Sunday, December 16, 2018
Breaking News
Home » Community Blogs » Temporary Roads Are Like Low Fat Ice Cream
Temporary Roads are being promoted as an alternative to regular logging roads, with some suggesting that temporary roads are somehow environmentally benign. Well they are not.

Temporary Roads Are Like Low Fat Ice Cream

The latest attempt by the Forest Service to make logging palatable is “temporary” roads. A lot of research has found that logging roads are among the biggest impacts to forest ecosystems. For a good review of road impacts see (Trombulak and Frissell http://www.transwildalliance.org/resources/200922144524.pdf.) The Forest Service has at least 400,000 miles of roads on the lands it administers and these roads are a major environmental collateral impact associated with logging and other resource exploitation.

Even the Forest Service has had to admit that logging roads have many unacceptable impacts to the forest ecosystem, so they have to come up with a new term and idea to make logging acceptable—temporary roads. Temporary roads only have temporary impacts—or so we are led to believe. And some conservationists have jumped on the “temporary” road band wagon and are too quick to accept temporary roads as some kind of mitigation or elimination of road effects, just as some readers of the National Inquirer are quick to accept the hype of the latest fad promoting say the low fat ice cream diet.

Temporary roads are like low fat ice cream, they seem to taste good, but as any nutritionist can tell you, you’re are infinitely better off if you don’t consume a lot of ice cream at all—low fat or otherwise. The same is true for roads. Temporary roads are only slightly better than a regular road, and no one should be fooled into thinking they somehow eliminate the negative impacts associated with roads just because they are “temporary”.

The problem is that temporary roads have most of the same environmental impacts as regular roads. Roads compact soil. Even three trips by logging equipment over soil can result in a significant reduction in water infiltration. Roads, by slicing across slopes, alter downward flow of subsurface and surface water, often concentrating it on the compacted road surface, thus increasing erosive power. Roads are a chronic source of sedimentation, and a major impact on aquatic ecosystems.

Roads fragment wildlife habitat. Roads are avoided by some sensitive wildlife species or used as a convenient travel corridor by other species. Often roads provide access for “weedy” ones that negatively impact other species—such as creating access for edge birds to invade and attack interior forest species.

Roads change air flow which can affect fire spread and even the distribution of plants responding to micro-climate changes.

Roads are the major vector for weeds and disease. Weeds and disease are one of the most pernicious and problematic impacts associated with roads. In the long term, the introduction of weeds and disease may do more damage to forests than the logging. For instance, a root fungus that is introduced by logging equipment along logging roads is decimating Port Orford Cedar stands in Oregon and California where the tree grows.

Road beds provide access for hikers and hunters—giving more potential disturbance to wildlife. And ORVers typically find ways to get around gates and other obstacles to use the roads as roads. In short, a temporary road is mostly a mirage. It is essentially a new logging road.

Now some will argue that temporary roads are better than regular roads, especially if they are “reclaimed.” If a road is fully reclaimed, there is something to this argument. The problem is that there is no legal definition of what constitutes “reclaimed” and most roads are not fully reclaimed, in part, because it is very difficult and expensive to do reclamation.

To fully reclaim a road is more than putting up a gate to block vehicle travel. It requires ripping up the road bed to remove the compacted soil layers. The side slope soil has to be put back on the site, and reshaped so sub surface and surface water flow is restored. Culverts need to be removed, and stream channels fully restructured and reconstituted. Vegetation needs to be planted—and grass seed is not enough—especially if the area once supported forest. And logs, rocks, and other natural structures need to be put back on the slope. And even if all these things are done, an old road does not magically disappear overnight. It continues to have impacts for years until the vegetation has grown sufficiently to more or less emulate the pre-road condition.

I’ve seen fully reclaimed roads in Redwood National Park and a few other places, but it’s is extremely rare. And the expense often numbers in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile.

By contrast, I’ve seen a lot more minimally reclaimed roads. I’ve been on forest service lands where a “temporary” road is just a road that the FS didn’t put on its travel maps as a legal road. It was still there on the ground, but since it was not included in the official travel plan as a road, as far as the FS was concerned, the road did not exist any longer.

The FS usually does go a step further, however, to close temporary roads. Typically the agency will put up a gate. Nevertheless, most gates, unless built extremely well, do not keep ORVers from using the road on the other side and sometimes even the agency continues to use the road for “administrative purposes.”

While such “temporary” roads may reduce road impacts somewhat, they are nowhere as good as no road at all. And this is the rub. I’ve had environmentalists telling me that I don’t have to worry about “new” logging roads because they are all going to be “temporary”. For example, that is one of the claims of the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership proponents. Don’t’ worry, all logging will be from existing roads and any new roads will be “temporary” and must be “removed” in five years.

For one thing, such temporary roads will effectively be a road for five years at the least, and may exist far longer as a marginally reclaimed road, especially in the arid environment found in much of Southwest Montana. Such “temporary” roads will exhibit nearly all the problems of a regular road except that they may not be used for public vehicle travel.

So when you hear someone supporting logging because it won’t have the impacts of roads since all new roads will be “temporary” ask some hard questions about the proposal. How long will the “temporary” road be in use? Will it be closed to all vehicle traffic forever or will it be used again for logging in 10 or 20 years? Will it be reclaimed? What does reclamation mean? Will the road bed be ripped up, slopes restored, stream channels reconstructed, and original vegetation restored? If not, than you will have a road—and a road is still a road whether it is called “temporary” or otherwise. Temporary roads may be better than a permanent addition to the road network, but it should never be thought of as a zero impact. Low fat ice cream is still ice cream—and you’re not likely to lose weight eating a lot of it. Temporary roads are still roads, and typically have all of the major impacts associated with any road.

About George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner has published 36 books, including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy

Check Also

The Great Sandpoint Fish Flop Flap

The family I grew up in was very particular about how a slice of a round cake was to lie on a plate. It was supposed to be positioned so that you could eat it from the inside out and from the bottom up. For all of us right-handers, this meant the frosting had to be to the left. A piece of cake with the frosting on the right was said to be “flopped wrong.” This attention to direction has come to mind recently, as the citizens of Sandpoint have debated about whether the fish on their newly installed Sand Creek arch are flopped correctly. I thought the shiny metal back sides of the signs would all be on one side of the arch, so we would have shiny metal fish on one side and colorful fish on the other. Instead, the fish appear to have been more randomly flopped.

7 comments

  1. The solution to the problem is to pave all the roads. I think that would alleviate the erosion problem, and logging trucks would have fewer flat tires. And the dust problem would be history. After all, national parks such as Yellowstone are famous for their good, paved roads. I think paving all the roads on the national forests(all 8xs the Interstate Highway System) would be a marvelous use of part of the federal stimulus package recent passed in Congress. Forest Service logging roads are indeed “shovel ready”. Their road bases are already in place. What a great idea, if I do say so myself.

  2. Spot on story George; as a former Forest Service Employee (of the timber beast variety), I can say with certainty that there is no such thing as a temp road – even some of the skid trails and landings end up being damn near permanent! And as far as the goofy idea of paving them all: most USFS roads are not ‘pavement ready’, they’d require a lot of additional engineering and work to be brought up to spec – even assuming that was a good idea! Roadbanks will still erode, culverts will still blow out (and continue to cause fish passage issues, and roads will increase the inevitable creation of convenient ‘side roads’ engineered by aggressive ORV use. The US should seriously consider revamping the rotation age to at least a few hundred years (thereby increasing the value of the timber) and switch to helicopter retrieval systems.

  3. I don’t disagree on your assessment of the damage caused by “temporary” forest roads. If anything, these “temporary” roads are worse than “permanent” roads because they do not receive anywhere near the level of engineering attention or construction consideration and actually end up with even worse design, which causes even more habitat and erosion damage. I do, however, resent your comparison of these blights with low fat ice cream. I like ice cream and there is no reason to smear it by dragging it into this discussion.

  4. Mick

    thanks for your perspective.

  5. After giving it a lot of thought, I confess I heartily endorse the concept of paving roads in the forests. State or national. You will find paved roads all through the Black Forest in Germany, and in the forests of Netherlands, and really, they are quite nice. They allow access to ALL people, and do not segregate against those who are obese, infirm, handicapped, elderly, or just not into sweating and huffing andpuffing just to see public lands.
    I think more access would actually encourage more public support of the forests.
    A well designed road need not be aesthetically bothersome. And it certainly doesnt need to cause damage if done right. A little change, but no damage. The deer can walk across.
    It’s time for the physically gifted elite to share the land.
    Also it would be great for people to bicycle on smooth roads through the forests.

  6. Horrible written, reads like a high schooler’s work, you should really proofread. And after wasting ten minutes reading this dreck, I still don’t know what makes a logging road a temporary logging road.

  7. I suppose that it could be very different here in wet western Oregon, but locally our temporary roads that have received entrance and drainage treatments (after the harvest activities have concluded) are truly temporary in nature. After 5-7 years, you can barely tell they were even there. The Forest Service here never says there will be NO impacts from temporary roads – just discloses that their impacts will be mitigated, and anticipates that the adverse impacts will be short-lived AND within acceptable disturbance levels. Temporary roads are good, and do have less impacts than permanent system roads. The tongue-in-cheek suggestion of paving them all, while amusingly antagonistic, would be a bit out of the range of cost effectiveness.