Model Road Removal Program: Summary Report

Introduction

Road removal as a means of restoring watersheds began in the early 1980s in northern California's Redwood National Park. Since then, road removal has become a more established component of forest restoration work on public lands; yet it remains contentious due to the public's fear of losing access to national forests. Instead of doing careful groundwork explaining the benefits of road removal to the public, many forests concentrate on implementing projects with minimal public contact or abandon the project altogether if the opposition is too strong. There are, however, many examples of successful road removal programs on national forest lands. Programs that invest time and energy in outreach activities initially experience less resistance when decommissioning projects become more ambitious. There will always be individuals and groups who oppose decommissioning, but addressing the fears and concerns of local residents may win some surprising allies.

This summary report looks at three national forests, with a focus on one key aspect of each forest’s road removal program. The forests include the Clearwater National Forest (CNF) in Idaho, the Lolo National Forest (LNF) in Montana, and the Siuslaw National Forest (SNF) in Oregon. Based on these case studies, the report develops a model that national forests can use to create or improve a road removal program.

Clearwater National Forest
Partnership. The strength of the CNF's road removal program lies in its partnership with the Nez Perce tribe. The Treaty of 1855, article 3, grants the tribe the right to hunt, fish, pasture livestock, and gather roots and berries over the 13.5 million acres of the treaty territory—which includes the CNF. The tribe views managing resources as part of their treaty rights (court decisions support their view). Restoring fisheries under this philosophy made joining forces with the Forest Service seem like a logical step (Jones interview 2003). Not all national forests have the option of working with a Native American tribe, but this framework for a partnership could work with local watershed groups, conservation groups, and local job programs. The underlying benefits include access to funding not accessible to the Forest Service as an agency, an expanded pool of skilled workers, and community benefits (such as employment) that help generate a positive local attitude toward road decommissioning.

The formal agreement between the CNF and the Nez Perce has changed names over the years, but remained the same in intent. Initially, the CNF and the tribe joined forces through a challenge cost-share agreement. The Forest Service now calls the agreements "participating agreements," although the language remains similar to the original cost-share agreement. The current participating agreement is in effect from 2001 through 2006, with the possibility of a five-year extension. The partners write new amendments annually for that year's projects (Connor interview 2003). The amendments specify who will provide money, labor, planning, equipment, administration, and other necessities, and in what amounts. The Forest Supervisor and the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee (NPTEC) Chair and Secretary all sign the participating agreement and amendments. (Jones interview 2003).

Documents and formal agreements are only a small part of how the partnership functions. The tribe and the Forest Service cooperate from the outset: they decide together which projects should be a priority, then determine a budget, including what proposals to write. If the tribe receives the funding, the two parties sit down again to write the participating agreement amendments. The tribe and the Forest Service agree on numbers for crews during planning and then each agency hires its own crew. Monitoring crews usually have one tribal and one Forest Service employee. The two agencies trade work crews and individuals back and forth to where they are needed in the field. "That's probably why it is so successful, because we're planning it, designing it, and doing the monitoring and all of that together, so every phase of the project is a true partnership" (Jones interview 2003). Both parties are dedicated to keeping the program going. Jim Caswell believes that the attitude and commitment of the individuals involved are part of what makes the program so successful. He sums up the forest's position by saying that if the CNF had to set up a list of programs to cut because of funding, the road decommissioning program would be the last to go (Caswell interview 2003).

Siuslaw National Forest -Oregon
Prioritizing. Historically, the SNF emphasized timber harvest. The federal listing of the spotted owl and marbled murrelet as threatened species and the subsequent 1994 Northwest Forest Plan radically changed the SNF's priorities: timber harvest dropped from over 300 million board feet per year to 25 million board feet. The SNF now emphasizes restoring riparian and terrestrial ecosystems (SNF RAP 2003). In 1993, the SNF held public workshops to develop criteria for the Key Forest Routes assessment. In 1994, the SNF published the Access and Travel Management Guide identifying 630 miles of "Key Roads" necessary for public and agency access to forest lands, about one-third of the existing roads (SNF RAP 2003). Non-Key Roads are basically on a waiting list for decommissioning. Karen Bennett, the Watershed Program Manager, says the Key Road system makes planning much easier because the agency has already answered the question of which roads to maintain (interview 2003).

Since 1994, the SNF has "embarked on an aggressive program of stream and forest restoration with road management at the forefront." Much of the activity focused on installing deep waterbars on roads. This prevents erosion problems and makes the roads inaccessible to passenger cars (SNF RAP 2003). In this way, the SNF can "store" roads until it can decommission them. Almost all of the unpaved roads were stormproofed by 1996. When the SNF suffered major flooding that year, the stormproofing lessened the damage (Bennett interview 2003). The SNF removes an average of 20 miles of roads per year: in 2000, they took out 25 miles; in 2001, 11 miles; and in 2002 they removed 20 miles (2003 numbers weren't available at the time of this report) (Rider interview 2003; Bennett interview 2003).

Although the SNF began its decommissioning program with a series of public forums that shaped the Key Roads criteria, it currently does not have an active outreach program (Bennett interview 2003). It does, however, offer some information on-line. The Roads Analysis report is available on the SNF's Web site, along with descriptions of a few restoration projects (one of which includes some road decommissioning) (SNF Web site 2003). Even more information will be on-line in a few years: the SNF is working on a Natural Resource Information (NRIS) database that will allow it to share detailed information with the public and other forests about decommissioning projects.

Lolo National Forest
Outreach. When a Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion called for road decommissioning and closures for grizzly bear habitat in the Seeley Lake area, some Forest Service members began bracing for a long fight. The community, they felt, possessed the potential for a volatile reaction to removing roads—traditionally one of the mainstays of the economy is logging. Brian Riggers, a fisheries biologist who volunteered to lead the interdisciplinary team for the Clearwater Roads project near Seeley Lake, decided to try a different approach. Before the Forest Service wrote alternatives for the draft Environmental Impact Statement, they contacted the local community for ideas. The LNF mailed maps to residents, telling them about the need for road closures and requesting suggestions or concerns. The forest also met several times with the Driftriders (a snowmobile club), the Lake Inez Homeowners group, and a coalition of environmental groups. The District Ranger spoke about the subject during his customary visits to smaller groups every month or so. The LNF also published notices in local newspapers. Riggers says the public response was so positive that the forest feels comfortable simply doing an Environmental Assessment instead of a full Environmental Impact Statement. This method of soliciting public participation before the agency takes any official steps gives people a sense of ownership in the final project, which cuts opposition dramatically. Riggers says people seem genuinely thankful for the chance to offer suggestions earlier in the process. From the experience, he learned that there is often confusion about the exact meaning of “road closures,” and that public reaction depends on the Forest Service's approach. When he gave presentations, he discussed the LNF's road maintenance budget—currently the Nine Mile District has enough money to maintain 40 miles of roads per year, out of the roughly 1,000 miles in the District. He also talked about how the agency has to manage for wildlife as well as recreation. People seemed much more open to the idea of road closures when approached from these angles, rather than just being told which roads the Forest Service would close or remove (Riggers interview 2003).

The Model
Given the range of road removal programs described here, what are the qualities that work? What would an ideal program look like? There are three components that prove the most successful, with the first being essential. Although funding and planning are key, forests often overlook the importance of winning over local communities. Support from that sector can mean the difference between continuous, hampering resistance and welcome progress. The second component is carefully choosing, if possible, uncontroversial roads to remove at the beginning of a program to continue building community trust. The third component is creative funding, either through choosing categories within Forest Service funding, finding funding through other agencies, or establishing partnerships. The following flowchart shows the steps of the model:

Building trust with a community should begin as early as possible. The LNF is doing this with its work in Seeley Lake—before the groundwork starts, the Forest Service talks with people, explaining its motives and asking for public input. The CNF, FNF, and the Karuk take this a step further by bringing people out to witness work sites and to show why they are doing the work. Public education programs should include a list of benefits to valued local resources—clean water, restoring fisheries, benefits to wildlife (especially game species), and local employment. Watershed restoration appeals to a large segment of the population. Idaho Parks and Recreation did a survey in 2002 about priorities for land management. Out of over 1,000 responses, the highest priority was protecting water quality. Second was to keep present access; gaining more access did not even make the top ten list (Idaho Parks and Recreation 2002). Presenting road decommissioning as creating new opportunities for recreation instead of curbing them is an important message. This does not mean outreach has to include expensive brochures and signs, although they never hurt. The important thing is to talk to people, individually and to small local groups—especially key players in communities—to prevent misperceptions about what road removal entails. The CNF's presentations to the Rotary Club and field trips for local chamber of commerce members are examples.

Another way to establish a good relationship with communities is to hire locally. The CNF and Nez Perce have been hiring locally for over six years, and some of the contractors are their staunchest supporters. "It's become a huge responsibility, because people in the community have come to depend on it. I have a lot of pressure now starting about April from people that have worked for me, and operators, businesses—this is their bread and butter" (Lloyd interview 2003). For every mile of road removed, the CNF spends about $300 on supplies in local communities (Connor pers. comm. 2003). In addition, the decommissioning projects employ equipment operators and field crews. Jones says "It's small scale, but it's really an impact. And if we were to pull out, it would be a very negative impact" (Jones interview 2003). While road obliteration may not be a permanent option for the economy, the thousands of miles of roads eligible for decommissioning on many national forests will provide restoration work for many years.

The third important component for a road decommissioning program is funding sources. Road maintenance funds are usually the first place forests look for road decommissioning money. Unfortunately, these budgets are often not enough to cover routine maintenance; planners may have to choose between decommissioning and repairs. For example, the $30,000 road maintenance budget of the Orleans District on the SRNF is woefully meager. Depending on the focus of the program, other, more well-funded, portions of the SRNF's budget could be useful. If the goal of road decommissioning is to improve water quality, the SRNF can use watershed funds. If the goal is restoring fisheries or protecting endangered species habitat (such as for grizzly bears), projects can use wildlife funds. Some forests apply engineering funds.
The Forest Service may be eligible for emergency funds or grants outside the agency, depending on the focus of the project. The SRNF received several hundred thousand dollars from California Fish and Game because they are working on restoring salmon habitat. Emergency funds such as Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads can supply funding when there are road failures due to disaster, while the Burned Area Emergency Response fund can provide decommissioning dollars to remove potential road hazards resulting from fire.

Partnerships can be an effective way to move beyond internal funding. The examples in this report have both been Native American tribes, but there are other possibilities as well. Local non-profits, especially watershed groups or those concerned with fisheries, water quality, or wildlife habitat, may show interest. Even if the group itself is small, they can apply for large amounts of funding that are not open to the Forest Service as a federal agency. Other possibilities include state wildlife or environmental quality agencies, water boards, conservation districts, or job training programs.

Conclusion
The skeleton of a successful road removal program includes the following steps: public outreach, projects that take local needs into account, and creative funding sources both internal and external to the Forest Service, with partnership as a strong option. The first two components are especially important at the outset of the program, when the Forest Service is establishing the relationship between the program and surrounding communities. Public outreach, including clearly stated goals and methods of prioritizing projects, benefits to valued local resources, and the opportunity for the public to voice fears and concerns, should start as soon as possible, preferably before the groundwork starts. Prioritizing work sites should include not only the engineering and ecological aspects of the project, but also take into account local use and needs in the area. Funding is what underlies the whole program. By examining all the possible benefits of removing roads, forests can identify funding sources, both internally and externally. Partnerships are an option to consider. They not only help build community ties but they can multiply funding and other resources beyond what the forest itself can provide. While the proportions may differ between forests, these three basic components yield road removal programs that accomplish their goals with a minimum amount of friction.

© Wildlands CPR, March 2004
PO Box 7516, Missoula, MT 59807
406/543-9551
www.wildlandscpr.org

Bibliography

Karen Bennett, Watershed Program Manager, Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon. 2003, 2004.

Rob Carlin, NEPA Coordinator and FOIA Officer, Flathead National Forest, Montana. 2003.

Jim Caswell, former Forest Supervisor for Clearwater National Forest, Idaho. 2003.

Anne Connor, Watershed Restoration Engineer, Clearwater National Forest, Idaho.

Connor, Anne Hall. Personal communication by e-mail. 11/19/03.

Bill Heitler, District Ranger, Orleans Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest, California. 2003.

Idaho Parks and Recreation. 2002 Outdoor Recreation Survey. www.idahoparks.org/ survey. 2002.

Ira Jones, Nez Perce Watershed Coordinator for the Clearwater River, Idaho. 2003.

Rebecca Lloyd, Nez Perce Program Coordinator for the Lower Clearwater River, Idaho. 2003.

Marci Rider, Assistant Forest Engineer, Siuslaw National Forest, Oregon. 2003.

Brian Riggers, [need title] Lolo National Forest, Montana, 2003.

Siuslaw National Forest. Road Analysis Report.. www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw/projects/ forestplanning/roadanalysis/index.shtml. 2003.

Siuslaw National Forest Web site. www.fs.fed.us/r6/siuslaw. 2003.

Stauffer, Renee. "Steinacher: Reclaiming a Road and a Culture," The Road RIPorter, Winter 2002: 3-5. (Newsletter of Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads).

Leroy Syrus, District Supervisor for Watersheds and Fisheries, Orleans Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest, California. 2003. [As of 4/15/03, he is no longer with the Forest Service serving in this position]

Teresa Wenum, Conservation Education Specialist, Flathead National Forest, Montana. 2003.