Can the Forest Service “Rightsize” the National Forest Road System?

Note: This article is best viewed in the original with the associated charts and graphs - this is accessible if you download the full issue of the Road RIPorter v.14:1. 

 

In the midst of this economic downturn, the term “rightsizing” is often considered a euphemism for layoffs and downsizing. Reflecting on all the layoffs as a result of our current recession, I got to thinking about much needed reductions in the bloated Forest Service road system as an opportunity for “rightsizing.”

In recent conversations, meetings, and some publications, the Forest Service has hinted at the possibility of rightsizing the road system as well.  But as I reflect on the past eight years and review more recent documents and conversations, I’m increasingly concerned that their idea of rightsizing is fatally flawed. 

The Forest Service (FS) was given an optimal tool for rightsizing their road system in 2001, when the outgoing Clinton administration (after years of study) adopted the long-term transportation policy. It called for the agency to determine a “minimum road system” necessary to meet the needs of forest users and resource managers.  And while it offered great potential, the rule was eclipsed by its contemporary, the roadless rule. 

Unfortunately, in applying the roads policy, the FS Washington office decided to limit analysis of its road system to only those roads suitable for passenger vehicles; the agency turned a blind eye to roads that were closed or roads open to high clearance vehicles.  As a result, most forests decided they needed all of their “roads.”

Years passed, funding for road decommissioning ebbed and flowed, and only a handful of forests (or districts) took the time to analyze and identify a minimum road system.  Outside of those few forests it became clear that there was little motivation to begin systematically dismantling the world’s largest road system.  Meanwhile, the road maintenance backlog grew exponentially, and many passenger vehicle roads crossed over maintenance “tipping points” and were reclassified as high clearance roads.

In October 2007 Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey provided a written response to several Senators who had inquired about Forest Service road management.  He explained that the agency would reduce roads open to the public because of funding constraints: “We will make forest-by-forest annual road maintenance decisions in a manner that reduces availability of roads to public traffic and also reduces the standards of the roads that are made so available, to miles of road and levels of road service that are sustainable at current budget levels.”

At around the same time, the agency was completing some national road assessments, apparently for the Office of Management and Budget and for the Office of the Inspector General.  One of their draft reports, “Rightsizing the Forest Service Road System,” made it into the final Environmental Impact Statement on Idaho roadless areas in 2008.  Apparently a final copy was never released (at least not one that we can access), but the charts and information contained in the report are rather alarming.  

The report’s bottom line: The FS road system is too big, the bulk of the maintenance backlog is on passenger vehicle roads, and by downgrading these to lower capacity roads, the agency can reduce the backlog.  The report assumes the road system will stay the same size over time; it does not recommend decommissioning any roads.  This is particularly hard to understand, since the agency is engaging in road decommissioning, albeit at a small level, all over the U.S.  Instead, to work within their budget they recommend closing up to 80% of the roads now open to passenger vehicles.  Taken from the report, these charts (see figure at left) show funding scenarios and how those might play out on the ground. 

How can the agency refer to this as “rightsizing” the road system?  Just for argument’s sake, let’s pretend that the FS was rightsizing like an auto manufacturer might.  The workforce could represent different types of roads as defined by Maintenance Level (ML): managers representing roads open to the public (ML 3-5); factory workers representing high-clearance vehicle (ML 2) roads; and janitorial staff representing closed (ML 1) roads. If the company did as the FS is doing, they wouldn’t lay anyone off, but would instead downgrade them to jobs with fewer benefits.  They might cut management positions by 80% and move these managers into the factory and janitorial staff.  While this might cut their overall costs, it probably wouldn’t help them be successful, in fact, it would probably do the opposite.

In 2006, according to the FS’s annual Road Accomplishment Reports, they were only able to maintain 36% of their roads to standard.  If they reclassify 50,000 miles of passenger vehicle roads to high clearance roads, they could then claim, without any increase in funding, that they are maintaining the bulk of their roads to standard.  But they won’t have changed anything on the ground, nor secured any new funding.  The road system is an ecological nightmare that gets worse every day as maintenance is delayed again and again because of a lack of funding. 

The Forest Service doesn’t really seem to have a plan for rightsizing their road system.  Instead they appear focused on keeping the system the same size, but reclassifying some roads to reduce maintenance requirements and hence, theoretically saving money.  Though this might be a reasonable solution on paper, it could be disastrous ecologically.  Here’s a sample of the potential fallout:

• Increased erosion and sedimentation
• Increased likelihood of blocked fish passage from unmaintained or under-maintained culverts
• Increased risk of mass wasting related to catastrophic culvert failures or other road blowouts
• No reductions in habitat fragmentation
• Increased spread of weeds and other invasive species
• Increased threat of off-road vehicle trespass from ML 2 roads

Rightsizing the road system by removing roads on-the-ground, as well as on paper, will provide real and lasting benefits to wildlife, water resources, American taxpayers and local workers.  Eight years ago, when the FS adopted that long-term transportation policy, the agency determined that a minimum road system would have 25-40% fewer roads than the current system.  But somewhere along the line the agency forgot all about that, and many line officers decided they just had to keep every single existing road in their system.  So here we are, nearly a decade later, with a growing budget deficit and a growing ecological crisis.  The agency’s draft proposal for “rightsizing” might solve the immediate budget problem, but it will result in even greater long-term costs from the road failures and ecological damage that will be inevitable as maintenance is ignored.  Perhaps that’s why the draft Rightsizing the Road System report never made it into final form?

With hefty stimulus funding barreling their way, the Forest Service has an opportunity to invest wisely in three key benefits (ecological improvement, green-job creation, and long-term future taxpayer savings).  Or, they may choose to spend these funds to upgrade roads that are no longer needed, creating jobs now but increasing long-term ecological and fiscal costs.  We’re pressing hard for the agency to stop shuffling papers and hiding the maintenance problem, and to get busy truly rightsizing our road system.

Moore, T. 2007. [unpublished draft]. National Forest System Road Trends, Trends Analysis Submitted to Office of Management and Budget. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Engineering Staff,Washington Office, Washington, DC.