Determining the Best Method of Road Decommissioning based on

Vegetative Succession
Jacinda Thomas
Clair Thomas, M.S.
March 2!
"a#e Count$ Resources %nitiative
Che&aucan Bio'h$sical Monitoring Team
2( )orth * Street
"a#evie&, +R ,!-.
lcri.org
%ntroduction
Vegetation on decommissioned roads differs in s'ecie t$'e and densit$ to that
of vegetation off decommissioned roads. %t is assumed this is due to com'action.
+bservations sho&ed that vegetation on scarified, sub/soiled, and bloc#ed roads
differed from each other, even &hen the 'ercent cover &as similar. 0lant
diversit$ on bloc#ed roads a''eared to be less. Could vegetation diversity
and density be used to determine a best method for
decommissioning roads?
Bac#ground
Com'action in roads is caused b$ machiner$ such as s#idders, feller bunchers,
de/limbers, as &ell as hard/hoofed animals. Cla$ soils tend to com'act easil$
&hile 'umice souls and soils high in organic material tend to resist com'action.
Concerns surrounding soil structure arise from com'action1s effect on
com'ressing and reducing the number of air and &ater s'aces in soil.
Com'action results in greater surface flo& and less absorbance of &ater, causing
increased erosion and higher 'ea# flo&s as &ell as lo&er base flo&s in associated
streams.
Brittne$ 0rice found that subsurface &ater channels changed according to
levels of com'action on roads. 23The *ffect of Soil Com'action on Subsurface
4$drolog$ &ith res'ect to Maintained and )on Maintained Roads,5 %S*6, March,
2(.
7 soil 'rofile is com'osed of several la$ers8 litter9 organic material, and humus
ma#e u' the 3+5 hori:on9 sand, silt, and cla$ from the to'soil or 375 hori:on9 the
3B5 hori:on contains silts and cla$9 and the lo&est la$er, the 3C5 hori:on is
com'osed of boulders, bedroc#, and more bedroc#. Com'action affects the soils
'rofile, 'ed structure, tem'erature, moisture, erosion, and 'lant cover.
The Bestcha re'ort states Roads are associated with a variety of
negative effects on aquatic resources including disruption of basin
hydrology and increased chronic and acute sedimentation. 2Bestcha,
et al. 3;ildfire and Salvage logging, Bestcha Re'ort. March, <,,(=.
The e>isting road s$stem on the 6remont ;inema )ational 6orest &as
designed and constructed 'rimaril$ to accommodate logging s$stems that
re?uired a significantl$ denser road net&or# than is re?uired b$ the s$stems
commonl$ used toda$. 6urthermore, funding for road maintenance is insufficient
to sustain the e>isting road net&or#. Conse?uentl$, the 6orest Service rarel$
builds ne& roads and instead has begun to close and decommission man$ roads
in order to restore h$drological function and reduce maintenance costs.
The 6remont ;inema )ational 6orest has road densities ranging from 2.,
miles 'er s?uare mile in the 0aisle$ Ranger District to 2.@ miles 'er s?uare mile
in the "a#evie& Ranger District. 2A''er Che&aucan ;atershed 7ssessment, ' R/
2, <,,,= The Laeview Ranger !istrict completed transportation plans
for the "orth and #outh $arner %ountains and Thomas Cree
$atershed &location this research pro'ect( and identified )*+ miles of
road slated for decommissioning. 2"a#evie& 6ederal Ste&ardshi' Anit
2</22 7nnual Re'ort=.
The roads chosen for this stud$ are secondar$ logging roads built for the sole
'ur'ose of accessing timber for harvest. The roads chosen for anal$sis are not
maintained, dead end s'urs created &hen timber harvest &as at its 'ea#, 2/2(
$ears ago. These roads often cause more erosion and sediment deliver$ to
streams than 'rimar$, managed roads. Secondar$ logging roads, as true of all
roads, interru't the h$drolog$ of a &atershed b$ collecting &ater in barro&
ditches on the u''er side of the road. The collected &ater is funneled through
culverts or over &ater bars creating e'hemeral cree#s greatl$ modif$ing &ater
availabilit$ for 'lant use belo& roads.
$e need to reduce the number of roads in our forests and find the
best way to decommission them.
There are three solutions to hel' 'romote vegetation recover$ on
decommissioned roads8 bloc# the road entirel$ and leave it to its o&n recover$9
scarif$ the soil b$ using @/- inch teeth to brea# the surface crust9 and subsoil the
road &ith teeth <B/2@ inches, ri''ing u' la$ers of soil.
%t is commonl$ assumed that ri''ing forest soils is the best &a$ to 're'are for
vegetation recover$. This is demonstrated b$ the over&helming use of sub/soiling
to decommission roads and s#id trails. During this stud$, &e observed and
'hotogra'hed man$ sub/soiled sites &here vegetation and soil structure has not
recovered for 2 to 2( $ears.
Richard 4art found that 3sub/soiled areas, &hile initiall$ releasing
com'action, ultimatel$ become more com'acted than their immediate
surroundings. The furls formed b$ the ri''ers become beds for invasive 'lants.
"oss of effective ground cover is also dramatic.5 2Richard 4art. 37ssessing The
Ase of Sub/Soiling ;ithin the A''er Che&aucan ;atershed. "6SA re'ort June
@, 2@=. The Che&aucan Bio'h$sical Monitoring Team commonl$ found large
roc#s on the surface, mi>ed soil hori:ons, and e>'osed roots &here diseases could
be established. The ,remont $inema "ational ,orest Resource
-dvisory Counsel recommended that the general use of sub.soiling be
eliminated. 2;6)6 R7C minutes. June, 2@=.
Because of the 6remont ;inema )ational 6orest Resource 7dvisor$
Committee1s recommendation to discontinue the use of sub/soiling, for this
stud$, sub/soiling has been ignored.
This research 'roCect focuses on t&o methods of road decommissioning8
bloc#ing and scarification. The t&o methods are com'ared &ith res'ect to soil
characteristics, including com'action, and vegetative recover$ of these roads.
The question of which method/ blocing or scarifying/ is best for road
recovery is addressed with recommendations to the ,remont $inema
"ational ,orest for decommissioning roads.
Results8
Soil Com'action at . inch De'ths in
Decommissioned Road 7reas
.<.@
,2.B
2<-.<
.,

(
<
<(
2
2(
.
.(
0
S
%
+n Bloc#ed
+n Scarified
+ff Bloc#ed
+ff Scarified
Com'action varies greatl$, as e>'ected, on and off roads9 from <.( to 2 times
more com'act on roads than surrounding landsca'e. 4o&ever, com'action also
varies greatl$ bet&een bloc#ed and scarified off road sam'les &here com'action
should have been similar. Decommissioned off road sam'les &ere . times more
com'acted that scarified off road sam'les. This &as not e>'ected since &e had
chosen sites based on soil t$'e, slo'e and as'ect. 7n anal$sis of variance
indicated that the difference &as indeed significant and could not be ignored. 7
'ossible e>'lanation for this ma$ be the criterion used to ma#e a decision on
bloc#ing or scarif$ing a road. Roads are often bloc#ed rather that scarified if the
forest service feels that the road ma$ be needed in the future. This could indicate
that the bloc#ed roads &ere more im'ortant having a greater volume of traffic
resulting in higher com'action. The bloc#ed roads often had landings associated
&ith them. %t is 'ossible that the bloc#ed road/side areas 2off road sam'les= &ere
more highl$ com'acted due to the increase of road use. Reflecting bac# on the
'roCect, ta#ing off road sam'les farther from the road, -/, meters, rather than /
. meters &ould have 'rovided a statisticall$ com'arable control bet&een bloc#ed
and scarified roads.
Soil Characteristics in Decommissioned
Road 7reas

(
<
<(
2
2(
.
.(
@
Soil Rhi:ome
!
e
p
t
h

&
c
m
(
+n Bloc#ed
+n Scarified
+ff Bloc#ed
+ff Scarified
Soil de'th on bloc#ed roads &as D that com'ared to all other sam'les on and
off decommissioned roads &hich &ere relativel$ the same. Rhi:ome de'th
sho&ed the same 'attern as soil de'th, being D the de'th on bloc#ed roads
com'ared to all other on and off decommissioned roads. Soil tem'erature &as
similar in all conditions. Variance &as insignificant and could have been due to
the time and da$. Moisture readings &ere also similar in all soil sam'les.
Des'ite anomalies &ith com'action, decommissioned roads are indeed
recovering as indicated b$ the establishing vegetation. There &ere several
decommissioned roads &here it &as difficult to identif$ the said road.
Vegetation Cover +n and +ff
Decommissioned Roads

(
<
<(
2
Bloc#ed Road Scarified Road
'
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
o
v
e
r
+ff
+n
%t &as discovered that scarified roads recover <.B to 2 times ?uic#er than that of
bloc#ed roads based on 'lant cover. 7nal$sis of variance sho&ed the difference
&as statisticall$ significant9 6 E .<.2. This &as interesting because 'lant
densities on both t$'es of decommissioned roads &ere similar, ho&ever &ith
closer anal$sis became a''arent that the median &idth of the 'lant s'ecies on
scarified roads &as t&ice as great resulting in the greater 'ercent cover.
)umber of 0lant S'ecies +n and +ff
Decommissioned Roads

<
2
.
@
(
+nF+ff +nE+ff +nG+ff
Bloc#ed
7r eas
Scar ified
7r eas
S'ecies richness &as < times greater on scarified roads than on bloc#ed roads.
*>clusion of 0lant S'ecies +n and +ff
Decommissioned Roads
H
< H
2 H
. H
@ H
( H
-H
+ff r oad
onl$
+n onl$ Shar ed
Bloc#ed
7r eas
Scar ified
7r eas
*>clusion of 0lant S'ecies +n and +ff
Decommissioned Roads
@. H
< BH
BH
. < H
@,H
( < H
H
2H
@H
-H
BH
<H
Bloc#ed 7reas Scarified 7reas
Shar ed
+n onl$
+ff r oad
onl$
0ioneering s'ecies e>clusive to bloc#ed roads &ere onl$ .. 'ercent of the total
s'ecies of the transect, &hile 'ioneering s'ecies e>clusive to scarified roads
com'rised .< 'ercent of the total transect.
%n scarified road areas, .< 'ercent of the 'lant s'ecies 2'ioneer s'ecies= &ere
on the road e>clusivel$ and 2. 'ercent of all 'lants &ere greater in number on the
road. Com'arativel$, in bloc#ed road areas, onl$ . 'ercent of the 'lant s'ecies
&ere found e>clusivel$ on the road and .. 'ercent of all 'lant t$'es &ere greater
in abundance on the road.
0ioneer 'lants are able to gro& <.B times more ?uic#l$ in scarified soils. This is
'robabl$ because scarification loosens to'soil creating more air and &ater s'aces,
&ithout disturbing the lo&er hori:ons. 6e&er 'ioneering 'lants &ere found off
road meaning more off road 'lants are no& gro&ing on the road. *ventuall$,
other 'lants found e>clusivel$ off the road &ill move in and the 'ercent of shared
vegetation &ill increase. 7s this occurs, the 'ioneering 'lants &ill be shaded out
b$ the bigger 'lants.
Conclusion
Scarif$ing is the best &a$ to decommission most forest roads.