Summer Solstice 2010. Volume 15 No.

Legacy Roads and Trails:

A Two-Year Evaluation
By Bethanie Walder 200
9 Le
m ary gacy

P roje
ct Sum
X
N
Roa
ds a
nd T
Inside…
LG)
Y Nat Stat
M roje
ct ,000 iona e: rail
110 l Fo Ore s (C
s (C h Passage ds used: $ 20,000
P rest gon
r a i l Pro : ML
ject Wal G) P A Look Down the Trail, by Bethanie
nd T Fis fu n $ Nam low
sed : ,000 Fish roje
ds a
LG
130 5 P ro e: a-W
CM ds u 200 d e c o je c t P
hi P
assa ctWalder.
a : $ tma
Sum Page 2
U
o fu n the
pp
Pro er Jose nN ge P
y R Ot h e r
C o s t
ring for ( 4 6 0 m m i s s i u rp os F roje
gac
ject ph R
u CM
roj e c t
ed d ty 0 -7 0 o n in e / O
oad
LG mar ct
9 Le ntifi t priori
D ec
al P g
.6 m the Big jectiv
b o fu n
y Two-Year Report
Y
200
0; 1
s ide
m
T ot ds u
mis

N F n t r i e r wa nd high
es i) ro
ads C any e s: T
sion
ing
Oth
er fu
n ds u
Legacy Roads & Trails
sed :
N
e r eter $ 50
o ghee cem g ba he seco o s
Idah in th n (4 6 o de e d (p
e: -Tar rt R
epla ssin
Cro s rated t .
iam
ot d pan
e Ch 2 c re
e s n i 5 -4 5 0 ; 2 a s e th e
T ot
al P
a
Card, by Bethanie
r tn ers)
X
Walder. Pages
,000
Stat a r i bou l v e e k 5 f o s m nu r o $
C k Cu re a s ld ot he .8 m r is k j ect
3-9 132
lk C It w stream he o a 24 fo lled. T
sW
a te r i), P o is o f c re e C os ,710
est: Cree he E tory. ld : T t:
For Elk s: T P Inven strongho med ved and as ins rade
ta shed on k
a n d (4 6 0 0 s e d im e $ 18
o nal : i v e o r 2,71
t i e t f
er remo idge w , g nd the -6 1 5 n ta t
bjec est A t trou
t by h
Na Nam O
rk P cted ard e ;
ning 2.6 mi) n by ph
io Policy Primer: Western States Identify
0
ject se/Oonal For cutthroa Wo ert was crete br onstru talled,
a
Pro r p o s 3 po an ys
ti v
cul ast con was re ere in ed. c n d o d S o u t ic a lly
Crucial Habitat and Connectivity,
t Pu ghee Na llowston
e Wo
c r
The k Perf
e c w i z v erf h
j r e e d s i l lo w F o rk S
Pro bou-Tar ithin Ye p
am
b ctur
e
stab eith entire 7 ormed by Adam Rissien. Pages 10-11
chan u
n e ls m m it
Cari ment w stre rol stru ed and e :
t ont as seed T w e r o u ts lo m ile s o w ith
t r e a c n t y p
-two d (5.7 e f r o ro ck
w w er ad w .
soil e
c h a n 1 2 -3 3 c u lv e r t m i) o r a s d e c o Odes to Roads: The Hard Science, by
n e f t d s w r e c m p
c h a n ls w e eep, ere o n to a c te
Big a
deb nels we re once nd up- moved red (1.3 and
r e Greg Peters. Pages 12-13
u d
befo Canyon
r r ,
s e e d is p la c e e lin e d a g a in c a n d d o w 3 o f w m i).
re p d o h
roje Road d a ls o e d a n d in th e w ith r o n n e c te d n- s tr e a ic h
ct. eep h a rd c l e aned
m ul
c he d b o t to m
ck a DePaving the Way: The Forest Service’s
nd h N ew . m
trib e . a
Exp utar p e rf n e d w o u t a n d b y h a n D is tu r d w o o Fatal Flaw?, by Bethanie Walder.
y cu o rm it d
e d t h ro c k . th e o v e . T h r e e d a re a y
b d
This ected B lver he c e s
sedi r o ad e n e
t (C
4) o n tr N a s h E rf lo w c p o n d s w e re Page 14-15
men decom fits: a c t. xcav hann
a tin e
w er
e
P o is
o
t tra
n m is g , I n ls
rier C h e n , a n d s p o rt c s io n in g c.
bar n. s
q u a n im n u S o u th F a p a b ilit p r o je c t Biblio Notes: Off-Road Vehicle Impacts
ish o
s a f functi
lity s
w a a n d W a te r o rk S u m y a lo n g w ill im on Special Ecosystems, by Adam
ert i c fis h sh B p
og h a b e d f o r m it C r e ig C a n r o v e
culv hydrol ita t. im p
vio u s
ed r o v e e k s in t y o n , Switalski and Allison Jones. Pages
Pre imped step dw
a te r
he
and nal fish 16-18
rigi ull
T he o ype and bankf
e f i ts :
i t a t t 8 foot ed by
en b 1 t s
d B pool ha . The moda draulic New Resources. Page 19
ecte t d m y
Exp /pocke restore is acco oving h
o l e m r .
po age ar strea , imp reach
e
pass h of th ge spa stream
n
pass
age Get with the Program: Restoration and
t d fish
wid ew bri ilitated ates unction
. Transportation Program Updates.
e n a b o d
th e reh m cf
in th ccom drologi Pages 20-21
Add ng a y
Par itional c r ossi tores h
t I w s
Typ ners: W nform Ne and re
Mil es of TE allowa tion:
a Abo Around the Office. Page 22
es o
f Ha peci S R e so loca ve, view
bita es: S urces ( tio d
t Op n co t r i buta n. Inse own ne Membership Info. Page 23
ened ake Riv ntrib.:$ ry c t w
/Res e r 1 0 ulve at left, chann
tore steelhe 2,775 rt (C Big el a
d: N ad tr
/A out
OW
EB 4 ) re Canyo t forme
& mov n r
out $ 20,0 e d af Road d C4
at tr 00 N ter
pro eep
t i o n: c u t thro FF)
& j e ct.
a d e
form imite ston 13 NPT
o n al In out Unl Yellow stored: ($9,
9 3
Samples of some ofi the “show
t i r
Add ners: T Specie ened/R
s : e 5 sala
and shine” reports t
Parpublished
p
f TE
es o Habita
Op
tby
ry)
Visit us online:
y
T to shighlight
o f
the Forest Service
wildlandscpr.org
e
Mil
Legacy Roads projects. — story begins on page 3 —
Legacy Roads and Trails:
By Bethanie Walder
A Two-Year Evaluation
B
y now, nearly everyone involved in federal land management – from
conservation activists to agency staff - embraces the notion that
ensuring clean water and healthy populations of fish and wildlife will
require proactive action on our part. Even Congress recognized this two
years ago when it set out to accomplish these ends by investing in fixing
the watershed problems caused by Forest Service roads (e.g. repairing
and/or reclaiming roads and fixing fish culverts) – by creating the Legacy
Roads and Trails (LRT) Remediation Initiative. So is it working? With two
years under its belt, we felt it was time to take a closer look at the pro-
gram’s successes and challenges. The Forest Service has made real prog-
ress in beginning to address their multi-billion dollar road maintenance
backlog, and although there are some areas that need improvement, on the
whole, they’re passing, though not always with flying colors…
To date, the agency has largely been tracking the implementation of
the program through data on funds spent and projects completed, but not
the program’s effectiveness as measured through on-the-ground results
such as habitat restored or municipal drinking water improved. Similarly,
conservation organizations like ours are only able to track effectiveness
on a small scale, by looking at individual projects (see description of new
monitoring program on pages 12-13). Therefore, it will likely take years be-
fore we fully understand the long-term on-the-ground benefits and/or draw-
backs of this program. But in the meantime, we were able to take a pretty
close look at the implementation of the program from both a regional and
national level.
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.
— continued on next page —
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010
To get a sense of things, we scoured the
agency’s data on Legacy Roads1 then used that
data to assess their implementation of the
program. Some of the data in the charts below
is subjective, as we had to use our own judg-
ment when categorizing projects that involved
multiple tasks (e.g. both road decommissioning
and road maintenance). Nonetheless, the data
presented are indicative of the agency’s overall
distribution of funds during the first two years
of the program. Unfortunately, the USDA has
not yet publicly released the final 2010 project
allocations. We did receive numbers for some
regions, but were unable to get comparable data
from all regions, thus we don’t provide any 2010
information here. We will update these charts on
our website once that data is available.
1 For example, we used their final 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 President’s Budget which reports actual
accomplishments, and the final 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 downloaded
from our website: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-
roads.
3
 — LRT Two-Year Evaluation, continued from page 3 —
The agency breaks down spending into the
following basic categories:
• Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP): culvert and bridge
upgrades and repairs to restore aquatic connectivity
• Bridges: repairing or upgrading bridges for fish passage
or to improve safety
• Decommissioning: reclaiming unneeded roads (both
system and unauthorized) and restoring the aquatic and
terrestrial habitat they disturbed
• Maintaining/Improving roads: performing critical main-
tenance or improvements on roads for safety or aquatic/
hydrologic benefits
• Monitoring: monitoring the effectiveness of work on the
ground
• Oversight: funds to the regional or supervisor’s offices
to oversee contracts, develop processes for distributing
funds, etc.
• Planning/Survey and Design: conducting environmental
analyses or survey and design work for proposed work,
which can include identifying a minimum road system,
and determining the type and scope of work to be done
• Stormproofing: basically a cross between decommis-
sioning and maintenance. Roads are treated to signifi-
cantly reduce potential aquatic/hydrologic impacts
– sometimes culverts are removed and the roads are
closed, but “stormproofed” roads remain part of the
overall system.
• Trails: improving or maintaining motorized and non-
motorized trails to enhance access and visitor experi-
ences. Trails funding often includes
backcountry bridge repairs and
upgrades as well.
AOP and Bridges
Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) to restore
fisheries and aquatic connectivity was a prior-
ity purpose for which Congress created Legacy
Roads and Trails. If you add these two catego-
ries together, the agency allocated ~29% of 2008
and ~24% of 2009 funds to this type of work. To
be clear, however, numerous bridge projects
were implemented more for safety than for AOP
restoration – you can see the actual breakdown
between the two areas in the pie charts. While these AOP
projects have not all been implemented yet, between 1/4 and
1/3 of the overall funds were allocated to this priority area.
The Elk Creek Project on the Caribou-Targhee National For-
est provides an excellent example of how fixing one culvert
restored 14 miles of stream habitat for the protected Yellow-
stone Cutthroat Trout.
Our Evaluation: Outstanding Effort
4 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010
Decommissioning
Decommissioning was the other top priority
for Legacy Roads and Trails funds, with Con-
gress explicitly stating that the entirety of the
fund was available for decommissioning purpos-
es. We were disappointed, therefore, that only
14-15% of the funds were allocated for this criti-
cal and underfunded work. However, because
few forests have yet to do the necessary plan-
ning to identify their long-term minimum road
system, they do not have a clear sense of which
roads and needed and which are not, which can
make it challenging to allocate decommissioning
funds effectively.
When taking a close look at regional alloca-
tions, we were extremely frustrated to see that
Region 5 (California) spent only 4% of their 2008
money, and 1% of their 2009 money on decom-
missioning (see graph on next page). Their AOP
and Bridge spending was also lower than ideal.
This region likely skewed the national results, as
they spent 60% of their funds on maintenance
and stormproofing combined.
Most of the other regions took the road
decommissioning task seriously, exemplified by
a project on Upper Joseph Creek in the Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest in OR. That project
reclaimed 7 miles of road and removed 22 cul-
verts, thus improving conditions for Snake River
Steelhead Trout. Wallowa Resources, Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board, National Forest
Foundation and the Nez Perce Tribe all provided
additional funding to support this project.
Our Evaluation: Average Effort (R5
needs serious improvement)
“Five Rivers Road
Decommission” on
the Siuslaw National
Forest, Oregon.
Photos courtesy of
Forest Service.
 — LRT Two-Year Evaluation, continued from page 4 —

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

$4,500

$4,000
Dollar amounts in thousands of dollars

R5 - 2008
$3,500
R5 - 2009
$3,000 Totals

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

ge es ing ds rin
g
ffic
e
nin
g
fin
g
ail
s
ssa ridg is on Roa in to O lan oo Tr
Pa B s g r’s pr
mi vin Mo so n/P rm
ism om ro er
vi sig to
an c p
up De
S
Or
g De /Im &
i ng la /S y
atic ain n rve
Aq
u
aint egio Su
M R

Maintaining and Improving Roads and Monitoring and Oversight

As with planning, Region 6 was the only
Stormproofing region that allocated any real funds to monitor-
While we never envisioned LRT as a new way to fund maintenance,
ing during the first year of LRT. In 2009, Region
such allocations are certainly allowed as part of the program, especially
5 (California) joined Region 6 by dedicating a
for critical maintenance to protect human health and safety or threatened
small portion of funds to monitoring. And in
and endangered species. In addition, certain regions conducted a lot of
2010 we know that at least Region 1 (Northern
maintenance in the form of stormproofing. In such instances, the agency
Region) also began allocating funds to monitor-
tries to make the road “hydrologically benign” to reduce the likelihood of
ing, and perhaps others did as well. LRT pro-
severe failures that could damage drinking water supplies and fisheries.
vides an incredible opportunity for the agency
These two categories together accounted for ~38-39% of the funding during
to begin documenting comparative approaches
the two year period (again, skewed upward, by Region 5). In our opinion,
to terrestrial and aquatic responses to road
maintenance and improvements should constitute a lower proportion of
reclamation and culvert upgrades, but most
the total funding, though the stormproofing percentages (7-9%) seem ap-
regions have not dedicated funds to such work.
propriate.
In addition, we have been pressing the agency to
Our Evaluation: Average Effort begin monitoring the economic benefits of this
work as well – both in terms of jobs created and
ecosystem services protected or restored. With
Planning and Survey & Design just R6, or R5 and R6 together, the total monitor-
When the Legacy Roads and Trails program was created, most regions
ing funds allocated nationally is barely 1% of
in the Forest Service didn’t really expect it. As such, they largely per-
the overall effort. The oversight funds to the
ceived Legacy Roads and Trails funding as a windfall and used the funds
Regional or Supervisor’s offices in both years
to implement projects that had already undergone National Environmental
were very minimal, though we think they might
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, and that were basically “shovel-ready.” Region
have increased in 2010.
6 (Pacific Northwest) was the only region that dedicated significant 2008
funds to planning, though Survey and Design work for NEPA-ready projects Our Evaluation: Average Effort
was not an uncommon expenditure throughout the country. We saw a dra- (Outstanding Effort nationally on
matic shift in planning/S&D allocations in 2009, with the overall national
spending nearly doubling from four to seven percent. We expect that this oversight, and for R6 on monitoring)
increased again in 2010.
Our Evaluation: Outstanding Effort

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010 5

 — LRT Two-Year Evaluation, continued from page 5 —

Implementation and Accomplishments When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) was passed, Congress made it clear that those funds
In all three years, the agency has allocated funds quickly had to be spent within two years. The Forest Service received
and efficiently. This has enabled them to protect at least an additional $650 million in capital improvement and main-
some of their money from potential fire-borrowing (funds that tenance funds, with about $230 million going to road mainte-
are obligated are harder to move), and it has enabled them nance and decommissioning and approximately another $100
to leverage other agency or non-agency funds. Interestingly, million going to trails. Of the ARRA road funds, ~$25 million
however, the chart below shows how the funds were allocated was dedicated to decommissioning projects. Because ARRA
in FY08 and FY09, as compared to what their actual recorded projects had to take precedence, two things occurred. First,
accomplishments were in each of those years. more LRT funds were spent on planning in 2009 and in 2010
(though we don’t have final 2010 numbers yet). Second, some
As you can clearly see, there are some significant discrep- LRT projects were postponed to ensure that ARRA projects
ancies between what was projected and what was accom- could be completed within the allotted time frame, and within
plished, though we know that a portion of this is due to the the capacity of the agency. Based on conversations with
obligation of funds in one year and the implementation of the agency staff, it is our understanding that no as-yet-unspent
project in the next year. 2008 was also a significant fire year, LRT funds were reallocated to other programs, but we have
with some funds being transferred to fire and then reallo- not been able to formally confirm this assertion.
cated back to LRT in 2009. Finally, based on discussions with
numerous Forest Service recreation and engineering staff, All that said, we find it disturbing that the Forest Service
including budget staff, it appears that the most likely reason was basically able to fulfill most of its LRT projections on road
that the 2009 accomplishments don’t match the projected al- maintenance, while falling far short of expectations in the
locations is the additional distribution of stimulus funds. categories for which Legacy Roads and Trails funds would be
most effective in protecting drinking water and fish/wildlife
habitat: AOP/Bridges and Decommis-
sioning. The projected versus accom-
plished data on trail projects was abys-
2008  Na'onal  Legacy  Roads  Distribu'on   mal in 2009 especially, even though the
percent of LRT funds allocated to trails
increased significantly between that
year.
S & D/Planning Trails
Storm Proofing AOP
4% 12%
9% 22%
Monitoring
1% Bridges
7%
Regional/
Supervisor’s Maintain/Improve Decommissioning
office 30% 15%
0%

2009  Na'onal  Legacy  Roads  Distribu'on  

Trails AOP
16% 18%
Storm Proofing Bridges
7% 6%
Regional/Super- S & D/Planning
visor’s office 7%
Decommissioning
0% 14%
Monitoring Maintain/Improve
1% 31%

6 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010

 — LRT Two-Year Evaluation, continued from page 6 —

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

Action 2008 2009 ‘08-‘09 combined

accomplishments
Accomplished Projected Accomplished Projected
Miles of Roads 631* 1144 731* 1071 1362
Improved

Miles of Roads 1533* 1529 1862* 1560 3395

Maintained

Aquatic Organism 180** 581 145** 566 325

Passage

Roads 531* 868 929* 1326 1460

Decommissioned

Bridges repaired 15** 66 23** 100 38

or replaced

Miles of Trails 871* 1784 190* 1386 1061

Maintained/Improved

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 President’s Budget Justification: USDA Forest Service, activity and output/
outcome by appropriation and budget line Item, p. 26. Where RAR data and President’s Budget data conflicted, we used Presi-
dent’s Budget data.
* President’s 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.

Areas for Improvement

While this evaluation is only measuring implementation, it would be helpful
to measure effectiveness as well. To do so, the agency has to increase monitor-
ing and begin tracking the on-the-ground results and benefits/drawbacks of this
work (e.g. municipal water supplies protected or improved, miles of stream
habitat restored/reconnected). With such limited funds dedicated to monitor-
ing, it will be quite a while before anyone can report on the effectiveness of this
program at the field level.

The “Road 512 Crossing”

project on the Ouachita
National Forest, Arkansas,
opened 5 miles of stream
habitat to aquatic organisms.
Photos courtesy of Forest
Service.

The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010 7

 — LRT Two-Year Evaluation, continued from page 7 —

Wildlands CPR has the following recommendations for

improvement.
• Develop allocation recommendations at the regional level (e.g.
allocating certain percentages of the LRT funds to certain catego-
ries of work to ensure that funds are distributed in a way that fully
meets the intent of the LRT program). We recommend at least
60% of all funds 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 increase
in planning spending as well as the slight increase in monitoring.

• The Forest Service should adopt performance measures to docu-

ment how projects protect and restore community drinking water
supplies, endangered and threatened wildlife, and overall habitat
quality.

• All forests should be required to report on the ecological benefits

of this program (e.g. miles of stream habitat reconnected, acres of
watershed improved), and they should be able to clearly justify
how they developed these estimates. It is just this type of data
that would help build public support for the program.

• The agency should document economic benefits of this program,

including green job creation and ecosystem services benefits (e.g.
improving or protecting municipal water supplies). From our
estimate (14.5 jobs per $1 million spent), Legacy Roads and Trails
has maintained or created at least 2600 jobs nationally between In the “Park Ridge Decommissioning” project, two miles
of erosion-causing road was removed on the
2008-2010. Umatilla National Forest in Washington.
Photos courtesy of Forest Service.

National Distribution by Category 2008/2009 Comparison

$16,000
Dollar amounts in thousands of dollars

$14,000
2008 Totals
$12,000 2009 Totals

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

ag
e es ing ds rin
g
fic
e ing ng ail
s
ss idg ion oa ito Of nn ofi Tr
a Br s R n ’s la ro
P is ing Mo or /P mp
nis
m
omm rov rvis sign Stor
a c p e e
Or
g De g/I
m up D
tic in al/S e y&
a ain gio
n rv
Aq
u int Su
Ma Re

8 The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010

 — LRT Two-Year Evaluation, continued from page 8 —
• Region 5 (California) should be more
consistent in spending Legacy Roads
and Trails funds in the manner in
which they were intended. The overall
implementation of the Legacy Roads
and Trails fund would be far better on
average if California was on track and
not skewing the results in all categories.
• The Forest Service should compile an
annual summary of the Legacy Roads
and Trails successes. This report
should also detail any challenges expe-
rienced (e.g. failure to meet projections,
transfer of funds to fire, prioritiza-
tion of stimulus projects, shortage of
NEPA-ready projects/planning). Region
6 (Pacific Northwest) put together a
fantastic report about their first year of
LRT funding and their accomplishments
that could act as a model for a national
report.
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 restoring
the stream channel opened up 15 miles of habitat. Photos
courtesy of Forest Service.
The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2010
Conclusion
Our Overall Evaluation: Above Average
Based on the individual scores the Forest Service did an Above Aver-
age job during the first two years of LRT implementation, which is impres-
sive considering how fast this program came at them. When reviewing
individual projects to categorize them into different areas of work, we were
extremely pleased to see some very creative, nonstandard maintenance
and improvement projects that were truly designed to combine access
needs with environmental concerns. For example, there were several proj-
ects where portions of roads were going to be moved out of wetlands or
other important habitat to restore those areas. We are also happy to see
increased attention to planning, especially to identify an ecologically and
fiscally sustainable minimum road system. While we know that spending
LRT funds on planning reduces on-the-ground projects in the short term,
over the long-term it will provide a blueprint for effective and efficient
future Legacy Roads and Trails spending.
While there are some kinks in the program that need to be ironed out
to ensure Legacy Roads and Trails reaches its full potential, most of the
agency 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 funding
appropriately.) This innovative program is challeng-
ing the agency to think about watershed restoration
and roads in a new way. Though we have concerns
about some of the early efforts, especially through
the emphasis on maintenance and stormproofing, the
agency is moving forward in the restoration direction
that Legacy Roads and Trails proposes and that the
Secretary of Agriculture envisions for the future.
9