PACIFIC NORTHWEST FEDERAL 

LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Long-Range Transportation Plan

April 2019

Photography by: USFS
Photography by: USFS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan C

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page I

1.0 INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 5

1.1 Plan Purpose - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 8

1.2 Audience and Outreach - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 9

1.3 Plan Structure - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 9

1.4 Background - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 10

1.5 Planning Scale and Scope - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 11

1.6 Affected Communities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 11

1.7 Goals and Objectives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 12

2.0 VALUE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 15

2.1 Landscape, Social, Cultural, and Historical Importance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 17

2.2 Place-Based Planning Context - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 18

2.3 Regional Multimodal Transportation System - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 20

3.0 CONDITIONS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 23

3.1 Place-Based Collaboration - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 24

3.2 Resource Protection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 34

3.3 Safety - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 40

3.4 Access and Connectivity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 46

3.5 Visitor Experience - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 51

3.6 Asset Management - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 54

4.0 TRENDS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 61

4.1 Regulatory Context - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 63

4.2 Visitation and Demographics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 64

4.3 Economic Impact of Federal Lands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 65

4.4 Natural Hazards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 66

5.0 FUNDING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 69

5.1 FHWA Role - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 71

5.2 Common Federal Lands Transportation Funding Programs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 72

5.3 Non-Federal Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 77

5.4 Agreements, in General - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 79

6.0 OUTREACH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 81

6.1 Outreach Strategy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 83

6.2 Stakeholder Roles & Responsibilities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 84

6.3 Stakeholder Engagement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 84

6.4 Feedback Mechanisms - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 86

6.5 Continuing Outreach Efforts - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 86

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 89

7.1 Place-Based Collaboration Goal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 92

7.2 Resource Protection Goal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 92

7.3 Safety Goal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 93

7.4 Access and Connectivity Goal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 93

7.5 Visitor Experience Goal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 94

7.6 Asset Management Goal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 95

APPENDICES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 97

Appendix A: Agency Profiles

Appendix B: Regulatory Technical Report Draft

Appendix C: CLRTP Visitation-Demographics Technical Report

Appendix D: Economic Impact of Federal Public Lands

Appendix E: Natural Hazards Technical Report

Appendix F: Project Team

Appendix G: Maps
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Pacific Northwest Annual Visitation to Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Figure 2. Pacific Northwest Public Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6

Figure 3. CLRTP Versus Agency Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

Figure 4. Pacific Northwest Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19

Figure 5. Sub-Regions of the Pacific Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 25

Figure 6. Special Area Designations in the Pacific Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 29

Figure 7. Programmed FLTP and FLAP Projects in the Pacific Northwest, 2013-2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31

Figure 8. Artist’s rendering of a wildlife overpass over I-90 at Snoqualmie Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35

Figure 9. Fencing was needed to prevent wildlife crossings on US 97 near Chelan, WA (WSDOT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35

Figure 10. Fish Passage in Oregon and Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 37

Figure 11. Cars parked along the shoulder of US 14 near Dog Mountain in the Columbia River Gorge, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 43

Figure 12. Road Access Point Example: Southwest Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 47

Figure 13. Trail Access Point Example: Central Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 47

Figure 14. Trail Density Example: Central Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 48

Figure 15. Pacific Northwest Transit Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 49

Figure 16. Road Ownership Overlap Example: Northwest Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 50

Figure 17. Pacific Northwest Road Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 55

Figure 18. Pacific Northwest FLMA Road Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 56
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Implementation Actions............................................................................. Page 3

Table 2. FLMA Land Use Plans and Their Transportation Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 26

Table 3. Special Area Designations for Federal Lands in the Pacific Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 27

Table 4. Economic Activities on Federal Lands in the Pacific Northwest by FLMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30

Table 5. Agency Tribal Liaison Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33

Table 6. FLMA Safety Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42

Table 7. Summary of Environmental Hazards in the Pacific Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 44

Table 8. Pacific Northwest FLMA Road Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 55

Table 9. Transit Systems Intersecting Pacific Northwest FLMA Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 57

Table 10. Pacific Northwest FLMA Structurally Deficient Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 57

Table 11. Federal Lands Transportation Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 72

Table 12. Historical and Anticipated FLAP Funding for Oregon and Washington, FY13-FY18,........................... Page 73

Table 13. Federal Lands Access Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 73

Table 14. Tribal Transportation Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 75

Table 15. Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside of the STBG Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20 . . Page 75

Table 16. Washington State Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 77

Table 17. Oregon State Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 78

Table 18. Communications Outlets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 83

Table 19. Partner Forums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 84

Table 20. Outreach Strategy by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 85
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Photography by: Bureau of Land Management
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan G

ACRONYMS

ACT Area Commissions on Transportation

AOC Association of Oregon Counties

AOP Aquatic Organism Passage

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CLRTP Collaborative Long-Range Transportation 

Plan

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

CRAB County Road Administrative Board

DOT Department of Transportation

ERFO Emergency Relief for Federally Owned 

Roads Program

FAHP Federal-Aid Highway Program

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLH Federal Lands Highway

FLMA Federal Lands Management Agency

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY Fiscal Year

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

I-5 Interstate 5

IFA Independent Federal Agencies

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

LRTP Long-Range Transportation Plan

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan

NBIS National Bridge Inspection Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSFHP Nationally Significant Freight and Highway 

Projects

NSFLTP Nationally Significant Federal Lands and 

Tribal Projects

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

ONA Outstanding Natural Area

PDC Programming Decision Committee

RTP Recreational Trails Program

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

STBG Surface Transportation Block Grant

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Program

TAP Transportation Alternatives Program

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TTP Tribal Transportation Program

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC U.S. Code

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VMT Vehicle miles traveled

WFLHD Western Federal Lands Highway Division

WSDOT Washington Department of Transportation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Photography by: Roy W. Lowe/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Photography by: USFS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 1

The Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency 

(FLMA) Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is the 

result of a collaborative multiagency planning effort to 

establish common long-range goals, conditions, and actions 

of mutual benefit concerning those transportation facilities 

and services associated with the Federal Land Management 

Agency units located in Washington and Oregon. The Plan 

represents the shared interests of the Washington and Oregon 

units of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National 

Park Service (NPS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS). Key partner agencies involved in the development 

of the Plan include the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH), Washington 

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington State 

County Road Administrative Board (CRAB), and Association 

of Oregon Counties (AOC). The Collaborative Long-Range 

Transportation Plan (CLRTP) is consistent with statewide, 

multimodal long-range transportation plans developed by the 

Washington and Oregon departments of transportation.

Federal public lands have significant and diverse contributions 

to the economies of Washington and Oregon. Transportation 

plays an important role supporting these contributions. 

In 2012, more than 919 million visitors (62 million in the 

Pacific Northwest) traveled to Federal lands and waterways, 

spending a total of $44 billion and supporting 710,000 jobs 

(see Figure 1). Through direct visitor spending and resource 

development, billions of dollars are circulated through the 

economies surrounding public lands. Additional market 

benefits are felt with increased property values, greater 

job growth, and increased income in communities near 

Federal lands.

Figure 1. Pacific Northwest Annual Visitation to Federal Lands

Note: Graph represents visitation in fiscal year 2012. USFS data are an average of annual visitation from 2008-2012. NPS data are calendar year 2013.

8,009,382

Visits

14,702,000

Visits

7,392,303

Visits

8,316,335

Visits

21,883,276

Visits

62 MILLION VISITORS

traveled to Federal lands and waterways in the Pacific Northwest
2 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

All aspects of this Plan have been structured around six longrange transportation goals that represent shared values among 

the participating Federal agencies. These goals are the basis 

for determining the existing conditions of agency owned and 

maintained transportation assets, have been the subject of 

trend and technical reports, form the backdrop for funding 

program discussions, and define the reason for this document’s 

implementation plan.

 Place-Based Collaboration—Plan and manage a 

transportation system that depends upon collaboration and 

mutually beneficial actions.

 Resource Protection—Plan and manage Federal lands 

transportation networks to emphasize stewardship of natural 

and cultural resources and promote ecological sustainability.

 Safety—Provide safe and appropriate multimodal 

transportation access for all users of Federal lands.

 Access and Connectivity—Provide a seamless, multimodal 

transportation system that supports community 

connectivity and access to public lands.

 Visitor Experience—Promote ease and enjoyment of travel 

to and within Federal lands.

 Asset Management—Provide a transportation system with 

cost-effective assets that meets agency objectives over time.

A common thread found across all baseline conditions 

assessments, regardless of goal category, relates to the landscape 

qualities that draw people to and within Federal lands in 

these two states, which often span jurisdictional boundaries. 

As a result, solutions to related transportation needs center 

on the unique qualities of these landscapes and destinations 

and involve multiagency approaches and coordination to 

holistically address identified needs. This Plan emphasizes 

place-based approaches to addressing the convergence of 

transportation and resource protection, safety, access and 

connectivity, visitor experience, and asset management. With 

the development of this Plan, the Pacific Northwest FLMAs 

seek to institutionalize interdisciplinary collaboration among 

themselves and with the associated State-level agencies to 

manage FLMA transportation systems in ways that preserve 

and promote distinctive senses of place.

Strategies for addressing transportation needs are tempered by 

the availability of Federal, State, and local funding programs. 

To this end, the Plan identifies a broad range of Federal and 

non-Federal funding programs that are available to FLMAs, 

and emphasizes the importance of partnering with other 

Federal, State, and local agencies to overcome the funding gaps 

anticipated in the near-term future.

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST IS 

HOME TO...

 44 million acres of public recreational 

land

 More than 150 Federal land units

 43 percent of land is Federally owned

 62 million Federal land visitors

 Nearly 111,000 miles of Federal land 

roads

 Nearly 27,000 miles of Federal land trails

 29 transit systems intersecting Federal 

lands

Transportation needs that, if properly addressed in a timely 

manner, will close gaps between present-day conditions 

and aspirational long-range goals have been determined 

by the collaborative multiagency planning process. Needs 

are addressed through actions devised during the Pacific 

Northwest CLRTP development process and are detailed 

in Chapter 7.0, Implementation Plan. By committing to the 

actions documented in the Implementation Plan section of the 

CLRTP (and summarized in Table 1), the Pacific Northwest 

FLMAs will be able to begin to close gaps between existing 

transportation system conditions and their long-range 

transportation goals.

Each FLMA is experiencing decreases in the availability of 

transportation funds, while needs for routine maintenance 

and new projects remain constant or are increasing. Lack 

of funding contributes to increasing levels of deferred 

maintenance. Assets degrade over time and as maintenance 

continues to be deferred, the magnitude of the costs required 

to bring assets back to proper condition (i.e., to a “state of good 

repair”) will only continue to grow.

FLMAs face challenges in how transportation funds are 

allocated. If yearly operation and management costs exceed 

available funds, agencies must choose which assets receive 

funding and to what level they are to be maintained. New 

projects are impacted by lower funding levels and increasing 

funding competition from the demands of deferred 

maintenance to ensure that existing assets can continue to 
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 3

be operated safely. There is a growing need to show that new 

projects are critical to the mission of each FLMA. Establishing 

frameworks for identifying the critical projects and making the 

very best use of available funds is one of the primary purposes 

of this Plan and accompanying agency profiles. The project 

selection processes, performance measures, actions, and 

recommendations ensure that transportation funds continue 

to support those efforts that are most effective in furthering 

FLMA missions.

Table 1. Summary of Implementation Actions

Place-Based Collaboration

Enhance multiagency collaboration by:

• Identifying forums for interagency transportation planning

• Sharing agency points of contact

• Developing new or updating existing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) as 

appropriate

• Integrating CLRTP goals into Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) project selection criteria

Resource Protection

• Assess vulnerabilities of transportation infrastructure to environmental hazards and share best practices to increase 

transportation system resiliency.

• Conduct research to assess and reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.

Safety

Organize a multiagency working group to address safety issues that require collaboration, including:

• Safety data collection, sharing, and analysis

• FLMA participation in States’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

procedures

• Assessing and reducing vehicle-wildlife collisions

• Disseminating safety-related traveler information

• Supporting emergency response

Access and Connectivity

• Identify and pursue opportunities to leverage multiple funding sources for a seamless transportation network.

• Integrate CLRTP goals into FLAP project selection criteria.

Visitor Experience

• Review/update FLMA visitor experience plans to include transportation.

• Enhance visitor information, whether through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), signage, wayfinding, agency 

and partner websites, or third-party applications.

• Provide publicly accessible data on multimodal transportation options to access Federal lands, including transit 

schedules and routes.

• Conduct outreach to underserved communities, such as carless households or persons with disabilities, to help them 

access Federal lands.

Asset Management

• Identify asset-level needs that cross agency boundaries and partnership opportunities to protect those assets.

• Assess vulnerabilities of transportation infrastructure to environmental hazards and share best practices to increase 

transportation system resiliency.

• Monitor Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program (ERFO) events to understand asset vulnerability, and 

coordinate with partners on emergency response.

Photography by: Kevin Abel, BLM Oregon

1.0 INTRODUCTION
6 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 2. Pacific Northwest Public Lands

Colville 

Tribes

Yakima 

Nation

Umatilla 

Tribes

Warm 

Springs 

Tribes

Grand 

Ronde 

Tribes

Fort 

McDermitt

Quinault 

Nation

Makah 

Tribe

Tulalip 

Tribes

Seattle

Everett

Olympia

Bend

Ci

Portland

Salem

Vancouver

Yakima

Eugene

Spokane

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Property Status

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government

MPO Boundary

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers Site
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 7

The Pacific Northwest, defined as comprising the states of 

Oregon and Washington for the purposes of this Plan (see 

Figure 2), is unique in many ways, but among them is the 

diversity of Federal public lands within close proximity to 

the 11 million inhabitants. These two states alone welcome 

more than 114 million visitors each year, with an estimated 

62 million recreation visitors traveling to Federal land facilities 

or units.1 Federal lands, in concert with those owned and 

managed by State and local government agencies, provide 

countless recreation opportunities to the region and also serve 

as a key economic driver to gateway communities located 

nearby. Transportation infrastructure provides the connections 

between Federal lands and both local residents and visitors.

This Collaborative Long-Range Transportation Plan, or CLRTP, 

for the Pacific Northwest brought together the many Federal 

Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) with jurisdiction 

over the Federal public lands in the region, as well as dozens 

of additional stakeholders at the State and local levels who 

both provided input on, and stand to benefit from, the 

recommendations of the Plan. The result is a strategic-level 

plan that will inform and help guide FLMAs in planning and 

managing their transportation systems over the next 20 years 

and beyond.

Together, the five primary FLMAs manage more than 150 units 

covering more than 44 million acres of public recreational 

land and nearly 237,000 miles of public roads in the Pacific 

Northwest.2 With a total of about 43 percent of all land in the 

Pacific Northwest being in Federal ownership, visitation and 

recreation on these lands has a major impact on transportation, 

the economy, and quality of life in this region. On these Federal 

lands are nearly 111,000 miles of roadway, nearly 27,000 miles 

of multiuse trails, and 29 transit systems.

1 This estimate includes recreational and non-recreation travel, overnight trips to Oregon and Washington, and day trips to Oregon. Day trips to 

Washington were not available. 2 FHWA. 2017. Highway Statistics. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm.

THE FLMAs AND THEIR 

PARTNERS WHO CONTRIBUTED 

TO THIS CLRTP:

FLMAs:

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

National Park Service (NPS)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Partners:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of 

Federal Lands Highway (FLH)

Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT)

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)

Washington State County Road Administrative 

Board (CRAB)

Association of Oregon Counties (AOC)
8 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

1.1 PLAN PURPOSE

3 Transportation planning under 23 USC 134 and 135 are NEPA FHWA categorical exclusions per 23 §771.117.

Each Pacific Northwest FLMA has its own defined mission, as 

stated in its specific enabling legislation. These missions guide 

all aspects of these agencies, including how they manage their 

transportation networks. The purpose of the CLRTP in the 

Pacific Northwest is to coalesce around the many shared goals 

of these agencies, which are reflective of individual FLMA 

missions. The defined mission of each agency is summarized as 

follows:

BLM Mission—To sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of America’s public lands for the use and 

enjoyment of present and future generations.

FWS Mission—The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.

NPS Mission—The National Park Service preserves 

unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values 

of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, 

and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park 

Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of 

natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor 

recreation throughout this country and the world.

USACE Civil Works Mission—Dedicated to providing 

quality, responsive service to the nation in peace and war. 

The Directorate of Civil Works is a major component 

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Civil Works 

programs include water resource development activities 

including flood risk management, navigation, recreation, 

and infrastructure and environmental stewardship. Our 

mission also includes emergency response.

USFS Mission—The mission of the USDA Forest Service 

is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of 

the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations.

The CLRTP in Oregon and Washington:

 Defines the transportation network.

 Identifies needs for the transportation network.

 Defines consistent transportation performance measures 

and targets.

 Develops a process that identifies each agency’s larger 

planning needs and supports their local-level transportation 

planning processes.

 Creates interagency working groups to continue 

collaborating on transportation planning after the CLRTP 

process.

 Establishes implementation actions to achieve long-range 

transportation goals.

The CLRTP does not include specific project selection or 

management decisions, but instead provides high-level analysis 

and guidance to inform local, implementation-level plans and 

decisions. As such, this CLRTP provides pre-decisional analysis 

that FLMA staff and partners can use as a resource and it 

does not require a National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 

(NEPA) process.3

Photography by: Roy W. Lowe/FWS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 9

1.2 AUDIENCE AND OUTREACH

The primary audience for this CLRTP are the FLMAs who 

will benefit from having its contents available to inform their 

individual agency planning processes. Additionally, the Plan 

also will benefit and have implications for partner agencies and 

for the millions of visitors to these Federal lands. The FLMAs 

and their partners each have conducted outreach activities 

throughout the development of the Plan. The following are just 

a small representative sample of the various public forums at 

which the CLRTP has been presented and information about 

the Plan has been shared:

 WSDOT 2014 Tribal State Transportation Conference

 USFS Regional Engineering Leadership Meeting, 2015

 ODOT Fall Forum 2015

 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 2015 and 

2016

1.3 PLAN STRUCTURE

The CLRTP consists of a multiagency long-range 

transportation plan (LRTP) and agency-specific profiles. The 

CLRTP focuses on issues common to all agencies in the region. 

The Plan allows the participating Federal agencies to identify 

areas of common interest and concern. Some Federal agencies 

participating in the CLRTP also developed agency-specific 

profiles, which build upon the general principles established in 

the CLRTP but add context specific to the unique mission of 

that agency. The coordination necessary to make the CLRTP 

both possible and successful is achieved through:

 Documenting common goals and objectives

 Setting priorities for implementing projects

 Facilitating objective decision-making processes

 Identifying areas of need

 Developing common actions that benefit each FLMA in 

furthering the common goals and objectives of this CLRTP

The key components of the CLRTP versus the respective 

agency profiles are shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. CLRTP Versus Agency Profiles

CLRTP Agency Profiles

 Establish common FLMA transportation goals and 

objective applicable to all agencies.

 Document the unique role of multimodal travel to and 

within FLMAs, and within the Pacific Northwest as a 

whole.

 Identify common FLMA transportation funding sources.

 Document the role of outreach in the CLRTP

 Document joint FLMA actions and long-range 

transportation performance measures.

 Establish agency-specific regional transportation goals, 

objectives, and strategies.

 Document the role of the LRTP in decision-making 

processes and its significance to other plans.

 Identify needs, gaps, or opportunities. 

 Identify agency-specific transportation funding sources 

and trends.

 Make recommendations for future actions.
10 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

1.4 BACKGROUND

Title 23 United States Code (USC)—Highways, and Title 49 

USC, Chapter 53—Public Transportation, include most of the 

laws that govern transportation planning for the Federal-Aid 

Highway Program (FAHP), and the Public Transportation 

Program, respectively. The provisions under each Title establish 

similar requirements for States and Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs) with regard to transportation planning.

Beginning with the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, and as further 

supported by the enactment of the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act) in December 2015, FLMAs are 

required to develop and implement transportation planning 

processes and procedures that generally are consistent with 

the currently adopted metropolitan and statewide planning 

processes guidance (23 USC §134 and §135). This requires 

that FLMAs have regional, statewide, or unit-level LRTPs that 

inform the inclusion of projects in Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Programs (STIPs). The STIP is a four-year, 

fiscally constrained list of Federal-aid projects maintained by 

States. FLMAs work with FHWA to integrate their projects into 

STIPs. MAP-21 and the FAST Act also further emphasize the 

need for multiagency collaboration, breaking down stove-piped 

funding and establishing transportation system performance 

metrics.

MAP-21 established two new programs through which the 

majority of FHWA-directed transportation funds specifically 

dedicated to system improvements benefitting FLMA units are 

authorized:

1. The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) 

provides funding for transportation projects that facilitate 

mobility to and within the jurisdictional boundaries of 

units for the five core partners: USFS, BLM, USACE, 

FWS, and NPS. (The FAST Act included the Department 

of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on the list 

of eligible recipients for FLTP funding.)

2. The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) provides 

funding for transportation projects for those facilities 

or services that are owned or maintained by nonFLMA organizations (typically, State departments of 

transportation [DOTs] or local government agencies) 

that facilitate access to Federal lands in each state or 

territory.

MAP-21 and the FAST Act allow up to 5 percent of the 

total annual appropriations funding for the FLAP and 

FLTP programs to be set aside for strategic planning, 

bridge inspections, and data collection. One intention of 

the transportation planning set-aside is to facilitate the 

collaboration between multiple FLMAs, Tribes, State DOTs, 

and other local transportation agencies in the areas of 

strategic long-range transportation planning, transportation 

improvement program development, and transportation 

facilities condition data collection and assessment.

Photography by: BLM
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 11

1.5 PLANNING SCALE AND SCOPE

4 Appendix C: Visitation-Demographics Technical Report

This CLRTP is focused primarily on the role of FLMAs. 

However, it explicitly acknowledges that planning does not 

occur in a vacuum, and continued collaboration with external 

stakeholders will be necessary to see the goals set forth in 

this Plan come to fruition. Jurisdictional boundaries limit the 

amount of influence FLMAs have on the overall transportation 

networks that provide access to Federal lands. Programs such 

as the FLAP help to bridge the gap, but hurdles still exist in 

developing seamless transport to and from these valued Federal 

lands. Therefore, the CLRTP is intended to be consistent with 

statewide transportation plans.

This is particularly true for those people who do not have 

convenient access to a private automobile, or who prefer to use 

public and non-motorized transportation. Local and regional 

transportation service providers have a strong role to play in 

encouraging visitation to Federal lands and in establishing 

services and routes to make this possible. The CLRTP 

encourages partnerships between FLMAs and other essential 

transportation providers to increase access to Federal lands 

and make the journey more seamless than ever for all people, 

regardless of their travel mode of choice.

1.6 AFFECTED COMMUNITIES

With a total of approximately 43 percent of all land in the 

Pacific Northwest under Federal ownership, visitation and 

recreation on these lands has a major impact on transportation, 

the economy, and quality of life in this region.4 FLMA lands are 

a major asset for residents of the Pacific Northwest, providing 

environmental, social, and economic benefits for communities 

throughout the region, as well as for the millions of visitors 

they attract to the region each year. The region’s Federal 

lands—both recreational areas near major metropolitan 

regions or remote, back-country landscapes—are a major draw 

for many who choose to live in the area. Federal lands also 

provide economic opportunities, including logging, resource 

extraction, and tourism.

Some communities are more inherently linked to Federal 

lands than others. The Dalles, for example, is a focal point for 

visitors to Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge areas 

in Oregon, and Port Angeles, Washington, is a jumping-off 

point for visitors to Olympic National Park. Federal lands 

are instrumental to the economic health of these “gateway 

communities.” Gateway communities are dependent on safe 

and reliable access both to and through Federal lands on a 

nearly year-round basis.
12 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

1.7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The CLRTP focuses on six distinct goal areas, described below. These goal areas represent universal values among the agencies, and 

the objectives translate these aspirational statements into more actionable topics for the FLMAs to incorporate. These goals are also 

the basis for determining baseline conditions.

For each of these primary goal areas, the FLMAs collaboratively developed several objectives, described below.

GOAL: Place-Based Collaboration

Plan and manage a transportation system that depends upon collaboration and mutually 

beneficial actions.

Objectives:

 Collaborative planning: Integrate collaboration with Federal, Tribal, State, and local partners 

into the transportation planning process, and use interdisciplinary planning techniques.

 Place-based planning: Plan and manage a transportation system appropriate to the region’s 

unique social, economic, and environmental contexts that supports diverse benefits for 

surrounding communities and regions.

GOAL: Resource Protection

Plan and manage Federal lands transportation networks to emphasize stewardship of natural 

and cultural resources and promote ecological sustainability.

Objectives:

 Protect natural and cultural resources: Avoid or minimize transportation impacts to sensitive 

natural and cultural resources.

 Promote sustainable travel: Increase the sustainability of travel to and within Federal lands by 

encouraging energy efficiency and supporting multimodal travel options.

GOAL: Safety

Provide safe and appropriate multimodal transportation access for all users of Federal lands.

Objectives:

 Engineering and design: Plan, design, operate, and maintain multimodal transportation 

systems to minimize fatalities and serious injuries during travel to and within Federal lands.

 User information: Conduct education and outreach to provide users information about safe 

travel to and within Federal lands.

 Emergency preparedness and response: Support coordinated and rapid emergency response 

and enhance communication of conditions affecting Federal lands transportation systems.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 13

GOAL: Access and Connectivity

Provide a seamless, multimodal transportation system that supports community connectivity 

and access to public lands.

Objectives:

 Planning information: Strengthen the depth and breadth of information used to support 

access planning and management.

 Multimodal access and connectivity: Enhance interagency communication and collaboration 

to improve multimodal access and connectivity to public lands.

 Supporting communities: Collaborate with neighboring communities to support access to 

economic and recreational opportunities on Federal lands.

 Access for underserved populations: Work with diverse user groups to ensure access to 

Federal lands for all, including low-income, minority, carless, or mobility-impaired visitors.

GOAL: Visitor Experience

Promote ease and enjoyment of travel to and within Federal lands.

Objectives:

 Transportation systems that contribute to a positive experience: Create transportation 

systems that welcome and orient visitors, provide recreational experiences, and become part of 

a positive recollection of the visit.

 Supporting diverse transportation experiences: Provide transportation programs and modal 

options that encourage a diversity of experiences across user groups.

 Visitor information: Establish consistent visitor information systems and leverage 

opportunities to coordinate communications across agencies.

GOAL: Asset Management

Provide a transportation system with cost-effective assets that meets agency objectives over 

time.

Objectives:

 Collaborative asset management: Consider the importance of assets within the context of 

agency management objectives and coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions.

 Asset resilience: Consider risks to transportation assets and develop plans to increase asset 

resilience.

2.0 VALUE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Photography by: BLM
Photography by: BLM
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 17

The Pacific Northwest is unique in many ways, but among these 

is the diversity of Federal public lands within close proximity 

to the 11 million inhabitants of the states of Washington and 

Oregon, and the millions more who visit these public lands 

each year. Federal lands—both recreational areas near major 

metropolitan regions or remote, back-country landscapes—

provide countless recreation opportunities to the region and 

to the nation, and also serve as a key economic driver to 

gateway communities located nearby. Federal lands provide 

economic opportunities, in terms of both direct Federal agency 

staff employment at each unit, as well as revenue generated 

5 ODOT, Planning and Technical Guidance website: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/otp.aspx. 6 WSDOT. 2018. Washington Transportation Plan 2035: https://washtransplan.com/.

by related activities, such as commercial logging, resource 

extraction, and tourism. Publicly accessible transportation 

infrastructure elements provide the connections between 

Federal lands and both local residents and visitors.

This CLRTP aims for consistency with existing long-range 

transportation plans of both ODOT and WSDOT.5, 6 These 

respective plans identify funding priorities and policy 

recommendations to support the continued vitality of the 

region. This Plan also aims for congruence with existing state 

operations and maintenance authorities and agreements.

2.1 LANDSCAPE, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL 

IMPORTANCE

Oregon and Washington are steeped in a rich historical context 

dating back more than 10,000 years to initial Native American 

colonization, explorations of the Pacific Coastal region by 

European explorers in the 1700s, and the Lewis and Clark 

expedition in the early 1800s. In fact, the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail straddles the Columbia River, which 

separates the two states, and ends at Fort Clatsop in the Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Park near the point where the 

Columbia River flows into the Pacific Ocean.

In subsequent decades, the Pacific Northwest became 

prominent in both the lumber and fishing trades, as well as 

in early manufacturing and shipbuilding. In the early 1900s, 

the Boeing Airplane Company (later the Boeing Company) 

established its headquarters in Seattle, Washington, and 

became the epicenter of domestic aircraft manufacturing for 

both military and commercial airplanes.

The landscape of the region is largely defined by the Cascade 

Mountain Range, which originates in the Canadian province 

of British Columbia to the north and terminates in Northern 

California, bisecting both Oregon and Washington along 

the way. The Cascades have tremendous importance in 

the foundation of the Federal lands that dot the region, 

creating divides that separate the two states demographically, 

geologically, and climatically. A traveler going east through 

Washington or Oregon from the Pacific Coast toward the State 

of Idaho can experience dense forested areas, alpine peaks, 

rolling grasslands, and arid high-desert environments. More 

than a dozen east-west transportation routes traverse the 

lower-elevation valleys and rivers that cross the Cascades in 

Oregon and Washington. Each one of these crossings bisects 

Federal lands.

Balance is needed to provide convenient, safe, and affordable 

access linkages between the more heavily developed and 

populated areas on the west side of the Cascade Range with 

the extensive areas of public lands located within and east of 

the Cascades. The tremendous costs associated with the initial 

construction and the continuing maintenance and operation 

of these corridors—while at the same time preserving the 

diversity of natural features across the region—are clear, 

illustrated by the limited number of roadways.
18 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

2.2 PLACE-BASED PLANNING CONTEXT

Oregon and Washington contain two relatively recently 

developed and still expanding metropolitan areas: Portland/

Vancouver and Seattle. They also are close to Federal lands 

and other outdoor recreational opportunities. This is no 

coincidence. Among the many contributing factors to the 

success of these urban areas is the prevalence and proximity of 

the recreational opportunities and economic development that 

these nearby public lands provide.

Oregon and Washington also both are characterized by more 

than 450 miles of majestic Pacific Ocean coastline in addition 

to the more mountainous and less densely populated terrains in 

the central and eastern parts of both states, where the majority 

of Federal lands are located.

As indicated by Figure 4, the population bases in both Oregon 

and Washington typically are found along the Interstate 5 (I-5) 

corridor and centralized in the Portland and Seattle metro 

areas, respectively. The I-5 corridor follows a historical northsouth path through both states and connects the region from 

Canada to Mexico. Notable high-density areas in Washington 

State are Spokane, Walla Walla, the Tri-Cities, and Vancouver; 

in Oregon, notable high-density areas are Salem, Eugene, 

Corvallis, Bend, and Medford.

Photography by: Brent Lawrence / FWS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 19

Figure 4. Pacific Northwest Population Density

Less than 10.0

10.0 - 24.9

25.0 - 49.9

50.0 - 99.9

100.0 - 249.9

Population Density per Square Mile

250.0 - 499.9

500.0 - 999.9

1,000.0 - 2,499.9

2,500 or greater

Federal Lands
20 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

2.3 REGIONAL MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

One of the many roles the transportation system fulfills is 

providing the public access to and through Federal lands in 

Oregon and Washington, while still preserving the inherent 

natural qualities that make these lands unique. This access 

requires that FLMA-focused transportation networks be 

seamless, i.e., they share characteristics with other facilities 

to which they connect, and they also are fully integrated into 

regional transportation systems. For example, the roads within 

a Federal land unit ideally are consistent with the State or 

county roads by which primary access to the Federal land unit 

is obtained. Seamless transportation also suggests that most 

unit-level transportation facilities are accessible and usable 

by a variety of different travel modes, a task made difficult 

in Oregon and Washington due to spatial constraints and 

distances to be traveled. For example, while hiking or bicycling 

along a multiuse trail linking a residential community in the 

Portland/Vancouver area with a nearby FLMA unit generally 

is achievable within a short period of time, using these same 

travel modes to visit Forest Service units on the east side of the 

Cascade Range is considerably more challenging.

Federal lands distinguish themselves in several ways, including 

the use of park-oriented signage, roadways having typically 

lower speed limits than similar public routes, and abundant 

visual cues such as signed roadside pulloffs and observation 

areas that suggest the land is designated for a special purpose.

The types of Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest vary widely, 

from smaller “backyard” recreation sites located within major 

metropolitan areas, to much more remote areas that provide 

secluded experiences and are an economic boon to rural 

communities. Federal lands also serve several industries in the 

region, from timber harvesting to ranching and mining.

The region’s transportation system also is characterized by the 

diversity of users of the network. Despite the many attractions 

afforded by Federal lands, most travelers within the vicinity 

of Federal lands are just passing through, without any Federal 

lands destination on their itinerary. This Plan recognizes 

that the regional multimodal transportation system must be 

suitable for all parties, regardless of their origin, destination, or 

personal relationship to or interaction with Federal lands.
Photography by: BLM Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 21

3.0 CONDITIONS

The following sections provide details 

about each goal’s existing conditions 

and desired future conditions, and 

identify the gaps between existing and 

desired conditions

Photography by: BLM
24 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

3.1 PLACE-BASED COLLABORATION

GOAL: 

Plan and manage a transportation system that depends upon collaboration and mutually beneficial 

actions.

Objectives:

 Collaborative planning: Integrate collaboration with Federal, Tribal, State, and local partners into the 

transportation planning process, and use interdisciplinary planning techniques.

 Place-based planning: Plan and manage a transportation system appropriate to the region’s unique social, 

economic, and environmental contexts that supports diverse benefits for surrounding communities and regions.

Place-based collaboration is an essential component of the 

Pacific Northwest CLRTP. This goal recognizes that every 

place within the boundaries of Federal lands has unique 

characteristics that draw people to them, and that the qualities 

distinct to these lands often span jurisdictional boundaries. 

In addition, different agencies fill different niches for users, 

depending on the unique landscapes they manage and agency 

missions. This goal focuses on the ways that agencies recognize 

and plan for the unique places they manage, and how they 

institutionalize interdisciplinary collaboration among agencies 

to think strategically about how the transportation system can 

preserve and promote that distinctive sense of place.

The concept of Place-Based Collaboration cuts across all 

the other goal areas in this CLRTP and focuses on how 

agencies can work together to address common priorities. 

As such, the Place-Based Collaboration goal touches on the 

processes and shared resources that can help FLMAs and their 

partners improve conditions related to Resource Protection, 

Safety, Visitor Experience, Access and Connectivity, and Asset 

Management.

3.1.1 PLACE-BASED PLANNING IN THE PACIFIC 

NORTHWEST

The Pacific Northwest is defined by its many unique 

landscapes: dramatic coastlines, the forested volcanoes of the 

Cascades, and the high-desert landscapes of eastern Oregon 

and Washington. Many of these landscapes serve important 

ecological niches, supporting rare or threatened ecosystems, 

and also have deep social and historical significance for 

residents and visitors. Additionally, many of these landscapes 

support important economic activities. Figure 5 shows the 

results of the USFS’s human values mapping project. This map 

represents distinct sub-regions within the Pacific Northwest 

with common geographic characteristics.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 25

Figure 5. Sub-Regions of the Pacific Northwest

Agriculture

Basin/Desert/Flats

Canyon/Gorge

Coastal/Bay/Lakes

Niche Areas

Communities

Industrial Forests

Mountains

Tribal
26 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest manage these unique 

landscapes to support their environmental, social, and 

economic values. Each FLMA has land use planning processes 

to designate places of outstanding value and manage them in 

a context-sensitive manner. These land use plans inform how 

agencies design and manage their transportation systems, as 

shown in Table 2.

Table 2. FLMA Land Use Plans and Their Transportation Implications

Agency Land Use Plan Implications for Transportation

BLM Resource Management Plan Identifies unique areas and establishes resource management goals and 

objectives. Establishes multiple compatible uses by area and establishes 

travel management policies (such as open, limited, or closed to vehicle 

travel) to be implemented in Travel and Transportation Management 

Plans.

NPS Foundation Document, 

General Management Plan

Foundation documents articulate the purpose of NPS units and identify 

specific issues and needs. A General Management Plan is a strategic 

planning document that outlines the future management of a National 

Park Service site for the next 15 to 20 years, establishing vision and 

resource management and visitor experience goals. Future transportation 

planning flows from the General Management Plan.

USACE Master Plan A Master Plan is the document that conceptually establishes and guides 

the orderly development, administration, maintenance, preservation, 

enhancement, and management of all natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources of a USACE water resource project. A Master Plan is a land use 

management document.

FWS Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

A Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifies specific goals to achieve 

the purpose and vision for the refuge and meet the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. These goals guide the management of each 

refuge for the next 15 years, including future transportation plans and 

management decisions.

USFS Forest Plans Forest Plans establish multiple-use goals and objectives, management 

requirements, management areas and prescriptions, and 

recommendations for wilderness or other special areas in a forest. Future 

transportation plans implement the decisions in the Forest Plans.

Special Environmental Places

FLMAs recognize and designate unique environmental 

places in a variety of ways, as shown in Table 3. These special 

designations are important for transportation planning because 

they influence FLMAs’ transportation planning decisions by 

designating areas with particular environmental sensitivity or 

policies that limit the infrastructure agencies can build. These 

special places often draw visitors, requiring careful planning for 

appropriate transportation access.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 27

Table 3. Special Area Designations for Federal Lands in the Pacific Northwest

Special Area 

Designation FLMAs Description

Wilderness 

Area

BLM, NPS, 

FWS, USFS

Defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964,7 wilderness areas are the highest level of 

protection and must be designated by the U.S. Congress. Wilderness areas are defined as 

areas without permanent improvements or human habitation, and FLMAs manage them 

to preserve their natural conditions.

National 

Monument

BLM, NPS, 

FWS, USFS

The Antiquities Act of 19068 allows the President of the United States to proclaim that 

“objects of historic or scientific interest” on Federal lands be designated as national 

monuments.

National 

Scenic Area

NPS, USFS The purpose of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act of 1986 is to protect 

and provide for the enhancement of the scenic, cultural, recreational, and natural 

resources. The Act established new partnerships between the USFS, Tribes, counties, 

States, and a bi-state regional planning agency, the Columbia River Gorge Commission.

National 

Conservation 

Area

BLM National conservation areas are designated by Congress to conserve, protect, enhance, 

and manage public lands for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations.

Outstanding 

Natural Area

BLM Outstanding Natural Areas (ONAs) were established by Congress to protect unique scenic, 

scientific, educational, and recreational values. Recreational activities center on those 

that foster education and interpretation of the ONA’s unique resource.

Wilderness 

Study Area

BLM The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directed the BLM to inventory and 

study its roadless areas for wilderness characteristics. To be designated as a Wilderness 

Study Area, an area must have specific characteristics, which often coincide with special 

qualities such as ecological, geological, educational, historical, scientific, and scenic 

values.

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

FWS All FWS refuges are designated based on their unique environmental resources and have 

missions specific to the unique species they were founded to preserve.

National Fish 

Hatcheries

FWS National Fish Hatcheries work collaboratively with Tribes, States, landowners, partners, 

and stakeholders to promote healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish and other 

aquatic species.

Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

USFS, 

BLM, NPS

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to preserve 

certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing 

condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act is notable for 

safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for 

their appropriate use and development. It encourages river management that crosses 

political boundaries and promotes public participation in developing goals for river 

protection.

Rivers may be designated by Congress or, if certain requirements are met, the Secretary 

of the Interior. Each river is administered by either a Federal or State agency.9

Scenic 

Byways

BLM, NPS, 

USFS

Through the National Scenic Byways Program, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation may 

designate certain roads as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads based on their 

archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. The National 

Scenic Byways discretionary grant program was discontinued with MAP-21 in 2012. 

However, ODOT and WSDOT still have scenic byways.10,11 Because many scenic byways 

pass through or access Federal lands, or have segments on FLMA-owned roads, FLMAs in 

Oregon and Washington are active partners in scenic byways programs.

7 16 USC 1131-1136. 8 16 USC 431-433. 9 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System website: https://www.rivers.gov/index.php 10 ODOT, Scenic Byways Program website: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/Pages/Scenic-Byways.aspx 11 WSDOT, Scenic Byways website: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/travel/highways-bridges/scenic-byways/
28 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Special Social, Cultural, and Historical Places

Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest have unique social, 

cultural, and historic meanings for both residents and visitors. 

Members of the region’s Native American Tribes have deep, 

long-lasting cultural ties to the region’s landscapes. These lands 

were the homes of their ancestors and support traditional, 

subsistence activities, such as hunting, fishing, and foraging. 

Other residents trace their heritage from the settlers of diverse 

backgrounds who migrated to the region from around the 

world beginning in the 18th Century. Federal lands throughout 

the Pacific Northwest are home to cultural sites that are 

meaningful to many diverse communities. Figure 6 shows 

the locations of sites on Federal lands that are listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These are sites 

that have been designated as having national historical or 

cultural significance. Those shown are only a small fraction 

of the prehistoric and historic sites eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. In addition to the designated and eligible sites, there are 

many more locations that communities value as part of their 

cultural heritage regardless of designation status.

Some transportation systems on Federal lands are themselves 

historical resources. For example, the Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail, Oregon Trail National Historic Trail, California 

National Historic Trail, Santiam Wagon Road, and the 

McKenzie Highway are all long-distance historic travel routes 

that traverse multiple partners’ lands and shaped the region’s 

history. The Historic Columbia River Gorge Highway, built 

between 1913 and 1922, was the first planned scenic highway 

in the United States and is now a National Historic Landmark. 

USACE’s Bonneville Dam, a crucial part of the nation’s 

navigable water transportation system, is also a National 

Historic Landmark District representative of New Deal-era 

public works.

Cultural resources matter for transportation planning because 

they are popular visitor destinations that require access. They 

are part of a unique sense of place that transportation networks 

should protect, promote, and support.

FLMAs manage cultural and historical resources on Federal 

lands in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 and National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1970. These acts establish processes by which agencies 

recognize culturally significant sites; consult with descendants 

and stakeholders; and analyze, mitigate, or minimize project 

impacts to cultural resources.

Where appropriate, FLMAs also highlight cultural and 

historical sites through interpretation. Context-sensitive design 

of transportation infrastructure and interpretive signage and 

wayfinding can enhance visitors’ experiences of these unique 

places and preserve their special character.

Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest also have social 

significance for their natural settings. They are often the 

“backyards” and the “backdrops” of the region’s cities and 

towns, and as such they are important to the sense of identity 

of communities. Many residents grew up visiting these lands 

and even newcomers have strong, personal ties—from hiking, 

camping, picking berries, or otherwise enjoying the region’s 

landscapes. It is the unique outdoor environment that creates 

a draw for visitors to experience the region’s Federal lands as 

well.

Based on location and agency mission, each FLMA fills 

a different niche in terms of the recreational sites and 

experiences they provide. FWS refuges are primarily 

destinations for wildlife observation, while USACE locations 

predominantly support water-based recreation. USFS and BLM 

provide some of the most diverse visitor experiences due to the 

multiuse nature of their missions. NPS units have some of the 

most famous natural and cultural sites in the region, drawing 

national and international visitors.

Within the broad trends in agency recreational niches, each 

agency recognizes a complex mosaic of unique recreational 

sites within their lands. Wilderness areas, front-country 

areas, special recreation areas for uses such as off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs), mountain biking, water-based activities, and 

many others each have their own transportation needs and 

opportunities. FLMAs identify these areas in their land use 

plans and develop appropriate transportation management 

strategies to support them.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 29

Figure 6. Special Area Designations in the Pacific Northwest

National Register of Historic Places

Scenic Byways

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Columbia River Gorge NSA

Special Area Designations in the Pacific Northwest

Wilderness Area

BLM Wilderness Study Areas

National Monuments (BLM)

National Conservation Areas
30 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Economic Places

Sites within Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest each have 

unique economic value, based on the economic development 

they offer for surrounding communities.12 Many different 

activities on Federal lands—including tourism, recreation, 

energy development, navigation, timber harvesting, and 

grazing—provide jobs and economic growth for the local, 

regional, and national economy. Based on land holdings and 

agency missions, each FLMA supports a range of economic 

activities on their lands, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Economic Activities on Federal Lands in the Pacific 

Northwest by FLMA

Economic Activity BLM NPS USACE FWS USFS

Tourism and 

Recreation X X X X X

Timber 

Harvesting X X

Ranching/

Livestock Grazing X X X

Navigation X

Renewable 

Energy X X X

Oil and Gas 

Extraction X

Mining X X

Although tourism and recreation can contribute to the economy 

in several ways—such as visitor spending on lodging, food, 

and other travel expenses—some high-use recreation sites 

have concentrated economic impacts. For example, ski areas 

attract high levels of visitors and employ a large staff during the 

winter, while the region’s wild and scenic rivers are a draw for 

water-based recreation that provide business opportunities for 

outdoor outfitting companies.

The FAST Act requires FLMAs and FHWA to consider 

access to Federal High-Use Recreation Sites and Federal 

Economic Generators as evaluation criteria for FLTP and 

FLAP investments. Each FLMA defines these sites based on its 

mission and the types of economic activities that take place on 

its lands.

12 Appendix D: Economic Impact of Federal Public Lands Technical Report

3.1.2 MULTIAGENCY AND INTERDISCIPLINARY 

COLLABORATION

A crucial part the place-based concept is collaboration among 

partners and disciplines. To successfully recognize and plan for 

the unique places throughout the Pacific Northwest, agencies 

need to coordinate across boundaries and disciplines to meet 

context-sensitive transportation needs. It is important for 

FLMAs to recognize which partners to collaborate with based 

on context and to build this collaboration into planning and 

decision-making processes.

Collaboration among FLMAs and their partners is necessary 

because many of the characteristics that create a sense of place 

throughout the Pacific Northwest transcend administrative 

boundaries. Ecosystems and wildlife span jurisdictional 

boundaries, and so do people. Many recreational visitors may 

pass through BLM, USFS, and NPS lands in a single trip, for 

example, and it is important to plan for their seamless journey. 

Places such as the Columbia River Gorge highlight how several 

Federal, State, and local agencies’ lands and transportation 

systems are entwined, impacting each other and contributing 

to the complex spectrum of recreational and economic 

opportunities throughout the Gorge.

As such, it is important for FLMAs to understand their 

partners’ missions, needs, and planning and programming 

processes. Collaboration has multiple benefits:

 Recognizing the unique context of a place and its value to 

diverse partners

 Developing shared strategies for improving resource 

protection, safety, congestion, and access issues on a 

landscape scale

 Developing a coherent, seamless transportation network 

appropriate to its context

 Identifying opportunities for mutual benefit or increased 

efficiency

 Identifying funding opportunities available through 

partnerships

The FAST Act recognizes the importance of partnerships 

to support transportation to and within Federal lands 

and supports enhanced partnerships through FLAP. 

Figure 7 illustrates locations that have FLAP and FLTP 

projects programmed in the Pacific Northwest. FLAP provides 

approximately $36 million in Oregon and $12 million in 

Washington per year in U.S. DOT funds for projects that 

improve transportation systems owned or maintained by nonFederal partners that provide access to Federal lands.

There are many potential partners for FLMAs, but the main 

categories of partners are discussed below.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 31

Figure 7. Programmed FLTP and FLAP Projects in the Pacific Northwest, 2013-2018

Programmed FLTP and FLAP Projects in the Pacific Northwest

&3 Programmed FLTP Projects

#0 Programmed FLAP Projects

Land Ownership

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Forest Service

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Site

0 1020 40 60 80

Miles Miles

± Programmed

FLTP Projects

Programmed

FLAP Projects

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Site

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Land Ownership

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government
32 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Collaboration between FLMAs

FLMAs collaborate with each other on issues that cut across 

land ownership boundaries, such as ecosystem and watershed 

management. In many cases, their transportation systems also 

are interconnected, requiring coordination on transportation 

data, maintenance, and incident management. Collaboration 

between FLMAs may take place via formal Memoranda 

of Understanding (MOUs), Memoranda of Agreement 

(MOAs), or Interagency Agreements (IAAs). FLMAs also may 

collaborate as stakeholders in other agencies’ land use and 

transportation planning processes.

U.S. Department of Transportation

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is an 

important partner for Federal lands transportation. The 

FHWA’s Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) 

administers USDOT funds for Federal lands transportation 

programs, including FLTP, FLAP, and the Emergency Relief for 

Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) Program. WFL also provides 

planning support, technical assistance, and project delivery 

services for FLMAs. Because WFL works with all FLMAs in the 

Pacific Northwest, WFL also can act as an organizer to facilitate 

collaboration between FLMAs.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is also an important 

partner for FLMAs and their partners because it administers 

grant funds for rural transit projects that may provide access to 

Federal lands. The FTA’s Rural Transit Assistance Program also 

provides technical assistance, peer resources, and other tools to 

support rural transit.13

State DOTs

ODOT and WSDOT are partners in this CLRTP. They are 

important partners for FLMAs, because they often own and 

manage the primary access roads to or through FLMAs. As 

such, they are an important part of planning and managing a 

seamless transportation system to and through Federal lands 

in the region. State DOTs also collect and maintain statewide 

transportation datasets and monitor transportation system 

performance on the statewide transportation network, and 

they have strong relationships with local governments. They 

can be a valuable resource and partner to FLMAs. Since travel 

to and through Federal lands is crucial to the State economies 

in Oregon and Washington, it is likewise important for ODOT 

and WSDOT to collaborate with FLMAs.

FLMAs should consult with ODOT and WSDOT when 

developing LRTPs, unit-level transportation plans, and other 

project plans. In addition, FLMAs should coordinate with 

ODOT and WSDOT during development of their statewide 

13 National Rural Transit Assistance Program website: http://nationalrtap.org/.

LRTPs and related plans. FLMAs and State DOTs already 

coordinate on shared transportation issues. For example, USFS 

has MOUs with WSDOT and ODOT.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional 

Transportation Planning Organizations, and Area 

Commissions on Transportation

MPOs are Federally mandated and Federally funded 

organizations that carry out metropolitan transportation 

planning for census-defined urbanized areas with a population 

above 50,000. MPOs consist of representatives from local 

governments and transportation authorities. They develop 

Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs), which are LRTPs 

for their metropolitan planning areas, and they develop annual 

Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). FLMAs should 

coordinate with MPOs on their MTPs and TIPs, as well as 

other plans, where relevant.

Washington State has Regional Transportation Planning 

Organizations (RTPOs) that represent rural regions of the state. 

Oregon has Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) 

to deal with regional and local issues that affect the State 

transportation system and play an advisory role in statewide 

transportation planning and programming.

FLMAs should consult with MPOs, RTPOs, and ACTs when 

developing LRTPs, unit-level transportation plans, and 

other project plans. In addition, FLMAs should coordinate 

with MPOs and RTPOs to provide input on their plans and 

programs.

See Appendix A for a map of ACTs, MPOs, and RTPOs in 

Oregon and Washington. The appendix provides a table with 

additional information about MPOs/RTPOs, such as major 

cities, populations, and nearby FLMA units.

Counties and Local Governments

Counties and local governments are important partners for 

FLMAs in Oregon and Washington, since they own and 

maintain many of the rural routes that access or pass through 

Federal lands. This is especially true for the BLM and the Forest 

Service, since their lands often are interspersed with private 

land. Federal lands are important economic development 

drivers for local communities, and FLMA-managed roads 

are important routes for intracommunity access. For this 

reason, it is important for FLMAs to coordinate transportation 

plans, communicate, and share data with counties and local 

governments to meet the transportation needs of the FLMA 

and surrounding communities.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 33

In Oregon, the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC)

represents Oregon counties and their transportation systems 

through the Oregon County Road Program. The Washington 

State County Road Administration Board (CRAB) provides 

standards of good practices, fair administration of funding 

programs, and professional technical services for county road 

transportation providers in Washington.

Tribal Governments

Native American Tribes are sovereign governments and 

receive Federal transportation funding through the Tribal 

Transportation Program “... to contribute to the economic 

development, self-determination, and employment of Indians 

and Native Americans.”14 Partnerships between Tribes and all 

U.S. government agencies are subject to Executive Order 13175, 

under which all FLMAs and Federal agencies are required 

to consult with Tribes in a government-to-government 

relationship when considering policies that would impact 

Tribal communities. Many Federal lands are adjacent to Tribal 

lands, so it is important to coordinate with Tribes on shared 

routes. Some Tribes also include FLMA-owned roads on the 

National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory. In addition, 

Tribes are important stakeholders in FLMA transportation 

plans because Federal lands are important for their heritage, 

subsistence use, and community access. All FLMAs have Tribal 

liaison plans to guide coordination with Tribes, as shown in 

Table 5.

Table 5. Agency Tribal Liaison Plans

Tribal Liaison Plan

BLM

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/CRM/tribal_consultation.html

NPS 

https://www.nps.gov/history/tribes/

Tribal_Historic_Preservation_Officers_Program.htm

USACE 

http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/TribalNations.aspx

FWS 

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/

tribal-secretarial-order.html

USFS 

http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/strategicplan.shtml

Non-Governmental Partners

FLMAs partner with a wide range of non-governmental 

organizations, both non-profit and for-profit companies. 

All of these relationships are guided by FLMAs’ policies for 

partnering with non-governmental organizations.

14 FHWA. Tribal Transportation Program website: hhttp://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/ 15 University of Washington, Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit website: https://depts.washington.edu/pnwcesu/. 

Many non-profit partners have compatible missions to FLMAs 

and collaborate with FLMAs on shared goals. For example, 

“Friends of ” groups tend to be locally based groups that 

care for and raise funds to support a specific FLMA unit of 

interest to a community. Other non-profits—for example, the 

Washington Trails Alliance—provide funds and volunteer 

labor to help FLMAs build and maintain trails. Recreational 

groups—for example, the International Mountain Bike 

Association—often develop partnerships with FLMAs to 

support specific recreational activities. FLMAs also partner 

with academic institutions on research projects, design, and 

implementation. The Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ecosystem 

Studies Unit brings together 11 Federal agencies and 17 

academic institutions in the Pacific Northwest to improve 

the scientific base for managing Federal lands by providing 

resource managers with high-quality scientific research, 

technical assistance, and education.15

It is also important for FLMAs to collaborate with for-profit 

companies on transportation plans and projects. For-profit 

partners include concessionaires, transit operators, and 

recreational outfitters. In addition, the for-profit companies 

that develop economic uses on Federal lands, such as logging 

and mining companies, are important road users. In many 

cases, logging and mining companies also build and maintain 

roads on or adjacent to Federal lands, working closely with 

FLMAs to plan, design, and build transportation systems.

3.1.3 LOOKING FORWARD

In many respects, FLMAs are conducting place-based 

collaborative planning in the Pacific Northwest already. The 

development of this Plan is itself progress on this goal, since 

the FLMAs and their partners are collaborating to develop this 

Plan together. However, there is still room for progress. The 

project team identified the following needs and gaps for placebased collaboration:

 There is a need for more collaboration and understanding 

of transportation needs between FLMAs and their partners, 

particularly at the local level (e.g., counties and local 

governments).

 There is a need for better sharing of transportation data 

between FLMAs and their partners. This is especially 

important to help FLMAs and their partners understand the 

relationships between their transportation systems and to 

recognize opportunities for mutual benefit.
34 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

3.2 RESOURCE PROTECTION

GOAL

Plan and manage Federal lands transportation networks to emphasize stewardship of natural and 

cultural resources and promote ecological sustainability.

Objectives:

 Protect natural and cultural resources: Avoid or minimize transportation impacts to sensitive natural and 

cultural resources.

 Promote sustainable travel: Increase the sustainability of travel to and within Federal lands by encouraging 

energy efficiency and supporting multimodal travel options.

Recognizing that natural and cultural resources, watersheds, 

and wildlife habitats are not restricted by jurisdictional 

boundaries, FLMAs and State and local governments in 

Oregon and Washington are working collaboratively to avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate transportation impacts on a landscape 

scale.

The Federal lands transportation network, as well as State and 

local agencies in the Pacific Northwest, prioritize protection 

of natural and cultural resources in their jurisdictions. 

Sometimes, transportation infrastructure can adversely affect 

those resources and lead to habitat loss and fragmentation, and 

disturbance of historic and archaeological resources.

This chapter focuses on four main resource protection 

priorities: (1) protecting natural and cultural resources, (2) 

enhancing wildlife connectivity, (3) ensuring aquatic organism 

passage and water quality, and (4) promoting sustainability 

and air quality. Note that the policies, practices, and current 

projects described under this section do not necessarily reflect 

all activities being undertaken by Federal, State, and local 

governments in these focus areas.

Each of the focus areas featured in this section follows a 

landscape-scale approach to natural and cultural resource 

protection, aligning with the first objective of this chapter—

protect natural and cultural resources within and across 

administrative boundaries. The second objective—increase 

the sustainability of travel to and within Federal lands—

is supported by current FLMA activities that promote 

sustainability and air quality. Collectively, these priorities and 

their interaction with the Federal transportation system in the 

Pacific Northwest lay the groundwork for more sustainable 

transportation planning.

3.2.1 PROTECTING NATURAL AND CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

Because of the Pacific Northwest’s rich and diverse natural 

environment, the region has many natural resource protection 

concerns, including wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation, 

wildlife-vehicle collisions, aquatic organism passage, and 

forest stewardship and restoration. All FLMAs have published 

guidance for identifying sensitive resources and addressing 

environmental impacts from transportation projects through 

the NEPA process (Appendix B: Regulatory Technical Report, 

Section 2.3.1).

To protect roadside natural resources that may be impacted 

by transportation activities in the Pacific Northwest, the USFS 

Restoration Services Team (RST) provides expertise in native 

roadside revegetation. USFS RST also supports various other 

FLMA, State, and local road jurisdiction agencies in completing 

this work on other jurisdictional roads. ODOT and WSDOT 

also use programmatic agreements with FLMAs to streamline 

environmental review processes for transportation projects.

To ensure the protection of the numerous cultural resources 

on Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest, FLMAs operate 
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 35

programs designed to inventory, evaluate, and manage cultural 

resources administered on their lands, in compliance with 

NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

Examples of FLMA cultural resource protection plans are 

provided in the Regulatory Technical Report, Section 2.3.1, in 

Appendix B of this report.

At present, each FLMA managing land in Oregon and 

Washington maintains guidance on implementing NEPA 

regulations within its agency to identify and avoid or mitigate 

environmental impacts from transportation. Additionally, 

both Oregon and Washington DOTs use programmatic 

agreements with FLMAs to facilitate environmentally focused 

transportation planning.

3.2.2 ENHANCING WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY

Transportation features such as roads have an adverse impact 

on fish and wildlife by bisecting their habitats. This can 

threaten wildlife and human safety by increasing the chances of 

vehicle-wildlife collisions, and it can reduce an animal’s range 

of movement and/or potential breeding population.

Currently, USFS, FWS, and other Federal and State partners are 

collaborating with WSDOT to restore habitat connectivity and 

reduce the number of wildlife-related crashes. An innovative 

solution can be seen in the Interstate 90 (I-90) Snoqualmie 

Pass East Project (see Figure 8). Bisecting Washington’s Central 

Cascades, I-90 has historically been a hotspot for wildliferelated crashes. The Wildlife Bridges Coalition worked with 

WSDOT and FHWA to add wildlife crossing structures to 

reduce the number of wildlife-related incidents and provide 

safer animal passage over and under the roadway.16

Another approach FLMAs are taking to reduce vehicle-wildlife 

collisions is the construction of fencing to prevent wildlife 

crossings. For example, WSDOT collaborated with local 

partners to build fencing along a section of U.S. Highway 

97 that has one of the highest mule deer and big horn sheep 

mortality rates in Washington (see Figure 9).

ODOT and WSDOT provide information about reducing 

the risk of wildlife collisions and data about areas with a high 

density of vehicle-wildlife collisions on their websites.17,18

16 Conservation Northwest. 2017. “I-90 Wildlife Corridor Campaign” website: https://www.conservationnw.org/our-work/habitat/i-90/. 17 ODOT, “Wildlife Crossings” website: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/GeoEnvironmental/Pages/Wildlife.aspx. Accessed 2019. 18 WSDOT, “Reducing the risk of wildlife collisions” website: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/protecting/wildlife-collisions#Areas%20of%20the%20

state. Accessed 2019. 19 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Washington: https://www.rivers.gov/washington.php. Accessed 2018. 20 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Oregon: https://www.rivers.gov/oregon.php. Accessed 2018.

Figure 8. Artist’s rendering of a wildlife overpass over I-90 at 

Snoqualmie Pass

Photography by: WSDOT

Figure 9. Fencing was needed to prevent wildlife crossings on 

US 97 near Chelan, WA (WSDOT)

Bighorn sheep crossing US 97 prior to construction of fencing. 

3.2.3 ENHANCING AQUATIC ORGANISM PASSAGE 

AND WATER QUALITY

Transportation infrastructure bisects thousands of rivers in the 

region, disrupting fish migration and, as a result, other species 

in the food chain. Because waterways cross jurisdictional 

boundaries, protecting and enhancing aquatic organism 

passage requires collaboration. Washington has nearly 70,440 

miles of river, with 197 miles designated as Wild and Scenic 

Rivers.19 Oregon has approximately 110,994 miles of river, 

1,917 miles of which are designated as Wild and Scenic.20

Removing barriers to fish passage is a top priority, and FLMAs 

are collaborating to protect fish in the region.
36 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

State partners also support aquatic organism passage on 

Federal lands. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

fish passage program includes a fish passage mitigation 

banking system and a priority list of fish barriers for 

correction.21 The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board also 

works to clear fish passage to ensure migration. In Washington, 

WSDOT is working to remove and/or modify culverts and 

other infrastructure that impede fish passage along waterways 

under roads on the State’s highway system. In fact, WSDOT has 

worked for more than two decades to improve fish passage and 

reconnect streams to help keep waterways healthy. As of 2015, 

WSDOT has corrected fish passage restrictions at 303 barriers 

(as depicted in Figure 10), improving access to more than 1,000 

miles of upstream habitat.22 The project has a six-year plan in 

place and will continue through 2021.23

Another focus for FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest is 

preserving water quality by reducing sediment runoff from 

transportation infrastructure. To reduce sediment runoff, 

FLMAs employ preventative road maintenance and drainage 

designs, which include storm damage risk reduction (SDRR) 

21 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, “Fish Passage” website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/passage/. Accessed 2018. 22 WSDOT, “Fish Passage – Why are we fixing barriers?”: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/FishPassage/FixingBarriers.htm. Accessed 2018. 23 WSDOT, “Fish Passage—Six-year project plan”: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/FishPassage/6YearPlan.htm. Accessed 2018. 24 U.S, Forest Service. 2015. Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide for Low-Volume Roads: https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf12771814/

pdf12771814dpi100.pdf 25 U.S. Forest Service, “Best Management Practices (BMP) Program: https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/BMP.html. Accessed 2018. 

treatments to reduce the potential for road degradation or 

failure after storm events. USFS applies SDRR treatments 

based on their “open” or “stored” status to roads that may have 

little or no traffic, but still require much of the same erosion 

prevention and maintenance needs as busier roads. The Forest 

Service’s Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide for Low-Volume 

Roads provides information on preventative measures, which 

include ensuring road surface drainage, maintaining culverts, 

and planting deep-rooted plants on road shoulders.24 FLMAs 

also employ other tactics to track and prioritize watershed 

health in the Pacific Northwest. One example of this is the 

USFS’s Watershed Condition Framework, which assesses and 

tracks the condition of watersheds in national forests and 

grasslands to monitor any changes that might occur. To do 

this, the Framework establishes a scale on which watersheds 

are classified by their condition. Also supporting water quality 

in the region is the USFS National Best Management Practices 

(BMP) program, which includes a compendium of practices to 

improve water quality in watersheds.25

Photography by: WSDOT
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 37

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Critical Habitat Streams Property Status

and Marine Zones

Fish Passage Barriers

(Dams, Road Crossings)

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government

Figure 10. Fish Passage in Oregon and Washington

Pacific Northwest Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat for Fisheries 

and Fish Passage Barriers

PROPERTY STATUS

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government

Critical Habitat Streams and Marine Zones

Fish Passage Barriers (Dams, Road Crossings, Misc.)

0 30 60 90 120 15

Miles

±
38 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

FLMAs are putting in significant effort to protect aquatic 

organism passage and water quality in the Pacific Northwest. 

These contributions have produced positive results; however, 

like other focus areas highlighted in this Plan, further 

collaboration and knowledge sharing is needed to amplify 

results.

3.2.4 PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY AND AIR 

QUALITY

Vehicle emissions from transportation to and within Federal 

lands can impact local air quality by producing nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM), 

and greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants. Currently, Oregon has 

three areas in nonattainment or maintenance of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including Klamath 

Falls, Lane County, and Oakridge, while Washington has zero 

cities in nonattainment.26 For these areas, FLMAs can partner 

with State or local agencies to apply for FHWA Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) project funding. CMAQ 

provides funding for transportation projects that improve 

ozone air quality, reduce carbon monoxide, or reduce PM in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area.

To protect and conserve air quality in the region, FLMAs 

promote sustainable travel to and through Federal lands in the 

Pacific Northwest. Sustainable travel includes the use of active 

transportation (e.g., biking and walking), transit or carpooling, 

and alternative fuel vehicles, such as electric vehicles. In 2010, 

NPS partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean 

Cities Program to educate park visitors on the benefits of 

reducing petroleum consumption and GHG emissions by using 

alternative fuel and fuel-efficient vehicles.27 The partnership 

also is installing electric vehicle chargers at National Parks 

across the United States, one of which is located at Mount 

Rainier National Park.

To encourage the use of sustainable travel options, FLMAs, 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, ODOT, Travel 

Oregon, and Ride Oregon partnered to designate 17 scenic 

bikeways. The partnership provides information and maps for 

bicycle touring routes throughout the state, many of which pass 

through Federal lands.28

To connect public lands with existing transit systems and 

reduce the environmental footprint of visitors, FLMAs are 

putting new transit systems into operation. A few examples 

of these new systems include the Mt. Hood Express and the 

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Current Nonattainment Counties for all Criteria Pollutants”: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.

html. 27 U.S. Department of Energy, “Clean Cities Coalition Network: https://cleancities.energy.gov/national-parks. 28 Oregon State Parks, “Scenic Bikeways” website: https://oregonstateparks.org/index.cfm?do=thingstodo.dsp_scenicBikeways. 

Columbia Gorge Express. To support this initiative and identify 

current transit gaps and opportunities, FLMAs and FHWA 

have created the Federal Lands Multimodal Catalogue, which 

provides a national online database of transit and trail systems 

within and adjacent to Federal lands.

3.2.5 LOOKING FORWARD

FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest each have their own processes 

to ensure natural and cultural resource protection. These 

procedures have proven effective through the successful 

development of wildlife corridors, collaborative and 

streamlined environmental review procedures, vulnerable 

species protection, and AOP protection. However, the complex, 

cross-jurisdictional quality of natural resources, wildlife 

habitat, and watersheds on and across Federal lands in the 

Pacific Northwest poses challenges that can be overcome only 

by cross-agency coordination at the Federal, State, and local 

level. The project team identified the following needs and gaps 

in resource protection in the Pacific Northwest:

 Agencies experience challenges when it comes to 

collaboration across administrative boundaries, especially 

given that natural resources do not have concrete 

boundaries.

 FLMAs have limited funds for repairing, replacing, or 

enhancing transportation infrastructure to improve 

terrestrial or aquatic habitats and must be strategic with 

prioritizing and leveraging funds to maximize the benefit for 

sensitive resources.

 FLMA partners, such as State DOTs, can have limitations 

on how their funds may be used for transportation 

maintenance projects on Federal lands.

 Integrating resource planning with transportation planning 

will require planning resources and interdisciplinary 

coordination to succeed.

 Agencies do not have all the data they need to incorporate 

resource protection into their plans and projects.

 Agencies would like to work more effectively to reduce air 

quality emissions from their vehicle fleets.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 39

COLLABORATING TO PROTECT THE GREATER SAGE GROUSE IN EASTERN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON

There are many animal species in the region that require protection. However, of particular concern for the Pacific 

Northwest, specifically eastern Oregon and Washington, is the Greater Sage Grouse. While the Greater Sage Grouse was 

placed on the candidate list for the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in 2015, the species was removed from the list after a 

successful partnership between FLMAs and State and local government that implemented collaborative conservation efforts 

for the species.

A driving force behind the conservation efforts for the Sage Grouse is the September 2015 BLM/FWS Record of Decision (ROD) 

and approved resource management plan amendments for the region. The ROD takes a landscape-scale approach to Sage 

Grouse protection, requiring collaboration between FLMAs, other Federal agencies, local agencies, and private landowners. 

It has three main goals: (1) minimize new surface disturbance in sage grouse habitat, (2) improve habitat condition, and 

(3) reduce the threat of rangeland fire. Transportation is most directly related to the first goal. Now that the ROD has 

been adopted, FLMAs with Sage Grouse habitat on their lands will work to incorporate Sage Grouse protection into their 

transportation plans and will collaborate with surrounding landowners to minimize disturbance from transportation uses.

Pacific Northwest Sage Grouse Habitat

PROPERTY_STATUS

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government

0 15 30 60 90 120

Miles

±

Bureau of Land

Management

National Park

Service

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest

Service

Other Federal

Agencies

Tribal

Lands

State

Agencies

Local

Government

Sage Grouse

Habitat Area

Property Status
40 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

3.3 SAFETY

29 FHWA. 2016. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Guidance. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/legislationandpolicy/fast/shsp_guidance.cfm.

GOAL

Provide safe and appropriate multimodal transportation access for all users of Federal lands.

Objectives:

 Engineering and design: Plan, design, operate, and maintain multimodal transportation systems to 

minimize fatalities and serious injuries during travel to and within Federal lands.

 User information: Conduct education and outreach to provide users information about safe travel to and 

within Federal lands.

 Emergency preparedness and response: Support coordinated and rapid emergency response and enhance 

communication of conditions affecting Federal lands transportation systems.

Safety is an important goal for the Federal lands transportation 

network in the Pacific Northwest. The safety performance 

of the region’s roads, trails, transit systems, and waterways is 

crucial for the traveling public, which includes recreational 

visitors, commuters, and industries using these systems. FLMA 

transportation systems in the Pacific Northwest also serve as 

critical elements in emergency management and response. As 

such, safety on the Federal lands network entails designing, 

operating, and maintaining infrastructure to reduce the 

potential for crashes, providing users with the information they 

require to understand travel risks, and effectively supporting 

emergency response, with the ultimate aim of reducing fatal 

and severe injury crashes in the Pacific Northwest.

FHWA guidance for Strategic Highway Safety Plans requires 

transportation planners and engineers to consider a framework 

of “4Es” when considering safety: Engineering, Education, 

Enforcement, and Emergency Services.29 Employing this 

holistic framework helps FLMAs and their partners consider 

a comprehensive range of opportunities to increase safety for 

transportation users.

3.3.1 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

The FAST Act includes requirements for how FLMAs and 

State DOTs address safety in their planning and performance 

management.

Planning: The FAST Act requires that State DOTs consider 

safety in their long-range transportation plans, develop a 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and update their 

SHSPs no less frequently than every five years. Following the 

4E framework, SHSPs use a data-driven approach to guide 

decisions about transportation investments that will improve 

safety. ODOT’s current SHSP is the Transportation Safety 

Action Plan 2016; WSDOT’s current SHSP is Target Zero 2016. 

Each plan provides information on the system improvement, 

legislation, and financing needs necessary to implement a 

strong safety agenda for multimodal transportation in each 

state.

States also receive Federal funds through the HSIP, through 

which they fund planning, project implementation, and 

reporting to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-Stateowned roads and roads on Tribal land. The HSIP requires 

a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway 

safety on all public roads, with a focus on performance. 

In Oregon, safety investments also are directed by the 
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 41

All Roads Transportation Safety Program, which deploys 

limited state funds and resources through cooperation with 

local road jurisdictions. Washington has adopted the Target 

Zero goal for transportation safety in the state and directs 

its investments toward projects that will help the state meet 

specified fatality reduction targets.

Because Oregon and Washington’s implementation of their 

SHSP and HSIP entails collaboration with other jurisdictions 

to reduce fatality and serious injury crashes on all roads in the 

states, FLMAs are a potential partner in these programs.

Performance Management: In 2012, MAP-21 required the 

U.S. Department of Transportation to develop a rulemaking 

for safety performance management. The HSIP and Safety 

Performance Management Measures Final Rule, which 

became effective April 14, 2016, establishes five performance 

measures as the five-year rolling averages for: (1) number of 

fatalities, (2) rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT), (3) number of serious injuries, (4) rate of 

serious injuries per 100 million VMT, and (5) number of nonmotorized fatalities and non-motorized serious injuries. The 

Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule also 

establishes the process for State DOTs and MPOs to establish 

and report their safety targets, and the process that FHWA will 

use to assess whether State DOTs have met or made significant 

progress toward meeting their safety targets. The Safety 

Performance Management Measures Final Rule also establishes 

a common national definition for serious injuries.30 State DOTs 

now are working to establish and implement performance 

management systems to meet this requirement.

MAP-21 and the FAST Act also require FLMAs to collect 

and report safety performance data. Although FHWA has 

not issued guidance on safety performance management for 

FLMAs, some FLMAs already have begun to develop Safety 

Management Systems. FLMAs also can collaborate with State 

DOTs as they implement their safety performance management 

systems.

30 FHWA. 2016. HSIP and Safety Performance Management Measures Rulemaking: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/rulemaking/. 

3.3.2 DESIGNING, OPERATING, AND 

MAINTAINING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

TO REDUCE CRASHES

FLMAs face unique safety performance challenges on their 

transportation networks in the Pacific Northwest. Due to 

mountainous terrain in the region, many of the roadways 

through Federal lands have challenging curves and grades, 

potential for collisions with a variety of wildlife, and risks 

from inclement weather, such as winter storms or flooding. 

Furthermore, many visitors lack familiarity with local roads 

and conditions, and drivers must take extra precautions 

as recreational travelers use the same roadway to hike and 

bicycle. When planning for Federal lands transportation safety 

performance in the Pacific Northwest, FLMAs must consider 

the unique characteristics and multimodal nature of their 

transportation systems.

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a nationwide 

census maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) of fatal injuries suffered in motor 

vehicle crashes on all public roads in the United States. State 

DOTs report fatality data annually to NHTSA, based on data 

collected by first responders, such as local law enforcement 

agencies. Between 2009 and 2013, 172 fatal traffic crashes on 

Federal lands in Oregon and Washington were reported to 

FARS, an average of 43 per year. Of those, 109 were on the 

National Highway System, and 63 were on other roads on 

Federal lands, such as those managed by FLMAs, counties, and 

other local partners. Fatal traffic crashes on Federal lands occur 

throughout Oregon and Washington, but there are certain 

locations with the potential for improvement in the east-west 

and north-south routes through the Cascade Mountain Range, 

in the Columbia River Gorge, and near Grants Pass, Oregon. 

To fully understand the context of these crashes will require 

a more detailed analysis. In the future, FLMAs should work 

together with local and State partners to better understand the 

safety concerns in these areas and address them collaboratively.

FLMAs are conducting a variety of activities currently to 

address safety performance in their transportation systems, 

summarized in Table 6.
42 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 6. FLMA Safety Management Activities

Agency Current Safety Management

NPS Working on developing a National Safety 

Management System

Investing about $1 million per year in safety projects 

in the Pacific Western Region (which also includes 

California, Nevada, and Idaho)

FWS Using a National Safety Management System

Using a regional analysis of locations with potential 

for safety improvement

USFS Developing a National Safety Management System

Prioritizing sites for Road Safety Audits

BLM Tracking and reporting transportation-related 

fatalities that occur on BLM lands

Investing FLTP funds in projects with safety benefits

USACE Tracking transportation-related fatalities that occur 

on USACE lands, as well as incidents that result in 

property damage

The following sub-sections summarize emphasis areas based 

on the unique characteristics of Federal lands transportation 

systems in the Pacific Northwest. These emphasis areas are not 

driven by data but are anecdotal based on FLMA observations.

Reducing Risk on Multiuse Roadways

Because FLMA transportation networks support multiple 

modes, transportation safety is a multimodal issue. For 

example, many of the roads to and through Federal lands 

in the Pacific Northwest are popular bicycle routes, and, in 

many cases, bicyclists share the road with passenger vehicles, 

recreational vehicles, logging trucks, and other road users. In 

mountain settings, these roadways often follow winding, steep 

routes that obscure upcoming views for travelers. Multimodal 

use and a mix of recreational and economic use of roads are 

particularly prevalent on the region’s 17 scenic byways. In 

Oregon, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, ODOT, 

Travel Oregon, and Ride Oregon have partnered to designate 

17 scenic bikeways (see Figure 20), providing information 

and maps for bicycle touring routes throughout the state, 

many of which pass through Federal lands.31 To reduce the 

frequency and severity of crashes related to bicycle travel on 

rural, multiuse roadways on Federal lands, the Forest Service, 

ODOT, and WFL currently are collaborating on a FLAP- and 

FLTP-funded project to research best practices to reduce 

31 Oregon State Parks, Scenic Bikeways: https://oregonstateparks.org/index.cfm?do=thingstodo.dsp_scenicBikeways. 32 https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION4/Pages/WildlifeCrossings.aspx

crash potential on multiuse roadways in National Forests and 

similar road types. In addition, there are increasing numbers of 

organized/permitted events (i.e., bicycling and running events) 

that use the transportation routes through Federal lands. As 

potential conflicts between motorists and event participants 

become more prevalent, higher levels of information and 

awareness—along with sophisticated traffic control plans—

become more critical for reducing the potential for crashes for 

all users and visitors.

Oregon Scenic Bikeway

Reducing Crashes Involving Wildlife

Currently, the Forest Service is collaborating with the State 

of Washington to reduce the number of wildlife-related 

crashes through its I-90 Wildlife Bridges Coalition Project. 

Bisecting Washington’s Central Cascades, I-90 historically 

has experienced a concentration of wildlife-related crashes. 

The Washington FLAP also is funding projects related to this 

mission. In Oregon, similar projects are underway to reduce 

vehicle crashes involving wildlife on US 97, from Lava Butte to 

South Century Drive.32 Collaborating on projects such as these 

to design roadways that provide wildlife with opportunities to 

cross without conflicts with vehicles can reduce the number of 

crashes with animals.

Reducing Crashes during Adverse Weather Conditions

Like other areas of the country, the Pacific Northwest faces 

inclement weather throughout the year, including strong winds, 

heavy rain, fog, hail, and snow. FLMAs and their partners 
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 43

coordinate to provide up-to-date information through various 

media on roadway conditions and closures due to inclement 

weather. Seasonal weather information also is provided on 

FLMA websites to provide future visitors with advanced notice 

of the types of weather conditions they might expect upon their 

arrival.

Figure 11. Cars parked along the shoulder of US 14 near Dog 

Mountain in the Columbia River Gorge, WA

Mitigating Crash Risks from Parking Congestion

Parking congestion is another factor increasing crash risk 

on the Pacific Northwest transportation network. Due to the 

increasing number of visitors to Federal lands each year, some 

parking lots are becoming overcrowded, forcing visitors to 

park on the roadway to visit recreational sites and walk to their 

destination. Overflow parking on busy roadways increases 

the chance for crashes involving pedestrians and vehicles and 

crashes involving vehicles backing up into oncoming traffic.

At sites where crashes involving vehicles backing out of parking 

areas are prevalent, such as Multnomah Falls or Dog Mountain 

in the Columbia River Gorge, FLMAs and their local partners 

are working together to develop performance expectations, 

such as reducing the demand for parking or roadway crossings.

3.3.3 SAFETY EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Safety education and outreach is an important component of 

transportation safety. Visitor information should serve two 

main purposes:

 Communicate long-term conditions: Educate visitors about 

the transportation system and general conditions for their 

trip. This includes how to get to popular visitor destinations 

and general conditions, such as topography, wildlife, and 

other safety-related information. Safety education also can 

include traditional traveler behavior messaging, such as seat 

belt awareness and messages against texting while driving or 

driving under the influence of substances.

 Communicate short-term conditions: Inform visitors about 

current conditions that impact personal safety, such as 

inclement weather or wildfires resulting in road closures, 

organized outdoor events, and wildlife migration seasons.

Visitor information can educate visitors on what to expect 

when they travel and help prevent visitors from getting lost or 

stuck in dangerous conditions. It also can help visitors look out 

for other road users or wildlife, reducing crash risk. Current 

information on weather or closures also can help visitors 

make more informed decisions about visiting an area or using 

alternate routes to avoid specific conditions.

Currently, the majority of FLMAs publish detailed information 

on what to know before you go to Federal lands in the Pacific 

Northwest and post information about travel conditions on 

their websites. In addition, ODOT and WSDOT share up-todate information on road conditions and closures on the State 

highway systems. Some high-traffic travel corridors, such as 

the Highway 26 corridor in Mount Hood National Forest, also 

use Intelligent Transportation Systems and variable messaging 

signs to alert travelers of current travel conditions.

3.3.4 EMERGENCY SERVICES & INCIDENT 

RESPONSE

Federal lands transportation systems are vulnerable to a variety 

of environmental hazards, but they also play an important 

role in incident response, serving as evacuation routes and 

providing access for emergency responders.

The Pacific Northwest is susceptible to unique environmental 

hazards, summarized in Table 7. To understand and monitor 

these hazards, FLMAs coordinate with a wide range of 

partners—including other FLMAs, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), academic researchers, State departments of forestry 

and natural resources, fire departments, law enforcement, and 

many others. FLMAs also collaborate with their partners to 

ensure a cohesive emergency response. This approach includes 

coordinated incident response and communications. Just as 

hazards are not bound to one area, incident response planning 

requires cross-agency coordination.
44 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Table 7. Summary of Environmental Hazards in the Pacific Northwest

Hazard Most Prevalent 

Geographic 

Location

Resources for More Information Implications for Federal Lands 

Transportation

Volcanic 

Hazards

Cascade Mountain 

Range  USGS Volcano Hazards Program—Cascades 

Volcano Observatory

Roads in the Cascades Range could be 

damaged by volcanic eruptions. They 

also serve an important role as potential 

evacuation routes.

Earthquakes Coastal Oregon and 

Washington  Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

 USGS Earthquake Information

• Washington

• Oregon

Earthquakes can damage transportation 

infrastructure.

Tsunamis Coastal Oregon and 

Washington  National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program

 Oregon Tsunami Clearinghouse

 Washington Tsunami Hazards

Tsunamis pose a risk for transportation 

infrastructure within inundation zones on the 

Pacific Coast. Roads designated as tsunami 

evacuation routes also serve an important 

role in tsunami response.

Wildfires Northern 

Washington & 

central and southern 

Oregon

 Active Fire Information—Incident Information 

System

 USFS Wildfire Hazard Potential Mapping

 Oregon Fire Precaution Levels

 Washington Department of Natural 

Resources Fire Precaution Levels

Wildfires can damage road, bridge, and trail 

infrastructure. Roads also play an important 

role in evacuation, fire response, and postfire recovery activities.

Floods Low-lying areas near 

water bodies and the 

Pacific coast

 Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Flood Hazard Mapping 

 FHWA Emergency Relief Program and 

Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

Programs

Floods can damage roads, trails, and bridges. 

Flood events also pose danger to Federal 

lands transportation users.

Landslides Unstable slopes, 

particularly in steep 

valleys with heavy 

precipitation

 USGS Landslide Hazards Program Landslides can damage transportation 

infrastructure and can pose danger to 

Federal lands transportation users.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 45

In addition to the resources in Table 7, Washington and Oregon 

both develop and regularly update hazard mitigation plans, 

which analyze a range of natural hazards and the populations 

and infrastructure that are vulnerable. The plans include goals, 

objectives, and actions to reduce injury and damage from 

natural disasters.33,34

Extreme weather trends in the Pacific Northwest may increase 

the risks posed by natural hazards in the future.35 Specifically, 

the Pacific Northwest region is expected to experience 

increased risked from the following hazards:

 Sea level rise and storm damage to coastal infrastructure

 Increased flooding from heavy precipitation events

 Increased erosion and landslides

 Increased wildfire risk

 Impacts on natural resources and ecosystems

All the FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest, as well as ODOT and 

WSDOT, have taken actions to increase their understanding of 

the impacts of extreme weather and strategies to increase their 

resilience, as detailed in the Natural Hazards Technical Report 

(Appendix E). This is an area that will require further research, 

planning, and monitoring.

3.3.5 LOOKING FORWARD

FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest each have processes to 

improve safety performance on their transportation systems, 

as shown in Table 6. However, the complex, multijurisdictional 

nature of travel corridors to and through Federal lands 

33 Washington State Emergency Management Division. 2018. Washington State Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan: http://mil.wa.gov/other-links/enhancedhazard-mitigation-plan. 34 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2015. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan: https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/HAZ/pages/nhmp.

aspx. 35 Appendix E: Natural Hazards Technical Report

in the Pacific Northwest poses distinct challenges in 

understanding and improving safety performance throughout 

the transportation network. The project team identified the 

following safety needs and gaps:

 Many agencies lack training on state-of-the-practice 

methods to analyze safety performance, as well as the 

analytical capability to effectively identify specific issues and 

appropriate mitigations for them.

 Many FLMAs lack the crash data required to understand 

and prioritize roadways with high crash potential specific to 

routes under FMLA jurisdiction.

 Challenges with data sharing among partners—especially 

given sensitivities around crash data (e.g., the need to 

protect personal health information)—make it difficult 

for agencies to effectively analyze safety data across 

jurisdictions.

 FLMAs need to better understand how travelers collect 

information before and during travel, how existing 

communication impacts their decisions, and how to best 

communicate safety-related information. This includes 

a need for FLMAs and their partners to provide relevant 

roadway condition and safety information in formats that 

can feed into third-party information providers, such as 

websites and mobile apps.

 As extreme weather threatens to increase the risk of 

environmental hazards, such as flooding, wildfire, and 

unstable slopes, FLMAs should assess and prioritize the 

current and potential future vulnerability of the Federal 

lands transportation systems, as well as the implications for 

traveler safety and emergency response.
46 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

3.4 ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY

GOAL

Provide a seamless, multimodal transportation system that supports community connectivity and access 

to public lands.

Objectives:

 Planning information: Strengthen the depth and breadth of information used to support access planning 

and management.

 Multimodal access and connectivity: Enhance interagency communication and collaboration to improve 

multimodal access and connectivity to public lands.

 Supporting communities: Collaborate with neighboring communities to support access to economic and 

recreational opportunities on Federal lands.

 Access for underserved populations: Work with diverse user groups to ensure access to Federal lands for all, 

including low-income, minority, carless, or mobility-impaired visitors.

Pacific Northwest FLMAs are committed to providing a 

seamless multimodal transportation system that supports 

community access and connectivity to public lands. FLMAs 

are not only concerned with access and connectivity 

within Federal lands, but also to these places. Achieving 

seamless multimodal travel to Federal lands by working 

with partners (such as State DOTs and counties) is also a 

prominent theme in Section 3.2, Resource Protection. As a 

reflection of the Pacific Northwest FLMAs’ emphasis on 

providing seamless multimodal transportation, this LRTP 

considers a broad definition of its transportation system. 

Although the transportation assets discussed in Section 3.2, 

Resource Protection, and elsewhere in this Plan focus on 

FLMA-managed assets, the concept of the Pacific Northwest 

transportation system also includes connections to other nonFLMA-managed transportation facilities.

It is for this purpose of providing a seamless multimodal 

transportation system that the Pacific Northwest CLRTP 

examines access and connectivity to and within all Federal 

lands. The determinations made in this Plan, combined 

with the resulting implementation actions documented 

in Chapter 7.0, Implementation Plan, create footholds for 

collaborative multiagency efforts to improve seamless access 

and connectivity to and within Pacific Northwest Federal lands.

3.4.1 TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS, AND 

CONNECTIVITY

While site-specific access and connectivity conditions 

are determined through more finely scaled planning and 

analysis (e.g., unit-level plans such as travel management 

plans and forest management plans), this multistate and 

multiagency Plan uses high-level indicators to represent 

common access and connectivity concepts and issues present 

in the Pacific Northwest. Such access and connectivity 

issues characterize the kinds of topics that may be addressed 

through multiagency collaboration and the actions outlined in 

Chapter 7.0, Implementation Plan.

Access Points

Access points represent where a road or trail, regardless 

of ownership, crosses an FLMA boundary. Figure 12 and 

Figure 13 illustrate these locations as point symbols at the 

precise location where roads and trails access a Federal land, 

as well as increasingly darker colors to represent concentration 

of access points in six-mile-by-six-mile cells. Greater numbers 

of access points indicate that there are more opportunities 

to access Federal lands from another jurisdiction by vehicle, 

transit, foot, or bicycle. And while the unique nature of access 

and connectivity is different at each individual access point, 
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 47

the premise for the two-state-scale Pacific Northwest CLRTP 

access point consideration is that more access points generally 

mean one of two things: First, greater concentrations of access 

points can be emblematic of non-contiguous FLMA lands 

where roads and trails repeatedly weave in and out of Federal 

lands. Second, more access points mean that there are more 

opportunities to access and connect to a specific Federal land 

area from another jurisdiction. Locations with more road or 

trail access points can indicate proximity to developed areas, 

adjacency to many other FLMA lands, or high-use areas, or it 

can be that they are located along major travel corridors. All 

such high-access point concentration locations are candidates 

for multiagency collaboration for the purposes of improving 

the continuity of access and connectivity across jurisdictions.

Fewer road and trail access points typify rural or remote 

Federal land locations. Areas with fewer trail access points 

do not typically represent areas with inadequate access. 

Rather, fewer access points represent remote lands, small land 

management units, lower visitation sites, longer distances from 

others’ trail networks and/or other feeder arteries like roads 

or transit, and/or the result of carefully planned FLMA access 

management.

Figure 12. Road Access Point Example: Southwest Oregon

Full size maps are available in Appendix G.

Figure 13. Trail Access Point Example: Central Washington

Full size maps are available in Appendix G.

FLMA Roads

Access and connectivity is highly dependent on FLMAmanaged roads that provide the visiting public and other users 

with the ability to move about Federal lands using vehicles, 

transit, or bicycles. The concentration of road miles indicates 

the extent to which travelers can move within Federal lands to 

access and connect to recreational or economic opportunities. 

Areas with high concentrations of public-use roads provide 

extensive Federal land access and connectivity. Higher 

concentrations of recreational sites, trails, and connectivity to 

major non-FLMA roads, as well as economic opportunities 

such as timber harvesting, are more closely associated with 

locations that have more numerous FLMA roads, since they 

provide access to these sites.

Vehicle circulation within Federal lands is limited where there 

are fewer public-use FLMA roads. This situation is not inherently undesired; it typically reflects deliberate decision-making 

processes and/or physical geographic constraints. Low FLMA 

road density areas typically are in locations where demand 

for road access is low and/or the condition meets the needs of 

other goals, such as visitor experience or the accommodation 

of environmental constraint factors.

Access encompasses movement within Federal lands.
48 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Non-FLMA-Managed Roads

Seamless access also is determined by how roads not owned 

and managed by FLMAs connect to Federal lands. The 

presence and concentration of non-FLMA-managed roads—

such as county roads, State highways, and interstates—is a 

proxy for external access and connectivity to Federal lands 

since these roads access and connect Federal lands with outside 

communities and cities. Areas with high concentrations of 

non-FLMA roads provide the greatest opportunity for the 

public to directly access Federal lands by vehicle or bicycle. 

These locations also offer opportunities for FLMAs and 

other agencies to collaborate for the advancement of access 

and connectivity goals. Locations with greater amounts of 

non-FLMA-managed roads include urbanized areas and the 

corridors that connect these areas.

Areas with fewer non-FLMA roads are characteristic of rural 

communities, the outer edges of urban areas, and along remote 

sections of rural corridors. Access and connectivity in areas 

with fewer non-FLMA road areas means fewer travel routes are 

available to the traveling public to access Federal lands. This is 

not necessarily undesired, since fewer non-Federally managed 

roads connecting to Federal lands can reflect deliberate 

decision-making processes and/or meet the needs of other 

goals, such as visitor experience or the accommodation of 

environmental constraints.

Trails

Trails are another important means of access and 

connection to Federal lands. Their role also is important 

to recreation and visitor experience, as discussed in 

Section 3.5, Visitor Experience. The goal of providing seamless 

access and connectivity is served by improving the quality 

of trail connectivity to and within Federal lands. Areas with 

greater concentrations of trails provide extensive Federal 

land access and connectivity. High trail density tends to be 

in areas of higher recreation use where trails—in addition to 

providing access to recreational sites—are visitor attractions 

in and of themselves. It is also important for more expansive 

trail networks to be located within a convenient travel distance 

of populated areas and major non-FLMA roads. For example, 

Figure 14 shows access to high trail density areas of Deschutes 

National Forest from Bend, Oregon, by way of Oregon Route 

372. In this example, colored grids symbolize trail density as a 

backdrop to actual trail alignments.

Locations with fewer trails do not necessarily indicate that 

they are underserved by trails or have inadequate connection 

to Federal lands. Rather, this condition reflects intentional 

and carefully planned decisions that consider factors such 

as need, cost, visitor experience, land use, environment, 

and other FLMA-specific concerns. Areas with fewer trails 

are characteristic of remote Federal lands, low-visitation 

areas, locations with fewer recreation sites, and/or sensitive 

environmental areas.

Figure 14. Trail Density Example: Central Oregon

Full size maps are available in Appendix G.

Transit

Where available, public transit services provide critical 

access and connectivity to Federal lands (Figure 15). This 

mode is especially important for people wishing to connect 

to Federal lands, but who are without convenient access 

to a personal vehicle. Locations where transit accesses and 

connects to Federal lands represent potential opportunities 

for implementation actions, such as increased coordination, 

service, or number of stops. Areas with more numerous or 

extensive transit routes have greater existing/potential transit 

access and connectivity for travelers. High-transit density 

conditions can include connections between different transit 

systems. Locations with the greatest densities of transit are 

highly urbanized cities like Seattle and Portland. Opportunities 

for implementation actions in these locations is discussed 

further in Chapter 7.0, Implementation Plan.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 49

Figure 15. Pacific Northwest Transit Routes

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Property Status

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government

Transit Routes
50 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Ownership Overlap

Access and connectivity issues can be especially complex in 

areas where roads that are owned and/or maintained by one 

agency are located on lands owned by another. The issue is 

related specifically to the “seamless” tenet of the Access and 

Connectivity goal statement. These areas of overlapping 

ownership benefit from multiagency collaboration and 

identifying actions and improvements to enhance seamless 

travel and have the potential to benefit two or more agencies. 

Highest-density road ownership conditions typically represent 

FLMA-managed roads extending well beyond their boundaries 

into non-Federally owned lands. This is illustrated in Figure 16, 

where USFS roads extend well beyond the Olympic National 

Forest boundaries into surrounding jurisdictions’ lands.

Figure 16. Road Ownership Overlap Example: Northwest Washington

The example illustrates USFS-managed roads outside of the agency’s boundaries. Full size maps are available in Appendix G

3.4.2 LOOKING FORWARD

Needs that will help close gaps between the aspirational 

conditions described in goal and objective statements 

and present-day conditions have been determined 

by the collaborative multiagency planning process 

and supported by information summarized in 

Section 3.4, Access and Connectivity. Needs are addressed 

through actions devised during the Pacific Northwest CLRTP 

development process. By committing to the actions listed in 

Chapter 7.0, Implementation Plan, Pacific Northwest FLMAs 

will be able to begin closing the identified gaps between 

existing conditions and the desired future conditions expressed 

in the Access and Connectivity goal. Specific actions include:

 Identify and pursue opportunities to leverage multiple 

funding sources for a seamless transportation network.

 Integrate CLRTP goals into FLAP project selection criteria.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 51

3.5 VISITOR EXPERIENCE

GOAL

Promote ease and enjoyment of travel to and within Federal lands

Objectives:

 Transportation systems that contribute to a positive experience: Create transportation systems that 

welcome and orient visitors, provide recreational experiences, and become part of a positive recollection of 

the visit.

 Supporting diverse transportation experiences: Provide transportation programs and modal options that 

encourage a diversity of experiences across user groups.

 Visitor information: Establish consistent visitor information systems and leverage opportunities to 

coordinate communications across agencies.

Through their focus on attainment of the Visitor Experience 

goal, the Pacific Northwest FLMAs capture shared 

commitments to promote ease and enjoyment of travel to 

and within Federal lands. Like the Access and Connectivity 

goal, as well as the Place-Based Collaboration goal, the Visitor 

Experience goal builds on aspirations to provide appropriate 

travel to and within Federally owned lands. Unlike these other 

goals, however, the Visitor Experience goal focuses on how 

transportation may be used to maintain and improve travelrelated enjoyment.

Enjoyable travel to and within Federal lands is determined by 

individual trip and route-level factors related to congestion, 

pavement condition, wayfinding services, aesthetics, 

information, parking availability, travel mode options, safety, 

and numerous other fine-scale factors related to traveler 

preferences and expectations. Of these factors, each FLMA 

characterizes and measures transportation-related visitor 

experience differently. For example, the NPS publication, 

Visitor Experience: An Overview for Long-Range Transportation 

Planning, provides an agency-specific approach for framing 

and assessing transportation-related experience at a long-range 

and regional scale. Unit-scale plans—for instance, resource 

management plans, comprehensive conservation plans, forest 

plans, general management plans, and others—also describe 

visitor experience conditions within the unique character of 

individual Federally managed units.

Regional and site-specific visitor experience conditions are 

determined through finely scaled planning and analysis 

(e.g., unit-level plans such as travel management plans and 

forest management plans). This multistate and multiagency 

Plan, however, uses high-level indicators to represent general 

visitor characteristics that can be described, uniformly, across 

Washington and Oregon and for all FLMAs using readily 

available data. High-level visitor characteristics center on the 

degree to which certain FLMA transportation-related features 

exist. Describing visitor characteristics related to the presence 

of various transportation features provides a high-level, 

multistate picture of visitor and transportation-related settings, 

and is not intended to measure the quality of visitors’ travel 

experience.

3.5.1 TRANSPORTATION AND VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE

The following sections describe general visitor characteristics 

surrounding transportation-related features. Taken 

individually, each transportation-related feature (recreation 

sites, roads, transit, trails, etc.) provides visitation-related 

insights, such as the degree to which a location may be easily 

visited. Relationships and other characteristics also are derived 

through the examination of different combinations of densities. 

Used in combination with figures cited, the descriptions offer a 

high-level picture of visitor- and transportation-related settings 

for Pacific Northwest FLMA lands.
52 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

FLMA Roads

The presence of FLMA-managed roads allows the public and 

other users to visit Federal lands using vehicles, transit, or 

bicycles. Road travel is a means of reaching popular visitor 

destinations like campgrounds, trailheads, ski areas, and 

all other manner of recreation sites. Road travel also is a 

visitation experience in and of itself as it enables sightseeing, 

unpaved and four-wheel-drive recreation, and other vehiclebased visitor activities. Accordingly, addressing needed road, 

wayfinding, and other travel-related improvements benefits 

the quality of visitors’ experience and promotes ease and 

enjoyment of travel to and within Federal lands. Visitor 

characteristics in areas with higher densities of FLMA roads 

tend to include higher concentrations of recreational sites, 

trails, and connectivity to major non-FLMA roads, as well as 

economic opportunities such as timber harvesting. Low FLMA 

road density areas typically are in locations where demand for 

roads is low and/or the characteristics meet the needs of other 

goals, such as visitor experience or the accommodation of 

environmental considerations.

Non-FLMA-Managed Roads

Visitor experience is linked to use of routes not managed by 

FLMAs, such as county roads, State highways, and interstates. 

The reasons for this echo those described above in the 

FLMA-managed roads discussion—namely, connecting 

to Federal lands and recreation opportunities. Areas with 

extensive roadway networks not managed by FLMAs provide 

opportunities for visitors to directly access Federal lands by 

vehicle, bicycle, or where available, public transit services.

Trails

Throughout the Pacific Northwest, trails are increasingly 

popular, both as outdoor recreational assets and as destinations 

for the visiting public. The presence of trails is also a useful 

barometer for understanding transportation-related visitor 

experience in Federal lands. Locations with more numerous 

trail characteristics are associated with higher-use recreation 

areas where trails, in addition to recreational sites, are visitor 

attractions. It is also a common characteristic that high 

trail density areas are within a convenient travel distance 

of populated areas and major non-FLMA roads. Low trail 

density features are characteristic of remote Federal lands, low 

visitation areas, locations with fewer recreation sites, and/or 

sensitive environmental areas.

Access Points

Road access points represent locations where a route, 

regardless of ownership, crosses an FLMA boundary. Areas 

with numerous road access points may be near developed 

areas, adjacent to many other FLMA lands, popular visitor 

destinations, or trace major travel corridors. Dense road 

access point areas also can indicate situations where FLMA 

boundaries include extensive inholdings or irregular patterns 

with smaller contiguous areas. These areas can benefit from 

multiagency collaboration and a focus on the quality of visitors’ 

travel experience. Travel experience continuity can vary 

from one jurisdiction to the next without coordinated visitor 

experience-focused management.

Trail access point visitor experience characteristics mirror 

those described for road access points. Trails, however, 

accommodate different travel modes—hiking and biking. Trails 

also are popular attractions for visitors and are recreationfocused. Greater access point density indicates that there are 

more opportunities for visitors to connect to one Federal 

land from another jurisdiction via one or more trails. Visitor 

experience characteristics in high FLMA trail access point 

density locations are emblematic of non-contiguous, FLMA 

lands where trails may weave in and out of Federal lands 

(Figure 12). For example, Cle Elum Trail runs along the 

border of non-contiguous USFS lands southwest of Cle Elum, 

Washington (Figure 13). These locations are critical candidates 

for multiagency collaboration for the purposes of creating 

travel experience continuity across jurisdictions.

Transit

Public transit services allow visitors to safely view and connect 

to Federal lands without having to drive. Transit also broadens 

visitor experience opportunities to those without easy or 

convenient access to use of a personal vehicle. Opportunities 

for implementation actions in these locations is discussed 

further in Chapter 7, Implementation Plan. Areas with more 

numerous or extensive transit routes have greater potential to 

provide visitors with transit service.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 53

Visitor Information

While not always considered a transportation-related feature, 

visitor information is an important element in promoting ease 

and enjoyment of travel to and within Federal lands. Having 

information readily available and in the format of greatest 

convenience for visitors (via website, mobile app, brochure, 

signage, etc.) is commonly cited as a factor in visitors’ travel 

experience. The ease in which wayfinding and traveler 

information is received and used by visitors directly relates to 

perceptions of visit quality. Because of this, more options and 

consistency in visitor information systems across all agencies 

are believed to benefit the overall long-range Visitor Experience 

goal.

3.5.2 LOOKING FORWARD

Needs, which will close gaps between present-day conditions 

and the aspirational Visitor Experience goals and objectives 

expressed in this Plan when addressed, have been determined 

by the collaborative multiagency planning process. Needs 

are addressed through actions devised during the Pacific 

Northwest CLRTP development process. By committing to 

the actions documented in Chapter 7.0, Implementation Plan, 

Pacific Northwest FLMAs will close gaps between existing and 

desired transportation system conditions and fulfill objectives 

of the Visitor Experience goal. Specific actions include:

 Review/update FLMA visitor experience plans to include 

transportation.

 Enhance visitor information, whether through ITS, signage, 

wayfinding, agency and partner websites, or third-party 

applications.

 Provide publicly accessible data on multimodal 

transportation options to access Federal lands, including 

transit schedules and routes.

 Conduct outreach to underserved communities, such as 

carless households or persons with disabilities, to help them 

access Federal lands.

Photography by: USFWS
54 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

3.6 ASSET MANAGEMENT

GOAL

Provide a transportation system with cost-effective assets that meets agency objectives over time.

Objectives:

 Collaborative asset management: Consider the importance of assets within the context of agency 

management objectives and coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions.

 Asset resilience: Consider risks to transportation assets and develop plans to increase asset resilience.

Protecting transportation assets relies on strategically 

maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets. The 

practice includes preservation, modernization, and timely 

replacement of assets through cost-effective management, 

programming, and informed resource allocation decisions. 

This section describes the assets that define the existing Pacific 

Northwest FLMA transportation systems, establishes the 

existing physical and operational conditions associated with 

these assets, describes desired future conditions, and identifies 

the gaps between existing and future conditions.

Sustainable transportation programs address current and 

future transportation system needs within the limits of 

current and expected future year budgets. Asset management 

principles, including preventative maintenance and corrective 

maintenance strategies, are essential for achieving these 

ends and making informed decisions about maintaining 

and improving FLMA transportation assets. In the face of 

increasing need and limited funds, it is essential to target 

transportation assets that are the most important to advancing 

FLMA missions and to prioritize them for maintenance and 

improvement. This collaborative multiagency LRTP focuses 

on overall FLMA transportation system composition and 

interdependencies with respect to protecting transportation 

assets. The interdependent nature of Northwest FLMA 

transportation systems outlined in the Place-Based 

Collaboration goal also applies to the Asset Management goal, 

where efforts to improve asset conditions may benefit multiple 

Federal and non-Federal agencies.

Pacific Northwest FLMA transportation systems primarily 

are composed of roads, trails, bridges, and transit. While the 

nature of transportation in Federal lands is multimodal, roads 

provide high-volume connections for visitors, residents, and 

commerce alike. Federally owned roads account for nearly 

111,000 miles (or about 47 percent) of the Pacific Northwest’s 

overall public roadway network. According to FHWA’s 2016 

Highway Statistics, there are 124,823 miles of non-Federal 

roads in the Pacific Northwest that are owned and maintained 

by State or local government agencies. FLMA-owned road 

miles are summarized in Table 8 and illustrated in Figure 17

and Figure 18. The Pacific Northwest FLMA transportation 

system also is comprised of nearly 27,000 miles of trails and 

2,524 road bridges. These assets enable critical connection 

and access to FLMA lands, as described in Section 3.4. The 

cumulative Pacific Northwest FLMA inventory of trails and 

bridges is summarized in Table 8.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 55

Table 8. Pacific Northwest FLMA Road Miles

FLMA Road Miles Trail Miles

Road 

Bridges

USACE36 62 336 39

USFS37 90,000 24,843 1,483

BLM38 19,171 1,404 478

FWS39 1,127 137 433

NPS40 436 186 91

Total 110,796 26,906 2,524

36 USACE UMBIL (2016) 37 Roads and road bridges: 2017 USDA Region 6 Engineering Materials (Publication FS/R6/RO/EN/2017/0001); Trails: Official geographic information systems 

data entitled Trails Existing Region 6, dated December 4, 2017. 38 Transportation in the Bureau of Land Management, 2018 39 FWS Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4, 2007 40 Roads: NPS Road Inventory Program, accessed 2016; Trail miles: FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway, Multimodal Catalog, 2016; Road bridges: NPS 

FHWA Bridge Inventory Program, accessed 2016

Figure 17. Pacific Northwest Road Ownership

Photography by: BLM

Non-Federal

USFS

BLM

FWS

NPS

USACE
56 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

Figure 18. Pacific Northwest FLMA Road Networks

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

Property Status

Other Federal Agencies

Tribal Lands

State Agencies

Local Government

NPS Road

FWS Road

BLM Road

USFS Road

USACE
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 57

The Pacific Northwest FLMA transportation network also 

relies on the use of public transit services. While rarely owned 

and operated by the FLMAs, transit service provides critical 

access to public lands, as described in Section 3.4, Access and 

Connectivity. According to the FHWA Office of Federal Lands 

Highway’s Multimodal Catalog, there are 29 public transit 

systems in the Pacific Northwest Region whose operations 

extend into FLMA-managed lands (summarized by state 

in Table 9). In recent years, transit service and operations 

benefitting FLMA access have grown in popularity as FLAP 

applications have sought to obtain funding for the initiation or 

expansion of these services.

Table 9. Transit Systems Intersecting Pacific Northwest FLMA 

Lands

State Transit Systems

WA 23

OR 6

Total 29

Source: FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway, Multimodal Catalog (2016)

3.6.1 TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

Understanding the condition of transportation assets is a 

prerequisite for informed management decisions and successful 

protection of transportation facilities. Each FLMA assesses 

and quantifies the condition of transportation assets in a 

manner that is consistent with agency needs and best practices. 

However, these condition assessment practices are not being 

applied uniformly among all FLMAs in the region and there are 

subtle differences in the way that asset conditions are reported. 

For this reason, road condition determinations cannot be made 

consistently across all agencies.

Pacific Northwest bridge conditions are calculated uniformly 

across all FLMAs through application of the FHWA’s 

National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). Among 

National Bridge Inspection Program data is the category 

“structurally deficient,” which applies to bridges with deck, 

superstructure, substructure, or culvert condition ratings of 

poor or worse, or if the road approaches regularly overtop due 

to flooding. Examples of poor condition include corrosion 

that has resulted in significant section loss of steel support 

members, substructure movement, or advanced cracking and 

deterioration in concrete bridge decks. The fact that a bridge 

is classified as being structurally deficient does not necessarily 

imply that it is unsafe. A structurally deficient bridge typically 

needs maintenance and repair and eventual rehabilitation or 

replacement to address the identified deficiencies. Of the 1,857 

total Pacific Northwest FLMA-owned bridges recorded in 

FHWA’s National Bridge Inspection Program, only 67 bridges 

(or about 3.6 percent) are reported to be structurally deficient. 

Table 10 summarizes structurally deficient bridges by FLMA. 

Agency profiles presented in the appendices of this CLRTP 

document contain additional information about agencyspecific strategies for managing these assets.

Table 10. Pacific Northwest FLMA Structurally Deficient Bridges

FLMA Structurally Deficient 

Bridges

USACE 1

USFS 61

BLM 4

FWS 1

NPS 0

Total 67

Source: FHWA, National Bridge Inspection Program (accessed, 2016)

While the existing condition of transportation assets is 

relatively well understood within each FLMA, risks to 

specific Pacific Northwest FLMA transportation assets due 

to climate change and the effects of extreme weather events 

are less clear. Currently, there are no comprehensive assetlevel climate risk assessments available for Pacific Northwest 

FLMA-managed transportation assets. Nevertheless, the 

Natural Hazards Technical Report accompanying this Plan 

(available in Appendix E) outlines FLMA climate changerelated directives, studies, adaptation, and mitigation guidance, 

and additional agency-level climate planning resources. The 

report summarizes studies and initiatives being undertaken 

by FLMAs, WSDOT, and ODOT to address climate changerelated risks to transportation systems. As these studies and 

initiatives (e.g., FWS’s asset-level climate risk assessment) are 

completed and implemented over the lifespan of this longrange Plan, they will provide additional support to the asset 

management vulnerability objective and other related goals of 

this LRTP.

The Natural Hazards Technical Report (in Appendix E)

recognizes that transportation assets managed by the 

Northwest FLMA may face increased risks due to climate 

change. The report concludes that transportation assets are 

vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels and storm surges. 

Assets located near coastal areas could experience more 

frequent flooding due to sea level rise and increased storm 

events, as well as increased damage from landslides. Increased 

precipitation events also can lead to increased flooding, road 

undercutting and erosion, and landslide events. Flooding and 

landslide risks to transportation assets are exacerbated through 
58 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

increased frequency and severity of wildfires. The potential also 

exists to completely lose some coastal infrastructure elements 

due to sea level rise or adjacent land subsidence.

3.6.2 LOOKING FORWARD

This CLRTP identifies shared multiagency asset-focused 

objectives, whereas detailed agency-specific asset management 

goals, strategies, and desired future conditions are addressed 

in the accompanying agency profiles. The agency-specific 

condition objectives are essential context for understanding 

the unique nature of FLMA asset management principles. 

For example, it is not uncommon for desired conditions to be 

described as fair, poor, or even worse. This is often the case 

where positive visitor experience and expectations are tied to 

somewhat challenging travel over what may be rather primitive 

or natural roads or trails. Furthermore, target conditions are 

tied to agency-specific asset ratings that describe priority, use, 

and other categories of unique significance to a specific FLMA.

Throughout the CLRTP planning process—including 

numerous workshops, drafts, and revisions—the Pacific 

Northwest FLMAs have established the following 

transportation asset protection-related targets:

 FLMA transportation networks recognize agency 

interdependencies.

 Lifecycle costs of new transportation assets are fully 

considered and planned for before construction.

 Climate change and extreme weather event considerations 

are integrated into asset management practices.

Despite FLMA success in managing and protecting 

transportation assets, there are numerous hurdles facing 

the FLMA transportation system. The actions required to 

close the “gaps” between the future conditions described in 

long-range objectives and existing conditions are considered 

“needs.” Needs take many forms, including maintenance of 

existing assets, constructing new assets, creating partnerships, 

conducting studies, collecting data, improving management 

systems and decision-making processes, planning, refining 

policies, and other actions that ultimately protect the Pacific 

Northwest FLMA transportation systems. Needs can be 

addressed through “actions” devised during the Pacific 

Northwest CLRTP development process. By committing 

to accomplishment of the actions listed in Chapter 7, 

Implementation Plan, the Pacific Northwest FLMAs will be 

able to work to close the currently identified gaps between 

present-day transportation system conditions and desired 

future conditions. Specific actions identified include:

 Identify asset-level needs that cross agency boundaries and 

partnership opportunities to protect those assets.

 Assess vulnerabilities of transportation infrastructure 

to environmental hazards and share best practices to 

increase transportation system resiliency. (This includes 

climate change vulnerability assessments, unstable slopes 

management plans, seismic/volcanic hazards preparedness, 

wildfire preparedness, etc.).

 Monitor ERFO events to understand asset vulnerability, and 

coordinate with partners on emergency response.
Photography by: USACE

4.0 TRENDS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS

Photography by: USFS
Photography by: USFS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 63

To inform the development of this Pacific Northwest CLRTP, 

the multiagency partners developed four technical reports 

detailing trends and regional context, which are included as 

appendices. These are:

 Regulatory Context (Appendix B): Describes Federal 

regulations and programs regarding transportation to and 

within Federal lands, as well as Oregon and Washington 

regulations and programs relevant to Federal lands 

transportation planning.

 Visitation and Demographics (Appendix C): Presents 

data on visitors to Federal lands in Oregon and Washington, 

regional demographics, and common recreational activities.

 Economic Impact of Federal Public Lands (Appendix D):

Presents data on the types of economic activities on Federal 

lands and the ways that Federal lands contribute to local 

economies in the Pacific Northwest.

 Natural Hazards Technical Report (Appendix E):

Summarizes projected extreme weather impacts on Federal 

lands transportation systems in Oregon and Washington 

and each agency’s programs and activities to increase 

transportation resilience.

This chapter provides a summary of key trends and their 

implications for the CLRTP’s goal areas.

4.1 REGULATORY CONTEXT

The Regulatory Technical Report describes regulations and 

their jurisdictional authority as they relate to the long-range 

transportation planning process for FLMAs. The Regulatory 

Technical Report documents planning, funding, and 

investment programs at the Federal and State levels within 

Washington and Oregon, as well as bi-state agreements.

Each FLMA has a transportation program dedicated to 

planning, developing, and delivering transportation systems 

on its lands, which varies based on agency mission and 

funding levels. The Regulatory Technical Report explains state 

legislation and programs that affect transportation planning 

for FLMAs. Both Washington and Oregon have statewide 

LRTPs and statewide TIPs. Each state also has a variety of its 

own modal, Tribal, and regional plans and funding programs. 

There are also bi-state agreements that deal with transportation 

issues and services crossing state boundaries. FLMAs may need 

to coordinate with many of these agencies and efforts whose 

interests and boundaries intersect with their own.

This technical report is relevant to every goal area, but 

particularly to the Place-Based Collaboration goal, because 

it describes the funding programs and regulatory context 

necessary to understand how to collaborate with other FLMAs 

and State, local, and Tribal partners.
64 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

4.2 VISITATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS

41 Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. 2013. Forecasts of Oregon’s County Populations and Components of Change, 2010–2050. Released March 28, 2013. 

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/oea/Pages/demographic.aspx 42 Washington Office of Financial Management. 2007. 2007 county projections by age: 5-year age groupings & 5-year intervals only. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/

pop/gma/projections07.asp

The Visitation-Demographics Technical Report summarizes 

relevant FLMA visitation data, Washington and Oregon state 

data on tourism and outdoor recreation, and U.S. Census data. 

The trends in this report are most relevant for the Access and 

Connectivity goal and Visitor Experience goal. Key findings for 

this CLRTP include:

 Outdoor recreation is popular among visitors and residents 

in the Pacific Northwest. More than half of out-of-state 

visitors to Oregon and Washington include trips to Federal 

lands—approximately 62 million visitors. In addition, 

Oregon and Washington residents participate in outdoor 

recreation at particularly high rates, with 92 percent and 

90 percent reporting outdoor recreation in the past year, 

respectively. As a result, there is high demand for access 

to Federal lands recreation sites in the Pacific Northwest, 

particularly in proximity to the region’s population centers.

 Demographic trends in the Pacific Northwest project overall 

population growth (18 percent between 2015 and 2030), 

an aging population (60 percent more residents older than 

age 65 from 2015 to 2030), and an increasingly diverse 

population (with particular growth in Asian and Hispanic 

residents).41,42 Because of these trends, FLMAs should 

expect to see increasing visitation and a potential shift 

in desired activities based on demographic changes. For 

example, an increasing number of visitors over the age of 

65 is expected to increase demand for passive recreation, 

such as auto touring and wildlife viewing. FLMAs also 

should consider outreach strategies to reach a more diverse 

population.

 FLMAs in Oregon and Washington experience peak 

visitation on summer weekends. This pattern creates 

concentrated demand for access to recreation sites and 

results in congestion during peak times.

 Visitors to Federal lands engage in a diverse number 

of recreational activities, with FLMAs filling different 

recreational niches. For most FLMAs, the most popular 

activities are hiking and wildlife viewing, with a wide range 

of other activities depending on agency missions and lands.

For USACE lands, however, boating is the most popular 

activity. Because some activities have specific transportation 

needs—such as boat ramp access or equestrian parking 

spaces—these activity trends have implications for 

transportation planning.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 65

4.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FEDERAL LANDS

The Economic Impact of Federal Public Lands Technical 

Report summarizes the economic contribution and economic 

impact of Federal lands in Oregon and Washington. These 

include three types of economic impacts:

 Direct impacts are experienced after an initial financial 

transaction.

 Indirect impacts occur after the direct impact from the 

additional purchases that the original payment afforded or 

required.

 Induced impacts result from the expenditure of the wages 

and salaries supported by the directly and indirectly affected 

industries.

Economic impacts from Federal lands include revenue from 

recreation and tourism, economic uses of Federal lands 

(including timber harvesting, mineral extraction, energy 

production, navigation, and grazing), and employment. 

Through these impacts, Federal lands contribute to State and 

local economies.

Transportation plays a large role in allowing economically 

productive activities to occur on and surrounding public lands. 

The trends in this technical report are most relevant to the 

Place-Based Collaboration goal area, which has an objective to 

“plan and manage a transportation system appropriate to the 

region’s unique social, economic, and environmental contexts 

that supports diverse benefits for surrounding communities 

and regions.” In addition, the FLTP and FLAP emphasize 

investments in transportation systems that access high-use 

recreation sites and economic generators.

Photography by: USFS
66 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

4.4 NATURAL HAZARDS

Natural hazards will affect environmental and cultural 

resources, as well as transportation systems and other 

infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, 

understanding and preparing for potential impacts is an 

important part of the long-range transportation planning 

process, which will help FLMAs anticipate and prepare for 

a number of management options. The Natural Hazards 

Technical Report documents:

 FLMA directives and executive orders on climate change

 Climate change projections for the Pacific Northwest and 

potential impacts on FLMA transportation systems

 Department and agency strategies for climate change 

adaptation

 Department and agency strategies for climate change 

mitigation

 Available resources for climate change adaptation and 

mitigation planning

The agencies participating in this CLRTP chose not to create 

a stand-alone multiagency goal addressing natural hazards, 

but instead to consider these issues as they relate to other 

multiagency goals. The relationship between natural hazards 

and the following goal areas is listed below and documented 

further in this technical report:

 Protect Resources—Climate forecasts show that changes 

in temperature, precipitation, and associated environmental 

conditions will alter or threaten existing ecosystems. 

These changes will cause some species and ecosystems to 

migrate, while others may be threatened with extinction. 

Some Threatened and Endangered Species will experience 

additional stresses and habitat loss, and other species may 

become Threatened or Endangered. In addition, climate 

change impacts, such as flooding and erosion, may threaten 

cultural resources. Future FLMA transportation systems will 

have to adapt to these changing ecosystems and resource 

impacts through planning and management. In addition, 

FLMAs’ climate change mitigation strategies can help reduce 

the severity of climate change impacts on environmental and 

cultural resources.

 Ensure Safety—Climate change may impact safety on 

the FLMA transportation system by affecting the physical 

and safe operating conditions of some transportation 

assets. Climate change-related extreme weather events 

also may affect the safety of the transportation system and 

have implications for FLMAs’ operations, maintenance, 

emergency response, and communications.

 Protect Assets—Climate change impacts—such as 

increased flooding, sea level rise, landslides, erosion, heat 

waves, and wildfires—will increase risks to and may degrade 

the condition of transportation assets. These impacts may 

damage transportation infrastructure, increase operations 

and maintenance costs, or decrease the useful life of existing 

transportation systems. FLMAs may need to protect assets 

from climate change impacts by changing design standards, 

exploring adaptation options for existing transportation 

assets, or changing operations and maintenance practices.
Photography by: BLM

5.0 FUNDING

Photography by: BLM
Photography by: USFS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 71

FLMA transportation systems are funded through a variety 

of Federal, State, and local programs. At this time, the 

funding levels for these programs are not anticipated to 

increase significantly over the next 20 years. In the current 

fiscally constrained environment, a well-defined funding 

and investment strategy built on defensible project selection 

processes and a wide-ranging pool of funding programs is 

critical to ensure continued maintenance and improvement 

of transportation assets. Federal, State, and local jurisdictions 

continue to look for innovative funding mechanisms to 

span growing gaps between projected needs and anticipated 

available funds.

This chapter identifies a broad range of Federal and nonFederal funding programs that are available to FLMAs. It is also 

important to note that, in a geographically large and complex 

area such as the bi-state region of Washington and Oregon, 

many of the principal access routes to and from individual 

FLMA units are facilities owned and operated by either State 

DOTs or local government agencies. These State and local 

governments use a variety of transportation funding programs 

with monies generated at the Federal, State, and local levels. 

These programs emphasize the importance of partnering with 

other Federal, State, and local agencies to overcome funding 

gaps.

5.1 FHWA ROLE

The WFLHD provides stewardship and oversight to FLMAs 

in the form of financial resources and technical assistance for 

transportation activities. These activities include transportation 

planning, environmental studies, preliminary and final design, 

construction, and rehabilitation of the highways and bridges 

that provide access to and within Federally owned lands.

Project coordination meetings among key stakeholders can 

result in development of an interagency menu of projects (a 

TIP of sorts) where agencies agree that follow-up between 

interested parties is warranted to explore partnership 

opportunities for one or more specific projects. The ultimate 

goal of these efforts is to optimize the utility of transportation 

investments that support LRTP goals and objectives, leverage 

partnerships to access diverse funding streams, and create costefficient construction scenarios.

As an agency, FHWA serves two primary roles in supporting 

the Oregon and Washington transportation systems. First, 

WSDOT and ODOT receive Federal transportation funds to 

support their respective State and Interstate highway systems. 

The FHWA Federal-Aid Division offices in each state also 

provide stewardship, oversight, and support to WSDOT and 

ODOT, and to the ACTs, MPOs, and RTPOs in each state, 

through the entire project development cycle.
72 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

5.2 COMMON FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION 

FUNDING PROGRAMS

As noted previously, many of the principal access routes to and 

from individual FLMA units are facilities owned and operated 

by either State DOTs or local government agencies. These State 

and local governments use a variety of transportation funding 

programs with monies generated at the Federal, State, and local 

levels. At the Federal level, most funds are provided through 

either the Title 23 program for surface transportation or the 

Title 49 program for urban and rural public transportation 

services. (Refer to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/summary.

cfm for a summary of the major provisions of the FAST Act.) 

While the funding associated with these Federal transportation 

programs benefits all users of the surface transportation 

systems in the two states to some degree, these programs are 

not specifically focused on the needs of visitors to the various 

FLMA units in Washington and Oregon.

Numerous transportation funding programs are available to 

all FLMAs. These programs are described in the following 

sections and target specific transportation-related project types 

and purposes. A common theme for many of these programs is 

local partnership. These programs emphasize the importance of 

partnering by FLMA units with other Federal, State, and local 

agencies to overcome funding gaps. Many of these funding 

sources were authorized initially through MAP-21, enacted in 

July 2013, and were reauthorized in the FAST Act, which was 

enacted in December 2015.

5.2.1 FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION 

PROGRAM

The FLTP was established under MAP-21 and continued 

under the FAST Act (23 USC §203). The stated legislative 

purpose of the program is to improve those transportation 

facilities that are owned and operated by the NPS, FWS, 

USFS, BLM, USACE, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and 

Independent Federal Agencies (IFAs) with natural resource 

and land management responsibilities. (Refer to the FLTP 

implementation guidance presented at https://flh.fhwa.dot.

gov/programs/fltp/documents/FLTP%20Guidance%20-%20

CLEARED.pdf on the FHWA public website for additional 

program details.)

By statute, NPS, FWS, and USFS receive a defined annual 

allocation of the total nationally authorized and appropriated 

funding amount for this program. The remaining FLTP funding 

each year is made available to the other defined recipient 

agencies based on competitive application submissions from 

each agency. Based on these competitive investment strategies, 

the Office of the Secretary of Transportation will determine 

allocations by using a performance management model. 

The table below shows the annual FLTP national funding 

authorizations and the defined sub-allocations through Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2020.

Table 11. Federal Lands Transportation Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY20

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total

NPS $268 M $276 M $284 M $292 M $300 M $1.42 B

FWS $30 M $30 M $30 M $30 M $30 M $150 M

USFS $15 M $16 M $17 M $ 18 M $19 M $85 M

BLM, USACE, BOR, and IFAs $22 M $23 M $24 M $25 M $26 M $120 M

Total $335 M $345 M $355 M $365 M $ 375 M $1.78 B

*M = millions of dollars, B = billions of dollars
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 73

The Federal share for FLTP projects is 100 percent. Funds made 

available under FLTP will be available for obligation during the 

current Federal fiscal year in which they were appropriated plus 

three additional Federal fiscal years.

As described in the enabling Federal legislation, the FLTP 

provides funding for the following activities:

 Program administration, transportation planning, research, 

preventive maintenance, engineering, rehabilitation, 

restoration, construction, and reconstruction of Federal 

lands transportation facilities

 Capital, operations, and maintenance of transit facilities

 Transportation projects, eligible under Title 23, that are on 

the public network that provides access to, is adjacent to, or 

travels through Federal lands

 Up to $10 million per Fiscal Year for environmental 

mitigation activities

5.2.2 FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

FLAP was established in 23 USC §204 by MAP-21 and 

has been continued by the FAST Act. The primary focus 

of the program is to improve those non-Federally owned 

transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, 

or are located within Federal lands. FLAP supplements State 

and local resources for public roads, transit systems, and other 

transportation facilities, with an emphasis on the improvement 

of access opportunities to FLMAs with units that are cited as 

being high-use recreation sites and local economic generators. 

(Refer to the following FHWA program implementation 

guidance document for additional information on the FLAP 

program: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/documents/

FLAP%20Implem%20Guidance.docx.)

43 FLAP Funding Amounts by State, FY13-FY15: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/documents/2015-funding.pdf. 44 FLAP Funding Amounts by State, FY16: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/documents/ FAST_Public_FundingTABLE_FY2016.pdf. 45 FLAP FAST Act Fact Sheet: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/documents/FAST%20FLAP%20fact%20sheet.pdf. 

Projects are selected by a Programming Decision Committee 

(PDC) established in each State. The PDC members in each 

State must include a representative of the Federal Lands 

Highway division responsible for that state (in this case, 

the WFLHD), a representative of the State department of 

transportation in that state, and a representative of some 

organization representing the views of local governments 

in that state. The latter PDC member typically is associated 

with the State association of counties or the State association 

of county engineers. The PDCs request project applications 

through a call for projects. The frequency of the calls is 

established by the PDCs in each state, and typically varies from 

no more frequently than once each year to an average of once 

every two to three years.

Funds available to each state are determined by a legislatively 

mandated formula based on public land acreage, visitation, 

public road miles, and public bridges. The historically observed 

FLAP funding amounts over the FY13 to FY15 time period, 

and future annual funding over the FY16 to FY18 time period, 

in the states of Oregon and Washington are illustrated on 

Table 12.

Table 13 presents the national FLAP authorizations defined in 

the FAST Act for the period of FY16 through FY20. In total, the 

national authorized funding for this program is $1.3 billion.

Over the period of FY16 to FY20, the average annual FLAP 

funding allocations in Washington are anticipated to be 

approximately $12 million, and those in Oregon are anticipated 

to be approximately $36 million. Calls for projects occur 

periodically and are currently slated to next be open for 

submission in late 2018 for both Oregon and Washington.

Table 12. Historical and Anticipated FLAP Funding for Oregon and Washington, FY13-FY1843,44

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Total

Oregon $22,079 $22,244 $21,798 $36,540 $36,540 $36,540 $175,741

Washington $13,982 $14,087 $13,804 $12,324 $12,324 $12,324 $78,845

Total $36,061 $36,331 $35,602 $48,864 $48,864 $48,864 $254,586

Amounts shown as $1,000s

Table 13. Federal Lands Access Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY2045

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount $250 M $255 M $260 M $265 M $270 M

*M = millions of dollars
74 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

5.2.3 NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL LANDS 

AND TRIBAL PROJECTS

The Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects 

(NSFLTP) Program is a new program established by the FAST 

Act for application to FLMA major projects. All FLTP, FLAP, 

and Tribal Transportation Program eligible agencies can apply. 

States and localities may be co-applicants. This program is 

designed to provide additional financial assistance for the 

implementation of those “major” projects with total estimated 

costs of at least $25 million, with priority consideration given 

to projects with an estimated cost of more than $50 million. 

The NSFLTP Program requires that at least 10 percent of the 

total estimated project cost funding come from non-NSFLTP 

sources. Projects must have completed the NEPA process, as 

demonstrated by a completed record of decision, finding of no 

significant impact, or categorical exclusion determination. This 

program is authorized in the FAST Act for up to $100 million 

per year.

In reviewing applications for the NSFLTP Program, the 

Secretary of Transportation will consider the extent to which 

the project:

 Furthers the Department’s goals, including state of good 

repair, economic competitiveness, quality of life, and safety

 Improves the condition of critical transportation facilities, 

including multimodal transportation facilities

 Needs construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation

 Has matching funds (projects with a greater percentage 

of matching funds rank higher than projects with a lesser 

percentage of matching funds)

 Is included on or eligible for the NRHP

 Uses new technologies and innovations to increase project 

efficiency

 Is supported (whether for construction or for operation and 

maintenance) by funds other than those received under this 

program

 Spans two or more States

 Serves land owned by multiple Federal agencies or Indian 

tribes [FAST Act § 1123(f)]

5.2.4 TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

As defined in MAP-21, and as continued by the FAST Act, 

the purpose of the Tribal Transportation Program (TPP) is to 

provide safe and adequate transportation and public access to, 

within, and through Indian reservations for Native Americans, 

visitors, recreational users, resource users, and others. A prime 

objective of the TTP is to contribute to the health, safety, 

economic development, self-determination, and employment 

of Indians and Native Americans. (For additional details 

on this program, refer to: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/

guidance.cfm.)

The FAST Act continues the TTP, with a Federal share of 100 

percent. Table 14 presents the annual authorization amounts 

over the period FY16 to FY20 for this program as defined in 

the FAST Act.

Prior to distributing these funds, nominal amounts may 

be deducted for program administration, Tribal planning, 

Tribal bridges, Tribal safety projects, and Tribal supplemental 

funding. When the aforementioned set-asides are removed, 

the remainder of the annually appropriated funds are allocated 

to Tribes according to a statutory formula based on Tribal 

population, road mileage, and average Tribal shares under the 

predecessor Indian Reservation Road program.

5.2.5 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SETASIDE OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

The Transportation Alternatives set-aside of the Surface 

Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program (previously 

Transportation Alternatives Program, or TAP) offers funding 

to help State and local governments expand transportation 

choices and enhance the built and natural environment. 

To be eligible for funding, a transportation enhancement 

project must fit into one or more of 12 eligible transportation 

enhancement activities specified in 23 USC §104 related to 

surface transportation, which include:

 Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety programs

 Scenic and historic highway programs

 Landscaping and scenic beautification

 Preservation of historic transportation facilities

 Environmental mitigation and habitat connectivity 

enhancements associated with transportation facilities

FLMAs are eligible recipients, or they can work with partners, 

such as gateway communities, to submit applications.

The program will continue to operate essentially as it 

did previously, under MAP-21. This includes all projects 

and activities that were previously eligible under TAP. 

Table 15 illustrates the annual authorization amounts for the 

Transportation Alternatives set-aside of the STBG Program 

over the period FY16 to FY20 as described in the FAST Act.
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 75

Table 14. Tribal Transportation Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY2046

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount $465 M $475 M $485 M $495 M $505 M

*M = millions of dollars

Table 15. Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside of the STBG Program Annual Authorization Amounts, FY16-FY2047

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Amount $835 M $835 M $850 M $850 M $850 M

*M = millions of dollars

46 Tribal Transportation Program FAST Act Fact Sheet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Fastact/factsheets/tribaltransportationfs.cfm. 47 Transportation Alternatives Program FAST Act Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/transportationalternativesfs.cfm. 48 ERFO FAST Act Summary of Changes: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/documents/fast-changes-summary.pdf.

The FAST Act requires all projects to be funded through a 

competitive process and administered by State DOTs and, 

in some cases, MPOs. To pursue TAP funding, FLMAs 

should reach out to their states and communities, develop 

partnerships, and make the case for how their projects meet 

State and local goals.

5.2.6 RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to States 

to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related 

facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational 

uses (23 USC §206). Examples of trail uses include hiking, 

bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, cross-country skiing, 

snowmobiling, off-road motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle riding, 

or using other off-road motorized vehicles.

Eligible projects include:

 Maintenance and restoration of existing recreational trails

 Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead 

facilities and trail linkages for recreational trails

 Purchase and lease of recreational trail construction and 

maintenance equipment

 Construction of new recreational trails (with specific 

requirements when Federal land is involved)

 Acquisition of easements and fee simple title for recreational 

trail corridors

 Assessment of trail conditions

The FAST Act consolidates the RTP, among other programs, 

into the STBG Program. However, the RTP will continue to 

operate essentially as it did previously. RTP provides a total 

of $85 million annually to states to develop and maintain 

recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Oregon is 

apportioned roughly $1.6 million for RTP, while Washington is 

apportioned nearly $1.9 million. Since 1991, more than 20,000 

RTP-funded projects have been documented nationwide.

Of the RTP funds, 30 percent are to be spent for uses relating 

to motorized recreation and 30 percent are to be spent for 

uses relating to non-motorized recreation. In addition, up 

to 40 percent is to be used for projects that facilitate diverse 

recreational trail use within a recreational trail corridor, 

trailside, or trailhead.

5.2.7 EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR FEDERALLY 

OWNED ROADS

The ERFO Program assists Federal agencies with the repair or 

reconstruction of Tribal transportation facilities, Federal lands 

transportation facilities, and other Federally owned roads that 

are open to public travel, which are found to have suffered 

serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a 

catastrophic failure.48 The intent of the ERFO Program is to pay 

the unusually heavy expenses for the repair and reconstruction 

of eligible facilities.

Repairs are classified as either emergency or permanent repairs. 

Emergency repairs are those repairs undertaken during or 

immediately after a disaster to restore essential traffic, to 

minimize the extent of damage, or to protect the remaining 

facilities. Permanent repairs are those repairs undertaken after 

the occurrence of the disaster to restore facilities to their predisaster conditions. Emergency repairs do not require prior 

approval, while permanent repairs do.

This program is not intended to cover all repair costs but rather 

to supplement FLMA repair programs to help pay unusually 

high expenses resulting from the effects of extreme weather 

conditions. Funds are provided from the Highway Trust Fund. 
76 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

No funding match is required by the program; the Federal 

share is 100 percent.

5.2.8 NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT FREIGHT AND 

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

The Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects 

(NSFHP) Program is newly authorized in the FAST Act. This 

is a nationally competitive program created to allow for States, 

MPOs, and local agencies to address major investment needs. 

FLMAs are eligible to be co-applicants with States.

To be eligible for the receipt of these funds, any proposed 

projects must be categorized as meeting one or more of the 

following:

 Highway freight projects on the National Highway Freight 

Network

 Highway or bridge projects on the National Highway System 

or a project that would improve mobility or is located in a 

national scenic area

 Freight intermodal projects

 Railway-highway grade crossing or separation projects

NSFHP projects require a 40-percent match from non-NSFHP 

sources. Up to 20 percent can be from other programs such as 

FLTP; however, the remaining 20 percent must be from nonFederal sources.

The focus of this program is on projects with a total cost of 

greater than $100 million. However, it is anticipated that there 

will be set-asides for smaller projects and rural areas.

Photography by: USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 77

5.3 NON-FEDERAL SOURCES

Although not a formally defined funding source, volunteer 

work can be an important source for labor and other 

talent. There are many different types and sizes of public 

land volunteer organizations in Oregon and Washington. 

FLMA staff should work with their agency procurement and 

contracting staff to ensure volunteer agreements meet agency 

requirements. In addition to the use of volunteer civilian 

personnel, a variety of other public and private agency staff 

and/or individuals may have an interest in the contribution of 

labor, materials, or funding to assist an FLMA with a specific 

transportation asset improvement action.

5.3.1 WASHINGTON STATE FUNDING 

OPPORTUNITIES

Washington State has several funding programs that provide 

grants and other funding streams to support various 

transportation-related initiatives. Table 16, below, identifies 

several of these programs.

Table 16. Washington State Funding Opportunities

Administration/Program Eligibility/Beneficiaries and Reference(s)

WSDOT—Regional Mobility Grants Funds local projects to improve transit mobility and reduce 

congestion

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Transit/Grants/mobility.htm

WSDOT—Freight Rail Investment Bank Improvements to freight rail capital needs

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Freight/Rail/GrantandLoanPrograms.htm

Washington State Recreation and 

Conservation Offices Grants

Grants for trails, off-road vehicle areas

http://www.rco.wa.gov/grants/index.shtml#

Washington Traffic Safety Commission—

Traffic Safety Grants

Provides traffic safety grants to State and local governments

http://wtsc.wa.gov/grants/

Transportation Improvement Board Projects within Federally designated urban areas

http://www.tib.wa.gov/

County Road Administration Board (CRAB)—

Rural Arterial Program

Road and bridge reconstruction funding program that counties 

compete for every two years within their respective regions

http://www.crab.wa.gov/funding/grants/rap/index.cfm

CRAB—County Arterial Preservation 

Program

Helps counties preserve their existing paved arterial roads

http://www.crab.wa.gov/Funding/Grants/CAPP/capp.cfm

CRAB—County Ferry Capital Improvement 

Program

Financial assistance for major capital improvements to the four 

county-operated ferry systems

http://www.crab.wa.gov/funding/grants/ferries/index.cfm

Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board Grants for strategic freight corridors

http://www.fmsib.wa.gov/

Washington State Transportation Center Research grants

http://www.washington.edu/research/centers/103
78 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

5.3.2 OREGON FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Oregon has several funding programs that provide grants 

and other funding streams to support various transportationrelated initiatives. Table 17, below, identifies several of these 

programs.

5.3.3 OTHER NON-FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

In addition to the State funding programs listed above, 

opportunities exist to partner with local governments and 

private partners to fund transportation systems. These include 

partnerships with local transit agencies, universities, or 

businesses operating within Federal lands, such as ski resorts.

Table 17. Oregon State Funding Opportunities

Administration/Program Eligibility/Beneficiaries and Reference(s)

Oregon State Parks—

All-Terrain Vehicle Permit 

Program

Supports trails programs

https://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/ATV/pages/permits.aspx#ATV_Permit_Information_

Oregon State Parks—

Scenic Bikeway Program

Only Scenic Bikeways program in the U.S.; features routes highlighting scenic, historic, 

natural, and cultural experiences

http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/BIKE/Pages/index.aspx

Oregon DOT—

Connect Oregon

Bond initiative to invest in non-highway (air, rail, marine, transit, and bicycle/

pedestrian) infrastructure

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/connector.aspx

Oregon DOT—

Scenic Byways Program

Funding for signage, information kiosks, and marketing materials for designated unified 

network of scenic routes

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/SCENICBYWAYS/pages/driving_guide.aspx

Oregon DOT—

Transportation and Growth 

Management Program

Awards grants annually to help local communities implement projects that integrate 

transportation and land use

https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/Pages/grants.aspx

Oregon DOT—

All Roads Transportation 

Safety Program

This program is designed to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon, 

regardless of jurisdiction; it is data driven to achieve the greatest benefits in crash 

reduction

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Pages/ARTS.aspx

Travel Oregon—

Competitive Grants Program

Grants for tourism purposes, which may include trails, bicycle infrastructure, and other 

transportation needs

http://industry.traveloregon.com/industry-resources/matching-grants-program/

oregon-tourism-commission-matching-grants-program/

Association of Oregon 

Counties—

County Roads Program

Uses county receipts from State Highway Funds revenues to improve county roads

http://oregoncounties.org/roads/county-road-program/
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 79

5.4 AGREEMENTS, IN GENERAL

In certain situations, and with the appropriate legal authority, 

FLMAs can enter into partnership agreements with cooperators 

for road maintenance and construction activities. Road 

maintenance agreements are more common than agreements 

for construction improvements. Several elements are common 

to all types of partnerships, including:

 Mutual interest in some goal or value

 A state of participation or sharing

 No conflict of interest

 Execution of agreement before costs are incurred or work 

commences

 A specific relationship between the parties (written 

agreement)

 Voluntary participation

5.4.1 COST SHARE AGREEMENTS

The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1992 

authorizes Department of the Interior agencies to cooperate 

with other parties to develop, plan, and implement projects 

that are mutually beneficial to parties to enhance activities. 

This includes financing projects with matching funds from 

cooperators. Cooperators may be public and private agencies, 

organizations, institutions, and/ or individuals.

5.4.2 FUNDING GAPS

Each FLMA is experiencing decreases in the availability of 

transportation funds, while needs for routine maintenance 

and new projects remain constant or are increasing. Lack 

of funding contributes to increasing levels of deferred 

maintenance. Assets degrade over time and as maintenance 

continues to be deferred, the magnitude of the costs required 

to bring assets back to proper condition (i.e., to a “state of good 

repair”) will only continue to grow.

FLMAs are challenged in how transportation funds are 

allocated. If yearly operation and management costs exceed 

available funds, agencies must choose which assets receive 

funding and to what level they are to be maintained. New 

projects are impacted by lower funding levels and increasing 

funding competition from the demands of deferred 

maintenance to ensure that existing assets can continue to 

be operated safely. There is a growing need to show that new 

projects are critical to the mission of each FLMA. Establishing 

frameworks for identifying the critical projects and making the 

very best use of available funds is one of the primary purposes 

of this Plan and accompanying agency profiles. The project 

selection processes, performance measures, actions, and 

recommendations ensure that transportation funds continue 

to support those efforts that are most effective in furthering 

FLMA missions.

Photography by: Jeff Clark/BLM

6.0 OUTREACH

Photography by: USACE
Photography by: Tom Iraci/USFS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 83

This section summarizes the outreach efforts the multiagency 

CLRTP team conducted for this Plan. The team’s outreach 

objectives were to inform, solicit input and feedback, and gain 

support from agency representatives and State and regional 

stakeholders, and to keep the public informed.

The CLRTP team tailored outreach efforts to accommodate a 

variety of interests. No formal process (i.e., no NEPA process) 

was required as part of the CLRTP; however, the CLRTP team 

has endeavored to be thorough enough in its outreach effort to 

obtain feedback and buy-in from multiple sources.

The outreach goals for the CLRTP are to:

 Illustrate to internal and external stakeholders the 

transportation needs of the region and potential solutions 

for meeting those needs.

 Solicit input from staff and external stakeholders to inform 

the transportation planning effort.

 Provide opportunities for stakeholders to identify their 

concerns, priorities, and ideas.

 Strengthen existing partnerships and forge new ones.

 Use non-traditional and technology-focused solutions, when 

possible.

 Reach populations that may be impacted by this Plan.

6.1 OUTREACH STRATEGY

The CLRTP outreach strategy has been tailored to 

accommodate a variety of diverse interests. While no formal 

outreach (e.g., NEPA-compliant outreach) process is required 

for this CLRTP, the team sought to obtain buy-in and feedback 

from multiple sources. Similarly, the team developed content 

to be accessible to various audiences, depending on their 

level of knowledge, level of interest, and awareness of both 

the planning process and the role of transportation. The team 

developed content according to the following principles:

 Content is clear, simple, and brief.

 Content is easily understandable to people without a 

background in transportation.

 Communications are definitive about the parameters of the 

CLRTP—notably, the project purpose and what the CLRTP 

does and does not do.

 Messages are targeted to appropriate levels (e.g., 

management, support staff, etc.).

Given the constraints on audiences’ time, as well as the 

different ways in which people process information in today’s 

tech-savvy work environment, the team conducted outreach 

using multiple outlets, allowing opportunities to process and 

share information in several digestible formats. Table 18, below, 

presents a list of communications outlets, as well as the content 

associated with each.

Table 18. Communications Outlets

Communications Outlet Content Frequency Level of Effort

Multiagency Meetings (via webinar) Presentations and draft documents seeking 

“live,” instant input from a wider audience Monthly Low

Email Briefing handouts (both CLRTP-wide and 

agency-specific) Quarterly Low

CLRTP Website Document Repository; Feedback Forum Ongoing Medium-high

Video Overview video highlighting major themes One-time 

production High

Regional and statewide events with 

a public lands or transportation 

audience

Posters; Presentations; Panels; Maps As identified Low
84 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

6.2 STAKEHOLDER ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

Each member of the CLRTP team has had a role to play in 

outreach. Outreach entails disseminating key information to 

internal staff as well as to external stakeholders.

Roles included:

 Identifying existing methods through which to get the word 

out about the CLRTP; ideally, those that will remain active 

throughout the duration of the CLRTP process

 Identifying liaisons who will distribute materials and solicit 

input at local events

 Soliciting comments and feedback through a variety of 

channels

6.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

The CLRTP team categorized stakeholders according to their 

anticipated level of involvement and/or interest area(s). The 

project delivery team distinguished among those who will 

be thoroughly involved in the CLRTP versus those who only 

need to be kept informed or aware of the developments. The 

project delivery team maintained a database of key contacts. 

Table 20 provides a grouping of both internal and external 

stakeholders by level of involvement.

A project delivery team comprising FHWA Office of Federal 

Lands Highway, U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center, and Atkins North America, Inc., met on a 

weekly basis to discuss progress toward Plan completion. 

Beginning in January 2014, and recurring on average 

approximately every six weeks thereafter, CLRTP stakeholders 

participated in a full Core Team Meeting, which typically lasted 

three hours on average, and on four occasions took place in 

person in the Pacific Northwest. See Appendix F for a full list of 

Core Team participants.

In addition to regular Core Team meetings and agency 

leadership briefings at key milestones, the CLRTP team 

presented information about the Plan and solicited feedback at 

existing partner forums, listed in Table 19.

Table 19. Partner Forums

Forum Location Date

ODOT Fall Forum Portland, OR October 6, 2015

U.S. Forest Service Regional Engineering Leadership Team Sandy, OR December 2015

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Poster Presentation Washington, DC January 2016

WSDOT MPO/RTPO Meeting Teleconference August 23, 2016

WSDOT 2016 Tribal State Transportation Conference Suquamish, WA September 28, 2016

WSDOT 2017 Tribal Transportation Planning Organization Meeting Toppenish, WA June 7, 2017
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 85

Table 20. Outreach Strategy by Category

Internal Stakeholders External Stakeholders

Involved

in

CLRTP

Aware of 

CLRTP

Informed 

about 

CLRTP

 Project Delivery Team

 Regional/State FLMA Representatives

 FLMA Washington (DC) Office Representatives

 WSDOT/ODOT representative

 County/local government representative

 Tribal liaisons

 Bureau of Indian Affairs

 FLMA leadership teams (state, regional, 

district)

 Field, District Office staff, Line Officers

 ODOT Area Commissions on Transportation

 WA Department of Natural Resources

 OR State Lands, Department of Natural 

Resources, Oregon Department of Forestry

 Federal Forest Advisory Committee (OR)

 Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor 

Recreation

 Public landowners with transportation 

system connections/local road authorities

 Individual counties

 Those leasing federal lands (Oregon National 

Guard))

 Operating canals (federal and local)

 Concessionaires

 Out-grant (marinas, private sector, government)

 Environmental groups

 Commerce/State-level tourism and travel 

groups (Oregon Tourism, WA Department of 

Commerce, Oregon-Washington Resource 

Advisory Council)

 Permittees

 Forest road cooperators (cooperative 

agreements)

 State parks

 Ski associations

 State Commission on Transportation

 Regional Transportation Planning Organizations 

(WA)

 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (WA and 

OR)

 Tribal Transportation Planning Organization 

(WA)

 Washington State Transit Association

 Emergency management

 Municipal Research and Services Center WA
86 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

6.4 FEEDBACK MECHANISMS

Early in the Plan development process, each stakeholder 

identified colleagues and management personnel who would 

need to review the Plan before finalization. Typically, at least 

two weeks, and as many as four weeks, was provided to the 

Core Team to review draft materials and submit comments.

6.5 CONTINUING OUTREACH EFFORTS

The CLRTP will be submitted to the Federal Register for public 

availability. The CLRTP also will be available on the Plan 

website (http://nwfedlandslrtp.org/). The CLRTP will continue 

to engage with stakeholders and the public as appropriate 

during Plan implementation and future updates.
Photography by: USDA Forest Service

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Photography by: BLM
Photography by: USFS
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 91

This Implementation Plan lists the following for each goal area:

 Goal: A broad statement that describes a desired end state.

 Objectives: Specific, measurable statements that support 

achievement of a goal.

 Implementation Actions: Specific actions for FLMAs and 

their partners to make progress in achieving their goals and 

objectives.

 Performance Measures: Indicators that agencies can use to 

assess progress toward an objective.49

This Implementation Plan relates to the multiagency goals 

and objectives in the CLRTP and focuses on actions and 

performance measures that require multiagency collaboration. 

Each participating agency in the CLRTP will contribute to 

the implementation action and performance measures to the 

extent that is appropriate based on available resources and 

management priorities.

Like any other traditional LRTP, this Plan has a 20-year 

planning horizon. During this time, there will be continuing 

modification and evolution based on what actually takes place. 

Implementation actions will evolve and may change in future 

updates.

As part of the implementation of this CLRTP, the multiagency 

working group will further define these implementation 

49 FHWA, Performance Based Planning and Programming Guidebook, September 2013.

actions and performance measures. For example, working 

group members will define specific data sources and actions 

required to effectively monitor and report on performance. 

This Implementation Plan does not spell out procedures 

for data collection and reporting at this time. Refinement 

of these performance measures will be carried out during 

implementation of this Plan.

Good performance measures should be both feasible and 

meaningful. Feasible means that performance is possible 

to measure given available data and that there is a clear 

methodology for collecting and reporting data. Meaningful 

means that the data provide important measures that provide 

worthwhile information to participating agencies, stakeholders, 

and the public. Because this CLRTP is the first attempt to 

develop performance measures for FLMA transportation in 

the Pacific Northwest, the potential performance measures 

listed below are constrained by what data are available 

currently. In some cases, development of meaningful and 

feasible performance measures is not possible at this time 

and will require further consideration. Although outcomebased measures—those that measure the performance of the 

transportation network—are ideal, the CLRTP team may have 

to start with output-based measures—those that measure 

actions the agencies have taken to achieve the Plan’s goals and 

objectives.
92 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

7.1 PLACE-BASED COLLABORATION GOAL

50 Also related to asset management and safety.

Plan and manage a transportation system that depends upon collaboration and 

mutually beneficial actions.

Objectives Collaborative planning: Integrate collaboration with Federal, Tribal, State, and local partners into the 

transportation planning process, and use interdisciplinary planning techniques.

Place-based planning: Plan and manage a transportation system appropriate to the region’s unique social, 

economic, and environmental contexts that supports diverse benefits for surrounding communities and 

regions.

Implementation 

Actions

Enhance multiagency collaboration by:

 Identifying forums for interagency transportation planning

 Sharing agency points of contact

 Developing new or updating existing memoranda of understanding and memoranda of agreement as 

appropriate

 Integrating CLRTP goals into FLAP project selection criteria

Potential 

Performance 

Measures

 Number of FLMA transportation plans developed with interagency coordination

 Number of State and local transportation plans developed with FLMA coordination

 Number of projects that leverage multiple funding sources and contribute to FLMA goals

7.2 RESOURCE PROTECTION GOAL

Plan and manage Federal lands transportation networks to emphasize stewardship of natural 

and cultural resources and promote ecological sustainability.

Objectives Protect natural and cultural resources: Avoid or minimize transportation impacts to sensitive natural 

and cultural resources.

Promote sustainable travel: Increase the sustainability of travel to and within Federal lands by 

encouraging energy efficiency and supporting multimodal travel options.

Implementation 

Actions  Assess vulnerabilities of transportation infrastructure for environmental hazards and share best practices 

to increase transportation system resiliency. (This includes climate change vulnerability assessments, 

unstable slopes management plan, seismic/volcanic hazards preparedness, wildfire preparedness, etc.).

 Conduct research to assess and reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.

Potential 

Performance 

Measures

 Number of vulnerability assessments completed for transportation infrastructure50

 Number of projects that enhance aquatic organism passage or terrestrial habitat connectivity per year

 Number of transportation projects that preserve or interpret cultural resources or historic transportation 

resources

 Number of projects that enhance sustainable or multimodal transportation options
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 93

7.3 SAFETY GOAL

Provide safe and appropriate multimodal transportation access for all users of Federal lands.

Objectives Engineering and design: Plan, design, operate, and maintain multimodal transportation systems to 

minimize fatalities and serious injuries during travel to and within Federal lands.

User information: Conduct education and outreach to provide users information about safe travel to and 

within Federal lands.

Emergency preparedness and response: Support coordinated and rapid emergency response and 

enhance communication of conditions affecting Federal lands transportation systems.

Implementation 

Actions

Organize a multiagency working group to address safety issues that require collaboration, including:

 Safety data collection, sharing, and analysis

 FLMA participation in States’ SHSP and HSIP procedures

 Assessing and reducing vehicle-wildlife collisions

 Disseminating safety-related traveler information

 Supporting emergency response

Potential 

Performance 

Measures

 Number of Road Safety Audits completed with multiagency coordination

 Number of Road Safety Audit recommendations implemented

 Number of transportation-related human fatalities

 Number of transportation-related human serious injuries

 Number of non-motorized transportation fatalities and serious injuries

7.4 ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY GOAL

Provide a seamless, multimodal transportation system that supports community connectivity and 

access to public lands.

Objectives Planning information: Strengthen the depth and breadth of information used to support access planning 

and management.

Multimodal access and connectivity: Enhance interagency communication and collaboration to improve 

multimodal access and connectivity to public lands.

Implementation 

Actions  Identify and pursue opportunities to leverage multiple funding sources for a seamless transportation 

network.

 Integrate CLRTP goals into FLAP project selection criteria.

Potential 

Performance 

Measures  Number of projects that leverage multiple funding sources and contribute to FLMA goals
94 Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

7.5 VISITOR EXPERIENCE GOAL

Promote ease and enjoyment of travel to and within Federal lands.

Objectives Transportation systems that contribute to a positive experience: Create transportation systems that 

welcome and orient visitors, provide recreational experiences, and become part of a positive recollection of 

the visit.

Supporting diverse transportation experiences: Provide transportation programs and modal options 

that encourage a diversity of experiences across user groups.

Visitor information: Establish consistent visitor information systems and leverage opportunities to 

coordinate communications across agencies..

Implementation 

Actions  Review/update FLMA visitor experience plans to include transportation.

 Enhance visitor information, whether through ITS, signage, wayfinding, agency and partner websites, or 

third-party applications.

 Provide publicly accessible data on multimodal transportation options to access Federal lands, including 

transit schedules and routes.

 Conduct outreach to underserved communities, such as carless households or persons with disabilities, 

to help them access Federal lands.

Potential 

Performance 

Measures

 Number of projects to manage visitor congestion or mobility

 Number of outreach activities to underserved and/or carless communities

 Ridership of existing transit services accessing FLMA units

 Availability of trip-planning information (e.g., website trip-planning information or the availability of 

online transit information where applicable)
Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan 95

7.6 ASSET MANAGEMENT GOAL

51 Also related to resource protection and safety.

Provide a transportation system with cost-effective assets that meets agency objectives over time.

Objectives Collaborative asset management: Consider the importance of assets within the context of agency 

management objectives and coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions.

Asset resilience: Consider risks to transportation assets and develop plans to increase asset resilience.

Implementation 

Actions  Identify asset-level needs that cross agency boundaries and partnership opportunities to protect those 

assets.

 Assess vulnerabilities of transportation infrastructure to environmental hazards and share best practices 

to increase transportation system resiliency. (This includes climate change vulnerability assessments, 

unstable slopes management plan, seismic/volcanic hazards preparedness, wildfire preparedness, etc.).

 Monitor ERFO events to understand asset vulnerability, and coordinate with partners on emergency 

response.

Potential 

Performance 

Measures

 Degree to which agencies meet their agency-specific asset performance targets (based on a good/fair/

poor scale)

• FLTP Paved Roads

• FLTP Unpaved Roads

 % NBIS Bridges in Good Condition

 % NBIS Bridges in Poor Condition

 Risk assessments completed for transportation infrastructure51

 Number of transportation assets that have repetitive damage (using ERFO Program data)