APPENDICES

Photography by: Jesse Barham/FWS

TABLE OF CONTENTS - APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: AGENCY PROFILES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page A-1

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROFILE: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page A-3

U.S. FOREST SERVICEAGENCY PROFILE: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page A-23

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AGENCY PROFILE: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page A-39

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AGENCY PROFILE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page A-49

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AGENCY PROFILE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page A-71

APPENDIX B: REGULATORY TECHNICAL REPORT DRAFT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-85

1. INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-86

2. FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-86

2.1 FAST Act - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-86

2.2 Federal Lands Transportation Program - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-86

2.3 Federal Land Management Agency Guidance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-88

2.4 Other Federal Legislation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-90

3. WASHINGTON REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-91

3.1 Planning Processes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-92

3.2 Modal Plans - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-92

3.3 Tribal Planning - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-92

3.4 Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-93

3.5 Tourism, Recreation, and Natural Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-93

4. OREGON REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-93

4.1 Statewide Planning Process - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-93

4.2 Area Commissions on Transportation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-95

4.3 MPOs and Rural Planning--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page B-95

4.4 Tourism, Recreation, and Natural Resources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-98

4.5 Bi-State Programs and Agreements - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page B-98

APPENDIX C: CLRTP VISITATION-DEMOGRAPHICS TECHNICAL REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page C-101

1. INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page C-102

1.1 Data Sources and Assumptions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page C-102

2. VISITATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page C-103

2.1 FLMA Visitation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page C-104

3. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page C-115

4. MODAL TRENDS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page C-117

APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • i
ii • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 121

1. INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 122

1.1 Methodology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 122

1.2 Agency Data Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 123

1.3 FLMA Missions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 123

2. DIRECT IMPACTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 124

2.1 Visitor Expenditures - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 124

2.2 Resource Development - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 125

2.3 Agency Employment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 127

3. OTHER IMPACTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 127

3.1 Property Values - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 127

3.2 Value of Natural/Recreational Amenities for Job Growth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 127

4. CONCLUSION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 128

5. CONTRIBUTING OREGON AND WASHINGTON SPECIFIC- DATA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 129

APPENDIX E: NATURAL HAZARDS TECHNICAL REPORT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 133

1. INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 134

1.1 Natural Hazards and the Pacific Northwest Federal Lands LRTP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 134

2. OVERVIEW OF NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 135

2.1 The Pacific Northwest’s Changing Climate - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 135

2.2 Natural Hazards in the Pacific Northwest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 138

2.3 Implications for FLMA Transportation Systems - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 139

3. NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION EFFORTS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 141

3.1 Federal Efforts to Reduce Natural Hazards Risk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 141

APPENDIX F: PROJECT TEAM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 145

APPENDIX G: MAPS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 149
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • iii

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • A-1

Appendix A: 

AGENCY PROFILES
A-2 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • A-3

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY PROFILE:

TRANSPORTATION IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON
A-4 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

Night sky over Oregon Badlands Wilderness (Source: BLM)
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

BLM’S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

BLM Transportation Planning- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

BLM’s Transportation Program Roles- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

BLM Transportation Partners- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

BLM’S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

BLM TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AT A GLANCE- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

PRIMITIVE ROADS- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8

Trails- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8

Linkages to Partner Transportation Networks- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8

BLM SUBREGIONS IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9

WESTERN OREGON- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11

History and Land Use Policies for BLM Lands in Western Oregon- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11

Transportation in Western Oregon- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12

EASTERN OREGON- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15

WASHINGTON- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17
A-6 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

Pueblo Mountain Wilderness Study Area, Harney County, Oregon (Source: BLM)
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-7

INTRODUCTION

1 BLM, 2016: The BLM: A Sound Investment for America 2016. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/AboutUs_

SoundInvestmentsocioeconomicreport_lettersize.pdf 2 BLM Facts, Oregon and Washington, 2014. 3 BLM Facts, Oregon and Washington, 2016.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

administers 16.1 million acres of public land in Oregon and Washington. 

These lands represent a diversity of landscapes throughout the region, 

including grasslands, rivers, forest, and high desert ecosystems. 

Pivotal to the BLM’s strategy for managing these lands is maintaining 

and improving the BLM’s transportation network—which includes roads, 

bridges, trails, and related facilities—in a manner that enhances accessibility, 

connectivity, and safety, while at the same time addressing public needs, 

preserving ecological functions, and fostering economic development.

The BLM’s transportation network in Oregon and Washington supports access to BLM lands for a variety of uses, including:

 Natural and cultural resource protection;

 Timber and special forest products;

 Grazing;

 Mineral and energy development;

 Recreation, such as hiking, mountain biking, equestrian, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, rafting, and skiing;

 Hunting, foraging, and fishing;

 Permitted uses, such as rights of way and guided travel; and

 Access to private inholdings and inter-community travel.

These values contribute to local quality of life, as well as local and regional economic development. The BLM collaborates 

with neighboring FLMAs, private land owners and businesses, and a wide range of Federal, Tribal, State, and local 

governments to ensure that the BLM’s transportation network supports the BLM’s mission and the many values that BLM 

lands provide for the region.

The BLM transportation network reinforces the regional economy and communities throughout the region for a total 

economic output of approximately $1.5 billion per year.1 It provides the following benefits:

• Supporting approximately 8 million to 9 million recreation visits to BLM lands in Oregon and Washington each year.2, 3

• Contributing to the regional economy in Oregon and Washington every year.

• Directly employing approximately 1,400 people in Oregon and Washington, and indirectly supporting approximately 

14,000 jobs in recreation, forestry, grazing, non-energy minerals, and energy production

BLM MISSION:

To sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of America’s 

public lands for the use and 

enjoyment of present and future 

generations.
A-8 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

Figure A-1 shows the economic output by sector on BLM lands in Oregon and Washington in 2015. The primary economic 

benefits from BLM lands in the region are timber, recreation, and grazing. Each of these sectors relies on the BLM’s roads, 

bridges, trails, and other transportation infrastructure to provide access for these economic activities.

Figure A-1: Economic output by sector on BLM lands in Oregon and Washington, Fiscal Year 2015

Source: BLM, The BLM: A Sound Investment for America 2016.

Ryegrass Butte, Sheepshead Mountains Wilderness Study Area (Source: BLM)
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-9

BLM’S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

4 https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/oregon-washington

BLM TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

The BLM conducts the following levels (Figure A-2) of planning for those public lands it manages, all of which relate to and 

are compatible with this LRTP.

Figure A-2: BLM Land Use and Transportation Planning Processes

The BLM develops RMPs and TTMPs for geographic areas with similar resource characteristics, such as the scale of the 

Field Office, District Office, or Resource Area. The BLM must complete an area’s RMP before developing the TTMP, since 

the TTMP implements the RMP’s prescriptions.

The statuses of the RMPs and TTMPs in Oregon and Washington are available on the BLM’s Planning website.

4
A-10 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

BLM’S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ROLES

The BLM manages its transportation program at the national level through its Washington Office in Washington, DC. 

BLM State Offices and Field Offices also play critical roles in managing the BLM’s transportation program, as shown in 

Figure A-3. The State Office for Oregon and Washington is based in Portland, Oregon. Figure A-4 shows the location of 

District and Field Offices in Oregon and Washington.

Figure A-3: Relationship between BLM national, State, and field office planning processes

BLM Transportation Partners

The BLM collaborates with Federal, Tribal, State, county, and other local partners to manage its transportation program. 

Partners include other FLMAs, Tribes, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington State Department 

of Transportation (WSDOT), county governments, and other local governmental or non-governmental organizations. 

The BLM recognizes the value of cooperative transportation partnerships and seeks to leverage BLM funds with other 

Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, user groups (e.g., timber harvesting, outfitters/guides, hunter associations, OHV 

user groups, mountain bike associations, and environmental conservation groups), and other non-governmental partners. 

Through these partnerships, the BLM aims to achieve the greatest benefit for the largest number of goals and objectives 

held by multiple agencies and organizations for shared projects that will benefit the greatest number of land users.
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-11

Figure A-4: Map of the BLM in Oregon and Washington
A-12 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

BLM’S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

5 BLM. 2012. Travel and Transportation Management Handbook (H-9342-1). Page 50. https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/750/8342%20-%20

TTM%20Planning%20Handbook.pdf. 6 BLM Manual MS-9113 – Roads, http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.

Par.91393.File.dat/MS%209113_.pdf 7 BLM. 2018. Transportation Brochure: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/BLM-TranspoBrochure-InDesign-Feb2018-BookletPrint%20

%281%29.pdf.

BLM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AT A GLANCE

The BLM’s Travel and Transportation Management Handbook5 distinguishes between the BLM’s transportation network and 

transportation system with the following definitions:

 Transportation Network: The network of roads, primitive roads, and trails (motorized and non-motorized) that are 

selected (recognized, designated, or authorized) for use through the comprehensive travel and transportation planning 

process.

 Transportation System: The roads, primitive roads, and trails designated as facility assets and maintained by the BLM.

The BLM’s multimodal transportation system assets in Oregon and Washington consist of roads, trails, and bridges, as 

summarized below. These system quantities are derived from the BLM’s Facilities Asset Management System (FAMS). In 

addition, there are many additional miles of linear 

features on BLM-managed public lands that travelers 

use as part of the travel network but that are not 

assets in FAMS and are not included in the totals in 

Table A-1.

Roads

The BLM defines a “road” as a linear route declared 

a road by the owner and managed for use by lowclearance vehicles having four or more wheels and 

maintained for regular and continuous use. The BLM 

characterizes its roads by three Functional Classes:6

 Collector Roads, which normally provide 

primary access to large blocks of land and 

connect with or are extensions of a public 

road system and typically receive the highest volume of traffic on the BLM’s road system;

 Local Roads, which normally serve a smaller area than collectors and connect to collectors or public road systems 

and receive lower volumes of traffic than Collector Roads; and

 Resource Roads, which normally are spur roads that carry very low traffic volume and typically accommodate only 

one or two types of use.

OR/WA BLM also has 14 designated Back Country Byways in Oregon and Washington. The National Back Country Byway 

Program was developed by the BLM to complement the National Scenic Byways program. As an integral part of the larger 

Scenic Byway network, Back Country Byways show enthusiasts the best the West has to offer in a trip off the beaten path.7

Many of these byways are native surface or gravel surfaced roads tracing across vast stretches of land.

Table A-1: Summary Information on the BLM’s 

Transportation Systems in Oregon and 

Washington

BLM Transportation 

Facility Quantity

FY2013-2017 BLM 

Transportation 

Appropriations

Roads 19,171 miles $65,093,000

Trails 1,404 miles $6,017,000

Bridges 478 $2,994,000

Total — $74,103,000
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-13

Source: BLM, Transportation in the Bureau of Land Management, 2018. 

Primitive Roads

The BLM defines a “primitive road” as a linear route managed for use for four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. 

Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards.8

Trails

The BLM defines a trail as a linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or off-highway vehicle forms of 

transportation. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

Linkages to Partner Transportation Systems

The BLM’s transportation system elements are highly connected to the transportation systems of its partners, including 

those facilities owned and maintained by other FLMAs, ODOT and WSDOT, county governments, and private landowners. 

These linkages include connections to partners’ road networks, but also to multimodal transportation networks, including 

trails and partner-operated buses and ferries. This is true throughout the Pacific Northwest but is especially prevalent in 

those areas of Western Oregon where BLM land is arranged in a “checkerboard” pattern closely intermixed with adjacent 

private landowner parcels. For this reason, the BLM in Oregon and Washington collaborates with a diverse set of partners 

8 BLM Oregon Fact Sheet, 2014.
A-14 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

to manage a joint network of transportation systems by coordinating transportation data collection, planning, and asset 

management across jurisdictions.

BLM SUBREGIONS IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

For the BLM in Oregon and Washington, there are three defined administrative subregions: Western Oregon, Eastern 

Oregon, and the entirety of the State of Washington. These subregions are very distinct landscapes that are managed for 

different purposes, and in accordance with the land use plans in effect on each district. As shown below, the large majority 

of the BLM’s transportation systems are in Western Oregon.

Figure A-5: BLM Roads and Primitive System Roads in FAMS by Subregion

Figure A-6: BLM Transportation System Bridges by Subregion
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-15

Source: BLM Facts Oregon and Washington, 2016

Figure A-7: BLM Subregions in the Pacific Northwest
A-16 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

WESTERN OREGON

The BLM manages approximately 2.6 million acres of land in Western 

Oregon. These lands include front-range river valleys and hills that 

provide valuable forest habitat, timber harvest, and recreational 

opportunities close to the population centers of the Portland 

metropolitan area, Salem, Eugene, Medford, and other communities 

along the Interstate 5 (I-5) Corridor.

The BLM’s lands in Western Oregon feature many popular recreation 

sites for hiking, mountain biking, off-highway vehicles, rafting, and 

fishing on the area’s 11 designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as 

recreational auto and bicycle travel on the area’s six BLM back country 

byways.

Western Oregon BLM lands also are important for their timber 

harvests and mining leases. The tourism and commercial industry uses 

of these lands are both important economic drivers for many of the 

gateway communities in Western Oregon

History and Land Use Policies for BLM Lands in 

Western Oregon

The history of much of the BLM-managed public lands in western 

Oregon has its roots in the Oregon and California Railroad Act of 

1866, which granted 3.7 million acres of forest land in western Oregon 

to railroad companies to incentivize the construction of a rail line 

between San Francisco and Portland. The Act required the railroad 

companies to sell the land along the rail line in 160-acre parcels for 

$2.50 per acre. However, the rail companies realized they could make 

more money by logging the land themselves or selling it in larger 

parcels for logging. In 1916, after a land fraud scandal, Congress legislatively transferred the land that the rail companies 

had not yet sold back to the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, compensating the affected rail companies and 

counties for the revestment.

The result of this history was that the BLM came to manage approximately 2.6 million acres of land in a checkerboard 

pattern interspersed with privately held timberland. The BLM manages its land in this area based on the authority in the 

Oregon and California (O&C) Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act (O&C Lands Act) of 1937, which directs 

that the timberlands be managed:

... for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity 

with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply, 

protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local 

communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities... (43 USC §1181a)

The O&C Lands Act also required that 50 percent of the revenue generated from management of the lands be returned to 

the 18 counties that contained these revested lands. The revenues are divided annually by the percent of the assessed value 

of the lands in each county as they were determined to be in 1915.

BLM lands in Western Oregon contain important natural resources, including riparian zones and late successional forests, 

which provide habitat for threatened and endangered species, such as salmon and the Northern Spotted Owl.

Figure A-8: Travel times from Western Oregon 

Communities to BLM Lands
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-17

In August 2016, the BLM signed the Records of Decision 

for revised RMPs of Western Oregon. The completion of 

these plans marks the end of a four-year effort by the BLM 

to use new science, policies, and technology to protect 

natural resources and support local communities. These 

revised RMPs will spur updates to the TTMPs for these 

areas to implement the transportation elements of the 

BLM’s adopted land use policies.

Transportation in Western Oregon

Transportation plays an important role in Western 

Oregon. The BLM’s transportation network provides 

access to the large number of recreational and economic 

opportunities on BLM land, and it provides access for BLM 

administrative activities, including forest management, fire 

response, and conservation and restoration activities.

This area of the State contains approximately 14,000 miles of BLM-owned roads and 380 miles of trails within its 

boundaries. In addition, BLM and adjacent road owners in Western Oregon manage a complex joint network of roads and 

trails across BLM-managed public lands, other public lands, and interspersed private lands using reciprocal right-of-way 

agreements and memoranda of understanding. The complexity of this joint network makes travel management planning a 

unique challenge in Western Oregon compared to other BLM lands throughout the U.S.

O&C Reciprocal Rights of Way Agreements and Public Access

The BLM-administered land in Western Oregon is predominantly intermingled with privately owned land parcels. 

Intermingled private lands are owned primarily by timber companies and are managed for commercial timber production. 

Legal access to Federal and private timberlands is provided through long-term or perpetual reciprocal right-of-way 

agreements between the United States and private timberland owners as authorized by the Federal Land and Policy 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and Federal regulation in 43 CFR 2812.

A reciprocal right-of-way agreement provides both the United States and the private landowner with a non-exclusive 

right to use, construct, and maintain logging roads on each other’s property for forest management and removal of forest 

products. Nearly 85 percent of the public lands in Western Oregon are available for road construction and commercial 

timber use under reciprocal right-of-way agreements. These reciprocal right-of-way agreements do not always grant rights 

for public access and recreational use of roads constructed under these agreements.

BLM typically negotiates exclusive easements with private landowners to obtain access for forest management activities 

when a reciprocal agreement is not needed. Unlike reciprocal right-of-way agreements, exclusive road easements typically 

grant rights for public use.

Legal public access can vary greatly because a majority of BLM-administered lands in Western Oregon are intermingled 

with private lands. Reciprocal right-of-way agreements and exclusive and non-exclusive easements across adjacent private 

lands have a determining effect on public access.

Legal public access includes public access rights that have been secured by the United States, including roads constructed 

by the BLM on public lands. Additionally, public access rights typically are included in the acquisition of exclusive road 

easements on private roads where the United States has acquired control of the right of way. While administrative access is 

legally available to the BLM, reciprocal right-of-way agreements do not include legal access rights for the public. All roads 

tributary to roads without legal public access also do not have legal public access.

THE PURPOSE OF THE WESTERN 

OREGON RMPS REVISION IS TO:

z Provide a sustained yield of timber;

z Contribute to the conservation and recovery of 

threatened and endangered species;

z Provide clean water in watersheds;

z Restore fire-adapted ecosystems;

z Provide recreation opportunities; and

z Coordinate management of lands surrounding 

the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe.
A-18 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-19

EASTERN OREGON

The BLM manages approximately 13.1 million acres of land in Eastern Oregon. These lands are administered through four 

District Offices: Prineville, Burns, Vale, and Lakeview. These Districts span a geographic area from the Cascade Range and 

the Klamath region to the Wallowa Range and the high desert fault blocks of Steens Mountain.

With the exception of Bend—Oregon’s fastest-growing city, with a U.S. Census-reported population growth rate of 47 

percent from 2000 to 2010—most of Eastern Oregon is rural and remote. Many of these small, remote communities benefit 

economically from activities on BLM land, including ranching, mining, and tourism. Recreation sites in Eastern Oregon, 

such as the Steens Mountain Wilderness, receive fewer visitors than Western Oregon sites near metropolitan areas, but 

they provide an experience of solitude and wilderness that is unique and highly prized by many visitors and local residents. 

Eastern Oregon is home to 207,833 acres of BLM wilderness areas and 2.6 million acres of Wilderness Study Areas. BLM 

lands in Eastern Oregon received approximately 2.4 million recreational visits in 2014—approximately 28 percent of all 

recreational visitation to BLM lands in Oregon and Washington.

BLM-managed public lands in Eastern Oregon have several unique characteristics. Unlike the patchwork nature of 

land ownership in Western Oregon, the BLM-managed public lands in Eastern Oregon are largely contiguous. Many 

of the primary access routes to BLM-managed lands in Eastern Oregon are via county roads, so county governments 

are key partners in managing the network of roads within or providing access to BLM lands. BLM-managed lands in 

Eastern Oregon also have a comparatively large number of user-generated roads, primitive roads, and trails, and there is 

a significant mileage of roads, primitive roads, and trails that are not recorded as systems in FAMS. As such, the FAMS 

transportation system data for Eastern Oregon do not capture all of the routes that travelers use, particularly rural 

community members.
A-20 • Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

WASHINGTON

9 Presidential Proclamation 8947, “Establishment of the San Juan Islands National Monument,” http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/

sanjuans/files/sanjuan-proclamation.pdf 10 http://www.wsdot.com/ferries/schedule/ScheduleDetailByRoute.aspx?route=ana-sj 11 http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/sanjuanislandsnm/index.php

The BLM manages 435,691 acres of land in the State of Washington—a much smaller area than the 16 million acres of land 

the BLM manages in Oregon. Most of the BLM-managed public lands in Washington are in the eastern part of the State. 

The BLM’s lands in Washington tend to be in the form of relatively small parcels dispersed throughout the State. The BLM’s 

transportation network in Washington consists of networks of 63 miles of roads and 700 miles of primitive roads—a much 

smaller network than in Oregon.

One notable BLM site in Washington is the San Juan Islands National Monument, a group of 450 islands, rocks, and 

pinnacles in the northwest corner of Washington State.9 The San Juan Islands are a popular destination within close 

proximity to the Seattle metropolitan area. Access to the San Juan Islands is by a network of passenger and vehicle ferries 

managed by WSDOT.10 The BLM is currently developing a Resource Management Plan for the San Juan Islands National 

Monument.11
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-21
A-22 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • A-23

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

AGENCY PROFILE:

TRANSPORTATION IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 

REGION
A-24 • U.S. Forest Service Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (Source: USFS)
APPENDICES

U.S. Forest Service Agency Profile: • A-25 Deschutes National Forest (Source: USFS)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................................. 3

The Forest Service Transportation Program in the Pacific Northwest.........................................................................................................5

Forest Service Transportation Program Roles.......................................................................................................................... 5

Forest Service Transportation Partners.................................................................................................................................... 5

Transportation Planning for the U.S. Forest Service ................................................................................................................ 6

The U.S. Forest Service Transportation Network in the Pacific Northwest.................................................................................................8

Forest Service Transportation Network at a Glance ................................................................................................................ 8
A-26 • U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: 

APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Pacific Northwest Region consists of approximately 

24.7 million acres of land across Washington and Oregon (see Figure A-1) 

and includes 16 National Forests, one National Scenic Area, and one National 

Grassland. These lands represent a diversity of landscapes throughout the region, 

including forests, volcanic mountain landscapes, grasslands, rivers, canyons, and 

high desert.The USFS’s transportation systems in Oregon and Washington support 

the agency’s multiple-purpose mission by providing access for a variety of different 

uses, including:

 Natural and cultural resource protection

 Forestry

 Mineral and energy development

 Recreation, such as hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, scenic driving, rafting, and 

skiing

 Hunting, foraging, and fishing

 Administrative purposes

 Permitted uses, such as rights of way and guided travel

 Access to private inholdings and inter-community travel

These values contribute to local quality of life as well as regional economic development. The USFS collaborates with 

neighboring Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs), private landowners and businesses, and a wide range of 

AGENCY MISSION:

The mission of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

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.

Colville National Forest (Source: USFS)
APPENDICES

U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: • A-27

Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments to ensure that the USFS’s transportation system supports the many values that 

USFS lands provide to the region.

The USFS transportation network supports the regional economy and communities throughout the region in multiple 

ways. In 2017, the USFS transportation network supported 15.3 million recreational visits to USFS lands and contributed to 

the regional economy by supporting economic activities in the following ways:1

 Recreational visitors spent $738 million and supported 6,080 year-round jobs in nearby communities.

 USFS roads supported the harvest of 581 board feet of timber harvested from USFS lands; this activity supported 

7,000 private-sector jobs and contributed $13 million to Washington and Oregon.

 More than $1.8 million worth of special forest products—such as Christmas trees, firewood, foliage, mushrooms, 

and berries—were collected from USFS lands.USFS lands provided approximately 190,000 tons of rocks and mineral 

materials, for a value of approximately $560,000.

Each of these business sectors rely on the USFS roads, bridges, trails, and other transportation infrastructure to provide 

access to these economic activities.

1 USFS. Pacific Northwest Region Annual Report 2017. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r6/home/?cid=fseprd570812&width=full.

Rowena Crest Viewpoint, Historic Columbia River Highway (Source: USDOT Volpe Center)
A-28 • U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: 

APPENDICES

Figure A-1: Map of the USFS Pacific Northwest Region
APPENDICES

U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: • A-29

THE USFS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM IN THE PACIFIC 

NORTHWEST

USFS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ROLES

The USFS Transportation Program requires collaboration between several groups within the USFS and its partners (see 

Figure A-2), listed below:

 USFS Washington Office (Washington, D.C.)

 USFS Regional Office (Portland, Oregon)

 Forest-Level Staff (Throughout Oregon and Washington)

 Potential Partners, including:

– Other FLMAs

– State Departments of Transportation (DOTs)

– Local governments

– Tribal governments

– Non-governmental partners, such as non-profit organizations or private businesses

 USFS visitors and the general public

Figure A-2: USFS Land Use and Transportation Planning Processes
A-30 • U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: 

APPENDICES

USFS Transportation Partners

The USFS collaborates with Federal, Tribal, State, county, and other local partners to manage its transportation program. 

Partners include other FLMAs, Tribes, ODOT, WSDOT, county governments, and other local governmental or nongovernmental organizations. The USFS recognizes the value of cooperative transportation partnerships and seeks to 

leverage USFS funds with other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, and user groups (e.g., timber harvesting, 

outfitters/guides, hunter associations, off-highway vehicle (OHV) user groups, mountain bicycling associations, and 

environmental conservation groups). Potential non-governmental partners include, but are not limited to, groups such as 

Washington Trails Alliance, International Mountain Bicyclists Association, and Travel Oregon. Through these partnerships, 

the USFS aims to achieve the greatest benefit to the largest number of goals and objectives held by multiple agencies and 

organizations for shared projects.

Transportation Planning for the USFS

USFS Strategic Plan: FY 2015-2020

The USFS regularly develops five-year national strategic plans to increase transparency to the people the agency serves and 

to create accountability for making progress on its goals and objectives. The Strategic Plan covers all aspects of the USFS, 

including, but not limited to, transportation. The goals of the FY 2015-2020 Strategic Plan are to:

 Sustain our Nation’s Forests and Grasslands

 Deliver Benefits to the Public

 Apply Knowledge Globally

 Excel as a High-Performing Agency2

This Collaborative Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRTP) supports the Strategic Plan by focusing on protecting 

resources, improving seamless public access and visitor experience, and partnering with a wide range of Federal, State, and 

local partners.Forest-Level Land Use and Transportation Planning

National Forests and Grasslands are required to develop land use management plans consistent with the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, often known as Forest Plans. The NFMA requires Forests to amend and revise their 

Forest Plans as necessary, but at least every 15 years. The USFS-developed 2012 Planning Rule (36 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 219) includes more specific requirements for how to implement the NFMA. Forest Plans include the 

following decisions:

 Establishment of Forest multiple-use goals and objectives, including desired future conditions

 Establishment of Forest-wide management requirements

 Establishment of management areas and prescriptions for future activities in that area

 Specific limitations on timber harvest in accordance with NFMA

 Recommendations to Congress for wilderness or other special areas

 Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements3

National Forests develop Forest Plans through a public process, including public input and collaboration with Forest 

partners, as well as the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1976.

2 USFS. 2015. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 2015-2020. http://www.fs.fed.us/strategicplan. 3 USFS, Planning Rule 101: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/101.
APPENDICES

U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: • A-31

In addition to Forest Plans, National Forests must conduct travel management processes in accordance with USFS Travel 

Management Regulations (36 CFR 212). These regulations include three related subparts, described in Figure A-3. Like 

Forest Plans, Travel management planning is conducted by National Forests with guidance and review from the Regional 

Office. Forest-level travel management should be based on the land use management goals, objectives, and policies in the 

Forest Plans. 

Figure A-3: USFS Travel Management Regulations

Hells Canyon Overlook, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Source: USFS)
A-32 • U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: 

APPENDICES

USFS TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

The USFS transportation network in the Pacific Northwest includes a total of approximately 60,000 miles of publicly 

accessible roads (maintenance levels 2 through 5), of which about 5,000 miles are designated as being eligible for the use 

of Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) funding.The USFS’s land in Oregon and Washington covers diverse 

landscapes, including the Pacific Coast and Coastal Mountains, the Cascade Mountain Range, and the high desert 

landscape of eastern Oregon and Washington. The USFS manages the landscapes in these regions for multiple compatible 

uses in accordance with the land use plans in each Forest.

USFS Transportation Network at a Glance

The USFS’s multimodal transportation network in the Pacific Northwest consists of roads, trails, and bridges, as 

summarized below in Figure A-4.

Figure A-4: Summary Information on the USFS Transportation Network in the Pacific Northwest

USFS Transportation Facility Quantity

Roads Approx. 90,000 miles

Publicly Accessible Roads Approx. 60,000 miles

Road Bridges 1,483

Trail Bridges 1,227

Source: USDA Transportation Management Brochure, 2018

Roads

The USFS Pacific Northwest Region owns and maintains approximately 60,000 miles of publicly accessible roads. This road 

network is unique, because the majority of USFS roads are unpaved. The USFS categorizes roads into five maintenance 

levels (see Figure A-4):

 Maintenance Level 1: Roads closed to vehicular traffic (not open to the public)

 Maintenance Level 2: Roads maintained for use by high clearance vehicles

 Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5: Roads open and maintained for standard passenger vehicles

Off-highway vehicle users, Deschutes National Forest (Source: USFS)
APPENDICES

U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: • A-33

Figure A-5: Illustration of USFS road maintenance levels

The official inventory of USFS roads, trails, and associated management objectives is documented in the Forest 

Transportation Atlas, as recorded in the agency’s Infra database and corresponding GIS transportation dataset. The atlas is 

updated as needed to reflect changes in inventory, status, and management objectives.

FLTP Roads

The USFS has designated approximately 5,000 miles of road in the Pacific Northwest Region as eligible for FLTP funds. 

These high-priority assets were selected for assessment and investment from all USFS roads through a selection process 

conducted by the Region in coordination with individual Forests and Grasslands and based on guidance from the USFS 

Washington Office. Administrative roads, roads not maintained for passenger cars, and assets not maintained by the 

USFS were excluded from the selection process. The USFS then applied a recreation and economic generation filter 

that prioritized roads that provide access to high-priority recreation sites or a designated Special Place according to the 

Framework for Sustainable Recreation; are designated scenic routes or scenic byways; or are important to rural community 

access or economic health. The USFS verified the filter results through mapping analysis and vetting with staff.
A-34 • U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: 

APPENDICES

Trails

The USFS manages 24,291 miles of trails in the Pacific 

Northwest. Trails are important to the USFS mission, because 

they serve multiple purposes, including recreation; motorized 

and non-motorized transportation; and access to foraging, 

hunting, and fishing resources. There are three main types of 

USFS trails in the Pacific Northwest:

 Standard Terra Trail: A trail that has a surface 

consisting primarily of the ground and that is designed 

and managed to accommodate use on that surface.

 Snow Trail: A trail that has a surface consisting 

predominantly of snow or ice and that is designed 

and managed to accommodate use on that surface. In 

the Pacific Northwest, many Standard Terra Trails are 

managed as Snow Trails seasonally.

 Water Trail: A trail that has a surface consisting 

predominantly of water (but may include land-based 

portages) and that is designed to accommodate use on that surface. In the Pacific Northwest, several Wild and 

Scenic Rivers are managed as water trails, facilitating water-based travel and recreation.

The Pacific Northwest also has several iconic long-distance trails, such as the Pacific Crest Trail, that pass through USFS 

lands.

FLTP Trails

The USFS has designated a national network of FLTP trails. The Pacific Northwest Region’s FLTP trails network is 4,263 

miles. These trails represent the highest priority trails for transportation funding based on the following criteria:

 Provide access to special places, recreation sites, or communities

 Experience high visitation/use

 Support local economy

 Connect to FLTP road network

 Connect to other FLMA, State, or local trails or facilities

Winter mule packers, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (USFS)

Visitors on an accessible trail, 

Mt. Hood National Forest (USFS)
APPENDICES

U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: • A-35

Overall Size of the USFS Transportation Network in the Pacific Northwest

Figure A-6 shows the relative size of the USFS road and trail networks in the Pacific Northwest. As shown below, the USFS 

FLTP roads and trails represent a small portion of the overall network—5.6 percent of roads and 17.6 percent of trails, 

respectively. These FLTP networks represent funding eligibility, but they do not provide a holistic travel network without 

consideration of the larger network of USFS roads and trails and their connections to partner-owned transportation 

systems.

Figure A-6: USFS Transportation Assets in the Pacific Northwest

Transit

The USFS does not own or operate any transit systems in the Pacific Northwest Region. However, the Federal Lands 

Multimodal Catalog records 28 transit systems owned and maintained by partners, such as local transit agencies, that 

provide access to National Forests in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, many ski areas and other recreational businesses on 

National Forests run their own shuttle systems on National Forest roads.

Notable examples of transit services that provide access from urban transit hubs to USFS lands—in partnership with State 

and local transportation agencies—include:Mount Hood Express (administered by Clackamas County, Oregon)

 Columbia River Gorge Express (administered by ODOT)

 Gorge WET shuttle (administered by Skamania County, Washington)

These three transit systems—which expand access to recreation sites for urban residents without vehicles and provide 

congestion relief and safety improvements at some of the region’s most popular trailheads—also have received Federal 

Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds for vehicle purchase or start-up operational costs during their initial trial periods. 

Some of these shuttle services also include bicycle racks or trailers to support passengers’ multimodal trips.
A-36 • U.S. Forest ServiceAgency Profile: 

APPENDICES

Linkages to Partner Transportation Networks

The USFS’s transportation system elements are highly connected to the transportation networks of its partners, including 

those facilities owned and maintained by other FLMAs, ODOT and WSDOT, county governments, and private landowners. 

These linkages include connections to partners’ road systems, but also to multimodal transportation systems, including 

trails and partner-operated buses and ferries. For this reason, it is crucial for the USFS to collaborate with a diverse set of 

partners to coordinate transportation data collection, planning, and asset management across jurisdictions.This CLRTP is 

meant to support enhanced collaboration with USFS partners by:

 Providing information and guidance to USFS staff in how to collaborate with partners

 Institutionalizing collaboration within existing USFS planning processes while maintaining consistency with USFS 

planning requirements

 Facilitating better understanding between the USFS and its partners

 Helping partners recognize opportunities for mutual benefit

Gorge WET shuttle, Skamania County, WA (Source: Skamania County Transit Services)
APPENDICES

Bureau of Land Management Agency Profile: • A-37

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (Source: USFS)
A-38 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • A-39

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

AGENCY PROFILE:

TRANSPORTATION IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON
A-40 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile:

APPENDICES

Photography by: USACE
APPENDICES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: • A-41

Lower Granite Dam, Clarkston, WA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

USACE’S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

USACE Transportation Planning- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

USACE Transportation Program Roles- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

USACE Transportation Partners- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

USACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

USACE Transportation Network at a Glance- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

Roads- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

Trails- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

Linkages to Partner Transportation Networks- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
A-42 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: 

APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdictional boundaries made 

up by both Divisions and Districts. All of the Pacific Northwest exists in the 

Northwestern Division (NWD) and three primary districts serve Oregon and 

Washington: Seattle District, Walla Walla District, and Portland District (see 

Figure A-1). In addition, while both the Sacramento and San Francisco Districts 

extend into extreme southern Oregon, they do not contain any Corps recreation 

facilities, known as Projects.

As the nation’s largest Federal provider of water-based outdoor recreation, USACE 

manages nearly 12 million acres of Federal lands and waters at Corps water resource 

development projects in 43 states. USACE-managed recreation areas receive more than 250 million visits per year, and it is 

estimated that visitor spending at these recreation areas is $11 billion. Ultimately, 80 percent of that spending is captured by 

the local economy through direct sales to visitors who live within 30 miles of the given recreation area, supporting almost 

100,000 jobs in surrounding communities.

The underlying regional transportation network is critical in providing access to Corps land and water resources. Within 

the states of Oregon and Washington, the Corps operates 27 projects that encompass more than 240 recreation areas (not 

all recreation areas are operated by the Corps) that receive in excess of 18 million visits annually (approximate 7 percent 

of the national visitation). It is estimated that visitor spending at these recreation areas exceeds $605 million and supports 

more than 5,000 jobs. Corps Projects in Oregon and Washington are important economic drivers, both in the region and 

nationally.

The Seattle District covers the north and central portions of Washington State, and contains both the Chittenden Locks and 

Lake Washington Ship Canal.

The Walla Walla District covers southeastern Washington State and eastern Oregon. It is noteworthy for its many Projects 

as part of the Columbia River navigation system.

The Portland District is the largest district in the region by area, covering central and western Oregon. The Portland District 

has 18 lakes and reservoirs representing Projects located on the Columbia River, in the Willamette Valley (see Figure A-2), 

and in the Rogue River Basin that provide a variety of recreation opportunities. There are 131 recreation sites at these 18 

Corps Projects alone. Among these, there are more than 1,000 Corps-managed and outgranted campsites that generate 

nearly $600,000 in revenue annually.

USACE MISSION:

To provide vital public 

engineering services 

in peace and war to 

strengthen our Nation’s 

security, energize the 

economy, and reduce risks 

from disasters.
APPENDICES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: • A-43

Figure A-1: Pacific Northwest USACE Districts
A-44 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: 

APPENDICES

Figure A-2: Projects in the Willamette Basin
APPENDICES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: • A-45

USACE serves a vital role in navigation and flood protection in the Pacific Northwest, allowing such metropolises as 

Portland and Seattle to thrive, while enabling myriad recreational opportunities within a day’s drive. This contributes to 

quality of life and brings economic prosperity to the region.

Essential to USACE’s management of these lands is maintaining and improving upon the USACE transportation system—

which includes roads, bridges, trails, and related facilities—in a manner that enhances accessibility, connectivity, and 

safety, while at the same time addressing public needs, ensuring safe passage and water navigation, and ensuring economic 

development.

These values contribute to local quality of life, as well as local and regional economic development. USACE collaborates 

with neighboring Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs), private land owners and businesses, and a wide range 

of Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments to ensure that the USACE’s transportation system supports the USACE 

mission and the many benefits that USACE recreation sites provide for the region.

USACE’S TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

USACE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

USACE management is guided by a series of planning documents, and while these documents do not address surfacebased transportation directly, there are indirect references. The Campaign Plan is produced by the USACE Commanding 

Engineer’s team and focuses on a strategic outlook for the way the Corps does business. Goal Two of the Campaign Plan 

focuses on the Corps Water Resource Solutions, which include the Civil Works program, through which the Corps surface 

transportation assets are operated. The goal’s fourth objective to focus on the life-cycle of water resources infrastructure 

systems will influence the maintenance and management of USACE roads, bridges, and other surface transportation 

infrastructure.

USACE has multiple missions that include military support, civil works, and emergency management. In its military 

support role, USACE has responsibility for military construction and other support functions for the Department of 

Defense (DOD). This includes a Transportation Center of Expertise focused on supporting military needs for highperforming specialized transportation assets and surfaces. Through its emergency management role, USACE is a partner 

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in aiding domestic recovery efforts, with a focus on those 

situations that require specialty engineering skills. Through the Civil Works directorate, USACE provides navigation, 

flood risk reduction, hydropower, water supply, resource management, and recreation nationally through the operation of 

domestic water resource projects. In addition, the Civil Works Program supports environmental restoration and shoreline 

protection, while also performing regulatory activities.

The Civil Works Program is guided by the Civil Works Strategic Plan. Like the Campaign Plan, the current strategic plan 

(FY14-18) focuses on transforming the business practices of the organization to better achieve the agency’s mission. Goal 2, 

improving the safety and resilience of communities and water resources infrastructure, and Goal 5, managing the life cycle 

of water resources infrastructure systems, influence the management of USACE surface transportation infrastructure. The 

next iteration of the Civil Works Strategic Plan is due to be released soon..
A-46 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: 

APPENDICES

USACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ROLES

USACE operates in a decentralized manner at the Project level, and consequently manages its transportation program 

in the same way. The USACE budget is structured with funding per USACE Project, so Projects are responsible for the 

operation and maintenance of their transportation assets. However, the management of the Federal Lands Transportation 

Program (FLTP) is operated centrally at the national level through its Headquarters in Washington, DC. USACE Division 

and District offices also play critical roles in USACE’s implementation of the FLTP program. USACE’s funding level 

under the Federal Lands Transportation Program is small compared to the deferred maintenance needs of the surface 

transportation assets. Project-level decisions have the strongest influence on the day-to-day management of transportation, 

with the FLTP program providing funding for high-priority transportation assets that are not funded through the 

traditional budget process.

Figure A-3: Relationship between USACE National, Division, and District Office Planning Processes

USACE Transportation Partners

The nature of the USACE transportation assets limits collaboration opportunities to some degree. The USACE fee land 

boundary is quite narrow around the water resource. In essence, USACE roads tend to be the “last mile to the water.” This 

creates a dependent relationship on local- and State-maintained roads to ensure access to USACE parks or other areas 

at a Project. At some Projects, USACE has maintenance responsibility for bridges that provide critical water crossings 

connecting communities and providing continuity for important transportation corridors. In these cases, collaboration 

with State and local DOTs is necessary.

USACE has a strong track record of partnering with Federal, Tribal, State, and local government and local community 

groups to develop trails and other recreation facilities. In the states of Washington and Oregon, there are a number of 

Projects that are adjacent to other Federal agency lands, which creates opportunities to collaborate with those agencies on 

transportation improvements. Also, USACE has Challenge and Handshake partnership programs that allow USACE to 

leverage the capabilities of partners in providing recreation facilities and services.

Moving forward under the FLTP, USACE will have increased opportunities to collaborate with Federal, Tribal, State, county, 

and other local partners to manage its transportation program and ensure access to Federal lands and waters is maintained. 

In particular, there are opportunities to leverage Federal funding with other funding sources to make transportation 

improvements via shared projects that achieve the greatest benefit to the largest number of goals and objectives held by 

multiple agencies and increase benefits to the public.
APPENDICES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: • A-47

USACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

USACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AT A GLANCE

USACE’s multimodal transportation network in Oregon and Washington consists of roads, trails, and bridges, as 

summarized below.

Figure A-4: Summary Information on the USACE Transportation Network in Oregon and Washington

USACE Transportation 

Facility Washington Oregon

Roads 94 miles 76 miles

Trails 92 miles 59 miles

Bridges 31 bridges 20 bridges

Roads

USACE has identified two classes of public roads: Area roads and Project roads. Area roads are those found within 

designated recreation areas. They include the primary access road from the Federal boundary to the various circulation 

roads that deliver visitors to their desired recreation facilities. Project roads are those found within the Federal boundary, 

but are not within designated recreation areas. These may be roads that cross engineered structures (e.g., locks, dams, 

levees), portions of a road associated with a bridge or Project crossing, or roads that run the length of the Project. Often, 

higher functional class roads, based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classifications, that are located on 

USACE Federal land are maintained by local governments.

Trails

Trail use is one of the most popular visitor activities at Corps lakes and rivers. The water-based nature of these sites provides 

opportunities for trails with excellent water views. USACE has documented 151 miles of trails at lakes located in Oregon 

and Washington, with approximately two-thirds of this mileage managed by the Corps. Of the trail mileage managed by the 

Corps, the majority is water, multi-purpose, and hiking trails. The remainder is of various types, including equestrian trails, 

interpretative hikes, or trails that are specific to other modes such as bicycles or snow mobiles. Visitors to Corps lakes and 

rivers can use these trails to explore the area, and as a connection to other trail systems or to improve their personal fitness.

Linkages to Partner Transportation Networks

USACE’s transportation system elements are highly connected to the transportation networks of its partners, including 

those facilities owned and maintained by other FLMAs, ODOT and WSDOT, county governments, and private landowners. 

These linkages include connections to partners’ road systems, but also to multimodal transportation systems, including 

partner-operated buses and ferries. It is crucial for USACE to collaborate with a diverse set of partners to coordinate 

transportation data collection, planning, and asset management across jurisdictions.
A-48 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Profile: 

APPENDICES

RESOURCES

For more information about USACE in the Pacific Northwest, please visit the following websites:

 USACE Headquarters: https://www.usace.army.mil/

 USACE Northwestern Division (NWD): https://www.usace.army.mil/

 USACE Seattle District: https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/

 USACE Walla Walla District: https://www.nww.usace.army.mil/

 USACE Portland District: https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/

 USACE Sacramento District: https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/

 USACE San Francisco District: https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • A-49

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

AGENCY PROFILE
A-50 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-51

National Park Service a

July 2017

National Park Service

US Department of the Interior

Long Range Transportation Plan

National
A-52 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

iv National Long Range Transportation Plan

Summary of Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures

TRANSPORTATION FINANCE

Goal – Allocate available transportation funding wisely

Performance Measures

Percentage of Transportation Funds Invested in Highest 

Priority Transportation Assets

Baseline: 76%

5-yr Target: 95%

Baseline: n/a

5-yr Target: 100%

Objectives

• Identify and prioritize investments based on the 

NPS mission, anticipated life-cycle costs and 

consideration of likely available future funding

• Maintain flexible use of transportation funding 

sources while improving identification of 

investments and needs

Percentage of Park Units that Meet Preventive 

Maintenance Targets for Highest Priority 

Transportation Assets

0%

0%

50%

50%

100%

100%

Performance Measures*

Condition of Highest Priority Transportation Assets

Objectives

• Maintain critical assets and services in good 

operating condition through targeted investment 

• Adapt transportation systems to climate change 

impacts

Goal – Sustainably manage NPS transportation assets and services 

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Bridges (All Bridges)

Baseline: 92% BHI

6-yr Target: 90% BHI

42

Other Asset Types (OB 1)

Baseline: 0.12 FCI

6-yr Target: 0.11 FCI

Paved Roads and Parking Areas (FC 1, 7 and Subset of FC 2)

Baseline: 83 PCR

6-yr Target: 80 PCR

Number of Park Units That Have Completed a 

Transportation Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment

Baseline: 17

5-yr Target: At least 5 per year

0

0%

0

50

50%

21

100

100%

1.0 0.5 0.0

Grand Teton National Park

See Glossary for definitions of acronyms

* Arlington Memorial Bridge and other large-scale projects which 

cannot be addressed with annual transportation funding are not 

included in the asset management performance measures. 
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-53

National Park Service v

SAFETY

Goal – Provide a safe transportation system for all users

Performance Measure

Completion of the NPS Transportation Safety 

Management System

Objectives

• Institute a comprehensive, performance-based 

transportation safety program that addresses 

engineering, education and enforcement

• Reduce serious and fatal 

transportation-related injuries

• Maximize safety without impairing 

park resources and values

• Enable effective emergency response

0% 50% 100%

Baseline: 30%

5-yr Target: 100%

Baseline: varies by park

5-yr Target: 100% 

Baseline: 75%

2017 Target: 100%

Baseline:n/a

5-yr Target: 100% 

Performance Measures

Percentage of Park Unit Websites that Provide Nine 

Elements of Essential Traveler Information

Objectives

• Improve ease of access to and within 

national park units for all people

• Create a range of appropriate 

transportation options that support a 

network of seamless connections within 

each park unit and to surrounding 

communities

• Provide state-of-the-art traveler 

information and wayfinding and, 

where appropriate, interpretation and 

education opportunities that complement 

transportation options

Completion of Phase II of the NPS Congestion 

Management Program

Percentage of Transportation Contracts and Projects 

that Include Accessibility Language and Are Compliant 

with Accessibility-Related Laws, Regulations and Policies

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Goal – Maintain and enhance the quality of visitor experiences

0%

0%

0%

50%

50%

50%

100%

100%

100%

SCOPE 1+2 (in MTCO2E)

2008 Baseline: 74,000 

2020 Target: 48,000 (-35%)

SCOPE: 3 (in MTCO2E)

2008 Baseline: 104,000

2020 Target: 93,600 (-10%) 0

0

55,000

55,000

110,000

110,000

Develop a System for Tracking and Forecasting the 

Condition of Culturally Significant Transportation Assets

Performance Measures

Completion of the INSTEP Tool

Objectives

• Incorporate natural and cultural resource 

considerations into all aspects of transportation 

decision making and operations to avoid, minimize 

or mitigate negative impacts on these resources

• Minimize and mitigate the greenhouse gas 

emissions of the NPS transportation system

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Goal – Protect and preserve natural and cultural resources

Percentage Decrease in NPS Transportation System 

Emissions

Baseline: 60%

5-yr Target: 100%

Baseline: 30%

5-yr Target: 100%

0%

0%

50%

50%

100%

100%
A-54 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

Denali National Park & Preserve
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-55

Introduction

 National Long Range Transportation Plan
A-56 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

2 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Transportation systems play a critical role in fulfilling the 

National Park Service (NPS) mission by providing people 

access to America’s national treasures. Transportation 

planning in the National Park Service is fundamentally 

about providing sustainable, appropriate, enjoyable 

visitor access while also protecting resources and visitor 

safety. These goals are ingrained in the NPS mission, and 

they are part of what makes the National Park Service 

a unique agency.

The Role of Transportation in the National Park Service

Rocky Mountain National Park

The NPS transportation landscape is diverse and includes 

an extensive inventory of transportation assets:

• Roadway systems, including approximately 5,500 miles 

of paved roads, 7,000 miles of unpaved roads, 1,460 

bridges and tunnels and 6,100 parking areas

• Nonmotorized systems, including approximately 4,600 

miles of bicycle and pedestrian multiuse trails and 950 

trail bridges

• Approximately 130 transit systems, including buses, 

trolleys, trains, streetcars, snowcoaches and maintenance 

facilities

• Marine systems, including ferries, boats, docks, 

marinas and waterfronts, representing more than 1,000 

individual assets

• Intelligent transportation systems (ITS), such as variable 

message signs and traveler information systems

• Transportation management systems, including systems 

for managing congestion, safety, roadway and bridge 

condition and facilities.

The 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.
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-57

National Park Service 3

The NPS National Long Range Transportation Plan 

(LRTP) establishes a strategic framework for transportation 

investment servicewide over the next 20 years. It provides 

guidance to regional and park unit staff who make 

transportation investment and maintenance decisions 

every day. Because transportation touches all directorates 

and program areas, the National LRTP reflects the input 

What Is the National Long Range Transportation Plan?

The National LRTP Vision

The National Park Service provides a missionfocused transportation system that is safe 

and seamless, enabling high-quality access 

to essential park unit experiences. The agency 

responsibly plans and effectively manages 

the transportation system to accommodate 

changing environmental, social and financial 

conditions.

of subject matter experts from across the agency, our 

partners and the public. It defines common goals that 

transcend traditional NPS administrative program 

boundaries. These goals are reflected in the overall vision 

for NPS transportation.

The National LRTP is consistent with statewide and 

metropolitan transportation planning practices as part 

of a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) 

transportation planning process. The LRTP is the first 

step in the transportation life cycle as shown in Figure 1-1, 

guiding the investment decisions program managers make 

and document in multiyear investment programs. Funded 

projects are developed and engineered according to best 

management practices, and environmental reviews are 

performed when needed, followed by construction and 

systems operations. The National LRTP also establishes a 

framework for performance monitoring, which as part of 

the 3C process, feeds into future LRTP updates, informing 

future planning priorities.

Figure 1-1. The Life Cycle of a Transportation Program

Long Range Multimodal Transportation Plan

Multi-Year Investment Programs

Project Development and Environmental Compliance

Construction

Systems Operations

Performance Monitoring

Transportation Program Life Cycle

3C 

Process
A-58 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

4 National Long Range Transportation Plan

This National LRTP was developed through a servicewide, 

multidisciplinary effort. A wide variety of NPS staff, including 

more than 80 subject matter experts at the directorate, 

region, park unit and program levels, as well as external 

stakeholders and the general public, provided critical input 

to the development of this plan. The National LRTP was 

developed in six phases (Figure 1-2).

PHASE 1: ESTABLISH VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The planning team, with input from NPS staff, established a 20-

year vision for the NPS transportation system and developed 

associated goals and objectives (page iv–v). The vision, goals 

and objectives serve as the organizational framework for the 

National LRTP planning process; each future phase is aligned 

to these elements to ensure that this plan achieves the desired 

outcomes.

PHASE 2: IDENTIFY BASELINE CONDITIONS AND 

MACRO TRENDS

The current performance level and condition of the NPS 

transportation system, in terms of transportation asset 

management, financial condition, resource protection, visitor 

experience and safety, was established. The planning team also 

considered macro-level trends that affect the management and 

delivery of the transportation system, such as demographics, 

climate change and technology. The baseline and macro trends 

assessment highlighted the critical areas of focus and provided 

a foundation for the subsequent phases.

PHASE 3: IDENTIFY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

The findings from the baseline conditions and macro trends 

stage were used to identify the most crucial needs in meeting 

the transportation vision, goals and objectives.

PHASE 4: DEVELOP STRATEGIES

Short- and long-term actions and strategies were identified 

to address the transportation needs and meet the stated goals 

and objectives. As part of this step, the National Transportation 

Investment Strategy was also developed to articulate a 

framework for how limited transportation funding can be 

best aligned with the goals and objectives of the plan, based 

on rigorous modeling and analysis of potential options.

PHASE 5: ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE MEASURES

National-level performance measures and targets were 

developed to monitor the progress of the National LRTP 

over time. The performance measures were developed in 

coordination with the particular NPS directorates and 

program areas that will ultimately implement the strategies to 

achieve the plan’s goals and objectives. The National LRTP 

does not include performance measures for each specific 

objective; rather, it includes a limited set of measures that 

the National Park Service will use to monitor progress and 

gauge whether the plan is on track to achieving established 

goals and objectives.

PHASE 6: CONDUCT OUTREACH AND FINALIZE PLAN

Drafts of the National LRTP were shared broadly with 

NPS staff and the public. As part of the outreach process, 

the team created a page on the Planning Environment and 

Public Comment website, which made general information 

and plan documents available for review. The team also 

conducted numerous presentations with NPS subject matter 

experts to collect feedback on the plan. The team made 

iterative revisions in response to subject matter expert 

feedback and public comments.

National LRTP Development Process

Figure 1-2. The National LRTP Development Process

Establish Vision, Goals and Objectives

Identify Baseline Conditions and Macro Trends

Identify Transportation Needs

Develop Strategies

Establish Performance Measures

Conduct Outreach and Finalize Plan

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Phase 5

Phase 6
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-59

National Park Service 5

The goals of the National LRTP are rooted in the NPS mission. The National LRTP sets goals that address both traditional 

transportation topics, such as asset management, transportation finance and safety, and broader mission-focused topics, 

such as visitor experience and natural and cultural resource protection.

National LRTP Goals

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Sustainably manage NPS transportation assets and services

TRANSPORTATION FINANCE

Allocate available transportation funding wisely

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Protect and preserve natural and cultural resources

VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Maintain and enhance the quality of visitor experiences

SAFETY

Provide a safe transportation system for all users

Goal Areas and Goal Statements of the National LRTP
A-60 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

6 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Federal surface transportation legislation, as reauthorized 

in the FAST Act, requires federal land management agencies 

such as the National Park Service to develop LRTPs that are 

consistent with the 3C planning processes required of state 

departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan 

planning organizations (23 United States Code [USC] §201; 

23 USC §134 and §135). This plan is consistent with those 

processes and legal requirements. Table 1-1 demonstrates 

how the National LRTP aligns with US Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) planning factors.

Alignment with Planning Requirements and Existing Plans

Consistency with State and 

Metropolitan Plans

Table 1-1. Comparison of NPS and USDOT Planning Factors

Connectivity

Asset 

Management

Transportation 

Finance

Resource 

Protection

Visitor 

Experience Safety

Economic Vitality

Safety

Security

Accessibility & Mobility

Environment

Efficiency

System Preservation

Resiliency & Reliability

Travel & Tourism

USDOT

Planning Factors1

National LRTP Goal Areas

1 23 USC §134(h) and §135(d).
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-61

National Park Service 7

The National LRTP aligns with existing NPS regional LRTPs, such as the Alaska, Northeast and 

Intermountain Region LRTPs. Other regional LRTPs already developed or under development 

will similarly be aligned with the National LRTP.

The National LRTP is also aligned with other NPS and 

Department of the Interior (DOI) plans, policies and 

management tools, such as the NPS Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006) and others including the following:

• A Call to Action (NPS 2015)

• NPS Capital Investment Strategy (NPS 2012a)

• Healthy Parks Healthy People Strategic Action Plan

(NPS 2011a)

• Green Parks Plan (NPS 2012b)

• America’s Great Outdoors (CEQ et al. 2011).

The National LRTP also serves as a strategic guide to inform 

long range transportation planning at the regional and 

park unit levels. Future regional and unit LRTPs will be 

consistent with the goals and objectives established in the 

National LRTP but customized to evaluate and respond to 

regionally unique needs and challenges and to identify more 

detailed strategies to support NPS shared goals, objectives, 

strategies and performance measures. Iterative feedback 

among the national, regional and park unit levels will inform 

and strengthen future updates to each plan (Figure 1-3).

A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

National Park Service

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan 

FINAL

September 2012 

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior Intermountain Region

INTERMOUNTAINREGIONLONGRANGETRANSPORTATIONPLAN2014-2035

FINALPLAN APRIL 2014

Northeast Region

Long Range Transportation Plan

Final Report

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Northeast Region Long Range Transportation Plan Final Report

National LRTP

Regional LRTP

Park Unit Transportation Plan

Data & Needs Policy & Guidance

Figure 1-3. The Iterative Feedback Loop of NPS LRTPs 

Alignment with Other Plans
A-62 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

8 National Long Range Transportation Plan

Paved Roads 

and Parking*

Title 23* 

Federal Highway Administration

Title 54 Fee

National Park Service

Title 54 Non-Fee

National Park Service

Other

Bridges*

Trails

Transit

& Other

*Historical focus of many transportation plans

Asset Categories Fund Sources Life-Cycle Emphasis

Plan*

Build*

Operate

Maintain

Rehab*

Monitor

Figure 1-4. Illustration of Comprehensive National Park Service Long Range Transportation Planning Approach 

2 The financial analysis for the National LRTP was completed before the passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST Act) and the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, both of which increased future available funding for 

NPS transportation assets. Although these increases will help the National Park Service care for its transportation system, they are 

not large enough to cover even the highest priority investment needs identified in this plan.

The National LRTP includes the most comprehensive 

analysis of NPS transportation finance ever completed 

(Figure 1-4). The plan cuts across NPS programs, offices 

and disciplines to look at all assets, fund sources and stages 

in the transportation life cycle. It is a fiscally constrained 

plan, meaning that only funds reasonably expected to be 

available for transportation are included2 (Figure 1-5). 

The plan looks at all stages in the life cycle of investment 

needs for transportation assets and all programs that have 

historically contributed to planning, building, operating 

and maintaining the transportation system. It is multimodal, 

including every mode of transportation in the financial 

analysis. The result of this in-depth, comprehensive 

examination of NPS transportation finance is the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy. This framework 

articulates how the National Park Service can make the best 

use of limited funding, focusing on the most important parts 

of the system and making smart, long-term investments in 

operations and maintenance activities to extend the life of 

transportation investments.

Figure 1-5. Illustration of NPS Estimated Annual 

Transportation Funding Gap

A Comprehensive, Fiscally Constrained Plan

Annual Need 

$1.5 billion 

Funding Forecast

$394 million

Annual

Funding Gap

$1.1 billion
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-63

National Park Service 9

The National LRTP is a strategic, long-range plan that 

provides guidance to programs and managers throughout 

the National Park Service. It does not replace decisions 

made at the directorate, regional, park unit or program 

levels. The National LRTP will be implemented through 

the actions of existing programs and managers in alignment 

with their priorities and procedures.

Following the plan's release, the National Park Service will 

organize action planning and reporting teams and establish 

performance monitoring protocols. A performance report 

will be published approximately two years after the plan is 

released, with a second performance report after four years. 

These reports will inform the first National LRTP update, 

which will be an opportunity for the National Park Service 

to re-examine and re-evaluate transportation priorities 

servicewide. The first National LRTP update is targeted 

for release five years after this plan is published.

The National LRTP begins by presenting the National 

Transportation Investment Strategy. This chapter articulates 

how limited transportation funding can be best applied 

to meet the goals of the National LRTP and describes the 

anticipated outcomes of following the investment strategy.

The following five chapters are organized around the five 

strategic goal areas:

Asset Management

Transportation Finance

Resource Protection

Visitor Experience

Safety

Each goal area chapter follows the same format:

• Goal area chapters begin with a brief overview and 

introduction to the chapter.

• Next, the chapters present the baseline conditions 

and macro trends, providing context and introducing 

key concepts in transportation related to the goal.

• The chapters discuss the objectives of the goal area 

and lay out recommended strategies for achieving 

them.

• The chapters conclude by listing the performance 

measures and targets that the National Park Service 

will use to gauge progress in the goal area.

The Conclusion closes the National LRTP, discussing 

next steps for putting the plan into action, monitoring and 

reporting progress and releasing future plan updates.

Technical reports and methodology are available on request. 

For more information, please visit the National Park Service 

LRTP website.

Putting the Plan 

into Action

How to Read the Plan

Olympic National Park
A-64 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-65

2015 - 2035

PWRO JUNE 2015

A 20-year plan for guiding transportation infrastructure 

management and investment in the Pacific West Region

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Pacific West Region

Long Range Transportation Plan
A-66 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page iii 

Executive Summary

This plan identifies existing and future transportation needs for national parks in the 

Pacific West Region (PWR) through the year 2035. Significant gaps are expected between 

projected funding and estimated needs, in particular for preventive maintenance and 

operations, rehabilitation of roadways and parking areas, and recapitalization of transit 

vehicles. Insufficient past funding has left transportation infrastructure in need of 

extensive repairs and major investments just to maintain existing facilities and levels of 

service. Very few major capital investments or new construction projects have been built 

in recent years to either add new roadway capacity or provide for new transit service 

connections, despite increasing congestion problems at a number of park sites. Ninetynine percent of the cost for work identified in PWR’s current transportation project 

priority lists is for maintenance, repair or recapitalization of existing roadway, parking and 

transit assets, as opposed to new construction or new service. 

By 2035 the total gap between projected annual funding ($132 million) and estimated 

annual needs ($194 million) for the Pacific West Region will be $62 million. 

Implementation of the Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) will help to lengthen the service 

life for transportation assets that are identified as high priority, and keep annual 

maintenance requirements in balance by matching the core asset portfolio to the amount 

of operational funds available. Roadway rehabilitation is the largest element of the 

transportation program that is projected to be underfunded. However, there are other 

important future needs that won’t be fully met, which include 

 efforts to proactively address climate change impacts to facilities;

 implementing environmentally beneficial facility improvements such as providing

for better fish passage and reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions;

 providing maintenance for future, as yet un-built capital projects;

 providing for transit recapitalization;

 adopting evolving communication technologies to relieve transportation

congestion problems;

 providing for accessibility to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act standards;

 rehabilitating aging and dilapidated roadway features on historic roads and

bridges; and

 removal of facilities that are decommissioned either due to lack of funding for

operation and regular maintenance, or susceptibility to frequent, recurring damage

from floods, landslides or rising seawaters.

This document offers a fiscally constrained plan aimed at maintaining safe and enjoyable 

visitor access to essential experiences in PWR parks. The investment strategy focuses on 

high priority assets for rehabilitation and preservation, and is aligned with the CIS for 

reinvesting in assets that superintendents have committed adequate operational and 

annual maintenance dollars. The current gap between funding and identified need will 

grow mainly as a result of steady increases in deferred maintenance, as calculated if there 

is no increase in PWR’s purchasing capacity for rehabilitation and regular maintenance. 

Even with full investment in bridge and pavement preservation programs, roadway 

conditions will continue to decline as inevitable aging and deterioration outpaces the 
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-67

Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page iv 

financial capacity to rehabilitate all the facilities for which there is a need. Costs for transit 

operations and recapitalization of vehicles may also pose a challenge for managers at 

some parks. 

Maintaining access and providing for visitor enjoyment under these conditions will depend 

on several key strategies: 

 Priority will remain on functional class one and two roadways. 

 Recapitalization will be focused on assets in CIS optimizer bands one and two. 

 Prioritization for funding will go to projects that serve visitor areas and activities 

that are closely linked to the park’s purpose and can’t be substituted at another 

location within the park. 

 Capital investments/new construction will be very limited in order to conserve 

funds for repairs to existing facilities. 

 Roads, parking areas and transit systems may need to be removed or downsized in 

order to bring inventory in line with budgets. 

 With regard to global climate change, careful consideration, including life-cycle 

cost analysis, must be made before major reinvestment in transportation facilities. 

This is especially applicable to those facilities that are vulnerable to increasingly 

severe or frequent storm damage or sea-level rise. 
A-68 • National Park Service Agency Profile

APPENDICES

Final PWR LRTP – June 2015 Page v 

 
APPENDICES

National Park Service Agency Profile • A-69
A-70 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • A-71

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

AGENCY PROFILE
A-72 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE • A-73

APPENDICES

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Moving People, Conserving Wildlife

PLAN 2035

The National Long Range Transportation Plan

July, 2016
A-74 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE

APPENDICES

6

National Long Range Transportation Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

Siletz Bay NWR 

Oregon
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE • A-75

APPENDICES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Why

Transportation?

The primary function of any transportation system is 

the simple movement of people, goods or equipment 

across time and space. However, in the realm of 

federal land management, the transportation system 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or the 

Service) must be so much more. Transportation 

touches every aspect of the Service from the public 

that relies on safe access networks to the land 

managers that need to be able to move freely about 

the landscape, transportation is indispensable. 

The purpose of this document is to illuminate the best 

known practices to manage a transportation system 

for a resource conservation agency. 

In the face of changing climates, shrinking budgets 

and increased visitation, defining priorities for a 

national transportation program is a challenge.

This Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP or 

PLAN 2035) will help guide programmatic decisions 

while ensuring the transportation program supports 

the Service mission: 

Why

Transportation?

To help balance this dual-purpose (resource 

conservation and public benefit) mission, this plan 

proposes a vision and six strategic goals that the 

transportation program will uphold through the 

actions and policies in this plan. The centerpiece of 

the plan is a performance based project selection 

process that will directly link the goals of the 

program with the way transportation projects are 

planned, designed and delivered. 

While it is difficult to put a price on the ecological 

services the FWS provides (like habitat conservation, 

outdoor education, critical species protection and 

improvements in environmental quality), the financial 

dividends that the Refuge and Hatchery systems pay 

to local economies are well documented in national 

reports like Banking on Nature (October, 2013).

These outcomes, both monetary and nonmonetary, 

are predicated on safe, sustainable and resilient 

mobility and access networks that are the direct 

purview of the transportation program. 

Why

Transportation?

Thanks to nearly two decades of dedicated funding, 

the transportation program has been able to 

determine inventories, collect condition data, address 

the most pressing safety issues and fix the highest 

priority assets. Looking forward, the program must 

take a more strategic approach to demonstrate 

program stewardship while maintaining the Service’s 

commitment to leadership in the federal lands 

transportation arena. This document is a first step 

in meeting that commitment while helping to build 

a world class and context-sensitive transportation 

network that services our lands. 

PLAN 2035 is written for Service project leaders at 

individual units, Regional Service leadership, national 

level decision-makers, non-Service partners, and 

stakeholders.

It should be noted that PLAN 2035 focuses on 

public use transportation facilities that connect to 

or are within Service lands. There are other Service 

programs relating to non-public use (or admin. only) 

transportation facilities as well as efforts within the 

federal-aid transportation system that are not eligible 

for Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) 

funding. Being beyond the scope of this effort, those 

systems and programs generally are not covered in 

this plan.

Working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, 

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.

- FWS Mission
A-76 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE

APPENDICES

8

National Long Range Transportation Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transportation 

Vision

‘To work collaboratively for future 

planning and stewardship of a 

context sensitive, multi-modal 

transportation system that helps 

conserve natural resources, provides 

a superior level of safety, delivers 

cost effective and environmentally 

sustainable transportation 

options, generates local economic 

opportunities and enhances the 

visitation experience for all visitors 

including underrepresented and 

mobility limited-populations.’

Program 

Principles

Consistent with Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) and national transportation policy (Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation and Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st century, see page 62) guidance, 

the transportation program has adapted these three 

principles that guide this plan:

[T] - Transportation - The most basic function of 

any transportation network, the safe and efficient 

movement of people and equipment is essential to 

the program. The Refuge System is also mandated 

to operate and maintain a safe and functioning 

transportation network to service wildlife dependent 

recreational uses as provisioned in the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

[RM] - Resource Management - Transportation 

infrastructure, if not designed in the proper way, 

can fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife and even 

cause irreparable damage to an ecosystem. Parking 

lots, roads and trails must be thoughtfully planned, 

designed and constructed to preserve, conserve and 

enhance Service lands. 

[EG] - Economic Generation - Parks, refuges 

and other public lands are economic drivers for local 

communities. Not only do they provide increased 

quality of life for nearby residents, but they draw 

visitors and tourists domestically and internationally 

that support local/regional economies and add to 

the tax base. Safe and efficient access to and within 

Refuges and Hatcheries, bolsters visitation and 

supports economic generation for the United States.

Investment 

Strategy

The national investment strategy is a high level 

framework for complying with the policy directives 

in Executive Order 13327 (Federal Real Property 

Asset Management), guidance from the Office 

of Management and Budget, asset management 

principles at the Department of Interior, policy 

priorities of the Fish and Wildlife Service and current 

transportation legislation (FAST Act). 

Transportation improvement plans and regional 

LRTPs should be consistent with this national 

investment strategy framework:

 Develop connections to people and urban refuges.

 Maintain state of good repair on high priority 

 (mission dependent) transportation assets.

 Decommission or phase out low-priority (non- 

 mission dependent) transportation assets.

 Improve safety. 

 Support high-use recreation areas.

 Support financial sustainability.

 Seek partnerships for project implementation. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE • A-77

APPENDICES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

National Long Range Transportation Plan

The Six 

Strategic Goals

The six strategic goals are the framework for the 

policy guidance in this plan. Individually, they 

represent the ideal state of one aspect of the 

transportation program. Collectively they represent 

the 20 year transportation vision. 

Goals are defined on pages 16–17. Each goal has 

specific objectives and performance measures to help 

the transportation program track and demonstrate 

progress over time. The six strategic goals are:

Coordinated Opportunities

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity 

Visitor Experience 

Selection 

Process

The project selection process, built around the six 

strategic goals, is the outline for a data driven and 

performance based planning process to develop 

capital improvement plans at the regional level. 

The framework is intended to be flexible and can be 

tailored to individual regions based on differing needs 

and priorities.

Each strategic goal is associated with an evaluation 

criteria element in the project scorecard (Step 3). The 

scoring process is meant to help determine a project’s 

consistency with the strategic goals in this plan and a 

project’s priority relative to other proposals through 

a consistent, quantitative ranking formula. 

Project Selection Framework Steps: 

1. Region Solicits Projects From Units

2. Region Prepares Applications for Scoring

3. Scoring and Project Scorecard

4. Ranking and Prioritization

5. Determine Projects for Regional Program

6. Eligibility Check and Program

7. Adapt for Next Cycle

Funding

Funding for the FWS public-use transportation 

network can either come from Federal Lands 

Transportation Program (FLTP) base allocations 

(authorized in national transportation policy, 

currently FAST Act), the Service’s base 

appropriation, or supplemental sources like grants 

and non-governmental partnerships. 

FLTP base funds are sub-allocated to the individual

regions based on a formula that was established in the 

early days of the FLTP. This plan does not propose any 

change to the current formula. 

The project selection process is intended to be 

used (or adapted) for projects programmed with 

FLTP base funds. To give the program consistency, 

demonstrate performance management, and advance 

strategic goals, PLAN 2035 proposes the selection 

process for scoring, prioritizing, and programming 

FLTP base allocations. 

Because the needs of the program far outweigh the 

funds available through FLTP base allocations, the 

program must actively seek supplemental funds. 

Programs like the Federal Lands Access Program 

(FLAP) are key in leveraging the limited dollars 

available to address transportation needs in Service 

lands. 

Low priority and administrative transportation 

assets are not eligible for FLTP funding. Instead, 

these assets should be maintained with deferred 

maintenance (DM) funds and/or general station funds 

on a case by case basis. 
A-78 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE • A-79

Long Range Transportation 

Plan for Fish and Wildlife 

Service Lands 

in Region 1

Final Version

April 2012

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
A-80 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE

APPENDICES

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 ES-1

Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Executive Summary 

Transportation infrastructure provides critical links and resources in connecting people with 

nature on all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) lands, specifically, at national wildlife 

refuges and national fish hatcheries. To this end the Service seeks to optimize transportation 

funding decisions and leverage its transportation dollars wisely, for the next 20 years and beyond. 

Why was the Long Range Transportation Plan for U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Lands initiated? 

This long range transportation plan (LRTP) was initiated within the 

Service to achieve the following: 

As defined by the Region 1 

core planning team, the 

primary goals of this LRTP 

are to:

 Ensure that the 

transportation program 

helps to conserve and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their 

habitats.

 Provide a safe and reliable 

transportation network to 

and within Service lands.

 Develop and maintain a 

transportation network 

that welcomes and orients 

visitors.

 Integrate transportation 

planning into Service 

plans and processes.

 Develop partnerships 

to leverage resources 

and develop integrated 

transportation solutions.

 Adopt and promote 

sustainable transportation 

practices.

What are the Goals 

for this Long Range 

Transportation Plan? 

 Establish a defensible structure 

for sound transportation 

planning and decision-making.

 Establish a mission, goals, and 

objectives for transportation 

planning in Region 1.

 Implement coordinated and 

cooperative transportation 

partnerships in an effort 

to improve the Service’s 

transportation infrastructure.

 Bring the Service into 

compliance with the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) that requires all Federal 

land management agencies 

(FLMA) to conduct long range 

transportation planning in 

a manner that is consistent 

with metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) and State 

department of transportation 

(DOT) planning. 

 Integrate transportation 

planning and funding for wildlife 

refuges and fish hatcheries 

into existing and future 

Service management plans and 

strategies (e.g., comprehensive 

conservation plans [CCPs] 

and comprehensive hatchery 

management plans [CHMPs]). 

 Increase awareness of 

Alternative Transportation 

Systems (ATS) and associated 

benefits

 Develop best management 

practices (BMP) for 

transportation improvements on 

Service lands.

 Serve as a pilot project for the 

implementation of a region-level 

transportation planning process 

within the Service.

Changes made to the Long Range Transportation Plan based on 

received comments

Comments were received from the public and within the Service on the 

public draft of the LRTP. Based on comments received, changes to the 

LRTP made between the public draft and this final version were editorial in 

nature and did not result in significant changes.
APPENDICES

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE • A-81

ES-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Region 1 of the Service is leading 

the development of this LRTP. 

The region’s refuge and fisheries 

programs have been the principle 

leads in this effort, supported by 

the Division of Planning and Visitor 

Services. 

Federal Lands Highway Division 

(FLH) of the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) has 

also played an important role in 

this LRTP. In addition to helping 

establish the framework for the 

Service’s transportation planning 

process, FLH has assisted in 

identifying potential partner 

agencies at the Federal, State, 

and local levels that may provide 

leveraging opportunities to advance 

future transportation projects. 

Within Region 1 there are:

	270 million acres

managed or comanaged by the 

Service (throughout 

five states and 

outlying Pacific 

Islands) 

421 road miles

342 parking lots

	160 trail miles

	 63 NationalWildlife

Refuges

	 15 National Fish

Hatcheries

	 23 other fish facilities

Region 1 at a Glance Who is Leading This Effort? 

Why is Transportation Planning Important to the Service? 

Although often overlooked, 

transportation infrastructure 

supports U.S. Department of 

Interior initiatives by connecting 

people with nature, improving the 

condition of parking areas, public 

and service roads, and trails assets 

all while meeting the mission of 

the Service. Understanding the 

connection between transportation 

and conservation, the Service 

has established a transportationrelated mission statement, 

goals, and objectives to serve 

as benchmarks for evaluating 

improvements to the transportation 

system within Region 1 as part 

of this LRTP. Together with 

an understanding of existing 

transportation infrastructure 

deficiencies in the region, this plan 

enables the region to make better 

decisions regarding its most critical 

transportation needs. 

At a time when resource and 

infrastructure funding is scarce, 

this LRTP provides leaders 

with a toolkit to use in working 

with gateway communities, 

counties, MPOs, other FMLAs, 

and stakeholder agencies outside 

Service boundaries, many of 

whom could potentially contribute 

funding or in kind services to 

advance priority projects.

FHWAUSFWS
A-82 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE

APPENDICES

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 ES-3

Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

This plan outlines how to quantify 

and communicate needs and 

opportunities in the areas that 

best align with Service goals 

and objectives, and thereby is 

more likely to receive funds. The 

plan provides a project selection 

framework that improves the 

defensibility of transportation 

funding decisions. The framework 

improves confidence in funding 

decisions by allowing decision 

makers to view transportation 

system needs throughout the 

region, and compare how these 

needs rank against predefined 

evaluation criteria and benchmarks 

that represent the long-term 

interests of the Service, as 

established in the mission, goals, 

and objectives. This decisionmaking framework allows projects 

to be compared and ranked 

according to their merits. 

What Value Does This Plan Provide for the Service? 

The LRTP brings multiple benefits to the Service, such as: 

 Provides a platform for individual 

units to communicate needs and 

opportunities to regional and 

national decision makers.

 Enables leaders to make informed 

decisions based on long-term 

transportation mission, goals, and 

objectives. 

 Provides the Service with a better 

picture of future transportation 

needs and information 

for discussion regarding 

transportation reauthorization. 

 Provides a long-term view of 

transportation in relation to core 

operations and Service priorities.

 Enables leaders to direct funding 

to the most beneficial and highest 

priority transportation projects. 

 Enables leaders to find 

alternative funding from Federal 

sources that are administered by 

States (DOTs) or MPOs. 

 Enables leaders to synchronize 

transportation planning with 

other refuge and hatchery 

planning efforts such as refuge 

CCPs, CHMPs, and other 

regional planning efforts outside 

Service boundaries. 

 Provides current data on 

multimodal transportation issues 

and needs across the region. 

 Provides an opportunity for 

Region 1 and individual refuges 

and hatcheries to partner and 

discuss areas of mutual interest 

with the public and regional 

entities such as minimizing 

carbon footprint, the potential 

for alternative transportation 

systems, and improved 

transportation systems linkages.

Since the inception of the 

Refuge Roads Program 

in 1998, Region 1 has 

completed over 100 projects 

improving public roads, 

trails, and parking lots. These 

improvements have improved 

the experience for millions of 

visitors to National Wildlife 

Refuges in Region 1. 

The fisheries program has 

also demonstrated mission 

critical need for transportation 

improvements that currently 

can only be met through 

deferred maintenance. 

Because deferred maintenance 

funds are used to address 

deficiencies in all real property 

assets, transportation projects 

must compete with other 

mission critical projects such 

as water delivery systems and 

fish rearing infrastructure. 

This LRTP demonstrates the 

fisheries program mission 

critical need to allocate 

transportation funding 

specifically for fisheries. 

Funding for the Service’s 

transportation program 

(including refuges and 

fisheries) does not meet 

current or anticipated future 

needs. A well-defined funding 

and investment strategy is 

critical to maintain Service 

transportation assets. The 

Service must also seek 

opportunities outside the 

traditional funding sources 

in order to keep up with its 

aging infrastructure. Forming 

partnerships with local and 

State agencies will become 

increasingly critical to address 

these needs.

How Will This Plan Be Implemented? 

What are the Key 

Findings of This Plan? 
APPENDICES

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY PROFILE • A-83

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-85

Appendix B: 

REGULATORY TECHNICAL REPORT 

DRAFT
B-86 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

1. INTRODUCTION

As they relate to Federal lands in Oregon and Washington, transportation planning, funding, and investment are guided by 

numerous regulations at the Federal, State, and local level. Understanding the role of these regulations and their jurisdictional 

authority is an important part of the long-range planning process for Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs). This technical 

report is compiled to support the Pacific Northwest Federal Lands Long-Range Transportation Plan, which may help guide agencies 

in making future funding and policy decisions.

This regulatory technical report documents:

 Federal regulations and programs;

 Washington State regulations and programs;

 Oregon regulations and programs; and

 Bi-state agreements negotiated or administered by the states of Washington and Oregon.

2. FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS

Federal regulations and programs provide guidance, funding, and the regulatory framework for the management of transportation 

on Federal lands in Washington and Oregon. For the purpose of this report, these fall into four broad categories:

 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the Federal surface transportation funding bill and related Codes of Federal 

Regulations,

 Regulations, guidance, and programs administered by USDOT,

 Regulations and programs administered through FLMAs, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States 

Forest Service (USFS), and

 Specific environmental and transportation legislation passed by Congress, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and 

the Columbia River Gorge Act.

These Federal programs are detailed in the following section.

2.1 FAST ACT

The FAST Act is the Federal surface transportation funding bill signed into law in 2015 that authorizes $305 billion of support for 

fiscal years 2016 through 2020. The FAST Act renews many of the programs and requirements in the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, signed into law in 2012. The FAST Act provides two primary funding programs for transportation 

systems offering access to and within Federal lands. These include the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) and the 

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). Regulations to implement provisions of the FAST Act still are being adopted.

2.2 FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

The FLTP was established in 23 United States Code (USC) 203 “... to improve multi-modal access within national parks, 

forests, wildlife refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers facilities.” The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) oversees the FLTP. The FLTP encompasses all modes of transportation for public travel on Federally 

owned lands. The FLTP provides a set annual funding amount to the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), and the USFS. The BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and other FLMAs 
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-87

are eligible to compete for funding on an annual basis. Table 1-1 shows the annual distribution of funds. Eligible activities for FLTP 

funds include “... any transportation project eligible under Title 23 of the USC that is within or adjacent to, or that provides access 

to Federal lands open to the public.” Such projects could include road facilities such as vehicular parking areas, pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities, congestion mitigation, and environmental mitigation. When applying for FLTP funds, FLMAs must demonstrate 

the extent to which their proposals support a state of good repair, asset management goals, and sites considered to be Federal 

economic generators and/or high-use visitation sites.1

Table A-1: 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 Independent Federal Agencies $22 M $23 M $24 M $25 M $26 M $120 M

Total $335 M $345 M $355 M $365 M $375 M $1.775 B

2.2.1 Federal Lands Access Program

The FLAP, established in 23 USC 201 and 204, allows local and State governments to compete for funding for transportation 

projects that provide access to Federal lands. Local and State governments that own or maintain transportation systems operating 

within or directly adjacent to Federal lands are eligible applicants, and applications must have the approval of the FLMA being 

accessed. Competition for funds at the State level is based on the quantity of Federal lands and roadways in the State, with 80 

percent of funds going to States that contain at least 1.5 percent of the total of public lands. Individual projects are selected by 

a Programming Design Committee (PDC) made up of officials from the Federal Lands Highway Division (FLHD), FHWA, 

the respective State Departments of Transportation (DOT), and other State and local representatives. Funds are made available 

through contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund but require matching funds from the State. Oregon’s match requirement 

is 10.27 percent and Washington’s match requirement is 13.50 percent. FLTP funds may be used as matching funds for FLAP and 

these funds may be used for public roads, transit systems, and other transportation facilities. Preference is given to sites that are 

considered to be economic generators or are high-use recreation facilities.2

2.2.2 Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Processes

Because State and locally owned transportation systems provide access to and within Federal lands, the statewide and metropolitan 

planning processes are a key part of the regulatory environment in which Federal lands transportation programs operate. FLMAs 

are one of several organizations with which State DOTs are required to coordinate when developing their Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Programs (STIPs) and their Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan. State DOTs also must coordinate with 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Tribal Governments, and local elected and appointed officials with responsibilities 

for transportation. 23 USC 201(c) requires FLMA projects within metropolitan areas to be planned in accordance with 

metropolitan and statewide planning and programming processes. FAST Act guidance states that regionally significant projects 

should be included in appropriate Federal lands transportation plans, State and metropolitan plans, and the STIP.3 FLHD must 

approve FLMA transportation projects before they are added to the STIP.

The FAST Act strongly encourages FLMAs to take part in the development of State long-range transportation plans. Likewise, States 

and MPOs are required, at a minimum, to provide the opportunity for FLMAs to comment on proposed long-range plans. FLMAs 

that are involved early in the planning process can better ensure that their goals are adequately represented. The Federal planning 

regulations require these plans to have a minimum 20-year outlook at the time of adoption. MPOs must update their plans every 

four to five years, depending on air quality attainment status. States do not have a mandated update schedule.

1 FHWA, Federal Lands Transportation Program: http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/fltp/. 2 FHWA, Federal Lands Access Program: http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/. 3 FWHA. 2016. Implementation Guidance for the Federal Lands Transportation Program: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidefltp.cfm.
B-88 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

2.2.3 Performance Measurement

The FAST Act calls for States and MPOs to adopt performance measures as part of their planning process; the USDOT is leading 

rulemaking related to the performance management provisions in the FAST Act, and, as such, FHWA has developed measures 

for Federal-Aid Highway programs related to safety, bridge and pavement condition, system performance, traffic congestion, 

mobile source emissions, and freight movement.4 Reflecting the central theme of performance management, FLMAs must provide 

an application (Investment Strategy) that proposes programs at different levels of funding, along with a description of how the 

programs support the following goals:

 Maintaining transportation facilities in a state of good repair, reducing bridge deficiencies, and improving safety;

 Providing access to high-use Federal recreation sites or high-use Federal economic generators; and

 Meeting resource and asset management goals of the Secretary of the respective FLMA.

The FLHD is working with FLMAs to help them develop joint performance measures that help meet FLMA and USDOT goals.

2.3 FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY GUIDANCE

Each of the FLMAs included in the FLTP has a transportation program dedicated to planning, developing, and delivering 

transportation systems on its lands. The FLMA transportation programs vary based on agency mission, funding levels, and 

maturity, but all programs follow requirements and guidance listed in the FAST Act or provided by FHWA. The section below 

briefly summarizes the transportation programs of each FLMA; additional detail will be available in individual agency Long-Range 

Transportation Plans (LRTPs).

2.3.1 Bureau of Land Management

The BLM manages more than 200,000 miles of linear features across the United States, including more than 45,858 miles of roads, 

13,000 miles of trails, and 891 bridges. Oregon and Washington have 19,171 miles of roads, 1,404 miles of trails, and 478 bridges. 

Starting in 2013, the BLM Roads Team has been using a data-driven process to nominate, verify, and select roads projects for 

BLM-owned roads. The BLM uses Travel Management Plans (TMPs) to guide management of linear features, roads, and trails 

across its field offices. The BLM also grants right of way for various public and private transportation and infrastructure projects. 

These projects can include, but are not limited to, roads, trails, canals, railroads, electric and communication transmission lines, and 

pipelines. Organizations or individuals desiring to build such facilities on any public land must apply for and receive a grant from a 

BLM State office before beginning construction. BLM grants are not required for what it defines as “casual uses,” which do not cause 

disturbance or damage to public lands. This includes driving on existing roads, sampling, surveying, marking routes, and collecting 

data for a ROW grant application.

2.3.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The FWS manages approximately 5,400 miles of roads and 2,100 miles of trails across more than 600 national wildlife refuges, 

national fish hatcheries, and wetland management districts. FWS has had a formal roads program, receiving funding from FHWA, 

since 1999; under the FAST Act, FWS receives $30 million annually as part of the FLTP. In 2016, the Service published its first 

National Long Range Transportation Plan, known as Plan 2035, which outlines FWS’s vision for transportation during the next 20 

years.5 The plan also gives guidance for investment strategies for transportation infrastructure, the selection process for regional 

projects, and available funding mechanisms. Additionally, FWS has completed several regional LRTPs, including one in the Pacific 

Region that was completed in 2012.6 The Pacific Region LRTP, which includes Washington and Oregon, was developed as a pilot 

for future regional LRTPs. The Pacific Region contains a total of 421 road miles, 342 parking lots, and 547 trail miles (this includes 

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Hawaii).

4 FHWA, Transportation Performance Management: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/. 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Plan 2035: The National Long Range Transportation Plan: https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flpp/lrtp/

documents/2035-national-lrtp.pdf. 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/

planning/main/docs/Transportation/LRTPFinal.pdf.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-89

2.3.3 U.S. Forest Service

The USFS’s transportation system supports the agency’s mission by providing access to and within National Forests and Grasslands 

for natural resource management purposes, public recreation, and subsistence uses of the USFS land. The USFS transportation 

program is administered by staff from the Forest Service’s Departments of Engineering and Recreation. USFS transportation 

systems include roads, bridges, trails, transit systems, and water-based transportation assets. USFS manages a transportation 

network with approximately 373,417 miles of roads throughout the country, 30,000 of which are designated as part of the USFS 

FLTP network.

Oregon and Washington comprise USFS Region 6, where USFS manages 39,000 square miles of land. The Region 6 transportation 

network includes 90,000 miles of roads, of which 4,500 are designated FLTP roads; transportation trails; and water-based 

transportation systems.

USFS cites the following laws and regulations that govern their transportation and travel management:

 The National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964, as amended (16 USC 532-538) authorizes road and trail systems 

for the national forests, including easements across USFS lands, construction and financing of maximum economy roads, and 

requirements on road users for maintaining and reconstructing roads.

 The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 USC 402) authorizes State and local governments and participating Federal agencies to 

identify and survey accident locations; to design, construct, and maintain roads in accordance with safety standards; to apply 

sound traffic control principles and standards; and to promote pedestrian safety.

 The USFS Travel Management Regulations (36 CFR Part 212, Subparts A, B, and C) establishes requirements for administration 

of the forest transportation system, contains provisions for acquisition of rights of way, and requires identification of the 

minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration of USFS lands. It also describes the 

requirements for designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and provides for regulation of use of over-snow 

vehicles on USFS roads, trails, and lands.

 Prohibitions on USFS lands (36 CFR Part 261, Subpart A) establish prohibitions on use of USFS lands, including possession and 

operation of motor vehicles on USFS roads and trails.

 The Sale and Disposal of USFS Timber (36 CFR Part 223) governs road construction related to Forest Service timber sale 

appraisals and contracts.7

2.3.4 National Park Service

The role of the FLTP within the NPS is to maintain “... an efficient transportation system comprised of roads, bridges, parking 

lots, and shuttles.” It is pivotal to the balancing act between providing access for millions of annual visitors and protecting the 

natural and cultural resources of the currently 401 parks. The NPS has a facilities planning program that includes the development 

of a national long-range plan (due Spring 2015) and regional transportation plans (three completed and two in progress, the 

Pacific Northwest Region LRTP has not yet started). The NPS transportation program manages construction and maintenance of 

infrastructure within the parks. Funds are allocated through the FLTP and are used to maintain approximately 5,500 miles of roads 

and 1,505 bridges and tunnels.8

7 Other relevant regulations include the National Bridge Inspection Standards (23 CFR Part 650, Subpart C); Minerals (36 CFR Part 228); Procedures for 

Federal Agencies for Federal Roads (23 CFR Part 668, Subpart B); and Value Engineering (48 CFR Part 48). 8 NPS, Transportation Program website: http://www.nps.gov/transportation/index.html.
B-90 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

2.3.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The USACE is based within the Department of Defense and provides public engineering, design, and construction management 

services for both domestic and international projects that have national security implications. One of the USACE’s primary 

domestic missions as it relates to transportation is the construction and maintenance of navigable waterways, including locks, dams, 

and the dredging of shipping channels.9 USACE also has permitting authority over projects that cross or otherwise impact these 

waterways, such as highway or rail bridge crossings.

Transportation plays a pivotal role in providing access to more than 4,000 recreation areas at more than 400 lakes in 43 states. 

The Corps estimates that it holds more than 7,000 miles of public roads—these tend to be short segments where State or county 

roads cross over into the Federal boundary or are circulation roads within designated recreation areas. These public roads lead to 

more than 2,600 Corps-managed recreation areas that provide access to lakes and rivers via 3,484 boat ramps, in excess of 95,000 

campsites, more than 7,700 miles of trails, and 962 swimming areas.10 USACE is divided into 10 divisions; Washington and Oregon 

fall almost entirely in the Northwestern Division.11

As a new member of the FLTP under MAP-21, USACE competes with BLM, BOR, and other Independent Federal Agencies for a 

share of competitive FLTP funding. FLTP funds are used primarily to preserve and expand recreation opportunities for the public at 

USACE sites, thus advancing the transportation-related goals of USACE’s Recreation Strategic Plan.12

2.4 OTHER FEDERAL LEGISLATION

While some of the following Federal Acts do not directly legislate transportation planning or FLMA activities, they do affect how 

FLMAs and their partners plan, construct, and manage transportation and other activities in and around Federal lands.

2.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions, as well as reasonable alternatives 

to those actions. These include, but are not limited to, effects on natural resources, and impacts on social, cultural, and economic 

resources. All major Federal construction projects, such as federally funded highways, and any infrastructure project on federally 

owned lands must undergo an environmental review process under NEPA. In addition to construction projects, NEPA procedural 

requirements apply to the issuing of regulations, issuing of permits for private actions, Federal funding of private actions, and 

Federal land management decisions. The intent of the NEPA process is to ensure that decision makers are informed of the 

environmental impacts of their actions, though NEPA does not require that the decision makers choose the action or alternative 

determined to have the least environmental impact.

Two key steps in the NEPA process are the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which 

are undertaken by the agency leading a project or action.13 Through comparing multiple alternatives, the EA determines whether 

the environmental impacts of an action are significant. If the EA determines that the agency’s intended action will cause significant 

effects to the environment, NEPA then requires the preparation of an EIS. The EIS is an in-depth analysis of the anticipated 

environmental effects of the action. The EIS analysis includes evaluation of the effects by subject matter experts as well as input from 

public and private stakeholders and the general public. The agency makes a final record of decision regarding the environmentally 

preferred alternative for the action as well as all other options considered.

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

9 USACE, Mission Overview: http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions.aspx. 10 USACE, Recreation Overview: http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Recreation.aspx. 11 USACE, Where We Are: http://www.usace.army.mil/Locations.aspx. 12 USACE. 2011. Recreation Strategic Plan: https://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/planningandenvironmental/Recreation%20Strategic%20

Plan%20FINAL%201Apr2011.pdf. 13 Some actions fall under a “Categorical Exclusion,” which does not have a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, not subject to an EA or 

an EIS. FLMAs often have agency-wide standards for actions that are or are not considered “Categorical Exclusions.”
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-91

2.4.2 Columbia River Gorge Legislation

The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act of 1986 was passed by Congress with the intent to “protect and enhance the scenic, 

natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Columbia River Gorge; and to protect and support the economy of the area 

by encouraging growth to occur in urban areas and allowing future economic development consistent with resource protection.” 

The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area created by the Act is managed jointly by the states of Oregon and Washington, 

the USFS, the bi-state Gorge Commission, and the counties lying within the gorge area. The Gorge Commission Land Use 

Ordinance of 2005 provides guidance for the maintenance and improvement of transportation facilities within the gorge. The Gorge 

Commission—in partnership with Oregon DOT, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and FHWA—also has developed 

long-range strategy and design standards for the Interstate 84 (I-84) corridor to ensure that future investments and improvements 

in the corridor protect cultural, recreational, and natural resources.14 Examples of these types of strategies, including geometric and 

landscape design goals, can be found in the I-84 corridor strategies.15

2.4.3 National Trails

The National Trails System was created by the National Trails System Act of 1968 with the goal of establishing a national network 

of trails to promote preservation of and access to outdoor areas of the United States. The National Trails System Act created wellknown trails, such as the Appalachian Trail in the eastern United States and the Pacific Crest Trail in the western United States, 

which has sections in Washington and Oregon. The creation of new National Historic Trails and National Scenic Trails must be 

authorized by Congress and established by the Secretary of the USDA or the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. The 

National Trails System relies on a number of partnerships with other Federal and State agencies, including NPS, BLM, FWS, USDA, 

FHWA, as well as individual State administrators and local non-profit organizations.16

2.4.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 preserves “... certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational 

values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations.”17 Designated rivers are managed through a 

partnership of the BLM, NPS, FWS, and USFS. The Act classifies rivers under one of three categories: wild river areas, scenic river 

areas, and recreational river areas. Designated rivers or segments of rivers are administered either by a Federal or State agency. The 

Act also prohibits Federal support of activities such as dam construction or other in-stream activities that would compromise the 

free flow of the river. Oregon has 40 rivers designated under this act as Wild and Scenic Rivers while Washington has six rivers 

designated as such, with an additional 100 rivers eligible for this designation. The Gorge Commission—in partnership with Oregon 

DOT, USDA, and FHWA—also has developed long-range strategy and design standards for the I-84 corridor to ensure that future 

investments and improvements in the corridor protect cultural, recreational, and natural resources.18

14 Columbia River Gorge Commission (CRGC), Legal Authorities, Columbia River National Scenic Area: http://www.gorgecommission.org/national_scenic_

act.cfm. 15 ODOT, CRGS, USFS, and FHWA. 2005. I-84 Corridor Strategy: http://gorgevitalsigns.org/Misc/I84_201201.pdf. 16 NPS, National Trails System: http://www.nps.gov/nts/info.html. 17 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: https://www.rivers.gov/. 18 Columbia River Gorge Commission, Legal Authorities, Columbia River National Scenic Area: http://www.gorgecommission.org/national_scenic_act.cfm.

3. WASHINGTON REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS

Transportation plans are required by local ordinances, State laws, and Federal regulations and are developed by Federal, State, 

local, and Tribal governments. Some transportation plans prepared at the State level (Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan, 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan, State Rail Plan, State Freight Mobility Plan, and Aviation System Plan) are a prerequisite to receiving 

Federal funds from the USDOT. In addition, metropolitan transportation plans are a federal requirement.
B-92 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

3.1 PLANNING PROCESSES

3.1.1 Washington Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

The 2017-2040 Washington Transportation Plan is Washington’s statewide LRTP.19 The plan lays out key policy recommendations 

for six goal areas: Economic Vitality, Preservation, Safety, Mobility, Environment, and Stewardship. The plan applies to all modes of 

transportation and guides the creation of each of the modal plans.

3.1.2 Washington Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

Projects listed in the STIP are the only projects that can be approved by the FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA). Each year, Washington coordinates with Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) to obtain a new WFLHD 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the upcoming STIP development. WFLHD projects are listed separately when 

the lead agency coordinates the project’s inclusion with WSDOT, and the applicable MPOs, Regional Transportation Planning 

Organizations (RTPOs), and/or county lead agencies. WSDOT provides a link to the WFLHD TIP on the Washington STIP web 

page. The STIP includes transportation projects funded with revenues from both Federal and State/local sources. Washington State 

forecasts its FY 2014 transportation revenues at $1.95 billion, of which 55 percent comes from the State fuel tax and the remainder 

comes from taxes, fees, permits, tolls, and other sources. Additionally, local revenues for cities, counties, and transit total $4.04 

billion funded primarily through property taxes for local projects and sales taxes for transit projects. Federal funds distributed to 

Washington State annually between 2014 and 2017 are estimated at $714 million per year, including $45 million per year designated 

for transit and the balance for highway projects. WSDOT also uses a number of other financing methods to fund the STIP, 

including GARVEE grants and TIFIA loans.20

3.2 MODAL PLANS

WSDOT is required by State law to develop separate plans for modes the State owns (Highways, Ferry System, State Airports, 

Intercity Passenger Rail) and modes the State has an interest in (Public Transportation, Rail System, Freight System, Aviation 

System, Bicycle and Pedestrian, and Marine Ports and Navigation). Each plan assesses the current state of the mode in Washington 

State, identifies future goals and necessary investments and improvements, and identifies potential funding strategies.21 Sometimes 

these plans are combined with plans required for Federal funding eligibility. These plans can provide guidance and potential 

funding sources for FLMAs planning to pursue modal projects on or near their lands. FLMA planners also can consult modal plans 

to better understand how their own transportation systems will operate in the overall State context.

3.3 TRIBAL PLANNING

In 1989, Washington State’s Governor entered into the Centennial Accord with 35 Tribes, thus establishing government-togovernment relationships. WSDOT follows written protocols for consulting and cooperating with Tribal governments and has two 

forums for coordination. One is the formal Washington Indian Transportation Policy Advisory Committee and the second is the 

informal Tribal Transportation Planning Organization (TTPO). The TTPO provides the opportunity for Tribes to take an active 

role in statewide transportation planning. The TTPO is made up of Tribal, State, and Federal transportation policy, planning, and 

administration professionals with the goal of promoting Tribal transportation planning in Washington State. The TTPO conducts 

research and analysis of Tribal transportation needs in support of the STIP and Washington LRTP.22 WSDOT provides support for 

the TTPO, including administrative assistance and partial reimbursement for Tribal members to attend TTPO meetings. The TTPO 

is an appropriate forum for FLMAs to discuss plans and processes.

19 WSDOT, Washington Transportation Plan: https://washtransplan.com/. 20 WSDOT, Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/localprograms/programmgmt/stip.htm. 21 WSDOT, Multi-modal Planning: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/. 22 WSDOT, Tribal Transportation Planning Organization: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/tribal/.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-93

3.4 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (RTPOS)

Washington has 14 RTPOs that cover 37 of its 39 counties. An RTPO is an association of local governments within a county or 

counties. The function of RTPOs is similar to that of MPOs: they develop long-range plans, coordinate within their respective 

regions, and develop a Transportation Improvement Plan. However, RTPOs are different from MPOs in that RTPOs receive 

planning funding from the State instead of the Federal government. In Washington State, WSDOT provides administrative 

and technical support for RTPOs.23 RTPOs are often the best contact for FLMAs at the unit or field office to coordinate on 

transportation plans and projects. Washington’s RTPOs follow State laws and rules and are not the same as the RTPOs allowed for 

in the FAST Act.

3.5 TOURISM, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES

State land is managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Parks 

and Recreation Commission.24 State environmental regulatory agencies25 include the DNR (forest practices, road maintenance 

and abandonment plans26, surface mining, natural gas/oil exploration, mining, burn permits, and wildfire suppression); 

WDFW (hydraulic permits, T&E species); Department of Ecology (air and water quality); Department of Agriculture (pesticide 

management); and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (State Historic Preservation Officer, excavation 

permits, and cultural database27). Washington no longer has a State tourism office; however, the Washington Tourism Alliance 

is a Section 501(c)(6) that carries out a mission to “... advocate, promote, develop, and sustain the economic well-being of the 

Washington tourism industry.”28 The Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) “... manages grant programs to create 

outdoor recreation opportunities, protect the best of the State’s wildlife habitat and farmland, and help return salmon from near 

extinction.”29 FLMAs may consult these agencies in cases where transportation projects intersect with their areas of jurisdiction.30

23 WSDOT, Regional Transportation Planning: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/regional/. 24 Washington Department of Natural Resources, State Trust Lands and Other Major Public Lands in Washington State: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/

Publications/eng_rms_trustlands_map_nu2.pdf. 25 These agencies regulate environmental rules on non-Federal and non-Tribal lands. 26 Washington Department of Natural Resources: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/. 27 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation: http://www.dahp.wa.gov/. 28 Washington Tourism Alliance: http://watourismalliance.com/. 29 Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office: http://www.rco.wa.gov/. 30 Access Washington: http://access.wa.gov/. 31 ODOT, Planning and Technical Guidance: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/otp.aspx.

4. OREGON REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS

The State of Oregon is responsible for administering several transportation programs legislated at the Federal level in addition 

to administering programs initiated at the State level. Similar to Washington, Oregon’s statewide planning process includes 

development of a Long-Range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and plans specific to the different 

transportation modes. These plans and programs are supported not only through Oregon’s MPOs but also Area Commissions on 

Transportation.

4.1 STATEWIDE PLANNING PROCESS

4.1.1 Oregon Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is Oregon’s 25-year Long-Range Transportation Plan, adopted in 2006 by the Oregon 

Transportation Commission (OTC). The plan is multi-modal and contains seven key goals that emphasize maintaining and 

optimizing existing transportation assets, making strategic investments in capacity enhancements, integrating transportation 

with land use, the environment and economic development, integrating the different transportation modes and jurisdictions, and 

creating a sustainable funding mechanism for the future. While Oregon legal statute does not give OTC the ability to impose goals 

or projects in the LRTP onto other State agencies, it does require that those agencies use the OTP to “... guide and coordinate 

transportation activities.”31
B-94 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

4.1.2 Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

Oregon’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a four-year capital improvement program that identifies 

funding and scheduling for transportation projects throughout the State. Oregon’s STIP is divided broadly into two categories: Fix-It 

and Enhance. The Fix-It program focuses on fixing and preserving the existing transportation system—this includes pavement, 

bridges, culverts, and other assets. In addition, the Fix-It program addresses safety and operations projects (signals, Intelligent 

Transportation Systems, etc.). The Enhance program is focused on enhancing the transportation system, which generally includes 

adding new features such as new lanes, climbing lanes, new trails, new transit systems (Bus Rapid Transit, light rail, etc.). The 

current STIP covers federal fiscal years 2018 to 2021. ODOT is currently in the process of developing the next STIP, which will 

cover federal fiscal years 2021 to 2024. Local agencies, MPOs, and FLMAs can request STIP funding resources primarily in the area 

of safety and operations. In Oregon, the safety program is called ARTS (All-Road Transportation Safety), which means any entity 

eligible to receive Federal funding can apply for funds to correct safety problems if it meets the program eligibility criteria. Local 

agencies, MPOs, and FLMAs also can work with their ODOT Regional offices to partner around operations projects that also can 

include items such as rock fall stabilization and slide repairs. Finally, projects included in the Oregon WFLHD TIP are included in 

the STIP.

STIP funds are divided into two groups based on the stage of project development: Construction-STIP (C-STIP) and DevelopmentSTIP (D-STIP) funds. Approximately 95 percent of funds are C-STIP funds, which apply to most construction projects, while the 

remaining 5 percent are D-STIP funds, which can be made available for planning of long-term projects. Projects are eligible for 

D-STIP funds if they are expected to take more than four years to develop and construct.

4.1.3 Other Funding Programs

In addition to the STIP, Oregon administers a number of other funding programs for transportation. ConnectOregon funds multimodal projects statewide using lottery-backed bonds. The Oregon legislature authorized the program in 2005, 2007, and 2009. The 

most recent authorization was in 2011 for $40 million.32

The Transportation and Growth Management Program is a partnership between the Oregon Department of Land Conservation 

and Development and the Oregon Department of Transportation. It links land use with transportation planning through planning 

grants, education, and outreach workshops, speakers and publications, design assistance, and Transportation System Plan 

assessments.33

The State Planning and Research (SPR) program uses Federal funds to support State transportation planning and research. The 

SPR program is administered through the Transportation Development Division of ODOT, and it provides policy and technical 

direction, and data and information for comprehensive decision-making. It also conducts project development activities.34 FLMA 

planners and agencies can work with ODOT Headquarters and or Region managers to partner on planning projects that can 

leverage these funds.

4.1.4 Modal Plans

In addition to the multi-modal Oregon Transportation Plan, Oregon has developed specific mode and topic plans for nearly all 

modes of transportation, including aviation, rail, transit, and walking/biking. In addition, Oregon has developed topic plans for 

safety, transportation options, and freight. Several of these plans have been updated in the past few years with the update of the 

Public Transit plan anticipated to be adopted in the fall of 2018. Each plan provides a vision and policy framework for the specified 

mode or topic area and builds on the broader goals laid out in the Oregon Transportation Plan. The development of the plans was 

supported at the State level through ODOT, the Oregon Transportation Commission, and the development of technical memoranda 

and advisory committees, policy advisory committees, and public outreach.35 These plans can provide guidance and potential 

32 ODOT, Connect Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/connector.aspx. 33 ODOT, Transportation and Growth Management Program: http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/Pages/index.aspx. 34 ODOT, Planning and Technical Guidance: http://www.oregon.gov/odot/td/tp/pages/spr.aspx. 35 ODOT, Planning and Technical Guidance: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/Pages/Modes.aspx.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-95

funding sources for FLMAs planning to pursue modal projects on or near their lands. FLMA planners also can consult modal plans 

to better understand how their own transportation systems will operate in the overall State context.

4.2 AREA COMMISSIONS ON TRANSPORTATION

Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs) are authorized by the Oregon Transportation Commission as regional advisory 

commissions to enhance public participation in Oregon transportation planning. The Commission authorizes a total of 11 ACTs 

with memberships ranging from 15 to 30 individuals; they generally meet monthly or semi-monthly. They focus on all aspects of 

the State transportation system, including surface, marine, air, and safety. Their primary role is working with local organizations 

and constituents to establish a public process that advises the development of the STIP and prioritizing projects in their respective 

districts.36 Therefore, the ACTs are a natural starting point for unit or field office FLMA staff looking to coordinate with local 

governments on transportation plans and projects.

4.3 MPOS AND RURAL PLANNING

Oregon has 10 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). As is the case for MPOs in other states, Oregon’s MPOs were created 

through Federal legislation and comprise appointed and elected officials representing Federal, State, and local governments and 

agencies. MPOs are responsible for a number of planning initiatives, including the LRTP, the TIP/STIP, and the Unified Planning 

Work Program (UPWP). Oregon also has a number of local initiatives and requirements enacted through State legislation that 

affect transportation planning. Cities and counties are required to adopt comprehensive plans, policies, and codes that reflect 

statewide planning goals. These land-use and zoning regulations affect the development of transportation projects.37 FLMAs should 

coordinate primarily with MPOs regarding land use and transportation questions and project development.

36 ODOT, Area Commissions on Transportation: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/pages/act_main.aspx. 37 ODOT, Rail and Public Transit: http://www.oregon.gov/odot/pt/pages/stakeholders/mpo.aspx.
B-96 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-1: MPOs and RTPOs in Oregon and Washington
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-97

Table A-2: MPOs and RTPOs in Oregon and Washington

State Major City MPO/RTPO 2010 

Population 

FLMA units within or adjacent 

to MPO

OR Albany Albany Area MPO 54,721

OR Bend Bend MPO 84,249 Deschutes NF, BLM Prineville 

District

OR Eugene Central Lane MPO 249,601 BLM Eugene District, USACE Fern 

Ridge Lake

OR Corvallis Corvallis Area MPO 64,951 BLM Salem District

OR Grants Pass Middle Rogue MPO 56,501 BLM Medford District

OR Portland Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation 

System (Metro) 1,499,844 BLM Salem District, Mt. Hood NF, Ridgefield NWR

OR Central Point Rogue Valley MPO 154,081 BLM Medford District, Rogue River 

NF

OR Salem Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study 241,598 BLM Salem District

OR, WA Walla Walla (WA) Walla Walla Valley MPO 56,239 USACE Mill Creek PSA

WA, ID Asotin (WA) Lewis-Clark Valley MPO 52,535 BLM Spokane District, Umatilla 

NF

WA Kelso Longview-Kelso-Rainier MPO 64,164 Ridgefield NWR

WA Seattle Puget Sound Regional Council 3,690,866

Mount Rainier NP, Gifford Pinchot 

NF, Wenatchee NF, Mt. Baker/

Snoqualmie NF

WA Mt. Vernon Skagit MPO 116,901

San Juan Islands National 

Monument (BLM), Mt. Baker/

Snoqualmie NF, North Cascades 

NP

WA Vancouver Southwest Washington Regional Transportation 

Council 425,363 Ridgefield NWR, Gifford Pinchot NF

WA Spokane Spokane Regional Transportation Council 471,221 BLM Spokane District, Turnbull 

NWR

WA Olympia Thurston Regional Planning Council 173,829 Olympia Fish Health Center (FWS)

WA Richland Tri-Cities Metropolitan Areas Transportation Study 214,704 Hanford Reach NWR, BLM 

Spokane District

WA Wenatchee Wenatchee Valley Transportation Council 66,591 Wenatchee NF, BLM Spokane 

District

WA Bellingham Whatcom Council of Governments 113,063

San Juan Islands National 

Monument, Mt. Baker/

Snoqualmie NF

WA Yakima Yakima Valley Council of Governments BLM Spokane District, Wenatchee 

NF
B-98 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

4.4 TOURISM, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Oregon’s Governor’s Natural Resources Office (GNRO) implements the Governor’s natural resource and environmental agenda. 

The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for land stewardship, marine conservation/rocky shores, several 

permit programs, department-wide resource policies, and park plants and animals.38 The Oregon Tourism Commission is a semiindependent agency created by the Oregon Legislature in 2003 to enhance Oregonians’ quality of life by strengthening the economic 

impact of the State’s $9.6 billion tourism industry.39 FLMAs may consult these agencies in cases where transportation projects 

intersect with their areas of jurisdiction.

4.5 BI-STATE PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS

Oregon and Washington have several joint programs and agreements, a few of which relate to Federal lands and transportation. 

The Columbia River Gorge Act, though initiated through Federal legislation, is managed cooperatively by the States of Washington 

and Oregon. It provides guidance for the maintenance and improvement of transportation facilities within the gorge. Oregon and 

Washington have other bi-state agreements that cover joint transportation facilities, such as the Columbia River Crossing and 

Amtrak Cascades (Pacific Northwest intercity passenger-rail service). Washington has agreements with British Columbia, including 

operation of Amtrak Cascades and border crossings.

38 ODOT, Governor’s Natural Resources Office: https://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/Pages/nat_res.aspx. 39 Travel Oregon: http://traveloregon.com/.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • B-99

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-101

Appendix C: 

CLRTP VISITATION-DEMOGRAPHICS 

TECHNICAL REPORT

June 2017
C-102 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

1. INTRODUCTION

1 The SCORPs are completed in compliance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF Act) for the States to be eligible for Federal financial 

assistance for planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas related to outdoor recreation resources.

The purpose of this report is to describe current visitation characteristics on Federal public lands in the Pacific Northwest and to 

identify trends in demographics, policy, and transportation that may affect future visitation and use. The demographics, travel 

patterns, geographic location, and activities of visitors to Washington’s and Oregon’s public lands can help transportation planners 

and land management agencies better understand visitors’ travel needs and develop appropriate transportation systems. In the 

context of this Collaborative Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRTP), the visitation and demographics information provides a 

broader picture of how Federal lands across the region are being used by the public for recreational purposes and better enables 

coordination of long-range transportation plans across the Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs).

FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Together, these agencies manage 

more than 150 units covering more than 44 million acres of public recreational land in Washington and Oregon. With a total of 

about 43 percent of all land in the Pacific Northwest in Federal ownership, visitation and recreation on these lands has a major 

impact on transportation, the economy, and quality of life in this region.

The data in this technical report include information on who visits public lands, when they visit, and what activities they tend to 

enjoy. The data focus primarily on visitors to FLMA sites, but also include more general summary visitation data for Washington 

and Oregon, recognizing that these visitation patterns may indicate trends for public lands under all types of ownership.

1.1 DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

The FLMAs collect data on their lands through various methods, including traffic counters, visitor surveys, entrance fees, and 

permit sales. The data are rolled up into local, regional, and national summary reports specific to the FLMA. This Collaborative 

LRTP compiles and analyzes data from across the FLMAs to identify common trends and divergences and to identify areas of 

potential coordination.

Each FLMA collects data using different methodologies and time frames.

 NPS uses a combination of entrance fee collection data and traffic count data (when available) to calculate visitation for park 

units. Mount Rainier and Olympic both have permanent traffic counters whereas other parks use traffic counters for short-term 

studies if at all.

 USFS uses traffic counts along with visitor surveys to calculate visitation at units. Through the USFS National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Program (NVUM), each unit is surveyed once every five years.

 FWS visitation is self-reported by individual units that have different methodologies for collecting data. These individual data 

points are compiled into the Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) report. The RAPP reports cover visitation to refuges but 

not to the FWS fish hatchery system.

 BLM uses a combination of recreation fee data (where available) and field surveys to estimate visitation through its Recreation 

Management Information System (RMIS).

 USACE uses permanent traffic counts for the majority of its Project Site Areas (PSAs), as well as a proxy method known as 

Recreation Unit Day Availability, or RUDA, for smaller parking areas that are difficult to meter.

In addition, Oregon and Washington each have a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) that is updated every 

five years.1 The SCORPs are led by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) and the Washington Recreation and 

Conservation Office, and require the coordination of a number of other Federal, State, and local agencies. The SCORPs are “... 

used to identify, prioritize, and establish criteria for selection of individual projects [and ensure] a tangible connection between 
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-103

individual projects and the State’s overall outdoor recreation goals.”2 The SCORP development process involves coordination with 

representatives from Federal, State, and local recreation providers, as well as a comprehensive inventory of the supply of existing 

outdoor recreation resources and facilities for the State. The inventory data are collected from public and private sector recreational 

providers, including the FLMAs. The major recreation providers also are asked to report on their recreational roles, including the 

types of resources, facilities, or services their agency/organization provides. Oregon and Washington also conducted statewide 

surveys of residents to collect data on outdoor recreation participation for their most recent SCORPs.

Finally, three national surveys provide data updates on a regular basis: the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation (FHWAR); the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE); and the National Visitor Use 

Monitoring program (NVUM). The U.S. Census Bureau and FWS conduct the FHWAR every five years, which uses phone and inperson interviews to gather information on how many people participate in fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching; how often they 

engage in these activities; and the economic impact of their activities in the U.S. The NSRE is conducted by Interagency National 

Survey Consortium that is coordinated by the USFS. It uses phone surveys to collect data on a wider range of recreational activities 

than the FHWAR. The USFS conducts the NVUM program, which collects information about recreational activities within the 

national forests for four categories of land.3 The NVUM program samples 25 percent of national forests annually, thus completing a 

full sample of national forests every four years.

This report recognizes the challenges of reporting national and regional trends in recreational activities given the different sources 

of data and the data collection methodologies.4 For instance, recreational activities are defined differently across the agencies—one 

refers to bird watching and wildlife observation separately while another agency combines these activities. National recreational 

datasets define and name activities differently as well. The challenge of reporting visitation trends also stems from the fact that 

participation in activities can vary considerably from year to year.5 To the degree possible, visitation and use is framed in terms that 

can be quantified using available datasets and differences in datasets are clearly identified. Additionally, the report identifies where 

information for a single or a few agencies is used to generalize across all agencies for the region when more robust data are not 

available.

2 National Park Service. 2004. Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program: 2004 Annual Report. Page 8. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/

programs/lwcf/lwcf_04_rev.pdf. 3 The four categories are wilderness, general forest, developed day-use sites, and developed overnight sites. 4 There are three national surveys that gauge outdoor recreation in the U.S.: USDA Forest Service National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE); the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR) conducted by the Census Bureau; and the Outdoor 

Foundation Survey. These use different methodologies and questions and, therefore, cannot be directly compared. 5 Hall, T.E., H. Heaton, and L.E. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation. United States 

Department of Agriculture. PNW-GTR-778. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr778.pdf. Viewed January 12, 2015 6 Walls, M., S. Darley, and J. Siikamaki. 2009. The State of the Great Outdoors: America’s Parks, Public Lands and Recreation Resources. Resources for the 

Future. http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-RPT-ORRG-State-of-Outdoors.pdf 7 Ibid

2. VISITATION

Visitor activity data help land management agencies understand how visitors recreate on Federal, State, and local land resources to 

plan for their continued use, including how to meet the transportation needs of the recreating public. This report provides visitation 

information at a high level for national trends, how Pacific Northwest trends compare to national trends, and how visitation impacts 

transportation planning to and within FLMAs.

Overall, recreational visitation on public lands across the United States has remained constant since the mid-1990s. At the same 

time, visitation per capita has declined as the population has grown.

6 Additionally, the average amount of time that Americans 

spend engaging in outdoor recreation overall has declined by about 20 percent between 1993 and 2003.7
C-104 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

The types of recreation that visitors engage in are changing. Most sources note an increase in wildlife observation. Walking and 

hiking has risen or remained stable, while fishing and hunting have remained the same or declined slightly.8, 9, 10 According to the 

2011 FHWAR survey, more than 20 percent of Americans engaged in wildlife watching, while 11 percent participated in fishing and 

4 percent participated in hunting.

Washington and Oregon receive more than 114 million visitors each year,11 with an estimated 62 million recreation visitors 

traveling to Federal lands. Relative to national trends, participation in outdoor recreation activities in Oregon and Washington 

is very high. According to a survey of Washington residents for the State’s SCORP, 90 percent of residents engaged in at least 

one outdoor recreation activity in Washington in the prior 12 months.12 A survey for Oregon’s SCORP revealed nearly the same 

participation rates, with 92 percent of residents engaging in outdoor recreation in the past year.13 Looking to the future, Oregon 

respondents indicated they are more likely to increase rather than decrease their outdoor recreation activities: 45 percent expect to 

spend more time engaged in outdoor recreation 10 years from now; 41 percent expect to spend about the same amount of time; 14 

percent expect to spend less time. While not all the activities captured in the SCORP survey take place on FLMA land, the results 

are a very strong indication of the importance of outdoor recreation to Pacific Northwest residents and the need to ensure effective 

transportation options to and within the FLMAs.

2.1 FLMA VISITATION

FLMAs benefit from understanding who is visiting, when, and why they are visiting as they plan resource and transportation 

management that enables continued access and recreational use.

2.1.1 Total Visitation

Nationally, there are more than 900 million recreational visitors to Federal lands every year.14, 15, 16, 17, 18 The total visitation for 

FLMAs in Washington and Oregon is approximately 62 million, or roughly 7 percent of the national total. Figure A-1, below, breaks 

down annual visitation by FLMA with lands in Oregon and Washington. Note that visitation for USACE includes boat traffic on 

waterways, which is why its total is significantly higher than the other FLMAs.

8 Ibid 9 Cordell, H.K. 2010. Trends in nature-based outdoor recreation participation in the U.S. — Part I. Internet Research Information Series. USDA Forest 

Service’s Southern Research Station, USDA Forestry Sciences Laboratory, University of Georgia, and the University of Tennessee. http://www.srs.fs.usda.

gov/trends/pdf-iris/IRISRec16rptfs.pdf 10 Hall, T.E., H. Heaton, and L.E. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation. U.S. Dept of Agriculture. 

PNW-GTR-778. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr778.pdf 11 This estimate includes recreational and non-recreation travel; overnight trips for Oregon and Washington as well as day trips to Oregon. Day trips to 

Washington were not available. 12 Washington SCORP 13 Oregon SCORP 14 Bureau of Land Management. 2013. BLM Recreation Strategy: Connecting with Communities 2014-2019. http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/

Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/recreation_images.Par.8212.File.dat/2014ConnectingWithCommunities.pdf. https://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/

pdfs/OverviewFactSheetApril2013.pdf. 15 National Park Service. 2013. Annual Summary Report. https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Summary%20

Report%20(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year) 16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. January 2015. “Did you know” portion of the Civil Works: Recreation web page. http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/

CivilWorks/Recreation.aspx. 17 USDA Forest Service. May 2013. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results USDA Forest Service National Summary Report. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/

programs/nvum/2012%20National_Summary_Report_061413.pdf. 18 US Fish and Wildlife Service. April 2013. National Wildlife Refuge System Overview. https://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/pdfs/

OverviewFactSheetApril2013.pdf
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-105

Figure A-1: Pacific Northwest Annual Visitation to Federal Lands

19 Bureau of Land Management. 2012. BLM Facts: Oregon & Washington. http://www.blm.gov/or/onlineservices/files/2012_BLM_Facts_web.pdf 20 National Parks Service. 2013. Recreation Visitation By State and by Park for Year: 2013. https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/

Recreation%20Visitation%20By%20State%20and%20By%20Park%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year) 21 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 2012. “State Level Report: Washington.” Value to the Nation Fast Facts. http://www.corpsresults.us/recreation/fastfacts/

stateReport.cfml?State=14. 22 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 2012. “State Level Report: Oregon.” Value to the Nation Fast Facts. http://www.corpsresults.us/recreation/fastfacts/

stateReport.cfml?State=9. 23 USDA Forest Service. May 2013. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results USDA Forest Service National Summary Report. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/

programs/nvum/2012%20National_Summary_Report_061413.pdf. 24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Refuge Annual Performance Plan: Region 1. Data provided by FWS for report. 25 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. “Table 3: Projections of the Population by Sex and Selected Age Groups for the United States: 2015 to 

2060.” 2014 National Population Projections: Summary Tables. Release Date: December 2014. http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/

national/2014/summarytables.html. 26 Hall, T.E., H. Heaton, and L.E. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation. U.S. Dept of Agriculture. 

Pacific Northwest-GTR-778.

Sources: BLM, NPS, USACE, USFS, FWS 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

NOTE: Figure A-1 generally represents visitation in fiscal year 2012. USFS data are an average of annual visitation from 2008-2012. NPS data are calendar year 

2013. 

2.1.2 Visitor Demographics

Recreational visitors can be divided into many categories, among them age, race, and income. Each of these categories then can 

be analyzed for trends in recreational behaviors of the demographic groups. Information about visitor demographics for a region 

provides insight into their activities and what their transportation needs are. For example, the Census Bureau projects more than 

20 percent of the U.S. population will be over the age of 65 by the year 2030 (see Figure A-2).25 At the same time, researchers 

believe that older adults are participating in outdoor recreation at higher rates than in the past, and their activities tend to be less 

active, including picnicking, auto tours, and sightseeing.26 These two trends combined could translate into greater demand for 

these activities on all recreational lands, including those managed by the FLMAs. Long-term transportation plans for the FLMAs 

should recognize the need for greater resources to support increased auto tours or sightseeing groups to better accommodate this 

demographic.
C-106 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-2: U.S. Population by Age through 2030

27 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Divisions. 2014. Table 2: Projections of the Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for the United States: 2015 to 2060 

(NP2012-T2). Release Date: December 2014. 28 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004c. Update Report No. 4: Hispanic participation in land-based outdoor recreation activities. 

Recreation Statistics Update. Southern Research Station http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/recupdates.html. (August 10, 2005). 29 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2005a. Update Report No. 6: American Indian and Alaskan Native participation in land-based 

outdoor recreation activities. Southern Research Station. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/recupdates.html. (August 10, 2005). 30 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2005b. Update Report No. 7: Participation in outdoor recreation activities: Asian American, 

Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders. Southern Research Station. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/recupdates.html. (August 10, 2005) 31 Hall, T.E., H. Heaton, and L.E. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation. U.S. Dept of Agriculture. 

Pacific Northwest-GTR-778. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr778.pdf.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division27

Figure A-3, below, shows the projected change in demographics in the U.S. through 2050. The data show growth in most minority 

populations. The percent of people identifying as Hispanic is expected to grow from about 18 percent in 2015 to almost 30 

percent by 2050. Given this information, it is useful for FLMAs to be aware of preferred outdoor activities among different groups 

and anticipate potential shifts in recreation. Some racial and ethnic populations tend to participate in certain outdoor activities 

more than other ethnic populations. For instance, several Forest Service studies report that Latinos are more likely than Native 

Americans, Whites, or Asian Americans to participate in hiking. The same studies found that Native Americans and Whites 

were more likely than African Americans and Latinos to participate in off-road driving.28, 29, 30, 31 Hikers have more alternative 

transportation options than participants in off-road driving, since they do not need to transport a vehicle to engage in the activity.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-107

Figure A-3: U.S. Population by Race through 2050*

32 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Divisions. 2014. Projections of the Population by Sex, Hispanic Origin, and Race for the United States: 2015 to 2060 

(NP2014-T10). Release Date: December 2014. 33 Compilation of NPS visitor survey results from Mount Rainier (2012), John Day Fossil Beds (2004), and Klondike Gold Rush Seattle Unit (2009) as 

conducted and documented by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit. http://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/park-studies-unit 34 USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM). Pacific Northwest Region (R6) (FY 2010, FY 2011, FY 2012, FY 2013) 35 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011 visitor surveys for Finley, Meares, Malheur, McNary, Turnbull and Ridgefield. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/643/ 36 Ibid.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division32

*The Census Data did not include Hispanic as a separate option for race. Rather, Hispanic or Non-Hispanic 

is an option for all races and shown as a percent of the total. 

Abbreviations: Black = Black or African American; AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native; NHPI = 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. 

Future trends in visitor demographics specific to Oregon and Washington are covered in Section 3, below.

2.1.3 Visitor Origins

The distances recreational visitors travel to reach FLMA lands impacts the transportation modes they are able to use. Local visitors 

who are within 10 miles of the location may be able to walk, bicycle, or take a bus to the FLMA unit depending on services and 

infrastructure available. Visitors from farther away are more likely to have to use personal vehicles. A well-maintained road network 

is required to access the FLMAs for all modes, whether it is buses, bicyclists, or long-distance travelers in their own cars.

The origin locations of recreational visitors to FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest were gathered using a sample of visitor surveys 

conducted by USFS, FWS, and NPS.33, 34, 35 Based on this information, FWS lands attract the most locally based visitors. Based on a 

sample of visitor surveys, an average of 84 percent of FWS visitors live within 50 miles of the refuges.36 Approximately 40 percent to 

60 percent of visitors to NPS and USFS facilities live within 50 miles of the recreational area they are visiting. The neighboring State, 

either Oregon or Washington depending on which State the FLMA site is within, was the second largest origin for visitors in the 

Pacific Northwest, followed by California.
C-108 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

The visitor origin data from the visitor surveys were confirmed by tourism data from Oregon’s 2011 visitor report.37 As shown in 

Figure A-4 and Figure A-5, the majority of day and overnight trips in Oregon originate in the State. Washington and California 

follow with the most common home locations for visitors to Washington.

37 Longwoods International, Longwoods Travel USA. 2011. Oregon 2011 Visitor Final Report. http://industry.traveloregon.com/content/uploads/2013/03/

Oregon-2011-Visitor-Final-Report.pdf

Figure A-4: Visitor Origin for Day Trips in Oregon

Sources: Longwoods International, 2011

Figure A-5: Visitor Origin for Overnight Trips in Oregon

Sources: Longwoods International, 2011

2.1.4 Timing and Distribution of Visitation

Information regarding the distribution of visitors across months of the year, days of the week, and times of day enable FLMA 

managers to better plan for demands on staffing and resources. The NPS Public Use Statistics Office (PUSO) collections monthly 

visitation data for each park unit. As shown in Figure A-6 and Figure A-7, NPS recreational visitation peaks significantly in the 

summer months in the Pacific Northwest. USACE monthly visitation data for FY2012 shows similar results (Figure A-8), although 

there are secondary peaks in the spring.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-109

Figure A-6: 2012 Monthly Visitation for Pacific Northwest NPS Units

Sources: NPS Public Use Statistics Office

Figure A-7: 2013 and 2012 Total Monthly Recreation Visitation to NPS Lands

Sources: NPS Public Use Statistics Office
C-110 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-8: FY2012 Monthly Visitation for 15 Busiest USACE Locations

38 Oregon SCORP, page 23. 39 Cordell, H. Ken. 2010. Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. USDA Forest 

Service’s Southern Research Station, USDA Forestry Sciences Laboratory, University of Georgia, and the University of Tennessee. http://www.srs.fs.usda.

gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs150.pdf. Page 83. 40 Table 30 on page 53

Sources: USACE

Notes: The Federal fiscal year (FY) runs from October through September. Lucky Peak Lake data corresponds to the secondary vertical access due to extreme peak 

in September 2012.

Data are not available from FLMAs regarding distribution of visitation across days of the week and times of day. However, the 

Oregon SCORP refers to peak visitation on weekends and holidays.38 Additionally, recent research on youth participation in 

outdoor activity comparing weekdays and weekends found that youth generally participate in outdoor recreation for longer 

durations on weekends because “[as] one might expect, school and other activities likely compete more for youths’ time during 

weekdays than during weekends.”39 Finally, nearly 90 percent of non-work trips are taken on Saturdays and Sundays according 

to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2009 National Household Travel 

Survey.40 It is reasonable to presume based on these sources that recreational visitation to Pacific Northwest FLMAs is higher on 

weekends than on non-holiday weekdays.

The strong seasonal and weekend peaks mean that FLMA staff may have transportation systems (roads, trails, and bus service) 

that only operate during certain days and months, or that have schedules that fluctuate seasonally. Additionally, in coordinating 

among agencies, FLMA managers should be aware of when neighboring sites experience peak visitation so that they can coordinate 

promotion and access opportunities.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-111

2.1.5 Visitor Activities

Recreational visitors to FLMAs have the opportunity to participate in a wide range of activities. Some activities require little to no 

equipment and are able to take place in a wide range of locations, such as picnicking or hiking. Other activities need significant 

equipment and more specialized locations, such as boating (requiring a vessel, navigable waters, and docks) or hunting (requiring 

hunting equipment, permits/licenses, and permitted areas). Due to these differences, recreational activities have varied impacts on 

transportation. FLMAs can better plan for transportation needs of their visitors when they understand these impacts as well as the 

demands for certain activities.

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to establish trends in recreational activity due to significant fluctuations from year to year caused 

by changes in the economy and weather (i.e., heavy rains, droughts), as well as variations in survey methodology for data collection. 

Currently, the most common outdoor activities in the U.S. are viewing or photographing scenery or wildlife, visiting nature centers, 

taking scenic drives, and visiting the beach.41 In general, national trends seem to show increases in swimming, personal watercraft, 

kayaking, wildlife viewing, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding; stable use for canoeing, bicycling, mountain bicycling, primitive 

camping, RV camping, motor boating, hunting, hiking, and rock climbing; and a decline in downhill skiing, horseback riding, 

rafting, and water skiing. For the Pacific Northwest, there has been an overall rise in activities on public lands. Figure A-9 to 

Figure A-14, below, illustrate participation rates in various activities across the FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest.

41 Hall et al., page 51 42 Compilation of BLM visitor survey results from Fishermen’s Bend (2013), Susan Creek (2013), Hyatt Lake (2012), Umtanum (2007), and Roza (2007) as 

conducted and documented by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit. http://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/park-studies-unit

Figure A-9: Symbol Key for Recreational Activities in Following Figures

Sources: U.S. DOT Volpe Center

Figure A-10: Percent Participation in Recreational Activities on BLM Lands

Sources: Bureau of Land Management42
C-112 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-11: Percent Participation in Recreational Activities on FWS Lands

43 Compilation of NPS visitor survey results from Mount Rainier (2012), John Day Fossil Beds (2004), and Klondike Gold Rush Seattle Unit (2009) as 

conducted and documented by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit. http://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/park-studies-unit

Sources: FWS 2013 Refuge Annual Performance Plan

Figure A-12: Percent Participation in Recreational Activities on NPS Lands

Sources: National Park Service43
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-113

Figure A-13: Percent Participation in Recreational Activities on USACE Lands 

44 USACE. 2012. Value to the Nation Fast Facts for Oregon and Washington. http://www.corpsresults.us/recreation/fastfacts/stateReport.cfml?State=9

http://www.corpsresults.us/recreation/fastfacts/stateReport.cfml?State=14

Sources: USACE44

Figure A-14: Percent Participation in Recreational Activities on USFS Lands 

Sources: USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring (FY2010, 2011, 2012)
C-114 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-9 to Figure A-14 illustrate the FLMAs have a niche in certain recreational activities. FWS refuges are clearly a destination 

for wildlife observation, while USACE locations are prominently used for boating activities. The USFS shows the most diversity in 

supporting a wide range of recreational opportunities for visitors. The BLM supports the highest percentage of camping. Four of the 

five agencies register hiking in the top five activities for visitor participation, ranking second for both USFS and FWS. Sightseeing 

and auto tours are in the top five activities for three of the five agencies, ranking first for NPS locations. In terms of transportation 

planning, high participation in sightseeing, auto tours, and boating indicate a reliance on motorized vehicles—either large tour 

vehicles or personal automobiles potentially towing a boat. While wildlife observation and hiking are non-motorized activities, 

access to the locations still may require a personal vehicle and parking or access by public transportation to reach the trails.

Overall, outdoor recreation activities on public lands in both States are rising.45 Oregon and Washington each report State-specific 

activity in their SCORPs, although these are not broken down by Federal, State, and local public lands. Figure A-15 and Figure A-16

illustrate the results. Walking was the top activity reported for both SCORP reports. Picnicking ranked second in Oregon and 

tied for third in Washington. Oregon has high participation in sightseeing, visiting historic sites, and ocean beach activities. 

Washington’s top five were rounded out with recreational activities (such as non-beach swimming, playground use, and jogging 

or running), nature activities (such as wildlife viewing, gardening, and visiting nature centers) and water activities (such as beach 

swimming, boating, and beachcombing). Beyond the top five activities, wildlife observations have increased and hunting and 

fishing have remained constant in Oregon. Washington also has experienced a dramatic increase in participation in many naturebased activities and notable declines in participation in team-based activities, such as soccer and baseball. Participation in winter 

sports also was documented for the Washington SCORP. 

45 Hall et al.

Figure A-15: op Five Outdoor Recreational Activities in Oregon

Sources: Oregon SCORP, 2013-2017

Figure A-16: Top Five Outdoor Recreational Activities in Washington

Sources: Washington SCORP, 2013
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-115

3. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

46 WA SCORP, page 9 47 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 48 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 49 Hall et al. 50 Ibid. 51 Washington SCORP Table 3.16, page 65

There are a number of important demographic and social changes occurring in Oregon and Washington that will affect visitation 

to Federal public lands in future years, including shifts in age cohorts, concentrations of population growth, and diversifying 

ethnicities. The Washington 2013 SCORP specifically cites “increasing State population” and “changing demographics” among the 

greatest challenges for recreation providers.46 These demographic shifts can alter recreational visitation and activities based on 

the preferences of the changing population, which, in turn, alters transportation needs and demands to and within FLMAs in the 

Pacific Northwest.

There is a general trend that—as population increases—the demand for recreation rises. As shown in Figure A-17, below, the 

population of the Pacific Northwest is expected to grow by approximately 18 percent through 2030.47, 48 In Oregon, this growth is 

projected to be primarily near Portland. The growth in Washington is expected to occur near Seattle and Tacoma and in the coastal 

communities. The FLMA lands near to the population growth areas will see increased visitation while growth at lands 100 miles to 

200 miles from population centers will have more stable visitation.49

Section 2.1.2, above, included discussion about an increase in outdoor recreation activity among older adults. The Pacific Northwest 

population of residents over the age of 65 is projected to grow by more than 60 percent by 2030, and this population will make up 

about 20 percent of the total population (see Figure A-17).50 This population growth trend could translate into greater demand 

for these passive activities on all recreational lands, including those managed by the FLMAs. The Washington SCORP analyzed 

activity participation by age and found that older residents had a higher percentage of participation in visiting nature interpretive 

centers and beach combing than younger groups.51 A 2007 Oregon SCORP survey asked older residents about their long-term 

transportation plans. Based on responses to this question, FLMAs may want to incorporate greater resources to support increased 

accessibility to nature centers, auto tours, or sightseeing groups to better accommodate this demographic.
C-116 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-17: Pacific Northwest Population by Age through 2030

52 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 53 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 54 Compilation of BLM visitor survey results from Fishermen’s Bend (2013), Susan Creek (2013), Hyatt Lake (2012), Umtanum (2007), and Roza (2007) as 

conducted and documented by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit. http://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/park-studies-unit 55 Compilation of NPS visitor survey results from Mount Rainier (2012), John Day Fossil Beds (2004), and Klondike Gold Rush Seattle Unit (2009) as 

conducted and documented by the University of Idaho Park Studies Unit. http://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/park-studies-unit 56 USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM). Pacific Northwest Region (R6) (FY 2010, FY 2011, FY 2012, FY 2013) 57 Washington SCORP, Table 3.3a, page 50 58 Note: Survey respondents were able to select all ethnicities that apply, and data total more than 100 percent FWS, NVUM 59 Hall, T.E., H. Heaton, and L.E. Kruger. 2009. Outdoor Recreation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Trends in Activity Participation. U.S. Dept of Agriculture. 

PNW-GTR-778. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr778.pdf 60 Ibid. 61 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Divisions. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2000 and 2010 Census Date for both Oregon and 

Washington States. http://factfinder.census.gov

Sources: Oregon Office of Economic Analysis,52 Washington Office of Financial Management53

Visitors under the age of 16 make up 14 percent to 27 percent of FLMA visitation in the Pacific Northwest (based on data across 

USFS, NPS, and BLM)54, 55, 56 Based on the resident survey in the Washington SCORP, the top five outdoor recreation activities for 

children’s participation were picnicking, walking, hiking, playground use, and sightseeing.57 Families make up the vast majority of 

groups visiting FLMAs, followed by friends, individuals (alone), and organized groups, such as schools. The low impact and more 

family-oriented activities have minimal transportation needs but getting to the lands to participate in the activities requires access 

planning. For example, children may have shorter attention spans for scenic driving and families may want more frequent pullouts 

or recreation opportunities. Family-friendly amenities like picnic areas, playgrounds, and boardwalks should be clearly signed and 

easily accessible via multiple modes.

Based on USFS and FWS survey data, visitation to Pacific Northwest recreational areas is predominantly White (>95 percent). 

Some visitors identify as American Indian (2 percent to 4 percent) or Latino (2 percent to 3 percent).58 However, areas of the Pacific 

Northwest are experiencing more rapid growth in Hispanic and Asian populations, which may change these ratios over time (see 

Figure A-18).59 The Pacific Northwest is expected to have significant growth in its Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander populations 

through 2025.60 Growth has been experienced across all ethnicities from 2000 to 2010, but population growth by White and Native 

Indian groups has been the smallest.61 By knowing their regional demographics and the demand for certain activities, FLMAs can 

better account for those transportation needs during long-range planning.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-117

Figure A-18: Oregon and Washington Population Growth by Race and Ethnicity (2000-2010)

62 Ibid.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division62

4. MODAL TRENDS

Trends in travel across specific modes may impact the numbers and destinations of future travelers to Federal public lands. 

FLMAs include 111,000 miles of public access roads in the Pacific Northwest. The presence of such an expansive road network can 

facilitate a number of modal options for visitors depending on where they are, what condition they are in, and how the road space 

is allocated across users. For instance, paved roads in more urban recreational areas are more suitable for bus travel whereas gravel 

roads in more rural areas are less conducive to bus travel. The discussion in this chapter will focus on how visitors use the available 

networks and how it contributes to long-term transportation planning in the region.
C-118 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

For a majority of recreation visitors in the Pacific Northwest region, private vehicles are likely to be a popular mode of access to 

and within the FLMAs. A recent set of FWS visitor surveys found that an average of 90 percent of visitors used personal vehicles as 

their means to get around within the refuges. An average of about one-third of visitors said they walked or hiked to travel within the 

refuge. Additionally, Figure A-19 illustrates that personal vehicles are the most common form of personal transportation used for 

overnight trips in Oregon and the U.S. as a whole. While these data are not specific to outdoor recreational travel, they do confirm 

the trend that personal vehicles are the most common travel choice for overnight trips. It is interesting to note that bicycling 

registers about 3 percent of overnight trips, indicating a reasonable level of bicycling facilities available in Oregon to make such trips 

possible. 

63 Longwoods, International. Oregon 2013 Visitor Report. http://industry.traveloregon.com/research/archive/oregon-visitor-report-2013-longwoodsinternational/ 64 2009 Klondike Gold Rush visitor survey

Figure A-19: Type of Transportation Used on Overnight Trips in Oregon

 Sources: Longwoods International63

Of course, local residents living within 10 miles of a recreation area may walk or bicycle to the public lands as part of their 

recreation routine. If the public lands are near an urban area, city residents may be able to take public transportation to them. 

Closer units may even allow walking as the primary means of access. For instance, a 2009 visitor survey for Klondike Goldrush—

Seattle Unit, which is an urban site, found that nearly two-thirds of visitors walked to the site either from their hotel or a public 

transportation station; only 20 percent of visitors drove in a personal or rental vehicle.64

The Oregon and Washington SCORPs found that residents participate most in “close-to-home” activities that can be done almost 

daily without significant travel time. Residents closest to FLMAs can use these public resources at their own “backyards” to walk 

their dogs, jog, or bicycle after work and school.

The Oregon SCORP also surveyed non-participants in outdoor recreation to understand why they do not engage in outdoor 

recreation. The top three reasons for lack of participation were being disabled, too old, or the activities are considered too 

expensive. The top three limitations to participation were lack of time, poor health, and concerns about safety/crime in parks. 

Lack of transportation was at the bottom of the list for limitations to participation, indicating it is less of a barrier to recreation 

in the Pacific Northwest than the previously mentioned issues. This could be due in part to the transportation policies in place in 

Oregon and Washington to support outdoor recreation as part of the States’ tourism industries and to enhance the quality of life. 
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • C-119

The 2006 Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) includes a policy on “Moving People to Support Economic Vitality,” which aims to “... 

develop an integrated system of transportation facilities, services, and information so that intrastate, interstate, and international 

travelers can travel easily for business and recreation” (Section 3.2). A portion of this policy includes improving coordination 

and cooperation among government agencies at all levels to facilitate multi-modal mobility. It also aims to promote tourism by 

supporting travel by air, bicycle, motor vehicle, rail, and ship and connectivity to recreational trails.65

Separate from the OTP, Oregon created the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail Plan in 2011. The completed plan will 

“... provide a continuous corridor for bicycle travel and recreation through the Oregon side of the Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic Area, generally along the route of the Historic Columbia River Highway.”66, 67 There were an estimated 230,000 recreational 

bicycle trips within communities located along the Columbia River Gorge in 2013. These trips are expected to increase significantly 

as more sections of the trail plan are implemented. Completion of the trail plan will eventually connect to the USFS Wyeth 

Campground, providing greater multi-modal access to the site. Additionally, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has the 

only Scenic Bikeways Program in the country. The program includes a website that provides information on various bicycle routes 

with different levels of difficulty, bicycle events, and resources across the State (http://rideoregonride.com/). Many of the routes 

listed on the website have access to public lands and traverse federal roads.

The 2007–2026 Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) also addresses multi-modal improvements, stating “... [b]iking and 

walking should be regarded as more than recreational pastimes... [t]ransportation must be viewed as, and function as, an integrated 

network with all modes acting as complementary parts of the whole.”68 The WTP has a specific section on Tourism and Recreation 

Transportation that include policies to support recreation, such as infrastructure and travel information. Bicycle touring routes, 

the State ferry system, aviation, and the State’s network of 3,500 miles of Scenic Byways were called out in the plan as important 

components of the transportation system that support recreation and tourism. Finally, Washington’s Growth Management Act 

includes goals related to open space and recreation. The plan aims to “... [r]etain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, 

conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.”

Oregon’s and Washington’s statewide policies supporting multi-modal access to recreation areas benefit the FLMAs and should be 

accounted for in long-range planning by Federal agencies. In addition, FLMAs, WSDOT, and ODOT should invite each other to 

participate in their respective long-range planning and programming activities.

65 OTP 2006. Page 56 66 Dean Runyan Associates. 2014. Columbia River Gorge Bicycle Recreation Economic Impact Forecast for the Communities Along the Historic Columbia 

River Highway. Page iii. http://industry.traveloregon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Final-Final-Report.pdf 67 Quatrefoil, Inc. 2011. The Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail Plan - Wyeth to Hood River. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/HCRH/pages/trail.

aspx 68 WTP 2007–2026, pg 2

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 121

Appendix D: 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FEDERAL 

PUBLIC LANDS
122 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

1. INTRODUCTION

1 As used in this report, a market impact is the effect of a market participant when buying or selling a good or service on the economy. 2 Federal Highway Administration, 2013. 3 Watson et al., 2007.

The management of public lands for the current and future enjoyment of the American public is a critical and visible part of the 

missions of Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs). As millions of visitors enjoy the resources offered on Federal lands, the 

FLMAs also are making significant economic contributions on a national, State, and local level. Beyond recreation and tourism, 

public lands impact the communities around them through other mission-driven uses.

Transportation networks enable FLMAs to have this positive economic effect. Maintaining transportation access and connectivity 

within and surrounding public lands leads to positive market impacts felt at all levels of the economy.1 The consideration of 

economic impacts of Federal lands can help transportation planners recommend transportation investments with the greatest 

overall market benefits.

The purpose of this report is to provide background information for the Pacific Northwest Collaborative Long-Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the five Federal land management agencies that own and manage land in Oregon and Washington. 

Those five agencies are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

Additionally, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act emphasizes the use of Federal Lands Transportation Program 

(FLTP) funding to be used on “...Federal economic generators.”2 Therefore, it is advantageous to understand the various ways in 

which an FLMA’s transportation system acts as an economic generator.

1.1 METHODOLOGY

There are multiple insightful ways to measure the impacts of Federal lands. 

Three of the most common methods include Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economic 

Contribution, and Economic Impact:

 Cost-benefit analysis is an examination of changes in social welfare and 

includes both market and non-market impacts.

 Economic contribution examines the spending impacts of both residents 

and non-residents in a local community.

 Economic impact only studies the new economic activity brought by nonresident expenditures.

This report examines both the economic contributions and economic impacts 

of Federal public lands. These types of analyses were chosen for this report to 

provide a more comprehensive picture of the market effects of FLMAs.3 In 

several incidences, it was difficult to estimate economic impact data and, 

therefore, economic contribution data are presented.

There are three categories of economic impacts and contributions an industry, event, or policy can create: direct, indirect, and 

induced. This report looks at all three effects to provide a comprehensive view of the economic impacts of Federal public lands.

 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.

Although an economic impact and 

contribution analysis is used in this 

report, this does not diminish the 

importance of non-market impacts—

those in which no money changes hands. 

These impacts include subsistence, 

traditional Native American uses, nonuse value, and ecosystem preservation. 

While there are many tangible and 

intangible social and environmental 

benefits associated with public lands, 

these are more difficult to quantify and 

are much broader in scope than the more 

specific ways in which money cycles 

through the local economy.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 123

To use these concepts in an example, imagine a tourist purchases a meal at a restaurant. The initial expenditure is considered a 

direct impact. From that initial transaction, the indirect impacts typically would include the additional produce purchased by the 

restaurant from their local suppliers. The cooks and servers may go on to spend their wages on other goods and services that will 

create induced impacts. Since a portion of these purchases may remain in the local area, the multiplier effect continues, eventually 

ending when dollars are spent on goods or services from outside the region or saved rather than spent. In this restaurant example, 

the multiplier chain might end when the restaurant purchases coffee and tea from a supplier located in another part of the country.

1.2 AGENCY DATA SOURCES

This technical report uses data generated by each FLMA. Agencies vary in their reporting schedules for economic impact and 

contribution data. Data in this report vary accordingly in terms of year recorded and may not be directly comparable across FLMAs. 

The following two economic models briefly explained below are the primary sources for most of the data FLMAs report.

1.2.1 Impact Analysis for Planning

Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN), originally developed with support from USFS, is an economic model that is commonly 

used to measure the economic impacts of activities or policies on a local area. IMPLAN uses an input-output framework that 

tracks the flow of expenditures among producers and consumers. It also uses county-level economic data to create locally specific 

multipliers that account for the indirect and induced effects described above.

The BLM, FWS, USACE, and USFS all use IMPLAN to estimate the economic effects of visitor spending, both in terms of direct 

spending and the total impacts when including estimated indirect and induced effects.

1.2.2 Visitor Spending Effects

Visitor Spending Effects (VSE) is the latest economic impact estimating model developed by the NPS and first used in 2012 

reporting. It replaces the Money Generation Model (MGM). To make the MGM more transparent and accurate, the NPS updated 

its methodology to create the VSE. The main differences between the two models are: (a) the redefinition of local gateway 

communities to a more inclusive 60-mile radius, and (b) the basis of visitor spending and trip characteristic data on more generic 

spending profiles4. VSE uses multipliers generated by IMPLAN.

1.3 FLMA MISSIONS

The FLMAs each address economic development differently in their missions and permitted activities. Table A-1, below, displays 

the mission statements of each FLMA.

Table A-1: FLMA Mission Statements

Agency Mission Statement

BLM To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of future generations.

FWS 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 To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of 

the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

USACE To deliver vital public and military services; partnering in peace and war to strengthen our Nation’s security, energize the 

economy, and reduce risks from disasters.

USFS To achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs 

of people.

4 Thomas, Catherine C., Huber, Christopher, Koontz, Lynne, 2014, page 2.
124 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

As shown in Table A-1, some FLMAs have missions that directly call for multiple types of economic activities to take place on 

their lands. Others have missions that relate to economic impacts more indirectly. For collaborative planning purposes, FLMAs 

and Department of Transportation agencies should consider the opportunities and constraints afforded by agency missions. For 

example, leaders in FLMAs with multiple-use missions may focus transportation investments and network connections on freight 

movement, whereas these investments may be less agreeable among other FLMAs.

5 Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR), 2012. 6 Thomas, Catherine C., Huber, Christopher, Koontz, Lynne, 2014. 7 Stynes, Daniel J. and White, Eric M., 2006.; adjusted to $2012

2. DIRECT IMPACTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Direct economic impacts follow from financial transactions, such as a consumer purchase or employer wage payment. The market 

impacts examined in this section detail the ways in which public lands have a direct effect on the local, State, and national economy. 

Not only do tourism and recreational visits contribute greatly to the economy, but also the management and use of natural resources 

support economic development in regions. The direct impacts of visitor spending, resource development, and employment each 

have a multiplying effect on the local economy as money cycles through the system. These effects are, for the most part, captured in 

the economic contribution numbers presented in this report.

2.1 VISITOR EXPENDITURES

Tourism and recreational visit expenditures create demand for goods and services in local areas, thus creating jobs and income 

for local residents. According to the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR) report examining economic 

contribution of outdoor recreation in 2012, more than 910 million visitors visited Federal lands and waterways, spending a total of 

$44 billion and supporting 719,000 jobs5. Table A-2, below, displays the 2012 national outdoor recreation visitor spending at each of 

the participating Collaborative LRTP FLMAs gathered by FICOR.

Table A-2: 2012 National Outdoor Recreation Visitor Spending by FLMA (Source: FICOR, 2012)

Agency Recreation 

Visitation (millions)

Visitor Spending 

(billion $)

Jobs

(thousands)

GDP Added

(billion $)

BLM 59,000,000 $ 3,000,000,000 58,000 $ 4,000,000,000

FWS 47,000,000 $ 2,000,000,000 37,000 $ 2,000,000,000

NPS 283,000,000 $ 15,000,000,000 243,000 $ 16,000,000,000

USACE 360,000,000 $ 13,000,000,000 187,000 $ 14,000,000,000

USFS 161,000,000 $ 11,000,000,000 194,000 $ 13,000,000,000

TOTAL 910,000,000 $ 44,000,000,000 719,000 $ 49,000,000,000

While the above national summation of data does not show the more-detailed effects by region, type of activity, party size, and 

length of stay, it is clear that visitor spending introduces new money into the local economy that would not exist otherwise. In 

examining economic impacts, the NPS reports that in 2012 non-local visitation accounted for $13.9 billion in local spending6. These 

expenditures supported 139,000 jobs and $4.0 billion in labor income in the surrounding gateway communities. As compared to the 

NPS numbers presented in Table A-2, it is interesting to note that 93 percent of visitor spending and 74 percent of jobs supported is 

from non-local visitation. While resident visitors are important, the majority of the market effects stem from non-resident visitors. 

The primary sectors of a local economy affected by visitor spending include retail, lodging, transportation, and food. For example, 

USFS has estimated that during an overnight trip a visiting party spends an average amount of $23.54 on retail, $57.56 on lodging, 

$51.26 on transportation, and $95.49 on food7.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 125

In addition to supporting the hospitality sector, the FLMAs promote different types of recreational uses on their lands and, 

therefore, create opportunities for various recreational businesses in communities. Visitors to public lands in Washington and 

Oregon enjoy both consumptive activities (hunting and fishing) and non-consumptive activities (hiking, bicycling, kayaking, 

camping, and wildlife viewing). The BLM estimates that direct non-resident visitor expenditures per visit on fishing and hunting 

activities in Oregon are $190.46 and $169.40, respectively8.

Without a well-maintained transportation system, visitors will have difficulty accessing these activities, which could come with 

negative market consequences. If visitors are deterred from coming to these recreation sites and communities, local businesses may 

feel the losses resulting in a less stimulated economy.

2.2 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Many of the lands protected by the FLMAs also oversee the appropriate extraction and use of natural resources. This multi-use 

mission shows the diverse nature of Federal public lands in America and various ways public lands support the local economy. The 

maintenance of public and administrative roads within land units is essential for the seamless development and movement of these 

goods.

2.2.1 Energy—Oil, Gas, and Coal

While not an appropriate use on all Federal lands, energy extraction is an activity with very high economic impact. The BLM 

manages 248 million surface acres and 700 million subsurface acres. As part of its management activities, the BLM oversees the 

Federal operations of onshore oil, gas, and coal production. Energy development on BLM lands provides local communities with 

new job opportunities and income. In 2011, the Department of the Interior reported that the value of oil, gas, and coal produced on 

BLM lands was $32.32 billion, with an estimated economic contribution of $119.57 billion, and supported approximately 558,976 

jobs9. These monetary contributions can come in the form of leasing and production right payments such as royalties, rentals, and 

bonus payments from private companies.

2.2.2 Renewable Energy—Wind, Hydropower, Biomass, and Geothermal

Three of the FLMAs in Oregon and Washington support renewable energy projects: the BLM, USACE, and USFS.

The BLM supports wind developments on its lands by allowing right-of-way grants to private companies. As of June 30, 2013, there 

were four authorized and one pending wind testing rights of way and one authorized and three pending wind farm rights of way in 

Oregon.10 The one wind farm, Lime Wind, has been in operation since December 2011. In Washington, there was one authorized 

wind testing right of way and one pending wind farm right of way. It is estimated in 2011 that BLM wind energy had a national 

economic contribution of $0.1 billion and supported 688 jobs.

The top hydropower producing States in 2011 were Washington, Oregon, and California. The BLM and USACE manage 

hydropower production. The USACE is the largest owner-operator of hydroelectric power plants in the U.S. In 2013, the USACE 

operated 75 multi-purpose hydropower plants with a total capacity of 21,000 megawatts of which approximately 60 percent is 

located in the Pacific Northwest.11 The BLM manages smaller projects in Oregon and Washington.

The by-products of forest management are prime opportunities for the generation of biomass energy. Biomass production creates 

jobs and can revitalize local economies in rural regions near large forests. Biomass production also supports the health and 

resiliency of the treated forests.

The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the BLM the authority to lease public lands and other Federal lands, including 

National Forests, for geothermal exploration and development. As of May 2013, the agency managed 706 geothermal leases, 

generating $12 million in Federal royalties each year plus an additional $3 million in rent. Fifty percent of the revenue is shared with 

8 Cabe, Loren and Coupal, Roger, 2001.; adjusted to $2012 9 Department of the Interior, 2012, page 17. 10 Bureau of Land Management, accessed August 2014. 11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2013.
126 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

the States and 25 percent with the local counties12. Competitive lease sales also generate money; since 2007, these sales have totaled 

more than $76 million in bonus bids in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Nevada, and California. Seventy-eight Federal geothermal 

leases are in Oregon and four leases are in Washington on both BLM and USFS lands.

2.2.3 Minerals

Both the USFS and BLM permit mineral mining activities while ensuring sustainable and healthy ecosystems and watersheds. Just 

as with geothermal development, the BLM manages the leasing rights of minerals (for example: basic minerals such as gravel and 

dirt or solid minerals such as sodium and potassium) on public and Federal lands. The BLM states the total value of locatable and 

other minerals on its lands in 2011 was $8.43 billion, supporting an economic contribution of $20.36 billion and 107,493 jobs that 

year.13 The BLM gives States, counties, and other government entities free mineral materials for public projects and sells minerals at 

market value for other projects.

2.2.4 Timber

Timber production is an extremely important activity of the USFS. One of the agency’s strategic goals is to provide and sustain 

benefits to the American people. Under this goal, one of the objectives is to reliably supply forest products to local communities 

consistent with the desired conditions of the National Forest System lands. USFS lands are used to provide commercial timber 

and fiber products as well as special forest products such as Christmas trees, floral greenery, herbs, nuts, and decorative wood. 

The USFS sells timber and special forest products through a number of different contracting mechanisms. In fiscal year 2009, the 

USFS reported a sold timber value of $159.5 million, of which Oregon comprised $30.9 million and Washington contributed $8.0 

million.14

2.2.5 Navigation—Ports, Harbors, and Waterways

The USACE encourages economic development through its navigation programs and infrastructure construction and maintenance 

activities at ports, harbors, and inland waterways that help move cargo in, out, and around the country. The USACE ensures the safe 

and environmentally friendly movement of goods through Corps-managed waterways and ports. USACE manages several principal 

coastal ports in Washington and Oregon such as Coos Bay, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, and Vancouver. Major commodities such as 

food and farm products, energy products, minerals, and manufactured goods are part of this commercial water activity. In 2012, 

Oregon ports hosted a total of 30.8 million tons of waterborne cargo and Washington ports saw 115.6 million tons15. These ports 

provide many jobs and promote economic activity in the surrounding area as well as have national and international economic 

impacts.

2.2.6 Grazing

An increasing population and growing demand for agricultural products make the need for agricultural land more important. 

The BLM and USFS allow monitored livestock grazing on their lands and this contributes significantly to the local and regional 

economies.

According to the 2014 BLM Management of Livestock Grazing Fact Sheet, BLM administers nearly 18,000 permits and leases 

held by ranchers16. As of 2013, BLM owns approximately one-fourth (155 million acres) of total U.S. grazing land. In 2007, BLM 

collected $12.9 million in grazing fees17. In 2013, the USFS reported that more than 95 million acres of National Forest System lands 

is used for livestock grazing18. The Forest Service administered and monitors 6,155 permits. In Oregon, the USFS authorized a total 

of 345 permits totaling 92,922 cattle; 132 horses and burros; and 23, 902 sheep.

12 Bureau of Land Management, accessed August 2014. 13 Department of the Interior, 2012, page 17. 14 USFS, November 2008 15 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Navigation Data Center, 2012. 16 BLM, March 2014 17 Department of the Interior, 2007. 18 USFS, March 2014
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 127

2.3 AGENCY EMPLOYMENT

Each agency directly affects the local economy through added employment and payroll. The creation of jobs and salaries by an 

FLMA is an important economic impact. The activities on and surrounding the public land units would not be possible without 

the dedicated staff of each of the agencies. Table A-3, below, shows the national employment and payroll from 2011 for BLM, 

FWS, and NPS and from 2014 for USFS. Taking a more regional look, in 2014 USFS employed a total of 4,514 employees with a 

combined payroll of $0.26 billion (almost 15 percent of the national payroll) in Oregon and Washington. This table does not capture 

the induced impacts of employee spending in the local area and other added benefits of increased employment in the affected 

communities and regions. 

Table A-3: 2011 Employment and Payroll by FLMA

Bureau Employment

(2011)

Payroll

($2011, billions)

BLM 12,065 $0.73 

FWS 10,193 $0.71

NPS 26,783 $1.49

USFS19 30,288 (2014) $1.79 (2014)

Source: DOI, 2012

19 USFS Human Resource Management internal website 20 National Park Service, 2000. 21 Taylor et al., 2012. 22 Headwaters Economics, 2012. 23 In this study, Western States were defined as Arizona, Colorado, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming.

3. OTHER IMPACTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

While the above section provides information on the direct market impacts of FLMAs, the following section outlines some of the 

indirect and induced impacts and contributions. Surrounding communities experience numerous positive market effects due to 

activities on and surrounding public land units. This report only examines property values and job growth as two examples of nondirect impacts and contributions.

3.1 PROPERTY VALUES

Houses in proximity to a Federal land area may command a price premium to the extent that homebuyers place a value on access 

to desired amenities such as open space and recreational activities. Several studies examined the effect of nearby open spaces and 

federally protected lands on property values (and therefore on ad valorem property taxes collected by local governments)20. In 

2012, the FWS published a report outlining the positive property value effects of living near a national wildlife refuge (NWR) based 

on detailed, confidential U.S. Census Bureau data. This report found that homes located within half a mile of an NWR and within 

eight miles of an urban center are valued 4 percent to 5 percent higher in the Northeast region, 7 percent to 9 percent higher in the 

Southeast region, and 3 percent to 6 percent higher in California and Nevada21. The report includes the benefits of protection from 

future development, natural disaster mitigation, and preservation of natural amenities as possible contributors to higher property 

values, but these are difficult to quantify and, therefore, not included in the analysis.

3.2 VALUE OF NATURAL/RECREATIONAL AMENITIES FOR JOB GROWTH22

At least one study has found that Federal lands have been contributors to long-term regional economic growth, with their scenic 

and recreational value serving as a draw for relocation of high-skill industries and workers. Headwaters Economics studied the 

correlation between the presence of Federal public lands and economic growth in the Western U.S., which has a higher share of 

public lands than other regions23.
128 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

In key indicators of economic development, the Western U.S.’s economy has outperformed the rest of the U.S. In terms of 

employment, population, and personal income growth, the West has seen increases for the last four decades. The Headwaters 

Economics report argues that with high-tech industries and services industries expanding, the West developed an innovative 

culture that taps into a knowledge-based economy, rather than a commodity and natural resource-based economy. Having federally 

protected public lands nearby is used to recruit and retain these high-performing companies and workers. With improvements in 

telecommunications and the ability to work from almost any location, these impacts may be growing over time.

4. CONCLUSION

Federal public lands have significant and diverse contributions to the economies of Washington and Oregon. Transportation plays a 

large role in allowing economically productive activities to occur on and surrounding public lands. The following economic impacts 

and contributions would not be possible without the maintenance of the transportation systems within and around the public land 

units:

 In 2012, more than 919 million visitors traveled to Federal lands and waterways, spending a total of $44 billion and supporting 

710,000 jobs.

 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 nearby 

communities.

With such a wide array of economically significant activities and contributions, public lands are not only very valuable to localities, 

but also to the State economies. Transportation systems allow visitors to access these naturally and culturally significant places for 

recreational purposes, and they also provide access for commercial activities like leasing land for sustainable and healthy resource 

development. Improved coordinated and long-range planning may increase the market effects of public lands locally, State-wide, 

and regionally.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 129

5. CONTRIBUTING OREGON AND WASHINGTON SPECIFIC- DATA

24 Carver, Erin and Caudill, James, 2013. 25 Final demand is the total spending by recreational visitors when visiting refuges. Expenditure categories include food, lodging, transportation, and other. 

Expenditure information is based on the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. (Carver, Erin and Caudill, James, 

2013, page 10)

The tables below provide further detail on Oregon and Washington unit-level data for FWS and NPS units. 

FWS Examples (Region 1)24

The table pulls information from the FWS Banking on Nature, 2013 report.

Table A-4: Oregon and Washington NWRs Economic Contributions

Refuge Name State Total Recreation 

Visitation

Total Final 

Demand25

(000s, $2011)

Total 

Employment 

Income

(000s, $2011)

Total

Jobs

Camas NWR WA 13,513 $250 $68 2

Columbia NWR WA 51,873 $2,037 $585 16

Conboy Lake NWR WA 5,605 $466 $58 4

Dungeness NWR WA 111,628 $2,802 $861 25

Hanford Reach National Monument WA 33,925 $2,015 $593 17

Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge OR 14,962 $942 $325 10

Little Pend Oreille NWR WA 64,130 $3,883 $1,162 30

Malheur NWR OR 119,075 $13,399 $1,162 140

McNary NWR WA 42,095 $1,561 $442 14

Nisqually NWR WA 203,815 $5,550 $588 41

Ridgefield NWR WA 164,525 $5,630 $1,682 39

Steigerwald Lake NWR WA 44,531 $1,361 $407 10

Tualatin River NWR OR 103,780 $1,627 $703 17

Turnbull NWR WA 54,196 $1,075 $321 8

Willapa NWR WA 103,780 $2,563 $720 21
130 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

NPS Examples

The table is from the National Park Service Visitor Spending Profiles 2013 report.

Table A-5: Oregon and Washington National Park Profiles—Spending and Impacts of National Park Visitors

Public Use Data Visitor Spending 2010

Impacts of Non-Local Visitor 

Spending

Park Unit State

2010 

Recreation 

Visits

2010 

Overnight 

Stays

All Visitors 

(000s, 

$2011)

Non-Local 

Visitors

(000s, $2011) Jobs

Labor 

Income

Value Added 

(000s, 

$2011)

Crater Lake NP OR 448,319 80,467 $34,111 $33,088 540 $13,393 $21,887

Fort Vancouver NHS OR, WA 786,989 0 $39,146 $36,435 625 $19,724 $32,614

John Day Fossil Beds NM OR 135,151 5 $6,119 $6,025 75 $1,674 $2,752

Klondike Gold Rush 

NHP—Seattle Unit WA 65,870 0 $4,259 $3,964 59 $2,143 $3,568

Lake Chelan NRA WA 39,249 10,200 $1,555 $1,426 20 $760 $1,272

Lake Roosevelt NRA WA 1,324,074 159,938 $39,811 $35,121 515 $12,807 $20,755

Lewis and Clark NHP OR, WA 218,553 0 $10,871 $10,118 154 $3,380 $5,515

Mount Rainier NP WA 1,191,754 172,838 $35,389 $33,696 484 $14,150 $22,832

North Cascades NP WA 24,659 17,801 $1,535 $1,474 21 $770 $1,289

Olympic NP WA 2,844,563 300,891 $103,099 $94,596 1,395 $34,906 $57,102

Oregon Caves NM OR 86,335 6,560 $4,113 $3,829 62 $1,559 $2,529

San Juan Island NHP WA 263,370 0 $17,03 $15,851 209 $5,949 $9,819

Whitman Mission NHS WA 58,521 0 $2,038 $1,897 29 $721 $1,176
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 131

REFERENCES

 American Sportfishing Association. 2007. State and National Economic Effects of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Related 

Recreation on U.S. Forest Service-Managed Lands. 

 Bureau of Land Management. March 2014. Fact Sheet on the BLM’s Management of Livestock Grazing. 

 Bureau of Land Management. Accessed August 2014. http://www.blm.gov/or/energy/index.php

 Cabe, Loren and Coupal, Roger. 2001. Employment and Income in the Western U.S. Attributable to BLM Recreation 

 Carver, Erin and Caudill, James. 2013. USFWS Banking on Nature 2013 

 Department of the Interior. 2007. Facts about the Bureau of Land Management: Facts from the FY 2007 Performance and 

Accountability Report. 

 Department of the Interior. 2012. The Department of the Interior’s Economic Contributions: Fiscal Year 2011. 

 Federal Highway Administration. 2013. MAP-21 Federal Lands Transportation Program Fact Sheet

 Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation. 2012. Outdoor Recreation: Jobs and Income. 

 Headwaters Economics. 2012. West is Best: Protected Lands Promote Jobs and Higher Incomes. 

 National Park Service. 2000. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trials, and Greenway Corridors: Real Property Values. 

 National Park Service. 2011. Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010. 

 Stynes, Daniel J. and White, Eric M. 2006. Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity. 

 Taylor et al., 2012. Amenity Values of Proximity to National Wildlife Refuges. 

 Thomas, Catherine C., Huber, Christopher, and Koontz, Lynne. 2014. National Park Service Visitor Spending Effects: 

Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. USACE 2012-2017 Human Capital Strategic Plan.

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. USACE Hydropower – Renewable, Reliable, Energy Independence for America. 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources. 2011. Stemming-From Effects of USACE Programs and 

Infrastructure: RECONS Model. 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center. 2012. Tonnage for Selected U.S. Ports in 2012.

 U.S. Forest Service. November 2008. USFS Sold Harvest Report 2008

 U.S. Forest Service. March 2014. Grazing Statistical Summary: FY2013

 Watson et al. 2007. Determining Economic Contributions and Impacts: What is the difference and why do we care?

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 133

Appendix E: 

NATURAL HAZARDS TECHNICAL 

REPORT

1 USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. 

Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 

10.7930/NCA4.2018. 2 May, C., C. Luce, J. Casola, M. Chang, J. Cuhaciyan, M. Dalton, S. Lowe, G. Morishima, P. Mote, A. Petersen, G. Roesch-McNally, and E. York, 2018: 

Northwest. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. 

Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1036–1100. doi: 

10.7930/NCA4.2018. CH24.

NOTE: This technical report was drafted in 2016 and reflects the state of knowledge on natural 

hazards impacting Pacific Northwest transportation systems at that time. Since then, new 

research – such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) Fourth National Climate 

Assessment1 and its chapter on the Northwest2 - has been published. In many cases, this new 

research provides more current data and projections than provided below, but the main types of 

natural hazards and impacts to transportation infrastructure described below remain relevant.
134 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

1. INTRODUCTION

Natural hazards, extreme weather, and changing climate conditions have the potential to affect natural and cultural resources, 

as well as transportation systems and other infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest. Therefore, understanding and preparing for 

potential natural hazards is an important part of the long-range transportation planning process, which will help Federal Land 

Management Agencies (FLMAs) anticipate and prepare for a number of management options. This technical report supports 

the Pacific Northwest Federal Lands Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Facilitated by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH), the plan will represent a collaborative regional LRTP for the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for Federal lands in Oregon and Washington. In addition, this planning effort 

has received essential support from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT), the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), and the Washington County Road Administration Board 

(CRAB).

This technical report documents:

 An overview of the natural hazards most relevant to FLMAs in the Pacific Northwest and a discussion of scientific research 

on expected future trends, where applicable.

 A discussion of the impact of extreme weather and natural hazards on FLMA transportation systems.

 A description of efforts within the Pacific Northwest to reduce the risks posed by extreme weather and other natural hazards.

1.1 NATURAL HAZARDS AND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST FEDERAL LANDS LRTP

The agencies participating in the Pacific Northwest Federal Lands LRTP chose not to create a stand-alone multi-agency goal for 

resilience, but instead to consider it as it relates to other multi-agency goals. This approach allows the agencies to integrate risk 

management into other goal areas. The relationship between natural hazards and the following goal areas is presented below and 

documented further in this technical report.

Goal: 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 and natural hazards, 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.

Goal: Ensure Safety—Natural hazards, extreme weather, and changing climate conditions may impact safety on the FLMA 

transportation system by affecting the physical and safe operating conditions of particular transportation assets. Climate changerelated extreme weather events also may affect the safety of the transportation system and have implications for FLMAs’ operations, 

maintenance, emergency response, and communications.

Goal: Protect Assets—Natural hazards, extreme weather, and changing climate conditions—such as 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 by changing design standards, exploring adaptation options for existing 

transportation assets, or changing operations and maintenance practices.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 135

2. OVERVIEW OF NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

3 Mote, P., A. K. Snover, S. Capalbo, S. D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J. Littell, R. Raymondi, and S. Reeder, 2014: Ch. 21: Northwest. Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

487-513. doi:10.7930/J04Q7RWX. 4 Snover, A.K, G.S. Mauger, L.C. Whitely Binder, M. Krosby, and I. Tohver. 2013. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State: Technical 

Summaries for Decision Makers. State of Knowledge Report prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Climate Impacts Group, University of 

Washington, Seattle. 5 Hormann, Liz. ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report. April 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/CLIMATECHANGE/docs/odot_adaptation_

strategy_final.pdf

2.1 THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST’S CHANGING CLIMATE

The U.S. Global Research Institute published The Third National Climate Assessment in 2014, which includes a chapter analyzing 

historical climate trends, projections for future climate change in the 21st century, and potential impacts on natural resources, 

infrastructure, and the economy for the Pacific Northwest region (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho).3

Although specific impacts likely will vary within the region, the report summarizes the following changes to temperature, 

precipitation, and sea levels:

 Increase in average annual temperature of 3.3°F to 9.7°F by 2070-2099 (relative to the period of 1970-1999), with the greatest 

increase in the summer

 Change in annual precipitation within a range of an 11-percent decrease to a 12-percent increase by 2030-2059 and a range 

of a 10-percent decrease to an 18-percent increase by 2070-2099

 Models consistently show a decrease in summer precipitation by as much as 30 percent by 2099

 A reduced percentage of precipitation in the form of snow and a projected shift in snowmelt timing three to four weeks 

earlier than the 20th century average

 Averaged over the region, a 13-percent projected increase in the number of days with more than one inch of precipitation in 

2041-2070, compared with the 1971-2000 period

Although there is a range of predicted impacts, the assessment concludes that the Pacific Northwest will experience marked 

increases in temperature, seasonal variation shifts in amount and severity of precipitation, and a general trend toward sea level rise. 

These factors would lead to more extreme coastal storm events, resulting in increased infrastructure impacts due to storm surges. 

Further impacts would result from the potential shifts in coastal and inland water levels and flooding, as well as potential increases 

in landslide events due to increased precipitation, and forest fires due to increased heat. These are factors that FLMAs and their 

partners should incorporate into infrastructure planning.

2.1.1 Implications for Transportation Infrastructure

This section summarizes the projected changes to the Pacific Northwest’s climate described in The Third National Climate 

Assessment.These changes have the potential to impact the FLMA transportation systems in the region in the following ways:

 Sea level rise and coastal storm damage for coastal infrastructure

 Increased flooding from heavy precipitation events

 Increased erosion and landslides

 Increased wildfire risk

 Impacts on natural resources and ecosystems

The sections below use the Washington DOT Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State: Technical Summaries 

for Decision Makers4 and the Oregon DOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report5 to summarize projected regional climate 

changes and how they specifically impact the Northwestern region.
136 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

2.1.1.1 Coastal Vulnerabilities

Global coastal sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1880 and are projected to rise from 2 feet to 4 feet by 2100.6 However, due 

to a geophysical force known as tectonic uplift, which is a regional increased rise of tectonic plates, much of the Northwest coastline 

is rising faster than global sea level rise averages. Based on a study done for the Latitude of Newport, Oregon, regional relative 

sea level rise of up to 4.5 feet could occur by 2100.7 Other projected changes for the coastal waters include highly variable acidity 

changes, an increase in surface water temperature, and an increase in the rate of coastal inundation from coastal storms and higher 

storm surges. These impacts could damage or impede access to coastal roads, bridges, parking lots, standing infrastructure, and 

emergency evacuation routes through increased flooding and erosion.

2.1.1.2 Shifting Precipitation Events

In general, precipitation models for the Northwest region show inconsistent future projections resulting in potential annual 

precipitation decreases to potential annual precipitation increases from historic numbers. However, climate change models averaged 

over the region project extreme daily precipitation to increase between 0 and 20 percent. Some models show the number of days 

with more than one inch of precipitation to increase by 13 percent from 2041 to 2070.8 This increase in heavy downpours could 

increase flood risk in mixed rain-snow and rain-dominant basins and it also could increase stormwater management challenges in 

urban areas. More flooding could occur from earlier and increased levels of snowmelt, which would increase late winter and early 

spring stream flow and decrease summer flow. Increased regional flooding could damage or destroy roads and bridges. On the 

other extreme, decreased precipitation would increase the risk of drought, which could cause pavement cracking and deterioration. 

Increased incidence of wildfires could damage infrastructure or lead to increased risks from erosion or landslides.

2.1.1.3 Erosion and Landslides

Increased coastal and inland erosion is a major concern for the Northwest region due to climate change. The region has already 

experienced sea level rise, increased storm frequency, and increased storm magnitude. Historically, Northwest sea levels have been 

rising by approximately 0.0906 inches per year, with most recent projections estimating a 2-foot to 4-foot (24 inches to 48 inches) 

increase by 2100, resulting in extreme increases of storm wave heights.9 Though current wave height and wave height effects 

are not solely linked to climate change, continued increases due to sea level rise would create increased impacts to coastal areas 

from flooding and inundation. For example, the current projected long-term rate of coastal wetland loss is greatest for the Pacific 

Northwest than any other coast in the U.S. In general, increased rates of coastal erosion are expected, particularly for the more than 

140,000 acres of coastal lands that lie within the 3.3 feet elevation of high tide.10

Changes in precipitation and regional hydrology could result in changes to geology, such as increased landslide events. For 

example, snowmelt is projected to shift to begin 3 weeks to 4 weeks earlier by 2050, which will increase the rate of winter stream 

flow and decrease the summer rates.11 Warming temperatures and changes in extreme precipitation could result in increased 

inundation events within various drainage basins or watersheds. Specifically, increased temperatures are projected to increase flood 

risk in most mixed basins, and the increase of heavy downpours could increase flooding in mixed rain-snow and rain-dominant 

basins.12 Changes in river flow and increased storm events will result in heavy flooding, which will likely increase the amount of 

groundwater. With an increased amount of groundwater, there is a greater risk of landslides, which already pose significant risks for 

much of the Northwest. Furthermore, coastal erosion impacts due to increased storm surges and sea level rise will likely undermine 

landslide prone areas, which will result in increased landslide frequency and intensity. Increased erosion and landslide events 

6 Mote, P., A. K. Snover, S. Capalbo, S. D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J. Littell, R. Raymondi, and S. Reeder, 2014: Ch. 21: Northwest. Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 487-

513. doi:10.7930/J04Q7RWX. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Hormann, Liz. ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report. April 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/CLIMATECHANGE/docs/odot_adaptation_

strategy_final.pdf 10 Mote, P., A. K. Snover, S. Capalbo, S. D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J. Littell, R. Raymondi, and S. Reeder, 2014: Ch. 21: Northwest. Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 487-

513. doi:10.7930/J04Q7RWX. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 137

have the potential to undermine existing transportation infrastructure, such as undercutting roads and bridges due to erosion, or 

dumping large amounts of soil and rock during a landslide, particularly in areas that are cut into slope faces.

2.1.1.4 Forest and Rangeland Wildfires

Wildfires are a natural part of most Northwestern ecosystems, although their numbers and extent have been increasing in the 

western U.S. since 1970 due to temperature increases and drier conditions. The Third National Climate Assessment expects 

wildfire risk to continue to increase due to the changing climate. Under a 2.2oF global temperature increase scenario, associated 

precipitation changes and regional temperature increases are projected to result in the quadrupling of the mean annual area and 

probability of forests burned in the Northwest relative to the 1916 to 2007 period. Though this will vary considerably throughout 

the region, the mean area burned would rise to more than 2 million acres. Averaged across the Northwest, climate change will 

increase the probability from 5 percent to nearly 50 percent that more than 2 million acres of forest will burn each year.13 Increased 

risk of wildfires could lead to increased road closures in forested and rangeland areas, leading to a disruption in the transportation 

of goods, people, and services. Furthermore, widespread decrease in vegetation due to wildfires will increase the potential of 

flooding events and soil erosion, which could damage transportation infrastructure.

2.1.1.5 Impacts on Natural Resources

The projected climate changes will have severe impacts for natural resources. Higher temperatures and drought stress are 

contributing to the increased outbreaks of forest pests, such as the mountain pine beetle.14 The suitable habitat for this invasive 

species is projected to increase by 2030.15 This increased pest occurrence, coupled with other forest disturbances, such as increased 

fire rates, temperature increase, and drought, have severe impacts for native species and Northwest ecosystems. Wildfires could wipe 

out large forested areas that are home to several species, as well as fragment the species’ feeding, migration, and breeding routes. 

Furthermore, climate changes could result in a large-scale shift of habitat in general. Under certain scenario projections, subalpine 

and alpine forests are projected to undergo almost a complete conversion to other types of vegetation by the 2080s.16

For aquatic habitats, region-wide summer temperature increases associated with decreased summer flows, coupled with increased 

river flooding and winter flows in some basins, will threaten many freshwater species, particularly salmon, steelhead, and trout.17

Rising temperatures are projected to increase disease and/or mortality in several of these aquatic species. Suitable habitat for trout 

species of the interior western U.S. are projected to decline by 47 percent by 2080, based on average numbers from 1978 to 1997.18

Coastal habitats are extremely susceptible to climate impacts as well, with more than 140,000 acres of coastal lands throughout 

Oregon and Washington lying within 3.3 feet in elevation of high tide. These areas will see increased inundation and salinity due 

to sea level rise, which would result in the decrease in quality of wetlands, tidal flats, and beaches for associated species. Coastal 

infrastructure and communities that lie within this area will be at great risk due to increased flooding and coastal storm surges. 

Finally, increased acidification and temperature of the surrounding coastal waters will have tremendous ecological impacts on the 

ranges, types, and abundance of marine species. These marine changes could result in an ecological shift that would be detrimental 

to an area where many humans use the coast for living, working, and recreation. These potential changes to ecosystems could affect 

the public visitation to Federal lands, particularly lands that are popular for fishing, boating, and other water-based recreation. This 

shift in visitation levels would impact the transportation to these areas, with potential decreases in visitation or a different dispersal 

pattern of visitors.

13 Ibid. 14 Hormann, Liz. ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report. April 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/CLIMATECHANGE/docs/odot_adaptation_

strategy_final.pdf 15 Mote, P., A. K. Snover, S. Capalbo, S. D. Eigenbrode, P. Glick, J. Littell, R. Raymondi, and S. Reeder, 2014: Ch. 21: Northwest. Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 487-

513. doi:10.7930/J04Q7RWX. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid 18 Ibid
138 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

2.2 NATURAL HAZARDS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

In addition to the risks associated with changing climate conditions and extreme weather, the Pacific Northwest faces risks from 

natural hazards, such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Table A-1 provides a summary of these hazards and 

resources for more information.

Table A-1: Summary of Natural Hazards in the Pacific Northwest

Hazard

Most Prevalent 

Geographic Location Resources for More Information

Implications for Federal Lands 

Transportation

Volcanic 

Hazards

Cascades Mountain 

Range

USGS Volcano Hazards Program—Cascades 

Volcano Observatory (CVO)

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 post-fire 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.
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 139

2.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR FLMA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Natural hazards not only affect the natural environment, but also cause impacts and damages to specific FLMA transportation 

systems. The high-level summaries below profile areas identified as vulnerable in The Third National Climate Assessment, the 

WSDOT Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State: Technical Summaries for Decision Makers, and the ODOT 

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report.

2.3.1 Asset Management

Impacts to transportation assets and asset management were a common theme throughout the WSDOT Climate Change Impacts 

and Adaptation in Washington State: Technical Summaries for Decision Makers and the ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 

Report. The sections below summarize the main points.

2.3.1.1 Risks to Transportation Infrastructure

The coastal infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest is particularly at risk with the projected climate changes. Specifically, on Federal 

lands, high-use areas such as coastal parks, public-use beaches, parking lots, and other built infrastructure could see increased 

damages from rising sea levels and increased storm surges. Coastal roadways could experience more frequent flooding due to sea 

level rise and increased storm events, as well as increased damage due to landslides. For example, ODOT identified U.S. Highway 

101 as a roadway that currently is experiencing increased risk and damages due to climate change. Roadway and rail deterioration 

can occur from increased temperatures, which could dry out and crack pavement and warp the rail lines. Increased precipitation 

events can lead to increased flooding, road undercutting and erosion, and increased landslide events, which could damage or block 

off transport routes.19 There is also the potential to completely lose certain infrastructure to sea level rise if it currently exists in an 

area that may become inundated or wiped out from an intense storm.

2.3.1.2 Maintenance and Operations Impacts

FLMAs and transportation agencies should anticipate greater maintenance and operation costs due to increased infrastructure 

damage from potential climate impacts. Specifically, areas such as coastal parking lots, roads, bridges, and trails would need to be 

maintained more frequently due to sea level rise and associated storm surge increases. Any infrastructure on or near severe slopes 

may need to be bolstered for landslides or rerouted around hazardous areas. In areas that have traditionally drier climates, heavier 

precipitation occurrences could lead to greater erosion levels, which could increase maintenance on all infrastructure, specifically 

roads where washouts and cracking may occur. Increased flooding and erosion events will lead to increased soil and waste 

deposition, which will necessitate more regular cleaning for roadways, culverts, and other draining systems. Culverts and other 

drainage systems also may be undersized if the magnitude of extreme storms increases. Silviculture and vegetation maintenance 

techniques likely will see a shift in the future, resulting in new prescribed burning or wildfire prevention plans, with an increased 

need for emergency response due to wildfires.

ODOT identified the need to inventory all coastal transportation assets and to review the frequency of repair for future 

maintenance projections and tracking. ODOT also recognized the need to inventory critical freight and lifeline routes, determine 

how these routes could be impacted, and identify detours and prioritization of infrastructure along the routes.20 Overall, an increase 

in infrastructure impacts and maintenance tracking would be appropriate to see how climate impacts are increasing damages over 

time.

2.3.1.3 Implications for Future Infrastructure Projects

Although it is difficult to predict the exact impacts that will occur due to climate change, FLMAs and transportation agencies can 

take steps to help ensure future infrastructure projects are as climate resilient as possible. In its Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 

Report, ODOT notes that one of the next steps for climate adaptation is to conduct a vulnerability and risk assessment for the State 

to identify future infrastructure vulnerabilities and the risk that they will be impacted by climate changes. In creating this assessment, 

19 Hormann, Liz. ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report. April 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/CLIMATECHANGE/docs/odot_adaptation_

strategy_final.pdf 20 Ibid
140 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

ODOT plans to use the FHWA Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework as a guide. ODOT identified the following steps 

that could be part of the proposed vulnerability and risk assessment:

 Map out high-impact areas that have shown increased coastal flooding or inland flooding, which will need to be maintained 

or altered in the future.

 Assess the types of pavement and rail lines being used and how they perform under higher temperatures.

 Inventory wetland areas for mitigation potential, and current wildlife corridors and migration patterns.

 Assess areas of high wildfire risk and inventory transportation infrastructure—specifically, high-impact areas for freight and 

emergency routes.

 Inventory infrastructure potentially vulnerable to increased coastal storm events.

 Identify and inventory the capacity of culverts and stormwater systems, as well as infrastructure that often floods.

 Identify infrastructure near high-slope areas or areas already prone to landslides.21

Identifying and inventorying these risks and impacts can help States better prepare for and plan future building projects. Identifying 

road, rail, and bridge infrastructure that is near high flooding and landslide risk areas, as well as general regions which are most 

likely going to expect increased temperatures, could help their owners and managers institute better planning and preventative 

measures. As an example of planning, future pavement technology to increase resistance to temperature and decrease degradation 

that leads to cracking and potholing would be beneficial.22

2.3.2 Safety

Safety was another important transportation aspect identified throughout the WSDOT Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in 

Washington State: Technical Summaries for Decision Makers and the ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report. Emergency 

response and visitor education strategies could greatly enhance the overall safety of FLMA-managed lands.

2.3.2.1 Emergency Response and Evacuation Routes

All the potential impacts listed above could result in increased emergency response needs for FLMA lands. Impacts such as 

increased flooding, wildfires, and landslides likely will result in more frequent closures of area resources. Such events are likely 

to threaten human safety, which would be amplified if areas are less accessible to emergency responders. Land and infrastructure 

owners will need to develop plans for various natural hazards scenarios that will allow for critical amenities and infrastructure—

including evacuation routes—to remain available during climate events, as well as plans on how to respond when emergency events 

threaten visitor and staff safety.

2.3.2.2 Visitor Education

Visitor education can incorporate education about natural hazards and climate conditions to allow for greater awareness and 

preparation of park visitors. FLMAs can incorporate information through visitor displays and kiosks, guided tours, web and social 

media outlets, and/or fliers and brochures. This information can highlight impacts of climate shifts and describe the reasons why 

the FLMA chose to make certain infrastructure decisions, such as road location or infrastructure material.

FLMAs also should make visitors aware of emergency procedures. FLMAs and DOTs can post signage and maps to communicate 

alternate and safe access routes in the event of emergency events. They also can use other types of warning systems, such as alarms 

or announcements, to help keep visitors safe and informed during events and avoid damages to threatened infrastructure. FLMAs 

also can work with real-time travel information providers to disseminate information about road closures and safety advisories.

21 Hormann, Liz. ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report. April 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/CLIMATECHANGE/docs/odot_

adaptation_strategy_final.pdf 22 Ibid
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 141

3. NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION EFFORTS IN THE PACIFIC 

NORTHWEST

23 National Research Council. America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010. 24 FHWA. Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework. 2014. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/

adaptation/publications_and_tools/vulnerability_assessment_framework/page00.cfm 25 FHWA website. 2013-2014 Climate Resilience Pilot Studies. 2014. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/ongoing_and_

current_research/vulnerability_assessment_pilots/2013-2014_pilots/index.cfm 26 FHWA website. Resources and Publications. Updated 2015. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/publications_and_

tools/

Adaptation is the adjustment of natural or human systems to a new or changing environment by capitalizing on opportunities 

and/or moderating negative effects.23 Adaptation is a course of action that adjusts to predicted change. Federal departments and 

agencies are responding to natural hazards risks through numerous adaptation initiatives; these efforts are discussed in this chapter.

This section is not meant to be a comprehensive list of adaptation and resilience efforts, but to highlight some efforts and resources 

that are particularly relevant to increasing transportation infrastructure resilience in the Pacific Northwest.

3.1 FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK

The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a Federal program that was established to integrate U.S. global 

change research to “... assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural 

processes of global change.” The USGCRP is supported by 13 different Federal agencies and conducts scientific research involving 

the Earth’s interactive processes, including the atmosphere, oceans, land, ice, ecosystems, and people. USGCRP acts as a research 

body to create strong scientific foundations for other agencies, formally conducts U.S. climate assessments, and helps coordinate 

with international bodies and people. As the leading Federal authority on global change science, the USGCRP works to engage and 

educate the public and make its research and data accessible to all.

3.1.1 U.S. Department of Transportation

3.1.1.1 Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) website for resilience is a site integrated with resources focused on ongoing 

transportation initiatives to increase transportation resilience. One major resource for climate adaptation is the Vulnerability 

Assessment and Adaptation Framework,24 which is a “... manual to help transportation agencies and their partners assess the 

vulnerability of transportation infrastructure and systems to extreme weather and climate effects. It also can help agencies integrate 

climate adaptation considerations into transportation decision making.” The framework is a detailed document that presents three 

major steps. Step 1 is to define the proposed study objectives and scope, which creates boundaries for the analysis and can limit 

extraneous data collection efforts, all while considering the agency’s overall goals and objectives. Step 2 is a vulnerability assessment, 

which involves characterizing relevant transportation assets and identifying the appropriate climate variables for the study. Finally, 

Step 3 discusses how to incorporate the results of the vulnerability assessment into the agency’s decision-making process to ensure 

that these results are used in practice.

Other important adaptation objectives available on the climate change website include links to the Resilience Pilot Studies,25 which 

are pilot programs for State DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and FLMAs “... to develop and deploy resilience 

solutions to current and future extreme weather events, reducing future maintenance costs over the full life-cycle of transportation 

assets.” These pilots have successfully been conducted all over the country, identifying risks and vulnerabilities to transportation 

infrastructure, and identifying potential implementation activities to help deal with these impacts. The FHWA also has links to 

several risk management publications and tools,26 which offer a wide variety of resources created by USDOT to help agencies to 

assess, manage, and implement natural hazards resilience strategies.
142 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

In 2009, Forest Service Research and Development released its 2009–2019 Global Change Research Strategy,27 with an associated 

Implementation Plan.28 The fundamental research focus of the strategy is to increase understanding of forest, woodland, and 

grassland ecosystems so that they can be managed in ways that sustain and provide ecosystem services for future generations. The 

document focuses on four elements:

(1) Research to enhance ecosystem sustainability (adaptation)

(2) Research to increase carbon sequestration (mitigation)

(3) Research to provide decision support

(4) Shared research needs for infrastructure, scientific collaboration, and science delivery

Other USFS climate efforts include a monthly newsletter that updates the agency on climate-related news,29 as well as hosting a 

workshop that opened a dialogue between scientists and managers about the development of climate adaptation tools and strategies, 

in an effort to help land management agencies take steps to incorporate climate change into management and take advantage 

of opportunities to balance the negative effects of climate change.30 The USFS also created the Future of America’s Forest and 

Rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment,31 which summarizes findings about the status, trends, and 

projected future of forests, rangelands, wildlife and fish, biodiversity, water, outdoor recreation, wilderness, and urban forests, as 

well as the effects of climate change upon these resources. The four key findings of the assessment were that “(1) land development 

will continue to threaten the integrity of natural ecosystems, (2) climate change will alter natural ecosystems and affect their ability 

to provide goods and services, (3) competition for goods and services from natural ecosystems will increase, and (4) geographic 

variation in resource responses to drivers of change will require regional and local strategies to address resource management 

issues.”

3.1.2 Washington and Oregon State Efforts

3.1.2.1 Washington State Department of Transportation

In 2010, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) released its Washington Transportation Plan 2030,32

which is a “... comprehensive and balanced statewide transportation policy plan that reflects the multi‐faceted needs of the State’s 

transportation system.” The topics of reducing energy consumption and addressing climate change are highlighted as desired 

outcomes as part of the plan. Also in 2010, WSDOT was chosen by FHWA to be part of a pilot program to test its climate change 

vulnerability assessment model. As part of this program, WSDOT used FHWA’s vulnerability assessment framework to collect and 

integrate climate and transportation asset data in a way that would identify critical vulnerabilities. This pilot program helped FHWA 

to revise their draft framework to what they currently use nationwide. In response to this pilot study, WSDOT created a 2011 report, 

Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment, 33 that provided feedback and lessons learned on the FHWA model, while also creating a 

qualitative assessment of climate vulnerability on its assets in each region and mode across Washington. This qualitative assessment 

of asset vulnerability was achieved through climate and asset data collection, through appropriate risk management methodologies 

for climate change, and through expert workshops.

27 USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Global Change Research Strategy 2009–2019. February 2009. https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/

climate/FS-Global%20Change%20Research%20Strategy.pdf 28 USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Global Change Research Strategy, 2009–2019 Implementation Plan. May 2010. Forest Service Research and 

Development FS-948. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/climate/GlobalChangeStrategy_7.7.pdf 29 USFWS monthly newsletter. Engaging a Climate Ready Agency. From Dave Cleaves, Forest Service Climate Change Advisor. http://www.fs.fed.us/

climatechange/updates/June%202014%20Climate%20Update.pdf 30 USDA Forest Service. Workshop Approach for Developing Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and Actions for Natural Resource Management 

Agencies in the United States. Copyright © 2011 by the Society of American Foresters. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/millar/psw_2011_

millar001(halofsky).pdf 31 USDA Forest Service. Future of America’s Forest and Rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment. United States Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87 August 2012. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/gtr/gtr_wo87.pdf 32 Washington State Transportation Comission. 2010. Washington Transportation Plan 2030. http://wstc.wa.gov/WTP/documents/WTP2030_Final_1210.pdf 33 Maurer, Mark, Carol Lee Roalkvam, Sandra L. Salisbury. Washington State Department of Transportation. Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment. 

Prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation for submittal to the Federal Highway Administration. 2011. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/

NR/rdonlyres/B290651B-24FD-40EC-BEC3-EE5097ED0618/0/WSDOTClimateImpactsVulnerabilityAssessmentforFHWAFinal.pdf
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 143

In 2013, the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington published the document Climate Change Impacts and 

Adaptation in Washington State: Technical Summaries for Decision Makers that outlined the potential climate change impacts and 

adaptation in Washington State.34 This report summarizes the existing knowledge about the potential effects of climate change 

on various aspects of Washington State and the Pacific Northwest, with a particular focus on research since 2007. The study 

discusses impacts to Washington infrastructure and provides examples where Washington infrastructure is climate resilient or 

local organizations are preparing for climate change, and also identifies areas that require more detailed studies to determine the 

potential cost and full implications of impacts toward transportation assets.

In response to its Transportation Plan, WSDOT has undertaken various initiatives to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse 

gas emissions. In 2011, they released a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions35 in response to the State Agency Climate 

Leadership Act, “... which committed State agencies to lead by example in reducing their GHG emissions.” This strategy outlines 

how WSDOT considers and incorporates sustainable practices into its everyday operations, outlining four primary greenhouse gas 

reduction strategies: (1) improving fuel by lowering carbon content; (2) advancing vehicle and vessel technology to run on nonpetroleum products and that are more efficient; (3) maximizing system efficiency and traffic flow; and (4) supporting more efficient 

transportation options such as carpooling, taking transit, and biking. In 2013, WSDOT released a guidance document36 that 

specifically discusses how to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in its environmental documents. This guidance 

was drafted to be “... consistent with draft guidance from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for analyzing 

project-level GHG emissions and considering future climate change impacts.”

3.1.2.2 Oregon Department of Transportation

In 2012, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) released its Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report37 to address 

potential climate impacts to Oregon’s transportation infrastructure and programs. The purpose of the strategy is split into three 

sections, to:

(1) “provide a preliminary assessment of the climate change impacts to ODOT’s assets and systems operations;

(2) underline the need for a vulnerability and risk assessment; and

(3) identify current areas of adaptive capacity and potential long- and short-term actions to be taken by ODOT.”

ODOT also participated in the first round of the FHWA Climate Resilience Pilot Studies.38 The project scope was to develop a 

corridor-level Coastal Hazards Adaptation Implementation Plan for Highway 101 in the northwest area of the State, which had been 

identified as vulnerable to climate change predictions. The goal of this plan is to create effective adaptation measures to reduce risk 

and improve the resilience of transportation assets vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather.

ODOT also has created ways to reduce its GHG emissions for climate mitigation through plans for sustainable transportation. To 

this end, ODOT created the Sustainable Transportation System and Climate Change fact sheet, which identifies current areas in the 

transportation system that significantly contribute to the release of GHG emissions and what ODOT is doing to make those systems 

more sustainable. Listed transportation areas currently becoming more sustainable include land use and planning, multi-modal 

systems, freight, pilot projects, and highway construction.

34 Snover, A.K, G.S. Mauger, L.C. Whitely Binder, M. Krosby, and I. Tohver. 2013. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State: Technical 

Summaries for Decision Makers. State of Knowledge Report prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Climate Impacts Group, University 

of Washington, Seattle. http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/snoveretalsok816.pdf 35 Washington State Department of Transportation. Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, June 30, 2011. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/

rdonlyres/1CE39C68-9FBB-4A47-B888-FE7F0F13E0B0/0/wsdot_ghg_strategy_Final.pdf 36 Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT Guidance - Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Evaluations under NEPA and SEPA. December 2014. 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8F4C392F-1647-45A7-A2CD-37FB79D45D62/0/ProjectGHGguidance.pdf 37 Hormann, Liz. ODOT Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Report. April 2012. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/CLIMATECHANGE/docs/odot_

adaptation_strategy_final.pdf 38 FHWA. Climate Change Resilience Pilots. November 2014. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/ongoing_and_current_

research/vulnerability_assessment_pilots/

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 145

Appendix F: 

PROJECT TEAM
146 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM

The project delivery team played the primary role in compiling data, facilitating project meetings, and drafting plan content. The 

core team members over the course of this project are listed below.

Agency Position Name

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Western 

Federal Lands Highway Division Office (WFLHD) Planning Team Leader Roxanne Bash

FHWA WFLHD Technology Deployment Engineer Amit Armstrong

FHWA, Central Federal Lands Highway Division Office 

(CFLHD) Planning Team Leader Elijah Henley

FHWA, Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division Office 

(EFLHD) Planning Team Leader Lewis Grimm

U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center (USDOT Volpe) Community Planner Erica Simmons

USDOT Volpe Community Planner Michael Kay

USDOT Volpe Community Planner Haley Peckett

Atkins Global Transportation Planning Project 

Manager Steve Hoover

Atkins Global GIS Director Ty Summerville

Atkins Global Graphic Designer Tina Brand
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 147

CORE TEAM

The core team consisted of agency staff from FLMAs, USDOT, and State and local partner agencies. The core team met regularly 

to provide plan direction, provided data and content inputs, reviewed LRTP content, and coordinated internal review within their 

agencies. Core team staff also conducted outreach for the LRTP. The table below lists the agencies and the positions of participating 

staff members. 

Agency Posistion(s)

FHWA WFLHD

Planning and Program Branch Chief

Director of Programming

Planning and Programming Specialist

Tribal Transportation Program Lead Transportation Specialist

Community Planner

FWHA CFLHD Community Planner

FHWA EFLHD

Road Inventory Program Project Coordinator

Asset Manager

GIS Specialist

FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway (Headquarters) Transportation Planning Team Leader

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oregon and 

Washington State Office

Facility Maintenance Program

Civil Engineer

Travel and Transportation Management Planner

Outdoor Recreation Planner

GIS Specialist

BLM Washington Office (National Headquarters) Transportation Program Manager

Trails and Travel Management Coordinator

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)—Pacific Northwest Regional 

Office

Transportation Planning Group Leader

Civil Engineer

Regional Pavement / Geotechnical Engineer

Regional Landscape Architect

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Trails, Travel Management, Dispersed Recreation, and Shooting Sports

USFS Washington Office (National Headquarters) Transportation Systems Development Program Manager

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Outdoor Recreation Planner (National headquarters)

Outdoor Recreation Planner (Portland District Office)

National Park Service Long Range Transportation Planning Program Manager

Pacific West Regional Transportation Program Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Transportation Branch Chief

Regional Transportation Coordinator

Oregon Department of Transportation

Region Manager

Planning Section Manager

Active Transportation Section Programs Manager

Transportation Data Section Manager

Environmental GIS Program Manager

Washington Department of Transportation 

Statewide Planning Unit Manager

Policy Planning Manager

Environmental Manager, Highways and Local Programs

Transportation Planning Specialist

Association of Oregon Counties County Road Program Manager

Washington County Road Administration Board Grant Program Manager

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 149

Appendix G: 

MAPS
150 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 151

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. FLMA-Managed Road Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 1. FLMA Road Density Example: Northeast Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 3. Non-FLMA-Managed Road Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 5. Road Access Point Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 4. Road Access Point Example: Southwest Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 7. Trail Access Point Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 6. Trail Access Point Example: Central Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 9. Trail Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 8. Trail Density Example: Central Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 10. Transit Route Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 12. Ownership Overlap Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 11. Road Ownership Overlap Example: North West Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 13. Recreation Site Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
152 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-1: FLMA-Managed Road Density

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

2 

Figure 1. FLMA-Managed Road Density 

Full-sized map available in Appendix X. Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 

Figure 2 

location 

Figure A-2

location
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 153

Figure A-2: FLMA Road Density Example: Northeast Oregon

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

3 

Figure 2. FLMA Road Density Example: Northeast Oregon 

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. Pacific Northwest scale maps available in 

Table of Figures 

Figure 1. FLMA‐Managed Road Density .................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 1. FLMA Road Density Example: Northeast Oregon .................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3. Non‐FLMA‐Managed Road Density .......................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 5. Road Access Point Density ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 4. Road Access Point Example: Southwest Oregon ..................................................................................................... 6

Figure 7. Trail Access Point Density ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 6. Trail Access Point Example: Central Washington ..................................................................................................... 8

Figure 9. Trail Density ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 8. Trail Density Example: Central Oregon .................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 10. Transit Route Density ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 12. Ownership Overlap Density ................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 11. Road Ownership Overlap Example: North West Washington ............................................................................. 13

Figure 13. Recreation Site Density ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 1
154 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-3: Non-FLMA-Managed Road Density

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

4 

Figure 3. Non-FLMA-Managed Road Density 

Full-sized map available in Appendix X. Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 155

Figure A-4: Road Access Point Density

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

5 

Figure 4. Road Access Point Density 

Full-sized map available in Appendix X. Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 

Figure 5 

location 

Figure A-5

location
156 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-5: Road Access Point Example: Southwest Oregon

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 

6 

Figure 5. Road Access Point Example: Southwest Oregon 

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. Pacific Northwest scale maps available in Figure 4 and Appendix X. 
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 157

Figure A-6: Trail Access Point Density

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

7 

Figure 6. Trail Access Point Density

Full-sized map available in Appendix X. Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 

Figure 7 

location 

Figure A-7

location
158 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-7: Trail Access Point Example: Central Washington

8 

Figure 7. Trail Access Point Example: Central Washington 
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 159

Figure A-8: Trail Density

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

9 

Figure 8. Trail Density 

Full-sized map available in Appendix X. Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 

Figure 9 

location 

Figure A-9

location
160 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-9: Trail Density Example: Central Oregon

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

10 

Figure 9. Trail Density Example: Central Oregon 

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. Pacific Northwest scale maps available in Figure 8 and Appendix X. 

   
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 161

Figure A-10: Transit Route Density

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

11 

Figure 10. Transit Route Density 

Full-sized map available in Appendix X. Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 
162 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-11: Ownership Overlap Density

Density grid cells represent 6 square miles.

12 

Figure 11. Ownership Overlap Density 

Full-sized maps available in Appendix X. Density grid cells represent 6 square miles. 

Figure 12 

location 

Figure A-12

location
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 163

Figure A-12: Road Ownership Overlap Example: North West Washington

The example illustrates USFS managed roads outside of the agency’s boundaries

13 

Figure 12. Road Ownership Overlap Example: North West Washington 

The example illustrates USFS managed roads outside of the agency’s boundaries 

   
164 • Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan

APPENDICES

Figure A-13: Recreation Site Density

14 

Figure 13. Recreation Site Density 
APPENDICES

Pacific Northwest Federal Land Management Agency Long-Range Transportation Plan • 165
PACIFIC NORTHWEST FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Long-Range Transportation Plan

March 2019

Photography by: