"Win-Win" situation? I don't think so.

The Forest Service recently sent out an e-alert about a success story entitled "A Winning Combination:  OHV Access and Stored Roads."  The Forest Service proposes that off-road vehicle access can be maintained on removed roads.  But it seems they are missing one of the key points of removing the roads.  With this new proposal, the agency is putting in hardened stream crossings and waterbars on these "stored roads" to maintain motorized vehicle access.  While on the surface this "winning combination" may seem like a good compromise, a deeper look reveals that this approach may end up causing more harm to the environment through direct release of oil and gas into perennially running streams (formerly protected by culverts or bridges), erosion caused by vehicle passage and provide continued motorized access into sensitive wildlife habitat.  Typically, when roads are "stored" they are not available for any vehicular access.  By allowing continued ORV use, they are defeating most of the purpose of the road storage program.

The Forest Service is conveniently forgetting that these roads will still require maintenance to keep them safe for public motorized access and to prevent many of the environmental problems caused by decaying roads and by off-road vehicles. The agency claims it's a win-win situation because it enables them to meet the delicate balance between just enough motorized use to control vegetation growth and "too much" motorize use which would cause erosion of the road bed, ruts, potholes, and ditch drainage issues.  Unfortunately, they've forgotten that continued access on a stored road, will, in general, only continue to expand the impacts that road is having.  And the problem is more significant, because now the road will no longer be on the same maintenance schedule.  Closed and stored roads should be closed and stored to all vehicular use, otherwise the actions taken to store the road will not reap the ecological benefits that are so desperately needed.