Restoring Watersheds through Stimulus Funding
We’ve been working round-the-clock since mid-November to promote the Legacy Roads program, build public support for it, and ensure that it was included in any final stimulus package. Some days we thought we had a great chance at success, and other days seemed rather grim. In the end, we landed somewhere in the middle.
We worked to successfully incorporate this concept into a Senate Oversight Hearing on green jobs related to stimulus. We increased support for the program, with several national environmental groups and national sportsmen groups including this in their overall transition/green jobs proposals to the new Administration. As a result of our advocacy, Congressman Inslee and Senator Cantwell both circulated “Dear Colleague” letters endorsing the Legacy Roads program as a smart way to bring green jobs to rural communities.
In addition, the original house bill included some report language that mentioned the Legacy Roads program by name as an example of a good program for stimulus dollars. Unfortunately, that language didn’t make it into the final house bill or the final conference bill. On the bright side, after much education, Congress did include the word “decommissioning” in the explicit list of how Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CIM) funds and Bureau of Land Management Construction funds could be spent.
The Forest Service CIM money can be used for nearly any type of road maintenance, in addition to other facilities maintenance and improvement, like fixing visitor centers. The aim of the bill is to create jobs, but it also directs that these funds be focused on improving natural resource conditions. With no clear direction, there’s the potential that the agency could invest a lot of money maintaining or even upgrading roads that really aren’t needed anymore.
Activists around the country are meeting with their Forest Supervisors and Regional Foresters to request that these funds be spent on urgently needed road decommissioning and watershed restoration, not on routine maintenance.
We know they’ll spend some of the money on good projects, but they’ll also spend some on projects we won’t like at all. While we should fight those bad projects aggressively, let’s also work to highlight and promote the good ones, and give the agencies a pat on the back where they deserve one. This can be a good second step for Legacy Roads, and if we can help the agency create green jobs while restoring watersheds, we can continue to advance our case for long-term, sustained funding for Legacy Roads.
What we proposed
We developed a $500 million proposal to fund the Legacy Roads program for 2 years, at $250 million per year. We sent that proposal to our partners in the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative for endorsements and then submitted it to the WA delegation a few days later. Over the next several weeks, more than 100 groups and retired agency staff, from all over the country, also endorsed the proposal. We then submitted it to key Congressional offices in the House and Senate.We worked to successfully incorporate this concept into a Senate Oversight Hearing on green jobs related to stimulus. We increased support for the program, with several national environmental groups and national sportsmen groups including this in their overall transition/green jobs proposals to the new Administration. As a result of our advocacy, Congressman Inslee and Senator Cantwell both circulated “Dear Colleague” letters endorsing the Legacy Roads program as a smart way to bring green jobs to rural communities.
In addition, the original house bill included some report language that mentioned the Legacy Roads program by name as an example of a good program for stimulus dollars. Unfortunately, that language didn’t make it into the final house bill or the final conference bill. On the bright side, after much education, Congress did include the word “decommissioning” in the explicit list of how Forest Service Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CIM) funds and Bureau of Land Management Construction funds could be spent.
What Congress adopted
The final American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Obama on February 17, included $650 million to the Forest Service for CIM, and $180 million to the BLM for construction (in addition to other funds those agencies received). The final Senate bill (prior to the conference committee that merged the House/Senate bills) recommended that $380 million of the CIM money go to roads and trails. The FS and BLM have 30 days to obligate the funds (which means it has probably happened as you read this). The Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and numerous other entities also received funds for restoration and maintenance/improvement.The Forest Service CIM money can be used for nearly any type of road maintenance, in addition to other facilities maintenance and improvement, like fixing visitor centers. The aim of the bill is to create jobs, but it also directs that these funds be focused on improving natural resource conditions. With no clear direction, there’s the potential that the agency could invest a lot of money maintaining or even upgrading roads that really aren’t needed anymore.
What’s next
Wildlands CPR put together an urgent letter to the acting Under Secretary of Agriculture the day after the bill was signed, again endorsed by the groups who supported the initial proposal, providing critical sideboards to the Forest Service about how to spend the roads/trails money. We explicitly requested that they spend it on Legacy Roads type projects that will provide green jobs in rural communities by decommissioning unneeded roads. We also requested that they use a portion of the funds to enhance future road decommissioning by identifying the minimum road system and prioritizing which roads should be reclaimed.Activists around the country are meeting with their Forest Supervisors and Regional Foresters to request that these funds be spent on urgently needed road decommissioning and watershed restoration, not on routine maintenance.
We know they’ll spend some of the money on good projects, but they’ll also spend some on projects we won’t like at all. While we should fight those bad projects aggressively, let’s also work to highlight and promote the good ones, and give the agencies a pat on the back where they deserve one. This can be a good second step for Legacy Roads, and if we can help the agency create green jobs while restoring watersheds, we can continue to advance our case for long-term, sustained funding for Legacy Roads.