road reclamation & remediation needs

8/3/2019 Road Reclamation & Remediation Needs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/road-reclamation-remediation-needs 1/19

Road Remediation & Reclamation Needs throughout the National Forest System

January 2008

PO Box 7516 ● Missoula, MT 59807 ● 406-543-9551 ● www.wildlandscpr.org



Road Remediation & Reclamation Needs throughout the National Forest System

January 2008

On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2008 into

law. That act contained a provision called the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Initiative

(LRRI) that provided $39.4 million to the Forest Service for road remediation and reclamation.

According to the conference committee report, LRRI funds are to be used “for urgently needed

road decommissioning, road and trail repair and maintenance, removal of certain fish passage

barriers, or for protection of community water sources….” Conference Report, Division F, p. 53.

The House bill and committee report contain additional guidance, which clearly state that

restoration should be focused in environmentally sensitive areas, on roads and trails damaged by

recent storms, and in areas where Forest Service roads are degrading fisheries and community

water sources. In addition, the language recommends prioritization based on project readiness.

This report provides a brief survey of examples of road reclamation and remediation needs that

meet these criteria from throughout the Forest Service (all but Regions 2 and 9 are represented in

this report). Regions 1, 5 and 6 have likely experienced the most significant storm impacts to

roads and watersheds in the country. Region 6 has experienced particularly intense storms for

two years in a row, causing more than $30 million in damage to Forest Service roads in 2006

alone. This funding should be prioritized to go to areas that have experienced severe storm

damage.

Nonetheless, while the funding provided in the LRRI is targeted to such areas, forest roads causesignificant impacts to fisheries and water quality in the absence of storms as well. This survey,

therefore, highlights both storm and non-storm road impacts to fisheries and watersheds around

the country. We are not specifically recommending that LRRI funding be used for the projects

included in the report, instead these examples are intended to represent a small sampling of the

opportunities that exist within most Forest Service regions.

In compiling this survey, we came across two consistent themes regarding long-term road

reclamation and remediation needs: personnel to undertake the analysis process, and funding to

implement the projects on the ground. As a result of this survey and in conjunction with work

done by the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative to address storm damage inWashington State, Wildlands CPR recommends the following approaches to implementing the

Legacy Roads Remediation Initiative:

• Prioritize watershed restoration in areas where limited investment can result in significant

returns. Identify priority basins and sub-basins with the best opportunities to attain water

2



quality objectives with limited investment and the treatment of relatively few road miles

(e.g. treat healthier watersheds first).

• Prioritize the majority of funding for actual road decommissioning efforts on the ground

rather than fixing roads that are likely to fail again in future storm/flood events.

• Upgrade culverts and fix barriers to fish passage on roads that provide critical access, and

therefore cannot be decommissioned.

• Provide dedicated Forest Service staff time to complete NEPA analyses for future road

reclamation and reclamation projects.

• Utilize Categorical Exclusions (CE) when conducting NEPA analyses for road

reclamation and remediation projects. While some projects will require Environmental

Analyses or Environmental Impact Statements, many projects can be implemented

efficiently and effectively using CE’s.

• Utilize some portion of the funding for monitoring project effectiveness over the short

and long-term. Monitoring should include the collection of pre-project baseline data and

post-project short- and long-term effectiveness. Forests should also consider monitoring

the economic benefits and impacts generated through watershed restoration activities.

• At the project level, use some portion of this funding to engage and inform the public

about watershed restoration and remediation needs, projects and opportunities (including

through the use of pre- and post-project field trips). The most successful watershed

restoration projects around the country are those that have strong community support

from the outset.

• Assess road reclamation and remediation needs and incorporate decisions articulating

these needs into the travel planning processes that are currently underway on many

forests.

The Legacy Roads Remediation Initiative is an excellent opportunity for the Forest Service to

address some of its most critical and recurring road needs. The recommendations above make

clear that there will be many competing demands for this limited funding. This funding is well-

timed to address critical concerns in light of the increasing frequency and intensity of severe

storms. There is a direct correlation between the number, status and condition of roads on theground and the level of damage caused when a severe flood event occurs. While there is no way

to prevent storms from happening, this funding can be used to begin to show how preventative

treatment can dramatically reduce the impact of severe storms on water quality and fish habitat.

While we certainly can’t fix all the roads tomorrow, the sooner we start the process, the better

our watersheds will handle future floods. The potential for sustained support for this work will

3



be higher if the current LRRI funding is effectively utilized on the ground. We recommend that

the Forest Service maintain open communication with interested parties regarding how this

funding is expended and its effectiveness in meeting stated objectives. We are pleased that

restoration funding has been provided for this emerging priority and look forward to supporting

these efforts in the coming years.

As an appendix to this survey, we also have separate information about other road removal needs

in Washington state (R6). In addition, we have attached a document from the Tongass Futures

Roundtable that describes some road reclamation in Region 10 on the Tongass National Forest.

As time permits, we will expand this survey to include examples from regions 2 & 9.

This brief survey of road reclamation and remediation needs was prepared by Wildlands CPR,

with assistance from Bark, California Wilderness Coalition, Forest Guardians, Gifford Pinchot

Task Force, Nez Perce Tribe, Southern Appalachian Forest Council, Swan View Coalition, and

The Wilderness Society.

For more information about this report, contact Bethanie Walder:

[email protected] (406) 543-9551.

4

mailto:[email protected]




Region 1: Flathead National Forest, Montana

The Flathead National Forest began a multi-year road removal program shortly after a court

decision in 1995 required that they reduce road densities in grizzly bear habitat. At this point in

time, the Forest is removing approximately 40 miles of roads per year to restore fish and wildlife

habitat. Amendment 19 (the amendment to the forest plan that articulates the roaddecommissioning program) requires that culverts be removed from live stream channels on all

roads reclaimed to restore wildlife security in order to also restore watershed integrity. Many

streams on the Flathead National Forest contain bulltrout, an ESA listed species.

The Flathead National Forest has experienced numerous road failures as a result of severe storms

and rain on snow events. These rain on snow events often happen early in the winter, and they

consistently cause road failures and watershed impacts. This further elevates the importance of

treating the roads for watershed impacts at the same time they are being treated to restore

terrestrial habitat.

The picture below is from Nokio Creek, which has failed and been repaired multiple times,

dumping sediment into streams. This illustrates the problem with repairing roads, rather than

reclaiming them, when they are not well-located on the landscape.

Road failure on Nokio Creek from 1999 storm event, Flathead National Forest. Photo courtesy Swan View

Coalition.

5



As of January 2007, the Flathead National Forest had completed the NEPA work for

decommissioning on 343 miles of roads. Road reclamation on the Flathead costs approximately

$7,000 per mile, depending on the number of culverts that need to be removed to restore streams

to their native streambeds. It would cost approximately $2.4 million to reclaim the 343 miles of

roads for which NEPA was complete as of one year ago. Funding this road removal could

provide dozens of jobs in the Flathead valley. While some of this decommissioning work was

accomplished in 2007, hundreds of miles of roads are at the project-ready stage, awaiting

funding.

The Flathead National Forest has fallen short of the accomplishments required by Amendment

19, due largely to a lack of funding for road reclamation. Failing to fund road reclamation jobs

not only puts wildlife, fish and watersheds at risk, it also jeopardizes logging jobs that cannot

move forward without the essential environmental mitigation provided by road reclamation.

Thanks to the Swan View Coalition for the information contained in this summary. For more

information, contact Keith Hammer: [email protected]

6






Regions 1 and 4: Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests, Idaho

In 1996, the Clearwater National Forest, the Nez Perce National Forest, and the Nez Perce Tribe

entered into an innovative watershed restoration partnership. The impetus for the partnership

was response to severe habitat damage on both the Clearwater and Nez Perce Nat Forest as

a result of a rain-on-snow event which triggered massive landslides across the forest. Thelandslides delivered hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sediment into streams providing

habitat to both ESA listed resident and anadromous fisheries. Now in its 10th year, the

restoration program has many accomplishments. Together they have raised and spent over $15

million ($12.3 million Nez Perce Tribe and the remainder from USFS appropriations and

grants). They have stabilized over 700 miles of failing roads through road removal, replaced ove

40 culverts to reconnect tributary habitat and reduce flood damage, and are starting weed

treatment, trail restoration, and road improvement.

Photo of an undersized culvert on the Clearwater National Forest. Photo courtesy of Nez Perce Tribe.

The Clearwater National Forest has developed an excellent public information program in

conjunction with their road decommissioning program, resulting in cautious support for this

program from local community members.

The Nez Perce Tribe receives about 70% of their funding through Bonneville Power

Administration (BPA) competitive Fish and Wildlife Funds and about 30% comes from other

funding entities. During BPA's last solicitation for proposals the Nez Perce Tribe secured 3.1

million for watershed restoration on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests during the

next three years. However, in spite of a strong funding outlook, the program and partnership on

the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests is severely imperiled. BPA now requires a 30%

7



match for all funds awarded for projects on federal lands. At current funding levels, the Nez

Perce and Clearwater National Forests do not have this match, which means the Nez Perce Tribe

will be unable to expend all the funds. In addition, the lack of watershed personnel on both

forests to plan and analyze projects is the biggest barrier to implementation. The funding

allocated through the LRRI could help provide some matching funds to continue this excellent

watershed restoration program.

Before and after photos from

Doe Creek on the

Clearwater National Forest.

The second photo was taken

three years after

recontouring. Photos

courtesy Clearwater

National Forest.

Thanks to the Nez Perce Tribe for this summary. For more information, contact Ira Jones:

[email protected]

8





Region 3: Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico

Santa Fe National Forest: The Santa Fe National Forest has the highest road density of any

forest in the Southwest Region. The Santa Fe National Forest road density exceeds the

recommended density set by the Department of Interior of 1.5 km/km2 (2.5 mi/mi2) for properly

functioning watersheds. The Coyote Ranger District has road densities as high as 4 mi/mi2

ornearly twice the standard for some management areas in the Land and Resource Management

Plan.

The forest has completed NEPA for more than 300 miles of road closure and decommissioning

on one district alone and is in the process of more NEPA for road closure and decommissioning.

This is important for restoring habitat for the native and ESA candidate Rio Grande Cutthroat

trout as well as other watershed issues.

Numerous listed or candidate fish species in the Southwest would benefit from road remediation

and decommissioning. While these are not commercial fisheries, they do have recreational andbiological values that have been recognized by the respective state departments of game and fish,

particularly the Rio Grande and Gila cutthroat trout species. The Rio Grande cutthroat trout is the

New Mexico state fish and is seriously imperiled. Forest Guardians' $360,000 grant to close and

decommission roads in the Jemez Mountains is part of a larger effort to restore this imperiled

fish species' habitat and the recreational fishery.

Photo of a road constructed for the La Jolla thinning project on the Santa Fe NF. Photo courtesy of Forest

Guardians.

Thanks to Forest Guardians for the information contained in this summary. For more

information, contact Bryan Bird at Forest Guardians: [email protected]

9






Region 4: Boise National Forest, Idaho

The Boise National Forest has prioritized several road decommissioning and culvert upgradeprojects that are outlined in the Wapiti Blue Stewardship Environmental Analysis. NEPAanalysis is completed for these projects and they are ready to be implemented. Wapiti Creek

provides habitat for ESA-listed bull trout.

The Wapiti Blue project calls for the decommissioning of 12 miles of roads, at a projected costof $5,000 per mile. District staff expect that they can implement half of the roaddecommissioning project this year – for a cost of approximately $30,000. The roaddecommissioning would occur on a combination of system and non-system roads.

The agency also wants to replace a double culvert in Wapiti Creek. This culvert is acting as abarrier to fish passage for bull trout, an ESA-listed species. The agency has some money for thisproject, but not enough to implement it at this point in time. A small investment here can lead tosignificant work on the ground.

Double culvert on Wapiti Creek, proposed to be replaced with a large box culvert with a native streambed. The

culvert would be designed to the bankfull width. Photo courtesy Boise National Forest (Wapiti Creek EA).

This summary was developed from the Wapiti Creek EA and from information provided by The

Wilderness Society.

10



Region 5: Six Rivers National Forest, CA

The Six Rivers National Forest, located in northern California, contains more than 3000 miles of roads, many of which are degraded and in need of repair. In 2007, the Orleans District of the SixRivers completed an analysis of their roads system, “The Orleans Transportation and Road

Restoration Project” to determine how to manage the 660 miles of roads on the district. Thisproject is designed to help improve water quality in the Klamath watershed.

That environmental assessment is complete, and calls for the decommissioning of 203 miles of road, or approximately 1/3 of the Orleans District’s system, over the next 15 years. In addition,they will improve the maintenance and condition of 457 miles of roads, while convertingapproximately 6 miles to nonmotorized trails.

This project is occurring within habitat for threatened Coho salmon species and Forest Servicelisted sensitive steelhead trout and spring Chinook salmon. It will help protect and restorehabitat by reducing sedimentation of tributaries and direct fish-bearing streams. The streams

within the project area provide important water quality refugia for anadramous fish. Theassessment for the project estimates the following benefits to water quality and fisheries as aresult of the overall proposal:

• 397 stream crossings will be removed

• 145,114 cubic yards of fill will be removed

• Millions of cubic yards of sediment may be prevented from entering streams from streamcrossing erosion. (The no-action alternative estimates that between 300,000 and30,000,000 cubic yards of sediment are at risk of being deposited in streams; with thework proposed, that number is reduced to 245,900 cubic yards still at risk.)

The Six Rivers experiences significant impacts from periodic severe storm events. In this area,roads are the primary source of sediment inputs to rivers and streams. A January 2006 storm, forexample, triggered culvert failures, stream diversions and mass wasting. The OrleansEnvironmental Assessment assumed at least one significant storm event that would triggerlandslides within the next 15 years.

In January, the Forest Service announced a partnership with the Karuk Tribe to beginimplementing this project. The Forest Service received a grant from the California Departmentof Fish and Game for $393,000 to decommission 13 miles of roads in the Bluff Creek watershed,as identified in the Orleans assessment. The Karuk Tribe is contributing 30% of the cost of project, including assistance with designing and implementing the road decommissioning

projects. Funding from the LRRI could help move forward additional road removal needs asidentified in the Orleans Transportation and Road Restoration Project.

This summary was developed directly from the Orleans Transportation and Road Restoration

Project Environmental Analysis and from a press release posted by the Orleans District

regarding the receipt of a grant from California Department of Fish and Game. California

Wilderness Coalition informed us of the project.

11



thin about 1,500 acres of 50-year-old clear-cuts while removing about 20 miles of roads thatcurrently impact the native terrestrial and aquatic species mentioned above. Interest groups fromhunters and loggers to conservationists are supporting this road removal program.

Not only is there broad support on the ground for an aggressive road removal program, there is a

compelling and growing need for this work. Early in 2006, the Gifford Pinchot National Foresthad a $40 million road maintenance backlog. This backlog has already caused severe problemsfor threatened and endangered fish populations, and the GPNF recently signed an MOU withWashington State that demonstrated the GPNF’s intent to come into compliance with the CleanWater Act. Then, in November 2006, massive rainstorms and flooding hit the Gifford Pinchot,and the forest sustained another $17 million in damage to its roads, trails and campgrounds.

The November 2006 storms buried this entire section of the 8123 road in debris. The road provides the major access

to the west side of Mt. St. Helens. Photo courtesy Gifford Pinchot Task Force.

The limiting factor that has left the GPNF unable to adequately address the growing impact of its

decaying road system is a lack of funding. Though the GPNF has been able to cobble togetheroutside funding from the local Resource Advisory Committees (RACs) and outside partners likethe Gifford Pinchot Task Force, these funds are limited and not adequate to the massive problemat hand. The GPNF needs stable, increased funding to implement its plan to remove unneededroads and adequately maintain those that enable visitors to enjoy the hunting, fishing, camping,and hiking opportunities that exist around the volcano and elsewhere in the National Forest.

Thanks to the Gifford Pinchot Task Force for this summary. For more information, contact

Emily Platt: [email protected]

13






Region 6: Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon

Road failure in December 2007 above the Collowash River, Mt. Hood National Forest. What is left of the road

appears in the lower portion of the picture, a large chunk failed directly into the river. Photo courtesy Bark.

The Clackamas River watershed is in the Willamette River basin, which is a tier-two priority forrestoration as listed in the 2002 document, “Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Service Basin-

scale Watershed Prioritization Process.” The Willamette and Clackamas Rivers are uniquebecause:

1) The Willamette Basin is ranked as the second highest at risk from road density in thePacific Northwest (next to Northern Oregon Coastal).

a. In Mt. Hood National Forest, the Clackamas District contains approximately half of the 3,450 roads in Mt. Hood National Forest.

b. The Clackamas River provides important salmon habitat and also suppliesdrinking water to surrounding municipalities, including the City of Portland.

2) Mt. Hood National Forest has laid the groundwork for a watershed road plan bycompleting a GIS-based Roads Analysis in 2003. Relatively small funding will catalyze

large results.a. Mt. Hood National Forest is currently going through a travel planning process to

designate routes for motorized travel. The current travel plan is focused on justcreating six new off-highway vehicle areas rather than looking at comprehensivemotorized travel and managing for the minimum road system necessary (aswritten in the 2005 Travel Planning Rule). In multiple conversations with theForest Supervisor, funding has been listed as the major impediment to a forest-wide travel plan for Mt. Hood.

14



b. The Clackamas Stewardship Partners (CSP) is a group of diverse stakeholdersdedicated to restoring ecological function of the Clackamas River Basin whilebenefiting local economies. Using stewardship contracting authorities the CSPprioritizes, identifies and designs restoration projects to recommend to theClackamas River District of the Mt. Hood National Forest. Despite the use of

funds generated through the stewardship contracts (~$2 million), the need faroutweighs current funding. More importantly, stewardship contract receiptscannot be spent on planning (including NEPA analysis), which is necessary fordetermining the implementation of projects.

i. The Partner’s successful collaboration with Mt. Hood National Forest hasreceived national attention and recently led to the receipt of the TwoChiefs Award. In addition, the orientation of the Partners and Mt. Hood tothe greater Portland-metropolitan area ensures that successfulimplementation of Legacy Roads funding will receive public attention.

3) With over four million visits annually, Mt. Hood is scrutinized by media and electedofficials for its role in supporting local tourism and economic development. The

Clackamas is one of the most heavily visited areas on the forest, and the PacificNorthwest, due to its proximity to the Portland-metropolitan area.

Mt. Hood National Forest (especially in the Clackamas District) has the ability to demonstratethat the Forest Service is proactively addressing road and travel problems in the PacificNorthwest. The current situation in Washington State can be avoided in Oregon. The Mt. HoodNational Forest travel plan provides the necessary framework to make this happen and set aregionally-significant example, but additional funding for NEPA planning work and on theground implementation (the Clackamas Stewardship Partners has implementation funding, butnot planning funding) is necessary to make this a reality.

Thanks to Bark for this summary. For more information contact Deb Wechselblatt: deb@bark-

out.org

15








Region 6: Wallowa Whitman National Forest, Oregon

Rill/gully erosion on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. Photo Courtesy Rick Christian, Nez Perce Tribe.

The Wallowa Whitman National Forest (WWNF) and Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) have completed an

assessment in the Joseph watershed that identified more than 110 miles of roads that should be

decommissioned to restore habitat for ESA-listed Snake River steelhead trout.

Several miles of roads within the watershed already have NEPA and cultural analyses completed,

but the bulk of the identified roads have not yet gone through the NEPA process. For the roadswhere NEPA is complete, the only thing currently lacking is the necessary funding for the

agency to be able to conduct the decommissioning work on the ground.

According to the Technical Recovery Team for the Snake River Steelhead Recovery Plan, the

Joseph Watershed provides over 30% of the entire population of Snake River Basin steelhead, so

road impacts in this watershed can cause significant damage to this fishery.

The WWNF and NPT have developed a list of roads on the Wallowa Valley, Eagle Cap and

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Districts that require immediate maintenance with

regard to sediment inputs into streams that provide habitat for ESA-listed bull trout, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. These are only roads that have a direct and potentially substantial

impact on fisheries. That list contains about 35 miles of road, as a conservative estimate.

There are also significant fish passage issues, as identified in the recently completed Fish

Passage Assessment: Wallowa County, OR (2007) (http://www.streamnet.org/online-

data/ids.cfm?id=122&keywords=nez%20and%20barrier). The assessment determined that of

546 total surveys conducted, 199 were fish passage barriers in Wallowa County (Grande Ronde

16

http://www.streamnet.org/online-data/ids.cfm?id=122&keywords=nez%20and%20barrier






and Imnaha Subbasins only). Of these 199 barrier sites, 81 were contained on Forest Service

land. The inventory and assessment was not done on 1st order streams (Strahler Stream Order).

Joseph Creek is the only area where a watershed assessment has been completed for road

decommissioning. An overlay of the fish passage barriers and Joseph Creek watershed

assessment finds that none of the barriers occur in roads that are slated for removal, so there isalso a need for culvert replacements within the Forest.

Sedimentation and fish passage are both significant issues, within the Joseph watershed, and on

the Wallowa Whitman National Forest as a whole. Funding from the LRRI could: help conduct

additional NEPA analyses on roads identified for decommissioning; help implement road

decommissioning on roads that have already undergone analysis; be used to perform recently

identified critical maintenance; and/or be used to restore fish passage through culvert

improvements.

Thanks to the Nez Perce Tribe for the information contained in this summary. For more

information, contact Richard Christian: [email protected]

17






Region 8: Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina

The 14,500 acre Fires Creek watershed has a high public value for clean water and rare aquatic

species and also has high environmental risk. Most of the watershed is designated as a North

Carolina State Natural Heritage Area because of the presence of several rare and Forest Service

Sensitive aquatic species including the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish, hellbender (a largesalamander), and the southern water shrew (a small mammal). The Forest Service has identified

streams in the area as a top priority for reintroduction of the native strain of brook trout.

The streams and tributaries of Fires Creek all run into the Hiwassee River, which provides

drinking water for the downstream community of Murphy, North Carolina, and possibly other

nearby communities. A large portion of the watershed is an inventoried roadless area, including

areas impacted by old abandoned, un-maintained roads. During the summers of 2006 and 2007,

Duke University student interns conducted extensive field work that documented numerous road

failures and sediment paths from roads into the streams.

This person is walking on sediment deposited below a road that has failed repeatedly in storms. With heavy

rainfall, the stream runs into the road causing severe from the road. The resulting sediment plume extends over a

significant area and reaches Fires Creek. Photo courtesy Southern Appalachian Forest Council.

The Forest Service has acknowledged the need to address these issues. However, so far a band-

aid approach has been applied, addressing a few maintenance issues on roads with the most

traffic without addressing closed and lesser used roads and not addressing the deeper road design

18



issues. Most of the road and stream issues in the watershed have been left to worsen and cause

ongoing problems. LRRI funding could be used conduct to decommissiong roads and restore

these watersheds, thus providing lasting solutions to some of the ongoing water quality problems

in the area.

The road drains into a sediment fence that is already beginning to fail. The fence is located on the edge of the creek

and is almost full. Photo courtesy Southern Appalachian Forest Council.

Thanks to the Southern Appalachian Forest Council for the information in this summary. For

more information contact Hugh Irwin: [email protected]

19




road reclamation & remediation needs

Documents