legacy roads & trails: a 2 year evaluation

8/9/2019 Legacy Roads & Trails: A 2 Year Evaluation

1/8


2/8

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010 3

continued on next page

Legacy Roads and Trails:A Two-Year Evaluation

By Bethanie Walder

By now, nearly everyone involved in ederal land management romconservation activists to agency sta - embraces the notion thatensuring clean water and healthy populations o sh and wildlie will

require proactive action on our part. Even Congress recognized this twoyears ago when it set out to accomplish these ends by investing in xingthe watershed problems caused by Forest Service roads (e.g. repairingand/or reclaiming roads and xing sh culverts) by creating the LegacyRoads and Trails (LRT) Remediation Initiative. So is it working? With twoyears under its belt, we elt it was time to take a closer look at the pro-grams successes and challenges. The Forest Service has made real prog-ress in beginning to address their multi-billion dollar road maintenancebacklog, and although there are some areas that need improvement, on thewhole, theyre passing, though not always with fying colors

To date, the agency has largely been tracking the implementation othe program through data on unds spent and projects completed, but notthe programs eectiveness as measured through on-the-ground resultssuch as habitat restored or municipal drinking water improved. Similarly,conservation organizations like ours are only able to track eectivenesson a small scale, by looking at individual projects (see description o newmonitoring program on pages 12-13). Thereore, it will likely take years be-ore we ully understand the long-term on-the-ground benets and/or draw-backs o this program. But in the meantime, we were able to take a prettyclose look at the implementation o the program rom both a regional andnational level.

To get a sense o things, we scoured theagencys data on Legacy Roads1 then used thatdata to assess their implementation o theprogram. Some o the data in the charts belowis subjective, as we had to use our own judg-ment when categorizing projects that involvedmultiple tasks (e.g. both road decommissioningand road maintenance). Nonetheless, the datapresented are indicative o the agencys overalldistribution o unds during the rst two yearso the program. Unortunately, the USDA hasnot yet publicly released the nal 2010 projectallocations. We did receive numbers or someregions, but were unable to get comparable data

rom all regions, thus we dont provide any 2010inormation here. We will update these charts onour website once that data is available.

1 For example, we used their nal project allocation lists

from 2008 and 2009 to develop an analysis of how the

funds were distributed. There was some guesswork in-

volved in this, as each project had to be put into only one

category, even though many projects included multiple

types of work. In addition to the project charts, we also

compared data from the annual Road Accomplishment

Reports, the Presidents Budget which reports actual

accomplishments, and the nal reports that the Forest

Service sent to Congress regarding their Legacy Roads

and Trails accomplishments in 2008 and 2009. All of the

Forest Service reports cited here can be downloadedfrom our website: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-

roads.

This 2009 culvert to bridge conversion on the Poplar River,Superior National Forest, opened up a mile of trout habitat.Photos courtesy of Forest Service.
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roadshttp://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roadshttp://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roadshttp://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roads


3/8

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 20104

LRT Two-Year Evaluation, continued from page 3

AOP and BridgesAquatic Organism Passage (AOP) to restore

sheries and aquatic connectivity was a prior-ity purpose or which Congress created LegacyRoads and Trails. I you add these two catego-ries together, the agency allocated ~29% o 2008and ~24% o 2009 unds to this type o work. To

be clear, however, numerous bridge projectswere implemented more or saety than or AOPrestoration you can see the actual breakdownbetween the two areas in the pie charts. While these AOPprojects have not all been implemented yet, between 1/4 and1/3 o the overall unds were allocated to this priority area.The Elk Creek Project on the Caribou-Targhee National For-est provides an excellent example o how xing one culvertrestored 14 miles o stream habitat or the protected Yellow-stone Cutthroat Trout.

Our Evaluation: Outstanding Effort

The agency breaks down spending into thefollowing basic categories:

AquaticOrganismPassage(AOP): culvert and bridge

upgrades and repairs to restore aquatic connectivity Bridges: repairing or upgrading bridges or sh passageor to improve saety

Decommissioning:reclaiming unneeded roads (bothsystem and unauthorized) and restoring the aquatic andterrestrial habitat they disturbed

Maintaining/Improvingroads: perorming critical main-tenance or improvements on roads or saety or aquatic/hydrologic benets

Monitoring:monitoring the eectiveness o work on theground

Oversight:unds to the regional or supervisors ocesto oversee contracts, develop processes or distributing

unds, etc. Planning/SurveyandDesign:conducting environmental

analyses or survey and design work or proposed work,which can include identiying a minimum road system,and determining the type and scope o work to be done

Stormproofng:basically a cross between decommis-sioning and maintenance. Roads are treated to signi-cantly reduce potential aquatic/hydrologic impacts sometimes culverts are removed and the roads areclosed, but stormprooed roads remain part o theoverall system.

Trails:improving or maintaining motorized and non-motorized trails to enhance access and visitor experi-

ences. Trails unding oten includesbackcountry bridge repairs andupgrades as well.

DecommissioningDecommissioning was the other top priority

or Legacy Roads and Trails unds, with Con-gress explicitly stating that the entirety o theund was available or decommissioning purpos-es. We were disappointed, thereore, that only14-15% o the unds were allocated or this criti-cal and underunded work. However, becauseew orests have yet to do the necessary plan-

ning to identiy their long-term minimum roadsystem, they do not have a clear sense o whichroads and needed and which are not, which canmake it challenging to allocate decommissioningunds eectively.

When taking a close look at regional alloca-tions, we were extremely rustrated to see thatRegion 5 (Caliornia) spent only 4% o their 2008money, and 1% o their 2009 money on decom-missioning (see graph on next page). Their AOPand Bridge spending was also lower than ideal.This region likely skewed the national results, asthey spent 60% o their unds on maintenance

and stormproong combined.

Most o the other regions took the roaddecommissioning task seriously, exemplied bya project on Upper Joseph Creek in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in OR. That projectreclaimed 7 miles o road and removed 22 cul-verts, thus improving conditions or Snake RiverSteelhead Trout. Wallowa Resources, OregonWatershed Enhancement Board, National ForestFoundation and the Nez Perce Tribe all providedadditional unding to support this project.

Our Evaluation: Average Effort (R5needs serious improvement)

Five Rivers RoadDecommission onthe Siuslaw National

Forest, Oregon.Photos courtesy of

Forest Service.


4/8


Maintaining and Improving Roads and

StormproongWhile we never envisioned LRT as a new way to und maintenance,

such allocations are certainly allowed as part o the program, especiallyor critical maintenance to protect human health and saety or threatened

and endangered species. In addition, certain regions conducted a lot omaintenance in the orm o stormproong. In such instances, the agencytries to make the road hydrologically benign to reduce the likelihood osevere ailures that could damage drinking water supplies and sheries.These two categories together accounted or ~38-39% o the unding duringthe two year period (again, skewed upward, by Region 5). In our opinion,maintenance and improvements should constitute a lower proportion othe total unding, though the stormproong percentages (7-9%) seem ap-propriate.

Our Evaluation: Average Effort

Planning and Survey & DesignWhen the Legacy Roads and Trails program was created, most regions

in the Forest Service didnt really expect it. As such, they largely per-ceived Legacy Roads and Trails unding as a windall and used the undsto implement projects that had already undergone National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) analysis, and that were basically shovel-ready. Region6 (Pacic Northwest) was the only region that dedicated signicant 2008unds to planning, though Survey and Design work or NEPA-ready projectswas not an uncommon expenditure throughout the country. We saw a dra-matic shit in planning/S&D allocations in 2009, with the overall nationalspending nearly doubling rom our to seven percent. We expect that thisincreased again in 2010.

Our Evaluation: Outstanding Effort


Aquatic

Orga

nismPa

ssage

Bridges

Deco

mmiss

ioning

Maint

aining

/Impro

vingR

oads

Monitorin

g

Regio

nal/S

uperv

isors

Ofce

Surve

y&Design

/Plannin

g

Storm

proong

Trails

$4,500

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

R5 - 2008

R5 - 2009

Totals

Region 5 (Pacic Southwest [California]) 2008-09 Distribution by Category

Monitoring and OversightAs with planning, Region 6 was the only

region that allocated any real unds to monitor-ing during the rst year o LRT. In 2009, Region5 (Caliornia) joined Region 6 by dedicating asmall portion o unds to monitoring. And in

2010 we know that at least Region 1 (NorthernRegion) also began allocating unds to monitor-ing, and perhaps others did as well. LRT pro-vides an incredible opportunity or the agencyto begin documenting comparative approachesto terrestrial and aquatic responses to roadreclamation and culvert upgrades, but mostregions have not dedicated unds to such work.In addition, we have been pressing the agency tobegin monitoring the economic benets o thiswork as well both in terms o jobs created andecosystem services protected or restored. Withjust R6, or R5 and R6 together, the total monitor-ing unds allocated nationally is barely 1% o

the overall eort. The oversight unds to theRegional or Supervisors oces in both yearswere very minimal, though we think they mighthave increased in 2010.

Our Evaluation: Average Effort(Outstanding Effort nationally on

oversight, and for R6 on monitoring)

Dollaramountsinthousandsof

dollars


5/8


Implementation and Accomplishments

In all three years, the agency has allocated unds quicklyand eciently. This has enabled them to protect at leastsome o their money rom potential re-borrowing (unds that

are obligated are harder to move), and it has enabled themto leverage other agency or non-agency unds. Interestingly,however, the chart below shows how the unds were allocatedin FY08 and FY09, as compared to what their actual recordedaccomplishments were in each o those years.

As you can clearly see, there are some signicant discrep-ancies between what was projected and what was accom-plished, though we know that a portion o this is due to theobligation o unds in one year and the implementation o theproject in the next year. 2008 was also a signicant re year,with some unds being transerred to re and then reallo-cated back to LRT in 2009. Finally, based on discussions withnumerous Forest Service recreation and engineering sta,

including budget sta, it appears that the most likely reasonthat the 2009 accomplishments dont match the projected al-locations is the additional distribution o stimulus unds.

When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act(ARRA) was passed, Congress made it clear that those undshad to be spent within two years. The Forest Service receivedan additional $650 million in capital improvement and main-tenance unds, with about $230 million going to road mainte-

nance and decommissioning and approximately another $100million going to trails. O the ARRA road unds, ~$25 millionwas dedicated to decommissioning projects. Because ARRAprojects had to take precedence, two things occurred. First,more LRT unds were spent on planning in 2009 and in 2010(though we dont have nal 2010 numbers yet). Second, someLRT projects were postponed to ensure that ARRA projectscould be completed within the allotted time rame, and withinthe capacity o the agency. Based on conversations withagency sta, it is our understanding that no as-yet-unspentLRT unds were reallocated to other programs, but we havenot been able to ormally conrm this assertion.

All that said, we nd it disturbing that the Forest Servicewas basically able to ulll most o its LRT projections on roadmaintenance, while alling ar short o expectations in thecategories or which Legacy Roads and Trails unds would bemost eective in protecting drinking water and sh/wildlie

habitat: AOP/Bridges and Decommis-sioning. The projected versus accom-plished data on trail projects was abys-mal in 2009 especially, even though thepercent o LRT unds allocated to trailsincreased signicantly between thatyear.


2008Na'onalLegacyRoadsDistribu'on

AOP22%

Trails12%

Bridges

7%Decommissioning

15%Maintain/Improve

30%

Regional/Supervisors

ofce0%

Monitoring1%

S & D/Planning4%

Storm Proong9%

2009Na'onalLegacyRoadsDistribu'on

AOP18%

Trails16%

Bridges6%

Decommissioning14%

Maintain/Improve31%

Regional/Super-visors ofce

0%

Monitoring1%

S & D/Planning7%

Storm Proong7%


6/8


Areas for Improvement

While this evaluation is only measuring implementation, it would be helpulto measure eectiveness as well. To do so, the agency has to increase monitor-ing and begin tracking the on-the-ground results and benets/drawbacks o thiswork (e.g. municipal water supplies protected or improved, miles o streamhabitat restored/reconnected). With such limited unds dedicated to monitor-ing, it will be quite a while beore anyone can report on the eectiveness o thisprogram at the eld level.

The Road 512 Crossingproject on the Ouachita

National Forest, Arkansas,opened 5 miles of stream

habitat to aquatic organisms.Photos courtesy of Forest

Service.


Projected vs. Actual Legacy Roads and Trails Accomplishments 2008-09

Action 2008 2009 08-09 combinedaccomplishments

Accomplished Projected Accomplished Projected

Miles of RoadsImproved 631* 1144 731* 1071 1362

Miles of RoadsMaintained 1533* 1529 1862* 1560 3395

Aquatic OrganismPassage 180** 581 145** 566 325

RoadsDecommissioned 531* 868 929* 1326 1460

Bridges repaired

or replaced 15** 66 23** 100 38

Miles of TrailsMaintained/Improved 871* 1784 190* 1386 1061

Chart created from three data sources: Forest Service 2008/09 Road Accomplishment Reports; 2008/09 Forest Service

Legacy Roads and Trails project allocations; and FY11 Presidents Budget Justication: USDA Forest Service, activity and output/

outcome by appropriation and budget line Item, p. 26. Where RAR data and Presidents Budget data conicted, we used Presi-

dents Budget data.

* Presidents Budget data.

**Road Accomplishment Report (RAR) data. RARs are an annual report of all activities, including budgetary information (main-

tenance, decommissioning, etc.) that occur on Forest Service roads.


7/8


WildlandsCPRhasthefollowingrecommendationsfor

improvement.

Develop allocation recommendations at the regional level (e.g.allocating certain percentages o the LRT unds to certain catego-ries o work to ensure that unds are distributed in a way that ullymeets the intent o the LRT program). We recommend at least60% o all unds be dedicated to decommissioning and AOP proj-ects combined, with the remainder split between critical mainte-nance, planning and monitoring. We are happy to see the increasein planning spending as well as the slight increase in monitoring.

The Forest Service should adopt perormance measures to docu-ment how projects protect and restore community drinking watersupplies, endangered and threatened wildlie, and overall habitatquality.

All orests should be required to report on the ecological benetso this program (e.g. miles o stream habitat reconnected, acres owatershed improved), and they should be able to clearly justiy

how they developed these estimates. It is just this type o datathat would help build public support or the program.

The agency should document economic benets o this program,including green job creation and ecosystem services benets (e.g.improving or protecting municipal water supplies). From ourestimate (14.5 jobs per $1 million spent), Legacy Roads and Trailshas maintained or created at least 2600 jobs nationally between2008-2010.


In the Park Ridge Decommissioning project, two milesof erosion-causing road was removed on the

Umatilla National Forest in Washington.Photos courtesy of Forest Service.

Aquatic

Orga

nismPa

ssag

e

Bridg

es

Deco

mmiss

ioning

Maint

aining

/Impro

vingR

oads

Monitori

ng

Regio

nal/S

uperv

isors

Ofc

e

Surve

y&Design

/Plan

ning

Storm

proo

ngTra

ils

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

2008 Totals

2009 Totals

National Distribution by Category 2008/2009 Comparison

Dollar

amountsinthousandsofdollars


8/8


Region 5 (Caliornia) should be moreconsistent in spending Legacy Roadsand Trails unds in the manner inwhich they were intended. The overallimplementation o the Legacy Roadsand Trails und would be ar better on

average i Caliornia was on track andnot skewing the results in all categories.

The Forest Service should compile anannual summary o the Legacy Roadsand Trails successes. This reportshould also detail any challenges expe-rienced (e.g. ailure to meet projections,transer o unds to re, prioritiza-tion o stimulus projects, shortage oNEPA-ready projects/planning). Region6 (Pacic Northwest) put together aantastic report about their rst year oLRT unding and their accomplishments

that could act as a model or a nationalreport.

These three culverts on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest(Utah) had impaired the mobility of Colorado River Cutthroat

Trout. Replacing them in 2009 with a new bridge and restoringthe stream channel opened up 15 miles of habitat. Photoscourtesy of Forest Service.


Conclusion

Our Overall Evaluation: Above Average

Based on the individual scores the Forest Service did an Above Aver-

age job during the rst two years o LRT implementation, which is impres-sive considering how ast this program came at them. When reviewingindividual projects to categorize them into dierent areas o work, we wereextremely pleased to see some very creative, nonstandard maintenanceand improvement projects that were truly designed to combine accessneeds with environmental concerns. For example, there were several proj-ects where portions o roads were going to be moved out o wetlands orother important habitat to restore those areas. We are also happy to seeincreased attention to planning, especially to identiy an ecologically andscally sustainable minimum road system. While we know that spendingLRT unds on planning reduces on-the-ground projects in the short term,over the long-term it will provide a blueprint or eective and ecientuture Legacy Roads and Trails spending.

While there are some kinks in the program that need to be ironed outto ensure Legacy Roads and Trails reaches its ull potential, most o theagency seems to be implementing this program in the way it was intended.(We hope the 2010 distribution charts, once we receive them, show that

the agency is continuing to disperse this undingappropriately.) This innovative program is challeng-ing the agency to think about watershed restorationand roads in a new way. Though we have concernsabout some o the early eorts, especially throughthe emphasis on maintenance and stormproong, theagency is moving orward in the restoration directionthat Legacy Roads and Trails proposes and that theSecretary o Agriculture envisions or the uture.

legacy roads & trails: a 2 year evaluation

Documents