvesaes/ncr:dablamlnookustasan,icdpehsdotrfteooarfmrbasemsitneptseo,rsapsnriedbtlepedhvofirtsooibmpiolaiitinyrtspbhahsoaetvodesoddniefanfevorateeinldat.bclIoemlodaragsteatr.oyadiadtein: 2v0is1u2a.l Idmifafegreernytisaetlieocntiovfelpyhoptroosc.essed
!(
Appendix A. Large format map sheet #5 displaying ge , abloerng20th1e24sa1t.e6llkitielometer upper Rio San Juan de Nicaragua (RSJ) Reach #1,
143Annex 1
J J
Photo 119a Photo 123a
43 kilometers -->
Photo 122
J J
Photo 120 Photo 123b
!(
Pt3a
42 kilometers -->
!(
Photo 123b
J J
Photo 121b
lr> -
Photo 121a
!( Photo 122
!(
Pt121b
J
J
!(
J
J
40 kilometers -->
Photo 119a
38 kilometers --> <-- 39 kilometers
Photo 119b J
J
!(!(Photo 121a, Photo 120
Sheet #6
!(
J J UpRpeerMacRahipo#S1ShaenetJsu#a1n-6eet #4
P1bo Sheet #5
Sheet #3
Sheet #3b
Photo 118a
37 kilometers -->
Sheet #1
Sheet #2
o-referenced sequential photo atlas of river-based
Meters
Kilometers
Ü 1
1,000
!( Photo 118b
photographic basemap, 1:6,000 scale.
Pht18a
Photo 118c
J<-3lmtse Scale 1:6,000 1 cm = 60 m
J
!(
0.5 500
!(
sibility based on available data.
250
0.25
J RivberypdairsatalAerialRpihgohAttopspodtrruiiortbehxuceittmrainorayntbeaasltnairtikeyratpmohRolotioocaiSdtiaeonnntsJifuiaend
J
J !(
35 kilometers --> !(
!( 0 0 PrePpaacrwiefwdi(cw7bW0y.p7:aa)tce8irf3si9ch-we5da1tA3e0rssshoecdia.cteosm
J !( MaLpanbRoeitlvesaes/ncr:dablamlnookustasan,icdpehsdotrfteooarfmrbasemsitneptseo,rsapsnriedbtlepedhvofirtoompoaiinrtsphhoatvoesddiefnfeorteendt.cIomloargsetroyadiadtein: 2v0is1u2a.l Idmifafegreernytisaetlieocntiovfelpyhoptroosc.essed
~ Legend ~ Appendix A. Large format map sheet #6 displaying ge , abloerng20th1e24sa1t.e6llkitielometer upper Rio San Juan de Nicaragua (RSJ) Reach #1,
144 Annex 1
APPENDIX F: Author CVs
145Annex 1
1
Curriculum Vitae CV2012-8pp.doc
G. MATHIAS KONDOLF
Professor of Environmental Planning and Geography
Chair, Dept Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning
202 Wurster Hall, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720 USA
[email protected]
EDUCATION
The Johns Hopkins University. PhD, Geography and Environmental Engineering 1988. Dissertation:
Salmonid spawning gravels: A geomorphic perspectiveon their distribution, size modificationby
spawning fish, and applicationof criteria forgravel quality.
University of California at Santa Cruz. MS, Earth Sciences 1982. TheRc:ent channel instability and
historic channel changes of the Carmel River, MontereyCounty, California.
Princeton University. AB cum laude, Geology 1978. ThesiGs:enesis and development of Sandy Hook,
New Jersey
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
University of California at Berkeley
Chair, Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning: 2011-present
Professor of Environmental Planning and Geography: 2007 to present (appointed Asst Prof 1988)
Chair, PortugueseStudies Program: 2001-present
Regular university courses:
Mediterranean-Climate Landscapes, Environmental SciencesforSustainableDevelopment, River
Restoration, Hydrology for Planners.
Professional shortcourses:
Week-long shortcourseGeomorphic and ecological fundamentals for riverand streamrestoration
offeredannually since 1995 atSagehen CreekField Station, Truckee, California, andcomponents taught
also atBeaumont du Ventoux andLyon, France, University of Lisbon, and National Cheng Kung
University, Taiwan.
SERVICE ON EDITORIAL BOARDS
Associate Editor, Water Resources Research( 2011 to present)
Associate Editor, Environmental Managemen1 t(99 to present)
SERVICE ON GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARDS
Technical Review Committee for the Greater Mississippi Basin Post-Flood Assessment, US Army
Corps of Engineers: 2012-2013
National ResearchCouncil Committee on Hydrology, Ecology, Fishes of the Klamath River Basin
Member: 2006-2007
Federal InteragencyFlood Risk Management Committee Member: 2005-2007
Environmental Advisory Board to the Chief of the US Army Corps of Engineers: Member: 2002-2007
CALFED Bay-Delta Program Ecosystem Restoration Program Science Board: Member: 1999-2005
146 Annex 1
2
RECENT PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
Kondolf, G.M., K.Podolak, andT.E.Grantham. 2012. Restoring Mediterranean-climate rivers.
Hydrobiologia . DOI 10.1007/s10750-012-1363-y
Deitch, M.J., andG. M. Kondolf. 2012. Consequences of variations in magnitude and duration of an
instream environmental flow threshold across a longitudinal gradieJn o.rnal of Hydrology 420–421:
17–24. DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.003
Ludy, J. andG.M. Kondolf. 2012. Flood risk perception in lands ‘protected’ by 100-year leveeN s.atural
Hazards 61(2):829-842. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-0072-6
Kondolf, G.M. 2011. Setting Goals in River Restoration: When andWhere Canthe River ‘HealItself’?
in Simon, A.et al (eds)Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches,
Analyses, and Tools . GeophyicalMonograph SeriesVol.194 pp.29-43. AmericanGeophysical Union,
Washington DC. DOI: 10.1029/2010GM001020 .
Kondolf, G.M., S. Anderson, ,. Storesund, M. Tompkins, and P. Atwood. 2011. Post-project appraisals
of river restoration in advanced university instruction.estoration Ecology doi: 10.1111/j.1526-
100X.2011.00803.x
Michalková, M., H.Piégay, G.M. Kondolf, and S.E.Greco. 2011. Longitudinal and temporal evolution
of the Sacramento River between Red Bluff and Colusa, California, USA (1942-1999 E).rth Surface
Processes and Landforms 36:257-272. DOI:10.1002/esp.2106.
Lassettre, N.S. and G.M. Kondolf. 2011. Large wood in urban stream channels: re-defining the problem.
River Research and Applications . DOI: 10.1002/rra.1538
Kilber, K.D.Tullos, and G.M. Kondolf. 2011. Learning from dam removal monitoring: challenges to
selecting experimental design and establishing significance of outcomR eisv.er Research and
Applications27:967-975. DOI: 10.1002/rra.1415
MacWilliams, M.L., M.R. Tompkins, R.L.Street,G.M. K ondolf, andP.K.Kitanidis. 2010.An
assessmentof the effectiveness of aconstructed compound channel river restoration project on an
incised stream. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 136(12): 1042-1052. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-
7900.0000196
Minear, T. and G.M. Kondolf. 2009. Estimating reservoir sedimentation rates at large spatial- and
temporal-scales: a case study of CaliforniaWater Resources Research 45. W12502 doi:10.1029/2007WR006703
Bosselmann, P.C.,G.M. Kondolf, J.Feng, G. Bao, Z. Zhang, and M. Liu. 2009. The future of a Chinese
watervillage: alternative design practicesaimedtoprovide newlife fortraditional watervillages inthe
PearlRiver Delta. Journal of UrbanDesign 15(2):243-267.
Constantine, J.A., T. Dunne, H. Piégay, and G.M. Kondolf. 2010. Controls on the alluviation of oxbow
lakes bybed-material load as observed along the SacramentoRiver of CaliforniaS . edimentology
57:389-407.
147Annex 1
3
Chin, A., S. Anderson, A. Collison, B. Ellis-Sugai, J.P. Haltiner, J. Hogervorst, G.M o.Kolf, L.S.
O’Hirok, A.H.Purcell, andE.Wohl. 2009 Linking theoryandpracticeforrestoration ofstep-pool
streams. Environmental Management 43:645-661.
Deitch, M.,J., G.M. Kondolf, and A.M.Merenlender. 2009. Hydrologic impacts of small-scale instream
diversions for frost and heat protection in the California wine countrRyi.ver Research and Applications
25: 118-134.
Deitch, M.J., G.M. Kondolf, and A.M. Merenlender. 2.00 Surface water balance to evaluate the
hydrological impacts of small instream diversions and application tothe Russian River basin, California,
USA. Aquatic Sciences: MarineandFreshwaterEcosystems 19: 274-284.
Kondolf, G.M., P. Angermeier, K. Cummins, T. Dunne, M. Healey, W. Kimmerer, P.B. Moyle, D.
Murphy, D. Patten, S. Railsback, D. Reed, R. Spies, and R. Twiss. 2008. Prioritizing river restoration:
Projecting cumulative benefits ofmultiple projects: anexample fromtheSacramento-SanJoaquin River
system in CaliforniaE.nvironmental Management 42:933-945 (DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9162-y)
Rovira, A., and G.M. Kondolf. 2008. Bed mo iity on the Deschutes River, Og ron: tracer gravel
results. Geodinamica Acta 21:11-22.
Tompkins, M.R., and G.M. Kondolf. 2007. Systematic post-project appraisals to maximize lessons
learned from river restoration projects: Casestudy of compound channel construction projects in
Northern California.Restoration Ecology 15(3):524-537.
Kondolf, G.M., S. Anderson, R. Lave, L. Pagano, A. Merelender, and E. Bernhardt. 2007. Two decades
of river restoration in California: What can we learR ne?storation Ecology 15(3):516-523.
Kondolf, G.M., H. Piégay, and N. Landon. 2007. Changes since 1830 in the riparian zone of the lower
Eygues River, France.Landscape Ecology 22:367-384.
Simon, A., M. Doyle, G.M. Kondolf, F.D. Shields, Jr., B. Rhoads, and M. Mc ilihs.2007. Critical
evaluation of how the Rosgen classification andassociated "natural channel design" methods fail to
integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel responsJ e.urnal of the American Water
Resources Association43(5):1117-1131.
Kondolf, G.M. River restoration and meanders. 2006E .cology and Society. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art42/
Kondolf, G.M., A. Boulton, S. O'Daniel, G. Poole, F. Rahel, E. Stanley, E. Wohl, A. Bang, J. Carlstrom,
C. Cristoni, H. Huber, S. Koljonen, P. Louhi, and K. Nakamura. 2006. Process-basedecological river
restoration: Visualising three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages.
Ecology and Society 11 (2): 5. [online] URLh :ttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art5/
Kondolf, G.M., and R.J. Batalla. 2005. Hydrological effects of dams and water diversions on rivers of
Mediterranean-climate regions: Examples from California. In C.Garcia andR.J.Batalla (eds.)
Catchment dynamics and river processes: Mediterraneanand other climate regions . Elsevier, London.
pp.197-211.
148 Annex 1
4
BOOKS
Kondolf, G.M., and H. Piégay, eds. 200T 3o. ols in fluvial geomorphology . John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, 696 pp.
(Reviewed in Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(3):713-715, 2005.)
RECENT PAPERS PUBLISHED IN SYMPOSIA PROCEEDINGS AND BOOK CHAPTERS
Kondolf, GM, and Podolak K. 2011. Urban rivers: Landscapesof leisure and consumption. In PM
Santos and PC Seixas, edsG . lobalization and Metropolization – theory andpractice fromEurope's west
coast. Institute of Governmental Studies, Berkeley (in press)
Kondolf, G.M. The espace de liberté and restoration of fluvial process: When canthe river restore itself
andwhen must weintervene?River Conservation andRestoration , P. Boon & Paul Raven, editors. John
Wiley &Sons,Chichester. (in press)
Bouleau, G. andG.M. Kondolf. 2011. Rivers of diversity: evolving water regulation in California and
the European Union. inTransatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: The ShiftingRoles of the EU, the US and
California. D. Vogel and J. Swinnen, eds. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. pp. 83-101.
Kondolf, G.M. and Piégay, H. 2010. Geomorphology and society. Chapter 6Hin andbook of
Geomorphology , K. Gregory, ed., SAGE Publications, London, pp.105-.117
Wohl, E., A. Chin, J. Haltiner, and G.M. Kondolf. 2010. Managing stream morphology with check
dams. In C.C.Garcia and M.A.Lenzi (eds), Check Dams, Morphological Adjustments . Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. pp.135-149.
Kondolf, G.M. 2009. Anenvironmental perspective in city-river relationshipisn. Cities and rivers,
perspectives towards a sustainable partnership ,Livro nº 8 da ColecçãoEpoentes, edições da PARQUE
EXPO, através do Núcleo de Comunicação da Parque EXPO,bL ois.
Kondolf, M. 2009. Rivers, meanders, and memory. pp. 106-119 in M. Treib, edS .,patial Recall,Taylor
& Francis (Routledge)
Church, M., T.P. Burt, V.J. Galay, and G.M. Kondolf. 2009. Rivers. Chapter 4 in O. Slaymaker T.
Spencer, and C. Embleton-Hamann, editorsL ,andscape change in the 21st century , Cambridge
University Press.
Kondolf, G.M., L. A. Mozingo, S. Anderson, and J.R. McBride. 2009. Teaching ecological restoration
of rivers and streams.The Berkeley Chronicle Spring 2009: 171-188.
Kondolf, G.M., and G. Zolezzi. 2008. Reference river ecosystems: historical states, best ecological
potential, andmanagement challenges. pp.1047-1050 inRiver Restoration 2008 ,Proceedings of the
IVth European Center for River Restoration Conference, Venice, June 2008. B. Guimiero, M. Rinadi,
and B. Fokkens, eds.
Eisenstein, W.,andG.M.Kondolf. 2008.Planning waterusein California. Access 33 (Fall 2008):8-17.
Available online: http://www.uctc.net/ acce2033%20-%2003%20-%20Water%20Use%20in%20California.pdf
149Annex 1
5
Kondolf, G.M., J.G. W illiams, T. Horner, and D. Mila2n0.08. Assessing physical quality ofspawning
habitat. pp.249-274 in D. Sear, P. DeVries, and S. Greig (edS.)lmon spawning habitat in rivers:
Physical controls, biological responses, and approaches to remediatio. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 65. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Wohl, E., M. Palmer, and G.M. Kondolf. 2008. River management in the United States. pp. 174-200 in
G.J. Brierly and K.A.Fryirs (eds.) River Futures: An integrative scientific approach to river repair.
Island Press, Washington.
Kondolf, G.M., and C-N. Yang. 2008. Planning river restoration projects: Social and cultural
dimensions. pp.43-60 in D. Sear and S. Darby (eds R.i)ver Restoration: Managing the Uncertainty in
Restoring Physical Habita.t Wiley, Chichester.
Kondolf, G.M. 2006. When dams get old: Dam removal in western North America pp. 373-376 in Lanz,
K., Mueller, L., Rentsch, C., and Schwarzenbach, R. P. ed Ws.:o owns the water ? (Wem gehoert das
Wasser?), Baden, Switzerland, Lars Müller Publishers. 536 pages.
Kondolf, G.M. 2006. River and streamrestoration. InAmerican Planning AssociationPlanning and
urban design standards (pp.122-124). John Wiley &Sons, Hoboken, N.J.
Kondolf, G.M. 2006. Floodplains andriparian corridors. InAmerican PlanninA gssociationPlanning
and urban designstandards (pp.118-121). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.
Kondolf, G.M. 2006. Rivers and streams. In American Planning AssociatiP olanning and urban
design standards (pp.115-117). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.
RECENT TECHNICAL REPORTS
Serra-Llobet, A., G.M. Kondolf, and S. Nicholson. 201W 2.ise Use of Floodplains: Adaptation in
America and Europe . Proceedings from March 2012 workshop (inpreparation)
Simons, C.W., and G.M. Kondolf, editors. 2012. CrossingN s:atural andCultural Values for Sustainable
Development of the Naturtejo Geopar .kInstitute of Urban and Regional Development WorkingPaper
No. 2012-01. University of California, Berkeley A. vailable online at:
ǣȀȀǤǤǤȀ
ȀȀǦʹͲͳʹǦͲͳǤ
Kondolf GM, et al. 2011. Connecting Cairo to the Nile: Renewing life and heritage on the river.
Institute of Urban and Regional Development Working Paper No. 2011-007. University of California,
Berkeley. Available online: http://laep.ced.berkeley.edu/research/cairo/publication/
Stein, ED, K Vyverberg, G M Kondolf, and K Janes. 2011. Episodic stream channels: imperatives for
assessment and environmental planning in California. Proceedings of a special technical whoork,s
November 2010, Costa Mesa, CaliforniaS.outhern CaliforniaCoastal WaterResearch Project Report
No. 0645.
150 Annex 1
6
Kondolf, G.M., K. Podolak, and A. Gaffney (editors). 2010. From High Rise to Coast: Revitalizing
Ribeira da Barcarena. Water Resources Center Report No.210, and Report WP 2010-01, Institute of
UrbanandRegional Development, andInstitute ofEuropean Studies Publication 1102, University of
California, Berkeley. Available online at
http://iurd.berkeley.edu/catng_Paper_T itles/High_Rise_Coast_Revitalizing_Ribeira_dand atarena
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3q77s4ss#page-2
Kondolf, G.M., P. Carling, F. Fruchart, & C. Alford. 2010. Potential Post-Dam Changes in Sediment
Supply and Channel Form in the Lower Mekong River: A Preliminary Assessment. Preparedfor the
Mekong River Commission Secretariat, Vientiane, February 2010
Mekong River Commission. 2009.Design guidelines for Mekong MainstemDams . (contributed
approximately half of this document, specifying approaches for managing sediment in reservoirs)
March 2009.
Kondolf, G.M. 2009. Restoration prospects for the Apalachicola River. Report toAmerican Rivers,
Washington, DC.
Kondolf, G.M. 2009. Guidelines for sand and gravel mining in Korean Rivers. Report submitted to K-
Water (Korean Water Agency), May 2009.
Natali, J., G.M. Kondolf, C. Landeiro, J. Christian-Smith, S. Scheuer, and T. Grantham. 2009. A Living
Mediterranean River: Restoration and Management of the Rio Real in Portugal toAchieve Good
Ecological Condition. Available online at http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrc/contributions/209
Skabelund, L.,G.M. Kondolf, C. Johnson, and A.Bukojemsky. 2009. Successful ecological restoration:
A framework for planning/design professionals. American Association of Landscape Architects,
Washington DC.
H.T. Harvey &Associates, G. M. K ondolf, Geomorph, Blankinship &Associates.2008.Final Colusa
Basin WatershedAssessment.Preparedfor the Colusa o Cunty Resource Conservation District.
Kondolf, G.M., Tompkins, M.R, and McBain & Trush, Inc. 2008. Lower Deer Creek Ecosystem
Restoration andFlood Management: Feasib ility Study and Conceptual Design Project:Geomorphic and
Biological Monitoring Report. Report to Deer Creek Watershed Conservancy, Vina, California.
Grantham, T., J. Christian-Smith, G.M. Kondolf, and S. Scheuer. 2008. A Fresh Perspective for
Managing Waterin California: Insights from Applying the European WaterFramework Directive tothe
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/WRC/ pubs_contri.html#208online:
Kondolf, G. M. and Sitllwater Sciences. 2007. SacramentoRiver Ecological Flows Study: Off-Channel
Habitat Study Results. Technical Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Chico, California by G.
Mathias Kondolf and Sitllwater Sciences,Berkeley, California. Available online at:
http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/erp/sacriverecoflows.asp
Gohar, A., and G.M. Kondolf. 2007. Flooding risks in El-Sheikh el-Shazli. Report to US Agency for
International Development, Cairo, September 2007.
151Annex 1
7
Anderson, S., R. Jencks, G.M. Kondolf, J. Natali, and G. Saraiva. 2007. New life for urban streams:
strategies for revitalizing waterways in the Lisbon metropolitan region. Report published by the
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley, and the Luso-American
Fund forDevelopment, Lisbon, May2007.Online at
http://ies.berkeley.edu/psp/portuguesestudies/research.html#streams
Eisenstein, W., G.M. Kondolf, and J.R.Cain. 2007.ReEnvisioning the delta: alternative futures for the
heart of California. Institute for Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.
Available online athttp://landscape.ced.berkeley.edu/~delta/
National Research Council. 2007H . ydrology, Ecology, andFishes of the Klamath River Basin.
(member of committee, contributed to sections on models, Klamath River, and evaluation of water
balance model andinstream flow model) available online at: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/viewreport.cgi?id=4794
H.T. Harvey and Associates and G. M.oK ndolf. 2006. Stony CreekWatershedAssessment, Volumes I
(Lower Stony Creek Watershed Analysis) and II (Existing Conditions). Report to Glenn County
Resource Conservation District, Willows, California.
National Park Service. 2006. Point Reyes National Seashore Water and Aquatic Resources Stewardship
Plan, Draft. (co-authored with L. Pagano,B.Ketcham, D.Vana-Miller). Point ReyesNational Seashore,
Point Reyes, California.
Kondolf, G.M. 2005. Expert report of ProfessorG. Mathias Kondolf, PhD.Submitted in NRDC etal. vs.
US Bureau of Reclamation. (Assessment of restoration potential of San Joaquin River below Friant
Dam, August 2005)
RECENT AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS
Appointed Clarke Scholar at the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington DC, 2011 and 2012.
Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. Award of Distinction, 2007.
Fulbright Commission, senior scholar researchawardtoconduct researchon environmental river
management in Portugal, University of Lisbon, Mar-May 2001.
Fulbright Commission, senior scholar researchawardtoconduct researchon the Eygues River, France,
1997-1998.
RECENT PROFESSIONAL SYMPOSIA ORGANIZED
Wise Use of Floodplains: Adaptation in America and Europe
March 2012. UC Berkeley. (Organized with Anna-Serra Llobet and Scott Nicholson) This workshop
explored the range of tools available for managing floodplains, from geomorphic risk-informed land-use
policies and setting aside flood bypasses, to structural approaches such as construction of dams and
levees, advancing a framework for ‘wise use’ of floodplains. Focusing onilrient communities and
152 Annex 1
8
sustainable floodplains, the speakers drew examples from large river floodplains (mostly Sacramento
andMississippi River valleys) andfrom constrained urban river floodplains. Speakers included Melissa
Samet,National Wildlife Federation; ChuckShadie, USACEMississippi Valley Division; JohnAndrew
andRod Mayer, California Department of Water Resources;Tim Washburn, Sacramento AreaFlood
Control Agency; John Cain, American Rivers; Graça Saraiva, Technical University of Lisbon; Anna
Serra Llobet, UC Berkeley and formerly EU Commission Brussels; Dale Morris, Embassy of
Netherlands, Washington; Ken Leep, Association of StateoF olplain Managers; Mark Tompkins,
Newfields River Basin Services; JeffRomm, UCBerkeley; Todd Strole, The Nature Conservancy;
Shana Udvardy, American Rivers; Rachael Marzion, Zan Rubin and Raymond Wong, UC Berkeley; Jim
Fielder, Executive DirectorSanta ClaraValleyWaterDistrict; JackCurley, Marin County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District; Ralph Johnson, Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District; MitchAvalon, ContraCostaCounty Flood Control andWaterConservation
District; Bill DeGroot and David Mallory, Denver UrbanDrainage ando Fld Control District; Shana
Udvardy, American Rivers; Len Materman, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority; Liang Xu,
Santa Clara Valley WaterDistrict. http://laep.ced.berkeley.edu/research/floodplains/
Episodic Stream Channels: Imperatives for Assessment and Environmental Planning in Californ .ia
November 2010. Costa Mesa, California. (organized with Kris Vyverberg of the California Department
of Fish and Game and Eric Stein of the Southern California Water Resources ResearchProgram). The
purpose of this symposium was to educate the public and decision makers about the nature and
importance of episodic streams, including ephemeral dryland streamsand Mediterranean-climate
intermittant streams. Speakers: Eric Stein, SCCWRP; Matt Kondolf; Kris Vyverberg, California Dept
of Fish &Game (CDFG); Jonathan Friedman, USGeological Survey; DerekBooth, Stillwater Sciences;
BrianBledsoe, Colorado StateUniv; JeremyLancaster,California Geological Survey; Lainie Levick,
USDA; Sophie Parker, The Nature Conservancy B (TC); BarryHecht, Balance Hydrologics; Laurel
Marcus, California Land Stewardship Institute; Bill Christian, TNC; Tom Spittler, California
Geological Survey; Andy Co llison, Philip Williams and Associates; Katherine Curtis, US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE); Todd Keeler-Wolf, CDFG; Aaron Allen, USACE; Eric Berntsen, California
State WaterResources Control Board; Deborah Hillyard, CDFG. http://episodic.ced.berkeley.edu/
Re-Envisioning the Delta, March 16-17, 2006, University of California, Berkeley. Speakers: Margit
Aramburu, former chair Delta Protection Commission; Ronald Baldwin, San Joaquin County
Emergency Operations; Joseph Bodovitz, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Coastal
Commission; Peter Bosselmann, University of California, Berkeley (UCB); Jennifer Boroke, UCB; John
Cain, NaturalHeritage Institute; MarciCoglianese, formermayor of Rio Vista,former member Delta
Protection Commission; Joseph T.Edmiston, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy; Pllh iyFaber,
University of California Press; DanFarber, UCB Boalt School of Law; Harrison Fraker, UCB; Joseph
Grindstaff, California BayDeltaAuthority; HansJohnson,Public Policy InstituteofCalifornia; Patrick
Johnston, Bay Delta Authority, former state senator; John King, San Francisco Chronicle; Matt Kondolf,
UCB; Keith H. Lichten, P.E., San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board; Louise Mozingo, UCB; Eric
Parfrey, Yolo County Planning Department; Tom Philp, Sacramento Bee;PeteRhoads, South Florida
WaterManagement District; Christine Rosen, UCB HaasSchool of Business; Raymond Seed, UCB; J.
William Thompson, FASLA, Landscape Architecture magazine; Robert Twiss, UCB; Kathleen Van
Velsor, Association of Bay Area Governments; Thomas W. Waters, PE, SES, US Army Corps of
Engineers; Michael Webb,California Building Industry Association; CarolWhiteside, GreatValley
Center;JaneWolff, Washington University; TomZuckerman,University Pacific,formercounsel
Central Delta Water District. Program and publications online http://landscape.ced.berkeley.edu/~delta/
153Annex 1
D ANNY K. H AGANS
PRINCIPAL E ARTH S CIENTIST
SPECIALIZATION : Applied geologyand geomorphology, surface water hydrology,
watershed assessment and restoration, erosion and sediment control, forest roads, Quaternary
stratigraphy
QUALIFICATIONS :
3ULQFLSDO (DUWK6FLHQWLVW▯ 3DFLILF :DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV ,QF▯▯▯▯▯▯-SUHVHQW
*HRORJLVW▯5HGZRRG1DWLRQDO3DUN▯$UFDWD▯&$▯▯▯▯▯-▯▯▯▯
0LQLQJ *HRORJLVW▯:HVWHUQ1XFOHDU &RUS▯▯-HIIHU&LW\▯:<▯▯▯▯▯-▯▯▯▯
*HRORJLVW▯6L[ 5LYHUV1DWLRQO RUHVW▯(XUHND▯&$▯▯▯▯4-▯▯▯▯
%▯6▯▯*HRORJLFDO 6FLHQFHV▯+XPEROGW 6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\▯▯▯▯▯
&HUWLILHG6RLO (URVLRQDQG 6HGLPHQW&RQWURO6SHFLDOLVW ▯4▯4
$GYLVRU\%RDUG▯$UFDWD&RPPXQLW\)RUHVW▯$UFDWD▯&$▯▯▯▯▯-SUHVHQW
0HPEHU: :DWHUVKHG0DQDJHPHQW&RXQFLO
*HRORJLFDO6RFLHW\RI$PHULFD
$PHULFDQ*HRSK\VLFD8 O QLRQ
S UMMARY OF EXPERIENCE :
'DQQ\ +DJDQVKDVH[WHQVLYHH[SHULHQFHLQ FRQGXFWLQJ ODUJHVFDOH▯EDVLQ-ZLGHHURVLRQLQYHQWRULHV DQG
DVVHVVPHQWV▯ DV ZHOO DV LPSOHPHQWLQJZDWHUVKHGUHKDELOLWDWLRQDQG UHVWRUDWLRQSURMHFWVLQ WKHZHVWHUQ8▯6▯
+H KDV ▯▯ \HDUVSURIHVVLRQDOH[SHULHQFHDV D 1DWLRQDO 3DUN6HUYLFH JHRORJLVWDW5HGZRRG1DWLRQDO3DUN▯
&DOLIRUQLD▯ 'XULQJWKLVWLPHKHZRUNHGRQ WKHGHYHORSPHQWDQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHSDUN·VLQWHUQDWLRQDOO\
UHFRJQL]HG ZDWHUVKHGUHKDELOLWDWLRQSURJUDP▯RQ JHRPRUSKLFUHVHDUFKSURMHFWVDQGRQ WHFKQLFDO UHYLHZRI
▯
SULYDWHODQG WLPEHUKDUYHVWLQJ DQGURDGEXLOGLQJ SURSRVDOVLQ WKH▯▯▯ PLRG&UHHNZDWHUVKHG▯ +H
VSHFLILFDOO\ LQYHVWLJDWHGWKHUROHRIIRUHVWODQG XVHDQG URDGFRQVWUXFWLRQRQ HURVLRQDQG VHGLPHQWDWLRQRQ
WKHVHGLPHQWEXGJHWVRIFRDVWDO ZDWHUVKHGVDQG LV FRQVLGHUHGD OHDGLQJH[SHUWLQ WKHVHILHOGV▯
6LQFH MRLQLQJ 3DFLILF:DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHLVQ ▯▯▯▯▯ 0U▯+DJDQV KDVPDQDJHGDQGFRQGXFWHGD ZLGHDUUD\RI
SURMHFWVUHODWHGWRZLOGODQG K\GURORJ\DQG HURVLRQSURFHVVHV▯LQFOXGLQJ VHGLPHQW VRXUFHDVVHVVPHQWVRIRYHU
▯▯▯▯ PL▯RIPDQDJHG IRUHVWODQGDQGHURVLRQLQYHQWRULHV DQG VHGLPHQWUHGXFWLRQSODQVIRUOLWHUDOO\
WKRXVDQGV RIPLOHV RIZLOGODQG IRUHVWURDGV▯UDQFKURDGV▯UXUDOVXEGLYLVLRQ URDGV▯YLQH\DUGURDGV▯SDUNODQG
URDGV▯DQG FRXQW\PDLQWDLQHGSXEOLF URDGV▯+HKDV FRQGXFWHGD QXPEHURIVHGLPHQW VRXUFHLQYHVWLJDWLRQV
IRU IHGHUDODQG VWDWHDJHQFLHV▯LQGXVWULDO IRUHVWODQDQGLQGLYLGXDO SULYDWHODQGRZQHUV▯0U▯+DJDQV
KDV DOVR FRPSOHWHGGR]HQVRIVWXGLHVDQGHURVLRQSUHYHQWLRQSODQVIRUQRUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD ,QGLDQ7ULEHV▯
6WDWH$JHQFLHV▯UXUDOVXEGLYLVLRQV DQG LQGXVWULDODQGQRQ-LQGXVWULDO IRUHVWDQGUDQFKODQGRZQHUV▯0U▯
+DJDQV LV D UHFRJQL]HGDQGOHDGLQJ QDWLRQDO H[SHUWLQ WKHLGHQWLILFDWLRQDQGWUHDWPHQWRIZDWHUVKHGHURVLRQ
DQG VHGLPHQWDWLRQSUREOHPV▯HVSHFLDOO\WKRVHUHODWHGWRODQG PDQDJHPHQWDQGURDGFRQVWUXFWLRQ▯ +HKDV
GHYHORSHGDQG LPSOHPHQWHGQXPHURXVSODQVIRUERWKURDGXSJUDGLQJ DQGURDGGHFRPPLVVLRQLQJSURMHFWV
WKURXJKRXW1RUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD▯ 7KHIRFXVRIWKHVHSULRULWL]HGDFWLRQSODQVUHYROYHVDURXQGZDWHUTXDOLW\
DQG ILVKHULHV SURWHFWLRQDQG UHVWRUDWLRQ▯
0U▯+DJDQV KDVFRQGXFWHGUHVHDUFKDQGSXEOLVKHG DUWLFOHV RQ WKHPDJQLWXGHDQG FDXVHV RIIRUHVWODQG
HURVLRQ▯DQG HVSHFLDOO\RQ WKHHIIHFWVRIODQG XVHRQ HURVLRQUDWHVDQGSURFHVVHV▯DQGFXPXODWLYH ZDWHUVKHG
HIIHFWV▯+H LV FR-DXWKRURIWZR86*63URIHVVLRQDO 3DSHUV▯WKH"Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads”
▯FRPPLVVLRQHGE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQWRI)RUHVWU\DQG WKH8▯6▯6RLO &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH▯▯ &KDSWHU▯▯
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATESINC. D ANNY HAGANS
32▯%R[▯▯▯▯▯▯▯$UFDWD▯▯&$▯▯▯▯▯▯ -4433 3ULQFLSDO (DUWK6FLHQWLVW
▯▯▯▯▯ ▯3▯-▯▯3▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRP page 1
154 Annex 1
RI WKH &')*)LVK+DELWDW 5HVWRUDWLRQ0DQXDO ▯´8SVORSHDVVHVVPHQWDQG UHVWRUDWLRQSUDFWLFHV▯QG
QXPHURXV RWKHUUHSRUWVDQG SDSHUV▯0U▯+DJDQV LV FXUUHQWO\VHUYLQJDV DQ DSSRLQWHGPHPEHURIWKH$UFDWD
&RPPXQLW\)RUHVW$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHHIRUWKH FLW\ RI $UFDWD▯&DOLIRUQLD▯
S ELECTED P UBLICATIONS :
+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯DQG :HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ 0DJQLWXGH▯FDXVHDQGEDVLQ UHVSRQVH WRIOXYLDO HURVLRQ▯5HGZRRG
&UHHNEDVLQ▯ QRUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD:,QWHUQDWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQRI+\GURORJLFDO6FLHQFHV3XEOLFDWLRQ 1R▯▯▯▯▯
S▯ 4▯▯-4▯▯▯
+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯:HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯DQG 0DGHM▯0▯$▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ /RQJ-WHUPRQ-VLWHDQG RII-VLWHHIIHFWVRIORJJLQJDQG
HURVLRQLQ WKH5HGZRRG&UHHN%DVLQ▯1RUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD:1HZ<RUN▯1<▯1DWLRQD& O RXQFLOIRU$LUDQG
6WUHDP,PSURYHPHQW7HFKQLFDO %XOOHWLQ▯ QR▯ 4▯▯▯ S▯ 3▯-▯▯▯
+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯:HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯/HUR\▯7▯+▯▯DQG /HWWRQ▯%▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ ´6WHDOWKVHGLPHQWµ:UHGXFLQJK\GURORJLF
FRQQHFWLYLW\ DQGILQHVHGLPHQWGHOLYHU\IURPURDGV▯DQ HVVHQWLDOFRPSRQHQWWRLPSURYLQJ KDELWDW IRU
&HQWUDO&RDVWVWHHOKHDG>DEV▯@▯▯4$QQXDO6DOPRQLG 5HVWRUDWLRQ&RQIHUHQFH▯6DQWD%DUEDUD▯&$▯
)HEUXDU\▯▯▯▯: 5HGZD\▯&$▯6DOPRQLG 5HVWRUDWLRQ)HGHUDWLRQ▯
:HDYHU▯:▯(▯ DQG +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯ ▯▯▯4▯Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a guide for planning,
designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing 8dsLDK▯&$▯o:a
0HQGRFLQR &RXQW\5HVRXUFH&RQVHUYDWLRQ'LVWULFW▯▯▯▯ S▯
:HDYHU▯:▯(▯DQG +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ Sediment treatments and road restoration: protecting and restoring
watersheds from sediment-related impactsL▯Q +HDOLQJWKHZDWHUVKHG:D JXLGHWRWKHUHVWRUDWLRQRI
ZDWHUVKHGVDQG QDWLYHILVKLQ WKHZHVW▯▯G▯HG▯:(XJHQH▯25▯3DFLILF 5LYHUV&RXQFLO▯FKDS▯4▯S▯
▯▯▯-▯4▯▯
:HDYHU▯:▯(▯DQG +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯▯▯▯4▯Road upgrading, decommissioning and maintenance: estimating
costs on small and large scale▯sLQ $OOHQ▯ 6▯7▯▯7KRPVRQ▯&▯▯DQG &DUOVRQ▯ 5▯▯HGV▯▯6DOPRQ +DELWDW
5HVWRUDWLRQ&RVW:RUNVKRS* ▯ ODGVWRQH▯ 25▯1RYHPEHU▯4-▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ 3URFHHGLQJ:V3RUWODQ▯ 5▯
3DFLILF 6WDWHV0DULQH)LVKHULHV&RPPLVVLRQ▯S▯▯▯-▯▯3▯
:HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯DQG 3RSHQRH▯-▯+▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ Magnitude and cause of gully erosion in the lower
Redwood Creek drainage b,FKDS▯,▯in1RODQ▯ .▯0▯▯.HOVH\▯+▯0▯▯DQG 0DUURQ▯'▯&▯▯
*HRPRUSKLFSURFHVVDQGDTXDWLFKDELWDW LQ WKH5HGZRRG&UHHNEDVLQ▯QRUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD:8▯6▯
*HRORJLFDO 6XUYH\ 3URIHVVLRQDO3DSHU▯4▯4▯S▯,▯-,▯▯▯
:HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯:HSSQHU▯(▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ Part X: Upslope erosion inventory and sediment control
guidance▯LQ )ORVL▯ *▯▯'RZQLH▯6▯▯HWDO▯▯HGV▯▯&DOLIRUQLD VDOPRQLGVWUHDP KDELWDWUHVWRUDWLRQ
PDQXDO▯ 3G▯HG▯:6DFUDPHQWR▯ &$▯&DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG*DPH▯▯▯▯ S▯
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATES INC. D ANNY HAGANS
32 %R[ 4433 $UFDWD▯ &$ ▯▯▯▯▯ -4433 3ULQFLSDO (DUWK6FLHQWLVW
▯▯▯▯▯ ▯3▯-▯▯3▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRP page 2
155Annex 1
W ILLIAM E. W EAVER
CEO, PRINCIPAL GEOMORPHOLOGIST
S PECIALIZATION : Process geomorphology, erosion and sedimentation processes, hydrology,
watershed assessment, erosion control BMPs, forest roads, road upgrading and closure
QUALIFICATIONS :
&(2▯3ULQFLSDO *HRPRUSKRORJLVW▯3DFLILF :DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯▯1▯8▯-SUHVHQW
(QJLQHHULQJ *HRORJLVW▯5HGZRRG1DWLRQDO3DUN▯$UFDWD▯&$▯ 1▯▯▯-1▯8▯
3K▯'▯▯&RORUDGR6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\▯1▯8▯
%▯6▯▯*HRORJLFDO6FLHQFHV▯8QLYHUVLW\RI:DVKLQJWRQ▯1▯▯3
:DVKLQJWRQ5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW▯▯▯14
:DVKLQJWRQ5HJLVWHUHG(QJLQHHULQJ*HRORJLVW▯▯▯14
$GMXQFW3URIHVVRU▯+XPEROGW 6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\▯1▯88-SUHVHQW
%RDUGRI 'LUHFWRUV▯+XPEROGW &RXQW\5HVRXUF&RQVHUYDWLRQ'LVWULFW▯(XUHND▯&$▯ 1▯▯4-▯▯▯▯
6FLHQWLILF $GYLVRU\3DQHO▯&DOLIRUQLD &RDVWDO6DOPRQ,QLWLDWLYH▯ &$5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\▯ 1▯▯▯-▯▯
&DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH%RDUGRI)RUHVWU\7DVN )RUFHRQ IRUHVWURDGFRQVWUXFWLRQRQ ODQGV▯▯88-8▯
&RDVW )RUHVW'LVWULFW 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHHWRWKH&DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH%RDUGRI)RUHVWU\▯1▯▯▯-1▯85
S UMMARY OF EXPERIENCE :
:LOOLDP :HDYHUKDVPRUHWKDQ 3▯ \HDUVRISURIHVVLRQDOH[SHULHQFHLQ WKHILHOGV RISURFHVVJHRPRUSKRORJ\▯
VXUIDFH ZDWHUK\GURORJ\▯ZDWHUVKHGPDQDJHPHQWDQGHQJLQHHULQJJHRORJ\▯6LQFH IRUPLQJ3DFLILF:DWHUVKHG
$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯LQ 1▯8▯▯KLV ZRUNKDVIRFXVHGRQ IRUHVWJHRPRUSKRORJ\DQGWKHK\GURORJLFDQGFXPXODWLYHHIIHFWV
RI ODQG PDQDJHPHQWDQG URDGVRQ IRUHVWHGZDWHUVKHGV▯JHRPRUSKLFSURFHVVHVDQGZHWODQGVHFRV\VWHPV▯
5HFHQWO\ KLV ZRUNKDVFRQFHQWUDWHGRQ ZDWHUTXDOLW\SURWHFWLRQ▯HURVLRQFRQWURO▯DQG ILVKHULHVUHVWRUDWLRQ
DFKLHYHGWKURXJKVHGLPHQWVRXUFHLQYHVWLJDWLRQV▯DV ZHOO DV WKHHYDOXDWLRQ▯SODQQLQJ DQGGHVLJQLQJRIZDWHUVKHG
UHKDELOLWDWLRQ DQGVHGLPHQW FRQWURODFWLYLWLHVLQ VWHHSODQGGUDLQDJHEDVLQV▯ $V WKHSULQFLSDO (QJLQHHULQJ *HRORJLVW
DW5HGZRRG1DWLRQDO3DUNIRU13 \HDUV▯'U▯:HDYHUZDV LQVWUXPHQWDOLQ GHVLJQLQJL▯QLWLDWLQJ▯DQG PRQLWRULQJ WKH
LQWHUQDWLRQDOO\ UHFRJQL]HGZDWHUVKHGUHKDELOLWDWLRQDQGHURVLRQFRQWUROSURJUDPFRYHULQJWKHSDUNDQGWKH▯8▯
PL ▯5HGZRRG&UHHNZDWHUVKHG▯
'U▯ :HDYHUKDV VHUYHGRQ D QXPEHURIWDVN IRUFHVDQG WHFKQLFDO FRPPLWWHHVDSSRLQWHGE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH
%RDUGRI )RUHVWU\WR HYDOXDWHDQG UHFRPPHQGFKDQJHV WRWKH&DOLIRUQLD )RUHVW3UDFWLFH 5HJXODWLRQVFRYHULQJ
WLPEHUKDUYHVW DQG URDGEXLOGLQJ RQ SULYDWHIRUHVWODQGV▯'U▯:HDYHULV FRQVLGHUHG D OHDGLQJ QDWLRQDO H[SHUWLQ
WKHILHOG RI VWHHSODQG HURVLRQSURFHVVHV▯WKHLPSDFWV RIURDGFRQVWUXFWLRQRQ ZDWHUVKHGHURVLRQDQG VHGLPHQWDWLRQ
SURFHVVHV▯ WKHHIIHFWVRIODQG PDQDJHPHQWRQ ZDWHUVKHGVHGLPHQW\LHOG▯DQG WKHGHVLJQDQGFRQWURORIURDG-
UHODWHGHURVLRQSURFHVVHVLQ VWHHS▯IRUHVWHGHQYLURQPHQWVDQG ZLOGODQG ZDWHUVKHGV
'U▯ :HDYHULV FR-DXWKRURID ERRNSXEOLVKHG E\0F*UDZ-+LOORQ H[SHULPHQWDOJHRPRUSKRORJ\DQGKDVDXWKRUHG
D QXPEHURI SXEOLFDWLRQV RQ JHRPRUSKRORJ\▯ZDWHUVKHG DVVHVVPHQWWHFKQLTXHV▯DQG VWHHS-ODQGHURVLRQ
SUHYHQWLRQSUDFWLFHV▯ +LVSXEOLFDWLRQV LQFOXGH D FKDSWHURQ IRUHVWODQGJXOO\ HURVLRQLQ 8▯6▯*HRORJLFDO 6XUYH\
3URIHVVLRQDO3DSHU1454▯WKHHandbook for Forest and Ranch Roads▯D WHFKQLFDO ILHOG JXLGHFRPPLVVLRQHGE\WKH
&DOLIRUQLD 'HSWRI)RUHVWU\DQG )LUH3URWHFWLRQDQGWKH8▯6▯1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH▯ DQGPart X:
Upslope erosion inventory and sediment control guidancIeURPWKH&DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG *DPHCalifornia
P ACIFIW ATERSHED ASSOCIATESINC. W ILLIAME. WEAVER
32 %R[ 4433 $UFDWD▯ &$ ▯5518-4433 &(2▯ 3ULQFLSDO*HRPRUSKRORJLVW
▯▯▯▯▯ 83▯-513▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRP page 1
156 W ILLIAM E. W EAVER
CEO, PRINCIPAL GEOMORPHOLOGIST E
Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manua(l3 HGLWLRQ▯▯ 7KUHHDGGLWLRQDO SXEOLFDWLRQV▯ Storm- proofing Forest Road▯s
S PECIALIZATION : Process geomorphology, erosion and sedimentation processes, hydrology, Sediment Treatments and Road Restoration
on Small and Large ScaleS
watershed assessment, erosion control BMPs, forest roads, road upgrading and closure
ZKLFK KDYH EHHQDSSOLHG WRURDGXSJUDGLQJ▯GHFRPPLVVLRQLQJD
ZDWHUVKHGVRIWKH3DFLILF 1RUWKZHVW▯
QUALIFICATIONS :
&(2▯3ULQFLSDO *HRPRUSKRORJLVW▯3DFLILF :DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯▯1▯8▯-SUHVHQW )LQDOO\▯ 'U▯:HDYHULV DOVR D OHDGLQJ H[SHUWDQG WHFKQLFDOWUDLQHULQ WKHILHOGV RIHURVLRQDQG VHGLPHQWDWLRQ▯
(QJLQHHULQJ *HRORJLVW▯5HGZRRG1DWLRQDO3DUN▯$UFDWD▯&$▯ 1▯▯▯-1▯8▯
HURVLRQFRQWURO▯ZDWHUTXDOLW\SURWHFWLRQDQGWKHPDQDJHPHQWRIVHGLPHQW VRXUFHVLQ ZLOGODQG ZDWHUVKHGVDQG
DORQJSXEOLF DQGSULYDWHURDGV▯+HFRQGXFWV QXPHURXV WHFKQLFDOWUDLQLQJVHVVLRQV DQGZRUNVKRSV
3K▯'▯▯&RORUDGR6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\▯1▯8▯ SURFHVVHVDQGQRQ-SRLQWVHGLPHQWFRQWURODFURVVWKHVWDWHHDFK\HDU▯'U▯:HDYHULV UHFRJQL]HGIRUKLV DELOLW\ WR
%▯6▯▯*HRORJLFDO6FLHQFHV▯8QLYHUVLW\RI:DVKLQJWRQ▯1▯▯3
SUHSDUHDQG SUHVHQWWHFKQLFDO▯ VFLHQFH-EDVHGZRUNVKRSV
WHFKQLFDO DQG QRQ-WHFKQLFDODXGLHQFHV▯LQFOXGLQJ ODQGRZQHUVH▯TXLSPHQWRSHUDWRUV▯ODQGPDQDJHUV▯UHJXODWRU\
:DVKLQJWRQ5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW▯▯▯14 SHUVRQQHO▯ HQYLURQPHQWDOLVWVD▯QGRWKHUVFLHQWLVWV DQGFRQVXOWDQWV▯
:DVKLQJWRQ5HJLVWHUHG(QJLQHHULQJ*HRORJLVW▯▯▯14
$GMXQFW3URIHVVRU▯+XPEROGW 6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\▯1▯88-SUHVHQW S
%RDUGRI 'LUHFWRUV▯+XPEROGW &RXQW\5HVRXUFH&RQVHUYDWLRQ'LVWULFW▯(XUHND▯&$▯ 1▯▯4-▯▯▯▯
:HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯ +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯:HSSQHU▯(▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ Part X: Upslope erosion inventory and sediment control
6FLHQWLILF $GYLVRU\3DQHO▯&DOLIRUQLD &RDVWDO6DOPRQ,QLWLDWLYH▯ &$5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\▯ 1▯▯▯-▯▯
&DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH%RDUGRI)RUHVWU\7DVN )RUFHRQ IRUHVWURDGFRQVWUXFWLRQRQ ODQGVOL▯▯88-8▯
&RDVW )RUHVW'LVWULFW 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHHWRWKH&DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH%RDUGRI)RUHVWU\▯1▯▯▯-1▯85
:HDYHU▯:▯:▯▯*HUVWHLQ▯-▯0▯▯DQG +DUULV▯5▯5▯▯▯▯▯5▯Monitoring the effectiveness of upland restoration
S UMMARY OF E XPERIENCE :
:LOOLDP :HDYHUKDVPRUHWKDQ 3▯ \HDUVRISURIHVVLRQDOH[SHULHQFHLQ WKHILHOGV RISURFHVVJHRPRUSKRORJ\▯
VXUIDFH ZDWHUK\GURORJ\▯ZDWHUVKHGPDQDJHPHQWDQGHQJLQHHULQJJHRORJ\▯6LQFH IRUPLQJ3DFLILF:DWHUVKHG :HDYHU▯:▯(▯DQG +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯▯▯▯4▯Road upgrading, decommissioning and maintenance: estimating costs on
$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯LQ 1▯8▯▯KLV ZRUNKDVIRFXVHGRQ IRUHVWJHRPRUSKRORJ\DQGWKHK\GURORJLFDQGFXPXODWLYHHIIHFWV
RI ODQG PDQDJHPHQWDQG URDGVRQ IRUHVWHGZDWHUVKHGV▯JHRPRUSKLFSURFHVVHVDQGZHWODQGVHFRV\VWHPV▯
5HFHQWO\ KLV ZRUNKDVFRQFHQWUDWHGRQ ZDWHUTXDOLW\SURWHFWLRQ▯HURVLRQFRQWURO▯DQG ILVKHULHVUHVWRUDWLRQ
DFKLHYHGWKURXJKVHGLPHQWVRXUFHLQYHVWLJDWLRQV▯DV ZHOO DV WKHHYDOXDWLRQ▯SODQQLQJ DQGGHVLJQLQJRIZDWHUVKHG
:HDYHU▯:▯(▯ DQG +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯ 1 ▯▯▯▯ Storm-proofing forest roads▯ LQ 6HVVLRQV▯ -▯▯ DQG &KXQJ▯ :▯▯
UHKDELOLWDWLRQ DQGVHGLPHQW FRQWURODFWLYLWLHVLQ VWHHSODQGGUDLQDJHEDVLQV▯ $V WKHSULQFLSDO (QJLQHHULQJ *HRORJLVW
DW5HGZRRG1DWLRQDO3DUNIRU13 \HDUV▯'U▯:HDYHUZDV LQVWUXPHQWDOLQ GHVLJQLQJL▯QLWLDWLQJ▯DQG PRQLWRULQJ WKH
LQWHUQDWLRQDOO\ UHFRJQL]HGZDWHUVKHGUHKDELOLWDWLRQDQGHURVLRQFRQWUROSURJUDPFRYHULQJWKHSDUNDQGWKH▯8▯
▯
PL 5HGZRRG&UHHNZDWHUVKHG▯ :HDYHU▯:▯(▯DQG +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯ 1▯▯▯▯ Sediment treatments and road restoration: protecting and restoring
'U▯ :HDYHUKDV VHUYHGRQ D QXPEHURIWDVN IRUFHVDQG WHFKQLFDO FRPPLWWHHVDSSRLQWHGE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH
%RDUGRI )RUHVWU\WR HYDOXDWHDQG UHFRPPHQGFKDQJHV WRWKH&DOLIRUQLD )RUHVW3UDFWLFH 5HJXODWLRQVFRYHULQJ :HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯DQG 3RSHQRH▯-▯+▯▯ 1▯▯▯▯ Magnitude and cause of gully erosion in the lower
WLPEHUKDUYHVW DQG URDGEXLOGLQJ RQ SULYDWHIRUHVWODQGV▯'U▯:HDYHULV FRQVLGHUHG D OHDGLQJ QDWLRQDO H[SHUWLQ
WKHILHOG RI VWHHSODQG HURVLRQSURFHVVHV▯WKHLPSDFWV RIURDGFRQVWUXFWLRQRQ ZDWHUVKHGHURVLRQDQG VHGLPHQWDWLRQ
SURFHVVHV▯ WKHHIIHFWVRIODQG PDQDJHPHQWRQ ZDWHUVKHGVHGLPHQW\LHOG▯DQG WKHGHVLJQDQGFRQWURORIURDG-
UHODWHGHURVLRQSURFHVVHVLQ VWHHS▯IRUHVWHGHQYLURQPHQWVDQG ZLOGODQG ZDWHUVKHGV
PDFLILF :DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV(P:$▯▯1▯▯4▯Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a guide for planning,
'U▯ :HDYHULV FR-DXWKRURID ERRNSXEOLVKHG E\0F*UDZ-+LOORQ H[SHULPHQWDOJHRPRUSKRORJ\DQGKDVDXWKRUHG
D QXPEHURI SXEOLFDWLRQV RQ JHRPRUSKRORJ\▯ZDWHUVKHG DVVHVVPHQWWHFKQLTXHV▯DQG VWHHS-ODQGHURVLRQ
SUHYHQWLRQSUDFWLFHV▯ +LVSXEOLFDWLRQV LQFOXGH D FKDSWHURQ IRUHVWODQGJXOO\ HURVLRQLQ 8▯6▯*HRORJLFDO 6XUYH\ :HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯6RQQHYLO▯ 5▯$▯▯DQG .OHLQ▯ 5▯'▯▯ 1▯8▯▯Field methods used for monitoring erosion and
3URIHVVLRQDO3DSHU1454▯WKHHandbook for Forest and Ranch Roads▯D WHFKQLFDO ILHOG JXLGHFRPPLVVLRQHGE\WKH
&DOLIRUQLD 'HSWRI)RUHVWU\DQG )LUH3URWHFWLRQDQGWKH8▯6▯1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH▯ DQGPart X:
Upslope erosion inventory and sediment control guidancIeURPWKH&DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG *DPHCalifornia
PACIFICW ATERSHED A SSOCIATESINC. W ILLIAM E. WEAVER
32 %R[ 4433 $UFDWD▯ &$ ▯5518-4433 &(2▯ 3ULQFLSDO*HRPRUSKRORJLVW
▯▯▯▯▯ 83▯-513▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRP page 1 PACIFIC
32 %R[ 4433 $UFDWD▯ &$ ▯5518-4433
▯▯▯▯▯ 83▯-513▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRPAnnex 1
E ILEEN W EPPNER
SENIOR GEOLOGIST
SPECIALIZATION : Fluvial geomorphology, Quaternary geology, sedimentology, paleontology,
watershed restoration, road erosion and sediment control, GIS, QA/QC, project management
QUALIFICATIONS :
6HQLRU*HRORJLVW▯:DWHUVKHG'LYLVLRQ 0DQDJHU▯PDFLILF:DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯▯▯▯▯▯-SUHVHQW
6WDII*HRPRUSKRORJLVW▯ PURMHFW*HRORJLVW▯ PDFLILF :DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯▯1▯▯3-▯▯▯▯
5HVHDUFK DQG7HDFKLQJ $VVLVWDQW▯+XPEROGW 6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\▯1▯▯▯-1▯▯4
5HVHDUFK$VVLVWDQW▯+XPEROGW (DUWKTXDNH(GXFDWLRQ &HQWHU▯1▯▯3-1▯▯5
0▯6▯(QYLURQPHQWDO 6\VWHPV *HRORJ\▯+XPEROGW 6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\ (SHQGLQJWKHVLV▯
%▯$▯▯*HRORJ\▯6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\ RI1HZ<RUNDW%XIIDOR▯1▯8▯
&DOLIRUQLD 5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW ▯▯58▯
:DVKLQJWRQ5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW▯1▯▯4
2UHJRQ5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW -SHQGLQJ
$GYDQFHG$UFYLHZ▯6SDWLDO $QDO\VW▯▯▯▯▯
&R-DXWKRU▯Part X: Upslope erosion inventory and sediment cone DOLIRUQLD6DOPRQLG 6WUHDP+DELWDW
5HVWRUDWLRQ0DQXDO▯3 HG▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
S UMMARY OF EXPERIENCE :
0V▯:HSSQHUKDV EHHQD OHDGJHRORJLVWIRUWKH:DWHUVKHG$VVHVVPHQWDQG5HVWRUDWLRQ'LYLVLRQ RI PDFLILF
:DWHUVKHG $VVRFLDWHV,QF▯(P:$▯VLQFH ▯▯▯▯▯ 6KHLV FRQVLGHUHGD OHDGLQJUHJLRQDOH[SHUWLQ WKHDVVHVVPHQW RI
URDG-UHODWHGHURVLRQSUREOHPV▯GHYHORSPHQWRIHURVLRQFRQWURODQGHURVLRQSUHYHQWLRQSODQV▯DQG WKH
LPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIODUJHVFDOH VHGLPHQWFRQWUROSURMHFWVIRUURDGV\VWHPVLQ VWHHSIRUHVWHGZDWHUVKHGV▯
0V▯:HSSQHU·V SURIHVVLRQDHO[SHULHQFHLQFOXGHV H[WHQVLYHZRUNRQ ZDWHUVKHGDQDO\VHVDQG 7RWDO0D[LPXP
'DLO\ /RDG (70'/▯VWXGLHVIRUWKH86(QYLURQPHQW PURWHFWLRQ$JHQF\LQ D QXPEHURIODUJH&DOLIRUQLD
ZDWHUVKHGV▯)RUWKHVHSURMHFWVVKH KDVEHHQWKHOHDGRQ VDPSOLQJ VWUDWHJ\GHYHORSPHQW▯VWDWLVWLFDODQDO\VLV▯
DQG TXDOLW\ FRQWURODQGTXDOLW\DVVXUDQFHIRUDLUSKRWRDQDO\VHV DQG ILHOG LQYHQWRULHVRIERWKVWUHDP FKDQQHO
DQG XSVORSH HURVLRQDOVHGLPHQWVRXUFHV▯0V▯:HSSQHU DOVR KDVH[WHQVLYHH[SHULHQFHLQ FKDQQHO PRQLWRULQJ
WHFKQLTXHV▯LQFOXGLQJ VWUHDP FKDQQHOVXUYH\LQJ(SURILOHV▯ FURVVVHFWLRQV DQG WDJ-OLQHV▯▯ VHGLPHQWVDPSOLQJ▯
VFRXUFKDLQLQVWDOODWLRQ▯ DQG SKRWRSRLQWGRFXPHQWDWLRQ▯6KHKDVSURYLGHGWHFKQLFDO H[SHUWLVHWRSURMHFWV
FRQFHUQHGZLWK D UDQJHRIVWUHDP FKDQQHO W\SHVDQGVFDOHV▯UDQJLQJ IURPSUH-DQG SRVW-H[FDYDWLRQVXUYH\LQJ
DQG PRQLWRULQJRIVPDOO-VFDOHUHVWRUDWLRQVLWHVWRJHRPRUSKLFFKDQQHO PRQLWRULQJWRHYDOXDWHWKHLPSDFWV RI
GDPFRQVWUXFWLRQ▯
$V 6HQLRU*HRORJLVWDQG 0DQDJHURIWKH P:$:DWHUVKHG'LYLVLRQ▯ 0V▯:HSSQHU FXUUHQWO\RYHUVHHV
DSSUR[LPDWHO\ ▯▯ IXOOWLPHSURIHVVLRQDODQGWHFKQLFDOSHUVRQQHOLQYROYHGLQ DSSOLHG UHVHDUFKDQGVHGLPHQW
FRQWUROSURMHFWV▯DQG LV UHVSRQVLEOHIRUD IXOOUDQJHRI DFWLYLWLHV UHTXLUHGIRUFRQGXFWLQJ ZDWHUVKHGLQYHQWRULHVDQG
DVVHVVPHQWV IRUXSODQG HURVLRQSUHYHQWLRQDQGHURVLRQFRQWURO▯7KLVLQFOXGHV DQDO\]LQJ DQGGHYHORSLQJ
SUHVFULSWLRQVIRUHURVLRQSUHYHQWLRQWUHDWPHQWV▯GHWHUPLQLQJ FRVW-HIIHFWLYHQHVVRIHURVLRQUHPHGLDWLRQ▯ILQDOL]LQJ
SURMHFWOD\RXW▯VXSHUYLVLQJ KHDY\HTXLSPHQWRSHUDWLRQV▯DQG PDQDJLQJSRVW-SURMHFWGRFXPHQWDWLRQDQG
PRQLWRULQJ▯2WKHUGXWLHVLQFOXGH RYHUVLJKW▯TXDOLW\FRQWURODQG TXDOLW\ DVVXUDQFH▯ UHSRUWZULWLQJ▯ SURSRVDO
ZULWLQJ▯ DQG SXEOLFRXWUHDFKIRUZDWHUVKHG UHODWHGSURMHFWV▯,QDGGLWLRQ▯VKHDOVR RYHUVHHVDOO DVSHFWVRI*,6DQG
GDWDEDVH DSSOLFDWLRQV DW P:$▯$V RQHRI P:$·VOHDGLQJ WHFKQLFDO H[SHUWV▯0V▯:HSSQHUDOVR KDVH[SHULHQFH
SUHVHQWLQJWHFKQLFDOWUDLQLQJ VHVVLRQVDQGSXEOLF ZRUNVRQ WRSLFV UHODWHGWRURDGPDQDJHPHQW▯URDG-UHODWHG
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATESINC. E ILEENW EPPNER
P2 %R[ 4433 $UFDWD▯ &$ ▯5518-4433 6HQLRU *HRORJLVW
(▯▯▯▯ 83▯-513▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRP page 1
158 E ILEEN W EPPNER EXPERIENCE
SENIOR GEOLOGIST HURVLRQSURFHVVHV▯ DQGHURVLRQDQGVHGLPHQWFRQWUROIURPSXEOLF DQGSULYDWHURDGV\VWHPV▯6KHLV VNLOOHGLQ
ZRUNLQJ ZLWK ODUJHJURXSVRIGLYHUVHLQGLYLGXDOVDQGLQ FOHDUO\ FRPPXQLFDWLQJ FRPSOLFDWHG WRSLFV▯
S PECIALIZATION : Fluvial geomorphology, Quaternary geology, sedimentology, paleontology,
watershed restoration, road erosion and sediment control, GIS, QA/QC, project management 2QHRI WKH PRVWUHFHQWSURMHFWVPDQDJHG E\0V▯:HSSQHULV WKH´▯▯1▯-▯▯1▯6XFNHU &UHHN6HGLPHQW6RXUFH
$VVHVVPHQWDQG 6HGLPHQW&RQWUROPODQ▯5RJXH5LYHU-6LVNL\RX 1DWLRQDO )RUHVW▯-RVHSKLQH &RXQW\▯2UHJRQµ
FRQGXFWHGLQ ▯▯▯▯-▯▯1▯ DQG▯▯11-▯▯1▯IRUWKH PDFLILF 5LYHUV&RXQFLODQGWKH86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH▯
5RJXH5LYHU-6LVNL\RX 1DWLRQDO)RUHVW▯7KHWZRSURMHFWVLQYROYHGD ILHOG EDVHG´IRUZDUG-ORRNLQJµHURVLRQ
QUALIFICATIONS : DVVHVVPHQW RIRYHU▯▯▯ PLRI IRUHVWURDGVZLWKLQ WKHSRUWLRQRIWKH5RJXH5LYHU-6LVNL\RX 1DWLRQDO)RUHVW(5561)▯
6HQLRU*HRORJLVW▯:DWHUVKHG'LYLVLRQ 0DQDJHU▯PDFLILF:DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯▯▯▯▯▯-SUHVHQW ORFDWHG LQ WKH6XFNHU DQG *UD\EDFN&UHHNZDWHUVKHGV▯-RVHSKHQH&RXQW\▯2UHJRQ▯)LQDOZRUNSURGXFWV LQFOXGHG
DQ DQDO\VLV RIWKHURDGVZLWKLQWKH*UD\EDFN &UHHNZDWHUVKHG E\DJHDQG JHRPRUSKLFORFDWLRQ▯VXPPDU\RIILHOG
6WDII*HRPRUSKRORJLVW▯ PURMHFW*HRORJLVW▯ PDFLILF :DWHUVKHG$VVRFLDWHV,QF▯▯1▯▯3-▯▯▯▯
5HVHDUFK DQG7HDFKLQJ $VVLVWDQW▯+XPEROGW 6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\▯1▯▯▯-1▯▯4 LGHQWLILHGURDGUHODWHGHURVLRQDQGVHGLPHQWGHOLYHU\ SUREOHPV▯GHYHORSPHQWRID SULRULWL]HGVLWHVSHFLILF HURVLRQ
5HVHDUFK$VVLVWDQW▯+XPEROGW (DUWKTXDNH(GXFDWLRQ &HQWHU▯1▯▯3-1▯▯5 SUHYHQWLRQSODQ LQFOXGLQJ WUHDWPHQWVDQGSUHVFULSWLRQV IRUUHGXFLQJFKURQLFVHGLPHQW GHOLYHU\▯2YHU▯5▯ VLWHV
ZHUHLGHQWLILHGDQG SUHVFULEHGIRUHURVLRQDQGVHGLPHQWFRQWUROWKURXJKERWKURDGXSJUDGLQJ DQG URDG
0▯6▯(QYLURQPHQWDO 6\VWHPV *HRORJ\▯+XPEROGW 6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\ (SHQGLQJWKHVLV▯
GHFRPPLVVLRQLQJ WUHDWPHQWV▯7KHILQDOUHSRUWDOVR LQFOXGHG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUGHYHORSLQJD WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ
%▯$▯▯*HRORJ\▯6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\ RI1HZ<RUNDW%XIIDOR▯1▯8▯ SODQ IRUWKH*UD\EDFN &UHHNZDWHUVKHGWKDWLV DLPHGDWLGHQWLI\LQJ WKHORQJWHUPURDGQHWZRUNWKDWZLOO EH
UHWDLQHGIRUPDQDJHPHQWDQGSXEOLFDFFHVV▯DV ZHOO DV WKRVHURDGVWKDWDUHHLWKHUXQQHHGHGIRUPDQDJHPHQWRU
&DOLIRUQLD 5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW ▯▯58▯
:DVKLQJWRQ5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW▯1▯▯4 UHSUHVHQWD KLJKULVNIRUIXWXUH VHGLPHQWLPSDFWV WRGRZQVWUHDPDTXDWLF UHVRXUFHVDQG ZDWHUTXDOLW\▯
2UHJRQ5HJLVWHUHG*HRORJLVW -SHQGLQJ
SELECTED
$GYDQFHG$UFYLHZ▯6SDWLDO $QDO\VW▯▯▯▯▯
:HSSQHU▯(LOHHQ0▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ &RPSDULVRQRIVORSHVWDELOLW\PRGHOVGHULYHGIURP1P'(0▯)UHVKZDWHU&UHHNDQG
&R-DXWKRU▯Part X: Upslope erosion inventory and sediment conte DOLIRUQLD6DOPRQLG 6WUHDP+DELWDW
5HVWRUDWLRQ0DQXDO▯3 HG▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
S UMMARY OF EXPERIENCE : :DWW▯&▯/▯▯+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯:HSSQHU▯ (▯0▯▯DQG /HZ▯:▯5▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ 5RDG-UHODWHGVHGLPHQWGHOLYHU\YROXPHVGHULYHG
0V▯:HSSQHUKDV EHHQD OHDGJHRORJLVWIRUWKH:DWHUVKHG$VVHVVPHQWDQG5HVWRUDWLRQ'LYLVLRQ RI PDFLILF
:DWHUVKHG $VVRFLDWHV,QF▯(P:$▯VLQFH ▯▯▯▯▯ 6KHLV FRQVLGHUHGD OHDGLQJUHJLRQDOH[SHUWLQ WKHDVVHVVPHQW RI
URDG-UHODWHGHURVLRQSUREOHPV▯GHYHORSPHQWRIHURVLRQFRQWURODQGHURVLRQSUHYHQWLRQSODQV▯DQG WKH
LPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIODUJHVFDOH VHGLPHQWFRQWUROSURMHFWVIRUURDGV\VWHPVLQ VWHHSIRUHVWHGZDWHUVKHGV▯ :HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯+DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯:HSSQHU▯(▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ Part X: Upslope erosion inventory and sediment control guidan▯cLeQ
0V▯:HSSQHU·V SURIHVVLRQDHO[SHULHQFHLQFOXGHV H[WHQVLYHZRUNRQ ZDWHUVKHGDQDO\VHVDQG 7RWDO0D[LPXP
'DLO\ /RDG (70'/▯VWXGLHVIRUWKH86(QYLURQPHQW PURWHFWLRQ$JHQF\LQ D QXPEHURIODUJH&DOLIRUQLD
/HUR\▯7▯+▯▯:HDYHU▯:▯(▯▯:HSSQHU▯ (▯0▯▯DQG .UDHPHU▯7▯:▯▯▯▯▯5▯(YDOXDWLRQ RIVWUHDP FURVVLQJ
ZDWHUVKHGV▯)RUWKHVHSURMHFWVVKH KDVEHHQWKHOHDGRQ VDPSOLQJ VWUDWHJ\GHYHORSPHQW▯VWDWLVWLFDODQDO\VLV▯
DQG TXDOLW\ FRQWURODQGTXDOLW\DVVXUDQFHIRUDLUSKRWRDQDO\VHV DQG ILHOG LQYHQWRULHVRIERWKVWUHDP FKDQQHO
DQG XSVORSH HURVLRQDOVHGLPHQWVRXUFHV▯0V▯:HSSQHU DOVR KDVH[WHQVLYHH[SHULHQFHLQ FKDQQHO PRQLWRULQJ
WHFKQLTXHV▯LQFOXGLQJ VWUHDP FKDQQHOVXUYH\LQJ(SURILOHV▯ FURVVVHFWLRQV DQG WDJ-OLQHV▯▯ VHGLPHQWVDPSOLQJ▯ :HSSQHU▯(▯0▯▯DQG +DJDQV▯ '▯.▯▯▯▯▯5▯0HWKRGRORJ\WRHVWLPDWHVHGLPHQW VRXUFHVIRU7RWDO0D[LPXP'DLO\
VFRXUFKDLQLQVWDOODWLRQ▯ DQG SKRWRSRLQWGRFXPHQWDWLRQ▯6KHKDVSURYLGHGWHFKQLFDO H[SHUWLVHWRSURMHFWV
FRQFHUQHGZLWK D UDQJHRIVWUHDP FKDQQHO W\SHVDQGVFDOHV▯UDQJLQJ IURPSUH-DQG SRVW-H[FDYDWLRQVXUYH\LQJ
DQG PRQLWRULQJRIVPDOO-VFDOHUHVWRUDWLRQVLWHVWRJHRPRUSKLFFKDQQHO PRQLWRULQJWRHYDOXDWHWKHLPSDFWV RI
GDPFRQVWUXFWLRQ▯
:HSSQHU▯(▯0▯▯▯▯▯3▯1HZPHWKRGVIRUGLDJQRVLQJ DQG PDQDJLQJXSVORSH VHGLPHQWVRXUFHVDWWKHZDWHUVKHG
$V 6HQLRU*HRORJLVWDQG 0DQDJHURIWKH P:$:DWHUVKHG'LYLVLRQ▯ 0V▯:HSSQHU FXUUHQWO\RYHUVHHV
DSSUR[LPDWHO\ ▯▯ IXOOWLPHSURIHVVLRQDODQGWHFKQLFDOSHUVRQQHOLQYROYHGLQ DSSOLHG UHVHDUFKDQGVHGLPHQW
FRQWUROSURMHFWV▯DQG LV UHVSRQVLEOHIRUD IXOOUDQJHRI DFWLYLWLHV UHTXLUHGIRUFRQGXFWLQJ ZDWHUVKHGLQYHQWRULHVDQG
DVVHVVPHQWV IRUXSODQG HURVLRQSUHYHQWLRQDQGHURVLRQFRQWURO▯7KLVLQFOXGHV DQDO\]LQJ DQGGHYHORSLQJ
SUHVFULSWLRQVIRUHURVLRQSUHYHQWLRQWUHDWPHQWV▯GHWHUPLQLQJ FRVW-HIIHFWLYHQHVVRIHURVLRQUHPHGLDWLRQ▯ILQDOL]LQJ
SURMHFWOD\RXW▯VXSHUYLVLQJ KHDY\HTXLSPHQWRSHUDWLRQV▯DQG PDQDJLQJSRVW-SURMHFWGRFXPHQWDWLRQDQG
PRQLWRULQJ▯2WKHUGXWLHVLQFOXGH RYHUVLJKW▯TXDOLW\FRQWURODQG TXDOLW\ DVVXUDQFH▯ UHSRUWZULWLQJ▯ SURSRVDO
ZULWLQJ▯ DQG SXEOLFRXWUHDFKIRUZDWHUVKHG UHODWHGSURMHFWV▯,QDGGLWLRQ▯VKHDOVR RYHUVHHVDOO DVSHFWVRI*,6DQG
GDWDEDVH DSSOLFDWLRQV DW P:$▯$V RQHRI P:$·VOHDGLQJ WHFKQLFDO H[SHUWV▯0V▯:HSSQHUDOVR KDVH[SHULHQFH
SUHVHQWLQJWHFKQLFDOWUDLQLQJ VHVVLRQVDQGSXEOLF ZRUNVRQ WRSLFV UHODWHGWRURDGPDQDJHPHQW▯URDG-UHODWHG
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATES INC. E ILEENW EPPNER PACIFIC
P2 %R[ 4433 $UFDWD▯ &$ ▯5518-4433 6HQLRU *HRORJLVW P2 %R[ 4433 $UFDWD▯ &$ ▯5518-4433
(▯▯▯▯ 83▯-513▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRP page 1 (▯▯▯▯ 83▯-513▯ ZZZ▯SDFLILFZDWHUVKHG▯FRP160 Annex 2
Costa Rican Ministry of Environment, Energy and
Telecommunications, National Conservation Area System, Ministry
of Public Works and Transportation, National Road Council, and
National Risk Prevention and Emergency Response Commission,
“Environmental Management Plan: Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road”.
April 2012
161162 Annex 2
▯
W E A R E B U I L D I N G
Government of Costa Ri ac
A S A F E C O U N T R Y
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PLAN ▯
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road▯
▯
▯
▯
Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications
National Conservation Area System
Ministry of Public Works and Transportation
National Road Council
National Risk Prevention and Emergency Response Commission
April 201▯ ▯
▯
163Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
Table of Contents
1. ▯Introduction ........................................................................
.............................................▯... 3
2. ▯Description of Road Construction Project Area ................................................. 4 ▯
3.▯Impact Assessment ........................................................................
.................................. 7 ▯
3.1. ▯ Methodology.............................................................▯...................................................▯............ 7
3.2. ▯ Environmental Impacts Identified Through Visual Assessment and Expert Criteria .............. 9 ▯
3.2.1.▯ Assessing Impacts on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Soils▯................................................▯9▯
3.2.2. Identifying and Assessing Bodies of Water▯...............................................................................▯11▯
3.3 Summarized Impacts and Recommended Environmental Measures.......................................... 19 ▯
3.3.1. WATER RESOURCE▯.........................................................................
...........................................▯19▯
3.3.2 FOREST AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE▯......................................................................................▯21▯
3.3.3 SOIL RESOURCE▯.........................................................................
.................................................▯22▯
3.3.4 AIR RESOURCE▯.................................................................................................
............................▯23▯
3.3.5 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT▯..........................................................................▯24▯
3.3.6 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE▯..............................................................▯26▯
3.3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCE.................................................................................................
▯26▯
4. ▯References 27 ▯
▯
▯
▯
▯ ▯
2▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
164 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
1. Introduction
▯
In response to the emergency declaration issued by the Government of the Republic of
Costa Rica through Executive Decree N° 36440-MS, declaring the counties of La Cruz,
Upala, Los Chiles, Sarapiquí, San Carlos, and Pococí along the bor
der with Nicaragua in a
“State of Emergency” in face of the Nicaraguan Army armed invasion of a portion of Costa
Rican territory, a decision was made to build a road near the border zone in order to
expedite national defense actions, as well as facilitate movements of community members in
the northern border area.
This road infrastructure work, like any other, may have caused some environmental
impacts on Costa Rica’s national territory. Remedial actions are being and will be taken
pursuant to recommendations made by the competent authorities and as part of the activities
inherent to the road project, which is still under construction and at a
comprehensive
improvement stage.
The road under construction is a pioneering infrastructure developed as a result of the
special situation warranting its construction. Recent interventions have led to cross-section
profile improvements; it has a rolling surface made up of materials from its own natural bed.
The area traversed by the road includes grazing land, scrubs, and pastures supporting
cattle ranching, farming, and/or communities or villages where animals have been the main
means of transportation, with four-wheel-drive vehicles being used during some periods of
the year. Additionally, secondary or primary forest patches are also found.
Impact assessment is limited to: 1) the project area (PA) encompassing the development
site, the road infrastructure work and the right-of-way (20 meters); and 2) the direct and
indirect influence areas (DIA and IIA), which are the areas that show direct and indirect
impacts on the environmental component dynamics caused by the activities
to be performed.
3▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
165Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
This Plan makes an objective technical assessment and proposes recovery and
mitigation actions on the environment where impacts might have occurred. This plan does
not make a legal evaluation of the project rationale, which, as mentione
d above, was driven
by the interest of the Republic of Costa Rica to protect its national territorial sovereignty and
security.
2. Description of the Area of the Road Construction Project
Costa Rica is located between 8° and 11° North latitude, and between 82° and 85°
West longitude geographical coordinates. Including island areas, the country covers 51,100
km² (50,660 km² on land and 440 km² on water). Together with Belize and El Salvador, it is
one of the smallest republics in Central America. It borders Nicaragua on the north sharing a
border of approximately 309 km, and Panama on the south along approximately 363 km.
The country’s biodiversity includes a herpetofauna consisting of some 360 species
(150 amphibians ▯and 210 reptiles ), approximately 850 bird species (625 nesting and 225
migratory bird species), and almost 205 mammalian species, including bats and non-flying
mammals.
Costa Rica has a valuable energy source in its extensive hydrological network,
comprised of a large number of rivers flowing to both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific
Ocean. Rivers running to the Caribbean carry a large water volume and are long, navigable,
winding, and likely to overflow during the rainy season. On the other hand, and on account of
mountain ranges being close to the sea, rivers flowing to the Pacific are short, torrential, and
non-navigable.
The project is located in an area that is part of the San Juan River bas
in, specifically
in the Costa Rican sector encompassing northern sub-watershed river basins, which mostly
flow into Lake Nicaragua and cover Los Guatusos plains. The other rivers flow to the San
Juan River running through San Carlos, Santa Clara, and Tortuguero plains and springing
from the Tilarán and Central mountain ranges. The Sapoá and Frío rivers flow into Lake
4▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
166 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
Nicaragua. The San Carlos River is the largest and longest navigable river in the northern
sub-watershed and flows to the San Juan River. The Sarapiquí River is navigable in some
stretches and also runs to the San Juan River, as well as the Chirripo River in the northern
sub-watershed. Hydromorphic environments in the form of wetlands are particularly found on
these plains.
The road building project is located in the country’s northern area that includes vast
plains stretching from the Guanacaste mountain range to a place known as the Delta,
relatively close to the Caribbean Sea although not reaching it. This area with elevations
below 500 meters above sea level is known as San Carlos Plains and it has been accessed
through the San Carlos River, a tributary of the San Juan River. To the north lies the county
of San Carlos and the towns of Upala and Los Chiles, very near the Nicaraguan border. The
main two flatlands in this area are San Carlos Plains and Los Guatusos Plains. The
aforementioned road has an extension of approximately 160 km from the Delta, where the
Colorado River branches off from the San Juan River, to the town of Los Chiles.
Costa Rican geological history dates back to the Tertiary Period when the Limón
marine sedimentation took place. Sedimentary processes continued during the Quaternary
Period, coupled with volcanic activity in the Central Mountain Range, to form the Caribbean
alluvial plains. Costa Rica’s Caribbean and northern watershed rivers, particularly the San
Carlos and Sarapiquí, typically carry ashes and sediments originating from these volcanoes
and other natural events, such as earthquakes.
The project area is made up of disturbed land mostly used for extensive cattle
ranching to produce milk and beef and for growing crops in some areas, such as oranges.
Forest plantations and recovering forests can also be found under the “environmental
service payment” system, together with vegetat ion usually associated with bodies of water
and wetlands in some sectors.
According to an analysis carried out by National Environmental Information
Management Center (CENIGA, for its Spanish acronym) of the Ministry of Environment,
5▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
167Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET) in January 2012, using aerial photographs taken
in 2005 and provided by the National Geographic Institute, the area clearly shows impacts
from agriculture.
Aerial▯photograph▯PRCR▯2005▯
Fotografía▯aérea▯PRCR▯2005
Tomado▯de:▯www.snitcr.orgrg
San▯Antonio
El▯Jardín
Remolinito
Boca
San▯Carlos Palo▯Seco Isla▯Mendoza▯
(Copalchi)
Trinidad▯
(Boca▯de▯Sarapiquí)
Area▯not▯covered▯by▯aerial▯photo▯aérea
AÁrea▯cubierta▯por▯fotografía▯aérea
MINAETͲCENIGA
Figure N1 Aerial photograph analysis carried out by CENIGA to identify impacts on the northern border
corridor, based on aerial photographs taken in 2005.
As to land relief, the road shows small slope variations and follows a virtually flat terrain. The
road stretch between Delta and the Sarapiquí River is a typical plain with no major streams
or forests along the project area. The road section from the Sarapiquí to the San Carlos
River encounters some forest patches on a slightly more rugged terrain, as well as some
wetlands in both the DIA and the IIA. The San Carlos River–Tiricias–Los Chiles section
exhibits the most rugged terrain with a stronger presence of water bodies compared to the
DIA and the IIA, thus being the area most vulnerable to environmental damage.
6▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
168 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
3. Impact Assessment▯
3.1. Methodology
▯
For the purpose of assessing potential environmental impacts caused by road
construction, a team was created with officials from the Ministry of Env
ironment, Energy, and
Telecommunications (MINAET), which according to Article 5 of Forestry Law N° 7575 is the
sector-governing agency responsible for state forest management function
s. In addition,
pursuant to Articles 32 and 83 of Environment Law N° 7554, MINAET is responsible for
managing protected wildlife areas and addressing environmental impacts caused by
production processes.
This commission was made up of officials from the Tortuguero (ACTo), Central
Volcanic Mountain Range (ACCVC), and Arenal-Huetar Norte (ACA-H) Conservation Areas,
as well as the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of MINAET’s
Geology and Mines Directorate). The composition of this team is shown on Annex 1.
In addition to the assessment made by this team, expert staff from the Ministry of
Public Works and Transportation (MOPT) carried out another assessment, the results of
which are included in this plan. A visual assessment was made together w
ith expert criteria.
The road was traveled in its entire length identifying sections to be assessed, depending
on accessibility and weather conditions, due to the fact that the road was still under
construction and some stretches were not yet interconnected. Information
was gathered on
potentially impacted areas, particularly existing wetlands, water bodies, slopes and terrain
cuts. Visits were made to existing mining concessions in the area that have been the source
of road building materials, and observations were also made to identify potential impacts on
wildlife and plants found along the road under construction and its periphery. As an
illustration, the map below shows a preliminary road layout highlighting the assessed road
sections.
7▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
169Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
LOCATION OF GRAVEL ROAD IN NORTHERN COSTA RICAN BORDER CORRIDOR
8▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
170 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
Digital cameras, GPS, measuring tapes, field notebooks, and other instruments and basic
means were used in the assessment, according to each official’s assessment goal.
3.2. Environmental Impacts Identified Through Visual Assessment
and Expert Criteria
3.2.1. Assessing Impacts on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Soils
▯
This assessment was under the responsibility of officials from the National Conservation
Area System (ACAHN, ACCVC, ACTo) of the Geology and Mines Directorate and SETENA.
A. Road Stretch from the Medio Queso River to Boca San Carlos
1. Earthmoving works altering the ecosystem and directly or indirectly affecting water
dynamics.
2. Wetland ecosystems altered by the construction of drainage ditches and dikes in said
areas.
3. Tree removal in some sectors covered by primary and disturbed primary forest, and
partial fragmentation of tropical wet and moist tropical forest.
4. Sediment traps under implementation in rainwater drainage canals.
5. Limited soil conservation works to minimize water and soil impacts.
6. Minor changes in the course of some streams.
7. In the Tiricias area there is a quarry that has been used as a source of raw materials
for the road. There is also the Molina Quarry, mining concession 46 CNE-2011,
9▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
171Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
which is currently providing materials. Cuts along the road that could be potential
quarries were also found in the same area.
8. The road was traveled going through the town of Boca San Carlos towards a place
known as El Jardín, where a quarry with mining concession 156 CNE-2011 is found.
▯
9. Along this stretch the road runs parallel to the San Juan River, which is why its distance
from the river should be assessed mostly on account of project integrity
.
B. Road Stretch from the mouth of the Sarapiquí River to La Tigra stream located
in the county of Sarapiquí in the province of Heredia.
1. The road crosses three streams and a palustrine wetland, all of them flowing to Las
Marías stream. Soil alteration signs were observed in these sites. No evidence was
found of cloudy or polluted water, or dead animals (fish or other species).
2. Tree removal along road layout. Affected species include tonka bean, oil
bean, some
wild papaya, hog plum and light virola trees.
3. Silting in palustrine-type wetland mostly covered with grasses (particularly pastures)
with a high degree of farmland and forest-free area impairment. No significant
sediment transport to the San Juan River was found.
4. Forest disturbance along an approximate 75-meter road stretch. Alterations spread
some 15 meters on both sides of the road at the ends of the stretch.
C. Road stretch from La Tigra stream to the area known as Delta Costa Rica
1. Approximately a 3-km long road section was found with trees removed and a
slight
impact on hydrodynamics of two brooks, although both are still flowing to the San
Juan River.
10▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
172 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
2. Three mining concessions (quarries) requested under Law 8668 by the Sarapiquí
Municipality and CONAVI were supervised: 44-CNE-2011 (Chirripó River), 45 CNE-
2011 (Puerto Viejo River) and 134 CNE-2011 (Sarapiquí River). No negative mining
impacts were found.
3. Extracted materials have been laid down along road sides and on the road itself in a
10-cm thick and up to 12-m wide bed with hand-made sewers. This road section has
a flat slope and, hence, no terrain cuts were seen.
4. Materials used at these sites come from the above mentioned mining concessions
using a 10-cm thick sub-base, contingent on soil quality, and adding more material at
sites with softer soils.
5. One road section has a canal approximately 1.5-m wide and 2-m deep that could carry
small amounts of sediments from normal erosion of road and drainage canal walls
(pumping) located on both sides of the road.
6. There is evidence this road section was deforested in the past turning the area into
pastures for ranching and small-scale agriculture.
7. Road construction machinery is currently traveling between both concession 44 CNE-
2011 and Concession 157-92, granted to the El Indio Peasant Settlement Integral
Development Association, and the road intersecting the road under construction at a
site known as Fátima. Due to an absence of nearby gravel sources this 100-kilometer-
plus trip has to be made.
3.2.2. Identifying and Assessing Bodies of Water
This activity was performed by MINAET’s Water Directorate.
11▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
173Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management▯Plan
▯
A. Approximately 24-km long “Los Chiles Sector” Road Stretch from Medio Queso
River Plains to approximately 3 kilometers before the mouth of the Pocos
ol
River.
The bodies of water that were identified and assessed are listed below:
Source Source Coordinates CRTMOS Natural Natural Source
Canal
Number Type Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude Channel Depression Criterion
River 334341/461138 Permanent
1 X
1219941,14 424719,23 channel
Canal 338448/464070 Not a
2 X
1224044,76 427655,89 channel
Natural 337764/465556 X Not a
3 depression 1223359,02 429141,00 channel
River 337157/466590 Permanent
4 X
1222750,80 430174,23 channel
Natural 336861/467124 X Not a
5
depression 1222454,17 430707,84 channel
River 336179/473657 Permanent
6 X
1221764,57 437239,61 channel
Stream 335489/474031 Permanent
7 X
1221074,14 437612,78 channel
8 Stream 335151/472215 1220738,24 435796,52 X Channel
Stream 334383/475121 Permanent
9 X
1219966,88 438701,43 channel
Stream 333855/467317 Permanent
10 X
1219447,91 430897,33 channel
Stream 333730/476619 Permanent
11 X
1219312,16 440198,57 channel
Stream 333508/477186 Permanent
12 X
1219089,51 440765,27 channel
Stream 333094/478171 Not a
13 X
1218674,39 441749,73 channel
12▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
174 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Managemen▯ Plan
▯
Natural 333041/478318 X Not a
14 depression 1218621,21 441896,65 channel
15 Stream 332/861/478755 1218620,71 442333,63 X Channel
Channel 332783/478930 Not a
16 X
1218362,52 442508,32 channel
Channel 332620/479323 Not a
17 X
1218199,07 442901,10 channel
Channel 332444/479735 Not a
18 X
1218022,59 443312,87 channel
19 Stream 332287/480125 1217865,15 443702,66 X Channel
Natural X Not a
20 332149/480462 1217726,76 444039,48
depression channel
21 Stream 331956/480901 1217533,27 444478,22 X Channel
Permanent
22 Stream 331932/480970 1217509,19 444547,19 X
channel
Permanent
23 Stream 331756/481422 1217332,68 444998,95 X
channel
24 Stream 331628/481741 1217204,31 445317,79 X Channel
Permanent
25 Stream 331450/482150 1217025,85 445726,55 X channel
Natural X Not a
26 331275/482564 1216850,38 446140,32
depression channel
Natural 330878/483223 X Not a
27
depression 1216452,63 446798,81 channel
Natural 330674/483421 X Not a
28
depression 1216248,41 446996,57 channel
Natural X Not a
29
depression 330048/483995 1215621,76 447569,82 channel
Total 1219941,14 424719,23 17 4 8
B. “Pocosol Sector” road stretch, approximately 4.6-km long, from the area next to
Marker 5 to 1 km before Marker 3.
13▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
175Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management P▯an
▯
The bodies of water identified and assessed are listed below:
Source Source Coordinates CRTMOS Natural Natural Source
Canal
Number Type Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude▯ Channel Depression Criterion
1 River 326096/490429 1211662,55 453998,86 x Permanent
channel
Permanent
2 River 326581/490915 1212147,01 454485,36 x
channel
Permanent
3 Stream 326821/491163 1212386,72 454733,61 x
channel
Permanent
4 Stream 327715/492039 1213279,73 455610,54 x
channel
Permanent
5 Stream 327906/492212 1213470,53 455783,74 x channel
Permanent
6 Stream 328100/492414 1213664,31 455985,94 x
channel
Permanent
7 Stream 328238/492696 1213802,00 456268,06 x
channel
Natural Not a
8 328335/493427 1213898,17 456999,11 x
depression channel
Natural Not a
9 328367/493868 1213929,68 457440,11 x
depression channel
▯ ▯
Total 7 2
14▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
176 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management ▯lan
▯
C. “Boca San Carlos Sector” road stretch, approximately 7.3-km long, from Boca San
Carlos to Estrecho Machado.
The bodies of water identified and assessed are listed below:
Source Source Coordinates CRTMOS Natural Natural Source
Canal
Number Type Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude▯ Channel Depression Criterion
Permanent Permanent
1 channel 307449/516231 1192987,47 479778,36 x channel
Permanent
2 Stream 307287/516991 1192824,65 480538,12 X
channel
Permanent
3 Stream 307247/517478 1192784,13 481025,04 x
channel
Permanent
4 Stream 307252/517732 1192788,86 481279,03 x
channel
Permanent
5 Stream 307216/518579 1192751,95 482125,92 x
channel
Permanent
6 Stream 307258/519108 1192793,38 482654,92 x
channel
Permanent
7 Stream 307258/519473 1192792,99 483019,89 x
channel
Permanent
8 Stream 307234/519716 1192768,73 483262,85 x
channel
Permanent
9 Stream 307383/520497 1192916,89 484043,94 x
channel
10 Stream 307054/521685 1192586,63 485231,49 x Permanent
channel
Total 10
15▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
177Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Pl▯n
▯
D. Road Stretch parallel to the San Juan River from 3 km before the mouth of Caño
La Tigra River to 100 m downstream from the Colorado River branch-off.
The bodies of water identified and assessed are listed below:
Source Source Coordinates CRTMOS Natural Canal Natural Source
Number Type Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude Channel Depression Criterion
Permanent
1 Stream 305268/563047 1190757,13 526588,22 x
channel
2 Channel 305159/561358 1190649,88 524899,23 x Not a
channel
Not a
3 Channel 305170/558753 1190663,58 522294,45 x
channel
Permanent
4 River 299664/549925 1185166,82 513461,38 x
channel
Total 2 2
16▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
178 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Pl▯n
▯
E. Road stretch approximately 10-km long parallel to the San Juan River from
Marker 2 to approximately 1 km before the mouth of the Infiernito River.
The bodies of water identified and assessed are listed below:
Source Coordinates CRTMOS Man- Natural Source
Source Natural
Type Latitude/Longitude Latitude/Longitude▯ Made Depression Criterion
Number Channel
Drainage
Permanent
1 Laguna 325147/498710 1210704,35 462278,11 x
channel
Natural Not a
2 325141/498889 1210698,15 462457,08 x
depression channel
Artificial Not a
3 325089/499218 1210645,79 462786,00 x
drainage channel
Artificial Not a
4 324825/499482 1210381,50 463049,68 x
drainage channel
Permanent
5 Stream 324226/499556 1209782,43 463123,02 x channel
Natural Not a
6 324111/499567 1209667,42 463133,89 x
depression channel
Artificial Not a
7 323862/499646 1209418,33 463212,60 x
drainage channel
Permanent
8 Stream 323553/499777 1209109,19 463343,26 x
channel
Artificial Not a
9 323167/499979 917923,29 463262,23 x
drainage channel
Natural Not a
10 323084/500106 1208639,84 463671,71 x
depression channel
Permanent
11 Stream 322866/500257 1208421,68 463822,45 x
channel
Artificial Not a
12 322614/500455 1208169,46 464020,16 x
drainage channel
17▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
179Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Pla▯
▯
Natural Not a
13 depression 322062/500658 1207617,24 464222,54 x channel
Artificial Not a
14 321971/500786 1207526,10 464350,43 x
drainage channel
Artificial Not a
15 321845/500885 1207400,00 464449,27 x
drainage channel
Artificial Not a
16 325341/498058 1210899,07 461626,38 x
drainage channel
Permanent
17 River 325981/497649 1211539,51 461218,13 x
channel
Natural Not a
18 326179/497810 1211737,33 461379,33 x
depression channel
Permanent
19 Stream 328501/498470 1214058,55 462041,85 x
channel
Artificial Not a
20 328724/498348 1214281,68 461920,11 x
drainage channel
Natural Not a
21 329175/498079 1214732,98 461651,63 x
depression channel
22 Artificial 329364/497913 1214922,15 461485,86 x Not a
drainage channel
Artificial Not a
23 329484/497808 1215042,28 461381,00 x
drainage channel
Natural Not a
24 329628/497751 1215186,33 461324,17 x
depression channel
Permanent
25 Stream 329831/497435 1215389,68 461008,42 x
channel
Total 7 11 7
A total of 43 creeks, 17 natural depressions, 11 man-made drainages, and 6 canals were
identified in all inspected road stretches.
18▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
180 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
3.3 Summarized Impacts and Recommended Environmental Measures
3.3.1. WATER RESOURCE
▯ ▯
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Local impact from moderate sedimentation in waterbodies as a result of surface runoff
during construction processes.
2. Small pollution foci in some bodies of water due to carried solid (exca
vated materials
and others) and liquid waste from construction processes, such as lubricants and
hydrocarbons.
3. Removed and altered vegetation cover, mainly in already disturbed sectors.
4. Early-stage decrease in hydraulic capacity on account of sediments clogging
waterbodies, some of them unimportant.
5. No sediment deposition was observed in the San Juan River, although small amounts
of sediments may be carried by rain or some streams flowing into the river within this
ecosystem normal dynamics.
PROPOSED AND ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
1. Building road cross-cutting drainages through the Medio Queso wetland to partially
restore natural flow and direction of water running parallel to both banks of the Medio
Queso River.
2. Plantations with native local species should be established to protect river and brook
banks, particularly in areas without any forest cover, on the entire land strip between
the road and the San Juan River.
3. Hydrological studies should be made for all water crossings to determine design flow
rates in order to identify required hydraulic works capacities.
4. To the extent possible, keeping natural waterbody hydraulic sections at the time of
hydraulic works installation and providing inlet and outlet structures to facilitate
channel flow transition to and from the structure to be installed.
19▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
181Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
5. For crossings over some brooks, a channel maintenance plan should be developed
(channel cleaning to remove accumulated sediments).
6. Establishing fully-equipped weather and hydrological stations. The Weather Institute
and Electricity Institute should be involved in the decision-making process for
evaluating sites and determining the required station type.
7. Protecting the natural vegetation cover existing between road layout, bridges, or
drainage structures and bodies of water.
8. Installing sediment traps in some of the identified sites to prevent sediments from
leaving work areas and reaching nearby bodies of water. Traps may be built with
metal structures and geotextiles or other filtering media. (See Annex on the
recommended waterbody works matrix).
9. Establishing slope-foot protective gutters draining towards sediment traps.
10.Areas for materials disposal should be far enough from bodies of water to make sure
flood water level will never be above the lowest level of disposed materials.
11.Dumping excavated or cut materials downhill into rivers and brooks is prohibited.
12.Care should be taken when working on national rivers or river banks to make sure no
oil or fuel leaks may reach bodies of water.
13.Machinery washing and maintenance tasks in streams will be prohibited.
14.Designating and preparing a construction waste and debris disposal site. All organic
waste materials from clear-cutting or site preparation should be piled on the disposal
site away from waterbodies to be finally taken to the nearest dump approved for such
purpose.
15.In case worker camps are established, septic tanks may be used to receive regular
sewage water. These tanks should be designed according to soil permeability
characteristics making sure local aquifers will not be affected. Otherwise, sanitary
cabins should be used for regular sewage water.
16.Construction of temporary or permanent hydraulic works should not alter or change a
waterbody natural channel, to the extent possible.
17.Design of the different planned hydraulic works should be respected in order to make
sure all outgoing water drains in the same direction as the incoming stream to thus
prevent slope erosion. (See Annex 2, Recommended Works by Source Type)
20▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
182 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
3.3.2 FOREST AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE
▯
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Removal and alteration of vegetation cover.
2. Use of uprooted tree trunks as crossings over brooks and streams.
3. Increased demand for natural resources, plant and wildlife extraction.
4. Possible wildlife displacement route alteration.
5. Risk of wildlife being run over by vehicle traffic.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
1. Recover disturbed areas through natural regeneration or reforestation.
2. Build road crossings for animals and installing speed bumps.
3. Install preventive vertical signs to warn about wildlife presence.
4. All staff involved in the project should be required to abide by the ban on wildlife trade,
extraction or hunting, even on holidays, rest days and/or Sundays.
5. Close monitoring by competent authorities (Prevention, Control, and Protection
Brigades) to prevent plant and wildlife extraction and transfer.
6. Gather local volunteer teams (COVIRENAS) that advocate natural resourc
e protection
and provide support to control and protection activities.
7. Construction of bridges over brooks or rivers to deter use of woods from nearby
forests.
21▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
183Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
8. On sites where isolated trees were removed to build the road, and if conditions allow it,
native tree species should be planted to replace them.
3.3.3 SOIL RESOURCE
▯
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. In some sectors, no soil conservation works were implemented to minimize local
water and soil impacts.
2. Soil structure was modified during the construction process.
3. Potential increase in focused erosion processes.
4. Potential instability in some slopes.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
1. Placing sediment retaining structures (sediment traps) on gutters.
2. Implementing a drainage system maintenance program to prevent drainage clogging.
3. When surplus material has been laid on the roadside, it should be removed and taken
to previously established sites designated for this purpose.
4. Keeping quarry concessions in force; in case their term expires, a technical closure
study should be carried out. Quarry mining methods should be periodically monitored.
5. Preventing fuel, oil, or chemical spills in general. In addition, water-proofing vulnerable
areas to prevent filtrations into the soil, such as in chemical warehouses and/or fuel
handling sites. Tools should be available to clean up potential spills.
6. Excavations and fills will be made only in the road project area and authorized nearby
areas.
7. Drainages should be installed as soon as possible before placing the fills to prevent
excess moisture and reduce erosion.
8. Non-usable materials, such as organic soil, should be disposed of in spe
cifically
designated sites.
22▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
184 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
9. Surplus materials should be removed in coordination with excavation progress to
reduce material runoff.
10.Excavations should remain uncovered the shortest time possible, particularly in
sectors with unconsolidated soils or those requiring drainage or runoff control
systems.
11.Slopes should have safe and stable gradients.
12.In cases where slopes devoid of vegetation are created, complementary slope-
stabilizing measures should be taken, such as low-growing vegetation (vetiver),
banking, gabions, geotextiles or other containment structures.
3.3.4 AIR RESOURCE
▯
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Noise generation that could impact wildlife.
2. Gas and particulate matter emissions to the atmosphere in undetermined volumes.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
1. Require contractors to use machinery in good operating conditions and with vehicle
technical inspection certificate still in force, in such a way the smallest possible
amounts of gases and particulate matter are emitted during fuel burning.
2. Use machinery that meets sound levels established in current regulations.
3. Regulate speed of dump trucks in work areas and require them to cover dump truck
beds with a tarp to prevent materials from falling.
23▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
185Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
4. Irrigate periodically depending on wind and solar radiation conditions, in addition to
preventing potential nuisance to third parties (nearby homes, schools,
farmland, and
others).
5. Store fine-grained materials under appropriate conditions to protect them from wind or
rain.
3.3.5 SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT
▯
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Risk of potential impacts on wildlife and plants.
2. Risk of potential impacts on bodies of water.
3. Risk of potential impacts on soils.
4. Risk of potential impacts on population centers and others.
5. Risk of potential pollution from liquid waste generation.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
▯
1. Dump sites for disposing of debris from cuts and clear-cutting and cleaning operations
should be authorized by their owners and by the competent authority, in addition to
meeting relevant guidelines. By and large, they should meet the followin
g conditions:
o Prevent impacts on forest stands or waterbodies.
o Preferably consisting of natural depressions, in such way that they will level off
after filling.
24▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
186 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Plan ▯
▯
o Prevent obstruction of watercourses and maintaining minimum setback
regulation, if located near a water body.
o Stable (without evidence of active slide scarring or other significant erosion
processes).
o Prevent impacts on population centers or wetlands.
o Authorized dump sites.
2. In order to minimize required dump size, the project should reuse stony materials
resulting from right-of-way excavations.
3. The requirements established by the Ministry of Health and/or local municipality, as
appropriate, should be met.
4. Normal solid waste generated by staff using temporary facilities and work areas
should be collected at the generation point and disposed of in authorized sites
(municipal dumps, authorized landfills).
5. Where practicable and economically feasible, the following solid waste management
hierarchy should be put into practice: reduction at the source, reuse, recycle, and
disposal.
6. Separate containers should be made available to collect special waste (such as oils
and lubricants). Staff should be trained on how to recognize and sort them, and
specifically authorized disposal means should be used. The use of personal protective
equipment should be mandatory.
7. Solid waste transportation vehicles should be equipped in such way as to prevent
leachate or waste drippings or dispersion along the route. They should also be
frequently washed and sanitized to prevent foul smells.
25▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
187Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Pla▯
▯
8. Employee camps or housing areas should have adequate liquid waste management
devices, either septic tanks or sanitary cabins, to meet workers’ needs according to
current regulations (one per 20 workers).
▯
3.3.6 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Impacts on potential archaeological discoveries.
PROPOSED MEASURES
National regulations concerning archaeological discoveries should be observed, namely, if
archaeological remains are found during excavations all work in the area should be stopped,
and the Costa Rican National Museum and/or the archaeologist in charge should be
informed at once. Recommendations issued by the Museum or a professional on the matter
should then be followed.
3.3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCE
IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Increased agricultural and commercial activities, and more human settlements.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
1. A socioeconomic study should be carried out as soon as possible to identify the
potential impact generated by the road construction. At the same time, i
nformation
should be collected to develop suitable tools to minimize the risk of shantytowns and
26▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
188 Annex 2
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Road - Environmental Management Pl▯n
▯
illegally purchased land for building infrastructure that could impact forest areas or
wetlands.
2. A land property study should be carried out within the Costa Rica-Nicarag
ua Corridor
Wildlife Refuge, where buildings exist and agricultural, ranching and other production
activities are being carried out, indicating the existence of some kind of possession
and/or occupation.
3. Work should be carried out with the people living in the site through rural outreach
processes, in order to improve their livelihoods, while instilling among them a sense of
ownership to become involved in site mitigation and restoration actions.
Annex 3 shows a summarized action plan, including the names of the persons in charge and
the terms or deadlines for implementing the main recommended measures.
4. References
▯
1. Ministry of Public Works and Transportation. Sector Planning Unit.
Environmental and Social Management Unit. January 2012. PLAN REMEDIAL DE
MEDIDAS AMBIENTALES DE MITIGACIÓN, PREVENCION Y/O COMPENSACION
POR CONSTRUCCION Y MEJORAMIENTO RUTA PARALELA A LA LINEA
FRONTERIZA COSTA RICA-NICARAGUA.
2. Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications. February 2012.
INFORME DE VALORACIÓN AMBIENTAL Y MEDIDAS DE REMEDIACIÓN
CORREDOR FRONTERIZO. Compiled by engineer Alba Iris Ramírez and based on
reports developed by an expert commission from SINAC, the Water Directorate,
SETENA and the Geology and Mines Directorate.
27▯ GOVERNMENT▯OF▯COSTA▯RICA▯
▯
189Annex 2
Annex▯1▯Members▯of▯the▯Institutional▯Commission
COMMISSION
Agency Name▯of▯Official
National▯Conservation▯Areas▯System▯(SINAC),▯Executive▯Secretariat▯(ES) Randall▯Campos
SINAC,▯Huetar▯Norte▯Conservation▯Area▯(ACAHN) Carlos▯Ulate▯R.
SINAC,▯Central▯Volcanic▯Mountain▯Range▯(ACCVC) Jose▯Luis▯Agüero
SINAC,▯Tortuguero▯Conservation▯Area▯(ACTo) Erick▯Herrera▯Quesada
National▯Institute▯of▯Meteorology▯(IMN) Mauricio▯Ortiz▯Monge
Water▯Authority Álvaro▯Porras▯Vega
José▯Joaquín▯Chacón▯
Nancy▯Quesada
Andrea▯Barrantes▯
Luis▯Alberto▯Chavarría,▯
Geology▯and▯Mines▯Directorate Esteban▯Bonilla▯y▯Alberto▯
Vazques▯
National▯Environmental▯Technical▯Secretariat▯(SETENA) Manuel▯Céspedes▯
Carlos▯Camacho▯
Ministry▯of▯Public▯Works▯and▯Transportation▯(MOPT) Giselle▯Alfaro▯
190 Annex 2
Priority
▯ ▯
▯
▯to▯
▯SINAC
▯traps▯traps,▯ ▯traps,▯ ▯traps,▯
▯dissipator.
▯traps ▯traps ▯dissipator▯trapstra▯saps▯traptraptra▯tsraps
▯Works ▯energytraps ▯respec▯▯veonds ▯traps
▯structuresuctures ▯structures ▯traps
▯sediment ▯sediment ▯th▯study ▯sediment▯sedi▯sedisedited▯tednit ent
▯exit ▯exit ▯exit
▯br▯andbri▯and▯▯siigee▯s▯sediment▯bri▯andwithimwet▯bridge,▯energyt
▯or ▯or ▯or ▯structures, ▯or ▯under sediment
▯crossing, ▯crossing,cros▯crosciogcio▯,sos,ing,
Recommended▯overpath, ▯exit Bridge, ▯area Bridge,
entrancentrance▯and entranceyzed
▯SOURCE Drain ▯▯crossingssing▯crossing Draincrossi▯be▯the ▯overpass▯orrainDraiDrainDraiDraiDraiDnrain
Drain Drain Drain Drain since
entrance Should drain
▯TYPE▯OF
498.710 499.556 499.777 500.257497.64498.47097.435
Location
▯RECOMMENDED▯WORKS▯BY
▯2,
Latitude325.147 32Longitude.553 322.866325.98328.50129.831 334.341 337.15336.33461335.334.3333.85357330.508.09467.4317.61791786.171
ANNEX
1 5 8 11 17 19 25 1 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Source
▯ ▯ ▯
▯ ▯ ▯ ▯of▯ ▯ ▯
▯and
Ͳ20▯latitude ▯mouthver,
▯1, ▯longitude1
▯330▯coordinate:
▯approximatel▯andnate:
▯to
▯marker ▯Infiernito
Report▯ATͲ0102itudethe latitucoordinate:
frocoordin4961▯km▯before21.635
191Annex 2
Priority
▯dissi▯tisrss▯dissi▯dissipatorsp▯dissipator ▯trap▯dissi▯tisrs▯dissipators ▯dissipators
▯traptra▯tsraps ▯trap▯trap▯trap ▯traps
▯energy ▯energy
▯Works ▯sediment
▯sedisee▯teeimtents▯traps,▯traps▯traps,▯energytraps▯sedi▯sed▯sediment▯traps▯traps,▯traps▯sedimentaps,▯energy
▯br▯bridge,diment ▯bridge,▯sediment
▯or▯or ▯or
▯croscir▯,sng▯sedim▯sedim▯setdim▯sediment ▯sedimentos▯cro▯crossing▯sedim▯sedim▯sediment ▯sediment
Recommended
▯SOURCE DrainDrainrain ▯cr▯crossing DrainDraiDraincrossing Drain
▯cross▯crossi▯cgr,o▯crosDraDrain▯crossing, Drain▯cross▯cross▯cgr,ossing, ▯crossing,
▯TYPE▯OF Drain Drain Drain Drain Drain Drain Drain Drain Drain
Location
▯RECOMMENDED▯WORKS▯BY
▯2,
332.3861.23817.9353331.753631.628010.326326.5326.82327.7327.9069328.2307.44307.283707.24307.25307.216117.47517.73518.579
Latitude Longitude
ANNEX
15 19 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
Source
▯
▯ ▯ ▯ ▯to ▯
▯ ▯ ▯ ▯
▯the ▯up
Ͳ201▯of
▯longitude ▯521685
Ͳ0173 ▯460.560 ▯longitude
▯pl▯Queso▯River,e:▯coo▯andate:
▯the
Medlatitude Estlatitudeordinate:
Report▯DA 334.54coordinate:07054
192 Annex 2
Priority
▯(▯ ▯ ▯
▯ ▯
▯worksnehe
▯dissipators ▯dissipators▯f ▯sediment
▯correspond
▯trap▯tra▯traps ▯to▯the
▯hydraulic
▯Works ▯right▯bank
▯access ▯areas. ▯structures,
▯traps▯sedi▯sed▯sedimentaps,▯ener▯the▯such
▯to▯bu▯of ▯extraps
▯that▯give ▯and
▯sedimentos▯cro▯cross▯sediment ▯becausetland
Recommended
▯SOURCE DrainDraiDrain ▯sou▯River
▯recommended ▯entrance
▯crossing, ▯crossing,
▯nobridges,▯canals)
▯TYPE▯OF Drain Drain It▯is Colorado Bridge,
Location
▯RECOMMENDED▯WORKS▯BY
▯2,
307.25307.2307.307.38307.054.4519305.268521.685 563.047 299.664 549.925
Latitude Longitude
ANNEX
6 7 8 9 10 1 4
Source
▯ ▯ ▯ ▯
▯ ▯ ▯ ▯ ▯ ▯
▯La▯ ▯and ▯ ▯and
▯the ▯the
Ͳ2012, ▯meters▯th▯latitude
▯Ca▯latitude ▯100fromof▯at
Ͳ0171before ▯299▯co▯toinate: ▯305▯coordinate:
▯the
▯of ▯up ▯River 563.047
▯3▯kms
Tigra▯River, headwaters
RepofromAuth coordinate:ownstrColoradoinate:de
546.835,
193Annex 2
▯ ▯
▯ ▯ ▯to▯ ▯
▯ ▯in ▯San
▯due
▯consider Ͳ2012).
Priority ▯to▯its ▯zone ▯erosionto▯the
▯should ▯due ▯the
▯DAͲ0171rder▯to▯reduce
▯in ▯channels
▯channel ▯and ▯the
▯to▯perform ▯resulting
▯River Ͳ2012 ▯sources, ▯from
▯of ▯cause▯flooding
▯Juan ▯impact
▯studies
▯San ▯DAͲ0173 ▯the
▯sections ▯sediments
▯Works ▯that▯could ▯of
▯hydraulic ▯to▯the Ͳ2012,
▯reducing
▯and ▯soil ▯hydraulic
▯thus
▯Rican ▯(ATͲ0102
▯accummulation▯transportation
Recommended ▯Costa
▯to▯maintai▯vice▯versa,
▯SOURCE ▯so▯hydrological ▯on ▯Directorateebris▯or
▯this ▯and
▯ ▯located
▯available, ▯by
▯TYPE▯OF ▯is ▯topography.
▯permits▯to▯minimize
▯channels ▯issuedsit▯from▯watering
▯to▯perform. ▯the ▯This
▯observed ▯the of ▯structure▯to▯install,
▯reports
▯in▯worksion ▯rosive.
▯no ▯the ▯result▯to▯the
▯on ▯be
▯to▯the
▯which ▯impact ▯could
▯sedimentation,sport▯reports.▯▯characteristics▯el
▯be▯▯ ▯the
Location ▯according ▯depending ▯that
▯
▯RECOMMENDED▯WORKS▯BY ▯co▯roa▯. ▯from ▯flow
▯observed ▯respective ▯the
▯2, ▯recommended.▯▯ ▯sections,▯preventing▯any
Latitudearacteristics▯fLongitude▯the ▯per▯flowing
▯source, ▯n ▯and
▯cause▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯andnts ▯three
ANNEX ▯co▯themind. ▯water ▯speed▯of
▯couldlow▯of
▯design.least▯▯being ▯hyd▯to▯implement,
▯hydrological ▯of▯ri▯channels ▯precipitation
▯which ▯the ▯the ▯not ▯divided ▯re▯recommended.▯▯▯
▯and ▯the ▯are ▯to▯the▯hig▯drainage▯of
▯on ▯on▯in ▯are
Source ▯are: ▯structures ▯been
▯observations, ▯use▯tablesentify▯during ▯impact
▯hydraulic▯depend▯basedtion ▯the
▯dis▯fieldrs, ▯are ▯do▯samehe ▯by ▯thp▯have
▯will ▯sediments ▯bankso▯facilitate
▯of ▯the ▯tra
▯current ▯traps,▯the ▯bridges▯according
▯by▯as▯▯based▯on ▯as▯publictri▯ormend▯of
▯is▯crossingsiorities ▯to▯mitigate
▯such ▯red▯expos▯sources▯is ▯sidesorks ▯sediment
▯works ▯▯ ▯seek
▯drain ▯and ▯of ▯previous ▯upstream▯impact
▯conditionedf ▯to▯se▯to▯thetermined ▯crossi▯both ▯which
▯on ▯and
▯be▯structures, ▯yellow▯not ▯mitigation ▯sections.r
▯respect ▯dissipators
▯will ▯re▯numbertion ▯numbering ▯River,
▯main ▯entrance
1.▯Thisall3.▯The▯Withreen,ityurceserpretadownstream▯andEsnJuanrogny
194 Annex 2
considerations
Observations and/or
A reescovltrhnds.fnorthoeuaffected Seed ssuuThiesxecactidtyctoshaodutvhs.
Date
Sec201d2quarter of Sec20n13quarter of Sec2o012quarter ofSec 201d2quarTthrr0q2uarteSec20n12quarter of
CONAVI, Water
Directorate and ACHN
WasturpEdirecfonatSsEtiatonrveCHeNc,etNriat CONAVI CONAVI, SINdCONAVI
17
Proposed Mitigation Action Executing Unit
Transevdrsaluersoodiverrsseilagns. Concduirtlpdssetyslitvandewrorertdodhtasrisnttyntireeitlr.s.amfectedandn3 ietbe prreeioouvsely gside
Impact
ANNEX 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS - ROUTE 1856
Identified Environmental
1. AuresescwRiiuircitn.tltheesdioar2. inrainatlcndsasrlma.nrdedaiesring3. oarrhdirocremsa.efstdrdcrlyc
Road Stretch
195 Annex 2
and
considerations
Observations and/or
Map the affected areas.riducagrisurlsftodsth,inragoerrndftrmsstr.ya,ndtetiareai)isize In avltawdnybaednarcstsdrtgri,nlutaigo
Date
Thiruaardrfofurh12 Sec201d2quarter of Thir01quarter ofr01quartereqfuarttofofuth12 Secquadrtorfofuth12Sequnarte
SINAC SINAC SINAC SINAC CONAVI MAG MAG
27
Proposed Mitigation Action Executing Unit
Idenlficatitoendoaffrswheereteh.e forest wasrtctotn,.rthialmalae)t,etdo byoslheedvirrtmliypirlpal e.uce soil loss with conservation works
Impact
ANNEX 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS - ROUTE 1856
Identified Environmental
4. forlntdnaddoentrnyrfoenmoiryrhrtodical 5. setdmewnattrrpsn.als witho6. cosnsinrnatenimlw
Road Stretch
(Latitude: 334.543 and
From Medio Queso Rivertude: 515029).
San Carlos (Latitude: 307430
Longitude: 460.560) up to Boca
196 Annex 2
considerations
Observations and/or
Nopmreitenton.measures werevicntcnuberdavtoryg.eldcnrbderavetryg.e Traoin aCFecLnatr,yWialdltsBpvatictrhiggtiy
Date
Sec20n13quarter of Firs2t0q1u3arter ofirs2t0q1u3arter of 20n12quarter of Thir01quarter of Firs2t0q1u3arter of
CONAVI SINAC SINAC SYIear-round
CONAVI, SINAC from superior
SINAC with support
education institutions.
37 s
Proposed Mitigation Action Executing Unit
Perasretsbliyagnnteirperdra(tdamooeeafotrerr)enrksa, tabebuia rosea,turaSurpvelanntwFldlifprmtroconntiantctritpsertrog gcrroeg
Impact
ANNEX 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS - ROUTE 1856
San Juan River.
Identified Environmental 9. Wildlife affected by roadthe
7. Change of stream courses.
Road Stretch
197 Annex 2
considerations
Observations and/or
Takieterdrranotythagofeorx.titsg to It ourtecoisiionstvie loshennrtainive.seinrtasinive.lsendosonosheinrtasinive.
Date
Firs2t0q1u3arter ofuarter oThir01quarter of Secqunartardfthird2artarndfh0id2artardfthird2rtarndfh0id2r01Sue20nThird0Secqoter of
in
SINAC
CONAVI CONAVI CONAVI CONAVI CONAVICONAC VOI NAVI
from superior from superior
SINAC with support SINAC with support CONAVI, SINAC
educaCOcNoAoraIioaolnMuwsthumt.heon institutions.
47
Proposed Mitigation Action Executing Unit
Preiparretd cocnoertotimn.pcct gdeianotseebotostruction of sediment traps reducersediment traps proposed activities Monitor the proposed activities.
Impact
ANNEX 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS - ROUTE 1856
human settlements.
Identified Environmentaled agricultural,
and commercial activities and 1. inesdteaentcaaculs.mulation 2. Land cuts.
Road Stretch
198 Annex 2
considerations
Observations and/or
Iderneiyonpriducagriturlseroznsreers-fdroslry,dberesatkerrshto
Date 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012
Third quarter of
Firs2t0q1u3arter of Second quarter ofSecond quS aertceorSecond quarter of Sec201d2quarter of Second quarter of
CONAVI CONAVI CONAVI SINAC SINAC
Water Directorate Water Directorate
Exe acnuveCHNS,ecrIe
57
Proposed Mitigation Action Executing Unit
EstafblsasenialsurxeaforCgoornerutsescriInsaltlhctcrletedinbsiriaptPlaCnteena,icittrctionieolaoiddtSdohbiabatle), trooad activities.
Impact crossings.
ANNEX 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS - ROUTE 1856
Uprooting or felling of
Identified Environmental 3. Obstruction of stream
4. trees.
Road Stretch
FroSarthetqeaíttiuirltavtSTararfleuíeidir. n
199 Annex 2
considerations
Observations and/or
It ourtecoisitnnsviecooiIanrtreitlsiIanstreoclo.iancsrienio.hennrtainive.hewocrisltuatidoss,ccoirrhnirtietrnietnee31,s2p(6
Date 2012
Second quarter of
SINAC
67
Proposed Mitigation Action Executing Unit
Construction of sediment traps.gduocsrodntoerinnhesproposed activities Elibuiltfurwdasfiagekofahdac
Impact
ANNEX 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS - ROUTE 1856
Identified Environmental
5. sedimtantdss. affected by 1. Anfectatistnairns.o streams
Road Stretch
200 considerations
Observations and/or
It oureocoisiinosvidcowoIeioryirtoisteaisverchestiacsdrienio.hennrtainive.hewocrgsltubaineoo,utcnirotoaatcetsgi3tnd731,s2p(6
Date 2012
Second quarter of
SINAC
67
Proposed Mitigation Action Executing Unit
ConstructioRnaoifweadresptlednpeduocMsodntoerinnthesproposed activities Elibinttfurvdasfangekofahdac
Impact
ANNEX 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS - ROUTE 1856
Identified Environmental
5. sedimtanntdss.affected by 1. Affectatstnairnes.o streams
Road Stretch202 Annex 3
National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models of
the University of Costa Rica, “Report INF-PITRA-014-12:
Report from Inspection of Route 1856 - Juan Rafael Mora
Porras Border Road”.
May 2012.
203204 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
REPORT: INF-PITRA-014-12
REPORT ON RECONNAISSANCE TRIP TO
ROUTE 1856 – JUAN RAFAEL MORA PORRAS
BORDER TRAIL
Prepared by:
Transport Infrastructure Program
PITRA-LannameUCR
San José, Costa Rica
May 2012
205Annex 3
Document Technical Information
1. Report 2. Copy N°
INF-PITRA-014-12 1
3. Title and Subtitle: 4. Report
Report on Reconnaissance Trip to Route 1856 – Juan Rafael Mora Porras Date:
Border Trail May 2012
7. Organization and Management
Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio,
San Pedro de Montes de Oca, Costa Rica
Tel: (506) 2511-2500 / Fax (506) 2511-4440
8. Complementary Notes
None
9. Summary
Conditions observed during the reconnaissance trip to Route 1856 – Juan Rafael Mora Porras
(Nicaraguan Border Trail) on May 8 , 9 , and 10 , 2012 are presented in this report. The
reconnaissance took place in 9 road segments between different sites adjacent to the north border:
variable conditions were found in both work implementation and progress .
The document shows issues considered relevant to current project status on basic road engineering
aspects, such as: drainage, materials used, earthmoving, waterbody management, embankment
works, building of fills, and erosion and surface water mitigation measures.
10. Keywords 11. Safety Level: 12. Number of
Route 1856 Juan Rafael Mora Porras, reconnaissance None pages
trip, border trail 52
13. Prepared by: 14. Contributors:
Josué Quesada Campos Alonso Ulate Castillo Lic. Carlos Campos Quesada
Engineer Engineer Mr. Eliécer Arias Barrantes
Date: Date: Date:
15. Reviewed by: 16. Reviewed by: 17. Approved by:
Jaime Allen Monge, MSc Miguel Chacón Alvarado Guillermo Loría Salazar, PhD
UGM-PITRA Coordinator Counsel Lanname UCR PITRA General Coordinator
Date: Date: Date:
206 Annex 3
CONTENTS
1 RATIONALE.............................................................................................................4
2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE............................................................................................... 4
3 SCOPE .................................................................................................................... 4
4 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................5
5 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION.................................................................................6
6 OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING TRIP.......................................................................8
6.1 ROAD SECTION1.D ELTACOSTA RICA-ÁTIMA (15 KM) .........................................................8
6.2 ROAD SECTION2.F ÁTIMA-SARAPIQUR IVERM OUTH (9KM)................................................10
6.3 ROAD SECTION3.C OPALCH-REMOLINITO (9KM )...............................................................17
6.4 ROAD SECTION4.R EMOLINITO-CUREÑA(7 KM).................................................................20
6.5 ROAD SECTION5.C UREÑA-SAN CARLOSR IVERM OUTH (19KM )...........................................25
6.6 ROAD SECTION6.S ANC ARLOSRIVERM OUTH -NFIERNITORIVER(12KM ) ..............................28
6.7 ROAD SECTION7.INFIERNITORIVER-QUARRY INTIRICI(6 KM)...........................................33
6.8 ROAD SECTION8.Q UARRY INTIRICI-SAN SIDRO (13KM ) .................................................37
6.9 ROAD SECTION9.S ANISIDRO DEPOCOSOL-POCOSOL RIVER(7KM ).......................................44
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 48
7.1 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................48
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................51
207Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
1 RATIONALE
This report summarizes observations made in a reconnaissance trip taken by LannameUCR
officials to Route 1856 Juan Rafael Mora Porras on account of this project being relevant to
the country and in view of resources invested in its implementation. LannameUCR actions
are carried out pursuant to provisions in Article 6 of Law N° 8114 on Tax Simplification and
Efficiency and its reform through Law N° 8603, within National Laboratory of Materials and
Structural Models (LannameUCR)’s Program for Monitoring National Road Network Quality.
2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE
Taking a reconnaissance and visual assessment field trip to the border road, National Route
N° 1856 Juan Rafael Mora Porras, with the purpose of technically assessing construction
works thus far implemented as to their configuration, quality, and functionality.
3 SCOPE
Approximately 97 kilometers were traveled along the route between Delta Costa Rica and
the Pocosol River performing a visual assessment of the most relevant components and
activities taking place in this road construction project, including: road layout, earthmoving
(cuts and fills), road surface granular material, drainages (gutters and culverts), and bridges.
This assessment did not include any kind of laboratory testing or technical inspections on
specific issues.
The trip focused on the border trail, and therefore no mention is made of access roads
where construction and improvement works have been implemented.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 4 of 52
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
208 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Based on best road engineering practices for this kind of works, this report expresses a
general technical criterion on the condition found in border trail construction works.
Professionals that took the trip to the project and undersigned this report are highly trained
in road engineering and thus capable of identifying a road basic condition through visual
inspection. The intent is not at all to substitute for the rigor of a technical audit
documentary review, or forensic engineering components, or laboratory studies but rather
to provide a first insight on project condition. Hence, information shown in this document
may be used by Management a s an initial guiding input in implementing end -product
improvement actions to prevent performance problems prior to road operations.
4 BACKGROUND
Construction of the road “Route 1856 Juan Rafael Mora Porras” was announced in
December 2010 by authorities of the Government of Costa Rica to protect national
sovereignty and as a permanent solution allowing free traffic of both people and
agricultural products in Costa Rica’s north border region, more specifically in the territorial
area running parallel to th e San Juan River. Thus, a state of emergency was declared
through Executive Decree N° 36440 -MP in counties bordering Nicaragua, enabling the
Executive Branch to use National Emergency Commission’s funds and receive assistance
from several State institutions, including the National Road Council (CONAVI).
The above mentioned Executive Decree support ed the implementation of various
infrastructure works meant to facilitate traffic and land transportation between
communities in the northern part of the country through a road construction project,
running adjacent to the San Juan River, which would ad ditionally provide surveillance of
said border zone.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 5 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
209Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
5 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
th
Visual inspection of Route 1856 consisted of a reconnaissance trip taken fro m May 8 to
10 , 2012. A total of approximately 97 km were traveled along the “Border Trail”. In order
to provide a clearer description of observed details the route was divided into nine sections
of different lengths. Road condition, topographic characteristic s, and visible changes in
work fronts were taken into account in making this division. A table describing each road
section is shown below.
Table 1. Detail of Road Section Breakdown
Name Length Description
Section 1 15 km Delta Costa Rica-Fátima
Section 1 9 km Fátima-Sarapiquí River Mouth
Section 1 9 km Copalchí-Remolinito
Section 1 7 km Remolinito-Cureña
Section 1 19 km Cureña-San Carlos River Mouth
Section 1 12 km San Carlos River Mouth-Infiernito River
Section 1 6 km Infiernito River-Quarry in Tiricias
Section 1 13 km Quarry in Tiricias-San Isidro de Pococí Junction
Section 1 7 km San Isidro de Pococí Junction-Pocosol River
The figure below shows the spatial location of the different road sections, as well as access
routes used and benchmarks. It is worth pointing out road sections on the map have the
following nomenclature: T1 = Section 1, T2 = Section 2, and so forth until Section 9.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 6 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
210 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 1. Route 1856-Juan Rafael Mora Porras Layout
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012.
The “Trail” was traveled in an east -west direction during the first day beginning at Delta
Costa Rica, going through the town of Fátima until reaching the Sarapiquí River Mouth. The
trail is interrupted at this point because a bridge of at least 200 meters needs to be built
over the Sarapiquí River channel.
On the second day we entered through a town known as Copalchí. The journey followed an
east-west direction going through the towns of Remolinito and Cureña until the San Carlos
River Mouth was reached; in this sector a bridge of approximately 250 meters also needs to
be built in order to cross the San Carlos River. Unable to continue on this route, we had to
cross the San Carlos River somewhere else.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 7 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
211Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
On Day 3 we went through the town known as San Isidro until we reached the Pocosol River
on Route 1856. From this point onwards we traveled in a west-east direction going through
the junction towards San Isidro, the quarry ( tajo) located at Tiricias (Tajo Tiricia s on the
map), and the Infiernito River until we reached the starting point of road section 6. This
means that between this point and the San Carlos River mouth there are approximately 30
kilometers that we did not traveled on account of its difficult acce ss. As a result, the team
submitting this report does not know the condition in this area or the quality of works
carried out there.
6 OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE TRIP
6.1 Road Section 1 Delta Costa Rica-Fátima (15 km)
This section encompasses works from Delta Costa Rica to the intersection with Fátima. This
road section is approximately 15 km in length and the area has a predominantly flat
topography (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Condition of platform in road section 1.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 8 of 52
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
212 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
A well -consolidated platform was observed with presence of isolated holes. This road
section already exhibits a slight camber loss, and a roadside segregation of fines was found,
along with the presence of oversize materials (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Section 1 crown condition
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012.
The typical cross-section of this road segment reveals a crown measuring approximately 4
meters with ditches on both sides. The oversize material piling up at road crown sides,
however, could hinder surface water drainage into the ditches.
Erosion control vegetation was also seen in ditches, thus requiring maintenance tasks to
control plant growth (see Figure 4).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 9 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
213Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 4. Condition of gutters in road section 1.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
6.2 Road Section 2. Fátima-Sarapiquí River Mouth (9 km)
This road section in approximately 9 -km long and encompasses works from Fátima to the
mouth of the Sarapiquí River.
A double-simple Bailey bridge is found at the beginning of this road section. The bridge is in
poor operating condition with severely rusted superstructure and major floor damages.
Additionally, it exhibits an offset from the original alignment likely caused by overloads, and
structure support points are not rigid bastions, which may result in large shifts (see Figures
5 and 6).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 10 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
214 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 5. Bailey bridge on Fátima-Sarapiquí River Mouth road section.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Figure 6. Bailey bridge supports in Fátima-Sarapiquí River Mouth road section.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 11 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
215Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
1
This road section has a stronger presence of oversize material and a more heterogeneous
aggregate matrix making up the road surface. In addition, the platform is not fully
consolidated and shows bigger deformations (mostly undulations) at the crown (see Figure
7).
In some areas of this road section the crown is below the natural terrain level, holes are
more common, and both deformations and granul ar material segregation are much more
severe. It is also evident the granular material used is already contaminated with material
from the subgrade (see Figure 8).
Figure 7. Deformations and contaminated granular material
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
1
The term “oversize material” refers t o stone aggregates having rocks larger in size than maximum required
by technical specifications.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 12 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
216 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 8. Holes and material contaminated with subgrade.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
In addition, the platform is not properly shaped since some granular material is segregated
at the sides, with oversize materials encouraging segregations and loss of material (see
Figures 9 and 10).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 13 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
217Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 9. Current platform condition, road section 2.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 14 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
218 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 10. Oversize material piled up at roadside.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Approximately 7 km of this road section have cuts and fills with close to 10% slopes.
Problems were found concerning surface water drainage and an absence of gutters (see
Figure 12). A dditionally, based on visual inspection, it could be assumed no fill layer
compaction was done since the material is very loose in much of the existing platform.
Since cut embankments in this road section exhibit almost vertical angles, it is advisable to
assess soil characteristics and check whether angles are suitable to insure overall stability
(see Figure 11).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 15 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
219Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 11. Cut and fill areas, road section 2.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Figure 12. Nonexistent side drainage structures.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 16 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
220 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
6.3 Road Section 3 - Copalchí-Remolinito (9 km)
Works done along this approximately 9 -km long road section are at the embankment stage
in some sectors, while there are also areas where only right-of-way clearing tasks have been
performed.
The typical cross-section consists of a variable size subgrade with a right-of-way up to 20 -
meters wide (see Figure 13) without gutters or roadside drainage ditches to channel surface
water.
Figure 13. Fill section, road section 3.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Apparently, the soil used for filling has a m oderate to high plasticity, which resulted in its
becoming cracked due to shrinkage (see Figure 14). This type of soil usually lacks the
mechanical properties that would make it suitable for use as a subgrade material.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 17 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
221Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 14. Soil cracking, road section 3
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Some sectors were found to have fills up to 1.5 m in height, and apparently no layer
compaction (a normal practice for this kind of works) was done because the material was
found to be very loose with evidence of sliding down at the sides (see Figure 15).
Figure 15. Fill with evidence of material sliding down from platform, road section 3
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 18 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
222 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Cuts and fills in mountainous areas were done without following any orderly system.
Several sectors have stockpiles of materials not conforming to the basic criteria for debris
disposal site or embankment management (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. Earthmoving areas in road section 3.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Near the end of this road section no works have been done to shape the platform, place
drainages, or other tasks. High moisture conditions were observed, along with the possible
presence of a shallow ground water level (see Figure 17).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 19 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
223Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 17. Sector without intervention, high ground water levels, road section 3.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
6.4 Road Section 4. Remolinito-Cureña (7 km)
This approximately 7-km-long road section goes through a variable topography area mostly
with some rugged terrain and some flatland sectors. The main works in this section consist
of cuts and fills. There is a cons tant presence of clayey subgrade material likely to have
moderate to high plasticity levels.
The topography of many sectors along this road section and the way earthmoving has been
done (particularly cut angles), coupled with mechanical properties of the material, favor
instabilities that could easily lead to serious landslide problems caused by rain during
months of heaviest precipitation (see Figure 18).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 20 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
224 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Fig. 18. Landslides in the Route, road section 4
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
A relevant observation concerning Route 1856 construction is the way several fills have
been built, in terms of both their undue height and the poor evidence of a mechanical layer
compaction process, as mand ated by best engineering practices. These areas are
particularly vulnerable to damage during the rainy season (see Figure 19).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 21 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
225Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 19. Fills found in road section 4.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Sand layers were found laid over some sector s in this road section. While the purpose of
laying this material remains unknown, a material capable of consolidating the travel
platform would obviously have been desirable at this stage of the project. Sand will not
perform this function and it is therefore deemed to have litt le value for pro ject purposes.
Sand properties themselves were the reason several areas are already exposed on account
of run-off water or machinery traffic (see Figure 20).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 22 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
226 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 20. Sand laid over the subgrade in road section 4.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 23 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
227Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
An area with poor management of cut material was noticed in this road section, since the
material was laid next to a body of water without any control. This is a totally inadequate
practice, from both the construction and engineering point of view , that damages not only
this body of water but also Route 1856, since there is no erosion control to prevent loss of
material under rainy conditions (see Figure 21). Placing a properly designed and chosen
geotextile could help control erosion in this embankment. This, however, does not exempt
from the responsibility for making sure slope compaction was done adequately, according
to current specifications.
Figure 21. Inadequate cut material and embankment management.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
After passing the mountainous terrain, near the site known as Cureña, a better condition
was found in both road platform and materials laid to shape the current road surface. Laid
and compacted aggregates pres ent a good configuration for traffic. Some areas that
experienced “settling” during the construction process were identified (see Figure 22).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 24 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
228 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 22. Material laid on the Route in the Cureña sector.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
6.5 Road Section 5. Cureña-San Carlos River Mouth (19 km)
This sector exhibits a subgrade near the natural terrain level with minor cuts and fills
present. No roadside gutters or any other drainage system to channel surface run -off water
were seen. In addition, the road does not have the camber required to properly drain water
(see Figure 23).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 25 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
229Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 23. Subgrade level in road section 5.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
At the end of this road section, near the San Carlos River mouth, some sand banks were
found. This sand has very similar properties to the material used as road surface in section
4, which leads to the assumption this is a supply area for the sandy material previously
observed (see Figure 24).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 26 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
230 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 24. Subgrade level in road section 5.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
This sandy material does not have the properties required to help consolidate the platform
or to be used as road surface finish, given it is a very fine material easily erodible by water
or wind, as well as by road traffic. This will result in said material being segregated to
roadsides (see Figure 25).
Figure 25. Sandy material supply in road section 5.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 27 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
231Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
6.6 Road Section 6. San Carlos River Mouth-Infiernito River (12 km)
Road section 6 is approximately 12 -m long going from the San Carlos River mouth to the
Infiernito River. This border road section has a predominantly rolling topography with
slopes steeper than 20%. The road cannot be t raveled in a continuous fashion in this area
because no granular material has yet been placed on the road surface, and there are sectors
where use has to be made of alternate roads that seem to have been conditioned to move
machinery between the different work fronts.
As a result of te rrain topography, large earthmoving (cut and fill) operations visibly
unfinished in many sectors have been performed. These areas need to be traveled at slow
speed and very cautiously because there is only one lane with steep grades and loose
material, as seen in Figure 26.
Figure 26. Cut and fill area, road section 6.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 28 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
232 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
In cut areas no properly shaped embankments with slopes suitable to the existing soil type
were observed. As a result, many of them look unstable and therefore susceptible to
landslides, particularly in the rainy season. We did not see any slope protection or
impermeabilization measures implemented to help decrease moisture impact during high
rainfall events. Figure 27 shows a cut embankment with evidence of incipient landslides in
some areas.
Figure 27. Unstable cut embankment, road section 6.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
The fill material used to shape the road platform does not seem to have undergone any
adequate compaction process. Said material appears loose in most sectors. Figure 28 shows
a fill area with loose material eroded by storm water drainage.
Additionally, some tree trunks or brush from right-of-way clear-cutting have been placed on
embankment or fill sides , seemingly acting as brush fences to retain sediments, which is a
desirable practice. This erosion control measure, however, was seen only in some sectors
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 29 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
233Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
and without entirelly covering the fill area. Figure 9 shows tree trunks and brush laid at a fill
embankment foot.
Figure 28. Fill area, road section 6.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Figure 29. Brush and tree trunks laid at embankment foot, road section 6.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 30 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
234 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 30 shows an alternative road bypassing the Route where the main construction
works are taking place and, hence, where no traffic is currently possible. This road is located
at an area with a very rugged terrain.
Figure 30. Alternate road bypassing the Route, road section 6.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Figure 31 shows an area w ith unfinished works. In this sector of the road a right -of-way
wider than 50 meters has been cleared following a layout parallel to the San Juan River,
despite the existence of a markedly rugged terrain. As a consequence, earthmoving
operations are extens ive and more complicated on account of steep slopes and soil type.
Surface run -off impact is noticeable in the development of gullies eroding the soil of
embankments and therefore destabilizing them.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 31 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
235Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
A water course was found at the bottom of the mountain , where a stream crossing should
be built, in accordance with existing flow characteristics, to decrease sediment load and
changes in the natural channel as much as possible.
Figure 31. Cut and fill area in mountainous zone, road section 6.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 32 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
236 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
6.7 Road Section 7. Infiernito River-Quarry in Tiricias (6 km)
This road section runs parallel to the San Juan River and has a topography characterized by
several gently rolling climbs all the way to the quarry in the Tiricias are a. Road surface
condition was found to be generally good, with presence of granular material possibly
coming from the rock crusher located nearby.
At the beginning of this road section there is a log structure allowing passage ove r the
Infiernito River. A large amount of rocky material piled up on the river’s left bank has
reduced the hydraulic cross -sectional area to less than half , thus hindering water flow.
Although this structure is temporary, it could obviously sustain serious damage from river
overflow inasmuch as a blocked natural channel would result in increased flow speed, which
could undermine and jeopardize the approach fill (see Figure 32).
Figure 32. Log bridge over Infiernito River. Reduced hydraulic cross-sectional area.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 33 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
237Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
One of the issues of greatest concern is the poor management of waterbodies crossed by
the route. Due to to the kind of area where works are taking place (wetland), the road
layout sometimes comes across meanders that have not been channeled and which could
erode the platform in the short term and cut the road at multiple points.
This is not only inadequate for the route itself but also causes a negative impact on these
bodies of water, limiting oxygenati on capacity and degrading water quality as a result of
stagnation (see Figure 33).
Figure 33. Blocked bodies of water.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 34 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
238 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Managing surface and run -off water is one of the main issues to be taken into account in
constructing this kind of road. Inadequate stream -crossing construction methods were seen
at many points in this road section and in other sectors. While admittedly the project is at
the initial implementation stage, this is precisely the best time to buil d structures aimed at
meeting these requirements. Examples like the one shown in Figure 34 attest to the poor
management of this issue in the project.
Figure 34. Logs used for stream crossing in road section 7.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 35 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
239Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Road surface materials come from different sources. At some points these materials were
seen to be taken from some channel excavation ; however, materials extracted from some
sort of quarry were also identified . In this road section, for instance, there is an operating
quarry that apparently has not followed a staged extraction process (typical and mandatory
for these sites) , thus facilitating nearby waterbody erosion and sedimentation processes
(see Figure 35).
Figure 35. Road surface material extraction site.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 36 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
240 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Some points along this road section exhibit a woven material (“saran” type) laid over slopes.
This material may reduce rain and wind erosion but will not decrease the amount of
sedimentation because it is not a nonwoven geotextile capable of retaining these
sediments. In addition, since the material has been placed in a scattered manner it is not
significantly effective (see Figure 36).
Figure 36. Scattered placing of woven material on slopes.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
6.8 Road Section 8. Quarry in Tiricias-San Isidro (13 km)
Road section 8 goes from an area close to Tiricias to San Isidro de Pocosol. This sector has a
rolling topography and runs adjacent to the Nicaraguan land border in most of its length.
Travel on road section 8 started at a materials mining site or quarry. As seen in Figure 7, the
top of a rock mass located within Route 1856 corridor has been mined. Materials extracted
from this quarry are processed by a rock crusher to produce aggregates for road plaform
and surface. This is a good practice because it prevents overhauling and placing of poor
quality and oversize aggregates.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 37 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
241Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 37. Quarry located near Tiricias, road section 8.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
In sectors were saran fabric was placed seemingly to protect slopes, as shown in Figure 38,
designing and placing geotextiles would have been most advisable, as recommended by
best engineering practices.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 38 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
242 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 38. Saran fabric placed on cut and fill slopes, road section 8.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
While traveling along Route 1856, most of the soil resulting from cuts was seen side -cast in
fill areas, a desirable practice since it eliminates the need for building debris di sposal sites.
In road section 8, however, an excavated material dis posal mound was seen on a mountain
slope, which could create stability problems and contribute sediments to nearby bodies of
water during the rainy season, as shown in Figure 39.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 39 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
243Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 39. Excavated material mound, road section 8.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
One particular issue along Route 1856 road section 8 is the presence of numerous streams
in mountain and forest zones. Small rivers or brooks are found approximately eve ry 200
meters, and provisional drainage measures have been implemented only in some cases,
given there are sites where fills have entirely blocked watercourses. Figure 40 shows tree
trunks placed as a provisional measure to enable vehicle road traffic at a stream crossing.
Natural water flow can be seen be coming plugged and water starting to accumulate at the
upstream side of the crossing. This type of provisional measures should be replaced as soon
as possible with culverts properly designed according the each stream flow rate to prevent
eventual road embankment damage during the rainy season.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 40 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
244 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 40. Provisional log stream crossing, road section 8.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Granular material found at the end of road section 8 is likely to come from the above
mentioned quarry and apparently has good properties to be used as road surface
aggregate, on account of its chiseled shape, absence of oversize, good compaction, and
conformation. Figure 41 shows the area where road surface granular material was starting
to be laid on this road section.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 41 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
245Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 41. Beginning of area with granular material, road section 8.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Some unstable slopes were observed on account of cuts made at angles unsuitable to soil
typel, which has resulted in some points exhibiting landslides as the one shown in Figure 42.
Figure 42. Slope landslides in cut areas, road section 8.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 42 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
246 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Additionally, there are areas where sectors over 50-meters wide have been cleared as right-
of-way, which h as increased the magnitude of earthmoving and road surface aggregate
laying operations. Figure 43 shows, for instance, an area of road section 8 where road
surface has been split in two lanes to bypass an existing tree, to the detriment of a better
choice such as entirely shifting the road layout to one side and thus decreasing forest
disturbance, as well as the amount of earthmoving and materials.
Figure 43. Road section bypassing existing trees, road section 8.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 43 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
247Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
6.9 Road Section 9. San Isidro de Pocosol-Pocosol River (7 km)
This road section is c haracterized by a primarily flat topography aligned according to
borderline milestones. Approximately half of this road section is covered by a less than 5 -
cm-thick layer of granular material, unsuitable to platform consolidation, that would
obviously be carried away by run-off water, despite currently being in acceptable condition
for vehicle traffic (see Figure 44).
Figure 44. Inadequate road surface granular material on section 9.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Plastic Rib -Loc pipes cutting across under road platform were found at several stream
crossings. It is evident, however, these pipes were not properly installed since they lack
reinforcing end structures and a granular material bed to prevent pipe bottom
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 44 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
248 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
deformations. Fills over 3-meter-high were found at some points above these pipes, which
has led to pipe deformation and reduced hydraulic capacity (see Figure 45).
Figure 45. Poorly installedRib-Loc pipes.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
The use of cargo containers as square culverts was noticed at some points along this road
section. Obviously, a nonexistent foundation and loads from fills have caused major
deformations in these structures since they were not designed for this purpose. Th is is not
deemed to be an adequate solution for stream crossings since there is no assurance these
elements will be able to withstand a significant flow rate without resulting in fill loss (see
Figure 46).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 45 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
249Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 46. Containers used as square culvert pipes.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Fills up to 3 - meters high with edges breaking down onto adjacent terrain were found in
several sectors of this road section indicating they were not built according to suitable
compaction processes. Add itionally, an absence of drainage structures in several sectors
may lead to losses in platform cross-section from run-off water action (see Figure 47).
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 46 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
250 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Figure 47. Fill areas without drainage structures.
Source: LannameUCR, May 2012
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 47 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
251Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions
In approximately 97 kilometers traveled along the Border Trail between Delta Costa
Rica and the Pocosol River, 9 road sections were identified as being in unequal
condition:
-Road Section 1. Delta Costa Rica -Fátima: The road has drainage s tructures and a
gravel road surface in acceptable condition.
-Road Section 2. Fátima -Sarapiquí River Mouth : The road has some unfinished
drainage structures, and the road platform is stabilized with material taken from the
river. The road surface should be improved.
-Road Section 3. Copalchí-Remolinito: The road platform consists of dirt, there are
some unfinished drainage structures and localized unstable cut and fill areas. No
works have been done in a major sector of th is road section, except for road layout
and initial blaze trailing.
-Road Section 4. Remolinito-Cureña : The road platform consists of dirt, there are no
drainage structures, and at some points passage is blocked by unfinished and
unstable cut and fills area s. One sector was also found with very sandy granular
material that is being eroded by vehicle traffic, wind, and water.
-Road Section 5. Cureña -San Carlos River Mouth : The road has drainage structures
and a gravel surface in good condition.
-Road Section 6. San Carlos River Mouth-Infiernito River : There is a lot of unfinished
and unstable earthmoving, cuts and fills interrupting the Trail at different points
along this road section.
-Road Section 7. Infiernito River -Quarry in Tiricias: The road has a gra vel surface in
good condition. Some points do not have any drainage structures.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 48 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
252 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
-Road Section 8. Quarry in Tiricias -San Isidro: This road section runs parallel to the
San Juan River and has a gravel road surface in good condition. In turn, the portion
running parallel to the land border crosses a forest area on a rolling terrain, is a dirt
road, and there is a large number of site s with no drainage structures, which have
been provisionally replaced by logs.
-Road Section 9. San Isidro -Pocosol River :The road has a gravel surface in good
condition, and one sector is still a dirt road with unfinished drainage structures.
The absence of bridges on Sarapiquí, San Carlos, and Pocosol rivers –a total length of
at least 400 meters to be built– disrupts Border Trail continuity at three points, thus
limiting functionality.
The road exhibits an irregular layout in some sectors with moderate to high slopes,
in addition to unfinished and unstable cuts and fills that could collapse due to rain
action. These cuts and fills were apparently made based on machine operator
judgment and experience without any topographic and geotechnical information.
A disproportionate embankment –over 30 meters wide – compared to road surface
(six meters wide as an average) was built along most the trail. This involves higher
costs in earthmoving –cuts and fill– and drainage construction.
Throughout the Trail there are large drainage shortfalls that very likely will cut off
the road at many places during the rainy season. Some of these shortfalls are as
follows:
- Nonexistent culvert crossings, which have been provisionally replaced by logs i n
some cases.
- Use of non -conventional drainage structures –containers– that are deformed
and under risk of collapsing.
- Culvert crossings with very high fills and absent headwalls. In some cases these
culverts are deformed and under risk of collapsing.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 49 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
253Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Different types of granular material have been used in the Trail to shape and
stabilize the road surface. Some come from rivers located far from the project, while
others come from overburden stripping or quarries near the road.
Apparently, there was no c ontrol over properties and quality of granular materials
used, given some undesirable situations were seen, such as:
- River material with a lot of oversize suitable for stabilizing the platform, although
inadequate to be used for road surface, was found in some sectors.
- Very sandy materials unsuitable for both road platform and surface, on account
of their being easily c arried off by traffic, wind, and water, were found in other
sectors.
- These river materials were mostly hauled over long distances entailing a major
cost. At any rate, using materials with undesirable properties is unacceptable.
- In the case of materials com ing from overburden or quarries, some were found
to be too degraded with an excess amount of fines (“talc”), which could lead to
erosion and deformation problems, particularly if laid in thin layers.
The project was implemented with several active work fro nts much likely operating
without a proper control, as evidenced by many sites that were worked on and the n
subsequently abandoned , in view of adverse conditions requiring an engineering
solution.
It is highly likely that no uniform technical criteria were set in project
implementation since much variability is observed in works done in the different
road sections, in both standards used and work quality.
Evidently, the project failed to follow basic engineering practices during planning
and implementation, such as: land survey for road layout; critical point geotechnical
assessment; drainage structure location, design, and construction; defining suitable
and uniform technical standards; inspection deficiency.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 50 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
254 Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
In its current condition the Border Trail has a high risk of collapsing during the rainy
season as a result of nonexistent drainage structures and instability of a large
number of cuts and fills. If this comes to happen it would entail a substantial loss of
investments made so far, since it would involve rebuilding many road sections.
Current Border Trail condition limits its social and economic impact because its
functionality is not in line with investment and efforts made by the country in
building it.
Leaving the Border Trail in full operating condit ion immediately requires a major
additional investment of resources to build missing drainage structures, complete
and stabilize many cut and fill sectors, and particularly build bridges over Sarapiqu í,
San Carlos, and Pocosol rivers.
Current road layout indicates it was done without any basic geometric design that
would have enabled a more efficient use of invested resources. While it is true that
work done so far is consistent with a trail, given investment size, they should have
considered the need for carrying out a simple georeferenced -based land survery
using modern design software and lasting only a few weeks to produce a more
engineering-oriented final project layout.
7.2 Recommendations
Reviewing current trail layout by means of an adequate land survey and geometric
design
Completing the construction of adequate drainage structures in trail sectors having a
stable gravel platform as a high priority, in order to protect road investment and
functionality.
Building drainages in the other road sectors consisting of a dirt trail. All these
drainage works should be designed according to hydrological requirements in the
area and existing waterbody hydraulic characteristics.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 51 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
255Annex 3
Laboratorio Nacional de
Materiales y Modelos Estructurales
Assessing the likelihood of building bridges conforming to Minis try of Public
Works and Transportation (MOPT) -type drawings over some rivers and brooks
along the trail that have provisional stream crossings.
Performing assessments and geotechnical studies on unfinished and unstable cut
and fill areas, trying not to dis turb them any further because of the high costs
potentially involved in stabilizing them.
Strengthening project management and inspection focusing on work fronts in
shorter road sections to achieve a more controlled and efficient project progress.
Assessing the use of geotextiles or other techniques to stabilize road platform, in
order to reduce the use of granular materials that are very costly on account of
the long hauling distances to some project areas.
Establishing an aggregate selection and classif ication process at extraction
sources to insure all materials used in the project are suitable and will have a
good performance.
Expanding the use of erosion stabilization and control practices to the different
project sectors requiring them. Assessing the use of vegetative methods that
could be easily applied in several sectors.
Developing a technical profile of works pending implementation to leave the
border trail in full operating conditions, in order to guide political, technical, and
financial decisions required to complete it.
Defining mechanisms and putting resources available to implement a
maintenance and emergency attention program in the border trail.
As soon as possible, allocating engineering resources to the project in line with
the investment made and the far-reaching nature of this work in the country.
Report INF-PITRA-014-12 Issue Date: May 2012 Page 52 of 52
Laboratorio Nacional deMateriales y Modelos Estructurales – Universidad de Costa Rica
Apartado Postal 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica Tel: (506) 2511-2500, Fax: (506) 2511-4440
256 Annex 4
Federated Association of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica,
“Report on Inspection of the on the Border Road, Northern Area
Parallel to the San Juan River CFIA Report”.
8 June 2012
257258 Annex 4
Association of Federated Engineers Procedures Department
and Architects of Costa Rica Inspection & Standards Div.
(CFIA, by its Spanish acronym) Tel. (506) 2202-3928
Fax (506) 2283-3901
P.O. Box 2346-1000
Report: DRD-INSP-0299-2012
8 June 2012
Requested by : Board of Directors, CFIA
Executive Directorate, CFIA
Reason for Inspection : Verification of work done toward the construction of
“Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856”
Location of the project: Border road, northern area parallel to the Río San Juan
Inspectors assigned : Engineer Francisco J. Reyes Cordero
Engineer Austin Shen Ti
Engineer Luis Diego Alfaro Artavia
Engineer Alexander Guerra Morán
Engineer Luis Castro Boschini
Architect Marielos Alfaro Herra
Architect Carlos Murillo Gómez
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 1
259Annex 4
PRELIMINARY REPORT
1. Background
1.1 This investigation was carried out as instructed by the Board of Directors of the
Association of Federated Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica (CFIA, by its
Spanish acronym), through Engineer OlmanVargas Zeledón, CFIA Executive
Director, for the purpose of determining progress of the project and to evaluate the
construction of the border road.
1.2 Prior to the field trip, on 24 May 2012 a meeting was held among the professional
team involved in the project. This was part of the investigation by the CFIA being
done under an inspection file opened under No. 92-12.
1.3 At the meeting mentioned in paragraph 1.2, we were provided with maps of the route
the border road is to follow and its different means of access. Route 1856 extends
along the approximately 160 kilometres between Los Chiles and Delta (in front of
Isla Calero) and the arteries that access it, which total approximately 400 additional
kilometres. Another observation is that due to the absence of bridges that would
interconnect the route at different routes, (including the mouths of the Sarapiqui, San
Carlos and Pocosol Rivers) for the time being it is impossible to travel the route
without interruption. Also, there are different points in different stretches where work
has not been started. Records at the CFIA also reflect that there are no plans or
preliminary studies for the project, and the process of register the project under CFIA
responsibility was never initiated.
1.4 The visit was done by Inspectors Alexander Guerra Morán; Francisco Reyes Cordero;
Austin Shen Ti, of the Central Office; and Luis Diego Alfaro Artavia, of the Northern
Regional Office, all of them engineers; together with the Chief of CFIA Procedures
Dept. Architect Carlos Murillo Gómez.
1.5 On 7 June 2012, a second visit was done by Inspectors Luis Castro Boschini, from the
Central Office; Luis Diego Alfaro Artavia from the Northern Regional Office; and
Architect Marielos Alfaro Herra, of the Northern Regional Office Coordinating
Committee.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 2
260 Annex 4
2. Objective and scope
Verification of work done toward the construction of “Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856.”
The investigation consists of on-site inspection carried out in conformity with present legislation
whose guidelines were used in this document.
As a result of the scope and the methodology employed, this report is a preliminary study of
conditions observed at the time of the visit. It is part of Inspection File 92-12 open by the
Procedures Dept.
3. GENERAL ASPECTS
Present status and condition regarding drainage and possible environmental damage, recesses of
rivers and streams, the excavation and stabilization of slopes were inspected.
4. RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION
Inspections of the area located in Heredia Province; Sarapiquí District; as well as Alajuela
Province, San Carlos District; took place on 24 and 25 May, and later on 7 June 2012.
4.1 Observations made in the above area: The following stretches of the road were
inspected:
4.1.1 Arteries that access route 1856:
a) Puerto Viejo – Fátima route
b) Boca Río Sucio – Caño Tambor hillside route
c) Boca Tapada – Boca San Carlos route
d) Buenos Aires – Moravia – Crucitas
e) San Humberto – Las Tiricias route
i) Parque – La Trocha, Route 760
4.1.2 Route 1856:
f) Delta 7 – Fátima – Boca Ceiba (mouth of the Río Sarapiquí)
g) Caño Tambor – Remolinito – Palo Seco – Boca San Carlos (from Boca Sarapiquí
to Boca San Carlos).
h) 15 kilometers in the zone near Tiricias (Tiricias Road)
i) 23 kilometers – border post toward the east along the Tiricias Road.
j) 5 kilometers – border post toward the west along the Los Chiles Road.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 3
261Annex 4
Diagram No. 1
Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856 and arteries that access it:
Km 0, Delta 7, Costa Rica
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 4
262 Annex 4
Diagram No. 2
Visit (a) and (f)
a) Puerto Viejo – Fátima route
This route already exists; it seems that the intent is to rehabilitate it.
During the visit we were able to see that the route is comprised of gravel with a
great number of cracks and holes.
Parts of the road have no drainage slopes or ditches, therefore, water accumulates
in those areas. Parts of the road with drainage require uniformity and
maintenance.
An abandoned trailer container was observed on the road, its future use is
unknown.
No significant slopes were observed in this stretch of the road.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 5
263Annex 4
F1. The roads have no drainage ditches, cleared areas in this stretch have no bluff.
F2. A lot of cracks and holes are observed in this area. Five kilometers before
reaching Fátima, a trailer container can be seen on the road.
f) Delta 7 – Fátima – Boca Ceiba (mouth of the Río Sarapiquí (river))
This stretch of the road is a distance from the recess of the Río San Juan.
As indicated by CACISA, this stretch is the only part of the road that has been completed.
The road has many cracks and holes in this stretch.
It has no drainage slope or ditch, therefore, water accumulates in some parts and there is
movement of finos.
There are areas with boulders not apt for roads; in these areas the river is considerably
oversized and passage of vehicles creates splashes to the sides.
A Bailey-type bridge, in poor condition, is observed. Its structure is rusty; other bridges with
wooden logs are also observed.
Along this stretch it is difficult to determine the type of soil unearthed during excavation for
gavetas and possible contamination of the base. The ground seems saturated and its drainage
slope is insufficient for release of the finos.
PVC pipe for drainage can be seen in a stretch of the road in Fátima. The pipe is an
obstruction whose entrance and drainage point are unprotected.
As observed, in some sections there are slopes approximately four meters high with very
elevated margins.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 6
264 Annex 4
F3. A PVC drainage is obstructed by movement of finos of the base layer.
F4. The Bailey bridge is in a state of advanced deterioration, with loose planks.
F5. Bridge with a base built from wooden logs.
F6. The route has no drainage, there are cracks and holes, and areas where there are
oversized boulders not apt for roads.
Diagram No. 3, Visit b, g and c:
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 7
265Annex 4
b) District route: Mouth of the Río Sucio (river) – Tambor Spring
This route already existed, but it was rehabilitated.
The route is generally in good condition, but there are cracks and holes in
some areas.
There is no drainage in this stretch of the route.
There are no slopes conformed by bluffs.
Machinery and stored supplied are present in view of the re-initiation of the
project.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 8
266 Annex 4
F9. The route is generally in good condition.
F10. Machinery and stored supplies were observed.
g) Tambor – Remolinito Spring – Palo Seco – Boca San Carlos (Boca Sarapiquí to
Boca San Carlos)
Most of this route consists of dirt roads with some leveling beginning, some areas cannot be
transited. There is no drainage and water accumulates in different places.
There is an approximately 10 kilometer stretch that basically consists of paths between
different plots of land. The impact of machinery to this area is not evident.
There are stretches where the recess on the bank of the Río San Juan should be revised; in
some areas the recess is of approximately 10 meters.
There are slopes up to approximately six meters high with very elevated margins.
There are several bridges on wooden pillars.
There is also a bridge comprised of two trailers containers and wooden logs. The walls of the
trailers containers are already bulging and in imminent danger of collapsing. At this same
point it is evident that the flow of a brook was rerouted.
There are material deposits along the road, boulders that are too large for a road; the source
of these deposits is unknown.
A PVC pipe drain under construction was observed.
There is machinery for the construction of ditches and accumulated material for the re-
initiation of the project.
Work was observed which could lead to environmental damage to forests and wetlands.
In some stretches there is no evidence of the due leveling nor of adequate stabilization, since
impermeable material, not apt for roads, was observed.
The same excavation material has been used as landfill and it is unknown if that material was
subjected to laboratory tests to decide its use.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 9
267Annex 4
F11. Paths with compacted earth.
F12. Dirt roads where water has accumulated making transit impossible. Impact on the
forest can be observed.
F13. Different bridges on wooden pillars can be observed.
F14. A dirt road with no drainage; as it was not based on plans, disorganized cuts and
fills were carried out.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 10
268 Annex 4
F15. An approximately 10 kilometer stretch which basically consists of paths between
lots; transit along this road is very difficult even with 4x4 vehicle.
F16. Deforestation and impact on the zone’s wetlands are evident.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 11
269Annex 4
F17. Evident in the first photo (a) is the obstruction of the natural flow of the river; the second
photo (b) shows the construction of a canal for re-routing the flow of the river; the last two
photos (c and d) show the construction of a bridge where wooden logs and two container
trailers used for drainage are part of the structure; bulging can be seen; bulging in the
walls of the container trailers can also be seen.
It is important to indicate that in this area far more work has been done across the road than in
the areas previously mentioned; the reason for this is not clear.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 12
270 Annex 4
F18. There are stretches of the road where its path is very close to the bank of the Río San Juan,
these stretches of the road should be re-evaluated.
Piling of material Trench
Río San Juan
F19. Materials used are only meters away from the Río
San Juan; very big boulders can be observed as well as
piles of broken boulders. Here, what is apparently a
trench is located between the Río San Juan and the road,
several meters from the river. These situations should be
evaluated.
The edge of the road
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 13
271Annex 4
Diagram No. 34,Visit d, e and h
d) Buenos Aires – Moravia – Crucitas
This route already exists, however, it was rehabilitated.
The route is generally in good condition but there are cracks and holes in some areas.
Ditches are in need of maintenance and some stretches have no drainage.
There are slopes of up to six meters high with very high margins.
Wetlands have been impacted upon.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 14
272 Annex 4
There is an abandoned trailer container on the road whose use is unknown.
This route was impossible to use for access to the border road. A locked gate blocks off
the road and it was impossible to continue.
With the help of neighbors the road was reached by crossing from Crucitas to Jocotes by
way of unkempt paths and on to the Tiricias areas.
F20. Lack of maintenance to the drainage canals.
F21. One of the areas with cracks and holes, besides very elevated longitudinal
slopes.
F22. Slope approximately six meters in height with an almost vertical slope.
F23. Possible impact to wetlands.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 15
273Annex 4
F24. Areas with cracks and holes and no drainage.
F25. In the Crucitas areas, a gate obstructs the path to the border road.
F26. There is a trailer container on the road approximately one kilometer before
reaching Tiricias.
h) The 15 kilometers in the area near Tiricias.
Approximately seven kilometers toward Tiricias – Crucitas were covered, and 7.5
kilometers toward Tiricias – Trocha; since these stretches of the road are in gravel and in
view of the conditions of the path, it was impossible to transit any further.
Several areas have no drainage canals or ditches.
In several stretches of the road that were inspected the path of the road is a short distance
from the bank of the Río San Juan, some of these bluffs are at a distance of
approximately 15 meters.
There are huge slopes with high peaks and no protection whatsoever.
There is river water flowing along paths formed by logs of wood.
There are also bridges built with logs of wood.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 16
274 Annex 4
Diverse materials have been deposited along the edge of the path of the road including
very large boulders and machinery can also be observed; however, no persons are
observed operating this machinery.
There is possible alteration to the wetlands, deforestation and still water with no drainage.
F27. There are huge slopes with high peaks in this area and no protection
whatsoever.
F.28. There are huge slopes with high peaks in this area and no protection whatsoever.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 17
275Annex 4
F29. In this area the recess from the Río San Juan is approximately 15 meters.
F30. In this area there is also a trench from which materials were extracted.
F31. Deforestation in wetlands area.
F32. Wooden logs are used to allow for the drainage of water.
F33. Recess from the river in this area should also be evaluated for compliance with the
law.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 18
276 Annex 4
F35. Materials and machinery depot.
F34. Stagnant water with no drainage whatsoever.
F36. Work in this area is incomplete.
F37. Gravel ends in this area. The dirt road is almost impossible to transit. Impact on
the forest is noticeable.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 19
277Annex 4
Diagram No. 5
Visits I, j and k
i) Route 760 Parque – La Trocha
Dirt road which already exists, and on which there seems to have been no work to
improve transit.
Conditions are generally acceptable and in some areas the paths are on plots of land.
The drainage canals are in need of maintenance, and in some stretches there are none.
F38. Dirt road from Route 760 El Parque.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 20
278 Annex 4
j) Approximately five kilometers of Trocha toward Los Chiles
4.6 Kilometers towards Trocha – Los Chiles were transited.
Along this stretch there is a road comprised of dirt, of varying width; the earth is uneven
in some parts and at one point it is only wide enough for one vehicle; there is cultivated
land on one side.
There is no drainage or ditches.
In some places river water runs though round plastic pipes.
There are bridges built out of wooden logs and trailer containers.
There is stagnant water with no canals; there is deforestation alongside some stretches.
F39. Front-view of a stretch of the road where the earth is uneven.
F40. A stretch of the road wide enough for only one vehicle.
F41. Circular pipe serving as outlet for river water.
P42. A stretch of the road wide enough for only one vehicle.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 21
279Annex 4
F43. Stagnant water and deforestation.
k) Approximately 23 kilometers of road toward Tiricias.
Approximately 23.1 kilometers were transited in direction to Trocha – Tiricias.
Some stretches are a dirt road, others are paved gravel. The part where the route is
marked was reached but its condition is not conducive to vehicular transit.
Clearing of areas approximately three to six meters high.
There are no drainage canals or ditches.
Circular pipes serving as outlets for river water.
There are bridges built of wooden logs and trailer containers. Some of the trailer
containers have deteriorating sides.
There are also bridges and water outlets constructed of wooden logs.
There is stagnant water with no drainage canals.
There are few areas with ditches to channel water.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 22
280 Annex 4
Diagram No. 6. Construction details regarding areas of this stretch that was
visited.
F44. View of a dirt stretch.
F45. View of a gravel stretch.
F46. Circular pipes serving as outlets for river water.
F47. Trailer container used as a bridge.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 23
281Annex 4
F48. Bridge and waterway with wooden logs.
F49. Bridge being used for heavy machinery.
F50. Clearing of slope approximately six meters high.
F51. End of the part of the road that can be transited.
F52. Dirt drainage ditch serving as water outlet.
F53. Stagnant water present in some parts.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 24
282 Annex 4
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The project was visited on 24 – 25 May and 7 June 2012 for the purpose of verifying the
work done and the present state of Route 1856. The visit was carried out by inspectors of
the Department for Inspection and Standards, and the Northern Regional Office.
5.2 Maps of the stretch of the border road and the different access routes were made
available. The length of Route 1856 is approximately 160 kilometers and the different
arteries that access it are a sum of 400 kilometers. Due to the absence of bridges
interconnecting the route in some stretches (the mouths of the Sarapiquí, San Carlos and
Pocosol rivers among others) for the time being it is impossible to uninterruptedly transit
the road, besides the fact that in some stretches of the different parts of the road work has
yet to begin. The project has no plans or preliminary studies, a situation that was
corroborated through use of the CFIA database where there is no record of the project.
5.3 The route was constructed without a single plan to indicate the path that was to be
opened, or what its characteristics should have been. This situation causes increased
costs, environmental problems, and a rapid deterioration of the project.
5.4 The lack of adequate drainage for channeling rainwater was observed. It can be foreseen
that this situation can prematurely erode the work already done. It should be mentioned
that in some areas trailer containers were used for greater drainage in the channeling of
brooks. These trailer containers already reflect deterioration and are at risk of collapsing
as reflected in the photographs included in this report.
5.5 It is unknown if soil samples were analyzed, and without such analysis the top base could
suffer premature contamination due to the material used.
5.6 As reflected in the photographs and as observed along certain stretches, it is presumed
that protected areas were not taken into account. As defined by Forests Law No. 7575,
Article 33, Section ii, a protected area is “a 15 meters strip in a rural zone and 10 meters
in an urban zone, horizontally measured on both sides of the bank of a river, a brook or
stream if the land is flat, and fifty horizontal meters if the land is uneven.” Further,
according to the Law No. 276 to Regulate Water Resources, Article 31, Section ii, “The
forest area that protects or should protect the land that filters drinking water as well as
those that assist in the formation of hydrographic basins and accumulation areas, supply
sources, or permanent pathways for the same water,” are declared reserves that are
subject to dominion of the Nation.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 25
283Annex 4
5.7 Once the Río San Juan was declared a navigable river in Decree No. 4 of 23 February
1966, “… Río San Juan. According to the Cañas Jérez Treaty of 1858 and the Cleveland
Decision of 1888, Costa Rica has access to the free navigation of commercial ships in the
San Juan de Salinas bays, as well as in the Río San Juan from its mouth to three nautical
miles (5.6 kilometers) before the Castillo Viejo or San Carlos. The distance between the
latter point and the beginning of the Río Colorado is 100 kilometers,” and according to
Article 7 of the Lands and Colonization Law: “b) the land encompassed in the 50 meters
wide zone along both banks of navigable rivers…” “are declared Agricultural Property of
the State.” This should be evaluated by technical experts since there are doubts regarding
the recesses of the road along the Río San Juan in some stretches where it is only a few
meters from the bank.
5.8 Technical criteria for land removal are unknown since the excavation and landfill are
unstable, and transit is almost impossible in some areas due to very elevated longitudinal
slopes. Where there is leveling, compacting of the earth is very poor.
5.9 An evaluation for possible environmental damage should be done since there are
wetlands in the area that may have been impacted by deforestation and use of material
from the Río San Juan bank; besides the fact that brooks have been rerouted, and the
boulders that have been used in some areas are from the river, many of them oversized. It
is unknown if material was extracted from a nearby river and if the necessary permits for
this were applied for.
5.10 Regarding impact on wetlands it should be noted that in conformity with Article 45 of the
Organic Environmental Law, “Activity which interrupts the normal cycles of wetlands
ecosystems, as well as the construction of dykes which interrupt the flow of sea or
continental water, drainage, desiccation, landfill or any other alteration that provokes
deterioration or elimination of such ecosystems, is prohibited.” Therefore, this situation
should be evaluated by technical experts in this field.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 That, to ensure the necessary follow through process, this department forward a copy of
this report to Engineer Olman Vargas Zeledón so it can be brought to the General
Directorate which requested it.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 26
284 Annex 4
6.2 Short-term interventions
Immediate construction of drainage canals in all stretches of the road where gravel is
already in place; and their construction in the winter in areas where this is still a dirt road.
Maintenance of drainage canals in the stretches where they already exist, especially in the
arteries that access the road.
Stabilization of the slopes with high margins and significant dimensions in order to avoid
landslides during the rains that are about to begin.
The immediate design and construction of the necessary bridges in the Pocosol River, the
mouths of the Río Sarapiquí, the Río San Juan, and of the Río Infiernito, which would
make possible continuous transit along the whole of the road.
The substitution of wooden logs, trailer containers and drainages that are being used as
bridges and water pathways under the road, as these do not comply with minimal
structural design and engineering mechanics requirements.
6.3 Midrange second phase work
Evaluation of the recesses of Río San Juan by way of a technical study under present
applicable law.
A detailed topographical blueprint of all work done to the present.
Development of all pertinent designs and construction blueprints for the whole of the
project.
Compacting of all landfill, and the laboratory tests of all materials used for the base of the
road and leveling.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 27
285Annex 4
Substitution of wooden logs, trailer containers and drainage canals used as bridges or
water pathways under the road which do not comply with the minimal structural design
and engineering mechanics requirements.
Inspectors,
_____________________________ ____________________________
Engineer Austin Shen Ti Engineer Francisco Reyes Cordero
_____________________________ ____________________________
Engineer Luis Diego Alfaro Artavia Engineer Luis Castro Boschini
_____________________________
Engineer Alexander Guerra Morán
And Architects
___________________________ __________________________
Marielos Alfaro Herra V.B. Carlos R. Murillo Gómez
Chief of Regional Office Chief of CFIA Procedures Dept.
DRD-INSP-0299-2012 28
286 Annex 5
Treaty of Limits between Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
15 April 1858.
287288Annex 5
289Annex 5
290Annex 5
291Annex 5
292Annex 5
293Annex 5
294Annex 5
295296 Annex 6
(1) Award of the Arbitrator, the President of the United States, upon
the validity of the Treaty of Limits of 1858 between Nicaragua and
Costa Rica (Cleveland Award), reprinted United Nations,
Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII (2006),
pp.207-211 Washington, D.C.,
22 March 1888.
(2) First Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.215-221, San Juan del Norte,
30 September 1897.
(3) Second Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.223-225, San Juan del Norte,
20 December 1897.
(4) Third Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.227-230, San Juan del Norte,
22 March 1898.
(5) Fourth Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.231-235, Greytown,
26 July 1899.
297298 Annex 6
(1) Award of the Arbitrator, the President of the United States, upon
the validity of the Treaty of Limits of 1858 between Nicaragua and
Costa Rica (Cleveland Award), reprinted United Nations,
Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII (2006),
pp.207-211 Washington, D.C.,
22 March 1888.
299Annex 6
300Annex 6
301Annex 6
302Annex 6
303Annex 6
304 Annex 6
(2) First Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.215-221, San Juan del Norte,
30 September 1897.
REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRAL AWARDS
RECUEIL DES SENTENCES
ARBITRALES
First awfor the demarcation of the boundary between the two Republics8 April 1896
30 September 1897
VOLUME XXVIII pp. 215-222
NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS
Copyright (c) 2007
305Annex 6
FIRST AWARD OF THE ENGINEER-UMPIRE, UNDER THE
CONVENTION BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND NICARAGUA OF 8
APRIL 1896 FOR THE DEMARC ATION OF THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN THE TWO REPUBLICS, DECISION OF 30 SEPTEMBER
1897 ∗
PREMIÈRE SENTENCE ARBITRAL E RENDUE PAR LE SURARBITRE
INGÉNIEUR, EN VERTU DE LA CONVENTION ENTRE LE COSTA
RICA ET LE NICARAGUA DU 8 AVRIL 1896 POUR LA
DÉMARCATION DE LA FRONTIÈRE ENTRE LES DEUX
∗∗
RÉPUBLIQUES, DÉCISION DU 30 SEPTEMBRE 1897
Interpretation of treaty – treaty mustrpreted in the way in which it was mutually
understood at the time by its makers – meani ng understood from the langua ge taken as a whole
and not deduced from isolated words or sentences – the non use of some names may be as
significant as the use of others – Treaty of limits of 15 April 1858.
Delimitation of boundary – a temporary connection between an island and mainland during
the dry season may not change permanently the ge ographical character and political ownership of
the island – the river being treated and regarded as an outlet of commerce in the Treaty; it has to
be considered when it is navigable, with an average water level.
Interprétation des traités – un traité dinterprété conformément à la conception
mutuelle de ses auteurs au moment de son élaboration – le sens doit être dégagé du texte pris dans
sa globalité et non déduit de termes ou de phrases isolés – le non em ploi de certains noms propres
peut être aussi significatif que l’emploi de certains autres.
Délimitation frontalière – une liaison temporaire pendant la saison sèche entre une île et le
continent ne peut pas changde façon permanente le caractère géographique et la possession
politique de cette île – dans le traité, le fleuve étant désigné et envisagé comme une infrastructure
commerciale, il doit être pris en compte lorsqu’ il est navigable, c’est à dire avec un niveau d’eau
moyen.
* * * * *
__________
∗Reprinted from John Basset Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to
Which the United States has been a Party, vol. V, Washington 1898, Government Printing Office,
p.50∗∗.
Reproduit de John Basset Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to
Which the United States has been a Pa, vol. V, Washington , 1898, Government Printing
Office, p. 5074.
306 Annex 6
216 COSTA RICA NICARAGUA
S AN JUAN DEL N ORTE , NICARAGUA ,
September 30, 1897.
To the Commissions of Limits of Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
G ENTLEMEN : In pursuance of the duties assigned me by my commission
as engineer-arbitrator to your two bodies, with the power to decide finally any
points of difference that may arise in tracing and marking out the boundary
line between the two republics, I have given careful study and consideration to
all arguments, counter arguments, maps, and documents submitted to me in
the matter of the proper location of the initial point of the said boundary line
upon the Caribbean coast.
The conclusion at which I have arrived and the award I am about to make
do not accord with the views of either commission. So, in deference to the
very excellent and earnest arguments so faithfully and loyally urged by each
commission for its respective side, I will indicate briefly my line of thought
and the considerations which have seemed to me to be paramount in
determining the question; and of these considerations the principal and the
controlling one is that we are to interpret and give effect to the treaty of April
15, 1858, in the way in which it was mutually understood at the time by its
makers.
Each commission has presented an elaborate and well-argued contention
that the language of that treaty is consistent with its claim for a location of the
initial point of the boundary line at a place which would give to its country
great advantages. These points are over six miles apart, and are indicated on
the map accompanying this award.
The Costa Rican claim is located on the left-hand shore or west headland
of the harbor; the Nicaraguan on the east headland of the mouth of the Taura
branch.
Without attempting to reply in detail to every argument advanced by
either side in support of its respective claim, all will be met and sufficiently
answered by showing that those who made the treaty mutually understood and
had in view another point, to wit, the eastern headland at the mouth of the
harbor.
It is the meaning of the men who fra med the treaty which we are to seek,
rather than some possible meaning whic h can be forced upon isolated words
or sentences. And this meaning of the men seems to me abundantly plain and
obvious.
This treaty was not made hastily or carelessly. Each state had born
wrought up by years of fruitless negotiations to a state of readiness for war in
defense of what it considered its rights, as is set forth in article 1. In fact, war
had actually been declared by Nicar agua on November 25, 1857, when,
through the mediation of the Republic of Salvador, a final effort to avert it
307Annex 6
AWARD OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1897 217
was made, another convention was held, and this treaty resulted. Now, we
may arrive at the mutual understanding finally reached by its framers by first
seeking in the treaty as a whole for the general idea or scheme of compromise
upon which they were able to agree. Next, we must see that this general idea
of the treaty as a whole harmonizes fully with any description of the line given
in detail, and the proper name s of all the localities used, or not used , in
connection therewith, for the non use of some names may be as significant as
the use of others. Now, from the general consideration of the treaty as a whole
the scheme of compromise stands out clear and simple.
Costa Rica was to have as a boundary line the right or southeast bank of
the river, considered as an outlet fo r commerce, from a point 3 miles below
Castillo to the sea.
Nicaragua was to have her prized “sumo imperio” of all the waters of this
same outlet for commerce, also unbroken to the sea.
It is to be noted that this division implied also, of course, the ownership
by Nicaragua of all islands in the river and of the left or northwest bank and
headland.
This division brings the boundary line (supposing it to be traced
downward along the right bank from the point near Castillo) across both the
Colorado and the Taura branches.
It can not follow either of them, for neither is an outlet for commerce, as
neither has a harbor at its mouth.
It must follow the remaining branch, the one called the Lower San Juan,
through its harbor and into the sea.
The natural terminus of that line is the right-hand headland of the harbor
mouth.
Next let us note the language of description used in the treaty, telling
whence the line is to start and how it is to run, leaving out for the moment the
proper name applied to the initial point. It is to start “at the mouth of the river
San Juan de Nicaragua, and shall continue following the right bank of the said
river to a point three English miles from Castillo Viejo”.
This language is evidently carefully considered and precise, and there is
but one starting point possible for such a line, and that is at the right headland
of the bay.
Lastly, we come to the proper name applied to the starting point, “the
extremity of Punta de Castillo”. This name Punta de Castillo does not appear
upon a single one of all the original maps of the bay of San Juan which have
been presented by either side, and whic h seem to include all that were ever
published before the treaty or since. This is a significant fact, and its meaning
is obvious. Punta de Castillo must have been, and must have remained, a point
of no importance, political or commercial, otherwise it could not possibly
308 Annex 6
218 COSTA RICA NICARAGUA
have so utterly escaped note or mention upon the maps. This agrees entirely
with the characteristics of the mainland and the headland on the right of the
bay. It remains until today obscure and unoccupied, except by the hut of a
fisherman. But the identification of the locality is still further put beyond all
question by the incidental mention, in another article of the treaty itself, of the
name Punta de Castillo.
In Article V. Costa Rica agrees tem porarily to permit Nicaragua to use
Costa Rica’s side of the harbor without payment of port dues, and the name
Punta de Castillo is plainly applied to it. Thus we have, concurring, the
general idea of compromise in the treaty as a whole, the literal description of
the line in detail, and the verification of the name applied to the initial point
by its incidental mention in another portion of the treaty, and by the
concurrent testimony of every map maker of every nation, both before the
treaty and since, in excluding this name from all other portions of the harbor.
This might seem to be sufficient argument upon the subject, but it will present
the whole situation in a still clearer light to give a brief explanation of the
local geography and of one special peculiarity of this Bay of San Juan.
The great feature in the local geogra phy of this bay, since our earliest
accounts of it, has been the existence of an island in its outlet, called on some
early maps the island of San Juan. It wa s an island of such importance as to
have been mentioned in 1820 by two distinguished authors, quoted in the
Costa Rican reply to Nicaragua’s argume nt (page 12), and it is an island to-
day, and so appears in the map accompanying this award. The peculiarity of
this bay, to be noted, is that the river brings down very little water during the
annual dry season. When that happens, particularly of late years, sand bars,
dry at all ordinary tides, but submerged more or less and broken over by the
waves at all high ones, are formed, frequently reaching the adjacent headlands,
so that a man might cross dry-shod.
Now, the whole claim of Costa Rica is based upon the assumption that on
April 15, 1858, the date of the treaty, a connection existed between the island
and the eastern headland, and that this converted the island into mainland, and
carried the initial point of the boundary over to the western extremity of the
island. To this claim there are at least two replies, either one seeming to me
conclusive.
First, the exact state of the bar on th at day can not be definitely proven,
which would seem to be necessary before drawing important conclusions.
However, as the date was near the end of the dry season, it is most
probable that there was such a connection between the island and the eastern
Costa Rican shore as has been described. But even if that be true, it would be
unreasonable to suppose that such temporary connection could operate to
change permanently the geographical character and political ownership of the
island. The same principle, if allowed, would give to Costa Rica every island
in the river to which sand bars from her shore had made out during that dry
season. But throughout the treaty the rive r is treated and regarded as an outlet
309Annex 6
AWARD OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1897 219
of commerce. This implies that it is to be considered as in average condition
of water, in which condition alone it is navigable.
But the overwhelming consideration in the matter is that by the use of the
name of Punta de Castillo for the starting point, instead of the name Punta
Arenas, the makers of the treaty intended to designate the mainland on the east
of the harbor. This has already been discussed, but no direct reply was made
to the argument of Costa Rica quoting three authors as applying the name
Punta de Castillo to the western extremity of the before-mentioned island, the
point invariably called Point Arenas by all the naval and other officers,
surveyors, and engineers who ever mapped it.
These authors are L. Montufar, a Guat emalan, in 1887; J. D. Gamez, a
Nicaraguan, in 1889, and E. G. Squier, an American, date not given exactly,
but subsequent to the treaty. Even of these, the last two merely used, once
each, the name Punta de Castillo as an alternate for Punta Arenas. Against this
array of authority we have, first, an innumerable number of other writers
clearly far more entitled to confidence; second, the original makers of all the
maps, as before pointed out, and third, the framers of the treaty itself, by their
use of Punta de Castillo in Article V.
It must be borne in mind that for some years before the making of this
treaty Punta Arenas had been by far the most important and conspicuous point
in the bay. On it were located the wharves, workshops, offices, etc., of
Vanderbilt’s great transit company, conducting the through line from New
York to San Francisco during the gold excitement of the early fifties. Here the
ocean and river steamers met and exch anged passengers and cargo. This was
the point sought to be controlled by Walker and the filibusters.
The village of San Juan cut no figure at all in comparison, and it would
doubtless be easy to produce by hundreds references to this point as Punta
Arenas by naval and diplomatic officers of all prominent nations, by
prominent residents and officials, and by engineers and surveyors constantly
investigating the canal problem, and all having a personal knowledge of the
locality.
In view of all these circumstances, the jealousy with which each party to
the treaty defined what it gave up and what it kept, the prominence and
importance of the locality, the concurrence of all the original maps in the
name, and its universal notoriety, I find it impossible to conceive that
Nicaragua had conceded this extensive and important territory to Costa Rica,
and that the latter’s representative had failed to have the name Punta Arenas
appear anywhere in the treaty. And for reasons so similar that it is unnecessary
to repeat them, it is also impossible to conceive that Costa Rica should have
accepted the Taura as her boundary and that Nicaragua’s representative should
have entirely failed to have the name Taura appear anywhere in the treaty.
Having then designated generally the mainland east of Harbor Head as
the location of the initial point of the boundary line, it now becomes necessary
310 Annex 6
220 COSTA RICA /NICARAGUA
to specify more minutely, in order that the said line may be exactly located
and permanently marked. The exact location of the initial point is given in
President Cleveland’s award as the “extremity of Punta de Castillo, at the
mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua River, as they both existed on the 15th of
April 1858”.
A careful study of all available maps and comparisons between those
made before the treaty and those of recent date made by boards of engineers
and officers of the canal company, and one of to-day made by yourselves to
accompany this award, makes very clear one fact: The exact spot which was
the extremity of the headland of Punta de Castillo April 15, 1858, has long
been swept over by the Caribbean Sea, and there is too little concurrence in
the shore outline of the old maps to permit any certainty of statement of
distance or exact direction to it from the present headland. It was somewhere
to the northeastward, and probably between 600 and 1,600 feet distant, but it
can not now be certainly located. Under these circumstances it best fulfills the
demands of the treaty and of President Cleveland’s award to adopt what is
practically the headland of to-day, or the northwestern extremity of what
seems to be the solid land, on the east side of Harbor Head Lagoon.
I have accordingly made personal inspection of this ground, and declare
the initial line of the boundary to run as follows, to wit:
Its direction shall be due northeast and southwest, across the bank of sand,
from the Caribbean Sea into the waters of Harbor Head Lagoon. It shall pass,
at its nearest point, 300 feet on the northwest side from the small hut now
standing in that vicinity . On reaching the waters of Harbor Head Lagoon the
boundary line shall turn to the left, or southeastward, and shall follow the
water’s edge around the harbor until it reaches the river proper by the first
channel met. Up this channel, and up the river proper, the line shall continue
to ascend as directed in the treaty.
I am, gentlemen, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. P. ALEXANDER .
311Annex 6
AWARD OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1897 221
SKETCH OF THE HARBOR OF GREYTOWN – 1897
312 Annex 6
(3) Second Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.223-225, San Juan del Norte,
20 December 1897.
REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRAL AWARDS
RECUEIL DES SENTENCES
ARBITRALES
Second award under the Convention between Costa Rica and Nicaragua of 8
April 1896 for the demarcation of the boundary between the two Republics
20 December 1897
VOLUME XXVIII pp. 223-225
NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS
Copyright (c) 2007
313Annex 6
SECOND AWARD OF THE ENGINEER-UMPIRE, UNDER THE
CONVENTION BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND NICARAGUA OF 8
APRIL 1896 FOR THE DEMARC ATION OF THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN THE TWO REPUBLICS, DECISION OF 20 DECEMBER
1897 ∗
DEUXIÈME SENTENCE ARBITRALE RENDUE PAR LE SURARBITRE
INGÉNIEUR, EN VERTU DE LA CONVENTION ENTRE LE COSTA
RICA ET LE NICARAGUA DU 8 AVRIL 1896 POUR LA
DÉMARCATION DE LA FRONTIÈRE ENTRE LES DEUX
RÉPUBLIQUES, DÉCISION DU 20 DÉCEMBRE 1897 ∗∗
Interpretation of treaty of delimitatioing demarcation process, accuracy of the
measurement of the border-line is not as important as the finding natural landmarks, provided
there is agreement between the two Partiescase of disagreement, the view of the party
favouring greater accuracy must prevail.
International boundary – natural changes of the banks of a river serving as an international
boundary – determination of future changes made easier thanks to measurement and demarcation.
Interprétation d’un traité de délimitation – durant la procédure de démarcation, l’exactitude
du métrage de la ligne frontière est moins importante que l’établissement de repères naturels, sous
réserve de l’accord des deux Parties – en cas de désaccord, la position de la Partie en faveur de la
plus grande exactitude doit prévaloir.
Frontière internationale – altérations naturelle s des rives d’un fleuve servant de frontière
internationale – détermination des modifications futures facilitée par le métrage et la démarcation
* * * * *
Second award rendered, to San Juan del Norte, on
December 20, 1897, in the boundary question between
∗∗∗
Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
In pursuance once again of the dutie s assigned me by my commission as
engineer-arbitrator to your two bodies, I have been called upon to decide on
the matter submitted to me in the record dated the 7th of this month, as per the
following paragraph of that record: “The Costa Rican Commission proposed
__________
∗
Reprinted from H. La Fontaine, Pasicrisie Internationale: Histoire Documentaire des
Arbi∗∗ages Internationaux (1794-1900), Imprimerie Stampelli & CIE, Berne, 1902, p.532.
Reproduit de H. La Fontaine,Pasicrisie Internationale: Histoire Documentaire des
Arbitrages Internationaux (1794-1900), Imprimerie Stampelli & CIE, Berne, 1902, p,532.
∗∗∗Original Spanish version, translated by the Secretariat of the United Nations.
314 Annex 6
224 COSTA RICA NICARAGUA
that we proceed to the measurement of the line that ran from the starting point
and continued along the shore of Harbor Head and thence along the shore
around the harbor until it reaches the San Juan river proper by the first channel
met and thence along the bank of the river to a point three miles below
Castillo Viejo and that a map should be made of such line and that all of that
should be set down in the daily record. The Nicaraguan Commission
expressed the view that the measurement and mapping work on that portion of
the line was pointless and worthless be cause, according to the Award by
General E. P. Alexander, the left bank of the Harbor and of the river formed
the boundary and that ther efore the dividing line was subject to change and
not permanent. Therefore, the map and any data obtained shall never
correspond to the actual dividing line. To that end, the two Commissions have
decided to hear the decision that the ar bitrator would render within a week to
their respective arguments submitted to him on that question.”
The above-mentioned arguments of each party have been received and
duly considered. It should be noted, for a clearer understanding of the question
at hand, that the San Juan river runs through a flat and sandy delta in the lower
portion of its course and that it is o bviously possible that its banks will not
only gradually expand or contract but that there will be wholesale changes in
its channels. Such changes may occur fairly rapidly and suddenly and may not
always be the result of unusual factors such as earthquakes or major storms.
Examples abound of previous channels now abandoned and banks that are
now changing as a result of gradual expansions or contractions.
Today’s boundary line must necessarily be affected in future by all these
gradual or sudden changes. But the impact in each case can only be
determined by the circumstances of th e case itself, on a case-by-case basis in
accordance with such principles of international law as may be applicable.
The proposed measurement and demarcation of the boundary line will not
have any effect on the application of those principles.
The fact that the line has been measured and demarcated will neither
increase nor decrease any legal standing that it might have had it not been
measured or demarcated.
The only effect obtained from measurement and demarcation is that the
nature and extent of future changes may be easier to determine.
There is no denying the fact that there is a certain contingent advantage to
being always able to locate the original line in future. But there may well be a
difference of opinion as to how much time and expense needs to be spent in
order to obtain such a contingent advantage. That is the difference now
between the two Commissions.
Costa Rica wants to have that future capacity. Nicaragua feels that the
contingent benefit is not worth the current expenditure.
315Annex 6
AWARD OF 20 DECEMBER 1897 225
In order to decide which one of these views should hold sway, I have to
abide by the spirit and letter of the 1858 Treaty and to determine whether
there is anything in either point of view that is applicable to the question. I
find both things in article 3.
Article 2 describes the entire dividing line from the Caribbean Sea to the
Pacific and article 3 continues thus: “measurements corresponding to this
dividing line shall be taken in whole or in part by the Government
commissioners, who shall agree on the tim e required for such measurements
to be made. The commissioners shall be empowered to diverge slightly from
the curve around El Castillo, from the line parallel to the banks of the river
and lake, or from the straight astr onomical line between Sapoá and Salinas,
provided that they can agree upon this, in order to adopt natural landmarks.”
The entire article is devoted to prescribing how the Commissioners
should perform their task. It allows them to dispense with a few details
because it says that the whole or part of the line may be measured and implies
that accuracy is not as important as finding natural landmarks. But the
condition expressly stipulated in the latter case and clearly understood also in
the former is that the two Commissions must agree.
Otherwise, the line in its entirety must be measured, following all the
practical steps described in article 2.
Clearly, therefore, the consequence of any disagreement on the question
of whether the measurement is more or le ss accurate must be that the view of
the party favouring greater accuracy should prevail.
I therefore announce my award as follows: the Commissioners shall
immediately proceed to measuring the line from the starting point to a point
three miles below El Castillo Viejo, as proposed by Costa Rica.
316 Annex 6
(4) Third Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.227-230, San Juan del Norte,
22 March 1898.
REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRAL AWARDS
RECUEIL DES SENTENCES
ARBITRALES
Third award under the Convention between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
of 8 April 1896 for the demarcation of the boundary between the two Republics
22 March 1898
VOLUME XXVIII pp. 227-230
NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS
Copyright (c) 2007
317Annex 6
THIRD AWARD OF THE ENGINEER-UMPIRE, UNDER THE
CONVENTION BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND NICARAGUA OF 8
APRIL 1896 FOR THE DEMARC ATION OF THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN THE TWO REPUBLICS, DECISION OF 22 MARCH 1898 ∗
TROISIÈME SENTENCE ARBITRALE RENDUE PAR LE SURARBITRE
INGÉNIEUR, EN VERTU DE LA CONVENTION ENTRE LE COSTA
RICA ET LE NICARAGUA DU 8 AVRIL 1896 POUR LA
DÉMARCATION DE LA FRONTIÈRE ENTRE LES DEUX
RÉPUBLIQUES, DÉCISION DU 22 MARS 1898 ∗∗
International boundary – necessity of sboundaries – the bank of a river serving as
boundary means the bank with the water at the ordi nary stage – fluctuations in the water level do
not alter the position of the boundary line – cha nges in the boundary can only occur when they
affect the bed of the river.
Frontière internationale – nécessité de frontière s stables – les berges d’un fleuve servant de
frontière sont les berges correspondantes au niveau d’eau ordinaire – les fluctuations du niveau
d’eau ne modifient pas la position de la ligne frontière – les modifications de lafrontière ne
peuvent résulter que de changements dans le lit du fleuve.
* * * * *
Third award rendered, to San Juan del Norte,
on 22 March 1898, in the boundary question
∗∗∗
between Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
In indicating my reasons for the second award I referred briefly to the fact
that, according to the well known rules of international law, the precise
location of the dividing line on the right bank of the San Juan river that this
Commission is now determining, may be altered in future by possible changes
in the banks or channels of the river.
I am now being requesting by the current Nicaraguan Commissioner to
complete this award with a more definitive statement as to the legal and
permanent nature or stability of the border line, which is being demarcated on
a daily basis.
__________
∗
Reprinted from H. La Fontaine, Pasicrisie Internationale: Histoire Documentaire des
Arbitrages Internationaux (1794-1900), Imprimerie Stampelli & CIE, Berne 1902, pp -533-535.
∗Reproduit de H. La Fontaine,Pasicrisie Internationale: Histoire Documentaire des
Arbitrages Internationaux (1794-1900), Imprimerie Stampelli & CIE, Berne 1902, pp -533-535.
∗∗∗Original Spanish version, translated by the Secretariat of the United Nations.
318 Annex 6
228 COSTA RICA /NICARAGUA
What is effectively being sought is that I declare that this line will remain
as the exact dividing line only as long as the waters of the river remain at their
current level and that in future the dividing line may be determined on the
basis of the water level at any particular moment.
The commissioner for Nicaragua submits the following in support of his
argument:
“Without engaging in a detailed discussion as to the meaning of a river bed or
channel, which is the entire area of a territory through which a watercourse flows,
I do wish to recall the doctrine of experts on public international law, which is
summed up by Mr. Carlos Calvo in his wo rk ‘Le droit international théorique et
pratique’, [book 40, para. 295, page 385] thus: — ‘Frontiers delimited by
watercourses are subject to change when the beds of such watercourses undergo
changes...’
I note that present-day codes are consistent with that doctrine in providing that
land that a river or lake submerges and uncovers periodically does not accrue to
the adjoining land because it is the watercourse bed. According to article 728 of
the Honduran Civil Code, land submerged or uncovered by a watercourse from
time to time during periods of ebb and flow in water level does not accrue to
adjoining land.
It is therefore obvious that the mathematical line obtained and which continues to
be obtained in the form to which referenc e is made, shall be used for illustrative
purposes and as a possible reference point; however, that line is not the accurate
measurement of the border line, which is and always shall be the right bank of the
river as it may stand at any point in time.”
The commissioner’s argument, seen in the light of his mandate, as
mentioned earlier, is born of a misconception which must be corrected.
While it is strictly speaking accurate that “the right bank of the river as it
may stand at any point in time” shall always be the border line, the
commissioner is obviously mistaken in believing that the legal location of the
line defining the bank of a river will change in accordance with the river’s
water level.
Indeed, the word “bank” is often used loosely to refer to the first piece of
dry land that emerges from the water; however the inappropriateness of such
language becomes apparent if one considers instances where rivers overflow
their banks for many miles or where their beds dry out completely. Such loose
language cannot be entertained in interpreting a treaty on the demarcation of a
border line. Borders are intended to ma intain peace, thus avoiding disputes
over jurisdiction. In order to achieve that goal, the border should be as stable
as possible.
Obviously, such a state of affairs would be unacceptable to residents and
property owners close to the borders of the two countries, if the line that
determines the country to which they owe allegiance and must pay taxes, and
whose laws govern all their affairs, was there one minute and not there the
next, because such a border line would just generate conflicts instead of
319Annex 6
AWARD OF 22 MARCH 1898 229
preventing them. The difficulties that would arise, for example, if certain
lands and forests and their owners and residents or people employed in any
capacity thereon, were required to be Costa Ricans in the dry season and
Nicaraguans in the rainy season and alternatively of either nationality during
the intermediate seasons are self evident. But such difficulties would
definitely be inevitable if the border line between the two countries were
subject to daily changes on the bank where land first rose above the water on
the Costa Rican side, because in the rain y season, the river’s waters submerge
many miles of land in some localities.
It is for such reasons that writers on international law specifically
maintain that temporary flooding does not give title to the submerged land.
This is the real meaning of the language of the Honduran Code quoted by the
Commissioner from Nicaragua. Transposed to the case at hand, it would read
as follows: “Costa Rican land that Nicaraguan waters submerge or uncover
from time to time, during periods of rise or fall in water level, does not accrue
to adjoining (Nicaraguan) territory”. As proof of that rule, I would like to cite
examples of a host of cases in the Un ited States of America where there are
many ongoing law suits between states that have a river bank, and not the
thread of a river channel, as one of their borders. I am personally familiar with
one such case, where the left bank of the Savannah river is the boundary line
between Georgia on the right bank and South Carolina on the left bank.
During flooding, the river submerges miles of South Carolina territory, but
this does not extend the power or juri sdiction of Georgia beyond the limits it
had before with the water at ordinary stage. Thus, no advantage would be
given to Georgia and it would be a great inconvenience to South Carolina. Nor
do I believe that there is any example of such a mobile boundary in the world.
Clearly, therefore, wherever a treaty rules that the bank of a river shall be
taken as a boundary, what is understood is not the temporary bank of land that
emerges during exceptional high- or low-water stages, but the bank with the
water at ordinary stage. And once defined by treaty, it will become permanent
like the surface of the soil over which it flows. If the bank recedes the
boundary line shrinks, if the bank expands towards the river, it moves forward.
The periodic rise and fall of the water level does not affect it. This is
perfectly consistent with Carlos Calvo’s rule quoted by the commissioner for
Nicaragua that borders delimited by wa terways are likely to change when
changes occur in the beds of such waterways. In other words, it is the river
bed that affects changes and not the water within, over or below its banks.
It would be useless to try to discuss all possible future changes in the bed
or banks of the river and their impact just as it would be equally pointless to
try to envisage future scenarios.
It is not this Commission’s job to lay down rules for future contingencies
but rather to define and mark out today’s boundary line.
320 Annex 6
230 COSTA RICA /NICARAGUA
Let me sum up briefly and provide a clearer understanding of the entire
question in accordance with the principles set out in my first award, to wit,
that in the practical interpretation of the 1858 Treaty, the San Juan river must
be considered a navigable river. I therefore rule that the exact dividing line
between the jurisdictions of the two countries is the right bank of the river,
with the water at ordinary stage and navigable by ships and general-purpose
boats. At that stage, every portion of the waters of the river is under
Nicaraguan jurisdiction. Every portion of land on the right bank is under
Costa Rican jurisdiction. The measurement and delimitation work now being
performed by the parties in the field every day defines points along this line at
convenient intervals, but the border line between those points does not run in a
straight line; as noted above, it runs along the banks of the river at the
navigable stage in a curve with innumerable irregularities of little value which
would require considerable expenditure to minutely demarcate.
Fluctuations in the water level will not alter the position of the boundary
line, but changes in the banks or channels of the river will alter it, as may be
determined by the rules of international law applicable on a case-by-case basis.
321Annex 6
322 Annex 6
(5) Fourth Award of the Umpire EP Alexander in the boundary
question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, reprinted United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVIII
(2007) pp.231-235, Greytown,
26 July 1899.
REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRAL AWARDS
RECUEIL DES SENTENCES
ARBITRALES
Fourth award under the Convention between Costa Rica and Nicaragua of
8 April 1896 for the demarcation of the boundary between the two Republics
26 July 1899
VOLUME XXVIII pp. 231-236
NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS
Copyright (c) 2006
323Annex 6
FOURTH AWARD OF THE ENGINEER-UMPIRE, UNDER THE
CONVENTION BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND NICARAGUA OF 8
APRIL 1896 FOR THE DEMARC ATION OF THE BOUNDARY
∗
BETWEEN THE TWO REPUBLICS, DECISION OF 26 JULY 1899
QUATRIÈME SENTENCE ARBITRALE RENDUE PAR LE
SURARBITRE INGÉNIEUR, EN VERTU DE LA CONVENTION
ENTRE LE COSTA RICA ET LE NI CARAGUA DU 8 AVRIL 1896
POUR LA DÉMARCATION DE LA FRONTIÈRE ENTRE LES DEUX
∗∗
RÉPUBLIQUES, DÉCISION DU 26 JUILLET 1899
Interpretation of treaty – words must be taken in their first and simplest meanings, in their
natural and obvious sense, according to their general use.
Lake boundary – bank of a lake – limit of wate r by dry land comprising some elements of
permanency – natural, obvious and reasonable water line preferable to technical one – water level
for determining water boundary in the absencan explicit level; general custom treats mean
high water as the normal level and the assulake boundary, wherever wet and dry seasons
prevail, in all ordinary topographical maps – ex ceptional situation of waterline used as starting
point for boundary line rather than as boundary line – choice of the line of mean high water.
Interprétation des traités – les termes doivent être pris dans leur sens premier le plus simple,
naturel et évident, conformément à leur emploi courant.
Frontière lacustre – rives d’un lac – lde l’eau par un terrain sec comprenant des
éléments de permanence – ligne de niveau d’naturelle, évidente et raisonnable, préférable à
une ligne technique – ligne de niveau d’eau rminant la frontière lacustre en l’absence de
niveau explicite; pour les régions d’alternance de saisons sèches et humides, pratique générale de
se référer dans les cartes t opographiques ordinaires, à la ligne moyenne du niveau d’eau haut
comme niveau normal et ligne de délimitation du la c – situation exceptionnelle où la ligne d’eau
sert de point de départ de la ligne frontière au lieu d’être elle-même la ligne frontière – choix de la
ligne moyenne du niveau d’eau haut.
* * * * *
Fourth Award made to Greytown, July 26, 1899,
in the question of the limit between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
As the arbitrator of whatever points of difference may arise between your
two bodies in tracing and marking the boundary lines between the Republics
you represent, I am called upon to decide the following question:
__________
∗
Reprinted from H. La Fontaine, Pasicrisie Internationale: Histoire Documentaire des
Arbitrages Internationaux (1794-1900) , Imprimerie Stampelli & CI E, Berne 1902, pp.-535-537.
(Onl∗∗one of the maps mentioned in this award is reprinted)
Reproduit de H. La Fontaine,Pasicrisie Internationale: Histoire Documentaire des
Arbitrages Internationaux (1794-1900), Imprimerie Stampelli & CIE, Berne 1902, pp. 535-537.
324 Annex 6
232 COSTA RICA /NICARAGUA
What level of its waters shall be taken to determine the shore line of Lake
Nicaragua, parallel to which and 2 miles distant therefrom the boundary line
must be traced, from near the San Juan River to the Sapoa?
It will facilitate discussion to define in advance the principal levels which
must be frequently referred to. Under the influence of rainy seasons of about
seven months and dry seasons of about five the level of Lake Nicaragua is in
constant fluctuation. We shall have to discuss five different stages.
First. Extreme high water, the leve l reached only in years of maximum
rainfall or some extraordinary conditions.
Second. Mean high water, the average high level of average years.
Third. Mean low water, the average low level of average years.
Fourth. Extreme low water, the lowest level reached in years of minimum
rainfall or other extraordinary conditions.
Fifth. Mean water, the average betw een mean high water and mean low
water.
The argument presented to me in behalf of Nicaragua claims that the level
to be adopted in this case should be the first level named, to wit extreme high
water. It argues that this line and this alone, is the true limit of what the
argument calls the bed of the lake. Costa Rica claims the adoption of the third
level, to wit, mean low water. This is argued principally upon two grounds:
First, it is shown by a great number of legal decisions that in most States all
water boundaries are invariably held to run at either extreme or mean low
water. Second, it is claimed that in case of any doubt Costa Rica is entitled to
its benefit, as she is conceding territory geographically hers.
I will begin with Costa Rica’s first argument. The equity of adopting a
low water line in the case of all water boundaries is readily admitted, even
though instances of contrary practice exist.
Between all permanent lands and permanent waters usually runs a strip of
land, sometimes dry and sometimes subm erged. We may call it, for short,
semisubmerged. Its value for ordinary purposes is much diminished by its
liability to overflow, but, as an adjunct to the permanent land, it possesses
often very great value. If the owner of the permanent land can fence across the
semisubmerged he may save fencing his entire water front. He also can utilize
whatever agricultural value may be in the semisubmerged land in dry seasons.
Both of these values would be destroyed and wasted if the ownership were
conferred upon the owner of the wate r. Therefore equity always and law
generally, confers it upon the owner of the permanent land.
I recognized and followed this principle in my award No. 3, where I held
that the boundary line following the right bank of the San Juan River, below
Castillo, follows the lowest water mark of a navigable stage of river. And, if
now the lake shore were itself to be the boundary of Costa Rica, I would not
325Annex 6
AWARD OF 26 JULY 1899 233
hesitate to declare that the semisubmerged land went with the permanent land
and carried her limits at least to the mean low water line.
But this case is not one of a water boundary, nor is it at all similar, or on
all fours with one, for none of the equities above set forth have any
application. It is a case of rare and singular occurrence and without precedent
within my knowledge. A water line is in question, but not as a boundary. It is
only to furnish starting points whence to mesure off a certain strip of territory.
Clearly the case stands alone, and must be governed strictly by the instrument
under which it has arisen. That is the treaty of 1858, and its language is as
follows:
“Thence the line shall continue toward the river Sapoa, which discharges into the
Lake Nicaragua, following a course which is distant always 2 miles from the right
bank of the river San Juan, with its sinuosi ties, up to its origin at the lake, and
from the right bank of the Lake itself up to the said river Sapoa, where this line
parallel to the said bank will terminate.”
The principles, upon which the language and intent of treaties are to be
interpreted, are well set forth in the Costa Rica argument by many quotations
from eminent authors. All concur that words are to be taken as far as possible
in their first and simplest meanings — “in their natural and obvious sense,
according to the general use of the same words”, “in the usual sense, and not
in any extraordinary or unused acceptation”.
We must suppose that the language of the treaty above quoted suggested
to its framers some very definite picture of the lake with its banks and of the 2
miles strip of territory. It evidently seemed to them all so simple and obvious
that no further words were necessary. Let us first call up pictures of the lake at
different levels and see which seems the most natural, obvious and reasonable.
The very effort to call up a picture of the lake at either extreme high water
or at extreme low water seems to me immediately to rule both of these levels
out of further consideration. Both seem unnatural conditions, and I must
believe that had either been intended, additional details would have been
given.
Next, is the mean low water mark the first, most obvious and natural
picture called up by the expression “the bank of the lake”? It seems to me
decidedly not. During about eleven months of the year this line is submerged,
invisible and inaccessible. It seems rather a tec hnical line than a natural one.
The idea of a bank is of water limited by dry land with some elements of
permanency about it. Even during the brief period when the line is uncovered
the idea of it is suggestive far more of mud and aquatic growths than of dry
land and forest growths.
To my mind, the natural, simple and obvious idea of the bank of a lake in
this climate is presented only by the line of mean high water. Here we would
first find permanent dry ground every day of an average year. Here an
observer, during every annual round of ordinary seasons, would see the water
326 Annex 6
234 COSTA RICA /NICARAGUA
advance to his very feet and then recede, as if some power had drawn the line
and said to the waters, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further”. Here the
struggle between forest growths and aquatic vegetation begins to change the
landscape. Here lines of drift, the flotsam and jetsam of the waves, naturally
suggest the limits of the “bed of the lake”.
One level of the lake remains for discussion, the mean level, or average of
all waters. In a different climate, where the rainfall is more uniformly
distributed throughout the year, the mean high water and mean low water lines,
with all their respective features, would approach each other, tending to
finally merge in the line of mean water. But, where wet and dry seasons
prevail, as in the present case, the line of mean water is destitute of all obvious
features, and is submerged for many months of the year. It is purely a
technical and not a natural line, and is not to be understood where not
expressly called for.
In argument against Nicaragua’s clai m of the extreme high water line,
Costa Rica appeals to the general custom of geographers and scientific men in
making ordinary topographical maps, who never adopt the extreme lines of
overflows for the outlines of lakes. This argument of general custom has great
weight but it is equally against Costa Rica’s claim for the mean low water line.
Wherever wet and dry seasons prevail, general custom treats mean high water
as the normal state, always to be understood where no other level is expressed,
and the line is assumed as the lake boundary in all ordinary topographical
maps. Two quotations from Commander Lull’s report of his Nicaraguan Canal
survey will illustrate “Report Secretary of the Navy, 1873, p. 187”:
“In a survey made by Mr. John Baily, many years since, that gentleman professed
to have found a pass with but 56 feet above the lake level, but the most of his
statements are found to be entirely unrel iable... For example, he finds Lake
Nicaragua to be 121 feet above mean tide in the Pacific, while the true difference
of level is but 107 feet.” (Ibid., p. 199.)
“The surface of Lake Nicaragua is 107 feet above mean tide in either sea.”
From comparison of this level with the levels found by other surveys,
there is no question that this figure was Lull’s estimate of mean high water, as
shown by his line of levels.
From every consideration of the lake, therefore, I am driven to conclude
that the shore line of the lake contemplated in the treaty is the mean high
water line.
I am led to the same conclusion also from the standpoint of the 2 miles
strip of territory.
The treaty gives no intimation as to the purpose of this concession, and
we have no right to assume one, either political or commercial. We have only
to observe the two conditions put upon the strip in the treaty. Under all
ordinary conditions it must be land, and 2 miles wide. This would not be the
case if we adopted the line of either mean low water or mean water. In the
327Annex 6
AWARD OF 26 JULY 1899 235
former case the strip would be too narrow for about eleven months of an
ordinary year: in the latter case for about five months.
Without doubt, then, I conclude that mean high water mark determines
the shore of the lake and it now remains to designate that level and how it
shall be found.
Several surveys of the proposed Nicaraguan Canal route besides that of
Commander Lull above quoted, have been made within the last fifty years.
Each found a certain mean high level of the lake, and it might seem a simple
solution to take an averag e of them all, but, as each adopted its own bench
mark on the ocean and ran its own line of levels to the lake, I have no means
of bringing their figures to a common standard. It seems best, therefore, to
adopt the figures of that one which is at once the latest and most thorough,
which has enjoyed the benefit of all of the investigations of all of its
predecessors, and whose bench marks on the lake are known and can be
referred to. That is the survey, still in progress, under the direction of the
United States Canal Commission. Its results have not yet been made public,
but, by the courtesy of Rear Admira l J. G. Walker, President of the
Commission, I am informed of them in a letter dated July 10, 1899, from
which I quote:
“In reply I am cabling you to-day as follows: ‘Alexander, Greytown, six,’ the six
meaning, as per your letter, 106 as mean high level of lake. This elevation of 106
is, to the best of our knowledge (Mr. Davis, our hydrographer) the mean high
water for a number of years... The highest level of the lake in 1898 was 106.7, last
of November. The elevation of our benc h mark on inshore end of boiler at San
Carlos is 109.37.”
A complete copy of this letter will be handed you and also blue prints of
the maps made by the Commission of the lower end of the lake, which may
facilitate your work.
As this Commission is the highest existing authority, I adopt its finding
and announce my award as follows:
The shore line of Lake Nicaragua, at the level of 106 feet, by the bench
marks of the United States Nicaragua Canal Commission, shall be taken as the
1
bank of said lake referred to in the treaty of 1858 .
__________
1Monthly Bulletin of the Bureau of the American Republics, 1899, vol. VII, p. 877.
328 Annex 7
Agreement on Border Protected Areas, between
Costa Rica and Nicaragua, “SI-A-PAZ” agreement,
signed at Puntarenas, Costa Rica.
15 December 1990
329330Annex 7
331Annex 7
332 Annex 8
Nicaraguan Executive Decree 527, 17 April 1990,
published in Official Gazette Nº 78.
23 April 1990
333334Annex 8
335Annex 8
336Annex 8
337Annex 8
338 Annex 9
The Borderline Corridor Conformed by the Territories Encompassed
along the Border with Nicaragua, from Punta Castilla in the Caribbean
Sea up to Salinas Bay in the Pacific Ocean is Hereby Declared as
a National Wildlife Refuge
Nº 22962 – MIRENEM
15 February 1994
339340 Annex 9
The Borderline Corridor Conformed by the Territories Encompassed along the Border
with Nicaragua, from Punta Castilla in the Caribbean Sea up to Salinas Bay in the Pacific
Ocean is Hereby Declared as a National Wildlife Refuge
Nº 22962 – MIRENEM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
AND THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY AND MINES,
Pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 140, Subparagraphs 3) and 18) of the Political
Constitution and Articles 82 and 84 of the Wildlife Conservation Act, Nº 7317, dated October 30,
1992.
Whereas:
1. The State is compelled to watch over the protection of the natural resources of the country.
2. Through Act Nº 13, General Law on Vacant Lots, issued on January 6, 1939, Article 10 and Act
N2 2825 and its Reforms, Article 7, Subparagraph f), created an inalienable public area of
2,000 meters wide along the border with Nicaragua. By virtue of the provisions set forth in the
pronouncements issued by the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic, Nº C107 -85 and Nº
C272-85, dated May 20, 1985 and October 29, 1985 respectively, management of this area is
granted either to the Agricultural Development Institute (as long as the plots are apt for
agricultural use), and to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines (as long as the
plots are apt for forestry development).
3. The referred to area now constitutes a very important biological corridor between the
Tortuguero Conservation Area, the Tamborcito and Maquenque Wetlands, the Caño Negro
National Wildlife Refuge, and El Jardin Forest Reserve.
4. Pursuant to the agreement on Border Areas, subscribed by the Governments of the Republics
of Costa Rica and Nicaragua in Puntarenas on December 15 of the year 1990, the International
System of Protected Areas for Peace (SI -A-PAZ), hereby declared as a conservation project of
the utmost priority in both countries.
5. SI-A-PAZ intends to protect the largest and most representative sample area of tropical
rainforest found in the Central American Caribbean Basin.
6. Advancement of commercial single crops and illegal tree felling reduced the forest area of the
northern basin to critical levels, with the consequent deterioration of the wildlife habitats, loss
of biodiversity, sedimentation of the natural watercourses and advanced erosion processes.
Therefore,
DECREE:
341Annex 9
Article 1: The border corridor conformed by the plots of land encompassed in an area of 2,000
meters wide along the border with Nicaragua, from Punta Castilla on the Caribbean Sea up to
Salinas Bay on the Pacific Ocean, hereby declared as a National Wildli fe Refuge, pursuant to
the provisions in the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of April 15, 1858.
Article 2: Owners and occupiers and other non -landowners, as well as tenants of the
Agricultural Development Institute in the areas encompassed within the National Wildlife
Refuge created by this Executive Decree, only deemed as part of it until the State purchases or
expropriates their rights. In the meantime, they will continue to enjoy the attributes of their
property, possession or lease.
Article 3: The Directorate General for Wildlife of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and
Mines will manage the Refuge.
Article 4: Enters into effect as of its publication.
Given in the Presidency of the Republic – San Jose, on the fifteenth day of the month of
February of the year nineteen hundred and ninety-four
342 Annex 10
Nicaraguan Decree No. 66-99, “Update and Definition of
categories and limits of Protected Areas located in
Nicaragua’s southeast territory.”
31 May 1999
343344Annex 10
345Annex 10
346Annex 10
347Annex 10
348Annex 10
349Annex 10
350Annex 10
351Annex 10
352Annex 10
353354 Annex 11
Official Daily Gazette No. 46, Decree No. 36440-MP, Year CXXXIII,
La Uruca, San José, Costa Rica.
7 March 2011
355356 Annex 11
Official Daily Gazette No. 46
Decree No. 36440-MP
Year CXXXIII
La Uruca, San José, Costa Rica Monday, 7 March 2011
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE MINISTER OF THE
PRESIDENCY
In the exercise of the authority conferred on them by Articles 140, sections 3) and 18)
and 180 of the Political Constitution, Articles 25 section 1), 2.7 section 1) 28 section b),
of Law No 6227 of 2 May 1978 which is the General Public Administration Law , and
Law No. 8488 of 11 January 2006 which is the National Law on Emergencies and Risk
Prevention.
Bearing in mind:
I.- That the constitutional system provides for special norms that allow the Executive
Branch to address emergency situations so that act ion in that regard can be as agile and
decisive as merited by the circumstances so as to discard or minimize the consequence
wrought by natural and human made disasters.
II.- That the Costa Rican State has the essential function of the protection of natio nal
sovereignty, and in its preservation and defense the State is called upon to exercise all
necessary measures in observance of the civil and pacifist vocation that guides the Costa
Rican State, particularly those with regards to the abolition of the army, peace, neutrality
and the peaceful settlement of disputes by the use the mechanisms provided by
International Law.
III.- That the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the vehicle by which the Sta te carries out all
its tasks before any foreign Governments and Institutions. Furthermore, the Ministry for
Public Security is the entity responsible for defense of the territorial integrity of Costa
Rica. Equally, other entities of the State will be available to provide institutional support,
in conformity with their competence and responsibilities for those purposes.
IV.- That the military invasion and occupation of Costa Rica by Nicaragua, since October
2010, brought Nicaraguan troops that now occupy a part of the territory of Costa Rica, in
clear violation of its national sovereignty, territorial integrity and dignity.
V.- That the aforementioned represents a constant violation of the territorial, aerial and
maritime spaces of Costa Rica, thus impacting not only on its national sovereignty, but
also causing s erious environmental damage thr ough the destruction of fragile national
wetlands zones which are duly registered and recognized at the international level.
357Annex 11
VI.- That to this day Nicaragua continues to occupy and damage a part of the Costa Rican
territory with the presence of the Nicaraguan armed forces, in particular, in Isla Portillo -
Isla Calero, and that it also continues to carry out dredging activity which has caused
serious environmental damage to the abovementioned zone.
VII.- That as a result of actions carried out by the army of Nicaragua and the Government
of that country, normal functioning conditions for activity in several Costa Rican
communities along the border area, and of government institutions, have been disrupted,
because some have even become isolated as th ey lack the means to access basic services
such as health, food provisions, education, among others, and thus have been placed in an
evident vulnerable situation.
VIII.- That the zone that has been affected by the actions of the Nicaraguan Government
and Army is also under constant threat of natural phenomena that cause s flooding among
other effects.
IX.- That the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention determines that “Those
within the national territ ory should count with the protection of their life, their physical
integrity, their property and the environment in the face of dangerous disasters or events
that may occur.”
X.- That the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention defines as a disast er a
situation “or process that unfolds as the result of a phenomenon with a natural,
technological or man -made origin where a population is brought under conditions of
vulnerability, that cause s intense disruption of the community’s normal functioning
conditions, such as the loss of lives and health within the population, destruction or loss
of the collective’s property and severe damage to the environment.”
XI.- That the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention understands an
emergency to be the crisis state created by the disaster.
XII.- That up until the present attention to the disaster created by the actions of the Army
and Government of Nicaragua has been enabled by resources and the ordinary procedures
that regulate Public Administration; ho wever, at the present moment resort to
mechanisms of exception provided by the Const itution and the Law is merited.
Therefore,
THEY DECREE:
“TO DECLARE THAT THE SITUATION UNFOLDED BY THE VIOLATION OF
COSTA RICAN SOVEREIGNTY ON THE PART OF NICARAGUA CONFORMS A
STATE OF EMERGENCY”
Article 1- A State of Emergency is declared in the following villages on the border with
Nicaragua: La Cruz, Upala, Los Chiles, Sarapiquí, San Carlos and Pocosi; and also the
situations and/or processes that are being unleash ed as a result of the activities illicitly
358 Annex 11
carried out by Nicaragua on Costa Rica n territory, which threaten the life, physical
integrity and property of those within national territory, as well as the national
sovereignty and the environment.
Article 2-. To that effect, the present declaration of a state of emergency includes the
three phases established in the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention which
are as follow:
a) Response phase.
b) Rehabilitation phase.
c) Reconstruction phase.
Article 3.- The present declaration of a state of emergency encompasses all the actions
and projects necessary for the protection of life, physical integrity, property and the
environment, as well as those necessary for attention , rehabilitation, reconstruction and
restoration of infrastructure, housing, communications and disrupted production activities
as well as all damaged public services within the zone covered under article 1) of this
Decree, all of which actions should be included in the General Emer gency Plan approved
by the Governing Board of the National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to
Emergencies, in order that such attention and projects take place in conformity with the
concept of emergency.
Article 4.- In conformity with the stipulations of articles 15 and 38 and also the following
articles of the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention, the Ministry for Public
Security will coordinate with the National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention
to Emergencies, the Cente r for Emergency Operations (COE by its Spanish acronym),
and other coordination entities to facilitate the development of a General Emergency
Plan.
Article 5.- In conformity with stipulations of the National Law on Emergencies and Risk
Prevention, the Executive Branch, public institutions, autonomous and quasi autonomous
entities, State corporations, municipalities, as well as any other entity or public organism
are authorized to contribute, donate, transfer, and lend the necessary help and
collaboration t o the National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to
Emergencies.
Article 6.- For implementation of the present declaration of an emergency , the National
Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to Emergencies, in conformity with the
National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention may assign funds and accept
donations from public and private entities.
Article 7-. As part of its attention to the present emergency, the National Commission on
Risk Prevention and Attention to Emergencies may use unassigned funds remaining from
other resolved or remaining emergencies as determined by the Governing Board of this
entity.
359Annex 11
Article 8-. The grounds of private property situated in the geographic area defined by this
declaration of an emergency state shall be bound to all ow all the legal easements
necessary for the execution of these actions, processes and projects to be carried by
public entities in response to the emergency , as along as these are indispensable to the
opportune attention to the emergency in conformity with the stipulations of the Phase 1 of
the emergency.
Article 9-. The present declaration of an emergency state will be in effect during the
period of time determined by the Executive Branch, depending on reports issued by the
National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to Emergencies, or during the
maximum period of time established in Law 8488.
Article 10-. The present decree is in effect as of the moment of signature.
[The present decree was] s igned in the Presidency of the Repu blic the twenty-first of
February of the year two thousand eleven.
LAURA CHINCHILLA MIRANDA. – The Minister for the Preside ncy, Marco A.
Vargas Díaz. – 1 time. – O.C. No. 10971. – (Request No. 030 -2011). – C-64820. –
(D36440-IN2011016261).
360 Annex 12
BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS, PRESIDENCY OF
THE REPUBLIC, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON RISK
PREVENTION AND ATTENTION TO EMERGENCIES
Decision No. 0362 – 2011, SPECIFIC BY-LAWS REGARDING
PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS PROCEDURES UNDER
EXCEPTION MECHANISMS REGIMEN BY VIRTUE OF THE
DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY BY VIRTUE OF
DECREE NO. 36440.
21 September 2011.
361362 REPUBLIC, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON RISK
PREVENTION AND ATTENTION TO EMERGENCIES Annex 12
Decision No. 0362 – 2011, SPECIFIC BY-LAWS
REGARDING PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS
PROCEDURES UNDER EXCEPTION MECHANISMS
REGIMEN BY VIRTUE OF THE DECLARATION OF A
STATE OF EMERGENCY BY VIRTUE OF DECREE NO.
36440, 21 September 2011.
Digital signature of: José Luis Vargas Espinoza
/signature/
Identification numbe r (DN, by its
Spanish acronym):
Serial number: CPF 0-0255-0227,
sn: Vargas Espinoza
Given name: Jorge Luis-CR, or
physical person
ou-citizen, cn- Jorge Luis Vargas
Espinoza/signature/
Date: 2011-09-22, 14:27:50-06 ‘00’
[Illegible] [Illegible] [Illegible]
BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON RISK PREVENTION
AND ATTENTION TO EMERGENCIES
Decision No. 0362 – 2011
SPECIFIC BY-LAWS REGARDING PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS
PROCEDURES UNDER EXCEPTION MECHANISMS REGIMEN
BY VIRTUE OF THE DECLARATION OF A
STATE OF EMERGENCY BY VIRTUE OF DECREE NO. 36440
Government of Costa Rica
BY LAWS AND REGULATIONS
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON RISK PREVENTION AND ATTENTION TO
EMERGENCIES
Governing Board
363Annex 12
DECISION No. 0362-2011
21 September 2011.
DECISION No. 0632-2011
SPECIFIC BY-LAWS REGARDING PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS
PROCEDURES UNDER EXCEPTION MECHANISMS REGIMEN
BY VIRTUE OF THE DECLARATION OF A
STATE OF EMERGENCY BY VIRTUE OF DECREE No. 36440
BEARING IN MIND:
1. That in carry out the specific purchasing and contracting process necessary by
virtue of the emergency resulting from the violation of Costa Rican sovereignty
by Nicaragua, on Isla Calero in particular, as well as the environmental damage
infringed on national territory, the declaration of an Emergency under Executive
Decree No. 36440 a specific mechanism under said decree is required for
purchasing and contracting processes.
2. That the specific nature of the event that created the emergency, which was an act
of aggression on the part of the neighbor country of Nicaragua, imposes taking
actions that are different from those generally carried out under the regimen of
exception and under the c ontrol of the National Commission on Risk Prevention
and Attention to Emergencies (from here on referred to as the Commission); the
situation requires highly specialized criteria from the institutions responsible for
attending to the problem, especially re garding characteristics of the equipment,
supplies and services that have to be purchased or contracted.
3. That the By -laws Regarding Procedures for the Institutional Purchasing by the
National Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to Emergencies,
published in La Gaceta (The Gazette) No. 172 of Thursday, 3 September 2009, is
deficient regarding purchasing and contracting norms in the case of emergencies
in which it is not possible to delineate the first -response phase, rehabilitation and
reconstruction as established by article 30 of Law 8488. It is also deficient
regarding the option of extending Executive Units the purview, under the
exceptions mechanisms regimen, of institutional purchasing and contracting by
these institutions.
4. That by reason of th e former the present procedure has the purpose of allowing
institutional purchasing by the entities appointed as Executive Units by the
Governing Board of the Commission carry out the purchasing and contracting
necessary for carrying out the General Emerge ncy Plan, without undermining
obligations of the Commission of administering National Emergency Fund
regarding administration of designated resources, and to oversee procedures,
project development and disbursements, under Law No. 8488, the Executive
Units By-laws and the By -laws Regarding Procedures for the Institutional
Purchasing by the Commission.
364 Annex 12
5. That under Law 8488, which regulates this Commission, the functions and scope
of the Governing Board arise from its stipulations:
a. By virtue article 180 of the Political Constitution and due to the budgetary
constraints declaration of the emergency allows for procedural exceptions
in order that the Government may swiftly obtain sufficient economic,
material, or other resources necessary for safeguarding person s, property
and services impacted upon by war, internal strife or public calamities.
(art. 31)
b. Declaration of an emergency is the option of the Executive Branch in
order that it may resort to flexible and agile mechanisms that override the
juridical order that regulates the ordinary activity of the Administration to
address urgent and unforeseen needs of persons and protect property when
surprise and unforeseen events take place, and even when they can be
foreseen but are inevitable; unusual situations tha t generally cannot be
controlled, managed or handled through ordinary measures.
In the face of such events the immediate need to address human needs and
protect endangered lives and property, the Constitution allows acts by way
of exception. This implies that criteria regarding need and urgency
override legal criteria that regulate the usual institutional activities (Vote
9410, Constitutional Chamber).
c. The exception mechanisms regimen encompasses administrative activity
and the designation of funds and pu blic resources, so long as they are
strictly necessary for the solution of commanding personal needs and for
the protection of property and services at a time of and unequivocal
connection between the event that provokes the state of emergency and the
damages provoked thereof. (art. 32)
d. Under the declaration of an emergency, all agencies, public institutions
and local governments are obliged to coordinate with the Commission,
which will have sole command over activities in the affected areas.
The general emergency plan developed by the Commission must have
priority over the plan of each institution that affects it, until the Executive
Branch declares an end to the state of emergency. (art. 33)
e. In order to execute actions, projects and contracts, th e Commission will
appoint as executive units public institutions with power over the area
where they are active, as long as they have the necessary structure to fulfill
commitments; the Commission as well as the executive units will be
obliged to develop i nvestment plans with details regarding the actions,
projects and financial resources to be employed to address assigned roles,
which should be approved by the Governing Board of the Commission.
(art. 39).
365Annex 12
f. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of
National Emergency Fund resources which it will use to address and deal
with emergency situations, according to the declaration and in conformity
with the general emergency plan and the investment plans approved by the
Governing Board of the Commission.
g) In conformity with stipulations regarding compliance with jurisdiction and
responsibilities assigned to the Commission as contained in article No. 18
of the Law, it is within the purview of the Governing Board of the
Commission to appr ove the procedures regulating the administration and
use of National Emergency Fund resources.
THEREFORE:
In conformity with the above, the Governing board of the National Commission for Risk
Prevention and Attention to Emergencies decides:
A. To create SPECIFIC BY-LAWS REGARDING PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS
PROCEDURES UNDER EXCEPTION MECHANISMS REGIMEN BY VIRTUE OF
THE DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY BY VIRTUE OF DECREE
NO. 36440, which will be governed by the following articles:
Regarding procedures for the Authorization of Contracts:
1. Once a public institution is designated the Executive Unit in conformity with a
specific decision for that purpose, the governing Board of the Commission can
authorize the purchasing entity of the designated public institution to take
responsibility for contracting procedures for the purpose of executing the actions and
projects contained in the corresponding investment plan presented by the public
institution.
2. It is the responsibility of the Commission's Purchasing and Contracts division to advise
in the implementation of the Exceptions Mechanisms Regimen and the corresponding
norms that will govern the said regimen.
3. Oversight of procedures and contract compliance are the responsibility of the
comptroller department of the Executive Units.
Regarding Contract Procedures:
4. Prior to initiation of contract implementation the Executive Unit must sign a Letter of
Intention based on the stipulations of the Executive Unit's by -laws and on necessary
considerations for this special procedure.
5. In conformity with stipulations of the By -laws on Functions and Oversight of the
Executive Units, all contracts for goods and services requiring executive units shall be
undertaken in strict compliance with stipulations of the N ational Law on Emergencies
and Risk Prevention, its by -laws and the By -laws of the Purchasing and Contracts
division of the CNE with the necessary considerations regarding contracting under the
exceptions regimen, in complement to pertinent stipulations of the Administrative
contracting Law and its By-laws.
366 Annex 12
6. Authority in order that the Executive Units carry out their contractual activity shall be
exercised under the strict and exclusive application of the procedure described in article
no. 39, as of se ction b) of the By -laws of the Commission's Purchasing and Contracts
division regarding the role of the division in contracts executed as a result of the
emergency.
7. Such authority does not include the purview over administration of National
Emergency F und resources, it is limited to execution of emergency contracting
procedures in he framework of the Exceptions Mechanisms Regimen permitted by Law
8488. In this regard, prior to forwarding to the Executive Directorate investment plans to
be presented to the Governing Board, it is the responsibility of the Commission through
Executive Units comptroller departments to ensure garnering of the resources necessary
to ultimately honor monetary commitments, when the Executive Unit requests them.
These reserves en sure the budgetary content
required to give effect to the recruitment process, as required by the Law on
Administrative Contracting and its By-laws.
8. Payment procedures by the executive units shall be carried out in conformity with
article no. 27 of the By-law on Functions and Oversight of Executive Units.
Final Stipulations:
9. The present By -laws govern contracts related to the execution of the General
Emergency Plan developed on the basis of Decree No. 36440 which declares a state of
emergency in the f ace of the violations of Costa rican sovereignty by Nicaragua, and
regarding this particular situation, it suspend norms of inferior hierarchy.
10. The present By-laws shall be suspended and without effect once Decree No. 36440 is
overruled.
11. Supplementary application of the By -laws for Purchasing and Contracts, Law on
Administrative Contracting and its By-laws.
12. That which is not specifically governed by these By -laws shall be governed by the
By-laws for the Functions on Purchasing and Contracts di vision of the CNE, as well as
by the Law on Administrative Contracts and its By-laws.
13. These By-laws shall be in effect as of their publication.
Msc. Sigifredo Pérez Fernández, Administrative Director for Finances.
- One time. - O. C. No. 14772. - Request No. 49892. - C-173650. -
(IN2011074828).
367368 Annex 13
Central American Court of Justice Case No. 12 06 12 2011
Decision of 21 June 2012
369370 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
Case No. 12-06-12-2011
CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE . Managua, Nicaragua . Central
America. At four o’clock in the afternoon on the twenty-first day of June in the year two
thousand and twelve. HAVING RE VIEWED Case No. 12-06-12-2011 for entry of
judgment in the complaint brought against the State of Costa Rica by the National
Recycling Forum (FONARE) and Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development ,
represented by Attorney Rosario del Socorro Saenz Ruiz, for purported violations to the
Community Law, Regional Integration Law and International Law against the environment
and biodiversity in the zone where Costa Rica is building a road, based on Articles 12 and
35 of the Tegucigalpa Protocol and Article 22, subsection c ), of the Convention on the
Statute of the Court, and the amended complaint filed against the State of Costa Rica on
the seventh day of December in the year two thousand and eleven, which was admitted by
this Court, in accordance with the jurisdiction and authority conferred upon it by Articles
12 and 35 of the Tegucigalpa Protocol, and for safeguarding the rights created by the
Protocol, especially the protection, respect and promot ion of the human rights of the
inhabitants of the Central American community, legal security, peaceful dispute settlement
and good faith of the Member States enshrined in Article 4, subsections a), g), h) and i), of
the aforesaid Protocol, which literally provides: “To respect the principles and rules of the
Charters of the United Nations Organization (UN) and Organization of American States
(OAS), and the Declarations issued at the Central American Presidential Summits since
May of 1986”, and taking into account Article 22, subsection c), of the Convention on the
Statute of the Central American Court of Justice. The Court was composed as follows:
President Carlos Guerra Gallardo, Vice-President Alejandro Gómez Vides, Judges Silvia
Rosales Bola ños, Ricardo Acevedo Peralta, Francisco Dar ío Lobo Lara and Guillermo
Pérez-Cadalso Arias. WHEREAS I. At three fifteen in the afternoon on the sixth day of
December in the year two thousand and eleven, a complaint was lodged with the
Secretariat-General of the Court against the State of Costa Rica, a lleging that the
construction of a road of approximately one hundred twenty (120) kilometers had
commenced on a stretch of the land border next to the south bank of the lower course of
the San Juan River, known as Wildlife Refuge, which in turn forms part of the San Juan
1
371Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
River-Nicaragua Biosphere Reserve , declared by the United Nations Education, Science
and Culture Organization (UNESCO) on September fifteenth (15), two thousand and three
(2003). The document crediting the legal capacity of Attorney Rosario del Socorro Saenz
Ruiz and other documents we re attached thereto ( Pages 1 to 131). WHEREAS II. The
plaintiff contends that the engineering work is being carried out without informing the
population or publishing the environmental studies that Costa Rica is obligated to carry out
not only because it is mandated by its national legislation, but to comply with the treaties
signed by that country in the field of environment and natural resources . It is unknown
whether these studies have indeed been carried out prior to the construction of the road.
Such engineering work should have been consulted with Nicaragua , as provided in Article
5 of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance , especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (RAMSAR). It is inadmissible that these Central American purposes to unite
conservation efforts among neighboring countries, such as the case of the Trifinio Plan,
Gulf of Fonseca and others contemplated in the Central Amer ican Agreement on
Biodiversity signed by the countries of the region, including SI A PAZ between Nicaragua
and Costa Rica in 1992, have been contradicted, undervalued and, worst of all, ignored and
violated by a country like Costa Rica, which prides itself and sells itself internationally as “a
model of eco-environmental management within its borders” (Pages 3 and 4). WHEREAS
III. Attorney Rosario del Socorro Saenz Ruiz requests in her bill of complaint that the
Court declare that Costa Rica has violated treaties and agreements in the field of the
environment and natural resources with the construction of the so many times cited road.
These agreements are: 1. The Central American Agreement for Protection o f the
Environment (CCAD) and regulations thereof. 2. The Agreement for the Conservation of
Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wildlife Areas in Central America. 3. The Regional
Agreement on Climate Change. 4. The Regional Agreement on Trans-Boundary Movement
of Hazardous Waste s, Article 3 , Adoption of Preventive Measures . 5. The Alliance for
Sustainable Development of Central America. In addition to the aforesaid legal
instruments, the plaintiff further contends that Costa Rica has also violated the principles
contained in the Tegucigalpa Protocol to the Charter of the Organization of the Central
American States and complementary instruments or acts derived from it, such as Article 3,
subsection b), h), and i), Article 4, subsection h ), Articles 5, 6, 12 and 35 of the aforesaid
Protocol, as well as Articles 26 and 35 of the Protocol to the General Treaty on Central
2
372 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
American Economic Integration, known as Guatemala Protocol. Likewise, it has violated
Article 14, subsection j ), of the Law Regulating the Organization and Functi oning of the
Councils of Minist ers of Sectorial and Inter-Sectorial Economic Integration; and 6. The
Central American Social Integration Treaty, known as San Salvador Treaty, and petitioned
the Court to declare that, as a result of the construction of the aforesaid road, that country
has violated each and every one of the aforementioned provisions, in addition to others
that shall be mentioned hereunder (Pages 7 to 17). WHEREAS IV: Based on Article 31 of
the Convention on the Statute of the Court, and in light of the serious environmental
situation and latent irreversibility of the consequences of the actiontaken by Costa Rica
against the environment and biodiversity in the zone whe re the road is being built , as a
result of the violation of the aforesaid rules, agreements and instruments, the plaintiff
further requests an on-site inspection by experts, together with the Court, to the place
where the road is being built, in order to verify and confirm the facts laid out hereinabove,
which are causing and c ould cause catastrophic ecological consequences that would have
an impact on nature, the environment, biodiversity, wetlands, forests and diversity of flora
and fauna species, as well as the ictiological resources of the San Juan de Nicaragua River,
which could be condemned to extinction ( Pages 17 and 18). WHEREAS V : Based on the
foregoing, the plaintiff applies for the following preventive measures: 1. Suspension of the
works until a sentence is handed down. 2. That things go back to the state in which they
were. 3. That Costa Rica provides an environmental impact study and environmental
management plan regarding the road construction (Page 18). WHEREAS VI : By virtue of
an order issued by the Presidency of the Court at four thirty in the afternoon on the sixth
day of December in the year two thousand and eleven, the respective file was ordered to be
opened and made known to the Court for entry of judgment (Page 132). WHEREAS VII:
At two in the afternoon on the seventh day of December in the year two thousand and
eleven, the plaintiff lodged with the Secretariat-General of the Court a brief to amend the
complaint, based on Articles 12 and 35 of the Tegucigalpa Protocol to the Charter of the
Organization of Central American States (ODECA) ( Pages 133-135). WHEREAS VIII :
By virtue of a decision handed down at twelve hours on the nineteenth day of December in
the year two thousand and eleven, the Court unanimously agreed by a vote as follows: 1.
To admit the complaint and amended complaint filed against the State of Costa Rica by
Attorney Rosario del Socorro Saenz Ruiz, acting as the legal representative of the
3
373Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
organizations National Recycling Forum (FONARE) and Nicaraguan Foundation for
Sustainable Development, who was duly granted legal intervention. 2. To summon the
State of Costa Rica through the General Prosecutor of the Republic, the Honorable Ana
Lorena Brenes Esquivel, in her capacity as legal representative of that State. 3. To make an
on-site inspection to the place of the alleged affectations on Thursday, January twelfth (12),
two thousand twelve (2012) to gain direct knowledge of the facts, summoning the Central
American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD) so that it may
designate one or several specialized represen tatives to accompany the Central American
Court of Justice to the place of the facts. 4. The measures ordered here in shall be
communicated immediately to the plaintiff and defendant in the most expedient manner, as
well as to the other Member States of the Central American Integration System (SICA) and
its Secretary General. 5. The address for service of process has been designated. 6. As
regards the preventive measures requested by the plaintiff, this Court shall rule in due
course. 7. Notify. Notice was s erved to the parties. The State of Costa Rica was served
through the Embassy of Cost a Rica in Nicaragua and the SICA Member States and
Secretary General by email (Pages 136-160). WHEREAS IX: As requested by the plaintiff,
on January twelfth, two thousand twelve, the Central American Court of Justice en banc
went to the place of the facts , accompanied by Licentiate Alba Margarita Salazar,
representative of the Central American Commission for Environment and Development
(CCAD), and the respective act of acknowledgement was made, which appears on the front
and back of page one hundred sixty -one (161). WHEREAS X : By virtue of a decision
entered at four thirty in the afternoon on Januaryseventeenth, two thousand and twelve,
the Court unanimously agreed as follows: 1. To admit the application for preventive
measures, consisting of the immediate suspension of the construction of the aforesaid road
that the Government of Costa Rica is building parallel to the south bank of the San Juan
River, so that the situation does not become more serious, thus safeguarding the rights of
each of the parties and preventing irreversible and irreparable damage. 2. The measures
ordered shall be maint ained un til a final sentence is entered. 3. To ask the Central
American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD) to prepare a technical
report, within ten days from the date of notice , regarding the potential consequences and
impacts caused by the construction of the road on the environment in general , especially
on the watershed of the San Juan River. 4. To recommend to the authorities of Costa Rica
4
374 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
and Nicaragua to engage in a specific dialogue , within the frame work of their bilateral
relations, for ensuring protection of the natural resources and protected areas of the zone,
achieving harmony among their peoples, nations and governments, and striving for the
preservation of a firm and lasting peace in the Central American region, which is a
fundamental objective of the integration process. 5. To immediately notify this decision to
the plaintiff and defendant by the most expedient means, as well as to the other Member
States of the Central American Integration System (SICA), its General Secretary , and the
Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD). The decision
was duly served to the parties , SICA Member States and General Secretary, and Central
American C ommission for Environment and Development (CCAD). ( Pages 162 -182)
WHEREAS XI: By way of a brief filed by Attorney Rosario del Socorro Saenz Ruiz at
eleven ten in the morning on the twenty-third day of January in the year two thousand
twelve, the means of proof identified in Pages 185 and 186 were proposed. WHEREAS
XII: At eleven fifty in the morning on the twenty-third day of January in the year two
thousand twelve, the Court decided, upon expiration of the t ime period granted to the
defendant to answer the complaint, to commence the evidentiary period for twenty
business days counted from the last notice (front and back of Page 187). WHEREAS
XIII: At three ten in the afternoon on the first day of February in the year two thousand
twelve, Attorney Rosario del Socorro Saenz Ruiz, in her capacity as the legal representative
of the plaintiff, requested an extension to the evidentiary period (Pages 189 and 190).
WHEREAS XIV : At twelve hours on the eighth day of February in the year two thousand
twelve, the Court ruled to extend the evidentiary period for an other thirty business days
counted from the date of expiration of the afore said time period (Page 192). WHEREAS
XV: At ten thirty in the morning on March twenty -eighth, two thousand twelve, Attorney
Rosario del Socorro Saenz Ruiz filed a brief containing evidence of the damage caused to
the bi-national and regional ecosystem by the construction of a road immediately parallel to
the south bank of the San Juan River , attaching seven (7) books containing evidentiary
documents (Pages 194-1156). WHEREAS XVI : By virtue of a decision issued at twelve
hours on the nineteenth day of April in the year two thousand twelve, the Court closed the
evidentiary period and remit ted the file to the Presiden cy so that it designate a date and
hour for a hearing (front and back of Page 1157). WHEREAS XVII: By virtue of an order
issued by the Presidency at ten o’clock in the morning on the second day of May in the year
5
375Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
two thousand twelve, the parties were summoned to a hearing at Universidad Cat ólica
Redemptoris Mater at ten o’clock in the morning on the tenth day of May in the year two
thousand twelve, which was held with the sole presence of the plaintiff (Pages 1158-1160).
WHEREAS XVIII: The plaintiff lodged a final brief with the Secretariat -General of the
Court on May fifteenth, two thousand twelve, a t two fifty in the afternoon , within the
prescribed three -day time limit, and the sentence is left pending. (Pages 1166 -1171)
WHEREAS XIX: On June eighteen of this year , the Secretariat of the Court received a
brief from the plaintiff, attaching a note from Licentiate Samuel Santos López, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua , dated June thirteen of this year. ( Pages 1172 -1175)
WHEREAS I: This sentence shall follow the following logical timetable: FIRST: The
fundamentals of the compulsory jurisdiction and authority of the Central American Court
of Justice shall be addressed in general and in the case at hand. SECOND: Some
procedural aspects that the Court deems necessary to rule on shall be addressed. THIRD:
A legal appraisal of the means of proof shall be made regarding the conduct of the State of
Costa Rica with respect to the community and international legal instruments signed and
ratified by that State, which create an obligation in terms of environmental protection.
FOURTH: A final sentence shall be entered according to law. WHEREAS II: The State
of Costa Rica is a party to the Tegucigalpa Protocol and one of the members of the Central
American Integration System (SICA) , in accordance with Article 1 of the aforesaid
instrument. The State of Costa Rica signed the Tegucigalpa Protocol and followed the
procedures for undertaking obligations established in Article 36, ratifying the Protocol in
accordance with its respective constitutional procedure, which was approved by Law 7502
of May three, nineteen ninety -five, and ratified by Executive Decree 24408 dated June
twelve, nineteen ninety-five, so the Tegucigalpa Protocol is a treaty that obliges the State of
Costa Rica, inasmuch as it establishes the compulsory jurisdiction and authority of the
Central American Court of Justice, which constitutes an international obligation for Costa
Rica that is fully enforceable by all SICA State Parties, bodies, institutions and individuals,
and in the case at hand, environmentalist organizations National Recycling Forum
(FONARE) and Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development. WHEREAS III:
The Tegucigalpa Protocol is "…the constitutive framework of the Central American integration
treaty, and therefore is the highest hierarchical and fundamental basis of any other Central American law,
including treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements or other legally binding acts prior to or subsequent to
6
376 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
the entry into force of tTegucigalpa Protocol .” (CCJ: File No.3 -4-95. See a dvisory opinion
regarding the legal status of the Tegucigalpa Protocol in respect of previous legal
instruments and subsequent acts (Page 9) ). It should be underlined that the Central
American Community is a community of law . This means that the States and institutions
that comprise it are su bject to the control of the legality of their actions. Based on the
foregoing, the States, bodies, institutions and individuals within the community can resort
to the Central American Court, as the guarantor of the application and interpretation of the
community rules contained in the Tegucigalpa Protocol and complementary instruments
and acts derived thereof. The SICA Constitutive Treaty established the general guidelines,
attributions and functional powers of its bodies. It recognizes the existence of a
Community of S tates, which differs from the States when considered individually. This
implies that the bodies and institutions of the SICA have their own decision-making power
and those decisions are compulsory for the States. Similar to the Constitutive Treaty and
complementary treaties, community decisions are of immediate enforceability and
compliance, even against the will of the obligated parties. This is what makes the Central
American Integration System (SICA) a true community of law. Within this institutional
legal order created by the States, the Central American Court of Justice has real and
effective power, as the jurisdictional body of the Community of States and Community of
Law, and its decisions are binding for the States, bodies and institutions of the Community
and natural or legal persons, public or private. WHEREAS IV: It has been ruled that the
jurisdiction of the Court, as a Community Court , is governed by the principle of
attribution, which means that treaties and protocols establis h the criteria for setting the
community competence. From a purely doctrinal viewpoint, a distinction could be made
between the generic or implicit competence (numerus apertus) contained in the constitu tive
instruments and the specific or explicit competence (numerus clausus) contained in the
Convention on the Statute . Generic or implied competence is attributed in the Constitutive
Treaty of the SICA, that is to say, the Tegucigalpa Protocol. For its part, specific or explicit
competence is attributed in the Convention on the Statute of the Court. Specific competence
is derived from the generic competence, and the generic jurisdiction is developed by the
specific jurisdiction .The same protocol mandates that the specific attributions of the
Court shall be regulated by the Statute , which in its preamble states: "... shall have broad
and comprehensive jurisdiction and competence..." (Convention on the Statute of t he
7
377Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
Court) In effect, it is so enshrined in Article 30 of the Statute, which states: "According to the
rules set forth above, the Court has the power to determine its jurisdictieach particular case,
interpreting treaties or conventions relevant to the matter in disnd applying the principles of
Integration Law and International Law." These provisions leave ample leeway to the Court to
set its jurisdiction, taking into consideration and interpreting the criteria set for specific
cases (Article 22 of the Statute). Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Court, t his "numerus
apertus" criterion, which governs the Tegucigalpa Protocol, should prevail in case of doubt
about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The jurisdiction and competence established in
Articles 12 and 35, second paragraph, of the Tegucigalpa Protocol are not optional or
elective nor require further act s after the ratification and deposit of the Tegucigalpa
Protocol by the States Parties to become a perfect international obligation , which is fully
enforceable by all the State Members of the SICA, its bodies, institutions and individuals.
In the instant case, Article 3, paragraph b) of the Tegucigalpa Protocol gives the Court
jurisdiction in matters of environmental protection by providing: "b) Creating a new model of
regional security based on a reasonable balance of forces, strengthening civilian power, overcoming extreme
poverty, promoting sustainable developmeprotecting the environment, eradicating violence, corruption,
terrorism, drug-trafficking, and trafficking in weapons.” (Emphasis added). WHEREAS V: By
signing, ratifying and depositing the Tegucigalpa Protocol, Costa Rica committed to submit
to the Central American Court of Justice disputes on the application or interpretation of
the provisions of the Protocol and its complementary instruments and derivatives. This
requirement stems from the second paragraph of Article 35, which mandates that disputes
arising in the future "shall be submitted" to this Court. (Emphasis added ). The
negotiators of the Tegucigalpa Protocol could have written that provision in a conditional
tense: "should". However, they drafted the article in future tense: "shall". They also used
the verb "do" which, according to the dictionary of the Spanish language of the Spanish
Royal Academy, means: "To be obliged to something by divine, natural or positive law."
The negotiators of the Tegucigalpa Protocol could have used ano ther verb to indicate the
capacity to do something, for example , the verb "do" in future tense: “may” However,
both in its original version, signed by the Presidents of Central America, includin g His
Excellency Rafael Angel Calderon Fournier, President of the Republic of Costa Rica, on
December 13, 1991, and eleven years later, in the Amendment to the Protocol signed by
the Presidents of Central America on February 27, 2002, including His Excellency Miguel
8
378 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
Angel Rodriguez, President of the Republic of Costa Rica, Article 35 was drafted using the
verb "do" in the sense of a perfect community obligation. WHEREAS VI: The State of
Costa Rica has performed acts that recognize the jurisdiction and authority of the Central
American Court of Justice, which prevent this State from claiming any legal basis for not
recognizing them. Public International Law attaches particular importance to the behavior
of the States and assigns legal effect to acts of conduct in their international relations. The
so-called "unilateral act" that the United Nations International Law Commission has
defined in its third report as: "...an expression of the unequivocal will of a State with the intent of
producing legal effects in its relations with one or more States or one or more international organizations,
and which is known by that State or international organization ."(Third Report, Op. Cit. 13, No. 80)
In other words, such acts are "...the expression of the irrevocable will of a State, which by itself ,
without need of the acceptance of another subject of public international law, and independently from any
existing legal act, creates international rights and obligations for the issuing State and the right of any other
subject of Public International Law to invoke in his favor the effects of that expression of will."
(Toro Jimenez, Fermin. Manual de Derecho Internacional Publico . 2 V ol. Universidad
Central de Venezuela, 1982, Vol . I. Page 276, cited by Flores Perez, Edgard de Jesus. Los
Actos de los Estados y la Regla del Estoppel, p. 97.
www.iberopuebla.edu.mx/micro_sitios/.../derecho/.../ci_eflores.pdf). The Court's
jurisprudence has recognized the legal effects of unilateral acts and estoppels (see judgment
of the Court of 20 October 2009, Lawsuit filed by the Association of Costa Rica Customs
Brokers against that State, File No. 6-8-9-2008 (WHEREAS XXI-XXIV, XXV and XXVI).
In conclusion, according to these cited whereas clauses, the Court has rea ffirmed its
jurisdiction and authority, to which all Member States of the Central American Integration
System are subject to. WHEREAS VII: The Central American Court of Justice has
reiterated in its jurisprudence its Compulsory Jurisdiction, which applies to all those
Member States of the Central American Integration System (SICA) which have not ratified
the Statute of the Court in the following advisory and litigation cases: Docket No.
01/01/1996. Advisory Opinion of Dr. Raul Zaldivar Guzman, President of the Central
American Parliament (PARLACEN). Decision dated 29 February 1996. Docket No.
04/08/1996. Application for Advisory Opinion of Mr. Jose Rodolfo Liekens Dougherty,
Vice-President of the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN). Decision dated 13
December 1996. Docket No. 1-30-4-2004. Lawsuit filed by Dr. Juan Francisco Reyes
9
379Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
Wyld, Deputy to the Parliament (PARLACEN) against the State of Guatemala. Judgment
dated 13 January 2005. Docket No. 2-11-8-2006. Lawsuit filed by Mr. Alfonso Portillo
Cabrera, Former President of the Republic of Guatemala, against the State of Guatemala.
Judgment of 5 May 2008. Docket No. 6 -8-9-2008. Lawsuit filed by the Association of
Customs Brokers of Costa Rica against that State . Judgment of 20 October 2009. Docket
No. 6-14-08-2009. Request for Advisory Opinion of Oquelí Guadalupe Gloria Solórzano,
President of the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN). Decision dated 23
September 2009. Docket No. 1 -18-02-2010. Lawsuit filed by Mr. Javier Perez Pablo
Gilberto Campos and Manuel Succari, Deputies from the Republic of Panama to the
Central American Parliament (PARLACEN), against the State of Pana ma. Judgment of 20
October 2010. Docket No. 02 -26-03-2010. Lawsuit filed by the Central American
Parliament, through its President, Mr. Jacinto Suarez Espinoza, against the State of
Panama. Judgment of 20 October 2010. Docket No. 7 -22-11-2010. Lawsuit filed by Mr.
Manuel Enrique Bermúdez Ruidíaz, Deputy to the Central American Parliament, against
the State of Panama. Judgment of 22 February 2011. WHEREAS VIII: The State of
Costa Rica was served notice at eleven forty -five on December twenty, two thousand
eleven, by the Secretary General Ad Interim of the Central American Court of Justice, wh o
went to the premises of the Costa Rican Embassy in the Republic of Nicaragua, and since
the official notice of acceptance of the lawsuit filed by the National Recycling Forum
(FONARE) and Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development against the State of
Costa Rica was not received, proceeded to affix it in a conspicuous place at the premises of
that embassy and read it aloud, thus producing the legal effects laid down in Articles 19 and
20 of the Code of Procedures of the Central American Court of Justice. WHEREAS IX:
At the time that this lawsuit was admitted, this Court ordered pr otective measures to
protect the rights of the parties, consisting of the following: "To immediately suspend the
construction of the road that the Government of Costa Rica is building parallel to the south bank of San
Juan River, so that the situation does not esthus protecting the rights of each of the parties and
preventing the occurrence of irreversible and irreparable d amage." These protective measures were
not respected by the State of Costa Rica, violating Article 39 of the Convention on the
Statute of the Central American Court of Justice, which provides: " The interlocutory
decisions, awards and final judgments of the Court are non-appealable and binding upon
the States, specialized bodies of the Central American Integration System, and natural and
10
380 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
legal persons, and shall be enforced like any decision, award and judgment by a national
court of the respective State.. .” Based on the foregoing and the non-compliance of this
decision, the juridical order of the Central American Integration System (SICA) was
violated. The decisions issued by the Cen tral American Court of Justice, including
protective measures, are acts derived from the fundamental or complementary community
law and as such are of ineludible compliance for the State Parties, SICA bodies and
organizations, and individuals . The Court used as a basis the criterion of precaution to
order protective measures, ordering Costa Rica to immediately suspend the construction of
the road, in order to prevent “serious and irreversible damage” as provided in Article 15 of
the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development . Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the reaction of Costa Rica was to ignore the measures ordered by the Court,
incurring in contempt and disrespecting once again the Central American Community Law.
WHEREAS X: Costa Rica and Nicarag ua are border ing countries that form part of the
Central American Community and Central American Integration System (SICA). They
share a common basin and an ecosystem that comprises the San Juan de Nicaragua River
and territories adjacent to their respecve banks. According to Costa Rica, it is 2,000
meters wide along the border with Nicaragua and within its territory. In Nicaraguan
territory, it comprises what is known as Indio Maíz and Los Guatuzos Reserve and
nearby zones, which add up to more than 200 square kilometers. Next to this area are
important wetlands shared by both countries. WHEREAS XI: This basin constitutes a
true biological and environmental ecosystem, which has been recognized by the
Programme on Man and the Biosphere of the United Nations Organization for Education,
Science and Culture (UNESCO), which declared it San Juan de Nicaragua River
Biosphere Reserve on September 15, 2003, and is an integral part of the World Biosphere
Reserve Network. The main types of ecosystems and landscapes of our planet are
represented in this Network, which is aimed to the conservation of biological diversity,
scientific research and permanent observation, as well as to the definition of sustainable
development models at the service of humanity. Likewise, other recognitions exist in this
field through unilateral acts of the StatesIn Costa Rica , in Article 10 of Law No. 13,
General Law on Idle Land, passed on 6 January 1939 and Article 7, paragraph F, of Law
No. 22825, as amended, as well as Bilateral Conventions, Multilateral Treaties and Regional
Community Law. Within the framework of this law, the San Juan River watershed forms
11
381Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
part of the Central American Biological Corridor , created by Presidential Decree issued by
the Government of Costa Rica on the thirteenth of October of nineteen ninety -four.
WHEREAS XII: In terms of natural features, the San Juan River Wildlife Refuge is also
very important. It is the youngest geological area of Central America , functioning as an
evolutionary bridge for flora and fauna species in the continent. Its ecological importance
lies in the diversity of ecosystems and habitats that it contains, forming part of one of the
largest tropical humid ecosystems in Central America. The wetland plays a major
hydrological role due to its location at the mouth of a very large watershed, which allows
this refuge to capture a majority of the sediments and nutrients emanating from the two
countries that share this watershed. Similarly, it acts as current regulator, flood controller
and water pollutant subtraction. In this regard, Article 18 of the Regional Agreement for
the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Wildlife and Priority Areas in Central
America refers to the basin as an “International System of Protected Areas for Peace:
SI A PAZ”, which mandates to develop and strengthen, as a priority, protected areas in the
land and coastal border zones. Consequently, with the construction of a road parallel to the
south bank of the San Juan River, the State of Costa Rica failed to comply with the erga
omnes obligations derived from the concept of Natural Heritage of Mankind , which is
protected by Environmental Community Law and not only applies to Central America as a
political and economic community that aspires to its integration, but to the International
Community of States as a whole , inasmuch as the San Juan de Nicaragua River Biosphere
Reserve belongs to the World Biosphere Reserve Network at the Service of Mankind, so
the Member States of the Central American Integration System (SICA) are obligated to
refrain from adopting unilateral measures that are contrary to the common created the
International System of Protected Areas for Peace, “SI A PAZ”, Nicaragua and Costa Rica
designated this basin as a protected area and according to Article 9 of the Agreement for
the Conservation of Biodiversity, “it is a geographic area defined as terrestrial, coastal or marine,
which is designated, regulated and managed to achieve certain conservation objectives, that is to say, a series
of specific goods and services (on-site conservation)”. This protected area comprises the channel of
the San Juan River and adjacent areas on both bordering territories, thus creating a special
ecosystem that is of course incorporated to the Central American Biological Corridor.
According to Article 9 of the aforesaid Agreement fo r the Conservation of Biodiversity,
ECOSYSTEM should be understood as: “a complex of communities of plants, animals and
12
382 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
microorganisms and non-living environment interacting as an ecological unit ”. WHEREAS XIV: The
Central American Integration System (SICA) ha s created a structure to protect the
environment, consisting of provisions contained in institutional instruments, which make
up the “Environment Subsystem”, one of the four subsystems of the Integration Process ,
which rules are of compulsory comp liance by the States that have ratified them : A) The
Tegucigalpa Protocol is the primary and fundamental instrument of the System . In this
respect, Article 3, subparagraph b), provides as follows : “Create a new regional security
model, based on a reasonabl e balance of forces, strengthening civilian power, overcoming
extreme poverty, promot ing sustainable development, protecting the environment ...”
Subparagraph i) provides: “establish concerted actions aimed at the conservatio n of the
environment, through re spect for and in harmony with nature, ensuring a balanced
development and rational exploitation of natural resources in the area, with a view towards
establishing a new ecological order in the region.” Article 4, subparagraph h), provides :
“The good faith of the Member States in the performance of their obligations, refraining
from establishing, agreeing on and adopting any measures that are contrary to the
provisions of this instrument or hinder the compliance of the fundamental principles of the
Central American Integration System or the achievement of its objectives .” Article 6: "The
Member States are obliged to refrain from adopting unilateral measures that may jeopardize
the achievement of the purposes and compliance of the principles of the Central American
Integration System"; (B) Articles 26 and 35 of the Guatemala Protocol to the Regional
Integration Treaty; (C) Article 6, subparagraph f), and Article 8, subparagraph a) of the
Social Integration Treaty or San Salvador Protocol; (D) Articles I and II of the Convention
Establishing the Central American Commission on Environment and Development;
Recital I of its Protocol and Article 3 of its Rules of Procedure; (E) Article 1, Article 2,
subparagraph b), Article 10, Article 13, subparagraph g), and Article 18 of the Convention
on the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wildlife Areas in Central
America; (F) Article 1, subparagraph c), of the Regional Convention for Management and
Conservation of Natural Forest Ecosystems and Development of Forest Plantations; (G)
Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Regional Agreement on Trans-boundary Movement of
Hazardous Wastes; (H) Article 1 of the Regional Convention on the Climate Change; (I)
General Objective 2 and Specific Objectives 3, 6 and 7 of the Alliance for Sustainable
Development of Central America; (J) The preamble of the Tegucigalpa Declaration on
13
383Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
Peace and Development in Central America; (K) the Guacimo Presidential Declaration by
way of which the Presidents recognize before the world: ".. .the unique and indivisible
character of the Natural Heritage of Central America and assume the responsibility to
preserve it"; (L) the Presidential Commitment in respect of environmental and natural
resources in the Masaya volcano, Nicaragua. All of them signed and/or ratified by the State
of Costa Rica and in force for all Signatory Parties of the system. WHEREAS XV: In
addition to the obligations imposed by Community Law, Costa Rica and Nicaragua have
signed and ratified important conventions in this field governed by public international law,
which are directly related to the environmental strategy regulated by the Central American
Community Law in the aforementioned documents, for example: The United Nations
Conference on the Environment, Stockholm 1972; the United Nations World Charter for
Nature of 28 July 1982; the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992;
the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention Relating to the Wetlands of
International Importance, Especially as Habitats for Water Fowl (RAMSAR), ratified by
Costa Rica on the twenty-seventh of April of one thousand nine hundred and ninety -two.
In the framework of this Convention, a consultancy report , precisely requested by the
Government of Costa Rica on 15 and 22 November 2010, recommended, among other
things, the following: "(a) due to its geographical location and dynamics closely linked to
1the wildlife refuge, the border corridor, and RAMSAR San Juan River Wildlife Refuge, the
preservation of Northeast Caribbean Wetland requires a great effort of cooperation and
collaboration within the two neighboring countries of both RAMSAR sites within the
guidelines of the International Cooperation Convention." Consequently, individual States
cannot allege that another State Party has not observed different rules or obligations of a
same instrument as an excuse or pretext for not complying with the actions that are
compulsory. ( Underlining added ). WHEREAS XVI: All these conventions signed by
Costa Rica oblige the parties to consider the relevant precautionary measures before
making unilateral or bilateral decisions that could have a strong impact on the conservation
and maintenance of the environment they regulate. In this context, the provision of the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted in Rio de Janeiro on the
fourteenth of June of nineteen ninety -two, in which both States are signatories, draws
attention, which defines what is meant by "dangerous activity", which application should
be especially meditated because it is an "activity involvinthe risk of causing significant
14
384 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
damage in a particular area or zone". This Declaration stipulates " Principle 2... the
responsibility of ensuring that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
cause damage to the environment of other States or zones that are beyond the limits
of national jurisdiction". “Principle 10... including information on materials and activities
that pose a danger in t heir communities.” “ Principle 15. In order to protect the
environment, the States should broadly apply the criterion of precaution according to their
capabilities. Where there are risks of serious or irreversible damage, lack of absolute
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing the adoption of effective
measures based on costs to prevent the degradation of the environment". "Principle 17: An
environment impact assessment shall be undertaken , as a national instrument, with respect
to any proposed activity that could probably have a significant negative impact on the
environment and that is subject to the decision of a competent national authority".
"Principle 19: The States shall provide relevant information and prior timely notice to the
States that might be affected by activities that may have significant trans-boundary adverse
environmental effects and shall consult with those States at an early date and in good
faith". (Emphasis added). WHEREAS XVII: The area in question is a fundamental part of
the Mesoamerican Corridor, according to the agreement approved by the Central American
Presidents on 12 July 1997, taking into account at the same time that theGovernment of
Costa Rica has declared Natural Wildlife Refuge the border corr idor formed by the land
comprised along the border with Nicaragua, from Punta Castilla in the Caribbean Sea to
Salinas Bay in the Pacific Ocean ( MIRENEM Agreement Number 22962, which refers to
the aforementioned Law No. 13 of January 6, 1939 and Law No. 22825 above). All of this
leads us to conclude that it is actually a shared border river basin, which should be used and
managed jointly, according to the above -mentioned regulations. WHEREAS XVIII: The
fundamental principles that govern and organize the environment subsystem in the region
are based on coordination, information and understanding between the parties, in order to
harmonize their decisions on conservation measures that involve an obligation of the State
Parties. WHEREAS XIX : The Convention Establishing the Central American
Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) , which created the Central
American Commission on Environment and Development, provides: " Regional
cooperation should be a fundamental instrument in the resolution of e cological problems
by reason of the deep interdependence between the countries of the isthmus and the
15
385Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
regional organization of natural resources and the environment is a key factor for achieving
lasting peace ." In this order, Article 1 of the CCAD provides: the Contracting States
establish a cooperation system for the timely and rational use of the natural resources of
the area, pollution control and restoration of the ecological balance , to ensure a better
quality of life for the people of the Central American isthmus. Article 2 contains, inter alia,
the following objectives : a) “assessing and protecting the natural heritage of the region,
characterized by its high biological and ecosystem quality" ; b) "establish communication
between the Central American c ountries in the search for and adoption of sustainable
development styles with the participation of all bodies concerned for the development" ; c)
“promote the coordinated action of governmental, non -governmental and international
organizations for the opti mum use of the natural resources of the area, pollution control
and restoration of the biological balance" ; f) " promote the compatibili ty of the broad
guidelines of national policies and legislation with the strategies for sustainable
development in the region, particularly incorporat ing environmental considerations and
parameters in national development planning processes "; g) "determine priority areas for
action, among others: protection of common watersheds and ecosystems , tropical forest
management, p ollution control in urban centres... and other aspects of environmental
deterioration that may affect the health and quality of life of the population. ” Article 3 of
the CCAD regulations establishes that information is a social right which must be
respected, so it should provide reports that are required by the Presidents of the States, the
bodies of the Central American Integration System (SICA) and CCAD. Further, it should
promote access to environmental information for social actors and other stakeholders".
The Court finds that Costa Rica failed to comply with its obligation of communication with
its neighboring counterpart Nicaragua , thus making it impossible to establish both the
cooperation system between the States and the promotion of coordinated actions among
governmental entities established by the Convention. ( Underlining added). WHEREAS
XX: The preamble to the aforementioned Conservation Agreement states that the
Presidents: " sign it with the desire of protecting and preserving the natural regions of
aesthetic interest, historical value and scientific importance that represent unique
ecosystems of regional and global importance and have the potential o f providing
sustainable development options to our societies." The Conservation Agreement continues
to affirm, take note, emphasize and highlight the importance: "of confronting with strong
16
386 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
actions the preservation, rescue, restoration and rational u se of our ecosystems, including
endangered flora and fauna species". Article 2 limits the sovereignty of the State Parties in
favour of respect to other States, particularly neighbouring countries, by providing: b)
"ensuring that the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
biological diversity of their States or areas that limit their national jurisdiction ”. Article 10,
for its part, provides: "Each Member State within this regional framework commits to take
all possible measures, according to their capacities, national programmes and priorities, to
ensure conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use, as well as the development of its
components within their national jurisdiction, and to cooperate to the extent possible in
border and regional actions". Similarly, Article 13 tells us how the Conservation Agreement
must be complied by the parties and the mechanisms th ey should adopt, establishing
important obligations for the States, such as : "g) facilitating exchange of information
between national institutions, between the countries of the Central American region and
other international organizations." Specifically , in relation to the case at hand, A rticle 18
provides: Within this Agreement, border protected areas in the following land and coastal
regions shall be developed and strengthened as a priority, citing, among others, the
International System of Protected Areas for Peace, SI A PAZ, in which the ecosystem in
question is found. (Emphasis and underlining added). WHEREAS XXI: Article 25 of the
Conservation Agreement is of great importance when it mandates the States to ratify the
international conventions that are obviously considered complementary to those of the
Central American Integration System (SICA), to wit : International Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora Species (CITES); Convention on
the C onservation of Wetlands of International Importance and Habitats for Migratory
Birds (RAMSAR) and UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Natural and
Cultural Heritage, providing that the States shall guarantee its internal compliance. Article
29 provides: "Appropriate procedures should be introduced in each of the countries of the
region to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed development policies,
programmes, projects and activities, in order to minimize them." Article 33 also reiterates:
"Exchange of information on actions potentially harmful to the biological resources that
could be developed in the territories within their jurisdictionshould be promoted on the
basis of reciprocity, in order to evaluate , among the affected countries, the most
appropriate bilateral or r egional measures". A fortiori, A rticle 37 underlines: " The
17
387Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
provisions of this Convention shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Central
American States arising from the existence of previous international conventions related to
the conservation of biological resources and protected areas", which shows the great
interaction and complementarity that exists between both groups of commitments in this
area. (Emphasis and underlining added). WHEREAS XXII: The preamble of the Regional
Convention for Management and Conservation of Natural Forest Ecosystems and
Development of Forest Plantations reaffirms one of the purposes of the Tegucigalpa
Protocol: "To establish concerted actions aimed at the preservation of t he environment
through respect for and harmony with nature, ensuring a balanced development and
rational exploitation of th e natural resources of the area , with a view to the establishment
of a new ecological order in the region ." Article 1 adds that the p arties are obliged to: "c)
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of the country, or to other countries in the region". (Emphasis added ).
WHEREAS XXIII: The Court found that the legal nature of the Alliance for Sustainable
Development (ALIDES), created by the Central American Ecological Summit for
Sustainable Development, held in Managua, Nicaragua, on 12 October 1994, is an
'agreement' made by the Meeting of Presidents, which is the supreme body of the Central
American Integration System (SICA), and within the same, in exercising the powers granted
under Articles14, 15, 30 and 31 of the said Protocol,it is legally binding for those States. (File
No. 3-4-95, Request for Advisory Opinion regarding the situation legal of the Tegucigalpa
Protocol with respect to previous legal instruments andsubsequent acts, submitted by Dr. H.
Roberto Herrera Cáceres, then Secretary General of the Central American Integration System
(SICA), judgment of 24 May 1995). In its principles and objectives, ALIDESestablishes the
obligations of the parties relating to the sustainable management of natural resources and
the improvement of environmental quality by imposing upon them, for example, the
integrated sustainable management of the territories to ensure biodiversity in the region
(Objective 3) and in the annex of specific objectives, Objective 7 compels them to
"Properly manage the watersheds to ensure diverse uses of water resources in terms of
quantity and quality." WHEREAS XXIV: At the International Conference on Peace and
Development in Central America, held at Tegucigalpa on 24 October 1994, the Presidents
committed to "stimulate a constructive dialogue bet ween the governments, civil society,
regional institutions and international community, for the purpose of broadly discussing
18
388 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
the implementation of the commitments made within the framework of the Central
American Alliance for Sustainable Development" (ALIDES). WHEREAS XXV: The
commitments made by the Presidents of Central America in the field of environment and
natural resources, at Masaya Volcano , Nicaragua, on 13 October 1994, by which the
Central American Biological Corridor is created: "strengthening the National System of
Protected Areas..." WHEREAS XXVI: This Court, at the request of the applicant and
given the nature of the case, made on-site inspection at eight thirty five in the morning on
the twelfth of January of two thousand twel ve, which concluded at six thirty in the
afternoon, in order to ascertain if there was any danger in the works concerning the road
under construction that runs along the south bank of the San Juan River and , as a result
thereof, took due note of the hazard s and risks involved for the conservation of the
ecosystem by the works initiated by the Government of Costa Rica. The Court has been
able to verify the damage to the bank that protects the river on the south bank, especially in
the many sectors where the road is dangerously close to the edge of the River, leaving it
exposed to sedimentation by leaching, and also noted the lack of general buffering
measures, such as culverts, drainages, etc. This Court highlights the fact that in many
sections of the inspec ted area, the distance between the riverbed and the road is a few
meters and the difference of level between the two is very pronounced, with the road in a
dominant position and the river in a secondary position, all of which makes possible a
landslide of large segments of the work in question, with the resulting sedimentation that
would pollute the river. The Court also verified the felling of a large number of trees in
Costa Rican territory, giving rise to vast areas where only reddish and clayish soil re mains.
WHEREAS XXVII: The Court estimate s that it is public knowledge, in view of the
official statements made in the regional media by Costa Rican authorities, as well
as an official statement of the Presidency of the Republic regarding "the position of
the Government with regard to Route 1856" (which is the name with which Costa Rica
identifies the road in question), published on Friday, 25 May 2012 on the webpage of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Republic of Costa Rica , containing
statements by the President of the Republic and opinions of technical and scientific
authorities of the Costa Rican society, that the Government of that State made unilateral
decisions, in a hasty manner and without consultation, in light of the Community
Integration System, which affect the bilateral commitments of th at Government with the
19
389Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
neighbouring State of Nicaragua. In addition, these news of obvious notoriety, known by
the majority of the Central American and internationalcommunity, reveal the absence of
environmental impact and mitigation studies by Costa Rica, which are essential for
commencing works of this magnitude. Likewise, added to the case file on page 1173 is the
affidavit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Licentiate Samuel Santos López,
expressing that the Ministry has not received any report or official communication from
the Government of Costa Rica requesting a dialogue, mitigation measures or the beginning
of a potential negotiation with the Gov ernment of Nicaragua in relation to the roait is
building on the right bank of the San Juan River and that he has not received from official
Costa Rican sources any environment impact study relating to this work. Consequently, this
Court considers that Costa Rica was obliged to communicate to the Government of
Nicaragua the characteristics, effects and environmental impact study othe construction
of the road by virtue of its international and community commitments imposed by treaties,
conventions, agreements and legislative acts derived from the Tegucigalpa Protocol in the
field of environment protection. WHEREAS XXVIII: In relation to Decree No. 36440
issued by the Government of Costa Rica and published in the Official Journal ofCosta
Rica on Monday, March 7, 2011 , which serves as a basis for the creation of the road in
question, this Court reiterate s the principle of international law, laid down in the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, that nobody can alleged non -compliance of duly
contracted international obligations, usingas a pretext the provisions of its domestic
legislation, whether ordinary or extraordinary. THEREFORE: THE CENTRAL
AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL AMERICA ,
based on Articles 3, 4, 12 and 35 of the Tegucigalpa Protocol and Article 22, subparagraph
c) of its Statute Convention, by A UNANIMOUS VOTE, RULES: FIRST: The State of
Costa Rica is subject to the jurisdiction anauthority of the Central American Court of
Justice as a State Party of the Tegucigalpa Protocol to the Charter of the Organization of
Central American States (ODECA) and for other reasons stated in this judgment.
SECOND: The lawsuit brought by the National Recycling Forum (FONARE) and
Nicaraguan Foundation for Sustainable Development against the State of Costa Rica is
admitted as the claims made in this proceeding are duly based on the law.THIRD: The
State of Costa Rica acted without consultation, in a unilateral, inapprop riate and hasty
manner, violating international bilateral and multilateral agreements validly contracted by
20
390 Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
building the road in question, which cannot be obviated by alleging internal provisions .
FOURTH: The State of Costa Rica started the work in question without conducting the
studies and previous analyses required in the context of the obligations imposed by
Regional Community and International Law, ignoring collaboration, mutual understanding
and communication between the State Parties of all these conventions that should exist in
the field of environment and sustainable development. FIFTH: The State of Costa Rica
built a high-risk and environmentally hazardous work, which it should have prevented
within the framework of the community obligations because it exposes the common
watershed and ecosystem shared with Nicaragua and the region to serious and
unpredictable damage, which this Court was able to observe during its on-site inspection in
the area in question. SIXTH: Consequently, the State of Costa Rica is condemned for
having violated, inter alia, Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the Tegucigal pa Protocol, Articles 26 and
35 of the Guatemala Protocol, Articles 1, 2, subparagraphs a, b and g, of the CCAD,
Article 3 of the CCAD regulations, Articles 2, 10, 13, 25, 29, 33 and 37 of the Convention
for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wildlife Areas in Central
America, Objectives 3 and 7 of the Alliance for the Sustainable Development of Central
America (ALIDES), as well as the provisions of international conventions , such as
RAMSAR ( Article 5) and other treaties, conventions and agreements on the subject
described in WHEREAS XIV and acts derived from the Tegucigalpa Protocol that form
part of the regional community body of knowledge. SEVENTH: The State of Costa Rica
is condemned for having incurred in liability for ecological and related damages to the San
Juan de Nicaragua River, as well as to the shared ecosystem that forms part of the Central
American Biological Corridor and to the respective basin. Further, to the common wildlife
biodiversity that rotates and remains around the river and maintains the ecological balance
of fauna, flora and the environment that the State of Costa Rica is obliged to respect and
sustain as a Natural Heritage of Humanity . EIGHTH: The S tate of Costa Rica is
condemned for incurring in contempt of court by not complying with the precautionary
measures ordered by the Central American Court of J ustice on January seventeen, two
thousand twelve, and the order to definitively suspend the construction of this road is
reaffirmed. NINTH : This Court refrains from determining the amount of damages
claimed as redress for the liability incurredbecause the plaintiff did not provide the
necessary elements to quantify the environmental damage caused. TENTH: Notify.
21
391Annex 13
CorteCentroamericanadeJusticia
(Signed) Carlos A. Guerra G. (Signed) Alejandro Gomez V. (Signed) F. Dario Lobo.
(Signed) R. Acevedo P., (Signed) Guillermo A. P. (Signed) Silvia Rosales B. (Signed) OGM.
22
392 Annex 14
Diplomatic Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Nicaragua, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
Ref: MRE/DVM/AJST/500/11/11, Managua.
29 November 2011
393394 Annex 14
Managua, 29 November 2011
MRE/DVM/AJST/500/11/11
Mr. Minister:
I have the honor to address you on the occasion of referring to aspects of the construction of a 120
kilometer road (approximately) which your Government is developing in the area between Boca San
Carlos and the Delta.
This road runs parallel to, and is a short distance from, the San Juan River of Nicaragua and drains
into the river. Besides destroying the flora and fauna of a very extensive zone of common wetlands as
a result of these activities, there is also the dumping of the residue resulting from land removal and
other forms of residue into our San Juan River.
These projects have been covered extensively by the press in your country. The 17 October 2011
edition of Costa Rica’s Diario La Nación points out that “The Government is constructing a 120
kilometer road parallel to the border with Nicaragua, in order to avoid the use of the San Juan River by
the population and the Police for their travel”. The article further states that the route will extend to the
area which was determined by the International Court of Justice as an area in dispute by its 8 March
2011 order.
Also, the authorities of your country have confirmed the advanced stage of the project. In statements
to Costa Rican new spaper, La Prensa Libre, The Minister for Public Security, Mr. Mario Zamora
Cordera, revealed that the road parallel to the Río San Juan will be completed in December 2011.
The Government of Nicaragua reminds the Government of Costa Rica that a project of this nature
should have an Environmental Impact Assessment due to their characteristics. Further, this assessment
should have been sent to the Government of Nicaragua due to the proximity to Nicaragua of this
project and in conformity to International Law and the International Court of Justice 8 March 2011
Order and Article 5 of the RAMSAR Convention, which stipulates that " The Contracting Parties shall
consult with each other about implementing obligations arising from the Convention especially in the
case of a wetland extending over the territories of more than one Contracting Party or where a water
system is shared by Contracting Parties. They shall at the same time endeavour to coordinate and
support present and future policies and regulations concerning the conservation of wetlands and their
flora and fauna".
In this regard, the National Reconciliation and Unity Government of the Republic of Nicaragua can
only qualify this construction project as contrary to the cited norms of International Law as well as
paragraph 86, number (3) of the abovementioned International Court of Justice Order.
395Annex 14
Because of the above the Government of Nicaragua demands the immediate suspension of these
projects until their environmental impact can be assesed.
Mr. Minister, I extend the assurances of my distinguished consideration.
Manuel Coronel Kautz
Minister by Law
To H.E.Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Costa Rica
396 Annex 15
Diplomatic Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
of Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Ref: DM-AM-601-11.
29 November 2011
397398 Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa
Annex 15
Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, Ref: DM-
AM-601-11, 29 November 2011.
The Minister for Foreign Relations and Cult
29 November 2011
DM-AM-601-11
His Excellency Mr. Minister:
I extend my greeting to your Excellency on the occasion of referring to statements of high
level authorities of the Government of Nicaragua. According to these statements a road being
constructed by Costa Rica in an area on the co mmon border with Nicaragua will supposedly cause
environmental damage to Nicaraguan territory.
In relation to this issue, the Government of Nicaragua knows very well that the reasons Costa
Rica has been obliged to develop this infrastructure project are r elated to Nicaragua’s activities in the
border area.
At the same time, Costa Rica considers that the project mentioned is not affecting Nicaraguan
territory. Nonetheless, in the spirit of a good neighbor policy and environmental protection, as well as
in compliance with pertinent agreements on this matter, the Government of Costa Rica is willing to
hear Nicaragua’s concerns regarding the construction of this road.
In this regard, my Government invites the Government of Nicaragua to present formally the
reasons for which it considers that there may be environmental damage or damage to Nicaragua’s
interests. For this purpose, Costa Rica requests to receive serious and objective scientific information
that proves Nicaragua’s allegation. In the same spirit, my country expects the same attitude from the
Government of Nicaragua regarding projects that may affect Costa Rican territory.
Finally and also in the context of the facilitation process led by the Governments of Guatemala
and Mexico, Costa Rica is in the best disposition to accept the participation of both States in the
discussion and analysis of common environmental issues.
Mr. Minister, please receive the assurances of my consideration.
/s/ [seal]
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
H.E.Samuel Santos López
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
[Stamped:]
Nicaragua Embassy
San José, Costa Rica
Office of the Ambassador
29/11/11, 10
Received by: /s/ [illegible]
399400 Annex 16
Diplomatic Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Nicaragua, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
Ref: MRE/DVS/VJW/0685/12/11, Managua.
10 December 2011
401402 Annex 16
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, Ref:
MRE/DVS/VJW/0685/12/11, Managua, 10 December, 2011.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
th
Managua, 10 December 2011
MRE/DVS/VJW/0685/12/11
Dear Mr. Minister:
The National Reconciliation anthUnity Government regrets to communicate that, in relation to your
note DM-AM-601-11 dated 29 November 2011, considers inappropriate and inadmissible to request
Nicaragua to point out the damages that may result f rom the project that your government is
constructing in the right bank of the San Juan of Nicaragua River.
The Government of Nicaragua considers that such expression is the result of a wrong interpretation of
the obligation of your distinguished governmen t to present to Nicaragua, prior to the commencement
of the road, the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environmental Management Plan, both of
them being a fundamental requisite to carry out a project of such a magnitude.
Trying to invert the logic in regard to the obligations of Costa Rica implies not assuming the
commitments with mother nature, International Law and the bilateral and multilateral Conventions and
Treaties that your government has subscribe in defense of the environment and biodivers ity, among
which we can mention the Regional Convention for the Management and Conservation of the Natural
Forest Ecosystems and the development of forest plantations signed in Guatemala on 29 thOctober
1993, Stockholm Declaration, Rio Declaration, Agenda 21 and the February 2, 1971 Convention on
Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (RAMSAR), whose Article 5
was highlighted in paragraph 79 of the Order of the International Court of Justice dated March 8
2011: “Article 5. - The contracting parties shall consult with each other about implementing
obligations arising from the Convention especially in the case of a wetland extending over the
territories of more than one Contracting Party or where a water system is shared by Contra cting
Parties. They shall at the same time endeavor to coordinate and support present and future policies
and regulations concerning the conservation of wetlands and their flora and fauna”.
The government of Costa Rica far from informing its own people and Nicaragua about the project, has
kept them hidden. Furthermore, high ranking people of the government have made misleading
statements in the media by affirming that the project had been ceased.
Independently of the above mentioned, it is evident that the construction of the road seriously affects
the environment and the rights of Nicaragua. If the project is not ceased it would have irreversible and
transcendental ecological and environmental consequences.
403Annex 16
Among the many consequences that can be highlighted are the following:
1- Dumping of trees and soil along the route of the road into the river flow, difficulting and
risking the navigation in its waters, over which Nicaragua has the dominion and s overeign
jurisdiction based on the Treaty of 15 thApril 1858 and the Cleveland Award of 22 nd March
1888.
2- Removal and sedimentation of fragile soils resulting in an increased and excessive
sedimentation of the waters of the Nicaraguan river.
3- Impact over the hydrological resources, particularly affecting fishing in the river because of
the changes in the quality of the water.
4- Destruction of the natural habitat of the bank by removing the immediate vegetation to the
river flow for the construction of the road, affecting the tree diversity around it.
5- Interception of the natural flow of the waters that flow through the south basin to the San Juan
River by modifying the drainage of the surrounding wetlands at the lower San Juan and its
delta.
6- Erosion of the so il banks in places where a certain slope exists and resulting in the
sedimentation of clay soils to the San Juan of Nicaragua River.
7- Decrease or alteration of the aquatic life due to the water cloudiness resulting from the
sediments of the road construction.
8- Destruction of the inherent scenic values and eco-tourism potential of the river course.
I point out that the above list does not exhausts all the consequences and responsibilities of Costa Rica
related to the execution of this project, including th e incursions in Nicaraguan territory and the
violations of the demarcation monuments.
The obligation of Costa Rica to inform Nicaragua about the Environmental Impact Assessment prior
to the commencement of the project cannot be reinstated by calling upon facilitators. Nicaragua cannot
accept anything less than the ceasing of the project until it has had the chance to receive and an alyze
the Environmental Impact Assessment on the project.
I take this opportunity to express the assurances of my consideration.
His Excellency Enrique Castillo
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cult
Republic of Costa Rica
Seal
Embassy of Costa Rica
Managua, Nicaragua
Date: 10/12/2011
Time: 7:05 pm
Received by: Edwin Arias
404 Annex 17
Diplomatic note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Reference DVM-AM-286-11
20 December 2011
405406 Annex 17
Seal of the Republic of Costa Rica
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cult
December 20, 2011
DVM-AM-286-11
Honorable Minister:
I greet Your Excellency on occasion of referring to notes MRE/DVM/AJST/500/11/14 dated
November 29 and MRE/DVS/VJW0685/12/11 dated December 10, both of the current year.
In reference to both notes, the Government of Costa Rica rejects the affirmations tha t
construction of a dirt road in the northern area of Costa Rica “severely affects the environment
and the rights of Nicaragua”. The alleged “consequences” of this work, enumerated by the
Government of Nicaragua , is in no way evidence that it caused damage s to Nicaragua, and it
therefore rejects the alleged protest. Costa Rica is still waiting for Nicaragua contribute strong
evidence as to the location of the irreversible damages caused to the San Juan River alleged by
Nicaragua.
It is contradictory that Nicaragua should demand from Costa Rica the “presentation to Nicaragua
prior to beginning road construction, of the Environmental Impact Study and the Environmental
Management Plan”. Nicaragua itself has systematically refuses to provide information to C osta
Rica and to submit the corresponding studies for all of the works that it develops in the border
area, including dre dging of the San Juan River. These works also include stream cutting and
deviation of the natural riverbed. Allow me to remind Nicaragu a that it continues dredging works
in the San Juan River, which according to Nicaragua’s own studies, suppose the removal of more
than three million cubic meters of sediment . All of these sediments currently dumped in the San
Juan River Wildlife Refuge wet lands, a Ramsar Convention Site, in addition to the sediments
already dumped in the North Caribbean Wetlands of Costa Rica, also a Ramsar Site.
Likewise, I recall that Nicaragua has also built an airport with an extension of two kilometers
directly in the same San Juan River Wildlife Refuge Wetlands, in an area adjacent to Costa Rican
territory and the San Juan del Norte Bay, joint property with Costa Rica. Nicaragua did not fulfill its
international obligation to serve notice to the Secretariat of the Ram sar Convention, much less to
inform Costa Rica, about either of the works, neither dredging with the subsequent dumping of
sediments into the wetlands or the airport construction.
Nicaragua also builds a large -scale bridge in the San Juan River and announ ced construction of a
dam that in the words of President Ortega himself will have devastating effects for the
environment in the region. Costa Rica neither received notice about any type of studies for these
works.
The purpose of the works carried out by Costa Rica, under the protection of a National Emergency
Decree, is to safeguard the integrity of its territory and bring development to that area of the
407Annex 17
country. These works, undertaken with minimum possible impacts, are a consequence of the
serious actions that Nicaragua made and continues to make in the borderline area . This includes
the continuous defilement of the Ruling that Dictates Interim Measures issued by the International
Court of Justice on March 8, 2011, by sponsoring the constant presence of members of the
Sandinista Youth Organization in Costa Rican territory in the northern sector of Portillos Island,
known as Aragon Farm. All of the above, without mentioning the devastation of several hectares
of primary forest, as well as construction of a n artificial canal in the North Caribbean Wetlands, in
Costa Rican Territory.
Despite evidence that the reasons that move Nicaragua to launch the aggressive campaign against
Costa Rica are not environmental ; nevertheless, Costa Rica maintains its willingn ess to listen to
any legitimate concern with due backup. In this sense, and given that Nicaragua alleges that this
could cause damages to the San Juan River, Costa Rica requests immediate remittance of the
existing studies about such river. Costa Rica espe cially request information relating to historical
records on turbidity in its waters, chemical composition, historical sediment load, and all scientific
data pertinent to the assessment of the river´s condition, and detect any possible affectations.
Lastly, and given its relation with the Nicaraguan policy to disavow the established boundaries and
threatening Costa Rican national security, the Government of Costa Rica avails itself of this
occasion to introduce its most energetic protest for the event s that took place yesterday, Monday
December 29. Given that, a group of about 15 Nicaraguan soldiers penetrated approximately on
kilometer into Costa Rican territory in the Punta Castilla sector, uttering threats against officials of
the Costa Rican Public Forces in the area. This documented event is an unacceptable violation of
Costa Rican sovereignty. This confirms that Costa Rica has sufficient reasons to take measures
provided by international law to protect its national territory, as well as those civi l works that
ensure protection of its territorial integrity . It also includes those civil works that ensure full
exercise of its territorial sovereignty and monitor actions carried out by foreign forces in our
country. A llow us to demonstrate those violations before the respective international
organizations.
Receive, Honorable Minister, the assurances of my consideration
Illegible Signature,
Carlos A. Rovers Rojas,
Deputy Minister
Stamped Seal: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Office of the Deputy Minister
San Jose, Costa Rica
Excellency
Mr. Samuel Santos Lopez
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
English: NCM
408 Annex 18
Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to the United Nations Environmental
Program (UNEP), Ref: DM-JAS-1397.12.11.
10 December 2011
409410 Annex 18
Office of the Minister
Managua, 10 December 2011
Ref DM-JAS-1397.12.11
Mrs. Margarita Astralaga
Regional Director
United Nations Environmental Program
(At her Office)
Dear Mrs. Astralaga:
In the context of UNEP’s objectives of leading and encouraging participation in environmental
protection and taking into account that biodiversity conservation is one of the most important themes
in which the UNEP collaborates with other countries, and that at present Nicaragua is doing studies in
order that it be declared a mega -diverse country, we feel obligated to inform you of the damages and
current threats to our natural patrimony in the Biosphere Reserve of the Rio San Juan as a result of the
construction by Costa Rica of a 130 km long road parallel to the San Juan River. The removal of
forests and the immediate vegetation to the river flow, among others, has caused the interruption of the
interrelationship of the ecosystem and biological corridors, and has endangered the existing fragile
biodiversity.
Costa Rica began and continues to construct this parallel road despite its tremendous direct and
immediate environmental impact caused upon our Río San Juan Biosphere Reserve, thus disregarding
its international obligations of notifying Nicaragua of its intent to pursue a project of this magnitude,
especially as it impacts on an area under national, regional and interna tional protection. Further, Costa
Rica has also violated its obligation to carry out a trans - boundary environmental impact assessment
and to transmit this to us for analysis and comments.
This attitude is contrary to international norms, including the Sto ckholm Declaration, the Río
Declaration, Agenda 21, Principles on Forests, RAMSAR, and especially, the Convention on
Biological Diversity which expressly requires notification projects and environmental impact
evaluations, especially when these would have important adverse effects on the biological diversity of
another State.
In the same manner, we would like to take this opportunity to also inform you that we have also
proceeded to notify UNESCO [of this matter] since it relates to a Biosphere Reserve rec ognized by
that entity. We have also informed the RAMSAR Secretariat since this relates to wetlands recognized
under this convention.
As regards all of the above, I would like to request your collaboration and support, within the
framework of UNEP activities, a study be carried out which would allow determination of the
environmental impact as a result of the project mentioned and which would facilitate decision -making
regarding this situation.
411Annex 18
In the hope of a prompt response given the urgency of this case, in gratitude for your attention to this
and in reiterating the assurances of my consideration and esteem, I remain,
Cordially,
/S/ [Sealed]
Juanita Argeñal
MARENA Minister
cc:
Mr. Nazario Expósito
UNOPS Representative in Nicaragua
Samuel Santos/ Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Mr. Pablo Mandeville
UNDP Representative in Nicaragua
412 Annex 19
Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to UNESCO, REF: DM-JAS/1393.12.11.
10 December 2011
413414 Note from the Minister of Environment of Nicaragua to Annex 19
UNESCO, REF: DM-JAS/1393.12.11,10 December 2011.
Office of the Minister
Managua, 10 December 2011
Ref: DM-JAS/1393.12.11
Doctor
Juan Bautista Arrién
Representantive of UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Dear Doctor Arríen:
As you know, on 15 September 2003 the Biosphere Reserve of the Río San Juan was designated as
such, and it is conformed of a system of protected marine and terrestrial areas, biological reserves,
natural reserves and a wetland system, where the interrelati on of Man and the Biosphere it´s a reality
for the coastal population, particularly for the indigenous communities.
Aware of our historical duty with humanity for being depositories of such patrimony, we regret to
inform you of the damages and current th reats to our natural patrimony in the Biosphere Reserve of
the Rio San Juan as a result of the construction by Costa Rica of a 130 km long road parallel to the San
Juan River. The removal of forests and the immediate vegetation to the river flow, among oth ers, has
caused the interruption of the interrelationship of the ecosystem and biological corridors, and has
endangered the existing fragile biodiversity.
Costa Rica began and continues to construct this parallel road despite its tremendous direct and
immediate environmental impact caused upon our Río San Juan Biosphere Reserve, thus disregarding
its international obligations of notifying Nicaragua of its intent to pursue a project of this magnitude,
especially as it impacts on an area under national, regio nal and international protection. Further, Costa
Rica has also violated its obligation to carry out a trans - boundary environmental impact assessment
and to transmit this to us for analysis and comments.
Bearing in mind UNESCO´s objectives, we invoke Costa Rica´s obligation to respect the Convention
concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which establishes the obligation
“not to take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and
natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 situated on the territory of other States Parties to
this Convention”
The extensive and singular biodiversity that exists in the Biosphere Reserve of the Río San Juan is the
reason itself for having been recognized by UNESCO, and given the circumstances, we invite you to
visit the place and confirm the grave ecological damage that has been caused and that, evidently, will
continue to be caused if the works are not immediately ceased.
I am looking forward to hear from yo u promptly. I take this opportunity to thank you and reaffirm the
assurances of my highest consideration.
Fraternally,
Juanita Argeñal Sandoval
Minister MARENA
Cc: Samuel Santos/ Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua
Roberto Araquistain/Viceminister of the Environment
415Annex 19
416 Annex 20
Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to the Secretary General,
RAMSAR Convention, REF:DM.JAS.1350.11.11.
28 November 2011
417418 Annex 20
Office of the Minister
REF:DM.JAS.1350.11.11
Managua, 28 November 2011
Mr. ANADA TIÉGA
Secretary General
RAMSAR Convention
[To his office]
Honorable Mr. Secretary General:
Please receive our cordial greeting for 2011, The Year of Unity for the Common Wellbeing and
Protection Forests.
The Government of Nicaragua take this opportunity to reiterate its environmental p olicy; to develops
and reconstruct the human values of care and love for our Mother Earth; in its conservation of its
wetlands, in the implementation of biodiversity conventions and RAMSAR.
In compliance with international environmental protection norms an d our commitment to Mother
Earth, the National Unity and Reconstruction Government of Nicaragua informs the following to the
RAMSAR Convention:
The Government of Nicaragua has observed with great concern a construction by the Government of
Costa Rica of a road, approximately 120 kilometers in length, which runs parallel and very close to the
San Juan River of Nicaragua and drains into the river. Besides destruction of the flora and fauna of a
very extensive common wetlands zone, the residue resulting from the removal of land and other matter
have been dumped in our River. Intensive deforestation and land movement on the riverbank of our
river may be observed in the attached photograph which was published in the 27 November 2011
edition of El Nuevo Diario, a Nicaraguan newspaper.
According to information published in different Costa Rican media, the said construction is only part
of a series of projects announced by the government of President Laura Chinchilla in December 2010,
including the opening of a road parallel to the San Juan River of Nicaragua of more than 120
kilometers in length, the construction of heliports and a pedestrian bridge over the Colorado River for
access to Harbour Head, the installation of sewers and even a pier in the Colorado River, as well as the
construction of nets to serve as the openings in the Colorado, San Carlos and Sarapiquí Rivers.
These projects, which are mere meters away from Nicaragua’s San Juan River and destroy extensive
shared wetland zones, violate the norms of International Law that regulate relations between States;
and regarding the RAMSAR Convention they violate, among others, the commitments of the sister
nation of Costa Rica of holding consultations on compliance of its obligations derived from said
Convention and its duty to actively coordinate and support present and future policies and regulations
relative to the conservation of wetlands and their flora and fauna, related to wetlands and the
hydrologic system shared with our country.
Given the clear violations of its obligations regarding environmental protection, given the seriousness
of the situation and the imminent threat of irreparable environmental damage, given the lack of
cooperation regarding conservation of biodiversity and management of hydrologic res ources, our
country requests the Convention to immediately send an Advisory Mission to visit the zone and verify
419Annex 20
on the ground the flagrant violations of the RAMSAR Convention by this sister nation, which put the
wetlands in the Nicaraguan and Costa Rican side at high risk. As a result of the foregoing, we also
request that the Government of Costa Rica be required to provide all the complete technical
information necessary for the evaluating and drawing conclusions regarding the present state of the
zone and that these be sent to our country to facilitate present and future policies and regulations for
the conservation of our shared hydrologic and wetlands system.
With nothing further to address, I remain yours,
Fraternally,
JUANA ARGEÑAL SANDOVAL
Minister,Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources
420 Annex 21
Note from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources
of Nicaragua (MARENA) to the Central American Commission
on Environment and Development (CCAD),
REF: DM-JAS-1398.12.11.
10 December 2011
421422 Annex 21
Office of the Minister
Managua, 10 December 2011
Ref. DMS-JAS-1398.12.11
Mr. Hernán Rosa
Minister of the Environment
of El Salvador
Protempore Presidency of CCAD (by its Spanish acronym )
To His Office
Dear Mr. Rosa:
The National Reconciliation and Unity Government of Nicaragua, presided by Commander Daniel
Ortega Saavedra, has declared that it is a priority to protect, defend and restore our natural patrimony
through a national human development plan which puts forth the policies and strategies in this regard,
in particular, the national strategy for the environment in the face of c limate change, and its system of
environmental impact evaluation in order to anticipate possible impact by developments, projects,
programs.
At present, Nicaragua has 71 protected areas, three biosphere reserves, nine RAMSAR sites, three
national parks, and natural biological and genetic reserves. Outstanding among these is our Río San
Juan Biosphere Reserve, which is consists of a wetlands system extending from San Miguelito to the
Los Guatuzos Wildlife Reserve, five protected areas and a Natural Biological Reserve at Río Indio
Maíz.
All of this natural patrimony is presently threatened by the varies impact of the construction project of
the Government of Costa Rica of a more than 130 kilometer road parallel to Río San Juan of
Nicaragua. Deforestation, removal of vegetation, sedimentation, and other factors, are damaging these
fragile nationally, regionally and internationally protected ecosystems.
Costa Rica began and continues to construct this parallel road despite its tremendous direct and
immediate environmental impact caused upon our Río San Juan Biosphere Reserve, thus disregarding
its international obligations of notifying Nicaragua of its intent to pursue a project of this magnitude,
especially as it impacts on an area under national, regional and international protection. Further, Costa
Rica has also violated its obligation to carry out a trans - boundary environmental impact assessment
and to transmit this to us for analysis and comments.
The above mentioned is contrary to a series of international and regional norms, including the
Constitutional Convention of the Central American Environment and Development Commission
which we subscribe “Conscious that regional cooperation should constitute a fundamental tool … due
to the profound interdependency b etween the countries of the isthmus”; it is also contrary to the
Regional Convention for the management and conservation of natural forest ecosystems and forest
development, the Convention for the conservation of the biodiversity and protection of the main wild
life sites in Central America, the Agreement over the Protected Areas between Nicaragua and Costa
Rica.
423Annex 21
Based on all of the above, I would like to request that the pertinent regional mechanisms be activated
to allow, among other things, the swift on site damage verification, analysis and study of the situation
at the technical and political levels, and any other measure towards the immediate suspension of these
Costa Rican works until there is a trans -boundary environmental impact assessment and until we have
had an opportunity to study such evaluation.
It is important to point out that Nicaragua has encouraged dialogue among the countries of the isthmus
in order that we may clarify the differences, resolve them and move forward together as brother
countries, and our President Cdr. Daniel Ortega S., on several occasions has called on the Government
of Costa Rica in order that we seek consensus and allow harmony to rein to the benefit of our Mother
Earth.
With the hope of a prompt response from you, and grateful for your attention to this matter, I reiterate
the assurances of my consideration and esteem.
Fraternally,
/S/ [Sealed]
Ms. Juanita Argeñal Sandoval
MARENA Minister
cc:
All Central American Ministers for the Environment
Comrade Samuel Santos, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Nicaragua
424 Annex 22
University Seminar, Costa Rica “Environmental damage feared
due to construction of highway parallel to Río San Juan”
1 November 2011
425426 Annex 22
Environmental damage feared due to construction of highway parallel to
Río San Juan
Tuesday, 1 November 2011, 23:43
By Ernesto Ramírez ([email protected])
University Seminar
Environmentalists and persons involved in natural resources protection fear that the highway being
constructed by the Government parallel to the Río San Juan will have a serious environmental impact
and that in the end the “medicine will be worse than the illness.”
The highway, planned by President Laura Chinchilla’s administration in the context of the border
conflict with Nicaragua, affects the area’s ecology and a large area characterized by biodiversity
considered “strategic” and of enormous importance by environmental advocates.
Development of the project is based on an emergency decree (36440) issued by Chinchilla last 21
February and published in the official daily “La Gaceta” on 7 March.
This decree allows several Government entities, including the Transportation Ministry and the
National Highway Safety Council, to operate under exception, which allows them to override permit
procedures and other regulations.
Have profound environmental impact studies been done regarding the San Juan zone highway? Is
Costa Rica really facing an e mergency when in March the Court in The Hague issued precautionary
measures and Nicaraguan troops abandoned territory of the Caleros -Los Portillos island long ago?
How much awareness is there regarding the impact of this route in a zone of enormous environmental
importance such as the bi national basin of the San Juan?
This and another series of questions are of concern to several ecologists and environmental advocates
who do not hide their fear that the highway will cause serious damage to protected systems in the zone
and will, in the context of the conflict that broke out in October of last year, in fact give Nicaragua
arms against Costa Rica.
(See separate item: MINAET [Spanish acronym] vigilant against serious impact, said the Deputy
Minister.)
According to geologist, Allan Astorga, any project similar to the one promoted for the border with
Nicaragua involves environmental risks. He stated to UNIVERSIDAD that for this reason “it should
be developed and implemented under an effective environmentally minded procedure in order to avoid
damage.”
Environmental lawyer and Costa Riva UNIVERSITY professor, Álvaro Sagot, also expressed concern
regarding the project since it is unknown if it is guided by the concepts of environmental viability.
427Annex 22
“It is very simple. The necessary Environmental Impact Studies are being passed over by way of a
decree. No one can say that there is or will not be any environmental impact regarding biodiversity,”
he commented.
Nicolás Boeglin, an international law expert recalled that the San Juan region has biological corridors
that are protected by law.
“From the ecological standpoint, this is a vulnerable zone. Certain precautionary measures have to be
taken in the construction of a highway,” he indicated.
The vice-president of the Environment Court, Yamileth Mata, admitted that she was even unaware of
the construction of the highway. She did not discard eventual intervention by the body regarding the
viability of the project.
On the other hand, Uriel Juárez, Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical
Secretariat (SETENA, by its Spanish acronym), told UNIVERSITY that this body has not been
consulted, nor have its criteria on the highway and its possible risks been requested.
“There has been no request or inquiry regarding criteria here,” he indicated.
The director of the Tortuguero Conservation Area, Luis Rojas, said that that entity of the SINAC
(Spanish acronym) “participated in some instances of consultation” regarding about 30 kilometers
under its jurisdiction. He commented to this weekly that “Every project involves risks.”
Miguel Zamora, assistant director of the Arenal -Huetar Norte Conservation Area, reported that this
entity in carrying out an “routine investigation” to verify what is happening in his area. “We have not
been consulted on this project,” he assured.
Mauricio Álvarez, of the Environmental Booths of the University of Costa Rica, as well as Gino
Biamonte, director of the ecology group APREFLOFAS, also expressed his fear. Separately they both
stated, “The area is too sensitive and vulnerable.”
Legislator Claudio Monge of the Citizens Action Party (PAC, by its Spanish acronym) warned, “We
are investigating, I will not allow an environmental disaster.”
MINAET is watchful against serious impact
Environment, Energy and Telecommunications Vice Minister, Lorena Guevara, said that entity is
watchful in order that the environmental balance of the San Juan zone not be affected. Below are parts
of her answers to questions sent to her by e-mail.
How was MINAET involv ed in supervision of the project since it is located in protected
corridors?
The decree referred to responds to a “particular or sui generis” emergency, since it was issued in the
middle of the situation and process caused by the Nicaraguan violation of Co sta Rica’s sovereignty,
particular in Calero island, and because of the environmental damage caused in our homeland.
428 Annex 22
Due consideration should be given to the particular nature of the event that led to the decree and the
General Emergency Plan developed to address it. This was essentially a political phenomenon with
many effects and variants that are difficult to pinpoint. Under these circumstances, the constitutional
system provides special rules that allow the Executive Branch to address emergency situati ons, so that
action can be as prompt and decisive as the circumstances merit thus minimizing the consequences of
natural and other disasters.
Was the risk and environmental impact of this project evaluated?
In the present situation and given latent threat of further incursions from Nicaragua, Costa Rica must
design vigilance mechanisms and ensure permanent presence of its police forces in the conflict zone at
the southernmost part of the Colorado Delta, and the border side of the Río San Juan. Phase One of the
General Emergency Plan includes concrete action by seven institutions: the Ministry for Public
Security, the Costa Rican Electrical Energy Institute, the National Risk Prevention and Emergency
Commission, the Costa Rican Red Cross, the Costa Rican Soci al Security Fund, the Environment
Energy and Telecommunications Ministry, and the National Highway Commission. Activity of the
CONAVI (Spanish acronym) includes the construction of an artery parallel to the Río San Juan, and in
the case of the MINAET -National System for Reserve Arjeas, these entities have the role of constant
environmental monitoring and surveillance over national wildlife reserves in the region.
Which is the supervising entity? Why wasn’t the SETENA included? Who did the
environmental impact studies, if there were any?
In the case of the MINAET, the intention is to provide the SINAC with the necessary conditions and
resources for protection and surveillance. The MINAET -SINAC has been careful that the projects
cause as little environmental i mpact as possible, since the primary purpose of the road parallel to the
Río San Juan is to safeguard life and physical integrity, property and the environment in the face of
disasters and dangerous events that may occur. The other entities have been accou ntable and have
proceeded in compliance with the regulations regarding an extraordinary situation provided by a
decree of this nature. As a member of the National Emergencies Commission, the MINAET has been
informed of the actions resulting from this emerg ency decree, and at a technical level the SINAC has
been responsible for the actions established in the General Emergency Plan. It should be mentioned
the route parallel to the Río San Juan was established along the two kilometer wide northern border
strip where human activity has been evident for many years.
429430 Annex 23
Diario Extra, Costa Rica “Nicaragua Request Studies
on the Soberania Road”
13 December 2011
431432 Annex 23
In environmental impact evaluation
NICARAGUA REQUESTS STUDIES ON THE SOBERANIA ROAD
Nicaragua’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Valdrak Jaentschke, sent a note to Costa
Rican Foreign Minister Enrique Castillo, requesting that he furnish environmental impact
reports regarding construction of the Soberanía Road which unites border towns and
serves as a alternative trade route in order that the towns avoid Nicaragua’s Río San Juan.
According to the Deputy Foreign Minister, it is evident that the Soberanía Road
causes erosion of adjacent slopes which in turn causes sedimentation of the San Juan
River. This affects the dredging project and navigation, and also alters the ecological
balance of species for which the river serves as a natural habitat.
He stated that Managua will not accept anything other than paralysation of the
construction which is taking place on Costa Rican soil. He went further stating in a
communiqué of the Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry that in its construction Costa Rica has
entered pinolero territory and altered border markers.
Enrique Castillo had previously stated, “We have no reason to report to Nicaragua
on our projects within Costa Rican territory. We have nothing to converse with the
Nicaraguans as long as they continue to send people to Calero Island, which violates
preliminary measures mandated by the Court in The Hague.”
433434 Annex 24
El País, Costa Rica “Chinchilla defends highway criticized
by Nicaragua, rejects dialogue”
14 December 2011
(Source: EFE / 13 December 2011)
435436 Annex 24
El País.cr
Wednesday, 14 December 2011 – Costa Rica
Chinchilla defends highway criticized by Nicaragua, rejects dialogue
Source: EFE / 13 December 2011
San José, 13 Dec (EFE) – The president of Costa Rica, Laura Chinchilla, said today
that her country the right and the need to construct a highway on territory near the border with
Nicaragua. She r ejected dialogue with that nation which has criticized the project due to
alleged environmental damage.
Everything we are doing is according to the law. We issued and emergency decree due
to national necessity and it is on that basis that we have develope d the projects. We are not
taking even one step back,” express Chinchilla today in the press conference following the
weekly meeting with her cabinet.
The 120 kilometer highway is being constructed on Costa Rican territory. It connects
20 communities near the Río San Juan, under Nicaraguan sovereignty, which runs along the
border and was the only communication channel between the settlements.
“Our only action has been to bring development to a northern border population which
can now enjoy communication through Costa Rica territory,” said Chinchilla.
The president emphasized that the dwellers themselves donated land from cattle
ranches to facilitate construction of the highway. She ensured that the communities have also
benefitted from newly acquired elec trical service, running water and schools, as well as the
creation of some 7,000 jobs.
In recent weeks, the Nicaraguan Government has complained to Costa Rica for
supposed environmental damage to the Río San Juan provoked by the highway and has
demanded that the project be detained until environmental impact studies are revealed.
Nonetheless, Chinchilla reiterated that her country has the right to construct the project
with no explanation to Nicaragua and dismissed the idea of serious environmental damage .
She ensured that there is a mitigation plan as is the case with any “national project”.
“We have no reason to offer explanations to the Government of Nicaragua,” said the
president.
Chinchilla recalled that Nicaragua “has paid no mind” to the precautionary measures
mandated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a case regarding Nicaragua’s supposed
invasion of a piece of Costa Rican territory near the Río San Juan where is supposedly caused
environmental damage to wetlands protected by international conventions.
437Annex 24
“There will be no dialogue until Nicaragua complies with instructions issued by the
Court,” said Chinchilla.
The ICJ ordered both countries to abstain from deploying civilian, military or police
personal to the zone in controversy, but in recent months Costa Rica has denounced the
constant presence there of members of the “Sandinista youth.”
According to the Nicaraguan Government the Sandinista youth have gone there for
environmental protection tasks.
On 5 December Costa Rica presented the ICJ in The Hague, an aide memoire with
initial written allegations against Nicaragua regarding the territorial dispute.
438 Annex 25
El Nuevo Diario, Nicaragua “Outrage everywhere over San Juan River
parallel highway, No Studies Done for Costa Rican Highway”
15 December 2011
439440 Annex 25
El Nuevo Diario
15 December 2011
Outrage everywhere over San Juan River parallel highway
No Studies Done for Costa Rican Highway
*Costa Rican Foreign Foreign Minister Confesses: “Emergency Decree” exempted Costa
Rica from environmental impact study on the project
José Adán Silva and Sixto Valladares
[National News Section]
A statement by the Nicaraguan Academy for Geography and History on the ecological
disaster caused by Costa Rica in the Río San Juan as a result of its construction of a highway
parallel to the waterway calls on the Government of Nicaragua and international
environmental protection organizations to sue the Government of San José for this action,
which according to the organization, is being carried out out of revenge and resentment, and
out of disregard for the Nicraguan and Central American ecosystem.
The statement by the prestigious cultural and scientific institution of the country points
out that the construction of this highway Laura Chinchilla’s government is reflecting
“disregard for world concern for the conservation of tropical rain forests, reflects unfortunate
resentment toward Nicaragua and discredits Costa Rica as a green country.”
The statement by the Academy consists of five points in which it denounces on the
world level and draws attention in Central America, regarding the damage to nature on the
istmus caused by the destru ctive Costa Rican projects at a time when the region is most
vulnerable in the face of the climate change due to environmental destruction.
An attack on Central America
According the statement, “The cross-border impact of this near fet acompli is an attack
against Central American natural patrimony. In this regard, Nicaragua should resort to the
International Court of Justice for precautionary measures directed to mitigating the ravages
caused to the present, and to suspension of the mentioned construction.”
This 120 kilometer highway does not contribute to the progress of the almost non -
existent Costa Rican Caribbean population, but rather alters the ecosystem created by the river
and its basin and prevents Costa Ricans’ practice of eco -tourism through th eir exercise of
their right to limited navigation along the mentioned stretch of the lower course of the Río
San Juan. In fact residue dumped into the river will destroy one of the few waterways of the
continent (by finishing off its fauna among other irre parable damage) and compromises the
navigability of the Río Colorado, a tributary of the Río San Juan located on Costa Rican
territory,” added the Academy.
441Annex 25
Developing this highway violates all bilateral, regional and international conventions
and treaties signed by the two countries for the promotion of responsibility for environmental
protection, and which prohibit dumping sediment and other pollutants into a neighboring
country.
Finally, Costa Rica has disregarded Nicaragua’s claim that a country canno t destroy
the environment of a neighboring country as this constitutes an unfriendly and irrational
attitude,” pointed out the Nicaraguan Academy for Geography and History.
“There are no environmental impact studies”
As if ratifying the “unfriendly and irrational attitude,” the Costa Rican Foreign
Minister himself, Enrique Castillo, confessed yesterday to the Costa Rican press that the
environmental demolition work was not the subject of environmental impact studies because
they were carried out in the context of an emergency decree that “exempted” them from these
requirements.
True to their incendiary and nationalist rhetoric, the Costa Rican Foreign Minister
reiterated that his country is not obligated to any kind of explanation, “nor to suspend its work
being carried out as a consequence of an emergency provoked by Nicaragua, because we are
being invaded by 500 Nicaraguan army soldiers disguised as ecology monitors that work
along the border.”
“Nicaragua has not presented an environmental impact asses sment on the Brito
project, on the construction of an airport that is already completed in the wetlands zone
protected by RAMSAR to the north of our border, or on its invasion of Isla Portillos (Harbour
Head), on its dredging which whereby residue has been dumped on Costa Rican territory,” he
expressed.
This is a sovereign project we are carrying out under a decree that exempts us from
environmental impact studies, that is why we owe no explanations,” confessed the official
thus revealing that behind these projects there is no study for mitigating environmental
damage in the zone. We still do not know who will represent Costa Rica in the SICA summit,
said Castillo.
And when will the lawsuit be presented?
According to former Nicaraguan foreign minister, Norman Caldera, the government of
president Daniel Ortega should request precautionary measures before the International Court
of Justice in order to stop environmental demolition while experts jointly request bilateral
dialogue to which has been adamantly opposed by Costa Rica.
The government should have acted long ago and requested precautionary measures to
detain these projects. It should have filed a lawsuit long ago. This is not a matter of issuing
Notes to an entity that is outright disinterested in dialogue. What is the matter with the
government that it has not acted?” Caldera asked.
442 Annex 25
Religious, environmental, indigenous and community, political, civil society and
business voices have joined this demand that Nicaragua act more firmly and decisively to stop
the environmental degradation. According to former diplomat Julio Icaza the main problem is
that “neither of the two presidents has the will or the political maturity”.
To each his role
Icaza is of the opinion that the conflict which begun last year should have been
discussed bilaterally “for the good of both nations.”
However, since that time the high level officials from both countries have committed
countless errors “in that there has been no capacity for a serious dignified dialogue toward
imaginative solutions in the management of this rich and promising border area.”
Icaza said that each government is using the conflict over the Río San Juan for benefit
through so-called patriotic speeches and rousing nationalist sentiment. “He is absorbed i n the
accumulation of power and uses nationalism to obtain more of it; she seeks to use the conflict
to distract from her ineffectiveness and the lack of popularity her government has come to.
While they maintain these positions there will be no progress,” according to Icaza.
Insistence on dialogue
“This problem will be resolved there are mature government with vision, led by true
statesmen with a vision for the future and enough will to resolve the conflict and not for using
it for solving internal problems,” said Icaza.
Mario Herdocia, an international relations expert agrees, “The best instrument is
dialogue between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. There has a been a vacuum in the bilateral
relation in that these two neighbors and brothers must learn to solve their differences through
dialogue and negotiation.
According to Herdocia the dialogue is “the opportunity for Costa Rica to present the
environmental impact assessment and for Nicaragua to present its concerns so they may come
to an agreement.
Muscle and rhetoric
The former ambassador to Costa Rica, Mauricio Díaz indicated that even though “to
the present they have not come to the boiling point,” the tension has precluded the possibility
of a solving the conflict through bilateral dialogue.
“Ortega has been all rhetoric and Mrs. Laura’s reaction has been more muscle than
brains. She is endangering Costa Rican eco -democracy,” according to his observation while
alerting that regardless of the discourses behind the Costa Rican projects lie true social
concerns for both riverbanks of the waterway, for the potential damage to the ecosystem as a
result of the project underway.
443Annex 25
Not 120 kilometers but 160
Official information on the projects made public yesterday in San José by the
President of Costa Rica, indic ate that the highway in reality consists of 160 kilometers and
extends from the Costa Rica Delta to the village of Los Chiles. This includes reparation to 300
additional kilometers of accesses to the main highway in order to “connect” 2,500 families
living the area.
In Nicaragua the issue has generated total opposition from environmental groups that
are taking legal and court action to sue the Chinchilla government: they are doing studies,
they are on site filming, taking notes, gathering testimony and oth er carry out other activity
relevant to their competence.
The Ministry for the Environment updated information on the environmental
destruction for the Central American Integration System (SICA, by its Spanish acronym), the
UNESCO, the Central American Court and the United Nations System for the Environment.
(Matilde Córdova and María Adelia Sandoval collaborated with this article.)
444 Annex 26
La Prensa, Nicaragua “Surroundings Damage Could not be hidden”
14 January 2012.
445446 Annex 26
Surroundings
DAMAGE COULD NOT BE HIDDEN
Damage and threat are evident despite hiding slopes and drainages.
Wilder Pérez R.
For Costa Rica, hiding ecological threat to the Biosphere Reserve of Nicaragua’s
San Juan River was like hiding an elephant behind a bamboo: it is impossible to do even
by Criss Angel, the world’s most famous magician.
The six CCJ judges travelled to Nicaragua’s San Juan River to determine if
evidence substantiates de complaint in order to forward with the trial against the Costa
Rican Government requested by two Nicaraguan environmental organizations for damage
and latent threats to nearby ecosystems as a result of the 160 kilometre road being
constructed by San José along the riverbank.
Although Francisco Darío Lobo, CCJ president, affirmed they will not issue an
evaluation until next Tuesday, his private comments and initiatives reveal what was
evident: real ecological damages had been wrought on the zone.
ANIMAL MIGRATION
The full court, with two Honduran, two Salvadoran, and two Nicaraguan
members, was surprised by the wilderness on the Nicaraguan side of the riverbank. It is
impenetrable, crocodiles freely take sun, birds are on tree branches hanging over the
river, suddenly fish jump over the water, waters are green and plants grow on top of one
another with exuberant flowers and stems – there is no fear of humans.
447Annex 26
The judges spoke with enchantment of nature in Nicaragua, although it is not
related to the trial, they were dumbfounded by the landscape at the point where the border
with Costa Rica reaches the southern border of the river.
Most of the slopes, with 90 degree angles, were covered with black and green
synthetic fabric covering the orange earth below the vegetation.
Two hundred drainage pipes, previously visible, were hidden with earth, twigs
and dry tree trunks they themselves had cut in order that the judges not see the pipes.
There are stretches where they are still burning the flora in order to then eliminate
it.
Further, the first landslides were observed, their earth draining thickly and slowly
from Costa Rica into Nicaragua’s San Juan River.
Damage caused by the Costa Rican road is evident. The local population even
speaks of a great feline creature, a jaguar that crossed the river seeking refuge in
Nicaragua. But the economy does not escape. River shrimp abandoned their home, and at
present can only be caught at the mouth of the San Juan River. According to fishermen
and merchants, this caused its price to increase from 80 to 120 cordovas, and sales
decreased by 70 per cent. According to local merchants, almost the same has happened in
the tourism sector and tourists make faces when they see the road.
448 Annex 27
La Prensa, Nicaragua “Costa Rica’s difficulties due to road construction”
16 January 2012
449450 Annex 27
Costa Rica’s difficulties due to road construction
The self-proclaimed “environmental country” faces a week of environmental
trials
The Government of Costa Rica has until tomorrow, Tuesday, to speak out to Central
American and its own judiciary bodies on environmental damage to its territory and to
Nicaragua’s San Juan River. LA PRENSA/M. ESQUIVEL.
By Wilder Pérez R.
As of today, Costa Rica could have a bad week if the Central American Court of
Justice (CCJ, by its Spanish acronym) decides to go ahead with a judgment against the
San José Government for causing serious damage to ecosystems of Nicaragua’s San Juan
River. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Division of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court of Justice
will hear those similarly affected in another judicial process.
Further, Costa Rican Foreign Minister Enrique Castillo was ordered by the CCJ to
present proof that that judicial body is partial to Nicaragua as he stated.
Costa Rica decided to replant the deforested zone near the 160 kilometre road it is
constructing parallel to the river, an action that according to Nicaraguan
environmentalists is a desperate move to hide the harm caused near a biosphere reserve.
Will a sheet of green or black fabric bring back the fauna of Nicaragua’s San Juan
River after construction by Costa Rica of a road parallel to the river? Was chopping the
branches of trees necessary for a horizontal project? Does Nicaragua have to be the
depository of Costa Rica’s chemical waste? Why was the UN’s precautionary principle
ignored? These questions and others will have to answered by President Laura
451Annex 27
Chinchilla’s officials in her country and this week these questions may also be asked by
the CCJ.
UP TO ITS NECK
When Laura Chinchilla’s Government appears before the Central American Court
of Justice and the Supreme Court o Justice it will already have a nebulous history against
nature.
At least eight ministers, high officials and mayors from Costa Rica were called to
a trial opened against them by the Let Me Live in Peace World Foundation and the
Progress for the Blind Foundation.
Bolivian President Evo Morales was forced to detain construction of a road in
TIPNIS due to damage similar to that being caused in a San Juan natural reserve.
Two hundred drainages along the road being build by Costa Rica along the San
Juan River were clogged in order that members of the CCJ could not observer Laura
Chinchilla’s decision of putting sediment and garbage into the waters of the Nicaraguan
waterway.
All this occurred several days after Laura Chinchilla’s Government had land and
vertical slopes displaced along the contested path hidden with supposed synthetic fabric,
although she denied damage to the zone.
But far from hiding its actions, these actions made environmentalists and
Nicaraguan authorities more suspicious regarding environmental damage by Costa Rica
in the area of the waterway.
If the CCJ initiates the process Costa Rica could become the first isthmus country
to be prosecuted for environmental crimes against humanity.
452 Annex 27
If Castillo presents no proof, the CCJ judges could accuse him legally. The
Government of Costa Rica could be declared in contempt and ordered to stop the project
by its own Court if it does not provide the studies requested by it.
453454 Annex 28
El Nuevo Diario, Nicaragua “Central American Parliament supports
CCJ decision on environmental damage by Costa Rica”
27 February 2012
455456 Annex 28
Central American Parliament supports CCJ decision on environmental damage by
Costa Rica
Calls for bilateral dialogue between Nicaragua and Costa Rica in the presence of Mexico
and Guatemala as Friends of the Court
By Miguel Carranza | National News
Daniel Ortega Reyes and Orlando Tardencilla, parliamentarian and vice president
of the Central American Parliament and vice president of the Education Commission of
the body, respectively.
MIGUEL MOLINA / END
The Central American Parliament (Parlacen by its Spanish acronym) adopted a
resolution supporting the Central American Court of Justice (CCJ by its Spanish
acronym). The resolution calls on members of the Central American Integration System
(SICA by its Spanish acronym) and Costa Rica in particular, to respect the decision of the
CCJ regarding construction of the Costa Rican road that is causing environmental
damage to Nicaragua’s San Juan River.
The resolution was read by Daniel Ortega Reyes,a member and vice president of
the Central American Parliament, and Orlando Tardencilla, vice president of the
Education Commission of the body.
The Parlacen proposed exhausting dialogue between the nations “in order to find
a harmonious and Central American solution to the conflict over the San Juan River in
conformity with the CCJ decision.
Further, it calls on President Daniel Ortega and his Costa Rican counterpart,
Laura Chinchilla, to reinitiate bilateral dialogue in the presence of Mexico and Guatemala
as Friends of the Court.
457458 Annex 29
La Prensa, Nicaragua “Central American Parliament urges Costa Rica
to respect environmental security in the San Juan River”
27 February 2012
459460 Annex 29
Central American Parliament urges Costa Rica to respect environmental security in
the San Juan River
AFP
The Central American Parliament (Parlacen by its Spanish acronym)
representatives today reported that the body has urged Costa Rica to put an end to its
environmental damage to Nicaragua’s San Juan River in compliance with the
precautionary orders of two international courts. The Central American Parliament
(Parlacen by its Spanish acronym) representatives also stated support for the 17 January
decision of the Central American Court of Justice (CCJ but its Spanish acronym)
ordering Costa Rica to suspend construction of a 160 kilometre road parallel to the river
after a case brought due to environmental damage by Nicaraguan ecology groups.
The resolution adopted by the forum on Thursday in Guatemala indicates that the
Parlacen demands “respect” of stipulations” by the CCJ that call for guaranteeing
“preservation” of the border river’s “environment”. Costa Rica is not a member of the
CCJ.
The Parlacen document shares Nicaragua’s concern regarding the “grave damage”
that thousands of tons of mud and construction residue” are causing the river. Costa Rica
is part of the Central American Integration System and the CCJ, but has never ratified
either’s constitutional statutes, thus, it denies the standing of these bodies to mediate in
this conflict with Nicaragua.
The parliamentarians maintain that the two countries should at least reinitiate
bilateral dialogue “with the support of the Governments of Guatemala and Mexico” in
order to avoid “dramatic and continuous harm to the river”.
461Annex 29
In its resolution, the Parlacen also supports precautionary measures of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) adopted in March 2011 for protection of the border
zone in the framework of a claim by Costa Rica against Nicaragua over a tiny river island
situated east of their common border.
462 Annex 30
La Prensa, Nicaragua “San Jose should respect the river”
28 February 2012
463464 Annex 30
SAN JOSE SHOULD RESPECT THE RIVER
Central American Parliament calls for care of the San Juan River
Despite graphic evidence, Costa Rica denies damage being caused byits road at the edge
of the San Juan River.
The Central American Parliament (Parlacen by its Spanish acronym)
representatives today reported that the body has urged Costa Rica to put an end to its
environmental damage to Nicaragua’s San Juan River in compliance with the
precautionary orders of two international courts. The Central American Parliament
(Parlacen by its Spanish acronym) representatives also stated support for the 17 January
decision of the Central American Court of Justice (CCJ but its Spanish acronym)
ordering Costa Rica to suspend construction of a 160 kilometre road parallel to the river
after a case brought due to environmental damage by Nicaraguan ecology groups.
The resolution adopted by the forum on Thursday in Guatemala indicates that the
Parlacen demands “respect” of stipulations” by the CCJ that call for guaranteeing
“preservation” of the border river’s “environment”. Costa Rica is not a member of the
CCJ. Central American Integration System
The Parlacen document shares Nicaragua’s concern regarding the “grave damage”
that thousands of tons of mud and construction residue” are causing the river.
“Decisions of the Central American Court of Justice are binding”
Although Costa Rica has ignored the Court and accused it of distorting the
conflict with its partiality toward Managua, the Parlacen stated that resolutions of the
465Annex 30
Central American Court of Justice regarding the border conflict between Nicaragua and
Costa Rica are binding.
Further, the Parlacen stated that it would transmit its resolutions to the presidents
and Foreign Ministers of the region as well as to the Central American Integration
System and European delegations.
Costa Rica is a member of the Central American Integration System, which
created Parlacen, however it never ratified the constitutional statutes of either organism
and thus denies their standing for mediation in the conflict with Nicaragua.
466 Annex 31
La Nación, Costa Rica “Conavi Built a Dirt Road along the Border
without a Single Design Plan”
23 May 2012
467468 Annex 31
160 KM CONSTRUCTION WORK PARALLEL TO THE SAN JUAN RIVER LACKE D
DESIGN
Conavi Built a Dirt Road along the Border without a Single Design Plan
Lack of design plans might have raised costs and cause accelerated deterioration of the road
Government did not anticipate drainage systems nor did it perform a topographic survey to
find the best layout
ESTEBAN OVIEDO [email protected] 12:00 A.M. 23/05/2012
Conavi built a 160 -kilometer dirt road along the border with N icaragua, without a single
design plan to evidence the layout for opening the road or to determine the characteristics it
should have.
RELATED NOTES
Absence of design might end up in higher costs, environmental problems and fast
deterioration of the proj ect, stated Olman Vargas, Executive Director of the Federated
School of Engineers and Architects (CFIA).
The construction work lacked a topographic survey to define the route with the least
amount of obstacles. In addition, ditches, culverts or river cros sings not designed. Now, as
the National Roadway Council (Conavi for its acronym in Spanish) itself admitted, the dirt
road has many slopes with gradients greater than those due and curves not apt for proper
vehicle transit.
The inexistence of design plans confirmed to this news media by CFIA, Conavi and the
company, Compañía Asesora de Construcción e Ingenieria SA (Cacisa for its acronym in
Spanish). The latter hired in January of the current year to provide project supervision
support.
The dirt road co nstruction began in December 2010, in the wake of the conflict that arose
with Nicaragua in October of that same year over the occupation Calero Island.
Conavi spent a bit over ¢20.000 million in the Project, which includes habilitation of 440
km in access roads.
Nine hundred (900) machines - Fourteen months after works began, when Cacisa joined
the work efforts, it found 900 machines working along the border without any design plans.
Roberto Cambronero, an engineer from Cacisa, described it like this: “ We arrived at a
cutting drawer, a cut on both sides (of the dirt road). Then we asked the person in charge,
how much before finishing? What are you doing? ‘Oh, I’m cutting’. Moreover, how much
469Annex 31
do you still have to do? He did not know because there were no design plans, and you can
perfectly well say, ‘leave it here’”.
José Manuel Sáenz, Cacisa partner, added that a design would allow for calculating the
width and the slope cut, which require topographic stakes placed.
To open the route, Conavi hired comp anies with trucks or excavators that charge on a per
hour basis.
According to Cambronero, the Head of Conavi should define the layout. This is an engineer
surnamed Serrano who is now suspended due to an investigation about supposed handouts
in the project.
Gerardo Prada, also a partner at Cacisa, said the machine operators received orders to open
the dirt road on the riverbank. Nonetheless, he and Saenz sustained that even so, it was
necessary to avoid topographic obstacles such as hills, wetlands or very steep plots of land.
For Saenz, the kilometers closest to the area in conflict properly made under the chosen
manner due to the urgency; but the rest deserved a basic plan: “We are in the XXI Century .
This requires a design, this road is like going from San Jose to Moin, and it is a very large
road. To think about making 150 kilometers with just machines, without design (…) I’m
referring to mere professional diligence… it is not done in this manner”.
The CFIA Director also expressed concern due to the lack of drainage: “A great deal of the
investment might end up lost with a few rainfalls.”
No One Responsible – Vargas confirmed that the School of Professionals decided that
Conavi did not report to them who was the professional responsible for the work and did
not deliver any design plans to them.
According to Vargas, the fact that work began under the umbrella of an emergency decree
(signed in March 2011) did not exempt Conavi from making those reports.
Jose Luis Salas, Executive Director of Conavi, s ustained that design plans were not
available due to an emergency. “There was no time”, he explained.
Salas sustained that Conavi and Cacisa make topographic surveys to review the geometric
design, improve slopes, curves and water contention systems. He denied that the absence of
design plans due to force majeure caused a rise in costs.
Marcela Cantero collaborated
470 Annex 32
El País, Costa Rica “ Faced with criticism, Conavi confirms to have
done work on 332 kilometers of roads around Route 1856”
26 May 2012
471472 Annex 32
Faced with criticism, Conavi confirms to have done work on 332 kilometers of roads
around Route 1856
Source: Carlos Salazar Fernández | 2012-05-26. El Pais.cr
Section of Route 1856 near Delta Costa Rica. Photo by Carlos Salazar.
San José, 26 May (elpais.cr) – Given the wave of criticism for corruption, lack of
environmental studies and plans, among others, to build the trail known as Route 1856, the
National Roads Authority (Conavi) defended all actions taken and says to have done work on
332 kilometers of road, in addition to the 160 of the new road.
In a statement, published on the Presidential webpage, Conavi maintains that these works
were done in a context of national emergency, "and faced with a situation that clearly and
obviously affected the sovereignty and security of our country”.
“Failing to recognize and understand that this was the situation, would lead any person to
make judgments of opinion based on an incomplete assessment of the facts and
circumstances”, says the bulletin.
Conavi argues that with those conditions it was necessary to act quickly, "but within the
framework of discretion, that is, motivated based on the best interests of the nation. In fact, an
Emergency Decree was issued in order to give context to the nature of the situation”.
473Annex 32
After insisting on legality, Conavi added that for this reason it should be understood that the
work of starting the trail could not be subjected to the procedures for development of
infrastructure projects that take into account , for example, stages of conceptualization,
feasibility, design and management of the work.
“But, not having done that is not synonymous with acting without a proper and speedy
analysis for the decision that was made”, it is added.
“The route was built as a trail, nothing more or less, under the conditions indicated and that is
the way it is; in a development process in which a ll the work done on it improves it and will
increase the level of performance”, it is explained.
It is stressed that it is necessary to clarify that in addition to the trail, whose length is currently
estimated at 160 kilometers, significant works were done on several access roads to the trail
itself. In fact the total length of access roads that were worked on exceeds 332 kilometers.
Conavi went on to say that "the above is very important because we have to understand then
that the work associated with Route 1856 must be appraised in a comprehensive way, at a
regional level and not as a single communication route”.
On allegations of corruption, the Conavi bulletin says that the necessary actions will be taken
in order to punish those who should be punished. "We respectfully await the processes of the
Public Ministry and of our Internal Audit to proceed accordingly”, thus is stated.
After promising that the mistakes made will not be repeated, the government promises that the
work will continue and that it will be done using the prescribed procedures and with control
levels.
“There is work to do: we need to finish the ballasting, place drainage systems and sewers, we
have to put up bridges, some of them very expensive. However, in a gradual way we will be
improving the road so that it can be used properly to benefit the people in the area , and in
general, for development of the country”, thus finishes the statement.
474 Annex 33
La Nación, Costa Rica “The damage had already taken place”
24 May 2012.
475476 Annex 33
Ana Lorena Guevara
‘The Damage had already taken place’
Ana Lorena Guevara Deputy Minister of the Environment
At the end of last year, she decided not to hire a team of experts and to charge floor
personnel to assess environmental damages along the road.
Ernesto Rivera [email protected] 12:00 a.m. 24/05/2012
The Deputy Minister of the Environment, Ana Lorena Guevara, alleges that due to costs and
usefulness, she decided to entrust professionals of MINEAT with the assessment of
environmental damages caused by the borderline trail.
Isla Calero, politically related with construction of the road, geographically speaking, is
many kilometers away. Deputy Minister Bourrouet’s approach (in the Emergency
Commission) was to hire experts to assess the environmental damage caused by the
roadway’s construction. You said that due to the urgency and costs, the high-level
commission should decide. Who decided and what was decided?
Our work aime d at what was happening in The Hague and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
steered us. In this sense, I posed the concern; we received indications that in the first place,
hiring a team of Costa Ricans was very costly and, on the other hand, any report issue d by a
team of national professionals would not have weight in the trial, since we would be judge
and jury.
“When I said that we would resolve it there (in the high-level commission), I was basically
thinking about the guidelines from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
To provide an immediate response and with lower costs for the country, the decision was to
commission a group of experts from the Ministry (of the Environment) itself. They rendered
reports and this allowed for a fast assessment in order to su bmit an environmental
management plan to respond to what Nicaragua said.”
However, these professionals were also Costa Ricans; they had the same issue with
credibility.
Nevertheless, we did not do this for The Hague; we did it so that Costa Rica could
demonstrate that we were performing mitigation and compensation actions in the area.
The minutes of the National Environment Commission (CNE for its acronym in
Spanish) did not mention The Hague at all; it speaks of assessing damages caused by
construction of the roadway…
When discussed in November 2011, the road was already in its execution phase. There was no
prevention there. The only thing we could do was to take mitigation and compensation
measures because the damage had already taken place.
477Annex 33
“It didn’t even propose the need for an environmental impact study; we wanted to assess the
possible impacts.”
The decision not to hire environmental consultants was due to economic reasons.
Yes, there were economic reasons because hiring a team like that one was very costly. In
addition, road construction was already underway. The damages or impacts had already taken
place.
“Since it was an assessment of damages, the investment would represent a very high cost, and
in light of what was under discussion in The H ague, I thought that it would be better to have
guidelines from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs . So, if the investment was made, it should
serve to solve the environmental mitigation and also to contribute to the proceedings in The
Hague.”
Who made the decision in the high-level commission?
It was a joint decision, steered by the attorneys from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who
indicated that this would actually favor us in light of the complaints made by Nicaragua
against us.
All constructions have an environmental impact; there were 900 machines in the area
along 160 kilometers. Who assessed this environmental impact?
We set up a team of experts with officials from the Ministry, professionals from the
conservation areas that toured the entire road span under construction and elaborated an
environmental management plan, which contains mitigation proposals.
478 Annex 34
CONAVI Press Release
25 May 2012
479480 Annex 34
Press release from CONAVI to the public
Because of the serious questions posed by the media about the actions taken by the National
Roads Authority (CONAVI ) in relation to the construction of Route 1856 and in order to
provide citizens with stronger evidence to enable it to form a comprehensive and objective
opinion of the circumstances in which the work has been developed, the National Roads
Authority clarifies:
1. The first thing that needs to be understood is that the works on Route 1856 were done in a
context of national emergency and faced with a situation that clearly and obviously affected
the sovereignty and security of our country. Failing to recognize and understand that this was
the situation, would lead any person to make judgments of opin ion based on an incomplete
assessment of the facts and circumstances.
2. The work on Route 1856 was done under those circumstances. Therefore it must be
understood that some of the determining factors of the action taken were to act quickly but
within the framework of discretion, that is, motivated based on the best interests of the nation.
In fact, an Emergency Decree was issued in order to give context to the nature of the situation.
3. As the Costa Rican people will understand, in these circumstances i t could not be expected
that the works of the route be developed within the framework of standard procedures but
rather under the exceptions provided for in the Constitution and the laws of the Republic. In
this respect, it should be understood that the wo rk of starting the trail could not be subjected
to the procedures for development of infrastructure projects that take into account, for
example, stages of conceptualization, feasibility, design and management of the work. But,
not having done that is not synonymous with acting without a proper and speedy analysis for
the decision that was made.
4. To say at this stage that there was a lack of blueprints or that it was not reported who the
professional responsible for the work was, are assessments that we believe are inappropriate
within the framework of the best interests of the nation, which have motivated our actions.
5. The route was built as a trail, nothing more or less, under the conditions indicated and that
is the way it is; in a development process in which all the work done on it improves it and will
increase the level of performance.
6. It is also necessary to clarify that in addition to the trail, whose length is currently estimated
at 160 kilometers, significant works were done on several acc ess roads to the trail itself. In
fact the total length of access roads that were worked on exceeds 332 kilometers. In other
words, the total work done covered over 492 kilometers of roads.
7. The above is very important because we have to understand then that the work associated
with Route 1856 must be appraised in a comprehensive way, at a regional level and not as a
single communication route. The impact of this set of actions is causing a real transformation
of the entire border region of our country, bringing development and hope to the Costa Ricans
in that area.
481Annex 34
8. Unfortunately the events early this month concerning the management and administration
of the work have come to overshadow the positive aspects of the work performed. About this,
CONAVI wishes to reiterate that the necessary actions will be taken in order to punish those
who should be punished . We respectfully await the processes of the Public Ministry and of
our Internal Audit to proceed accordingly.
9. Media coverage should not be the only source of information , but each complex element of
what has been presented must be judged. Allow us to say that we at CONAVI are the first to
feel committed to care for the the best interests of the nation, but demanding responsibility
and punishing those who deserve it.
10. We would like to take this opportunity to inform the Costa Rican people that both MOPT
(Ministry of Public Works and Transport ) and CONAVI are working to safeguard the route .
We would also like to say that we are preparing a work plan for the continuation of the works
and we assure you that those works will be done using the prescribed procedures and with
levels of control to avoid the mistakes made during the first phase of the project.
11. There is work to do: we need to finish the ballasting, place drainage systems and sewers,
we have to put up bridges, some of them very expensive. However, in a gradual way we will
be improving the road so that it can be used properly to benefit the people in the area, and in
general, for development of the country.
We end this note by stating that despite the vicissitudes that occurred and the difficulties we
encounter in our quest to do things right, we at CONAVI will continue to meet our
responsibilities while at the same time properly inform ing the Costa Rican people, not only
about Route 1856, but about the large number of projects and work we do on the National
Road Network.
25 May 2012
482 Annex 35
La Nación, Costa Rica “Serious errors expose trail to risk of collapse
during the rainy season”
28 May 2012
483484 Annex 35
UCR laboratory inspected Juan Mora Porras route
Serious errors expose trail to risk of collapse during the rainy season
Investments could be lost due to lack of drainage and poorly designed landfills
Lanamme: poor quality of work does not reflect the investment of ¢20,000 million
Ernesto Rivera, Esteban Oviedo and Ronny Rojas [email protected] 12:00 a.m.
28/05/2012
Much of the ¢20,000 million that the country has invested in building the trail bordering with
Nicaragua, could be lost during the next rainy season.
That is the warning given by engineers of the National Laboratory of Materials and Structural
Models (Lanamme) of the University of Costa Rica, after inspecting, at the beginning of this
month, 97 of the 160 kilometers of this road.
In their report, the experts say that the lack of adequate drainage and the instability of the cut
and fills that were performed on route 1856 could become a headache with the arrival of the
rains.
“In its present condition, t he border trail presents a high risk of collapse during the rainy
season”, is one of the conclusions of the study.
According to the Lanamme report, the consequences of this possible collapse would result in
“a substantial loss of the investments made so far”.
During the tour, carried out between Delta Costa Rica and the Pocosol River, the Lanamme
mission determined that the steep slopes and the irregular layout of the road were made based
on the experience of the machine operators, without taking into acc ount geotechnical or
topographical information.
Government authorities have refused to comment on the implications of the study since they
claim that they do not know about it yet.
Expensive transports. The goal for Lanamme was to technically assess the configuration,
quality and functionality of the works carried out on the trail border.
Another of their findings was the use of unsuitable materials to stabilize the road surface and
their transport from far away.
The inspectors found that in some location s large river rocks had been placed as a surface
layer.
In other places, very sandy materials had been used that are easily displaced by traffic, wind
or water.
485Annex 35
“Most of the time, these river materials were hauled from far away and they represent a
significant cost. In any case, it is inadmissible to use materials with undesirable
characteristics”, says the report in its conclusions.
The Government announced the construction of the trail as an alternative to using the San
Juan River for the transit of people and goods at the border with Nicaragua.
Its construction was carried out under the protection of emergency decree number 36.440,
signed by President Laura Chinchilla, which permitted the availability of lots of funds and the
avoidance of the controls of environmental legislation.
The Lanamme report advises that, despite the state of emergency, the design problems could
have been solved in a short time, using georeferencing techniques and software to guide the
engineering of the work.
They used containers. One of the threats that the border trail is currently facing is the lack of
adequate drainage to channel the flow of rain that will fall during the coming months.
The engineers found out that during the construction of the route containers were placed (th e
kind that is used to transport goods) as structures for water drainage.
Due to falling materials, these containers are already deformed and at risk of collapse, as is
evidenced by the photographs included in the report.
“As long as it is not clear what the implications of the study are, or what the validity is of the
statements made in it, it would be irresponsible to make any comment”, the minister of
Communication, Francisco Chacón, said yesterday to La Nación.
Meanwhile, Luis Salas, executive director of the National Roads Authority (Conavi), pointed
out that he would like to read the document before expressing an opinion.
“The objective was to grow to, not to build immediately , a road as we all may have wanted.
Of course the geometric design was not carried out, because it is a trail”, Salas asserted.
486 Annex 36
Diario Extra, Costa Rica “Government acknowledges mistakes
in the construction of the trail”, available at
http://www.diarioextra.com/2012/mayo/30/nacionales13.php
30 May 2012
487488 Annex 36
GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGES MISTAKES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE TRAIL
MIREN MARTÍNEZ / KRISSIA MORRIS
After weeks of silence, government officials came
forward to meet the information disclosed in the media
about route 1856, popularly known as the border trail.
They acknowledged errors such as the lack of
blueprints and environmental impact studies for the
construction of it. They justified that the latter was due
to the urgent need to have a road in that area as
quickly as possible.
According to the Minister of Communication
Francisco Chacon, it is justified,in view of the route 1856, Juan Mora Porras,
under construction.
emergency decree issued in February of last year for
the construction of the border trail, that not all the requirements had been fulfilled, such as
those blueprints.
Meanwhile, Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Roverssi stated that there is no environmental
impact which damages the San Juan River, as the presence of significant sedimentation has
not been detected.
On this matter he further argued that there is no evidence proving irreversible damage and that
the work will continue with mitigation plans.
Fishman demands accountability
Luis Fishman, faction leader of the Social Christian Unity Party PUSC, misses no chance to
clear up any lingering doubts. Taking advantage of the audience with Finance Minister Edgar
Ayales that took place yesterday at the meeting of the Ordinary Standing Committee for
Financial Affairs, in relation to the presentation of a fiscal strategy, Fishman took the
opportunity to hand over a letter demanding information about the 32 companies that have
participated in the border trail and that have been paid ¢17,550 million.
“We want to know the tax status of these companies, if they are properly registered, if they
have paid taxes and all information concerning the case”, declared Fishman.
489490 Annex 37
El País, Costa Rica “Environmental Court Confirmed Excessive
Felling for Construction of 1856 Trail”
15 July 2012
491492 Annex 37
Environmental Court Confirmed Excessive Felling for Construction of 1856 Trail
Source: Elpais.cr | 2012-07-15
San Jose, July 15 (elpais.cr) – The Administrative Environmental Court (TAA for its acronym
in Spanish), ordered Conavi to submit, within ten days, a Mitigation, Reparation and
Compensation Plan for environmental damages caused during construction of the 1856 Route,
parallel to the San Juan River
Additionally, it ordered the National Conservation Area System (SINAC for its Spanish
acronym), to create a commission composed of 20 specialists to gather information about all
of the affected areas.
TAA informed in a press release that it con firmed excessive felling in several stretches and
some parts, “clearances” opened that exceed the established width of the trail by eight times.
The Court confirmed damages in Costa Rican territory but found no evidence of sediments
dragged into the San Juan River.
On Friday, the TAA issued an injunction against the National Roads Counsel (CONAVI), so
that it immediately submits a Mitigation, Reparation and Compensation Plan for damages
caused by the construction of the Borderline Trail (Road 1856), in the counties bordering with
Nicaragua, including La Cruz, Upala, Los Chiles, Sarapiquí, San Carlos and Pococí.
493Annex 37
The should be ready for submittal within ten working days and the corresponding authorities
should approve it; the various Conservation Areas of the National Conservation Area System
involved in the trail construction area are to receive the information.
The same TAA Resolution order s the SINAC Director to create, immediately, a commission
integrated by at least 20 officials, including forestry, biology and technical experts with ample
field expertise to coordinate a survey of the affected areas due to con struction of the
borderline trail. In the same manner, it orders the MINAET Geology and Mines Director to
inspect all of the sites for material extraction and/or used in building the trail, as well as those
located along the stretch. The Director of the Wa ter Department received orders for a joint
inspection with conservation area officials that will compose the commission to survey all
possible waterways affected by the construction of the borderline trail, in addition to
performing the respective economic assessment of all possible environmental damages.
Once the studies are ready, these MINAET departments must immediately and jointly
elaborate a Mitigation, Reparation and Compensation Plan for possible environmental
damages and an economic valuation of t hese damages, according to their areas of
competence.
In addition, the Environmental Court’s Resolution made a request to the President of the
Federated School of Engineers and Architects to facilitate a certified copy of the reports made
by such entity r egarding issues due to possible environmental damages found in the
construction of the borderline trail. The Court made the same request to the Executive
Director of the National Laboratory for Materials and Structural Models (Lanamme) of the
University of Costa Rica.
Damages Found
The TAA confirmed serious environmental damages along various stretches of the 1856
borderline trail in the first inspection report submitted this week, after touring trailgrounds
last June 27 to 29, and an over-flight performed on April 10.
The ground inspection encompassed trail spans for a total 49 kilometers; one of the most
serious and verified affectations was excessive and unjustified felling beyond the ten -meter
width that the trail should have.
“Tree felling at the edge of the trail was not rational, limited or proportional for purposes of
the road; to the contrary, in some sectors they went in with heavy equipment and extracted
lumber, mainly almonds and other valuable species”, states the TAA Technical Report.
In the Tiricias and Infiernillo River, field opening for trail construction exceeds by eight
times, the width of the trail and there are considerable affectations to the forest area.
The TAA highlighted, “Openin g of a “clearance” so large in the forest was unnecessary to
open a trail that does not exceed 10 meters width and for several hundred meters”.
Some sectors along this trail span, we found almond trees cut in 4 rods, apparently ready or in
landing position.
494 Annex 37
For this reason, one of the recommendations of the TAA technical experts is that the SINAC
Departments for the Conservation Areas Arenal -Huetar Norte, the Central Volcanic Range
and Tortuguero should set up a strategy in all trail jurisdiction sectors to c ontrol forest
industries and sawmills. The intention is to avoid possible almond tree lumber trade, and
commercialization of other tree species that may eventually come for the trail sectors and
adjacent areas.
The report also advices that in some points, the path has a width of up to 20 meters, also
affecting the forest resources and large land movements unnecessarily, without performing
the necessary soil conservation works.
More Affectations
The Environmental Court found that just along the first 49 kilometers inspected, specialists
detected more than 10 wetlands and water bodies affected, according to the TAA Technical
Report.
At least seven rivers, streams and creeks display different types of damages, due to deviation
of their watercourse, and canalization, piping, tapping or clogging of the waterways with
sedimentation.
For example, the Infiernillo River modified its watercourse and the protection area of the
water body cl ogged with sedimentation. This river’s watercourse strangled with rock to
shorten the distance for building a bridge. In the future, t his situation may place the bridge
structure and the physical integrity of people circulating in the site under danger. An eventual
flood or strong waterfront will collapse and bring down the bridge and its foundations. In
addition, the bridge made of almond wood, used a banned and protected species.
Likewise, TAA specialists detected affectations to at least six wetlands al ong the first stretch
subject to inspection. These affectations include landfills b y clogging the wetland with
mismanaged sediments or directly by desiccation.
For example, at the height of the Pocosol River, strong soil movement observed, landfills to
raise the plot of land, channeling of a possible water body and a wetland, which was
apparently desiccated.
Mismanaged Sediments
Another environmental problem found along several stretches of the borderline trail is that
they made strong land movements, in many cases excessive for the trail dimensions, without
their respective conservation works.
On the other hand, forest areas are flooding due landfills and mi shandled sediment transport,
which clogged waters, leaving them without an outlet. Some sectors along the Tiricias Road
show how some trees are dead because of clogged soils from material deposits made in the
site, or by accumulated waters that need venting, or the same sediment drag due to lack of soil
conservation works.
495Annex 37
At another point, sewage clogged that should evacuate waters that run through the place.
There are landslides with volumes that deposit into the waterway or depression.
Consequently, peripheral trees in the flooded area died due to flooding in the forest area.
In some locations, they placed saran wrap to retain sediments, but in fact, this does not work
to retain such amounts of sediment. They should have performed other types of retention and
soil conservation works.
In the environmental cause regarding the 1856 trail, CONAVI is the first entity under
investigation, but imputations against other entities or private enterprises not dismissed, once
the Environmental Court advances its investigations.
Environmental in Road Number 1856
(First TAA Technical Report, July 2012)
Material exploitation and extraction
Affectations in forest areas due to clearings for the trail; unnecessary and unjustified
expansion of land plots surrounding it
Changes in soil use, including inalienable areas
Possible felling and exploitation of banned trees under Decree 25700 -MINAE,
threatened species and the case of the almond trees, which is the most cut and
exploited species in this case
Affectations to water resources (possibly, waterways of public domain), through
surface runoff, water erosion and in the end, clogging
Land movements without performing soil conservation works
Forest felling and exploitation outside of the trail area without relying on permits from
the State Forestry Authority (AFE for its Spanish acronym)
Affectation to wetlands of diverse nature
Interruption of the natural biological corridors
Private possession of land plots located within the Borderline Strip (/2 kilometers),
which constitute public concessions since 1828
Affectation to the landscape beauty in different sectors
Invasion and precarious settlements in the inalienable area
496 Annex 38
El País, Costa Rica “Road 1856: First Study by the TAA Points Out
Impacts to the Protection Area of the San Juan River”
26 July 2012
497498 Annex 38
Road 1856: First Study by the TAA Points Out Impacts to the Protection Area of the
San Juan River
Source: Elpais.cr | 2012-07-26
Road 1856: First Study by the TAA Points Out Impacts to the Area of Protection of the San
Juan River – Showing Image II of 3
San Jose, July 26 (elpais.cr) – A preliminary report received by the Administrative
Environmental Court, upon inspection of the area along Road 1856, determined that there is
invasion to areas of protection of some waterways, including the San Juan River on the Costa
Rican side.
The study, submitted by experts of the TAA on last June 21, indicates that the roadway
opened on the borderline, parallel to the San Juan River, not only consists of a main road but
also side roads derived from it.
It is worth highlighting that after an air inspection and another on land, last week the TAA
ordered the National Road Council (CONVI) to implement a series of mitigation works and
issued orders to several institutions to create a team of experts to assess damages and propose
solutions to the environmental destruction.
The report, backed by dozens of aerial photographs, states, “Apparently, areas for protection
of some waterways are invaded, including the San Juan River”, on the Costa Rican side.
It emphasizes that some spans along the road are located within the inalienable 50 meters
from the borderline, always within the Costa Rican side.
Moreover, there are changes in the use of soils in forest areas resulting from changes in these
conditions due to the opening for the roadway.
The report contends that there are changes in the use of soils within wetland ecosystems upon
creation of dykes and side roads that interrupt the natural cycle of these ecosystems.
The report highlights that, “Apparently, there is erosion and sediment-laden toward the rivers,
freshwater marshes and lakes”. However, the study clarifies that there are no sediments
washed into the San Juan River.
On the other hand, on the other hand, the report highlights that the opening for the road within
forests and wetlands, as well as the use of pits, among other factors, alter the nature and
condition of the original landscape.
“The changes in the forested and wetland landscapes modify or destroy habitats or niches for
many fauna species, which implies perturbation in their behavior”, are according to the
preliminary report.
The report states that the material works took place within a Wildlife Protected Area (WPA),
without relying on a design plan for the works, or an environmental impact study, mitigation
or compensation plan.
499Annex 38
The report states “Implementation of a work of this magnitude under the argument of
protection of the country’s sovereignty in the face of a possible Nicaraguan invasion does not
justify that the works took place in a specific site that did not encompass the precise area
where most ecological impacts happened. The need to provide transportation facilities to
inhabitants in the area does not justify it either, because these lands are public assets and
landholders contributed to the destruction of the biodiversity existing in the area, and they
continue to change the natural panorama of the place”.
The report also says, “The Government of the Republic itself transgressed all of the
environmental regulations, both national and international, despite its authority to declare a
state of emergency by an executive decree. It should have been responsibly planned”.
Furthermore, it summarizes that damage to the environment are obvious and should be
punctuated, described, evaluated and assessed.
Recommendations:
- TAA experts recommend performance of a detailed investigation, on land, to verify
possible impacts to the biodiversity within the scope of influence along the borderline
road.
- Request certified copies of reports arising from their possible inspections in the area of
interest, as well as rigorous inspections and their respective reports to this Court, from
the Areas of Conservation with jurisdiction in the northern borderline. This is the
second request.
- The same team requests an economic assessment from the Areas of Conservation,
within their scope of competence.
- Likewise, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA for its acronym
in Spanish) should issue a certification of the environmental feasibility granted to open
the roadway.
- On the other hand, it recommends that CONAVI should implement mitigation tasks
for influences or damages as soon as possible, prior assessment, clearance or approval
by the Areas of Conservation Areas and SETENA.
- Moreover, it suggests requesting specific criteria from the Water Works Department
on impacts to water bodies (streams, springs) and their respective economic
assessment of environmental damages.
- Another recommendation is to “Request the Geology and Mines Department their
respective criteria on the opening and use of river gorges, river materials and any other
within their scope of competence, as well as their respective economic assessment of
environmental damages”.
- The National System of Areas of Conservation (SINAC) should inspect and issue
criteria, within its scope of competence, to the Executive Direction of SINAC in
relation to the wetlands.
500 Annex 38
Finally, the report suggests that TAA should file provisional remedies to avoid or reduce the
environmental damage, guarantee the feasibility of the ecosystems, and respect for national
and international regulations.
501502 Annex 39
La Nación, Costa Rica “Border Roadway presents more Collapsing”
13 August 2012
503504 Annex 39
Other Spans of the Road Subside with Rains
Border Roadway presents more Collapsing
Bridge along the span from Chorreras to the San Carlos Rivermouth Collapsed
Government denies abandonment and assures that it works on ballasting and placing
bridges
http://www.nacion.com/2012-08-13/ElPais/Carretera-fronteriza-presenta-m…-
hundimientos.aspx?Page=2
Carlos Hernández, Correspondent - 12:00 a.m. 13/08/2012
San Carlo – The denominated border road disappears like a sugar cube in a water recipient
Images /Photos
+ MULTIMEDIA
This time it was the bridge over Chorreras Brook that collapsed in the face of heavy rainfall,
which interrupted passage along the span from Chorreras to San Juan River Mouth.
In addition, the road remained parted into pieces to the point of forming a hole with large
dimensions that continues to grow with the rainfall.
Likewise, a kilometer to the west of Tiricias de Cutris, the bridge over the TiriciasRiver is
sinking, passageway that threatens to fall into the waterway at any moment because of its
deterioration.
Families that live between Tiricias and milestone one warned that other spans are crumbling.
They fear being without communications in the very short term.
“The parallel (road) is disintegrating like a napkin in water while the Ministry of Public
Works suspended its maintenance”, claimed Mario Cambronero, farmer in the area.
“They are not providing maintenance and destruction will continue. Its reconstruction will
cost millions to the Government”, said Omar Cortez, a neighbor in Tiricias.
The Ministry of Public Works and Transportation (MOPT for its acronym in Spanish) denied
that it abandoned the route, according to a paid publication in this news media yesterday.
The entity assured that it continues its task ballasting and placing temporary sewages and
bailey bridges. In addition, it explained that procurement of permanent and environmental
mitigation works progress.
Apparent irregularities in procurement processes and lumber extraction activities motivated
investigations by the Attorney General’s Office and the Legislative Assembly.
According to MOPT, it has already invested ¢24.000 million.
505Annex 39
By spans – if one reviews the route by spans, few areas do not present problems.
From Punta Cortes up to Cuatro Esquinas de Los Chiles, it is a dirt road and only double
traction vehicles can transit on it.
From Isla Chica, travelling along the road, up to Delicias de Los Chiles, the roadway has
cracks, subsidence and fallen bridges. In the meantime, from Pocosol River toward San Isidro
and Tiricias de Cutris, transit is difficult along certain spans.
From Tiricias to Chorretas and from there to San Carlos River Mo uth there is no passing; the
same is true between Cureña and Tambor because two bridges devastated.
The only areas for transit without any problems are the span that goes from Boca Sarapiqui up
to the Costa Rica Delta, where the project ends.
506 Annex 40
La Nación, Costa Rica “The Ministry for Public Works and
Transport will sign contracts for conclusion of project”
29 August 2012
507508 Annex 40
The Ministry for Public Works and Transport will sign contracts for conclusion of project
ALVARO MURILLO, [email protected] , 12am 8/29/2012
The design work and supervision for finishing and consolidating the borderline road known
as Route 1856 will be contracted out by the government, according to an announcement
yesterday by the president Laura Chinchilla during a press conference that followed the
Government Council meeting.
The presidente assured that out-going Minister of Public Works and Transport (MOPT by its
Spanish acronym), Luis Llach, left in place a procedure for concluding the second stage of the
so-called borderline road.
Chinchilla said that "final design for the project would be determined through public
bidding for the contract."
The government also intends to put together a supervision team to ensure "clarity as to
responsibility for upcoming stages of the project" and "who is ultimately accountable.
The Government is also seeking the source of funding conclusion of the road project.
The plan is that by January all processes be ready for reinitiation of the project during the dry
season.
"We trust that all these factors, financing, design, equipment and a timetable will be in place
in order to take off with the project in the summer; therefore, the second stage work wouldl
have to begin in January and that would mean the definitive consolidation of Route 1856,"
said the leader.
Chinchilla explained that the government "never" intended to build a concrete paved road
likened to a highway, "but rather a road that connects several towns."
509
Volume II - Annexes 1-40