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

Appendix A

Plan Contributors

Appendix A A-1

Plan Contributors

Name Region Affiliation Address Phone Email

Roxanne Bash WFL FLH LRTP Project Manager 610 E. 5th Street, Vancouver, WA 98661 360-619-7558 roxanne.bash@dot.govDave Brown WFL FLH Refuge Road Program Coordinator - Retired 610 E. 5th Street, Vancouver, WA 98661Nathan Caldwell National National Alternative Trasnsportation Coordinator 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 634, Arlington, VA 22203 730-358-2205 nathan_caldwell@fws.govDave Drescher Region 1 FWS Refuge Information Branch Chief 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 503-231-6161 david_drescher@fws.govPete Field WFL FLH Transportation Planner 610 E. 5th Street, Vancouver, WA 98661 360-619-7619 peter.field@dot.govBob Flores Region 1 Ridgefield NWR Complex 29808 NW Main Avenue, Ridgefield, WA 98642 360-887-4106 bob_flores@fws.govSean Furniss National National Refuge Road Program Coordinator - Retired 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 634, Arlington, VA 22203Steve Suder National National Refuge Road Program Coordinator 4402 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 634, Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-1752 Steve_Suder@fws.govPaul Hayduk Region 1 Facility Operations Coordinator 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 503-7364780 paul_hayduk@fws.govElijah Henley CFL FLH Transportation Planner 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80228 720-963-3562 elijah.henley@dot.govJeff Holm Region 1 FWS LRTP Project Manager 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 503-231-2161 jeff_holm@fws.govSusan Law WFL FLH Alternative Transportation Planner 610 E. 5th Street, Vancouver, WA 98661 360-619-7840 susan.law@dot.govChris Jaeschke EFL FLH Transportation Planner 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 703-404-6306 christoph.jaeschke@dot.govBrandon Jutz Region 3 FWS Transportation Coordinator 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111 612-713-5407 brandon_jutz@fws.govKirk Lambert Region 1 FWS Asset Management Coordinator 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 503-231-2078 Kirk_Lambert@fws.govMike Marxen Region 1 Chief, Visitor Services and Communications 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 503-872-2700 mike_marxen@fws.govLarry Marchant Region 1 Project Leader Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery - Retired 16552 State Road 14, Underwood, WA 98651Alex Schwartz Region 1 FWS Landscape Architect 2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 503-231-6179 alex_schwartz@fws_gov
A-2 Appendix A
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix B

Region 1 Refuges and Hatcheries

Appendix B B-1

Region 1 Refuges and Hatcheries

Station Headquarters/Complex State/Territory

Abernathy Fish Technology Center Abernathy Fish Technology Center WA

Ankeny NWR Willamette Valley NWR Complex OR

Baker Island NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Bandon Marsh NWR Oregon Coast NWR Complex OR

Baskett Slough NWR Willamette Valley NWR Complex OR

Bear Lake NWR Southeast Idaho NWR Complex ID

Big Canyon NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan OR

Camas NWR Southeast Idaho NWR Complex ID

Cape Meares NWR Oregon Coast NWR Complex OR

Captain John Rapids NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan WA

Carson NFH Carson NFH Complex WA

Clearwater NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Cold Springs NWR Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex OR

Columbia NWR Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex WA

Conboy Lake NWR Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex WA

Copalis NWR Washington Maritime Complex WA

Cottonwood Creek NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan WA

Crooked River NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Curl Lake NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan WA

Deer Flat NWR Deer Flat NWR ID

Dungeness NWR Washington Maritime Complex WA

Dworshak NFH Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Complex ID

Eagle Creek NFH Eagle Creek NFH Complex OR

Eagle Fish Health Laboratory Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

East Fork Salmon NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Entiat NFH Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex WA

Flattery Rocks NWR Washington Maritime Complex WA

Franz Lake NWR Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex WA

Grays Harbor NWR Nisqually NWR Complex WA

Grays Lake NWR Southeast Idaho NWR Complex ID

Guam NWR Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex Guam

Hagerman NFH Hagerman National Fish Hatchery Complex ID

Hakalau Forest NWR Big Island NWR Complex HI

Hanalei NWR Kauai NWR Complex HI
B-2 Appendix B

Station Headquarters/Complex State/Territory

Hanford Reach National Monument Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex WA

Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex OR

Hawaiian Islands NWR Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex HI

Howland Island NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Huleia NWR Kauai NWR Complex HI

Idaho Fish Health Center Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Complex ID

Imnaha NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan OR

Inland Northwest NWR Complex Inland Northwest NWR Complex WA

Irrigon NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan OR

James Campbell NWR Oahu NWR Complex HI

Jarvis Island NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Johnston Island NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex WA

Kakahaia NWR Maui NWR Complex HI

Kauai NWR Complex Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex HI

Kealia Pond NWR Maui NWR Complex HI

Kilauea Point NWR Kauai NWR Complex HI

Kingman Reef NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Kona Forest NWR Big Island NWR Complex HI

Kooskia NFH Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Complex ID

Kootenai NWR Inland Northwest NWR Complex ID

Leavenworth NFH Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex WA

Lewis and Clark NWR Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex WA

Little Pend Oreille NWR Inland Northwest NWR Complex WA

Little Sheep Creek Lower Snake River Compensation Plan OR

Little White Salmon NFH Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery 

Complex WA

Lookingglass NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan OR

Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery 

Complex WA

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Lyons Ferry NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan WA

Magic Valley NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Makah NFH Makah NFH WA
Appendix B B-3

Station Headquarters/Complex State/Territory

Malheur NWR Malheur NWR OR

McCall NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

McKay Creek NWR Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex OR

McNary NWR Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex WA

Midway Atoll NWR Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument

Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Minidoka NWR Southeast Idaho NWR Complex ID

Nestucca Bay NWR Oregon Coast NWR Complex OR

Nisqually NWR Nisqually NWR Complex WA

Nisqually NWR Complex Nisqually NWR Complex WA

Oahu Forest NWR Oahu NWR Complex HI

Olympia Fish Health Center Olympia Fish Health Center WA

Oregon Coast NWR Complex Oregon Coast NWR Complex OR

Oregon Islands NWR Oregon Coast NWR Complex OR

Oxford Slough WPA Southeast Idaho NWR Complex ID

Pacific Reefs NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Palmyra Atoll NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Pearl Harbor NWR Oahu NWR Complex HI

Pierce NWR Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex WA

Protection Island NWR Washington Maritime Complex WA

Quilcene NFH Quilcene NFH WA

Quillayute Needles NWR Washington Maritime Complex WA

Quinault NFH Quinault NFH WA

Red River NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Ridgefield NWR Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex WA

Rose Atoll NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

San Juan Islands NWR Washington Maritime Complex WA

Sawtooth NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Sheldon NWR Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex NV

Siletz Bay NWR Oregon Coast NWR Complex OR

South Fork NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan ID

Southeast Idaho NWR Complex Southeast Idaho NWR Complex ID

Spring Creek NFH Spring Creek NFH WA

Steigerwald Lake NWR Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Complex WA
B-4 Appendix B

Station Headquarters/Complex State/Territory

Three Arch Rocks NWR Oregon Coast NWR Complex OR

Toppenish NWR Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex WA

Tualatin River NWR Tualatin River NWR OR

Tucannon NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan WA

Turnbull NWR Inland Northwest NWR Complex WA

Umatilla NWR Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex WA

Wake Atoll NWR Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex Pacific Outlying 

Islands

Wallowa NFH Lower Snake River Compensation Plan OR

Warm Springs NFH Warm Springs NFH Complex OR

Washington Maritime NWR Complex Washington Maritime NWR Complex WA

Willamette Valley NWR Complex Willamette Valley NWR Complex OR

Willapa NWR Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex WA

Willard NFH Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery 

Complex WA

William L. Finley NWR Willamette Valley NWR Complex OR

Winthrop NFH Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex WA
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix C

Data Sources

Appendix C C-1

Data Sources and Analysis

Baseline conditions are established for a number 

of factors including physical characteristics like 

condition and asset type as well as external factors 

such as value, visitation, population, sensitivity 

to/from climate change, safety, and non-service 

partnership opportunities. Understanding of these 

factors is achieved by synthesizing various datasets 

and establishing a baseline condition. The Data 

Sources and Analysis appendix documents the data 

and processes used to synthesize information used 

in the baseline condition analysis.

Data Sources Overview

Information used to establish baseline conditions is 

mined from regularly updated Service data sources 

like the Service Asset Maintenance Management 

System (SAMMS) and the Road Inventory 

Program (RIP). SAMMS provides information on 

facility and equipment deficiencies, justifies budget 

requests for maintenance needs, and provides a 

sound basis for management decision-making. RIP 

data contains a condition assessment of all Service 

roads, parking lots, and trails. The dataset is 

updated in regular five year periods. 

Supplemental information from non-Service 

sources is also used to establish baseline conditions. 

These sources include the US Census, Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), US Geological Survey 

(USGS), Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI), Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), and state departments of 

transportation (DOT). Table 1. Data SourcesTable 

1 indicates commonly used datasets for determining 

baseline conditions in each goal area. 

Table 1. Data Sources

1. Resource Protection Fatal accidents NHTSA

2. Conditions and Safety Asset Conditions (RIP) FWS/FLH

API rankings (SAMMS) FWS

Facility condition index (SAMMS) FWS

Crashes ID, OR, WA DOTs

Road pavement condition OR DOT

AADT ID/OR DOTs and NHPN

3. Welcome and Orient Visitation FWS

Population US Census

Populated places US Census

4. Planning Service planning status FWS

State planning boundaries HI, WA, OR, ID state departments

5. Partnerships N/A N/A

6. Sustainability FWS plans FWS

Vulnerability of coastal areas to sea level 

change USGS

Seismic risk USGS

Air quality non-attainment areas BTS

Transit districts FTA, BTS, State DOTs, Google
C-2 Appendix C

Resource Protection

At this time, resource protection data consists 

of fatal accident locations caused by animalvehicle collisions. This data was derived from 

NHTSA vehicle fatality tables, for 2001 through 

2008. Filtering for animal collision deaths (using 

“HARM_EV” = 11), latitude and longitude values 

were used to plot, and select based on proximity 

to FWS boundaries. A spatial join was used to 

identify the accidents that were located in or near a 

particular unit.

Safety and Conditions

The Service is committed to providing safe and 

reliable access to and within its lands and facilities. 

As such, baseline condition analyses have been 

established for issues related to access and safety.

Priority, Condition Index, Value, and Condition

Transportation asset conditions, value, priority, and 

deferred maintenance summaries combine SAMMS, 

RIP, and GIS data provided by FHWA FLH and 

FWS. This information is summarized in Table 2 

and Table 4. Current replacement value (CRV), 

asset priority index (API), and facility condition 

index (FCI) data is aggregated to the unit level. 

These RIP and SAMMS tables were joined by 

“asset id” to generate tabular summaries. Because 

of gaps in “asset ids” in both the RIP and SAMMS 

datasets, results are incomplete.

For trails, “asset-id” fields were not used, rather 

records were filtered by trail related keywords 

(This was done instead of using the SAMMS asset 

number as a common join field because 30% of trails 

(by length) in the GIS dataset contain “N/A” values 

as their asset ID). The remaining information 

was summed and normalized (by length) for each 

unit. To verify the completeness or coverage of the 

SAMMS information, the recorded trail lengths 

were compared against measured trail lengths 

generated through the GIS dataset. The outcome 

of this exercise is represented in the “% Coverage” 

columns in the final outcome table. A value greater 

than 100% in this column indicates that the SAMMS 

table shows a total trail distance that is longer than 

what was derived from the GIS dataset.

Deferred maintenance could not be summarized 

using the process described above because the table 

containing DM values does not list trail lengths. As 

a result, information could not be weight/averaged 

or verified for completeness. Instead, and despite 

the gap in asset IDs, the SAMMS asset number was 

used to perform a table relate with the GIS dataset. 

The measured lengths generated through the GIS 

dataset were then used to weight/average DM 

information.

Road, Parking, and Trail Conditions

To better understand the composition of roads, 

parking, and trail condition rankings, it was 

necessary to aggregate surface type from condition 

ranking. This information is summarized in Table 

5 and Table 6 in addition to the condition summary 

tables in the Goals and Conditions chapter, Safety 

and Condition section. The result is a table that 

breaks out the lengths of surface type contained 

within a condition ranking. For context, this 

information is supplemented with percentages of: 

surface type within a particular condition category, 

percent of a particular condition and surface type 

that make up the total of Service trails, and total 

percent condition category of all trail miles – 

regardless of surface type. The summaries were 

produced using Access queries of RIP data.

FWS Trail Deficiencies

Trail deficiencies are identified in baseline 

conditions in tabular form by state, unit, and 

deficiency classification. Access queries of RIP 

trail deficiencies data show number and type of 

deficiencies found in each unit, by state. This data 

is shown in Table 5.

Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety

The LRTP uses non-service road condition, 

use, and safety improvement information to 

help identify areas of need of improvement and 

possible partnership. To accomplish this, data is 

required from each Region 1 state’s department of 

transportation.

For Oregon, a GIS was used to identify crash data, 

use, and AADT for Oregon State Department 

of Transportation (ODOT) non-Service roads 

that intersect FWS units. A spatial intersect was 

preformed between the NHPN dataset and FWS 

units to find were these roads entered/exited 

Service boundaries. Spatial joins allowed for the 

linking of these locations to ODOT crash, condition, 

and AADT data. Data resulting from these 

operations were synthesized using Access.

For Washington, crash data was provided as a 

series of tables which described crash events. 

Once these tables were compiled into a single 

table, route name and milepost information was 

used to create a unique identifier (“Seg-code” + 

“milepost[rounded]”). Using GIS milepost data 

available from WDOT’s website, the same route 

name-milepost unique identifier was created. The 

tabular crash dataset was then able to be joined 

to the milepost spatial data. AADT data was not 

available from the state, so this information was 

derived from the NHPN dataset instead. AADT 

data was spatially joined to the crash data to 

facilitate the creation of tabular summaries. The 

state was not able to provide pavement condition 

data.
Appendix C C-3

The process of joining crash data with milepost 

data was repeated for Idaho data. Like Washington, 

no pavement surface condition data was available; 

however a 2007 AADT dataset was readably 

available.

No road condition, use, or safety data was available 

from Hawaii D

Table 2. Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data

State FWS Unit Route Name Route ID Surface API FCI Condition Hawaii

Hanalei NWR Cemetery Road FWS-HANA-100 Asphalt 45 0.1 Failed

Cemetery Road FWS-HANA-100 Gravel 65 0.1 Failed

Kealia Pond 

NWR Entrance Road FWS-KEPO-010 Asphalt 100 0 Fair

Kilauea Point 

NWR Kilauea Lighthouse Road FWS-KIPO-010 Asphalt 100 0 Fair

Idaho

Bear Lake NWR Paris Dike Boat Ramp Access FWS-BELA-102 Gravel 70 0.9 Fair

Camas NWR Main Entrance Road FWS-CAMA-013 Asphalt 70 0 Fair

Wildlife Viewing Route - Big 

Pond FWS-CAMA-010 Gravel 55 0 Good

Wildlife Viewing Route - 

Toomey Pond FWS-CAMA-011 Gravel 65 0 Good

Deer Flat NWR Gott’s Point Road FWS-DEFL-100 Gravel 45 0 Fair

Lower Dam Boat Ramp Access FWS-DEFL-101 Asphalt 45 0.1 Fair

Lower Dam Youth Camp Access FWS-DEFL-102 Gravel 45 0 Fair

Visitor Center Access FWS-DEFL-010 Asphalt 70 0.1 Poor

Grays Lake NWR Headquarters Auto Tour Road FWS-GRLA-010 Gravel 55 0 Good

Kootenai NWR Auto Tour Route FWS-KOOT-010 Asphalt 100 0 Fair

Auto Tour Route FWS-KOOT-010 Gravel 100 0 Good

Minidoka NWR 17-mile Hole Road FWS-MINI-103 Gravel 65 0.3 Failed

Bird Island Road FWS-MINI-100 Gravel 80 0.2 Fair

Gifford Springs Road FWS-MINI-105 Gravel 65 0 Good

North Refuge Road 1 FWS-MINI-106 Gravel 65 0 Failed

North Refuge Road 1 FWS-MINI-106 Gravel 65 0 Poor

North Refuge Road 2 FWS-MINI-107 Gravel 65 0 Fair

North Refuge Road 2 FWS-MINI-107 Gravel 65 0 Poor

North Refuge Road 2 FWS-MINI-107 Gravel 65 0 Failed

North Refuge Road 3 FWS-MINI-108 Gravel 65 0 Failed

Oxford Slough 

WPA Entrance Road FWS-OXSL-010 Gravel 80 0 Good

Nevada

Sheldon NWR 34A Road FWS-SHEL-100 Gravel 80 0 Fair

34A Road FWS-SHEL-100 Gravel 80 0 Good

Badger Road FWS-SHEL-107 Native 80 0.1 Good

Big Spring Road FWS-SHEL-102 Gravel 80 0 Fair

Big Spring Road FWS-SHEL-102 Gravel 80 0 Good

IXL Road FWS-SHEL-101 Native 65 0.1 Poor

IXL Road FWS-SHEL-101 Native 65 0.1 Good

IXL Road FWS-SHEL-101 Native 65 0.1 Fair

Sagebrush Creek Road FWS-SHEL-104 Gravel 80 0.1 Good

Virgin Valley Road FWS-SHEL-103 Gravel 100 0.1 Good

Virgin Valley Road FWS-SHEL-103 Native 100 0.1 Good
C-4 Appendix C

Table 2. Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data

State FWS Unit Route Name Route ID Surface API FCI Condition Nevada

Sheldon NWR Virgin Valley Road FWS-SHEL-103 Native 100 0.1 Failed

Virgin Valley Road FWS-SHEL-103 Native 100 0.1 Fair

Virgin Valley Road FWS-SHEL-103 Native 100 0.1 Poor

Oregon

Ankeny NWR Office Road FWS-ANKE-101 Gravel 100 0.1 Good

Visitor Kiosk Access FWS-ANKE-100 Gravel 100 0.4 Excellent

Bandon Marsh 

NWR

HQ Access Road FWS-BAMA-010 Asphalt 80 0 Good

Baskett Slough 

NWR

Office Access Road FWS-BASL-100 Gravel 100 0.8 Excellent

Cape Meares 

NWR

Cape Meares Lighthouse Drive FWS-CAME-100 Asphalt 100 0.1 Poor

Cold Springs 

NWR

South Auto Tour Loop FWS-COSP-100 Gravel 65 0 Good

South Entrance Road FWS-COSP-010 Gravel 80 0 Good

Southeast Boat Launch Access FWS-COSP-102 Gravel 65 0 Good

Hart Mountain 

NWR

Bath House Road FWS-HAMO-200 Gravel 65 0 Good

Blue Sky Road FWS-HAMO-100 Native 80 0 Good

Blue Sky Road FWS-HAMO-100 Native 80 0 Fair

Blue Sky Road FWS-HAMO-100 Gravel 80 0 Good

Blue Sky Road FWS-HAMO-100 Native 80 0 Poor

Flook Lake Road FWS-HAMO-012 Native 80 0 Failed

Frenchglenn Road FWS-HAMO-011 Native 80 0.1 Good

Frenchglenn Road FWS-HAMO-011 Native 80 0.1 Fair

Hot Springs Campground Road FWS-HAMO-101 Gravel 65 0 Good

Main Entrance Road FWS-HAMO-010 Gravel 80 0 Good

Petroglyph Lake Road FWS-HAMO-014 Native 65 0.2 Failed

Poker Jim Road FWS-HAMO-015 Native 65 0.2 Failed

Post Meadows Road FWS-HAMO-019 Native 65 0.3 Failed

Warner Pond Road FWS-HAMO-013 Gravel 65 0.2 Failed

Malheur NWR Buena Vista Road FWS-MALH-108 Gravel 100 0 Failed

Buena Vista Road FWS-MALH-108 Gravel 100 0 Fair

Center Patrol Road North FWS-MALH-106 Gravel 100 0 Good

Center Patrol Road North FWS-MALH-106 Gravel 100 0 Poor

Center Patrol Road North FWS-MALH-106 Gravel 100 0 Fair

Center Patrol Road South FWS-MALH-102 Gravel 100 0 Fair

Center Patrol Road South FWS-MALH-102 Gravel 100 0 Good

Double O Road FWS-MALH-110 Gravel 65 0 Poor

Double O Road FWS-MALH-110 Gravel 65 0 Good

Double O Road FWS-MALH-110 Gravel 65 0 Fair

Headquarters Entrance Road FWS-MALH-010 Gravel 100 0 Good

Krumbo Reservoir Road FWS-MALH-104 Gravel 100 0 Good

Tipton Road FWS-MALH-116 Native 100 0 Failed

McKay Creek 

NWR

Entrance Road/Boat Launch 

Access

FWS-MCCR-010 Asphalt 100 0 Fair

McKay Resevior Road FWS-MCCR-100 Asphalt 80 0 Fair

McKay Resevior Road FWS-MCCR-100 Gravel 80 0 Fair

McKay Resevior Road FWS-MCCR-100 Gravel 80 0 Good
Appendix C C-5

Table 2. Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data

State FWS Unit Route Name Route ID Surface API FCI Condition Oregon

Nestucca Bay 

NWR

Christensen Road FWS-NEBA-100 Gravel 100 0 Good

Tualatin River 

NWR

Refuge Entrance Road FWS-TURI-010 Gravel 65 0.6 Good

Wayside Road FWS-TURI-100 Gravel 65 0 Excellent

Umatilla NWR Auto Tour Route FWS-UMAT-010 Asphalt 80 0.1 Poor

Auto Tour Route FWS-UMAT-010 Gravel 80 0.1 Good

Heritage Trail Road FWS-UMAT-101 Gravel 65 0.2 Good

McCormick North Road FWS-UMAT-103 Gravel 65 0 Fair

Paterson Slough South Road FWS-UMAT-105 Gravel 65 0.1 Good

Paterson Slough South Road FWS-UMAT-105 Asphalt 65 0.1 Poor

Paterson Unit Access Road FWS-UMAT-104 Gravel 80 0.1 Good

Paterson Unit Access Road FWS-UMAT-104 Asphalt 80 0.1 Poor

Ridge Unit Access Road FWS-UMAT-106 Gravel 65 0 Good

Visitor Info Access FWS-UMAT-100 Gravel 65 0 Fair

Whitcomb East Spur FWS-UMAT-109 Gravel 65 0 Good

Whitcomb Island Road FWS-UMAT-011 Gravel 65 0.1 Good

Whitcomb Middle Road FWS-UMAT-108 Gravel 65 0 Good

Whitcomb West Spur FWS-UMAT-107 Gravel 65 0 Fair

William F. Finley 

NWR

Bruce Road Overlook Access 

Road

FWS-WIFI-102 Gravel 55 0 Excellent

Finley Refuge Road FWS-WIFI-010 Gravel 100 0.2 Excellent

Finley Refuge Road FWS-WIFI-010 Gravel 100 0.2 Good

Refuge Office Access FWS-WIFI-100 Gravel 100 1 Good

Woodpecker Loop Road FWS-WIFI-101 Gravel 55 0 Good

Washington

Columbia NWR Black Lake Road FWS-COIA-106 Gravel 80 0.9 Fair

Blythe Lake Road FWS-COIA-103 Gravel 100 0.5 Failed

Hampton Lake Road FWS-COIA-107 Gravel 80 0.2 Good

Hutchinson Lake Road FWS-COIA-105 Gravel 80 0.3 Poor

Marsh Unit 1 Access FWS-COIA-100 Gravel 100 0.3 Good

Marsh Unit 1 Access FWS-COIA-100 Gravel 100 0.3 Failed

Morgan Lake Road FWS-COIA-010 Gravel 80 0.2 Fair

Morgan Lake Road FWS-COIA-010 Gravel 80 0.2 Good

Pillar/Wigeon Road FWS-COIA-101 Gravel 100 0.8 Failed

Pillar/Wigeon Road FWS-COIA-101 Gravel 100 0.8 Good

Soda Lake Campground Road FWS-COIA-102 Gravel 100 0.6 Fair

Solbeck Road FWS-COIA-104 Gravel 100 0.4 Good

Teal Lakes Road FWS-COIA-011 Gravel 80 0 Fair

Teal Lakes Road FWS-COIA-011 Gravel 80 0 Good

Conboy Lake 

NWR

Wildlife Refuge Road FWS-COLA-010 Gravel 70 0 Good
C-6 Appendix C

Table 2. Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data

State FWS Unit Route Name Route ID Surface API FCI Condition Washington

Hanford Reach 

National 

Monument

Wahluke South Road - South 

Access

FWS-SAMO-010 Gravel 100 0.1 Good

WB-10 Road FWS-SAMO-105 Native 100 0 Poor

WB-10 Road FWS-SAMO-105 Asphalt 100 0 Poor

WB-10 Road FWS-SAMO-105 Gravel 100 0 Failed

White Bluffs Ferry Road FWS-SAMO-104 Gravel 100 0.1 Good

White Bluffs Ferry Road FWS-SAMO-104 Asphalt 100 0.1 Poor

Julia Butler 

Hanson NWR

Refuge Entrance Road FWS-JUHA-010 Asphalt 100 0 Fair

Little Pend 

Oreille NWR

Bear Creek Road FWS-LIOR-010 Gravel 100 0.2 Good

Bear Creek Road FWS-LIOR-010 Gravel 100 0.2 Fair

Bear Creek Road FWS-LIOR-010 Gravel 100 0.2 Failed

Blacktail Mountain Cutoff Road FWS-LIOR-105 Gravel 100 0 Good

Blacktail Mountain Road FWS-LIOR-014 Gravel 100 0.1 Poor

Blacktail Mountain Road FWS-LIOR-014 Gravel 100 0.1 Failed

Blacktail Mountain Road FWS-LIOR-014 Gravel 100 0.1 Fair

Blacktail Mountain Road FWS-LIOR-014 Gravel 100 0.1 Good

Cedar Creek Road FWS-LIOR-107 Gravel 100 0.4 Failed

Cliff Ridge Road FWS-LIOR-013 Native 100 0.2 Failed

Headquarters Access FWS-LIOR-100 Gravel 100 0 Good

Olson Creek Road FWS-LIOR-015 Gravel 100 0 Poor

Olson Creek Road FWS-LIOR-015 Gravel 100 0 Good

Olson Creek Road FWS-LIOR-015 Gravel 100 0 Fair

Rookery Road FWS-LIOR-012 Gravel 100 1 Poor

Rookery Road FWS-LIOR-012 Gravel 100 1 Failed

Rookery Road FWS-LIOR-012 Gravel 100 1 Fair

Squaw Creek Road FWS-LIOR-106 Gravel 100 0.2 Good

Squaw Creek Road FWS-LIOR-106 Native 100 0.2 Good

Starvation Flat Road FWS-LIOR-011 Gravel 100 0 Fair

Starvation Flat Road FWS-LIOR-011 Gravel 100 0 Good

Webb-King Road FWS-LIOR-104 Gravel 100 0.1 Fair

Webb-King Road FWS-LIOR-104 Native 100 0.1 Failed

Webb-King Road FWS-LIOR-104 Gravel 100 0.1 Failed

McNary NWR Alfalfa Field Road FWS-MCNA-122 Gravel 65 0 Good

Cliff Unit Road FWS-MCNA-117 Native 55 0.3 Failed

East Millet Pond Road FWS-MCNA-118 Gravel 80 0.1 Failed

Game Dept. Road FWS-MCNA-014 Gravel 100 0 Good

Gasline Crossing Spur FWS-MCNA-116 Native 55 0 Failed

Hunters Road FWS-MCNA-101 Gravel 65 0.2 Fair

Johnson Pond Road FWS-MCNA-120 Asphalt 80 0.1 Fair

Lower BR Road FWS-MCNA-105 Native 65 0 Fair

Old Bridge Road FWS-MCNA-123 Gravel 80 0 Fair

Old Peninsula Highway FWS-MCNA-112 Asphalt 70 0 Poor

Peninsula Unit Entrance Road FWS-MCNA-010 Gravel 100 0 Fair

PSH #3 Road FWS-MCNA-111 Gravel 70 0.2 Fair
Appendix C C-7

Table 2. Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data

State FWS Unit Route Name Route ID Surface API FCI Condition Washington

McNary NWR Pump #2 Road FWS-MCNA-103 Gravel 55 0 Good

Quarry East Side Access FWS-MCNA-110 Gravel 65 0.2 Fair

Quarry Pond Road FWS-MCNA-109 Gravel 80 0.2 Fair

Ranger Road FWS-MCNA-119 Gravel 65 0.2 Failed

Twin River Access Main Road FWS-MCNA-015 Asphalt 100 0 Fair

Two Rivers Entrance Road FWS-MCNA-012 Gravel 100 0.1 Fair

Wallula Unit Road FWS-MCNA-013 Gravel 100 0 Fair

Winery Road FWS-MCNA-100 Gravel 80 0.2 Fair

Winery Road FWS-MCNA-100 Native 80 0.2 Fair

Nisqually NFH Brown Farm Road FWS-NISQ-010 Asphalt 100 0 Fair

Ridgefield NWR Auto Tour Route FWS-RIDG-010 Gravel 100 0 Fair

Auto Tour Route FWS-RIDG-010 Gravel 100 0 Good

Carty Unit Access Road FWS-RIDG-100 Gravel 100 0 Good

Toppenish NWR Headquarters Road FWS-TOPP-010 Gravel 100 0 Good

Turnbull NWR Pine Creek Auto Tour Route FWS-TURN-011 Asphalt 55 0 Fair

Pine Creek Auto Tour Route FWS-TURN-011 Gravel 55 0 Good

Refuge Entrance Road FWS-TURN-010 Gravel 90 0 Good

Refuge Entrance Road FWS-TURN-010 Asphalt 90 0 Fair

Source: RIP, Cycle 4 (2007); SAMMS (2008)
C-8 Appendix C

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

Ankeny NWR Buena Vista Road South Parking Gravel 70 n/a Fair

Restroom Parking Gravel 100 n/a Good

Pintail Boardwalk Parking Gravel 100 n/a Good

Field Five Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Good

Wintel Trailhead Parking Gravel 100 n/a Good

Buena Vista Road North Parking Gravel 70 n/a Fair

Sidney Road South Parking Gravel 70 n/a Good

Wintel Road Middle Parking Gravel 70 n/a Good

Eagle Marsh HC Parking Concrete n/a n/a Good

Eagle Marsh Parking Gravel 100 n/a Fair

Pintail Marsh Parking Gravel 100 n/a Excellent

Buena Vista Road Middle Parking Gravel 70 0.07 Fair

Mohoff Parking Gravel 80 0.07 Fair

Wintel Road East Parking Gravel 70 0.07 Good

Wood Duck Pond Parking Gravel 70 n/a Excellent

Sidney Road North Parking Gravel 70 0.07 Fair

Bandon Marsh 

NWR

Bandon Marsh Overlook Parking Asphalt 65 n/a Good

Ni Lestum Parking Asphalt 65 n/a Excellent

HQ/Residence Parking Asphalt 70 n/a Excellent

Office/Service Parking Gravel 100 n/a Excellent

Taverner’s Marsh Parking Gravel 80 0.01 Good

Coville Road West Parking Gravel 80 0.02 Good

Coville Road East Parking Gravel 30 0.12 Poor

Smithfield Wildlife Viewing Pull-out Gravel 100 n/a Excellent

Visitor Kiosk and Restroom Parking Gravel 100 n/a Good

Visitor Kiosk/Restroom HC Parking Gravel 100 n/a Excellent

Morgan Lake Trailhead Parking Gravel 100 n/a Excellent

Baskett Butte Trailhead Parking Gravel 100 n/a Excellent

Bear Lake NWR West Rainbow Pullout North Gravel 30 0.24 Failed

Restroom Parking Native 55 n/a Fair

Paris Dike Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

West Rainbow Pullout South Gravel 30 n/a Failed

Rainbow Boat Launch East Gravel n/a n/a Poor

Rainbow Boat Launch West Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Rainbow Hunting Blind Paking Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Rainbow Canoe Trail Launch Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Paris Dike Boat Trailer Parking Gravel n/a n/a Fair

West Rainbow Parking Gravel 80 n/a Fair

Rainbow Trailhead Parking Gravel n/a n/a Fair
Appendix C C-9

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

Camas NWR North Headquarters Hunter Access Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Visitor Parking Asphalt 55 n/a Good

Cold Springs 

NWR

Auto Tour Parking #1 Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Cold Springs 

NWR

Auto Tour Parking #2 Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

South End Dam Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

South End Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Southeast Boat Launch Gravel n/a n/a Good

Columbia NWR North Teal Lake Parking Gravel 55 0.12 Fair

Potholes Canal Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Pillar/Wigeon Parking Gravel 55 0.12 Fair

O’Sullivan Dam Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Poor

Soda Lake Campground Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Good

Soda Lake Campground Restroom/Overflow 

Parking

Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

McManamon Lake Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Maintenance Area Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Frog Lake Trail Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Drunheller Interpretive Site Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Hampton Lake Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

March Unit 1 Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

South Teal Lake Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Bobcat/Coyote Lake Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Halfmoon Lake Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Crab Creek Parking Gravel 55 n/a Poor

Lower Crab Creek Trail Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Soda Lake Campground Boat Launch Gravel 65 0.85 Good

Black Lake Parking Gravel 65 0.98 Good

Blythe Lake Parking Gravel 65 0.93 Fair

Corfu Parking Native 55 0.25 Fair

Soda Lake Boat Ramp Gravel 65 0.85 Fair

Hutchinson Lake Parking Gravel 55 1.00 Poor

Hampton Lake Trailer Parking Gravel 55 0.79 Fair

Deer Flat NWR Lake Shore Drive Parking #2 Asphalt 30 0.48 Excellent

Lake Shore Drive Parking #1 Asphalt 30 0.48 Good

Upper Dam West Parking Asphalt 55 n/a Good

Lake Shore Drive Parking #6 Asphalt 30 0.48 Good

Gott’s Point Parking #1 Gravel 30 n/a Poor

Lower Dam Beach Parking Asphalt 30 0.02 Good
C-10 Appendix C

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

Deer Flat NWR Lower Dam Boat Ramp Parking Asphalt 30 0.02 Good

Iowa Ave Parking #1 Asphalt 30 0.07 Good

Iowa Ave Parking #2 Asphalt 30 0.07 Good

Gott’s Point Parking #2 Gravel 30 0.07 Poor

Lake Shore Drive Parking #8 Native n/a n/a Fair

Tio Lane Parking Asphalt 45 0.12 Good

Visitor Center Parking Asphalt 100 0.11 Fair

Upper Dam East Parking Asphalt 55 0.02 Good

Lake Shore Drive Parking #5 Asphalt 30 0.48 Excellent

Lake Shore Drive Parking #4 Asphalt 30 0.48 Excellent

Lake Shore Drive Parking #7 Asphalt 30 0.48 Good

Lake Shore Drive Parking #3 Asphalt 30 0.48 Excellent

Lower Dam Picnic Area Parking Gravel 30 0.07 Good

Grays Harbor 

NWR

Refuge Parking Asphalt 65 0.80 Fair

Grays Lake NWR Headquarters Parking Gravel 70 0.07 Good

Bear Island Parking Native 45 0.12 Poor

Hanalei NWR Hanalei River Bridge Pull off Asphalt 45 0.10 Poor

Temple Parking Gravel 45 0.13 Poor

Hanalei Overlook Parking Asphalt 30 n/a Good

Hanford Reach 

National 

Monument

Wahluke North Parking Gravel n/a n/a Poor

Parking Lot #2 Gravel 45 0.43 Good

Parking Lot #3 Gravel 30 0.07 Fair

Dog Trial Parking Asphalt n/a n/a Poor

Parking Lot #7 and Boat Launch Gravel 45 0.21 Fair

Parking Lot #5 Gravel n/a 1.00 Fair

White Bluffs Landing Parking #2 Gravel 55 0.05 Good

White Bluffs Landing Parking #1 Gravel 55 0.05 Good

Parking Lot #8 Native n/a 0.99 Fair

Wahluke South Road - North Access Native n/a n/a Good

Parking Lot #4 Gravel 45 0.12 Poor

Parking Lot #1 Gravel 45 0.06 Fair

Old Turret Site Parking Asphalt n/a n/a Fair

Hart Mountain 

NAR

Warner Pond Parking Area Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Campbell Lake Overlook Parking Area Gravel 55 n/a Poor

CCC Campground Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Lookout Point Overlook Parking Area Native 50 0.18 Fair

Visitor Parking Area Gravel 50 0.07 Good

Warner Valley Overlook Parking Area Gravel 50 0.07 Fair
Appendix C C-11

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

Julia Butler 

Hansen Refuge

Wildlife Viewing Site Parking Asphalt 70 n/a Good

Center Rd Parking Gravel n/a n/a Poor

Headquarters Parking Asphalt 100 n/a Good

Kealia Pond NWR Staff Parking Asphalt 50 n/a Excellent

Office Parking Asphalt 100 n/a Excellent

Bus Turnaround Asphalt 100 n/a Excellent

Kilauea Point 

NWR

Kilauea Lighthouse Lower Parking Asphalt 90 n/a Good

Kilauea Lighthouse Overflow Parking Gravel 90 n/a Good

Kilauea Lighthouse Upper Parking Asphalt 90 n/a Good

Overlook Parking Asphalt 90 n/a Good

Kootenai NWR Island Trail Handicapped Parking Asphalt 100 0.06 Fair

Office Parking Asphalt 100 n/a Good

Environmental Education Parking Lot Asphalt 100 n/a Good

Forest Trail Parking Gravel 100 n/a Good

Kootenai NWR CR 13 North Pullout Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Friends Parking Lot Gravel n/a n/a Good

CR 13 View Parking Lot Gravel n/a n/a Fair

South Pond Parking Gravel 100 0.07 Good

East Day Use Parking Gravel 100 0.07 Good

Cascade Pond Overlook Gravel 70 n/a Fair

Island Trail Parking Gravel 100 0.06 Fair

Island Pond Overlook Gravel 70 n/a Fair

Headquarter Overflow Parking Asphalt 100 n/a Excellent

ADA Myrtle Falls Parking Lot Asphalt 100 n/a Good

Little Pend Oreille 

NWR

Headquarters Visitor Information Parking Gravel 100 n/a Good

Headquarters Parking Gravel 100 n/a Fair

Potter’s Pond Parking Native n/a n/a Poor

McDowell Lake Overlook Native 80 n/a Poor

Bayley Lake Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Bear Creek Campground Parking Native 80 0.12 Fair

Malheur NWR Swan Pond Parking Area Gravel n/a n/a Good

Visitor Headquarters Overflow Parking Area Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Crane Pond Overlook Trail Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Brenton Cabin Parking Lot Gravel n/a n/a Good

East Canal Entrance Parking Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Buena Vista Parking Area Gravel 65 n/a Fair

Visitor Parking Area Gravel 65 0.07 Good

Krumbo Reservoir Parking Area Gravel 65 0.07 Good

P-Ranch Parking Area Gravel 100 n/a Good
C-12 Appendix C

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

Malheur NWR Krumbo Reservoir Boat Ramp Parking Area Asphalt 65 n/a Good

Sodhouse Ranch Parking Area Gravel 100 0.18 Good

North Saddle Butte Parking Area Native 100 0.10 Failed

Narrows Parking Area Native 100 0.18 Failed

Opie Public Access Parking Native 100 0.18 Failed

Benson Pond Parking Area Gravel 100 n/a Good

Visitor Handicap Parking Area Asphalt 65 n/a Good

McKay Creek 

NWR

McKay Reservoir Parking #1 Gravel 55 0.05 Fair

McKay Reservoir Parking #4 Gravel 55 0.07 Good

McKay Reservoir Parking #3 Gravel 55 0.07 Good

McKay Reservoir Parking #2 Gravel 55 0.07 Good

Shaw Road Parking #2 Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

McKay Reservoir Parking #5 Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Shaw Road Parking #1 Gravel 55 0.06 Fair

McKay Reservoir Boat Launch Gravel n/a n/a Good

McKay Reservoir Parking #7 Gravel 55 0.05 Fair

McKay Reservoir Parking #6 Gravel 55 1.00 Fair

McKay Reservoir Parking #8 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

McKay Reservoir Dam Boat Launch Gravel 55 n/a Good

McNary NWR Ranger Road Parking Native 55 0.25 Failed

Wallula Road Parking #1 Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Madame Dorian Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Madame Dorian Restroom Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Walla Walla River Fishing Access Gravel n/a n/a Good

Quarry Pond Parking #2 Gravel 65 0.06 Fair

Burbank Slough Parking Gravel n/a 0.97 Fair

White-Tail Bay Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Dog Trial Parking Native 40 0.44 Failed

Two Rivers Primitive Parking Gravel 40 0.25 Fair

Wallula Road Parking #3 Gravel 55 n/a Good

Juniper Canyon Parking Lot Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Casey Pond Parking Gravel 65 0.10 Good

Hunters Road Parking #2 Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Johnson’s Pond Parking Native 55 n/a Poor

Madame Dorian Boat Launch Gravel n/a n/a Good

Casey Pond Boat Launching and Parking Gravel 65 0.10 Good

Quarry Pond Handicapped Parking Concrete n/a n/a Good

Quarry Pond Parking #1 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Ivarson Road Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair
Appendix C C-13

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

McNary NWR Humorist Road Parking #1 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Game Dept. Parking #2 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

East Millet Pond Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Game Dept. Parking #1 Gravel 55 n/a Good

Headquarters Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Madame Dorian Monument Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Wallula Road Parking #2 Gravel 55 n/a Good

Game Dept. Parking #3 Gravel n/a n/a Good

Hunters Road Parking #1 Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Game Dept. Parking #5 Gravel n/a n/a Good

Wallula Road Handicapped Parking Concrete 55 0.07 Excellent

Old Peninsula Parking Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Game Dept. Parking #4 Gravel n/a n/a Good

Humorist Road Parking #2 Gravel 55 0.02 Fair

Humorist Road Parking #3 Asphalt 55 0.02 Good

Minidoka NWR Office Parking Gravel 65 0.07 Good

Gifford Springs Parking Native 65 0.12 Good

Nisqually NWR Visitor Parking East Asphalt 55 n/a Good

Visitor Parking West Asphalt 55 n/a Good

Oregon Islands 

NWR

HQ Parking Asphalt 70 n/a Excellent

Coquille Point Parking Asphalt 65 1.00 Good

Ridgefield NWR Carty Unit Parking Gravel 65 1.00 Fair

River S Observation Parking Concrete 65 n/a Good

River S Unit Main Parking Gravel 65 0.07 Fair

Headquarters Handicapped Parking Concrete 65 n/a Good

Kiwa Trailhead Parking Gravel 65 n/a Fair

Ridgeport Dairy Unit Parking #1 Asphalt 45 0.07 Good

Headquarters Parking Gravel 65 n/a Good

Sheldon NWR Virgin Valley Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Headquarters Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

8A Information Kiosk Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

34A Kiosk Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

Hwy 140 Kiosk Parking Gravel n/a n/a Good

South 8A Kiosk Parking Native n/a n/a Fair

Big Spring Boat Ramp Parking Area Gravel 80 0.06 Good

Toppenish NWR Headquarters Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Visitor Contact Parking Gravel 65 0.07 Good

Visitor Contact Handicapped Parking Concrete 65 0.07 Good

Pumphouse Road Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Fair
C-14 Appendix C

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

Tualatin River 

NWR

Headquarters Parking Gravel n/a n/a Excellent

Disabled Parking Concrete n/a n/a Excellent

Wayside Parking Gravel 65 n/a Excellent

Turnbull NWR Kepple Peninsula Parking Asphalt n/a n/a Excellent

Main Entrance Parking Lot Asphalt n/a n/a Good

Kepple Lake Parking Gravel 45 0.04 Good

Restroom Parking Asphalt 45 n/a Excellent

30 Acre Lake Trailhead Parking Gravel 45 0.07 Good

Blackhorse Lake Boardwalk Parking Asphalt 45 n/a Excellent

Beaver Pond Trailhead Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Fair

Fee Station Parking Gravel 65 0.07 Fair

Headquarters Bus Parking Asphalt 65 n/a Good

Headquarters Parking Asphalt 65 n/a Good

Black Horse Restroom Parking Lot Asphalt n/a n/a Excellent

Umatilla NWR Dike Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Whitcomb Parking #2 Gravel 55 n/a Good

Whitcomb Parking #3 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Whitcomb Parking #7 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Paterson Slough Parking #6 Native 55 n/a Fair

Parking Lot C Gravel 55 n/a Good

Parking Lot E Gravel 55 n/a Good

Ridge Unit Info East Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Ridge Unit Info West Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Paterson Slough Parking #5 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Paterson Slough Boat Launch Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Whitcomb Parking #1 Gravel 55 n/a Good

Whitcomb Parking #5 Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Whitcomb Unit Information Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Restroom Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Good

Parking Lot G Gravel 55 0.08 Fair

Visitor Information Parking Gravel 55 0.08 Fair

Whitcomb Parking #4 Gravel 55 0.24 Good

Observation Deck Parking Concrete 65 n/a Good

Visitor Information Handicapped Parking Concrete 65 0.06 Good

Ridge Unit Parking #2 Gravel 55 n/a Good

Paterson Slough Parking #3 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Paterson Slough Parking #2 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Paterson Slough Parking #1 Gravel 55 n/a Fair
Appendix C C-15

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

Umatilla NWR Parking Lot D Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Parking Lot B Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Overlook Parking Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Whitcomb Parking #6 Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Whitcomb Parking #8 Gravel 55 n/a Good

Paterson Slough Parking #4 Gravel 55 n/a Fair

Willapa NWR Headquarters Parking Asphalt 70 n/a Good

Leadbetter Unit Parking Asphalt n/a n/a Good

Bear River Interpretive Site Parking Gravel 55 1.00 Good

Teal Slough Parking 1 Gravel n/a n/a Fair

Boat Launch Asphalt 70 n/a Good

Riekkola Parking Native 80 0.76 Poor

Lewis Unit Parking Gravel 80 0.83 Poor

Photo Blind Parking Gravel n/a n/a Fair
C-16 Appendix C

Table 3. RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS Unit Name Surface API FCI Condition

William L Finley 

NWR

Vehicle Turnout at Turtle Flats (West) Gravel 55 n/a Good

Bruce Road Overlook Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Refuge Office Parking Gravel 70 0.81 Excellent

Hunter Parking n/a n/a

Restroom Parking n/a n/a

Feichter House Parking Gravel 55 0.07 Good

Mill Hill Trail HC Parking Concrete n/a n/a Excellent

McFadden Marsh Observation Blind Parking Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Vehicle Turnout at Bellfountain Entrance Gravel n/a n/a Good

William L Finley 

NWR

Parking Lot #1 Gravel n/a n/a Good

Snag Boat Bend HC Parking South Concrete n/a n/a Excellent

Snag Boat Bend HC Parking North Concrete n/a n/a Excellent

Refuge Office Parking - Handicap Concrete n/a n/a Excellent

McFadden Marsh East Parking Lot Gravel 55 n/a Good

Field #4 Turnout Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Turtle Flats East Gravel 55 n/a Good

McFadden Marsh West Parking Lot Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Pigeon Butte Trail Parking Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Woodpecker Loop Parking Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Cheadle Marsh Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Mill Hill Trail Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Snag Boat bend Parking Gravel 55 n/a Good

Field #22 Vehicle Turnout Gravel 55 n/a Excellent

Source: RIP, Cycle 4 (2007). SAMMS (2008)
Appendix C C-17

Table 4. Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI Hawaii

10044595 Kilauea Point NWR Kilauea Lighthouse Trail Paved Good 70 0

10053554 Kilauea Point NWR Kilauea Lighthouse Trail Paved Good 100 0.97

10053555 Kilauea Point NWR Kilauea Lighthouse Trail Paved Good 100 0

10053556 Kilauea Point NWR Kilauea Lighthouse Trail Paved Good 45 0.81

10002234 Hanalei NWR Okolehao Trail Unpaved Excellent 45 0.71

Idaho

10051579 Camas NWR Birding Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0

10005470 Kootenai NWR Chickadee Trail Paved Excellent 100 0

10036379 Kootenai NWR Deep Creek Trail Unpaved Not Rated 100 0.11

N/A Deer Flat NRW East Shoreline Trail Unpaved Not Rated 0 0

10036378 Kootenai NWR Forest Trail Unpaved Excellent 0 0

10036380 Kootenai NWR Island Pond Trail Unpaved Excellent 100 0

Idaho

N/A Minidoka NWR Lakeview Trail Unpaved Excellent 0 0

10050209 Kooskia NFH Mill Pond Trail Unpaved Excellent 0 0

10005460 Kootenai NWR Murtle Falls Trail Paved Excellent 100 0

1005383 Deer Flat NRW Nature Trail Unpaved Excellent 0 0

N/A Bear Lake NWR Rainbow Hunting Bliind Trail Unpaved Excellent 0 0

10053268 Bear Lake NWR Rainbow Trail Unpaved Excellent 80 0

10047348 Camas NWR Wildlife Viewing Trail Paved Excellent 55 0

Nevada

10036941 Pahranagat NWR North Marsh Dike Trail Unpaved Excellent 0 0

10036941 Pahranagat NWR Upper Lake Trail Unpaved Not Rated 0 0

Oregon

10039507 Ankeny NWR Ankeny Hill Overlook Trail Unpaved Excellent 100 0

10040550 Malheur NWR Barns Springs Footpath Paved Not Rated 0 0

10040550 Malheur NWR Barns Springs Footpath Unpaved Not Rated 0 0

10004448 William L. Finley NWR Beaver Pond Trail Unpaved Very Poor 55 0.57

10004085 Malheur NWR Benson Pond Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Bandon Marsh NWR Boardwalk Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Malheur NWR Buena Vista Overlook Trail Unpaved Excellent

10048207 William L. Finley NWR Cabell Marsh Overlook Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

10004445 William L. Finley NWR Cabell Marsh Trail Unpaved Not Rated 55 0.27

N/A Umatilla NWR Callows Overlook Trail Paved Excellent

10004516 Cape Meares NWR Cape Meares Scenic Trail Unpaved Good 65

10004451 William L. Finley NWR Cattail Pond Trail Unpaved Very Poor 55

10054803 Tualatin River NWR Centennial Trail Unpaved Excellent 65

10004568 Oregon Islands NWR Coquille Point Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

10004569 Oregon Islands NWR Coquille Point Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.83

10004573 Oregon Islands NWR Coquille Point Trail Unpaved Excellent 55
C-18 Appendix C

Table 4. Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI Oregon

N/A Malheur NWR Crane Pond Overlook trail Unpaved Excellent

10048577 William L. Finley NWR Dike Trail Unpaved Excellent

10041329 Malheur NWR East Canal Trail Unpaved Not Rated

N/A William L. Finley NWR Finley Prairie Boardwalk Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Warm Springs NFH Fish Tanks Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10037672 Malheur NWR Headquarters Overlook Trail Unpaved Excellent 65

N/A Warm Springs NFH Holding Ponds Observation 

Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Baskett Slough NWR Inter-tie Trail Unpaved Excellent

10048902 William L. Finley NWR Inter-Tie Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.83

10003359 McNary NWR Juniper Canyon Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A McNary NWR Juniper Canyon Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Umatilla NWR Kathy’s Pond Trail Paved Fair

N/A Malheur NWR Long Barn Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10054803 Tualatin River NWR Main Trail Unpaved Excellent 65

10048201 William L. Finley NWR McFadden Marsh 

Observation Blind Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

N/A Cold Springs NWR Memorial Marsh Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A William L. Finley NWR Mid Refuge Connection Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10004446 William L. Finley NWR Mill Hill Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.39

10004363 Baskett Slough NWR Moffiti Marsh Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10004373 Baskett Slough NWR Morgan Lake Trail Unpaved Excellent 100 0.14

N/A Umatilla NWR Morrow County Heritage 

Trail Paved Not Rated

10004454 William L. Finley NWR Pigeon Butte Trail Unpaved Not Rated 55 0.66

10039128 Ankeny NWR Pintail/Egret Marsh Trail Unpaved Excellent

10004399 Ankeny NWR Rail Trail Loop Unpaved Excellent

10039518 Ankeny NWR Rail Trail Loop Unpaved Excellent 100

10004373 Baskett Slough NWR Rich Guadagno Memorial 

Trail Unpaved Excellent 100 0.14

N/A Malheur NWR River Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10004608 Tualatin River NWR Seasonal Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10048577 William L. Finley NWR Snag Boat Bend Lake Creek 

Trail Unpaved Very Poor

10048577 William L. Finley NWR Snag Boat Boardwalk Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Malheur NWR Sod House Ranch Trail Unpaved Good

10003759

Julia Butler Hansen 

Refuge for the 

Columbian Whitetailed Deer

Tenasillahe Island Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10041830 Nestucca Bay NWR Tsunami Escape Route Paved Excellent 50 0.45

10041830 Nestucca Bay NWR Tsunami Escape Route Unpaved Excellent 50 0.45
Appendix C C-19

Table 4. Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI Oregon

10048906 William L. Finley NWR Turtle Flats Walkway Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

10048577 William L. Finley NWR Turtle loop Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Umatilla NWR Umatilla Heritage Spur Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10057111

Hart Mountain 

National Antelope 

Refuge

Warner Valley Overlook Unpaved Excellent 55 0.19

10057111

Hart Mountain 

National Antelope 

Refuge

Warner Valley Overlook 2 Unpaved Excellent 55 0.19

10054803 Tualatin River NWR Wayside Trail Unpaved Excellent 65

10004491 William L. Finley NWR Woodpecker Trail Unpaved Excellent 70 0.93

Washington

10036009 Turnbull NWR 30-Acre Lake Hiking Trail Unpaved Not Rated 55 0.04

10003492 Nisqually NWR Bank Fishing Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

10003747 Willapa NWR Bearberry Trail Unpaved Fair 65 0.07

N/A Turnbull NWR Blackhorse Lake Boardwalk Unpaved Excellent

10036009 Turnbull NWR Blackhorse Lake Hiking Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.04

10036009 Turnbull NWR Blackhorse Lake Woodchip 

Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.04

10036009 Turnbull NWR Bluebird Trail Unpaved Not Rated 55 0.04

N/A Little White Salmon 

NFH Bluff Fishing Area Unpaved Excellent

N/A Little White Salmon 

NFH Boat Storage Area Unpaved Excellent

10003484 Nisqually NWR Brown Farm Dike Trail Unpaved Excellent

10051070 McNary NWR Burbank Slough Wildlife Trail Unpaved Excellent

10051071 McNary NWR Burbank Slough Wildlife Trail Unpaved Excellent

10051076 McNary NWR Burbank Slough Wildlife Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A McNary NWR Burbank Slough Wildlife Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003687 Willapa NWR Center Road Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003245 Columbia NWR Coyote Lake Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Columbia NWR Coyote Lake Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003122 Columbia NWR Crab Creek Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.1

10002862 Winthrop NFH Dike Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10042349 Willapa NWR Don Bonker Trail Unpaved Excellent 80 0.85

N/A Toppenish NWR East Wildlife Foot Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003122 Columbia NWR Frog Lake Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.1

N/A Columbia NWR Half Moon Lake Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Toppenish NWR Handicapped Access Road Unpaved Excellent

N/A Little Pend Oreille 

NWR Headquarters Pond Trail Unpaved Excellent

10036009 Turnbull NWR Headquarters Trail Unpaved Not Rated 55 0.04

10003688 Willapa NWR High Point Trail Unpaved Excellent 100
C-20 Appendix C

Table 4. Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI Washington

N/A Little White Salmon 

NFH Highway Bridge Area Unpaved Excellent

10003565 Dungeness NWR Horse Trail Unpaved Excellent 50 0.86

10048256 Leavenworth NFH Icicle Creek Nature Trail Paved Excellent

10048256 Leavenworth NFH Icicle Creek Nature Trail Unpaved Excellent

10036009 Turnbull NWR Kepple Lake Lookout Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.04

10054711 Turnbull NWR Kepple Penisula Trail Unpaved Excellent 45

10003659 Ridgefield NWR Kiwa Trail Unpaved Excellent 65

10054989 Columbia NWR Lake Marie Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10003746 Willapa NWR Leadbetter Bay Loop Trail Unpaved Excellent 65

10003671 Willapa NWR Lewis Cross Dike Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10003670 Willapa NWR Lewis Dike Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10003432 Toppenish NWR Lookout Trail Paved Excellent 65

10003761

Julia Butler Hansen 

Refuge for the 

Columbian Whitetailed Deer

Mainland Center Road Unpaved Not Rated

10003122 Columbia NWR Marsh Loop Trail Unpaved Excellent 55 0.1

N/A Columbia NWR Marsh Unit 1 Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003523 San Juan Islands 

NWR Matia Island Trail Paved Excellent 80

10003523 San Juan Islands 

NWR Matia Island Trail Unpaved Excellent 80

10048901 Nisqually NWR McAllister Cross Dike Trail Unpaved Excellent 0

10055852 Little Pend Oreille 

NWR Mcmeet Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

N/A Little Pend Oreille 

NWR Mill Butte Trail Unpaved Excellent

10051063 McNary NWR Millet Pond Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A McNary NWR Millet Pond Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003687 Willapa NWR No Name Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003599 Ridgefield NWR Oaks to Wetland Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003625 Ridgefield NWR Observation Blind Trail Paved Good 65

N/A Little Pend Oreille 

NWR Old Timer’s Horse Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003692 Willapa NWR Paradise Point Spur Trail Unpaved Excellent 80

10003691 Willapa NWR Paradise Point Trail Unpaved Good 80 0.01

10003695 Willapa NWR Paradise Point Trail Unpaved Good 100

N/A Umatilla NWR Paterson Old Road Paved Excellent

N/A Umatilla NWR Paterson Old Road Unpaved Excellent

10003361 McNary NWR Peninsula Hiking Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10003364 McNary NWR Peninsula Hiking Trail Paved Not Rated

N/A McNary NWR Peninsula Hiking Trail Unpaved Not Rated
Appendix C C-21

Table 4. Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI Washington

N/A McNary NWR Peninsula Horse Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003564 Dungeness NWR People Trail Unpaved Excellent 80 0.98

N/A Columbia NWR Pillar-Wigeon-Hampton Lake 

Trail Unpaved Good

10054378 Turnbull NWR Pine Lake Loop Trail Paved Excellent 65

10054378 Turnbull NWR Pine Lake Loop Trail Unpaved Excellent 65

N/A Columbia NWR Quail Lake Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A McNary NWR Quarry Lake Trail Unpaved Excellent

10054423 Entiat NFH Red Willow River Walk Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003493 Nisqually NWR Ring Dike Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

10003505 Nisqually NWR Road to Twin Barns Unpaved Not Rated

10045080 Little White Salmon 

NFH Rocky Point Unpaved Excellent

10052501 Willapa NWR Salmon Art Trail Unpaved Excellent

10052502 Willapa NWR Salmon Art Trail Unpaved Excellent

10053967 Willapa NWR Salmon Art Trail Unpaved Excellent 80

10003689 Willapa NWR Sand Spit Trail Unpaved Excellent 100

10048685 Grays Harbor NWR Sandpiper Trail Paved Excellent 65

10003690 Willapa NWR Sawlog Trail Unpaved Excellent 70 0.2

10048912 Nisqually NWR Shannon Slough Boardwalk 

Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A Hanford Reach 

National Monument Shoreline Trail Unpaved Excellent

10003689 Willapa NWR Smoky Hallow Trail Unpaved Excellent 100

10045080 Little White Salmon 

NFH Social Security Trail Unpaved Excellent

10036822 Willapa NWR Teal Slough Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10003516 Nisqually NWR Twin Barnes Loop Trail Paved Excellent

10003516 Nisqually NWR Twin Barnes Loop Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A McNary NWR Wallula Bird Trail Unpaved Excellent

N/A McNary NWR Wallula Horse Trail Unpaved Excellent

10004777 Hanford Reach 

National Monument Waluke Pond Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10004743 Hanford Reach 

National Monument Waluke Walking Trail Unpaved Not Rated

10003433 Toppenish NWR Wildlife Foot Trail Unpaved Excellent 55

10055693 Conboy Lake NWR Willard Springs Foot Trail Unpaved Excellent 80

Source: RIP, Cycle 3 (2004), Cycle 4 not available for trails at the time of publication; SAMMS (2008)
C-22	 Appendix C

Table 5. FWS Trail Deficiencies

State Service Unit Type of Deficiency Number of Deficient Locations

Hawaii Kilauea Point Erosion 1

Oregon Cape Meares NWR Trail Structure 4

Malheur NWR Drainage 1

Umatilla NWR Trail Structure 1

William L. Finley NWR Erosion 3

Drainage 6

Washington Columbia NWR Drainage 3

Leavenworth NFH Trail Structure 3

Ridgefield NWR Trail Location 1

Erosion 1

Turnbull NWR Trail Structure 1

Willapa NWR Trail Structure 2

Trail Location 2

Erosion 3

Drainage 16

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIP Cycle 3 (2007), Cycle 4 not available for Deficiencies
Appendix C C-23

Table 6. Road Conditions by Surface Type

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

Hawaii

Hanalei NWR Asphalt Failed 0.07 58%

Gravel Failed 0.05 42%

Kealia Pond NWR Asphalt Fair 0.39 100%

Kilauea Point NWR Asphalt Fair 0.21 100%

Idaho

Bear Lake NWR

Gravel Fair 1.24 22%

Gravel Good 4.47 78%

Camas NWR Asphalt Fair 0.15 2%

Gravel Good 6.55 98%

Deer Flat NWR

Asphalt Fair 0.18 15%

Asphalt Poor 0.25 21%

Gravel Fair 0.77 64%

Grays Lake NWR Gravel Good 0.51 100%

Hagerman NFH

Asphalt Fair 0.11 13%

Asphalt Poor 0.38 45%

Gravel Fair 0.35 42%

Kooskia NFH Asphalt Fair 0.14 100%

Kootenai NWR Asphalt Fair 0.06 1%

Gravel Good 4.70 99%

Minidoka NWR

Gravel Failed 5.08 46%

Gravel Fair 2.58 23%

Gravel Good 0.17 2%

Gravel Poor 3.25 29%

Oxford Slough WPA Gravel Good 0.24 100%

Nevada Sheldon NWR

Gravel Fair 3.77 3%

Gravel Good 76.07 57%

Gravel Poor 2.11 2%

Native Failed 8.14 6%

Native Fair 24.08 18%

Native Good 13.71 10%

Native Poor 5.59 4%

Oregon

Ankeny NWR

Gravel Excellent 0.14 26%

Gravel Good 0.39 74%

Bandon Marsh NWR Asphalt Good 0.05 100%

Baskett Slough NWR Gravel Excellent 0.55 100%

Cape Meares NWR Asphalt Poor 0.51 100%

Cold Springs NWR Gravel Good 2.25 100%

Eagle Creek NFH

Asphalt Fair 0.04 8%

Asphalt Good 0.15 31%

Gravel Good 0.30 61%
C-24 Appendix C

Table 6. Road Conditions by Surface Type

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

Oregon

Hart Mountain NWR

Gravel Failed 1.15 2%

Gravel Good 10.66 18%

Native Failed 15.53 27%

Native Fair 11.11 19%

Native Good 18.35 32%

Native Poor 0.85 1%

Malheur NWR

Asphalt Failed 0.31 1%

Gravel Failed 1.02 2%

Gravel Fair 5.83 12%

Gravel Good 37.80 78%

Gravel Poor 2.06 4%

Native Failed 1.46 3%

McKay Creek NWR

Asphalt Fair 0.51 17%

Gravel Fair 1.61 53%

Gravel Good 0.91 30%

Nestucca Bay NWR Gravel Good 1.13 100%

Tualatin River NWR

Gravel Excellent 0.09 24%

Gravel Good 0.29 76%

Umatilla NWR

Asphalt Poor 2.88 21%

Gravel Fair 0.70 5%

Gravel Good 10.30 74%

Warm Springs NFH Gravel Good 0.10 100%

William F. Finley NWR

Asphalt Good 0.05 1%

Gravel Excellent 1.27 35%

Gravel Good 2.27 63%

Washington

Little Sandy NWR Asphalt Fair 1.33 87%

Asphalt Poor 0.20 13%

Abernathy FTC Asphalt Poor 0.05 100%

Columbia NWR

Gravel Failed 0.56 3%

Gravel Fair 5.28 33%

Gravel Good 9.33 58%

Gravel Poor 0.99 6%

Conboy Lake NWR Gravel Good 0.72 100%

Entiat NFH Asphalt Fair 0.07 100%
Appendix C C-25

Table 6. Road Conditions by Surface Type

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

Washington

Hanford Reach National 

Monument

Asphalt Failed 0.26 1%

Asphalt Poor 8.18 29%

Gravel Failed 0.68 2%

Gravel Fair 0.71 2%

Gravel Good 17.65 62%

Native Poor 1.05 4%

Julia Butler Hanson NWR Asphalt Fair 0.14 100%

Leavenworth NFH Asphalt Fair 0.27 36%

Asphalt Poor 0.48 64%

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Gravel Failed 11.29 24%

Gravel Fair 12.48 26%

Gravel Good 11.49 24%

Gravel Poor 3.46 7%

Native Failed 7.59 16%

Native Fair 0.65 1%

Native Good 0.16 0%

Native Poor 0.03 0%

Makah NFH Asphalt Poor 0.12 100%

McNary NWR

Asphalt Fair 0.60 4%

Asphalt Poor 1.05 7%

Gravel Failed 1.31 9%

Gravel Fair 7.15 50%

Gravel Good 2.11 15%

Native Failed 0.56 4%

Native Fair 1.38 10%

Nisqually NFH Asphalt Fair 0.62 100%

Ridgefield NWR

Gravel Fair 2.01 44%

Gravel Good 2.58 56%

Spring Creek NFH Asphalt Failed 0.14 14%

Asphalt Poor 0.88 86%

Toppenish NWR Gravel Good 0.46 100%

Turnbull NWR Asphalt Fair 0.68 9%

Gravel Good 6.48 91%

Willard NFH Asphalt Poor 0.11 100%

Winthrop NFH Asphalt Poor 0.12 100%

Source: RIP, Cycle 4 (2007)
C-26 Appendix C

Welcome and Orient

Population trends are used in the baseline 

conditions analysis as a general indicator for future 

visitation. Population trends were derived from 

U.S. Census datasets. Census data from 2000 

and 2008 were used to illustrate recent trends, 

while U.S. Census 2030 projections were used to 

indicate possible future trends. The summaries 

were created by using GIS to union county level 

population data with Service units and are shown in 

Table 7. 

Gateway communities were identified using U.S. 

Census data, supplemented with expert knowledge 

from FWS on which communities serve as 

gateways.
Appendix C C-27

Table 7. Population Change

Facility Name Intersecting Counties and States

Population (2000 - 2008) Projections (2008 - 2030)

2000 2008 % Change Difference Average Change 

by FWS Facility 2030 % Change Median Change by FWS Facility

Abernathy Fish Technology Center Cowlitz, Washington 92,948 100,917 9% 7,969 9% 122,376 21% 21%

Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge Marion, Oregon 284,834 319,114 12% 34,280 12% 368,065 15% 15%

Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Coos, Oregon 62,779 64,582 3% 1,803 3% 81,124 26% 26%

Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge Polk, Oregon 62,380 73,363 18% 10,983 18% 80,608 10% 10%

Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge Bear Lake, Idaho 6,411 6,378 -1% -33 -1% 8,610 35% 35%

Bear Valley National Wildlife Refuge Klamath, Oregon 63,775 67,542 6% 3,767 6% 82,411 22% 22%

Camas National Wildlife Refuge Jefferson, Idaho 19,155 23,831 24% 4,676 24% 25,726 8% 8%

Cape Meares National Wildlife Refuge Tillamook, Oregon 24,262 26,232 8% 1,970 8% 31,352 20% 20%

Clearwater Fish Hatchery Clearwater, Idaho 8,930 9,020 1% 90 1% 11,993 33% 33%

Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge Umatilla, Oregon 70,548 73,475 4% 2,927 4% 91,163 24% 24%

Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Adams, Washington 16,428 17,743 8% 1,315 10% 21,629 22% 19%

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge Klickitat, Washington 19,161 20,532 7% 1,371 7% 25,228 23% 23%

Copalis National Wildlife Refuge Grays Harbor, Washington 67,194 72,241 8% 5,047 8% 88,468 22% 22%

Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge

Canyon, Idaho 131,441 186,223 42% 54,782

10%

176,531 -5%

22%

Malheur, Oregon 31,615 31,772 0% 157 40,853 29%

Owyhee, Idaho 10,644 11,683 10% 1,039 14,295 22%

Payette, Idaho 20,578 23,510 14% 2,932 27,637 18%

Washington, Idaho 9,977 10,423 4% 446 13,400 29%

Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge Clallam, Washington 64,525 71,585 11% 7,060 11% 84,954 19% 19%

Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Clearwater, Idaho 8,930 9,020 1% 90 1% 11,993 33% 33%

Eagle Creek National Fish Hatchery Clackamas, Oregon 338391 382,316 13% 43,925 13% 437,272 14% 14%

Entiat National Fish Hatchery Chelan, Washington 66,616 73,445 10% 6,829 10% 87,707 19% 19%

Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge Clallam, Washington 64,525 71,585 11% 7,060 11% 84,954 19% 19%

Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge Skamania, Washington 9,872 11,074 12% 1,202 12% 12,998 17% 17%

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Grays Harbor, Washington 67,194 72,241 8% 5,047 8% 88,468 22% 22%

Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Bonneville, Idaho 82,522 99,474 21% 16,952

8%

110,831 11%

25%

Caribou, Idaho 7,304 7,031 -4% -273 9,810 40%

Hagerman National Fish Hatchery Gooding, Idaho 14,155 15,200 7% 1,045 7% 19,011 25% 25%

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Hawaii, Hawaii 148,677 183,508 23% 34,831 23% 174,488 -5% -5%

Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge Kauai, Hawaii 58,463 63,106 8% 4,643 8% 68,612 9% 9%

Hanford Reach National Monument

Adams, Washington 16,428 17,743 8% 1,315

5%

21,629 22%

32%

Benton, Washington 142,475 165,941 16% 23,466 187,584 13%

Franklin, Washington 49,347 73,203 48% 23,856 64,971 -11%

Grant, Washington 74,698 84,241 13% 9,543 98,348 17%
C-28 Appendix C

Table 7. Population Change

Facility Name Intersecting Counties and States

Population (2000 - 2008) Projections (2008 - 2030)

2000 2008 % Change Difference Average Change 

by FWS Facility 2030 % Change Median Change by FWS Facility

Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge

Harney, Oregon 7,609 7,266 -5% -343

-2%

9,832 35%

32%

Lake, Oregon 7,422 7,489 1% 67 9,591 28%

Huleia National Wildlife Refuge Kauai, Hawaii 58,463 63,106 8% 4,643 8% 68,612 9% 9%

Irrigon Fish Hatchery

Morrow, Oregon 10,995 12,325 12% 1,330

5%

14,208 15%

23%

Wallowa, Oregon 7,226 7,143 -1% -83 9,338 31%

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge For The Columbian 

White-Tailed Deer

Clatsop, Oregon 35,630 37,866 6% 2,236

8%

46,041 22%

21%

Columbia, Oregon 43,560 49,719 14% 6,159 56,289 13%

Cowlitz, Washington 92,948 100,917 9% 7,969 122,376 21%

Wahkiakum, Washington 3,824 4,143 8% 319 5,035 22%

Kakahaia National Wildlife Refuge Maui, Hawaii 128,094 147,939 15% 19,845 15% 150,331 2% 2%

Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge Maui, Hawaii 128,094 147,939 15% 19,845 15% 150,331 2% 2%

Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge Kauai, Hawaii 58,463 63,106 8% 4,643 8% 68,612 9% 9%

Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Klamath, Oregon 63,775 67,542 6% 3,767 6% 82,411 22% 22%

Kooskia National Fish Hatchery Idaho, Idaho 15,511 15,727 1% 216 1% 20,832 32% 32%

Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge Boundary, Idaho 9,871 11,086 12% 1,215 12% 13,257 20% 20%

Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Chelan, Washington 66,616 73,445 10% 6,829 10% 87,707 19% 19%

Lewis And Clark National Wildlife Refuge Clatsop, Oregon 35,630 37,866 6% 2,236 6% 46,041 22% 22%

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge

Pend Oreille, Washington 11,732 12,986 11% 1,254

10%

15,446 19%

19%

Stevens, Washington 40,066 44,080 10% 4,014 52,751 20%

Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery Skamania, Washington 9,872 11,074 12% 1,202 12% 12,998 17% 17%

Lookingglass Fish Hatchery

Union, Oregon 24,530 25,078 2% 548

1%

31,698 26%

29%

Wallowa, Oregon 7,226 7,143 -1% -83 9,338 31%

Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge

Klamath, Oregon 63,775 67,542 6% 3,767

5%

82,411 22%

22%

Siskiyou, California 44,301 46,217 4% 1,916 56,294 22%

Lyons Ferry Fish Hatchery

Asotin, Washington 20,551 21,474 4% 923 4% 27,058 26% 26%

Columbia, Washington 4,064 4,128 2% 64 5,351 30%

Franklin, Washington 49,347 73203 48% 23,856 64,971 -11%

Magic Valley Fish Hatchery

Gooding, Idaho 14,155 15,200 7% 1,045

12%

19,011 25%

20%

Twin Falls, Idaho 64,284 74,792 16% 10,508 86,336 15%

Makah National Fish Hatchery Clallam, Washington 64,525 71,585 11% 7,060 11% 84,954 19% 19%

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Harney, Oregon 7,609 7,266 -5% -343 -5% 9,832 35% 35%

McCall Fish Hatchery Valley, Idaho 7,651 9,486 24% 1,835 24% 10,276 8% 8%

McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge Umatilla, Oregon 70,548 73,475 4% 2,927 4% 91,163 24% 24%
Appendix C C-29

Table 7. Population Change

Facility Name Intersecting Counties and States

Population (2000 - 2008) Projections (2008 - 2030)

2000 2008 % Change Difference Average Change 

by FWS Facility 2030 % Change Median Change by FWS Facility

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Washington 142,475 165,941 16% 23,466

12%

187,584 13%

18%

Franklin, Washington 49,347 73,203 48% 23,856 64,971 -11%

Umatilla, Oregon 70,548 73,475 4% 2,927 91,163 24%

Walla Walla, Washington 55,180 58,981 7% 3,801 72,650 23%

Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge

Blaine, Idaho 18,991 22,667 19% 3,676

3%

25,506 13%

31%

Cassia, Idaho 21,416 21,721 1% 305 28,763 32%

Minidoka, Idaho 20,174 19,439 -4% -735 27,095 39%

Power, Idaho 7,538 7,854 4% 316 10,124 29%

Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge Tillamook, Oregon 24,262 26,232 8% 1,970 8% 31,352 20% 20%

Nisqually Fish Hatchery At Clear Creek Pierce, Washington 700,820 803614 15% 102,794 15% 922,705 15% 15%

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

Pierce, Washington 700,820 803,614 15% 102,794

17%

922,705 15%

13%

Thurston, Washington 207,355 246,792 19% 39,437 273,005 11%

Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge Honolulu, Hawaii 876,156 917,673 5% 41,517 5% 1,028,259 12% 12%

Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Clatsop, Oregon 35,630 37,866 6% 2,236

7%

46,041 22%

21%

Coos, Oregon 62,779 64,582 3% 1,803 81,124 26%

Curry, Oregon 21,137 22,627 7% 1,490 27,313 21%

Lane, Oregon 322,959 346,633 7% 23,674 417,331 20%

Lincoln, Oregon 44,479 46,822 5% 2,343 57,476 23%

Tillamook, Oregon 24,262 26,232 8% 1,970 31,352 20%

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area

Bannock, Idaho 75,565 80,464 6% 4,899

10%

101,487 26%

22%

Franklin, Idaho 11,329 12,871 14% 1,542 15,215 18%

Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Honolulu, Hawaii 876,156 917,673 5% 41,517 5% 1,028,259 12% 12%

Pierce National Wildlife Refuge Skamania, Washington 9,872 11,074 12% 1,202 12% 12,998 17% 17%

Quilcene National Fish Hatchery Jefferson, Washington 25,953 30,075 16% 4,122 16% 34,170 14% 14%

Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuge

Clallam, Washington 64,525 71,585 11% 7,060 84,954 19%

Jefferson, Washington 25,953 30,075 16% 4,122 13% 34,170 14% 16%

Quinault National Fish Hatchery Grays Harbor, Washington 67,194 72241 8% 5,047 8% 88,468 22% 22%

Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge

Clark, Washington 345,238 430,867 25% 85,629

14%

454,543 5%

Columbia, Oregon 43,560 49,719 14% 6,159 56,289 13% 13%

Cowlitz, Washington 92,948 100,917 9% 7,969 122,376 21%

San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge San Juan, Washington 14,077 15,957 13% 1,880 13% 18,534 16% 16%

Sawtooth Fish Hatchery Custer, Idaho 4,342 4208 -3% -134 -3% 5,832 39% 39%
C-30 Appendix C

Table 7. Population Change

Facility Name Intersecting Counties and States

Population (2000 - 2008) Projections (2008 - 2030)

2000 2008 % Change Difference Average Change 

by FWS Facility 2030 % Change Median Change by FWS Facility

Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Harney, Oregon 7,609 7,266 -5% -343 9,832 35%

Humboldt, Nevada 16,106 17,546 9% 1,440 5% 24,696 41% 32%

Lake, Oregon 7,422 7,489 1% 67 9,591 28%

Washoe, Nevada 339,486 430,741 27% 91,255 520,550 21%

Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge Lincoln, Oregon 44,479 46,822 5% 2,343 5% 57,476 23% 23%

Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery Skamania, Washington 9,872 11,074 12% 1,202 12% 12,998 17% 17%

Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge Clark, Washington 345,238 430,867 25% 85,629 25% 454,543 5% 5%

Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge Yakima, Washington 222,581 238,474 7% 15,893 7% 293,052 23% 23%

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Washington, Oregon 445,342 530,596 19% 85,254 19% 575,475 8% 8%

Tucannon Fish Hatchery Columbia, Washington 4,064 4,128 2% 64 2% 5,351 30% 30%

Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge Spokane, Washington 417,939 459,933 10% 41,994 10% 550,262 20% 20%

Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Washington 142,475 165,941 16% 23,466 187,584 13%

Morrow, Oregon 10,995 12,325 12% 1,330 14% 14,208 15% 14%

Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Klamath, Oregon 63,775 67,542 6% 3,767 6% 82,411 22% 22%

Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery Wasco, Oregon 23,791 24,296 2% 505 2% 30,743 27% 27%

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Pacific, Washington 20,984 21,889 4% 905 4% 27,628 26% 26%

Willard National Fish Hatchery Skamania, Washington 9,872 11,074 12% 1,202 12% 12,998 17% 17%

William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge

Benton, Oregon 78,153 83,564 7% 5,411 100,990 21%

Linn, Oregon 103,069 113,408 10% 10,339 8% 133,187 17% 19%

Winthrop National Fish Hatchery Okanogan, Washington 39,564 40,905 3% 1,341 3% 52,090 27% 27%

Source: U.S. Census (2000, 2008 estimate update)
Appendix C C-31

Planning

Data on completeness of Service plans is provided by FWS core team members. Data on the locations of 

non-service planning districts varies by state. In Washington, this information is in a GIS. However, other 

states require manual reference of published maps. MPO data is provided by BTS, however, many data 

gaps were found so the data cannot be considered a stand-alone MPO resource.

Partnerships

Because agencies at all levels are increasingly interested in pooling funds to improve assets that benefit 

multiple organizations, non-Service owned roads that intersect Region 1 units have been identified and 

summarized. These roads were located using a GIS’s ability select by location for all US Census Tiger 

roads intersecting FWS boundaries. The results of this process are summarized in Table 8. Other data 

cited in the Partnerships section comes from the information established in Planning. 

Table 8. Non-Service Roads Intersecting Service Units

State Service Unit Road Name

Hawaii Oahu Forest National Wildlife Refuge Kamehameha Hwy (State)

Idaho

Camas National Wildlife Refuge I 15

Clearwater Fish Hatchery SR 7

Clearwater Fish Hatchery Cavendish Rd

Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge Grays Lake Rd

SR 34

McCall Fish Hatchery Lake St

Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge

Baseline

I 86

Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area Westside Hwy

Sawtooth Fish Hatchery SR 75

Dworshak National Fish Hatchery SR 7

Oregon

Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge

Ankeny Hill Rd

Buena Vista Rd

Wintel Rd

Bandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Bank Rd

Cape Meares National Wildlife Refuge Bayshore Dr

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge For The Columbian White-Tailed 

Deer Puget Island Ferry Xing

Klamath Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Silver Lake Rd

Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge The Dalles California Hwy

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Diamond Ln

Lava Beds Rd

SR 205

Frenchglen Hwy

McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge Pendleton John Day Hwy

McNary National Wildlife Refuge Columbia River Hwy

Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Little Nestucca River Rd

Old Woods Rd

US 101
C-32 Appendix C

Table 8. Non-Service Roads Intersecting Service Units

State Service Unit Road Name

Oregon

Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge

US 101

Oregon Coast Hwy

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge

Oregon St

Scholls Sherwood Rd

Pacific Hwy

Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge

Columbia Blvd

Columbia Ln

I 84

William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge

Bellfountain Rd

Peoria Rd

SR 99 w

Washington

Quilcene National Fish Hatchery US 101

Winthrop National Fish Hatchery SR 20

Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery SR 14

Columbia National Wildlife Refuge

McManamon Rd

SR 26

Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge US 101

Franz Lake National Wildlife Refuge Evergreen Hwy

Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge Airport Way

SR 109

Hanford Reach National Monument

SR 24

SR 240

SR 243

Us Reservation Rd

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge For The Columbian White-Tailed 

Deer SR 4

Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge SR Colville Tiger

Lyons Ferry Fish Hatchery SR 261

McNary National Wildlife Refuge

US 730

US Columbia River

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge

110th Ave

I 5

Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge Evergreen Blvd

SR Lewis

Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge

SR 22

US 97

Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge

Cheney Spangle Rd

Jennings Rd

Mullinix Rd

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

SR 103

US 101

Source: U.S. Census Tiger/ESRI (2008)
Appendix C C-33

Sustainability

Baseline conditions associated with sustainability represent topics of climate change, transit, and nonmotorized access to Service lands and reduced fossil fuel consumption. These themes are captured in 

several baseline condition indicators, including:

• Vulnerability of Coastal Service Units to Sea Level Change

• Seismic Risk

• Air-Quality Non-Attainment

• Service Units Intersected by Transit

Vulnerability of Coastal Service Units to Sea Level Change

The baseline condition analysis asserts that service lands located near coastal areas may be at risk of 

environmental change due to sea level change. The analysis uses the USGS coastal vulnerability index 

(which factors tides, wave height, relative sea-level rise, coastal slope, geomorphology, shoreline erosion, 

and accretion rate) as a ranking of relative potential for coastal change due to future sea-level rise. The 

baseline conditions Coastal Vulnerability map identifies vulnerability rating for Service units within one 

mile of a Pacific Ocean shoreline. This information was derived by performing a GIS spatial join of Service 

unit boundaries with the USGS risk index dataset.

Seismic Risk

Seismic events have the potential for impacting transportation assets. Areas prone to severe seismic 

activity routinely plan for periodic damage in long range planning exercises. As such, the risk of seismic 

damage to Service transportation assets is considered in LRTP baseline conditions. USGS seismic risk 

data is used to identify the probability that seismic event will occur in 50 years is 10 percent or greater. 

This information was derived by performing a GIS spatial join of Service unit boundaries with the USGS 

seismic risk dataset.

Air Quality Non-Attainment

Because the Service is interested in helping to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming, 

locations identified as non-attainment areas by the EPA are identified in the baseline conditions section. A 

GIS was used to select any EPA non-attainment areas within one mile of a Service unit.

Service Units Intersected by Transit Districts

The Service wants to increase the use of transit by visitors to maximize person trips per vehicle mile 

traveled and lower emissions. As such, partnership with existing non-Service transit systems is viewed 

as an emerging opportunity for future transportation investment. Service units intersected by transit 

districts are summarized in the baseline conditions section. A GIS was used to select transit districts 

that intersect unit boundaries. A transit districts dataset was created by mining Google.com and cross 

referencing with state transit organization’s websites.
C-34 Appendix C
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix D

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

February 2011
Cover: Pronghorn antelope herd 

standing at the edge of a hill on 

sagebrush prairie. Pronghorn are 

one of many wildlife species found 

on FWS managed lands in Region 1 

that are impacted by roadways.

Photo: Florian Schulz

Primary Contact

Alex Schwartz, RLA 

Landscape Architect, R1 Branch of Transportation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 

Alex_schwartz@fws.gov 

503/736 4723 

Acknowledgements 

Jeff Holm, Chief, R1 Branch of Transportation, Refuge Roads Coordinator R1 & R8

Mike Marxen, Chief, R1 Branch of Visitor Services and Communication 

Charles Houghten, Chief, R1 Division of Planning, Visitor Services and Transportation

Special Thanks

Peter Field - Western Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration

Doug Staller - Refuge Manager, Necedah NWR, FWS, R3

Sandra Jacobson - Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service

Steve Suder - National Coordinator, Refuge Transportation Program, FWS

Eva Paredes - Refuge Roads Coordinator, FWS Region 6

Florian Schulz and Emil Herrera - Florian Schulz Photography (visionsofthewild.com)

Consultant Team

SvR Design Company 

 Tom von Schrader, PE

 Nate Cormier, RLA

 Justin Martin, ASLA

Quatrefoil, Inc. 

 Brian Bainnson, ASLA

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region


Purpose

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(FWS) is the world’s premier 

conservation agency, managing over 

150 million acres of wildlife habitat 

on National Wildlife Refuges alone. 

FWS is in a unique position to 

demonstrate the land ethic so deeply 

interwoven in the rich fabric of our 

national heritage. 

This guide highlights state of the 

art ecological, planning, design 

and engineering considerations 

for roadway projects that heed 

both the significant benefits and 

impacts these projects present. 

Roadway projects on FWS 

managed lands should conform to 

planning and design criteria that 

have been established to support 

the FWS mission. This document 

provides such criteria in the form 

of guidelines. These guidelines are 

summarized in a table of contents 

that serves as a project checklist. 

The Roadway Design Guidelines 

are a wayfinding tool intended to 

facilitate dialog and decision making 

among project teams. The guidelines 

have been crafted to support the 

interdisciplinary team typically 

Brian Bainnson Eva Paredes/USFWS

involved with decision making 

regarding a roadway project: 

Project Leaders, Project Managers, 

and technical experts from various 

disciplines. 

This document includes 30 individual 

project planning and design 

guidelines, organized around 6 major 

themes. The project checklist serves 

as an overview of these guidelines, 

and has been provided as a tool to 

assist in project planning, design and 

implementation.

In the pages that follow you will find 

information and resources that will 

be useful in your work on roadway 

projects. Using these guidelines 

is not an end in itself. Rather, the 

guidelines are a starting point 

from which to explore solutions to 

implement a roadway project of the 

highest standard. Every guideline 

begins with a brief discussion of the 

intent for presenting a particular 

topic, followed by supporting 

principles central to honoring the 

guideline, as well as associated 

metrics. Selected resources 

are provided to gain a deeper 

understanding of the topic. 

More Than Just A Road

A ‘roadway’ as referred to in these guidelines encompasses not only 

the suite of typical improvements associated with a vehicle-focused 

transportation project, but also related facilities such as parking, 

overlooks and the zone of ecological impacts from a road. These can be 

summarized as follows:

 Typical transportation improvements extend from the centerline 

of an existing or proposed road outward and include associated 

infrastructure components, such as paving, utilities, grading, drainage 

and planting. 

 Other facilities and infrastructure commonly associated with 

vehicular transportation, include parking, visitor contact facilities, and 

pullouts. 

 Ecological connections and impacts beyond the edge of the 

physical road or right of way, such as habitat fragmentation, habitat 

disturbance, pollution and aquatic and terrestrial species conflicts. 

Visitor contact facilities are often 

located in close proximity to 

roadways like this one at McNary 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

(top). Bison herd as viewed from 

roadway at the National Bison 

Range (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Steve Hillebrand/USFWS

Dalton Highway river crossing at 

Kanuti NWR

The mission of the U.S. Fish & 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.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Project Checklist

US Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region Project Checklist Project Checklist

LE – Landscape Ecology

 LE-1 Improve habitat connectivity

 LE-2 Reduce impacts to wildlife and habitat

 LE-3 Understand hydrologic processes of regional landscape

 LE-4 Respond to intrinsic qualities of regional landscape

 LE-5 Address climate change

PC – Planning Context

 PC-1 Review relevant planning, policy and regulatory information

 PC-2 Define level of service for the project

 PC-3 Evaluate multiple siting and alignment alternatives

 PC-4 Assess full costs and impacts of transportation system

 PC-5 Communicate with team and stakeholders

DE – Design and Engineering

 DE-1 Preserve and restore native vegetation and other natural resources

 DE-2 Consider and plan for invasive species management

 DE-3 Minimize cut and fill to fit with existing landscape

 DE-4 Consider road geometries for lower speeds, safety and alertness 

 DE-5 Consider construction impacts and best practices

 DE-6 Consider range and sources of materials for sustainable construction

 DE-7 Consider maintenance

OP – Organism Passage

 OP-1 Develop your corridor plan for crossing

 OP-2 Provide and enhance aquatic organism crossings

 OP-3 Provide and enhance terrestrial wildlife crossings

 OP-4 Evaluate the need for wildlife fencing and other guiding features

 OP-5 Consider warning and safety systems for drivers

SM – Stormwater Management

 SM-1 Buffer habitat from polluted runoff

 SM-2 Protect habitat from erosive flows and flooding

 SM-3 Monitor and maintain stormwater facilities

 SM-4 Promote stewardship of aquatic resources

VE – Visitor Experience

 VE-1 Preserve and highlight scenic value

 VE-2 Promote and facilitate multiple modes of transportation

 VE-3 Comply with accessibility standards and guidelines

 VE-4 Facilitate compatible wildlife dependent recreation and education

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Landscape

Ecology

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS
Landscape Ecology

Overview

Pattern and Process

Roads and ecological function are 

intrinsically intertwined. Roadways 

on FWS managed lands in particular 

are frequently located in areas of high 

ecological importance.

This section, Landscape Ecology, is 

intended to help you consider the 

broad-scale environmental impacts of 

your decisions regarding roadways 

and transportation infrastructure. It 

addresses a range of issues, providing 

you with a set of tools for decisionmaking.

Any new roadway construction or 

improvements to existing roadways 

on FWS managed lands requires 

unique treatment, consistent with the 

mission of the Service and supported 

by a detailed understanding of refuge 

management goals. Improvements 

need to be made in a manner 

consistent with applicable laws 

such as the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA), Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (FWCA), Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(BGEPA) and Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). While the guidelines in 

this section cover principles which are, 

in general, applicable across a broad 

range of environments, take time 

to consider the guidelines and their 

specific implications within the unique 

bioregional context in which your 

projects will occur.

Research in the field of road ecology 

demonstrates that the multitude 

of adverse impacts of roads on 

landscapes, and the healthy function of 

the natural systems they traverse, are 

reduced by designing for slower travel 

speeds and lower traffic volume. 

A significant component of a roadway 

project may be to remove roads from 

ecologically sensitive areas and restore 

those areas.

 

Landscape Ecology 101

Landscape ecology is the study of the relationship between spatial 

pattern and ecological processes on a wide variety of landscape scales and 

organizational levels. Some key landscape ecology concepts are:

Patch - Distinct area of a particular habitat or landscape type. Key 

considerations include size, number, location, and composition/contents. 

Small patches have a higher edge-to-interior ratio; some species thrive 

on edges, while others strictly prefer the qualities of a patch interior.

Edge - The shape, width, straightness, and other qualities of habitat or 

patch edges affects their performance and utility for various species.

Connectivity - This depends on distance, as well as other factors that 

may promote or inhibit movement between patches. A roadway may 

seem relatively narrow, but constitute a greater barrier than a broad 

field for some species.

Mosaic - The bigger picture that includes the various patches and 

the matrix that contains them (e.g. areas of remnant woodland and 

wetlands, within a matrix of agricultural fields). Key elements include 

scale, grain (coarseness), patch diversity, and degree of fragmentation.

Roads form a network, which may be viewed as a matrix that contains a 

variety of habitat patches. They significantly affect connectivity, creating 

abrupt and harsh edge conditions, whose effects (such as light, noise, air 

quality, temperature, hydrology) can extend well into the adjacent habitat 

patches.

Landscape Ecology | Overview

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Landscape Ecology | LE-1

LE-1 Improve Habitat Connectivity

Principles

 Identify and prioritize habitat 

restoration and connectivity 

opportunities at the landscape 

scale

 Review state habitat connectivity 

plans as well as applicable 

recovery plans for listed species

 Consider impacts and footprint of 

the entire roadway as defined in 

these guidelines

 Develop partnerships among land 

management agencies and the 

local FWS Ecological Services (ES) 

office

 Partner with neighbors

 Identify opportunities for 

individual projects to minimize 

impacts to wildlife and restore 

habitat connectivity

Metrics

 Trends in species mortality, 

avoidance, low population 

survival, sensitive or endangered 

species populations

 Decreased wildlife-vehicle collisions 

and/or roadway avoidance

 Distance between habitat patches

 Distribution of species/population 

along and across roadway

Resources

Overview of road ecology and 

guidelines for ecological road 

planning and design.

Patricia White/Flickr.com

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Graphic explanations of landscape 

ecology principles.

Dramstad, Olson, and Forman. 1996. 

Landscape Ecology Principles in 

Landscape Architecture and LandUse Planning.

Discussion of positive and negative 

impacts of roadways on adjacent 

vegetation.

Forman, Richard. 2002. “Roadsides 

and Vegetation.” In Proceedings 

of the International Conference 

on Ecology and Transportation, 

Keystone, CO, September 24-28, 2001. 

Roadway design guidelines from 

applied ecology and experiential 

perspective.

Jones, Grant R., et al. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards.

Effects of roadways on wildlife 

(see also entire February 2000 

Conservation Biology issue).

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities.

Wildlife conservation and planning 

efforts among the western states.

Western Governors’ Wildlife Council. 

http://www.westgov.org/. Resources 

include the Wildlife Corridors 

Initiative Report (2008) and Wildlife 

Sensitivity Maps.

Terrestrial under-crossing 

facilitates wildlife movement 

across a landscape fragmented by 

a highway in Banff NP, Canada

Habitat connectivity is disrupted 

along any road corridor

Intent

Roadways should be examined for their potential to impact habitat 

connectivity. Wherever possible such impacts should be minimized and/

or mitigated. When a contiguous habitat area is bisected by a roadway, 

abrupt edge conditions are created. Such habitat fragmentation is generally 

undesirable. Hydrologic and soil community connectivity are also affected. 

Native plantings and other restoration activities associated with roadway 

improvements can be designed to support multiple habitat objectives, 

including buffering patch interiors and mitigating roadway impacts. In rare 

instances, roadway corridors may also serve as habitat connectors, linking 

otherwise fragmented communities.

Habitat Connectivity

Habitat connectivity is a term 

commonly used in landscape 

ecology to describe the degree 

of connection between nearby or 

adjacent habitat areas. Distinct 

habitat areas are frequently 

referred to as ‘habitat patches’. 

If the connection between 

these patches is not good, the 

resultant fragmentation can 

lead to loss of diversity within a 

given population of a species and 

potentially local extinction of that 

species from one or both patches. 

Even for fairly mobile species, a 

roadway can present a significant 

barrier to movement between 

patches.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
LE-2 Reduce Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat

Principles

 Identify and limit the ‘road-effect 

zone’ and determine the potential 

exposure of ESA listed species 

and critical habitat to road effects 

within that zone. Minimize 

adverse effects to ESA listed 

species and critical habitat, and 

ensure any such effects are 

addressed through the ESA 

section 7 compliance process, as 

appropriate.

 Design for lower speeds, in order 

to minimize disturbance

 Consider management techniques 

to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife on auto tour routes

 Examine how road alters wildlife 

use patterns

 Examine how future effects on 

wildlife could make a project 

compatible (or not) with 

management goals

 Consider effects of noise, light 

and chemical pollution on 

habitats and wildlife

Metrics

 Reduction of wildlife-vehicle 

collisions

 Health of wildlife populations 

with habitats fragmented by or in 

proximity to roadways

 Road density (landscape ecology 

metric, see Definitions)

 Mesh size (landscape ecology 

metric, see Definitions)

Florian Schulz Mac Danzig Photography

Resources

Overview of road ecology, guidelines 

for ecological road planning and 

design. See especially discussion of 

road-effect zones, pp. 306-16.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions.

Latest information on road 

ecology as it relates to mitigating 

interactions between roads and 

wildlife.

Beckmann, J. P., et al. 2010. Safe 

Passages.

Identifying & prioritizing habitat 

connectivity zones, and guidelines 

for design solutions.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices Manual, 

Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction 

Study (Report to Congress).

Effects of roadways on wildlife 

(see also entire February 2000 

Conservation Biology issue).

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities.

Buffer design guidelines.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

Access at: http://www.unl.edu/nac/

bufferguidelines/

See also: 

Section OP - Organism Passage

Roadways have significant 

impacts on both individuals 

and populations.

Impacts to wildlife and habitat 

extend outward from the 

roadway in various degrees, 

creating the ‘road-effect zone’.

Landscape Ecology | LE-2

Intent

Roads have a significant impact on wildlife populations and habitat. Roads 

can directly impact wildlife through mortality (e.g. wildlife-vehicle collisions), 

roadway avoidance, habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife-vehicle 

collisions are a safety concern for motorists. Traffic volume and roadway 

type directly relate to the severity of wildlife impacts. Roadkill data alone 

is not an accurate indicator of roadway impacts to wildlife, due to avoidance 

behavior and other issues. Mortality and avoidance are two speciesdependent outcomes that may result from the barrier effect a roadway has 

on wildlife. In addition, maintenance practices, in combination with abundant 

edge habitat, can attract certain species of wildlife to a roadway, increasing 

the potential for conflict. 

Consider roadway alignment, design, construction, and future maintenance 

methods that create the least detrimental impact to wildlife and habitats. 

Section OP (Organism Passage) discusses terrestrial and aquatic organism 

passage in more detail. 

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Consider how road design may 

protect hydrologic processes 

 Consider how to adapt an 

existing roadway for greater 

permeability

 Consider what effects the 

roadway might have on 

subsurface flows, water tables, 

and nearby aquifers, as well 

as how these elements affect 

construction options and 

feasibility

 Consider balance between 

restoring to pre-development 

conditions and maintaining 

historic alterations to hydrology

 Consider how development 

and roadway work will support 

current hydrologic and habitat 

management goals

Metrics

 Hydrologic modeling showing 

potential changes from roadways

 Stream flow data

 Changes in species composition 

(invasives vs. natives)

LE-3 Understand Hydrologic Processes of Regional LandscapeLeon Reed/Flickr.com Eva Paredes/USFWS

Resources

General reference on road ecology. 

See in particular overview of 

roadway effects on hydrology in 

Chapter 7.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington D.C.

Guidelines that address hydrology 

impacts of roadways.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Design guidelines for low-use roads, 

focusing largely on hydrology.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA. 

Guidebook on design and best 

practices for providing aquatic 

organism passage.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach to Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

See also:

Section SM - Stormwater 

Management

Roads both affect and are affected by 

hydrology. Floodwaters wash out a 

road at Flint Hills NWR (top); levee 

road at Blackwater NWR (bottom).

Roadways disrupt 

natural hydrology.

Landscape Ecology | LE-3

Intent

Roadways can have dramatic impacts on hydrology at local, regional, and 

watershed scales. Disturbance to local hydrology is one negative impact to 

habitat caused by roadways. Impervious surfaces have a cumulative effect 

across a watershed, altering its hydrology and often creating detrimental 

consequences for wildlife. In some cases, the effects of a roadway on 

hydrology may be desired as part of a field station’s approach to habitat 

management. Project teams should consider carefully how a roadway will 

impact local hydrology, or conversely how hydrologic processes can inform 

design decisions. Roadway improvements might support FWS management 

goals by addressing known issues and/or restoring historic hydrologic 

processes.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Eva Paredes/USFWS

LE-4 Respond to Intrinsic Qualities of Regional Landscapes

Principles

 Consider Context Sensitive 

Solutions (CSS) for general 

design guidelines and engage a 

landscape architect

 Develop benchmarking tools for 

ecological performance

 Consider what local land use 

traditions are consistent with 

FWS goals and management 

activities

 Respond to visual appearance of 

regional landforms, vegetation, 

and other natural features

 Review historic land use patterns 

and cultural practices

 Consider visitor experience 

and potential educational and 

interpretive benefits of road and 

visitor facility designs

Metrics

 Visitor satisfaction

 Ecological literacy of visitors

 Documentation of visual analysis 

(visual resource assessment) 

process (see Resources below)

Resources

Context-sensitive highway planning 

and design case study.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. 

Performance metrics for CSS 

design.

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc., and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Items to address or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Roadway design guidelines from 

applied ecology and experiential 

perspective.

Jones, Grant R., et al. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139), 

and Road Alignment (pp.330-341). 

In Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Available at: http://

www.jonesandjones.com/news/

publications.html.

Guidelines for visual and context 

considerations for roadway design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 

2002. A Guide to Best Practices 

for Achieving Context Sensitive 

Solutions (NCHRP Report 480).

Regional design guidelines.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design Guidelines 

for Context Sensitive Design and 

Context Sensitive Solutions. 

Nevada Department of 

Transportation. 2002. Pattern and 

Palette of Place: A Landscape 

and Aesthetic Master Plan for the 

Nevada State Highway System.

Leota Butte overlook at Ouray NWR 

provides an excellent landscape view.

Historic land use patterns 

and natural features can 

help drive design.

Context Sensitive Solutions

The term Context Sensitive 

Solutions (CSS) refers to a 

decision-making process used 

by roadway designers and 

transportation engineers that 

accounts for many factors of a 

site’s context—from topography 

and geology to cultural history 

and the intended users—during 

the planning, design, and 

maintenance of transportation 

facilities. Landscape architects 

played a leading role in 

developing this concept and are 

valuable team members for their 

expertise in determining how a 

project can appropriately respond 

to its context. Fundamental 

landscape architecture 

capabilities include identifying 

and expressing in built form the 

intrinsic qualities of a project’s 

regional landscape.

Landscape Ecology | LE-4

Intent

Every landscape has a rich natural and cultural history, a distinct 

composition of flora and fauna, unique weather, drainage patterns and 

views. Such intrinsic qualities contribute to each location’s “sense of place,” 

or context, which should be a guiding factor in work there. A contextual 

approach should be taken when planning and designing all roadways on 

FWS lands, and should be used for such decisions as road alignment and 

location of visitor facilities. Consider local vernacular architecture and 

land management traditions (e.g. local historic and sustainable agricultural 

practices), aesthetic issues such as viewsheds and practical issues such as 

seasonal access to recreational opportunities.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
LE-5 Address Climate Change

Principles

 Provide alternative modes 

and means of access to FWS 

managed lands

 Consider potential climate 

change impacts when making 

decisions on location, scale and 

design life of infrastructure 

investments

 Consider construction materials 

and methods that have lower 

carbon footprints and climate 

impacts consistent with FWS 

and Department of the Interior 

(DOI) policies

 Use climate change research to 

inform transportation planning 

efforts at the landscape scale

Metrics

 Regional trends in weatherrelated damage and maintenance 

needs

 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on 

FWS roadways and associated 

greenhouse gas emissions

 Transportation modes used by 

visitors to reach and use FWS 

facilities

 Reports and data from the 

Emergency Relief for Federally 

Owned Roads (ERFO) program

Resources

Overview of transportation industry 

connection with climate change.

Transportation Research Board. 

1997. Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Potential climate impacts of 

transportation sector and work 

towards reducing them.

Sperling, Daniel and Deborah 

Gordon. 2008. Two Billion Cars: 

Transforming a Culture. In: TR 

News, No. 259 (Nov-Dec).

Overview of general impacts of 

climate change on transportation 

infrastructure.

Transportation Research Board. 

2008. Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation (TRB 

Report 290).

Regionally specific climate change 

impact information.

Climate Impacts Group. 2009. 

The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment. 

Information, resources and 

organizations relating to 

sustainable transportation systems.

Green Highways Partnership. http://

www.greenhighwayspartnership.org. 

Assistance with emergencies and 

data on federally owned roads.

Emergency Relief for Federally 

Owned Roads (ERFO). http://flh.

fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/.

Official FWS climate change 

information and strategy.

http://www.fws.gov/home/

climatechange/.

Climate change will impact roads on 

FWS managed lands. Road damage 

due to flooding at Arrowwood NWR 

(top); washed out bridge at Flint 

Hills NWR (bottom).

Facilitate greener 

transportation options.

Landscape Ecology | LE-5

Intent

Responding to climate change is a growing imperative for land managers 

and natural resource professionals, as well as the transportation and 

infrastructure sectors. Roadways on FWS managed lands may be 

particularly impacted because many are often in or near tidal zones, 

wetlands and floodplains. Factors to consider include how might roadways 

and visitor facilities be planned to reduce vehicle miles traveled (for visitors 

and staff); how will the roadways likely be impacted by changing weather 

and hydrologic patterns; and how might roadways be designed in a resilient 

and multifunctional manner that serves not only transportation, but perhaps 

other purposes such as protecting valuable facilities or habitat.

Eva Paredes/USFWS Eva Paredes/USFWS

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Planning 

Context

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
Planning the Process

Guidelines in this section are intended to help you consider a roadway project in 

a broad context before advancing to the specifics of site design and engineering 

presented in sections DE, OP, SM and VE of these guidelines. It is important to 

consider how a particular project fits into the Pacific Region’s infrastructure, 

management and public access priorities, and how it might be most compatible 

with the conservation of listed species, the recovery function of critical habitat, 

and/or the conservation of FWS trust resources. Consider how the access a 

roadway enables and the impacts a roadway creates will fit into the management 

goals for the FWS managed lands it serves. The planning process can also help 

ensure that all applicable laws (e.g., FWCA, ESA, etc.) are appropriately 

addressed.

This section will help guide you to resources that will aid with or inform the 

planning process, as well as relevant documents that should be reviewed. It also 

serves as a reminder for project elements that are sometimes overlooked, such 

as developing a communications plan that addresses both internal and external 

communications about the project.

Planning Context

Overview

Typical FWS Region 1 Refuge Roads Project as delivered in partnership 

with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Planning Context | Overview

Projects Identified

in SAMMS 

(Service Asset Maintenance 

Management Systems)

NWR Complex 

Ranks Priorities

Regional Priorities 

determined by 

Refuge Supervisors

Inclusion of Project 

in Refuge Roads 

Program 5 Year Plan

Planning & Design Phase/ 

Preliminary Engineering (PE)*

A. Project Scoping Visit*

B. Establish Goals for the project 

and select applicable guidelines 

to pursue*

C. Establish Detailed Project 

Scope

D. Establish Scope/Schedule/

Budget and Roles + 

Responsibilities*

E. Design Phase includes NWR 

and R1 Branch of Transportation 

Staff incremental review and 

comments*

F. NWR Sign Off on 100% Design 

Drawings

Project 

Construction 

(CN) 

* Denotes the phase where the Roadway 

Design Guidelines are being used by 

the project team

1

3 5

2

4

6

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
PC-1 Review Relevant Planning, Policy and Regulatory 

Information

Principles

 Review local, regional and 

state transportation plans to 

determine how efforts by other 

agencies may inform your project 

planning and design

 Contact GIS staff to initiate data 

gathering and discuss mapping 

and analysis needs

 Review your Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) and 

step down plan sections on 

transportation planning

 Conduct survey work and 

geotechnical investigations

 Review the Regional Long Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP)

 Review existing asset 

management data and any asset 

management plans

 Review requirements of NEPA 

as well as other applicable state 

and local regulations

 Address ESA requirements as 

applicable

 Ensure consistency with 

applicable environmental laws 

such the FWCA, MBTA, and 

BGEPA.

Metrics

 List of related documents or case 

studies reviewed

 Concurrence from project team 

and stakeholders that relevant 

information has been reviewed 

and is ready to be applied to 

future phases of work

Brian Bainnson USFWS

Documents are shared and 

discussed during a project kickoff 

meeting at Umatilla NWR (top); 

a multidisciplinary team reviews 

resource documents

during a project meeting in the 

Regional Office (bottom).

Use in-house and online 

resources to find relevant 

case studies and up-to-date 

regulatory requirements.

Resources

Overview of various systems of 

performance metrics. 

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 

23. Prepared by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

NEPA information for EPA Region 

10 (Pacific NW).

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/

ECOCOMM.NSF/webpage/national

+environmental+policy+act.

Guidelines for developing projects 

that work for local communities.

WSDOT. 2003. Building Projects 

that Build Communities: 

Recommended Best Practices.

Planning Context | PC-1

Intent

Take advantage of lessons learned and research in relevant fields. Reviewing 

relevant background information ensures your project team is considering 

the most advanced and applicable contextual information related to a specific 

project. Consider what applicable legal and FWS policy requirements your 

project must respond to in order to be successful.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
PC-2 Define Level of Service for the Project

Principles

 Develop performance based, 

rather than prescriptive, goals 

and objectives

 Avoid unnecessarily overdesigning facilities

 Consider utilizing partnerships 

and alternative transportation 

to accommodate special events 

that generate traffic or atypical 

demands on roadways

 Determine jurisdiction

 Decide whether roadways should 

enable more direct access to 

facilities or amenities

 Balance needs with resources 

and intended capacity and vehicle 

or user types

 Decide if and how it may be 

appropriate to promote lower 

design speeds

 Consider seasonal and multimodal issues

 Examine case studies for other 

similar facilities in order to “right 

size” your facility for current and 

anticipated demands

 Consider Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS) or 

other means of sharing traveler 

information to distribute traffic, 

inform visitors of seasonal 

closures and provide more trip 

planning

 Consider how the roadway can 

serve as a link to communities – 

gateways, access, etc.

USFWS

Wide gravel shoulder allows 

visitors to pull off of a 2-lane 

highway to view wildlife.

Determine the intended vehicles and 

traffic volumes for the roadway.

Metrics

 Visitor use statistics (vehicle and 

trailhead)

 Visitor satisfaction

 Traffic and parking violations

 Traffic or congestion statistics

 Existing parking and roadway 

capacity

Resources

Design recommendations for 

various road types. 

National Park Service. 1984. Park 

Road Standards.

Design recommendations for 

various road types.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Public involvement may help clarify 

visitor needs.

Peaks, Harold E. and Sandra Hayes. 

1999. “Building Roads in Sync With 

Community Values.” In Public Roads 

(Mar./Apr. 1999).

Level of Service

The term Level of Service 

(LOS) is commonly used among 

transportation planners to refer 

to the number of vehicles served. 

However users of these guidelines 

should also consider the term 

to include other elements, such 

as types of users, seasonality of 

use and modes of transportation 

that a particular roadway serves. 

Multimodal access refers to the 

ability of a transportation facility 

to provide access via a variety 

of modes, such as car, bicycle, 

public transit or walking. In 

keeping with the FWS mission, 

consider where it is possible 

and appropriate to provide 

multimodal access to FWS 

facilities, and whether the scale 

and type of roadway is in line with 

local management objectives.

Planning Context | PC-2

Intent

Your project team should identify what level of service (LOS) will be 

provided by roadways. This will help to adequately size facilities and ensure 

facility compatibility with current and anticipated demand. Designing for 

an appropriate LOS helps avoid over-building facilities, which can be costly. 

Plan to balance roadway improvements with wildlife conservation and 

habitat maintenance goals. Good phasing plans and cost estimates should be 

developed, keeping in mind that these may change over time, in response to 

changing visitor patterns, management priorities, or adjacent land use.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
SvR Design

PC-3 Evaluate Multiple Siting and Alignment Alternatives

Principles

 Determine if a roadway or road 

improvement is necessary

 Consider whether the roadway is 

in the right place

 Consider physical elements (e.g. 

hydrology), ecological effects 

(e.g. habitat fragmentation) 

as well as experiential factors 

(e.g. views, openness, arrival 

experience)

 Consider appropriateness of 

existing alignments versus 

potential alternatives

 Consider benefits or drawbacks 

of decommissioning existing 

facilities

 Determine how and when 

vehicles and people will move 

through the FWS managed lands

 Consider alternative modes of 

travel and potential for facility 

conversion, such as road to trail, 

trail in lieu of road, etc.

 Determine whether funding is 

tied to existing facilities

Explore and assess the 

effects of alternative road 

alignments.

Planning Context | PC-3

Intent

Project teams should explore multiple design alternatives for roadway 

projects. A systematic alternatives evaluation process can be effectively used 

to arrive at a preferred alternative for further development. Alternatives 

development can reveal opportunities for projects to enhance visitor 

experience, protect wildlife, reduce ecological impacts to landscapes, 

minimize habitat fragmentation and provide alternative transportation 

methods. Reviewing a suite of alternatives will ensure that roadway 

decisions are compatible with the Service’s mission and are made using the 

best possible information. The evaluation of alternatives will also support 

your NEPA process.

Evaluate Alternatives

Conceptual site planning at Conboy Lake NWR evaluated three different alternatives for roadways on the site.

A decommissioned roadway is 

restored with native vegetation.

Metrics

 Comparison of road density for 

options considered

 Analysis of potential habitat 

fragmentation (e.g. vegetation 

or habitat mapping, wildlife 

tracking)

Resources

Case Studies.

Conboy Lake NWR, Visitor 

Experience Site Plan. Evaluated 

multiple vehicular and pedestrian 

circulation routes at HQ site. 

Contact Alex Schwartz, Project 

Manager (503/736 4723) for more 

information.

Umatilla NWR, McCormack Unit, 

Quarters Area Site Plan. Evaluated 

multiple roadway realignment 

concepts in conjunction with a new 

bunk house and residence. Contact 

Alex Schwartz, Project Manager.

Roadway design guidelines using 

applied ecology and experience.

Jones, Grant R., et al. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). 

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
PC-4 Assess Full Costs and Impacts of Transportation System

Principles

 Environmental impacts should be 

considered

 Evaluate the embodied energy of 

materials used

 Minimize externalization of 

environmental impacts through 

emissions and materials used

 Include comparison of costs of 

facilities for alternative modes of 

transportation in analysis

 Consider projected maintenance 

costs (often 65% of life cycle cost 

of an asset)

Metrics

 Carbon footprint (or ecological 

footprint)

 Vehicle miles traveled

 Long-term maintenance costs

 Life of pavement and other 

materials

 Greenroads rating system

 Life cycle costing (of total costs 

for construction and maintenance 

of a proposed transportation 

alternative)

USFWS

Resources

Overview of various systems of 

performance metrics.

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 23. 

Performance metrics for CSS.

TransTech Mgmt., et al. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Info & data on sustainable material.

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites.

Overview of climate change impacts 

on transportation infrastructure.

Transportation Research Board. 

2008. Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation.

Sustainability metrics.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

System, v1.0. http://www.greenroads.

us/.

Example of triple bottom line 

assessment of infrastructure.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A Triple 

Bottom Line Assessment of 

Traditional and Green Infrastructure 

... in Philadelphia’s Watersheds. Road construction at 

Flint Hills NWR. 

Examine the characteristics 

of materials used in a project, 

including embodied energy and 

recyclability.

Planning Context | PC-4

Triple Bottom Line in Transportation Management

The triple bottom line concept 

originates in business and 

accounting practices. It stipulates 

three key areas or ‘resources’ that 

should be addressed in measuring 

sustainability:

 Society (human capital) 

 Environment (natural capital)

 Economy (financial capital)

This concept, also known as 

“people, planet, profit,” offers an 

expanded spectrum of values and 

criteria for measuring a project 

or organization’s success. Using 

this perspective in transportation 

management means that you 

would not only consider the longterm economic costs and benefits 

of a project, but also account for 

potential environmental and social 

costs and benefits over time.

Intent

Examine the full suite of costs associated with a roadway project in addition 

to the traditional design and construction costs. Consider the environmental 

impacts of the construction process and materials used, as well as future 

maintenance needs and costs. Projects that make sense in the near-term 

may not be environmentally beneficial or economically tractable in the longterm. Consider both environmental and monetary costs. Check resources for 

assigning monetary value to environmental costs.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
PC-5 Communicate With Team and Stakeholders

Principles

 Address both internal and 

external communication needs in 

your project management plan

 Define clear roles and 

responsibilities for members of 

the project team

 Designate key agency contact(s) 

for all agencies/organizations 

involved

 Create a cross-functional (multidisciplinary) team

 Develop design visualization 

and communication tools, such 

as graphics, plans, models, 

newsletters, web pages

 Identify the audience and develop 

solutions for communicating with 

people who don’t read plans or 

technical documents

 Coordinate with transportation 

planning partners

 Contact Transportation 

Biologists in Ecological Services 

(ES) State Field Office to ensure 

project delivery is consistent 

with the mission of the Service

 Schedule project team meetings 

at regular intervals

Metrics

 Character and amount of public 

feedback on project

 Level of support and 

understanding of project within 

the organization

 Achievement of project goals

USFWS

Resources

Guidelines for community and 

interdisciplinary planning process.

Lennertz, Bill, and Aarin 

Lutzenhiser. 2006. The Charrette 

Handbook. American Planning 

Association. 

Case studies in collaborative 

management of wetlands and 

wildlife areas.

Porter, Douglas, and David Salvesen, 

eds. 1995. Collaborative Planning for 

Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and 

Examples.

Public involvement for CSS.

Myerson, Deborah L., AICP, 1999. 

Getting It Right in the Right-of-Way: 

Citizen Participation in ContextSensitive Highway Design. Scenic 

America. Available at: http://www.

scenic.org/.

Public involvement for 

transportation projects.

Florida Department of 

Transportation. 2003. Public 

Involvement Handbook. Available at: 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/EMO/pubs/

public_involvement/pubinvolve.htm. 

Project staff and stakeholders 

meet in the field at Pelican 

Island NWR (right).

Develop a communications 

strategy and network.

Planning Context | PC-5

Intent

Craft and document your approach for communications among your 

project team and with stakeholders. Ensure that roles and responsibilities 

are clearly defined in a project management plan. Carefully coordinate 

communications to help ensure consideration of a broad range of solutions in 

support of the best possible design outcome. Interdisciplinary project teams 

are the modern standard to ensure that work products are comprehensive 

and meet multiple objectives. Ensure that various elements of design are 

not overlooked and that there is organizational and public buy-in. Provide 

appropriate opportunities for involvement and review among your project 

team and stakeholders. 

Members of Your Team

There are many professionals 

and stakeholder groups that 

you may want to include as part 

of your project team. Some 

possibilities include:

 Professional Engineers (PE)

 Landscape Architects (RLA)

 Transportation and Natural 

Resource Planners

 Field Biologists

 Project Leaders and Refuge 

Managers

 Refuge Roads Coordinators

 ES Transportation Biologists

 Representatives of other 

jurisdictions and agencies 

with local involvement

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Design and

Engineering

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
From Concept to Construction

This section recognizes that 

embedded in the technical aspects of 

a roadway project is the ability to 

directly support the mission of the 

Service. This section will guide you 

though a suite of considerations 

regarding the nuts and bolts of a 

roadway project, such as earthwork, 

alignment, safety, materials 

selections, vegetation preservation 

and management, construction 

practices and maintenance 

considerations.

Designing a complete roadway 

project includes using methods and 

materials that minimize the 

environmental impacts of the 

roadway and associated construction 

work. It also involves developing a 

design that leads the roadway to 

function more often as a restorative 

system, helping to heal previously 

impacted or damaged natural 

environments. Working with an 

interdisciplinary team can greatly 

facilitate a holistic design and 

engineering process. Early 

coordination through the FWCA, 

and the ESA can provide valuable 

insight and expedite permit 

processes. A roadway design process 

can be approached methodically, 

beginning with a broad vision and 

narrowing down to the technical 

details and ultimately construction 

activities to make it happen. In the end, 

the project should be implemented in 

a manner consistent with FWS 

goals, applicable laws, and ideally, 

such that there is a benefit to the 

conservation of listed species and 

other FWS trust resources.

Design and Engineering

Overview

Design and Engineering | Overview

Process - Design to Construction

Planning

Site 

Analysis

Schematic 

Design

Construction 

Documents

Maintenance

Design 

Development

& Permitting

Construction

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Explore ways to integrate 

restoration opportunities into 

project

 Consider how road surface 

conditions will affect nearby 

vegetation (e.g. dust, heat, other 

pollutants generated)

 Consider what types of 

vegetation and habitat along 

roadways will be compatible with 

management goals

 Use site prep and construction 

methods that protect and 

conserve existing native 

vegetation and natural resources

 Protect or stockpile and re-use 

healthy existing/native soils on 

site

 Protect heritage and other 

significant trees during and 

after construction (e.g. provide 

fencing, do not dig in or store 

material on top of root zones)

 Consider irrigation needs for 

establishing roadway vegetation

 Consider how invasive species 

will be managed during native 

vegetation establishment periods

DE-1 Preserve and Restore Native Vegetation and Other 

Natural Resources

Alex Schwartz/USFWS Brian Bainnson

Metrics

 Amount of post-construction 

restoration planned

 Vegetation surveys

 Reduced invasive species control 

needs

Resources

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Comprehensive guidebook on 

roadside revegetation.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

Plants.

New technology to minimize piledriving construction impacts to 

aquatic organisms.

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air Bubble 

Curtains.

Road alignment at 

Nestucca Bay NWR preserves 

upland vegetation and forest.

Restored vegetation along 

road corridor can help support 

management goals.

Design and Engineering | DE-1

Intent

Roadway projects present opportunities to protect and restore native 

vegetation. Roadways commonly represent a barrier to wildlife and 

fragment habitat. However, roadway projects can represent an opportunity 

to heal historic wounds to a landscape and to ensure no further damage is 

done. Select roadway sites and alignments that avoid impacts to significant 

stands of existing vegetation. Look for restoration opportunities and 

consider what types of vegetation along roadway corridors are compatible 

with management goals.

This roadway project at Steigerwald 

NWR required integration of native 

vegetation restoration (right). 

The planting plan was 

prepared by a registered landscape 

architect. The plants were installed 

by a licensed landscape contractor. 

Work included a temporary 

irrigation system and a 1-year 

maintenance and warranty period.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Ryan Hagerty/USFWS

DE-2 Consider and Plan for Invasive Species Management

Principles

 Inventory invasive species in the 

region that are already present 

and what steps have been taken 

to combat their spread

 Ensure that planting 

plans feature plant species 

and densities, as well as 

establishment techniques to limit 

future invasive establishment

 Consider latest tools and 

techniques available to combat 

spread of invasive species

 Examine relevant state and 

regional lists of invasive species 

threats

 Search for and consider lessons 

from other relevant projects, 

based on similar ecosystems and/

or similar project types

 Develop pre-project baselines 

to measure success of future 

management goals

 Address and plan for invasive 

species management during 

construction and general use 

 Create an invasive species 

management plan following local 

Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), addressing both 

roadside and adjoining habitats

 Minimize disturbance and project 

footprint, including mobilization 

and staging areas

Metrics

 Invasive species survey data

 Staff time dedicated to invasive 

species management (and how 

that changes over time)

Resources

Invasive species along roadways 

from the perspective of road and 

landscape ecology (see Chapter 4, pp. 

75-111).

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions.

Establishment and maintenance of 

native plants along roadways.

Harper-Lore, Bonnie and Maggie 

Wilson, editors. 2000. Roadside 

Use of Native Plants. Available 

online at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/rdsduse/index.htm.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

Plants.

Guidance on roadside weed 

management.

Ferguson, Leslie, C. L. Duncan and 

K. Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry 

Road Maintenance and Weed 

Management.

Comprehensive list of roadside 

vegetation management resources.

Center for Environmental 

Excellence by AASHTO - Invasive 

Species/Vegetation Management, 

Reseach, Documents & Reports 

web page. See: http://environment.

transportation.org/environmental_

issues/invasive_species/

docs_reports.aspx.

List of many resources on 

controlling invasive species, from 

construction best practices to 

ongoing maintenance.

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT). 2003. 

Best Practices for Control of 

Invasive Plant Species. 

Controlling invasive species after 

their spread can be labor-intensive; 

spraying melaluka in FL (right).

Invasive species often spread 

outward from roadways.

Selected Steps for Invasive 

Species Management

 Post-construction 

maintenance plan

 Minimize disturbance

 Retain shade to the extent 

possible

 Know the quality of topsoil 

and mulch; avoid importing 

contaminated topsoils

 Know the quality of seed 

sources

 Clean equipment that has had 

contact with weed sources

 Over-sow disturbed areas 

with native seeds

 Avoid nitrogen fertilizers in 

the first year

List adapted from FHWA 

Roadside Revegetation Manual. 

See section 5.8 in manual.

Design and Engineering | DE-2

Intent

Invasive species are a major issue for habitat restoration and wildlife 

management efforts. Roadways often serve as a significant vector for the 

spread of invasive species. Thus, particular attention must be paid to this 

issue in the planning, design and maintenance of road corridors and road 

networks.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Consider roadway alignments 

that will minimize and balance 

cut and fill volumes

 Consider alternative structures 

to reduce fill volumes (e.g. bridge 

vs. culvert, etc.)

 Use roadways to highlight 

Refuge habitats as they follow 

existing terrain

 Look for continued opportunities 

to minimize and improve 

“aesthetic wounds”

Metrics

 Earthwork volumes per mile 

(compare to similar projects)

 Balanced cut and fill volumes

 Visual resources assessment

Resources

See cut and fill guideline on page 83.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Case study on context sensitive 

solutions (CSS) for scenic highway.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

DE-3 Minimize Cut and Fill to Fit With Existing Landscape

Fort Photo/Flickr.com

Guidelines on appropriate lowerimpact road alignment.

Jones, Grant R., et al. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Hoboken, New Jersey: 

John Wiley & Sons. Available at: 

http://www.jonesandjones.com/news/

publications.html.

Road design guidelines.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. FHWA Pub. No. 

FHWA-PD-97-062. Found at: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/

index.htm.

Common standard on roadway 

design.

AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO 

A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 5th Edition 

(aka ‘Green Book). Washington, D.C.

Guidelines for design of very low 

volume roadways.

AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for 

Geometric Design of Very LowVolume Local Roads (ADT <_ 400), 

1st Edition. Washington, D.C.

Gravel roads maintenance and 

design.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

Roadway terraced along hillside 

at Hart Mountain NWR 

responds to opportunities and 

constraints of the topography

Fitting in with existing topography 

is key to minimizing impacts.

Design and Engineering | DE-3

Intent

Roadways can be designed to fit with natural topography and seamlessly 

integrate with the landscape character. By studying the natural topography, 

designers can attempt to select a road alignment that will take advantage of 

views, while also minimizing the visual impact of the road itself. Conforming 

to the natural topography can minimize interruptions to the natural 

hydrology, and may help to preserve other important natural features, 

vegetation and habitat. 

Elevated structures are often preferable for wildlife and habitat 

connectivity, and should be considered where possible. If that results in a 

cut/fill imbalance then seek innovative ways to use fill material. Examples 

include using excess fill material to construct pullouts, scenic viewpoints, 

and trailheads. Earthwork considerations discussed in this guideline 

are appropriate for both new construction projects and alterations or 

improvements to existing roadways.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
DE-4 Consider Road Geometries for Lower Speeds, Safety 

and Alertness

Principles

 Road alignments may include 

continuous curves, spiral curves, 

curving alignment, etc. in order 

to support safety and alertness

 Consider how curvilinear road 

geometries achieve multiple 

objectives and can specifically 

support habitat and wildlife 

management goals

 Consider the effect of road 

surface on travel speeds

 Determine and design around a 

roadway ‘design speed’ so that 

people will want to drive slower

 Consider safety and engineering 

standards that are applicable to 

the roadway’s context

Metrics

 Road speed and volume study

 Accident reports

 Visual resources assessment

 Balanced cut and fill volumes

 Protection of vegetation and 

habitat

 FHWA Road Safety Audit

Alex Schwartz/USFWS USFWS

Resources

Design guidance based on human 

behavior patterns.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for Road 

Systems.

Guidelines on appropriate lowerimpact road alignment.

Jones, Grant R., et al. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Hoboken, New Jersey: 

John Wiley & Sons. Available at: 

http://www.jonesandjones.com/news/

publications.html.

Road design guidelines.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. Access at: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/

index.htm.

Standards for roadway design.

AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO 

A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 5th Edition 

(aka ‘Green Book).

Handbook with design guidance on 

appropriate construction techniques 

for low traffic volume roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Curving roadway at

Nestucca Bay NWR highlights 

scenery and discourages 

high speeds (top); emergency 

personnel respond to an accident 

at Ridgefield NWR (bottom).

Curving roads with varying 

views can promote alertness 

and lower speeds.

Design and Engineering | DE-4

Intent

Low speeds can help protect wildlife, increase the value of roadside habitat 

and provide a greater degree of safety for all roadway users. In addition 

to improved safety for wildlife and roadway users, low travel speeds are 

compatible with the Big Six public uses. Low road speeds help to encourage 

alternative modes of transportation, including walking and bicycling. Lower 

actual speeds are achieved through deliberate roadway geometry and 

design, not simply signage.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Standard practices such as using 

silt fencing help reduce construction 

impacts to adjacent habitat.

Principles

 Consider appropriate season for 

construction

 Minimize construction impacts to 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms

 Implement construction best 

practices, such as dust and 

erosion control

 Look for staging opportunities 

that use existing developed sites 

and minimize impact to adjacent 

habitat areas

 Consider impacts of construction 

needs, such as water, on the 

surrounding environment

 Consider how construction 

elements, such as water wells, 

could be used for staff and visitor 

services in the future

Metrics

 Changes in population counts or 

behavior (e.g. breeding) of local 

organisms

 Visible signs of disturbance 

beyond limits of work

 Compliance with erosion control 

plan elements

DE-5 Consider Construction Impacts and Best Practices

Resources

Handbook with design guidance on 

appropriate construction techniques 

for low traffic volume roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Good checklist for items to address 

or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Guidelines with resources 

on environmentally-friendly 

construction practices.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

System, v1.0. http://www.greenroads.

us/.

New technology to minimize piledriving construction impacts to 

aquatic organisms.

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air Bubble 

Curtains.

Design and Engineering | DE-5

Intent

Roadway construction can have major impacts to terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms, as well as to environmental quality. Appropriate project planning, 

project management and construction management should be applied 

to ensure that impacts from construction activities are minimized and 

acceptable. The overall project footprint should be minimized as much as 

possible, especially with regard to construction activities such as staging 

materials and equipment.

FHWA

Construction on an entry road, 

parking lot, and trailhead 

project at Steigerwald NWR, in 

partnership with FHWA’s Federal 

Lands Highways program. 

Project required extensive 

multidisciplinary planning, design, 

and construction expertise to ensure 

implementation of best construction 

practices and minimization of 

habitat and scenic area disturbance.

BMPs: Best Management Practices

Best management practices are 

methods that have been determined 

to be the most effective and 

practical means of preventing or 

reducing a project’s short- and longterm environmental impacts. BMPs 

focus on prescriptive measures, 

typically in the construction and 

maintenance phases of a project. 

Design Guidelines are more general 

and require interpretation and 

adaptation.

BMPs available for roadway 

construction projects include:

 Erosion control

 Equipment and operation

 Noise and emissions

 Spill and Pollution Prevention

 Safety

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Identify range of materials that 

would be suitable or possible to 

use in a given project

 Consider various qualities of 

material options, including 

environmental performance, 

longevity, maintenance needs and 

aesthetic fit

 Study past performance and 

success of materials in other sites 

(case studies)

 Consider using materials that are 

certified for sustainability

 Consider paying more for a more 

durable material that may save 

money (through performance 

and maintenance) in the long run

 Source materials locally where 

possible

Metrics

 Embodied energy calculations

 Runoff discharge rates

DE-6 Consider Range and Sources of Materials for 

Sustainable Construction

Resources

See materials listed in Greenroads 

Guidelines.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

System, v1.0. http://www.greenroads.

us/.

Check on embodied energy of 

proposed materials at University 

of Bath’s Inventory of Carbon & 

Energy (ICE) Wiki.

See: http://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/

ICE/Home+Page.

The Sustainable Sites Initiative 

(SSI) provides resources and 

guidelines for materials and site 

development.

See: http://www.sustainablesites.

org/.

For sites that include buildings, 

calculate the project’s carbon 

footprint at BuildCarbonNeutral.

See: http://buildcarbonneutral.org.

Information and data on 

sustainable materials.

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites.

Materials may vary for travel 

lanes, parking stalls and 

pedestrian pathways.

Design and Engineering | DE-6

Intent

There are numerous options available for materials that have sustainable 

characteristics. Consider selecting materials with lower embodied energy 

and carbon footprints, recycled content, high durability, and which have a 

high level of environmental performance. Using sustainable materials can 

achieve compliance with the Service’s environmental and performance goals, 

as well as save money in the long term. Even existing roadway materials can 

be effectively recycled into a new project, including asphalt, aggregates and 

fill material.

Steve Clay/USFWS Brain Bainnson

Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprints

Embodied energy is generally 

defined as the energy (commercial 

and industrial) that was used to 

make a product. It generally 

includes the energy used to 

deliver the product to its point of 

use or consumption, and may also 

include any energy needed for the 

deconstruction and disposal of the 

product. It is commonly measured 

in megajoules of energy per 

kilogram of product (MJ/kg). 

A carbon footprint is a similar 

metric, which measures the 

total amount of greenhouse gas 

emissions caused by a product. It 

is often expressed in terms of tons 

of CO2

 produced per kilogram of 

product (tCO2/kg).

A parking lot at Tualatin River

NWR used warm mix asphalt for

main travel ways, pervious 

pavers in parking stalls and 

features a bioswale with amended 

soils and native plants to cleanse 

stormwater in order to protect

 habitat (top); local and sustainable

 materials were used to construct an 

Auto Tour pullout / wildlife viewing

area at Modoc NWR (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Examine current maintenance 

budgets, responsibilities and 

staff availability in concert with 

partners

 Estimate increase or reduction 

of maintenance needs for new 

facilities

 Consider current skills of 

maintenance staff and what types 

of training may be needed

 Consider whether contractors 

would be required to complete 

maintenance activities

 Be aware of concerns about 

adopting new practices, and 

be prepared to understand 

and address the concerns of 

operations and maintenance staff

 Provide achievable and 

responsive BMPs

 Discuss early in project who 

is responsible for repairs and 

maintenance to wildlife-specific 

facilities such as fencing

 Consider maintenance 

partnerships with State and 

County Transportation Dept’s 

to leverage their transportation 

resources and expertise

 Consider the impacts of 

chemicals or other products that 

are used in roadway maintenance

Metrics

 Historic vs. current maintenance 

costs

 Road closure data

 BMPs correctly applied in field

DE-7 Consider Maintenance

Resources

Handbook with design guidance 

on construction and maintenance 

techniques for low traffic volume 

roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Good checklist for items to address 

or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Gravel roads maintenance & design.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

BMPs for rural road maintenance.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Roadside vegetation management.

WSDOT. 1997. Integrated Vegetation 

Management for Roadsides.

Maintenance guidelines for 

sensitive areas.

Crane, Bill. 2006. Road Maintenance 

with Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive Plants: Finding Solutions. 

Maintenance guidelines.

Ruiz, Leo. 2005. Guidelines for Road 

Maintenance Levels.

Consider trade-offs 

between longevity and 

maintenance needs.

Design and Engineering | DE-7

Intent

When planning a new roadway or retrofits to existing facilities, it is 

important to anticipate both short- and long-term maintenance needs. 

During the design phase, consider whether anticipated maintenance of 

potential designs is realistic, given existing or likely future budgets, staff 

training and skills, and other related factors. To be successful in their 

purpose, new types of materials (e.g. pervious paving) or facilities (e.g. 

wildlife underpasses or signals) may have new maintenance needs requiring 

staff training. Consider also that regular maintenance practices can extend 

the life of a facility. Weigh the pros and cons of potentially higher first costs 

with the benefit of lower life cycle maintenance costs for durable projects.

USFWS

Fire being used for 

maintenance of roadside 

vegetation

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Organism 

Passage

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Passage

The conservation of fish, wildlife, 

plants and their habitats is the 

primary FWS mission. Roadways 

have major impacts on terrestrial 

and aquatic organisms. Roadways 

create barriers to wildlife movement 

and fragment habitat. Ensuring that 

organisms are able to safely move 

across (either over or under) roadways 

to meet basic life requisites is 

imperative to meeting the Service’s 

mission.

This section is intended to help 

direct you to guidance and resources 

for improving terrestrial and aquatic 

organism passage. The guidelines in 

this section reflect the growing body 

of science that documents the need 

for wildlife-sensitive planning, design, 

engineering, and construction of 

roadways. Recognizing the highly 

site- and species-specific nature of 

aquatic and terrestrial passage issues, 

you are particularly encouraged to 

seek out resources on regionallyappropriate techniques to facilitate 

passage of terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms. In areas where ESA 

listed species or critical habitat may 

benefit from a passage improvement, 

additional conservation measures 

may be warranted during both the 

design and construction phases.

Addressing organism passage issues 

on FWS managed lands is an 

emerging priority for the Service 

which these guidelines are intended 

to support. At present, addressing 

organism passage issues on FWS 

lands is most realistic in conjunction 

with high priority infrastructure 

projects such as bridge replacements. 

A future possibility is that projects 

intended to specifically address 

organism passage will be eligible for 

Refuge Roads funding.

Organism Passage

Overview

Organism Passage | Overview

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Develop organizational 

partnerships

 Solicit expert review and input; 

wildlife crossing structures 

require expert design and review

 Monitor to locate roadkill 

hotspots but consider how roads 

change animal movements 

(avoidance)

 Identify target species based on 

management objectives

 Consider how crossing needs 

align with other transportation 

priorities and budgets

 Consider species’ home range 

size and seasonal movements 

to determine extent of passage 

needed

 Consider how current or future 

roadway design speed and traffic 

volumes may impact wildlife

Metrics

 Safety (animal/vehicle collision 

reductions)

 Species population health

 Dispersal capability

 Daily/seasonal movement 

necessary to meet life requisites

Resources

Latest information on road 

ecology as it relates to mitigating 

interactions between roads and 

wildlife.

Beckmann, J. P., A. P. Clevenger, M. 

P. Huijser, and J. A. Hilty. 2010. Safe 

Passages.

OP-1 Develop Your Corridor Plan for Crossing

Robert Henke et al.

Coordinating aquatic and 

terrestrial passage opportunities.

Jacobson et al. 2007. Combining 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Passage 

Design into a Continuous Discipline. 

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing facilities.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Best practices for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. Access at http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

hconnect/wvc/index.htm.

Guidance on reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report 

to Congress. Access at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/

safety/08034/index.cfm.

Effects of roadways on wildlife (see 

entire Conservation Biology issue).

Trombulak, Stephen and C. Frissell. 

2000. Review of Ecological Effects 

of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities.

Background research on roadway 

impacts to wildlife.

Mader, Sharon. 2006. Comparing 

the Ecological Effects of Linear 

Developments on Terrestrial 

Mammals.

See list of crossing issues by state, 

by FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator (unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

Examine the roadway corridor for 

locations where organisms would 

prefer to cross in the absence of 

a roadway. Study topography, 

vegetation patterns and hydrology 

along the corridor.

Organism Passage | OP-1

Intent

It is important to develop a comprehensive plan to address aquatic and 

terrestrial connectivity along a roadway. Corridor level plans are necessary 

to document habitat fragmentation, lack of stream continuity, population 

level roadway avoidance effects and wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVC). 

In addition to identifying the ecological impacts a roadway is having on 

organisms, plans should identify funding opportunities and partnerships 

in support of recommended mitigation measures. Successful plans identify 

target species and crossing “hot spots”. Prioritize your specific individual 

crossing projects and include conceptual design documentation for crossing 

structures and supporting mitigation measures.

A corridor management and 

wildlife crossing plan is a critical 

tool to plan and fund projects; map 

showing monitoring locations for 

crossing plan study (below).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Consider and design for longrange traffic volume projections 

for road

 Consider seasonality of wildlife 

movement and stream flows

 Develop list of target species for 

aquatic organism passage and 

focus planning and design efforts 

on supporting overall ecosystem 

health

 Consider range of stream 

crossing solutions and techniques

 Culverts or bridges that 

mimic the slope, structure and 

dimensions of the natural stream 

bed can allow aquatic species to 

freely move under roadways

 Plan for appropriate postconstruction riparian and 

streambed restoration work

 Consider maintenance needs for 

various stream crossing designs

 Plan for appropriate in-water 

work windows

 Consider how to best complete 

road maintenance activities at or 

near stream crossings in order to 

avoid impacts to water quality

Metrics

 Surveys to show healthy passage 

of aquatic organisms

 Water quality measurements 

(upstream vs. downstream)

 Re-colonization of upstream 

habitat by aquatic organisms (in 

cases of improving/upgrading 

existing crossings)

OP-2 Provide and Enhance Aquatic Organism Crossings

John Sauer/USFWS Florian Schulz

Resources

Analysis & costs of culvert design 

and aquatic organism passage.

MN Dept. of Transportation. 2009. 

Cost Analysis of Alternative Culvert 

Installation Practices in Minnesota.

Design guidelines and best practices 

for aquatic organism passage.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach to Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Bridge construction guidance.

AZ Game and Fish Dept., Habitat 

Branch. 2008. Guidelines for Bridge 

Construction or Maintenance to 

Accommodate Fish & Wildlife 

Movement and Passage.

Riparian restoration guidance.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. 

Management Techniques for 

Riparian Restorations (Roads Field 

Guide, Volume II).

Design guidelines for stream 

crossings and proper road drainage.

William Weaver and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads.

See list of crossing issues by state, 

by FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator (unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

See aquatic organism passage in:

Proceedings of International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation (ICOET). Access 

online at: http://www.icoet.net/.

Locate aquatic crossings to 

minimize interruption to normal 

stream flow and channel migration.

Organism Passage | OP-2

Intent

Roads, streams and rivers are similar systems in that they all transport 

material and organisms across the landscape in a linear fashion. Stream and 

river functions, such as the movement of woody debris, sediment transport 

and fish and wildlife passage have historically been impeded by engineering 

solutions intended to minimize disruptions to roadway infrastructure. 

Recognizing the importance of aquatic resources on FWS managed lands, 

an ecosystem-based approach to aquatic organism passage focuses on 

maintaining the continuity of a stream or river’s characteristics where that 

system intersects a roadway.

Site visit 

to a new aquatic crossing structure 

during a Refuge Roads coordination 

meeting at Kenai NWR (top); 

viability for many aquatic 

species, such as salmon, depend on 

their ability to move through river 

and stream ecosystems (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Identify design species and their 

crossing structure needs; design 

crossings that work for as many 

species as possible

 Consider and design for longrange traffic volume projections 

for roadway

 Consider visual quality and 

aesthetic impact of structures

 Improve nearby habitat for 

wildlife, especially areas leading 

to or connecting with crossings

 Maximize opportunity for 

restoration project links to 

crossing/connectivity sites

 Consider “right crossing, right 

place” when locating crossings

 Review the corridor management 

or crossing plan

 Bridge replacements are the 

best opportunity in a 50-70 year 

time frame to create movement 

opportunities and should be 

taken advantage of even if no 

other projects are in the area

Metrics

 Evidence of unmet need to cross

 Improved wildlife counts in 

adjacent areas after crossing 

implementation

 Improved wildlife dispersal rates

 Reduction in WVC

OP-3 Provide and Enhance Terrestrial Wildlife Crossings

Florian Schulz Brian Bainnson

Resources

Bridge construction guidance.

AZ Game and Fish Dept., Habitat 

Branch. 2008. Guidelines for Bridge 

Construction or Maintenance to 

Accommodate Fish & Wildlife 

Movement and Passage.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing US Hwy 93 Evaro to Polson.

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing types.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings. 

Best practices for WVC reduction.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual.

Guidance on reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report to 

Congress. 

See FWS Refuge Roads Coordinator 

list of crossing issues by state 

(unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

See crossing structure design in:

Proceedings of International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation (ICOET). Access 

online at: http://www.icoet.net/.

Bridge replacements are excellent 

opportunities to enhance 

terrestrial crossing opportunities 

(top); a wildlife overcrossing 

in Banff NP, Canada has 

successfully improved both safety 

and wildlife movement (bottom).

Terrestrial wildlife crossings 

provide safer crossings 

for wildlife and connect 

fragmented habitat patches.

Organism Passage | OP-3

Intent

Roadways are a significant barrier and danger for terrestrial organisms. 

When terrestrial organisms attempt to cross roadways in order to meet life 

requisites, fatalities and injuries can result for both wildlife and humans. If 

wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVC) regularly take place along a roadway, this 

is a good indicator of the need for mitigation. Another less visible effect of 

habitat fragmentation caused by roadways is avoidance behaviors that can 

have significant effects on populations.

The most effective mitigation measure to reduce WVC and to enhance 

terrestrial organism passage across roadways is to design and construct 

suitable crossing structures, in combination with barrier and diversion 

fencing, where appropriate. It is important to remember that every species 

is impacted by roadways in different ways. Terrestrial crossing projects can 

seek to meet multiple ecosystem connectivity objectives simultaneously.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Study WVC or other interactions 

along the corridor

 Recognize that fencing is a 

last resort option, and that the 

outcomes can be deadly for 

wildlife inadvertently trapped on 

a roadway

 Design fencing treatments based 

on species and environmental 

conditions

 Include escape structures in 

the design; jumpouts are more 

effective than the commonly used 

one-way gates

 To avoid “end run” WVC, end 

fencing beyond prime habitat 

areas or at locations with good 

visibility

 Boulder piles can act as a 

maintenance-free fence for 

ungulates

 Consider how best to 

accommodate multiple species

 Consider the aesthetic impacts of 

wildlife fencing

 Consider how to handle fencing 

at access roads

Metrics

 WVC counts

 Reduction in wildlife mortality 

due to WVC

OP-4 Evaluate Need for Wildlife Fencing and Other Guiding 

Features

Resources

BMPs for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices 

Manual, Wildlife Vehicle Collision 

Reduction Study (Report to 

Congress). Found at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/

wvc/index.htm.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing on US Hwy 93 Evaro to 

Polson.

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing types.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Website with additional guidelines 

and case studies of construction and 

maintenance practices to benefit 

wildlife along roadways.

FHWA - Keeping It Simple: Easy 

Ways to Help Wildlife Along Roads. 

See: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/wildlifeprotection/

index.cfm.

Fencing can help guide wildlife to 

safer crossing areas.

Organism Passage | OP-4

Intent

Wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVC) can be reduced through the use of barrier 

and diversion fencing or other features that help guide wildlife to crossing 

structures, including overpasses or underpasses. Effective wildlife barrier 

and diversion fencing forces animals off the road and into a crossing 

structure. In order for a crossing structure to be effective, it needs to 

be designed in conjunction with fencing. Project teams should consider 

aesthetics, where to end fencing and how fencing relates to topographical 

features in the landscape. Fencing design is highly species-specific and 

should be designed in consultation with an expert.

Barrier and diversion fencing requires maintenance. Successful projects 

account for maintenance concerns and budgets during the design phase. 

Fencing discussions might include a consideration of how to handle fence 

ends. Where to end a fence has major safety implications. It is a difficult 

decision, and is best done in consultation with an expert.

USFWS lisahends/Flickr.com

Continuous page wire fencing is 

commonly used to keep wildlife off 

roads and to direct them to crossing 

structures (top); jumpouts are 

essential features to allow trapped 

animals to leave the road whenever 

continuous fencing is used (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Select the appropriate type of 

signage for the species, roadway 

LOS and site conditions

 Provide public information on the 

crossing design and intent

 Consider active warning systems 

for “end runs” of fencing, 

crossing hot spots and as 

temporary mitigation measures 

in the absence of crossing 

structures

 Consider the related benefits 

of communicating crossing and 

habitat areas, such as public 

education and communicating 

stewardship

Metrics

 Wildlife-vehicle collision (WVC)

statistics (note that these are a 

better measure of safety than 

ecological conditions; even then, 

they are suspect unless expertly 

interpreted)

OP-5 Consider Warning and Safety Systems for Drivers

Resources

BMPs for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices 

Manual, Wildlife Vehicle Collision 

Reduction Study (Report to 

Congress). Found at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/

wvc/index.htm.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing on US Hwy 93 Evaro to 

Polson.

Research on effectiveness of methods 

for collision reduction.

Huijser et al, and Salsman and 

Wilson. 2006. Animal Vehicle 

Crash Mitigation Using Advanced 

Technology, Phase I: Review, Design 

And Implementation, SPR-3(076). 

Warning signs can help 

remind drivers to look out 

for wildlife on the road.

Organism Passage | OP-5

Intent

An important component of facilitating terrestrial organism passage is 

promoting adequate awareness and caution on the part of drivers. Various 

systems exist to warn drivers of the presence of wildlife on a roadway. These 

systems include static signs to alert drivers to zones where wildlife typically 

cross roadways as well as flashing lights or other signals that respond to the 

presence of wildlife near the roadway. The most effective signage systems 

are active warning systems. Static warning signs, if strategically placed and 

well designed, can improve public awareness and may be a good fit for low 

volume roads.

Florian Schulz

In areas where wildlife is 

known to cross roadways, active 

warning systems can be effective 

to alert drivers to the presence of 

wildlife on or near a roadway.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Stormwater

Management

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
Stormwater Management

Overview

Stormwater Management | Overview

Typical NDS Sizing

An NDS feature such as a bioretention area typically 

requires an area of only 10% of the impervious area 

it is designed to treat.

Cleaning Water, Improving Habitat

It is important to consider what 

happens to stormwater runoff along 

the entire roadway. Runoff from 

roadways on FWS managed lands 

may deliver chemical pollutants and 

sediment to surface and ground 

water. Roadways have a profound 

effect on the hydrology of a given 

site and watershed. Impervious 

surfaces increase runoff rates, 

volumes, temperature and duration. 

Roadway surfaces can concentrate 

flows, creating unnatural flow 

regimes that impact adjacent lands 

and lead to cumulative impacts 

downstream at the watershed scale, 

such as erosion and flooding.

This section discusses sustainable 

stormwater management techniques 

and points you to educational 

resources and guidelines on 

their design, construction and 

maintenance. Such techniques 

can help to clean stormwater 

runoff from roadways, filtering out 

particulates and other pollutants. 

They can also slow flows and detain 

water during peak storm events, 

restoring more natural flows to 

adjacent water bodies. A common 

term used to describe this approach 

to stormwater management is low 

impact development (LID). LID 

emphasizes conservation and the 

use of existing natural site features, 

integrated with distributed, smallscale stormwater controls to more 

closely mimic natural hydrologic 

patterns.

LID techniques include various 

features known collectively as 

natural drainage systems (NDS). 

These rely mainly on plantings, 

amended soils and other natural 

materials to treat, detain and 

retain stormwater runoff; these are 

often referred to as bioretention. 

Bioretention features include 

bioswales and rain gardens. Areas 

dedicated to NDS serve to buffer 

high value habitat from ecological 

disturbances caused by roadway 

infrastructure. Natural drainage 

LID Philosophy

LID asks us to nurture stormwater rather than 

dispose of it. NDS features van help to achieve this.

Typical facilities disperse 

runoff without 

treatment 

(top), while an 

LID approach 

detains and 

cleans water on 

site (bottom)

features may also provide screening 

or visual buffering—functions that 

are often desirable when separating 

uses on a site or landscape.

NDS should be designed and 

implemented with care, so as 

to be compatible with habitat 

management goals. Concerns 

about their use include drawing 

wildlife closer to roadways through 

habitat creation (potentially causing 

increased negative animal-vehicle 

interactions), and the possibility of 

concentrating roadway pollutants 

into specific areas at levels that 

may be harmful to wildlife. These 

are important concerns to address, 

and care should be taken that each 

facility is designed to meet sitespecific concerns.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Adhere to a low impact 

development (LID) strategy in 

planning and designing repairs 

and improvements

 Consider natural drainage 

system (NDS) treatment 

facilities, including filter strips 

and bioswales

 Stormwater treatment facilities 

and approach need to be sitespecific

 Consider appropriate NDS 

features for the type of 

roadway—parking, auto tour 

route, entry/access road, 

highway, etc.

 Look at hydrology planning in 

the area and be aware of roadway 

impacts on it

Metrics

 Water quality testing

 Temperature monitoring

Resources

Design guidelines for LID features.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development. 

SM-1 Buffer Habitat from Polluted Runoff

Brian Bainsson

LID guidelines for Pacific NW.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Access at: http://

www.psparchives.com/publications/

our_work/stormwater/lid/lid_tech_

manual05/LID_manual2005.pdf.

Buffer design guidelines for that 

include stormwater treatment.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Access 

at: http://www.unl.edu/nac/

bufferguidelines/.

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program.

White paper on integrated LID and 

ecological analysis.

Mensing and Chapman. Undated. 

Conservation Development 

and Ecological Stormwater 

Management: An Ecological 

Systems Approach.

Parking lot runoff at McNary NWR 

drains to a central bioswale that 

treats polluted runoff and buffers 

habitat from roadway impacts.

NDS features receive, clean and 

detain or retain runoff from 

roadways and other impervious 

surfaces; they can buffer habitat 

areas from negative ecological 

impacts.

Stormwater Management | SM-1

Intent

Runoff from roadways can carry unwanted pollutants into adjacent streams 

and water bodies. It can also adversely affect (increase) the temperature of 

receiving water bodies. Methods for reducing pollution (chemical, particulate 

and temperature) should be considered and used to minimize or eliminate 

water quality issues roadway runoff. Treatment facilities in the right-of-way 

can also serve to intercept and improve the quality of runoff water from 

other nearby sources.

Water Quality 101

 Conventional facilities collect 

and drain polluted runoff using a 

variety of methods, such as sheet 

draining, “grassy swales,” curbs 

and drainage inlets. These can 

quickly convey pollutants directly 

to sensitive habitats before the 

pollutants can be filtered out 

(left).

 Improved facilities are designed 

to intercept and filter polluted 

runoff before discharge to 

sensitive habitats (right).

Issue: Stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots is laden with pollutants Alex Schwartz/USFWS SvR Design

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Minimize quantity of stormwater 

runoff

 Minimize use of impervious 

materials

 Technologies to address water 

quantity issues include wet 

ponds, porous pavements, 

bioswales and rain gardens

 Improvements (stormwater 

facilities) must be sized 

appropriately to handle flow

Metrics

 Measurements of stormwater 

runoff rates and volumes

 Hydrographs for receiving water 

bodies

Resources

Design guidelines for low-use roads, 

focusing largely on hydrology.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

SM-2 Protect Habitat from Erosive Flows and Flooding

Jeff Holm/USFWS

Low impact development (LID) 

guidelines for Pacific Northwest.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Olympia, WA. 

Design guidelines for LID features.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development.

Info on vegetative filter strips (page 

44) and other practices.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program.

BMPs for ESA compliance.

WSDOT. Best Management 

Practices Field Guide for ESA Sec 

4(d) Habitat Protection.

A gravel parking lot with central 

vegetative swale at Ash Meadows 

NWR minimizes impervious 

materials and allows for large storm 

events to be infiltrated on site, away 

from more sensitive habitats.

NDS features can detain 

runoff, slowing its flow to 

adjacent water bodies.

Stormwater Management | SM-2

Intent

The rate of flow of runoff from roadways is major issue of concern. Flow 

rates are typically much higher and shorter in duration than those which 

would come from the same areas in unpaved conditions. Such spikes in flow 

rates create erosion and flooding issues and prevent groundwater recharge. 

These effects can have major detrimental impacts on fish, wildlife and their 

habitats. Natural drainage system (NDS) facilities should be designed to 

not only clean water, but to detain peak flows and, where appropriate retain, 

runoff locally. Target flow control should be based on undeveloped conditions 

for local ecosystems, as well as current soil conditions and downstream 

concerns.

Water Quantity 101

 Runoff from impervious areas 

often concentrates flows, which 

impacts adjacent lands and also 

leads to cumulative downstream 

and watershed-scale impacts

 Where space is limited or linear 

alignment is tight, choose 

materials such as pervious paving 

(left) to reduce runoff rates

 Use NDS features to detain 

runoff before discharge (right)

Issue: Impervious surfaces increase runoff rates, temperature, and volume SvR Design SvR Design

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
SM-3 Monitor and Maintain Stormwater Facilities

Stormwater Management | SM-3

Principles

 Employ stormwater facility 

monitoring protocols (per ASCE 

or other standards)

 Maintain facilities in a 

manner that optimizes facility 

performance

 Collect relevant baseline data 

before project construction

 Check for and use appropriate 

control measures on any invasive 

species

 Check for levels of contaminants 

coming from roadway, and track 

their fate in areas adjacent to 

roadway

 Monitor level of compatibility 

with local wildlife and 

surrounding habitats

 Document maintenance needs 

and costs

 Document effectiveness of soil 

mixes and plants used

 Share or publish monitoring 

results to help improve design 

and results in other projects

 Use monitoring results in 

adaptive management

Metrics

 Measurements of stormwater 

runoff rates, volumes, 

temperature and contaminants

 Hydrographs for receiving water 

bodies

 Analysis documenting water 

quality improvements due to 

NDS features

Resources

Technical guidelines for monitoring 

of stormwater in various conditions.

US EPA. 2002. Urban Stormwater 

BMP Performance Monitoring. 

Access at: http://water.epa.gov/

scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/

monitor.cfm.

NDS maintenance guidelines that 

include guidance on monitoring.

City of Bellevue, WA. 2009. Natural 

Drainage Practices Maintenance 

Guidelines. Access at: http://www.

bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Utilities/

Natural_Drainage_Practices.pdf.

Study from UC Davis & USFS 

finding that bioswale significantly 

reduced runoff and removed 

pollutants; includes monitoring 

protocols used.

Xiao, Qingfu and E. G. McPherson. 

2009. Testing a Bioswale to Treat 

and Reduce Parking Lot Runoff. 

Access at: http://www.fs.fed.us/

psw/programs/cufr/products/psw_

cufr761_P47ReportLRes_AC.pdf.

Standard operating procedures for 

stormwater monitoring.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2010. Stormwater monitoring 

resources. Access at: http://www.ecy.

wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/

municipal/strmH2Omonitoring.html.

Guidance on stormwater 

monitoring for construction sites.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2006. How to do Stormwater 

Monitoring: A guide for construction 

sites. Access at: http://www.ecy.

wa.gov/biblio/0610020.html.

Monitoring for larger debris.

ASCE. 2010. Guideline for 

Monitoring Stormwater Gross 

Solids. Order at: http://www.asce.

org/Product.aspx?id=2147485997.

Intent

Monitoring and maintaining stormwater facilities after project construction 

is key to learning from your work and improving the effectiveness of future 

projects. Particular attention should be given to monitoring the effects of 

the project on the landscape’s environmental quality. Budgeting for and 

following standard monitoring and maintenance protocols are a critical 

component for stormwater management on FWS managed lands.

USFWS

Similar to 

managed wetlands, stormwater 

facilities should be periodically 

monitored for performance and 

to inform adaptive management 

and maintenance regimes.

Monitoring projects will help 

advance the development of a 

focused approach to stormwater 

management on FWS managed 

lands that is responsive to the 

Service’s mission.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Intent

Low impact development (LID) facilities for stormwater management serve 

the functional purposes of cleaning and slowing or retaining stormwater 

runoff and protecting our aquatic resources. Additionally they can help to 

raise public awareness and understanding of the relationship of roadways to 

aquatic resources, wildlife and habitat conservation. Stormwater facilities 

can be designed to reveal to and educate visitors about the impacts of 

development on aquatic resources. Facilities can communicate how they 

protect aquatic resources, and can influence behavior and management 

practices beyond FWS managed lands in support of the Service’s mission.

SM-4 Promote Stewardship of Aquatic Resources

Resources

Social benefits of road and highway 

systems.

AASHTO. 2008. Above and Beyond: 

The Environmental and Social 

Contributions of America’s Highway 

Programs.

Promotional information for 

visitors to FWS sites.

USFWS. 2005. Byways to America’s 

Wildest Places: Discover Your 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Scenic byways guidelines with 

details on benefits of good road 

design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Green Values calculator can help 

to quantify benefits from LID (aka 

green infrastructure) facilities.

Center for Neighborhood 

Technology. 2010. Green Values 

Stormwater Management Calculator. 

Access at: http://greenvalues.cnt.org/

Additional resources on green 

infrastructure (another term 

that includes natural stormwater 

management facilities).

US EPA. 2010. Green 

Infrastructure: Managing Wet 

Weather With Green Infrastructure 

(website). Access at: http://cfpub.

epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_

id=298.

Report examining social, economic, 

and environmental benefits of green 

infrastructure.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A Triple 

Bottom Line Assessment of 

Traditional and Green Infrastructure 

Options for Controlling CSO Events 

in Philadelphia’s Watersheds.

Stormwater treatment facilities 

integrated into roadways provide 

places where FWS stewardship 

of aquatic resources can be 

demonstrated.

Stormwater Management | SM-4

Principles

 Prioritize aesthetic and 

educational components of highly 

visible stormwater management 

facilities

 Use stormwater facilities to 

communicate stewardship 

commitment of FWS

 Design stormwater facilities 

with native plants in 

arrangements that respond to 

multiple objectives, including 

management, educational/ 

interpretive, aesthetic and 

maintenance goals

 Make stormwater part of the 

site’s interpretive story and 

reveal the process of stormwater 

quantity and quality controls to 

the extent possible

 Consider educational and 

volunteer opportunities 

presented by stormwater 

management facilities

 Consider potential benefits or 

drawbacks of additional wetland 

habitat areas created by natural 

drainage facilities

Metrics

 “Friends” groups involvement & 

awareness

 Production/use of interpretive 

materials or content

 Use of stormwater facilities as 

positive examples or success 

stories (e.g. in public media, 

professional circles, within FWS)

USFWS Justin Martin

Stormwater facilities can be an 

important part of visitor experience, 

providing interpretive opportunities 

(top) and allowing visitors hands-on 

experience planting or maintaining 

native vegetation (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region

David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Visitor 

Experience

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region

Engaging the Public

Conservation of fish, wildlife, plants 

and their habitats is at the core of 

the Service’s mission. Providing 

public access compatible with 

conservation goals is paramount to 

achieving this mandate. Roadways 

are the primary infrastructure 

elements that facilitate public access 

to FWS managed lands. Conversely, 

landscapes without roads or limited 

or restricted public access on 

roads can support protection of 

sensitive habitats when necessary. 

This section is intended to help you 

consider how best to provide access 

to FWS managed lands. Welldesigned roadways on FWS lands 

can help demonstrate to visitors how 

the Service’s mission is carried out 

at the landscape scale.

Scenic roadways offer visitors a 

glimpse into the habitat areas that 

the Service manages, helping to 

inspire an ethic of stewardship and 

conservation among the public. 

Roadways should be designed to 

afford such experiences and to 

convey a sense of place that is unique 

to each site and destination. They 

should take into account both the 

natural and cultural histories of 

the land they traverse, revealing 

but not destroying special places 

and artifacts along the way. This 

section of the guidelines will point 

you to resources to help with design 

solutions focused on the visitor’s 

experience. Design of roadway 

elements such as safety and guiding 

features, interpretive signs and 

visitor facilities should be relevant 

and specific to the region, if not to 

the individual site or refuge.

National Wildlife Refuges, Fish 

Hatcheries and other FWS managed 

lands are national treasures. 

Facilities there should help visitors 

connect with the natural heritage 

that the Service works to conserve.

Visitor Experience

Overview

Visitor Experience | Overview

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Consider designs that respond 

to the character of the landscape 

and management practices. For 

example, an entrance road may 

offer a change in design speed, 

scale and geometry in order to 

help visitors decompress from 

previous highway travel

 Provide appropriate orientation 

and directional signage in a style 

that fits with the local character 

and landscape

 Consider and plan the viewsheds 

and impacts of roadways on the 

visual and auditory landscape 

 Consider and plan coherent and 

consistent design elements with 

the facility (color, texture, form)

 Consider the entry experience 

(does it welcome and orient 

visitors?) and sequence of visitor 

experiences when arriving at 

FWS managed lands or high use 

areas such as visitor centers

 Consider opportunities for 

interpreting culture and the 

landscape along the corridor

 Provide safe places, such as 

overlooks and viewpoints, to 

enjoy scenery

Metrics

 Visual resource analysis/

management - USFS or BLM 

methodologies (see Resources 

below)

VE-1 Preserve and Highlight Scenic Value

Resources

Scenic byways guidelines with 

details on benefits of good road 

design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Study on context sensitive roadway 

design from New Mexico.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design Guidelines 

for Context Sensitive Design and 

Context Sensitive Solutions. 

Roadside treatment design 

guidelines.

FHWA. 2008. Safe and Aesthetic 

Design of Urban Roadside 

Treatments. 

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Design guidance based on human 

behavior patterns.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for Road 

Systems (NCHRP Report 600B).

USFS visual assessment technique.

USDA Forest Service. 1995 (rev. 

2000). Landscape Aesthetics: A 

Handbook for Scenery Management. 

AH-701.

BLM visual assessment technique.

BLM. 2007. Visual Resource 

Management (website). Access at 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/.

Plan roadways to afford views 

to areas of high scenic value.

Visitor Experience | VE-1

Intent

The scenic value of wildlife refuges plays an important role in the visitor 

experience. Road alignments should be chosen or revised carefully so as to 

preserve the scenic value of the journey. Roadway alignments and locations 

on FWS managed lands should afford views and simultaneously prevent 

roadways from becoming dominant features of the visual landscape.

Brian Bainnson USFWS

Roadways provide or give access 

to scenic vistas (top) and visitor 

facilities such as a viewing blind at 

Finley NWR (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Design alternative transportation 

facilities that are compatible with 

wildlife and habitat conservation

 Provide parking for bicycles 

and other alternative types of 

transportation

 Consider adding charging 

stations for electric vehicles

 Coordinate with other agencies 

or organizations that could 

provide public transportation to 

FWS managed lands

 Promote and partner to develop 

bicycle routes to FWS managed 

lands 

 Consider bicycle routes through 

FWS managed lands where 

compatible with wildlife, safety, 

and user experience

 Consider signage or pavement 

markings to alert drivers to other 

types of road users

 Use outreach to encourage use of 

alternative transportation modes 

to and within the FWS managed 

lands

Metrics

 Counts of users arriving by 

public transportation, using 

bicycles, etc.

 Use rates of stationary facilities, 

such as special parking or bike 

racks

Resources

Potential funding source for transit 

and other alternative transportation 

options.

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks 

Program (5320). Access at: http://

www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/

grants_financing_6106.html.

VE-2 Promote and Facilitate Multiple Modes of Transportation USFWS Brian Bainnson

Case studies for alternative 

transportation projects in National 

Parks.

See: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/nps/

projects.html.

Design guidelines (see pp. 70-76).

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Potential funding for developing 

alternative transportation systems 

for visitors through the Transit in 

Parks Program (5230)

See: http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/

grants/grants_financing_6106.html.

Bicycling on federal lands - case 

studies include two National 

Wildlife Refuges.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

Pub. No. FHWA-CFL/TD-08-007.

Case studies that include alternative 

transportation programs in parks, 

such as shuttle bus systems.

NPS Partnerships Case Studies 

(Transportation). See: http://www.

nps.gov/partnerships/cs_type.

htm#anchor19.

Lessons from Europe on traffic 

calming, enhancing mobility 

options.

Brewer, Jim, et al. 2001. Geometric 

Design Practices for European 

Roads. FHWA, Office of 

International Programs.

Case Study.

Tualatin River NWR. Two parking 

spaces designated for hybrid 

vehicles; bicycle racks provided at 

parking area; bus stop for a public 

transit line adjacent to the Refuge.

Roadway 

projects should facilitate multiple 

modes of transportation; a roadway 

at Ding Darling NWR (top) 

accommodates both autos and bikers 

for wildlife observation; parking lot 

at Great Swamp NWR visitor center 

(bottom) provides a safe, convenient 

place for bicycle parking.

Providing separate facilities can 

encourage users who don’t want to 

bike or walk along a roadway.

Visitor Experience | VE-2

Intent

Access to FWS managed lands, where compatible with Station purpose, 

should be available to visitors via multiple forms of transportation, including 

public transit, bicycle, and walking. Alternative forms of transportation can 

help reduce visitors’ carbon footprints, which in turn may have long term 

positive affects for the natural resources we manage. Planning and building 

to accommodate sustainable transportation options can help to achieve the 

FWS mission.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Define and consider visitor 

expectations for accessibility

 Balance safety and accessibility 

concerns

 Apply all relevant design criteria 

in order to meet or exceed the 

requirements of ABA

 Consider the relationship of 

accessible improvements to 

related infrastructure. Is there 

a completely accessible visitor 

experience?

Metrics

 Compliance with requirements, 

guidelines and standards

 Visitor use counts

 Outcomes of DCR facility audits

VE-3 Comply With Accessibility Standards and Guidelines

Resources

See ABA accessibility standards.

http://www.access-board.gov/gs.htm.

Draft Final Guidelines for 

accessibility in Outdoor Developed 

Areas on Federal lands:

http://www.access-board.gov/

outdoor/.

Accessibility guidance for Federal 

outdoor areas (specific to USDA 

Forest Service lands/facilities).

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 

Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor 

Recreation and Trails. 

Visitor Experience | VE-3

Intent

FWS managed lands should be accessible to all. FWS is subject to 

accessibility standards as dictated by the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA). 

Project teams should use the relevant suite of resources and guidance to 

ensure all FWS facilities are designed and constructed to comply with or 

exceed the mandates of the ABA.

What Federal Accessibility criteria should FWS projects follow? 

The Architectural Barriers Act 

(ABA) of 1968 

FWS is subject to the ABA. The 

ABA requires access to facilities 

designed, built, altered or leased 

with Federal funds. Passed by 

Congress in 1968, it marks one of 

the first efforts to ensure access to 

the built environment. The Access 

Board develops and maintains 

accessibility guidelines under this 

law. These guidelines serve as the 

basis for the standards used to 

enforce the law, the Architectural 

Barriers Act Accessibility Standard 

(ABASS). 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

and the Architectural Barriers 

Act Accessibility Guidelines 

for Buildings and Facilities 

(ADAABAAG) as published in the 

Federal Register on July 23, 2004. 

FWS should follow the scoping 

and technical requirements under 

the ABA sections. This direction 

covers accessibility to sites, 

facilities, buildings and elements 

by individuals with disabilities. The 

requirements are to be applied 

during design, construction, 

additions to and alterations of 

facilities. 

Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines 

for Outdoor Developed Areas

Many FWS facilities can be 

characterized as Outdoor 

Developed Areas. The Access Board 

is proposing to issue accessibility 

guidelines for outdoor developed 

areas designed, constructed or 

altered by Federal agencies subject 

to the ABA of 1968. The guidelines 

cover trails, outdoor recreation 

access routes, beach access routes 

and picnic and camping facilities. 

Once these guidelines are finalized 

they will become the technical 

requirements for accessibility 

in outdoor developed areas. At 

this time, FWS may use these 

guidelines.

Brian Bainnson

Provide accessible 

parking spaces with appropriate 

access aisles and access to 

pathways (top); accessible parking

 at Great Swamp NWR (right).

Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor 

Recreation and Trails, USDA Forest 

Service, April 2006. 

These guidelines only apply within 

National Forest System boundaries. 

However, they are a very useful 

tool for FWS projects recognizing 

that the Draft Final Accessibility 

Guidelines for Outdoor Developed 

Areas are still a work in progress. 

And In General...

 Use principles of universal 

design—programs and facilities 

should be usable by all people, 

to the greatest extent possible, 

without separate or segregated 

access for people with 

disabilities.

 Accessibility does not supersede 

requirements for safety.

 Consider the level of 

development at a site to help 

balance safety and accessibility.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Principles

 Consider whether current or 

anticipated visitor impacts are 

compatible with wildlife and their 

habitats

 Consider safety for visitors, staff 

and wildlife

 Provide orientation and 

interpretive information to 

support visitor experiences

 Consider the enabling legislation 

of the refuge - what is the 

purpose of the unit?

 Consider relationships with other 

recreational or educational sites 

within the region

 Consider demand, site carrying 

capacity and quality of visitor 

experience

 Determine what kind of access 

to recreation sites is available, 

appropriate and necessary

 Consider impacts to recreational 

activities from roads

 Promote appropriate facilities for 

safely viewing wildlife from roads 

where necessary

 Plan for appropriate signage, 

including entrance, orientation, 

directional and interpretive

 Consider access for and needs of 

school groups

Metrics

 Visitor counts

 Diversity and quality of activities 

available for visitors

 Ease of use (proximity, clarity, 

etc.) of recreational and 

educational elements

VE-4 Facilitate Compatible Wildlife Dependent Recreation 

and Education

Resources

California State Parks Children in 

Nature Campaign.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_

id=24914.

Information on local, regional and 

national programs to connect kids 

with nature.

Children and Nature Network. See: 

http://www.childrenandnature.org/

movement/info.

National Wildlife Federation’s kids 

outside program.

See: http://www.nwf.org/beoutthere/.

Washington State Parks “No Child 

Left Inside” campaign.

See: http://www.parks.wa.gov/

NoChildLeftInside/.

USDA Forest Service Discover the 

Forest campaign.

http://www.discovertheforest.org/

index.php.

Bicycling on federal lands - case 

studies include two National 

Wildlife Refuges.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

Pub. No. FHWA-CFL/TD-08-007.

Roadways are one of the principal 

infrastructure elements that 

facilitate access to the Big 6 on 

FWS managed lands.

Visitor Experience | VE-4

Intent

The FWS mission is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance 

fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people. The mission of the Service should be integrated and 

transparent in the design of roadways on FWS managed lands. Roadways 

are key in fulfilling the Service’s priority of connecting people with nature, 

and can provide opportunities to do so in ways that are compatible with the 

conservation mission of the Service.

USFWS

Auto tour route at Ridgefield 

NWR provides visitors access to 

Big 6 activities, such as wildlife 

observation and photography.

The Big Six

The 1997 Refuge System 

Improvement Act outlines “The 

Big Six” priority public uses for 

Refuge system improvements:

 Hunting

 Fishing

 Wildlife Photography

 Wildlife Observation

 Environmental Interpretation

 Environmental Education

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region

David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Appendices

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
LE - Landscape Ecology

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, 

NC: Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 110 p. Access at http://www.

unl.edu/nac/bufferguidelines/.

Climate Impacts Group. 2009. 

The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment. University of 

Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA.

Dramstad, Wenche, James Olson and 

Richard Forman. 1996. Landscape 

Ecology Principles in Landscape 

Architecture and Land-Use 

Planning. Harvard GSD and Island 

Press. Washington, DC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. Access at http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

hconnect/wvc/index.htm.

Forman, Richard. “Roadsides and 

Vegetation.” 2002. In Proceedings 

of the International Conference 

on Ecology and Transportation, 

Keystone, CO, September 24-28, 

2001. Raleigh, NC: Center 

for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

University (March 2002): 85-91.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Green Highways Partnership. http://

www.greenhighwayspartnership.

org. 

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Appendix A: Bibliography

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Jones, Grant R. and Charles C. 

Scott. 2007. Road Alignment. In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards (pp.330-341). Hoboken, 

New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

Nevada Department of 

Transportation. 2002. Pattern and 

Palette of Place: A Landscape 

and Aesthetic Master Plan for the 

Nevada State Highway System.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design 

Guidelines for Context Sensitive 

Design and Context Sensitive 

Solutions.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Sperling, Daniel and Deborah 

Gordon. 2008. Two Billion Cars: 

Transforming a Culture. In: TR 

News, No. 259 (Nov-Dec).

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 1997. 

Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 

2002. A Guide to Best Practices 

for Achieving Context Sensitive 

Solutions (NCHRP Report 480).

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation 

(TRB Report 290).

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc. and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities. Conservation 

Biology 14(1), February 2000, pp. 

18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

USDA Forest Service, StreamSimulation Working Group. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach To Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Western Governors’ Wildlife 

Council. http://www.westgov.org/. 

Resources include the Wildlife 

Corridors Initiative Report (2008) 

and Wildlife Sensitivity Maps.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Crane, Bill. 2006. Road Maintenance 

with Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive Plants: Finding Solutions. 

0677 1807P. San Dimas, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 60 p.

Ferguson, Leslie, Celestine 

L. Duncan and Kathleen 

Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry 

Road Maintenance and Weed 

Management. 0371 2811. 

Missoula, MT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Missoula Technology and 

Development Center. 22 p.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

Plants. FHWA-WFL/TD-07-005. 

Vancouver, WA.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. FHWA Pub. No. 

FHWA-PD-97-062. http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/

index.htm.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Harper-Lore, Bonnie and Maggie 

Wilson, editors. 2000. Roadside 

Use of Native Plants. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C.

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air 

Bubble Curtains. TR News, No. 262 

(May-June).

PC - Planning Context

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 

23. Prepared by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

Florida Department of 

Transportation. 2003. Public 

Involvement Handbook. Available 

at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/

EMO/pubs/public_involvement/

pubinvolve.htm.

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Lennertz, Bill and Aarin 

Lutzenhiser. 2006. The Charrette 

Handbook. American Planning 

Association. 

Myerson, Deborah L., AICP, 1999. 

Getting It Right in the Rightof-Way: Citizen Participation in 

Context-Sensitive Highway Design. 

Scenic America. http://www.scenic.

org/.

NEPA information for EPA Region 

10 (Pacific NW). http://yosemite.

epa.gov/R10/ECOCOMM.NSF/

webpage/national+environmental+

policy+act.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Peaks, Harold E. and Sandra Hayes. 

1999. “Building Roads in Sync With 

Community Values.” In Public 

Roads (Mar./Apr. 1999).

Porter, Douglas and David Salvesen, 

eds. 1995. Collaborative Planning 

for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues 

and Examples. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C. 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 1997. 

Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation 

(TRB Report 290).

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc. and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A 

Triple Bottom Line Assessment 

of Traditional and Green 

Infrastructure Options for 

Controlling CSO Events in 

Philadelphia’s Watersheds. 

Prepared for City of Philadelphia 

Water Department.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads 

Rating System, v1.0. http://www.

greenroads.us/.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

WSDOT. 2003. Building Projects 

that Build Communities: 

Recommended Best Practices.

DE - Design and Engineering

AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for 

Geometric Design of Very LowVolume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400), 

1st Edition. Washington, D.C.

AASHTO. 2004. A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets, 5th Edition (aka ‘Green 

Book). Washington, D.C.

BuildCarbonNeutral. 2010. http://

buildcarbonneutral.org. 

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites. John Wiley & 

Sons. Hoboken, NJ. 

Center for Environmental 

Excellence by AASHTO - Invasive 

Species/Vegetation Management, 

Reseach, Documents & Reports 

web page. Access at: http://

environment.transportation.org/

environmental_issues/invasive_

species/docs_reports.aspx.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Ruiz, Leo. 2005. Guidelines for Road 

Maintenance Levels. 0577 1205P. 

San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 71 p.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Sustainable Sites Initiative (SSI). 

http://www.sustainablesites.org/.

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for 

Road Systems. NCHRP Report 

600B.

University of Bath. Inventory of 

Carbon & Energy (ICE) Wiki. 

http://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/ICE/

Home+Page.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads 

Rating System, v1.0. http://www.

greenroads.us/.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2006. How to do Stormwater 

Monitoring: A guide for 

construction sites. Access at: http://

www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0610020.

html.

Washington Department of 

Ecology. 2010. Stormwater 

monitoring resources. Access at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/

wq/stormwater/municipal/

strmH2Omonitoring.html.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT). 2003. 

Best Practices for Control of 

Invasive Plant Species. 

WSDOT. 1997. Integrated Vegetation 

Management for Roadsides.

OP - Organism Passage

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Habitat Branch. 2008. Guidelines 

for Bridge Construction or 

Maintenance to Accommodate Fish 

& Wildlife Movement and Passage.

Beckmann, J. P., A. P. Clevenger, 

M. P. Huijser, and J. A. Hilty. 

2010. Safe Passages. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/

index.htm.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report 

to Congress. Access at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/

safety/08034/index.cfm.

FHWA. 2010. Keeping It Simple: 

Easy Ways to Help Wildlife Along 

Roads. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/wildlifeprotection/

index.cfm.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute (Montana State Univ.). 

2007. Evaluation of Wildlife 

Crossing Structures and Fencing 

on US Highway 93 Evaro to 

Polson. Phase I: Preconstruction 

Data Collection and Finalization of 

Evaluation Plan.

Henke, R.J., P. Cawood-Hellmund 

and T. Sprunk. 2001. Habitat 

connectivity study of the I-25 

and US 85 corridors, Colorado. 

Pages 499-508. Proceedings of 

the International Conference 

on Ecology and Transportation. 

Keystone, Colorado, September 

24-28, 2001. Center for 

Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

University, USA.

Huijser et al (Western 

Transportation Institute - Montana 

State University) and Salsman and 

Wilson (Sensor Technologies and 

Systems, Inc.). 2006. Animal Vehicle 

Crash Mitigation Using Advanced 

Technology, Phase I: Review, 

Design And Implementation, 

SPR-3(076). Oregon Dept. of 

Transportation Research Unit. 

Report No. FHWA-OR-TPF-07-01.

Jacobson, Sandra, Robert Gubernick 

and Michael Furniss. “Combining 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Passage 

Design into a Continuous 

Discipline”. In Proceedings of the 

2007 International Conference on 

Ecology and Transportation, edited 

by C. Leroy Irwin, Debra Nelson, 

and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: 

Center for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

University, 2007. pp. 136-142. http://

escholarship.org/uc/item/6w6573r8. 

Mader, Sharon. 2006. Comparing 

the Ecological Effects of Linear 

Developments on Terrestrial 

Mammals. Wildlands CPR. 

Missoula, MT. http://www.

wildlandscpr.org/biblio-notes/

comparing-ecological-effects-lineardevelopments-terrestrial-mammals.

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation. 2009. Cost Analysis 

of Alternative Culvert Installation 

Practices in Minnesota.

Proceedings of the International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation. Access biennial 

conference proceedings (2003, 2005, 

2007, 2009) online at: http://www.

icoet.net/. 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities. Conservation 

Biology 14(1), February 2000, pp. 

18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. 

Management Techniques for 

Riparian Restorations (Roads Field 

Guide, Volume II).

USDA Forest Service, StreamSimulation Working Group. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach To Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
USFWS. Unpublished. Wildlife 

Crossing and Aquatic Organism 

Passage Issues by State. Contact 

FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

SM - Stormwater Management

AASHTO. 2008. Above and Beyond: 

The Environmental and Social 

Contributions of America’s 

Highway Programs.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, 

NC: Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 110 p. Access at http://www.

unl.edu/nac/bufferguidelines/.

City of Bellevue, WA. 2009. Natural 

Drainage Practices Maintenance 

Guidelines. Access at: http://www.

bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Utilities/

Natural_Drainage_Practices.pdf.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Olympia, 

WA. http://www.psparchives.com/

publications/our_work/stormwater/

lid/lid_tech_manual05/LID_

manual2005.pdf.

Mensing and Chapman. Undated. 

Conservation Development 

and Ecological Stormwater 

Management: An Ecological 

Systems Approach. Applied 

Ecological Services. Prior Lake, 

MN.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A 

Triple Bottom Line Assessment 

of Traditional and Green 

Infrastructure Options for 

Controlling CSO Events in 

Philadelphia’s Watersheds. 

Prepared for City of Philadelphia 

Water Department.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

US EPA. 2002. Urban Stormwater 

BMP Performance Monitoring. 

Access online at: http://water.

epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/

stormwater/monitor.cfm.

US EPA. 2010. Green 

Infrastructure: Managing Wet 

Weather With Green Infrastructure 

(website). Access at: http://cfpub.

epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_

id=298.

USFWS. 2005. Byways to America’s 

Wildest Places: Discover Your 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

WSDOT. Best Management 

Practices Field Guide for ESA 

Sec 4(d) Habitat Protection. 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/

rdonlyres/A0C3F307-1548-

4BED-8C7B-C4A79A788791/0/

BMP_Field_Guide.pdf.

Xiao, Qingfu and E. G. McPherson. 

2009. Testing a Bioswale to Treat 

and Reduce Parking Lot Runoff. 

Access at: http://www.fs.fed.us/

psw/programs/cufr/products/psw_

cufr761_P47ReportLRes_AC.pdf.

VE - Visitor Experience

BLM. 2007. Visual Resource 

Management (website). Access at 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/.

Brewer, Jim, et al. 2001. Geometric 

Design Practices for European 

Roads. FHWA, Office of 

International Programs.

California State Parks. Children 

in Nature Campaign. http://www.

parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24914.

Children & Nature Network. 

Regional Campaigns and 

Initiatives. http://www.

childrenandnature.org/movement/

info.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

Pub. No. FHWA-CFL/TD-08-007.

FHWA. 2008. Safe and Aesthetic 

Design of Urban Roadside 

Treatments. NCHRP Report 612. 

www.TRB.org.

National Park Service. NPS 

Partnerships Case Studies 

(Transportation). http://www.

nps.gov/partnerships/cs_type.

htm#anchor19.

National Wildlife Federation. 2010. 

Be Out There Campaign. http://

www.nwf.org/beoutthere/.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design 

Guidelines for Context Sensitive 

Design and Context Sensitive 

Solutions.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for 

Road Systems (NCHRP Report 

600B).

US Access Board. Guidelines and 

Standards (ABA, ADA, etc). http://

www.access-board.gov/gs.htm.

USDA Forest Service. 1995 (rev. 

2000). Landscape Aesthetics: 

A Handbook for Scenery 

Management. AH-701.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Bibliography

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 

Accessibility Guidebook for 

Outdoor Recreation and Trails. 

Publication number 0623-2801-

MTDC.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. 

Discover the Forest campaign. 

http://www.discovertheforest.org/

index.php.

USDOT Federal Transit 

Administration. 2010. Transit in 

Parks Program (5230). http://www.

fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_

financing_6106.html.

Washington State Parks. 2008. 

No Child Left Inside campaign. 

http://www.parks.wa.gov/

NoChildLeftInside/.

Additional Resources

Anderson, Linda. 2005. Highway 

Crossing Structures for 

Metropolitan Portland’s Wildlife. 

Portland State University. Portland, 

OR.

Bates, Ken. 2003. Design of Road 

Culverts for Fish Passage. 

Washington Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife.

Cosgrove and Orrick. 2004. The 

Future that Never Was: Lessons 

from Visions of Transportation. 

FHWA. 2008. Consistency In 

Safety-Related Design Decisions 

on Federal Lands Highway Jobs. 

FHWA Pub. No. 

FHWA and USFWS. 2005. Guidance 

on the Federal Lands Highway 

Refuge Roads Program. 

Green Infrastructure Wiki. 

2010. Access at: http://www.

greeninfrastructurewiki.com/.

Iowa State University Dept. of Civil 

Engineering and Minnesota Dept. 

of Transportation. 2005. Economics 

of Upgrading an Aggregate Road. 

Marriott, Paul Daniel. 1998. Saving 

Historic Roads: Design and Policy 

Guidelines. Preservation Press and 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Maryland National Capital Park 

and Planning Commission and The 

Montgomery County Department 

of Parks and Planning. 1996. Rustic 

Roads Functional Master Plan. 

National Park Service. 1984. Park 

Road Standards.

Otto, Sandra. 2000. 

“Environmentally Sensitive Design 

of Transportation Facilities.” 

In Journal of Transportation 

Engineering, 126(5) Sept/Oct, pp. 

363-366.

Regional Road Maintenance 

Technical Working Group 

(Washington) Regional Road 

Maintenance Endangered Species 

Act Program Guidelines. 

Robson, Sara, and James Kingery. 

2006. Idaho Native Plants for 

Roadside Restoration and 

Revegetation Programs. Idaho 

Transportation Department.

USFWS. 2008. Project List 

Meeting Report: Long-Range 

Transportation Plan for the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service Lands 

in Region 1. Report prepared by 

PBS&J.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region

Abbreviations

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

ABAAS Architectural Barriers Act 

Accessibility Standards

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ASCE American Society of Civil 

Engineers

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CCP Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DCR Division of Diversity and Civil 

Rights (FWS Region 1)

EE Environmental Education

ES Ecological Services

ESA Endangered Species Act

FHWA Federal Highway 

Administration

FWCA Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act

FWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(also Service, USFWS)

GIS Geographic Information System

LID low impact development

LOS level of service

LRTP Long Range Transportation 

Plan

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NDS natural drainage system

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

Appendix B: Glossary

NWR National Wildlife Refuge (also 

Refuge).

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge 

System

ODOT Oregon Department of 

Transportation

R1 Region 1 of the FWS (HI, ID, 

OR, WA, Pacific Islands)

ROW Right-of-way

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance 

Management System

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture

USFS United States Forest Service

VMT Vehicle miles traveled

WDFW Washington State 

Department of Fish and Wildlife

WSDOT Washington State 

Department of Transportation

WSPRC Washington State Parks 

and Recreation Commission

WVC Wildlife-vehicle collisions

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Definitions

Adaptive Management. Refers to a 

process in which policy decisions are 

implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to 

test predictions and assumptions 

inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results help managers 

determine whether current 

management should continue as is or 

whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions.

Alternative. Alternatives are 

different means of accomplishing 

Refuge purposes and goals and 

contributing to the System mission 

(draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

The no action alternative is the 

manner in which the refuge is 

currently managed, while the action 

alternatives are all other 

alternatives.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act (Federal). This law makes it 

illegal for anyone to take (as defined 

therein) a bald or golden eagle, or 

their parts, nests, or eggs except as 

authorized under a permit. Since 

this law extends protection to eagle 

nests, it may come into play during 

the construction and maintenance of 

transportation infrastructure.

Biological Diversity (also 

Biodiversity). The variety of life and 

its processes, including the variety of 

living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the 

communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur (USFWS Manual 

052 FW 1. 12B). The System’s focus 

is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological 

processes.

Biological Integrity. Biotic 

composition, structure, and 

functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with 

historic conditions, including the 

natural biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and 

communities (NWRS Biological 

integrity policy).

Compatible Use. A wildlifedependent recreational use or any 

other use of a Refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the 

Director, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the Mission of the System or the 

purposes of the refuge (Service 

Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection 

of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to 

ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

A document that describes the 

desired future conditions of the 

Refuge, and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction 

for the Refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge, contribute to the mission of 

the System, and to meet other 

relevant mandates (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5).

Contaminants (also Environmental 

Contaminants). Chemicals present at 

levels greater than those naturally 

occurring in the environment 

resulting from anthropogenic or 

natural processes that potentially 

result in changes to biota at any 

ecological level (USGS, assessing EC 

threats to lands managed by 

USFWS). Pollutants that degrade 

other resources upon contact or 

mixing (Adapted from Webster’s II).

Cooperative Agreement. This is a 

simple habitat protection action, in 

which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually 

long term but can be modified by 

either party. They are most effective 

in establishing multiple use 

management of land. An example 

would be a wildlife agreement on a 

Corps reservoir.

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). A 

theoretical and practical approach to 

transportation decision-making and 

design that takes into consideration 

the communities and lands through 

which streets, roads, and highways 

pass (“the context”). CSS seeks to 

balance the need to move vehicles 

and other transportation modes 

efficiently and safely with other 

desirable outcomes, including 

historic preservation, environmental 

goals such as wildlife and habitat 

conservation and the creation of vital 

public spaces.

Critical Habitat. Areas that are 

essential to the conservation of ESA 

listed species.

Cultural Resources. The physical 

remains, objects, historic records 

and traditional lifeways that connect 

us to our nation’s past (USFWS, 

Considering Cultural Resources).

Disturbance. Significant alteration of 

habitat structure or composition. 

May be natural (e.g. fire) or humancaused events (e.g. aircraft overflights).

Ecosystem. A dynamic and 

interrelating complex of plant and 

animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Management. 

Management of natural resources 

using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in 

ecosystems are maintained at viable 

levels in native habitats and that 

basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely.

Environmental Assessment. A 

concise public document, prepared in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

that briefly discusses the purpose 

and need for an action, alternatives 

to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of 

impacts to determine whether an 

environmental impact statement 

must be prepared, or a finding of no 

significant impact can be issued (40 

CFR 1508.9).

Endangered Species Act (Federal). 

The purpose of the ESA is to protect 

and recover endangered and 

threatened species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend. 

Under the ESA, species may be 

listed as either endangered or 

threatened and critical habitat may 

be designated.

ESA Listed Species. A plant or 

animal species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act that is in 

danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range 

(endangered) or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future 

(threatened).

Environmental Education Facility. A 

building or site with one or more 

classrooms or teaching areas and 

environmental education resources 

to accommodate groups of students.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(Federal). This law provides the basic 

authority for the FWS to evaluate 

impacts to all fish and wildlife from 

proposed water resource development 

projects. This law may come into 

play for transportation projects that 

involve effects to a water body(ies).

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Gap Analysis. Analysis done to 

identify and map elements of 

biodiversity that are not adequately 

represented in the nation’s network 

of reserves. It provides an overview 

of the distribution and conservation 

status of several components of 

biodiversity, with an emphasis 

on vegetation and terrestrial 

vertebrates (Cassidy et al.1997).

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended and 

often broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not define 

measurable units (Draft Service 

Manual 620 FW 1.5).

Green infrastructure. A concept and 

approach in which natural assets are 

managed and/or designed to provide 

multiple ecosystem and human 

services, including services such 

as stormwater management, flood 

prevention, carbon sequestration, 

and habitat. Green infrastructure 

includes natural drainage systems 

(NDS) and may be applied as a tool 

in achieving low impact development 

(LID).

Habitat. Suite of existing 

environmental conditions required 

by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. The place where an 

organism typically lives.

Habitat Connectivity (Also 

Landscape Connectivity). The 

arrangement of habitats that 

allows organisms and ecological 

processes to move across the 

landscape; patches of similar 

habitats are either close together or 

linked by corridors of appropriate 

vegetation/habitat. The opposite 

of fragmentation (Turnbull NWR 

Habitat Management Plan).

Habitat Management Plan. A plan 

that guides Refuge activities related 

to the maintenance, restoration, 

and enhancement of habitats for the 

benefit of wildlife, fish, and plant 

populations.

Habitat Restoration. Management 

emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions 

and processes and/or to healthy 

ecosystems.

Historic Conditions. Composition, 

structure and functioning of 

ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that we believe, based on 

sound professional judgment, were 

present prior to substantial human 

related changes to the landscape 

(NWRS Biological integrity policy).

Hydrologic influence. Having an 

effect on water quality and quantity.

Hydrology. A science dealing with 

the properties, distribution and 

circulation of water on and below 

the earth’s surface and in the 

atmosphere (yourdictionary.com).

Indicator. Something that serves as 

a sign or symptom (Webster’s II).

Interpretation. A teaching technique 

that combines factual information 

with stimulating explanation 

(yourdictionary.com). Frequently 

used to help people understand 

natural and cultural resources.

Interpretive Trail. A trail with 

informative signs, numbered 

posts that refer to information in 

a brochure, or where guided talks 

are conducted for the purpose of 

providing factual information and 

stimulating explanations of what 

visitors see, hear, feel, or otherwise 

experience while on the trail.

Landform. A natural feature of a 

land surface (yourdictionary.com).

Landscape Linkages. Landscape 

features linking areas of similar 

habitat. Plants and smaller animals 

are able to use landscape linkages 

to move between larger landscape 

blocks over a period of generations.

Landscape Ecology. The science and 

study of the relationship between 

spatial pattern and ecological 

processes on a wide variety of 

landscape scales and organizational 

levels. 

Low Impact Development (LID). A 

stormwater management strategy 

that emphasizes conservation and 

use of existing natural site features 

integrated with distributed, smallscale stormwater controls to more 

closely mimic natural hydrologic 

patterns. (LID Guidance Manual for 

Puget Sound).

Maintenance. The upkeep of 

constructed facilities, structures and 

capitalized equipment necessary 

to realize the originally anticipated 

useful life of a fixed asset. 

Maintenance includes preventative 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; 

repairs; replacement of parts, 

components, or items of equipment, 

periodic condition assessment; 

periodic inspections, adjustment, 

lubrication and cleaning (nonjanitorial) of equipment; painting, 

resurfacing, rehabilitation; special 

safety inspections; and other actions 

to assure continuing service and to 

prevent breakdown.

Mesh Size. The average area or 

diameter of the polygons enclosed 

by a road network, as in a fishnet; 

it is proportional to road density 

but focuses on the enclosed parcels 

rather than the roads (Forman 2003).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(Federal). This law makes it illegal 

for anyone to take any migratory 

bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs 

of migratory birds, except under 

the terms of a valid permit issued 

pursuant to federal regulations. 

This law can come into play during 

the maintenance and removal of 

transportation infrastructure as well 

as during the construction of new 

structures.

Mission Statement. Succinct 

statement of a unit’s purpose and 

reason for being.

Monitoring. The process of collecting 

information to track changes of 

selected parameters over time.

National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal 

agencies, including the Service, 

to examine the environmental 

impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and 

use public participation in the 

planning and implementation 

of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate NEPA with other 

planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to 

facilitate better environmental 

decision making (from 40 CFR 1500).

National Register of Historic 

Places. The Nation’s master 

inventory of known historic 

properties administered by the 

National Park Service. Includes 

buildings, structures, sites, 

objects and districts that possess 

historic, architectural, engineering, 

archeological, or cultural significance 

at the national, state and local levels.

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
National Wildlife Refuge (also 

Refuge). A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water 

within the System.

National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS; also System). Various 

categories of areas administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior for 

the conservation of fish and wildlife, 

including species threatened with 

extinction; all lands, waters and 

interests therein administered by 

the Secretary as wildlife refuges; 

areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife 

that are threatened with extinction; 

wildlife ranges; games ranges; 

wildlife management areas; or 

waterfowl production areas.

Native. With respect to a particular 

ecosystem, a species that, other 

than as a result of an introduction, 

historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem (NWRS 

Biological integrity policy).

Natural Drainage System (NDS). 

A set of stormwater management 

features using plants and specialized 

soils that slow and infiltrate 

stormwater and can help remove 

pollutants through filtration and 

bioremediation. These features—

such as open, vegetated swales, 

stormwater cascades and small rain 

gardens or wet ponds—mimic or 

restore natural functions impeded 

by development. In contrast to pipes 

and vaults, these systems increase in 

functional value over time.

Non-Consumptive Recreation. 

Recreational activities that do 

not involve harvest, removal or 

consumption of fish, wildlife or other 

natural resources.

Noxious Weed. A plant species 

designated by Federal or State law 

as generally possessing one or more 

of the following characteristics: 

aggressive or difficult to manage; 

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious 

insect or disease; or non-native, new, 

or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease 

or has adverse effects on man or 

his environment and therefore is 

detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States and 

to the public health.

Nutrient Loading. The presence 

of nutrients, such as nitrogen 

and phosphorus, in waterways 

insufficient amounts to cause effects 

such as algal blooms and oxygen 

depletion, with potentially lethal 

effects on fish and wildlife species.

Operations. Activities related to 

the normal performance of the 

functions for which a facility or item 

of equipment is intended to be used. 

Costs such as utilities (electricity, 

water, sewage) fuel, janitorial 

services, window cleaning, rodent 

and pest control, upkeep of grounds, 

vehicle rentals, waste management 

and personnel costs for operating 

staff are generally included within 

the scope of operations.

Outreach. The process of providing 

information to the public on a 

specific issue through the use of 

the media, printed materials and 

presentations.

Plant Community. An assemblage 

of plant species unique in its 

composition that occurs in particular 

locations, under particular 

influences, which reflect or integrate 

the environmental influences on 

the site, such as soils, temperature, 

elevation, solar radiation, slope, 

aspect and rainfall.

Preferred Alternative. This is the 

alternative determined (by the 

decision maker) to best achieve the 

Refuge purpose, vision and goals; 

that best contributes to the System 

mission and addresses the significant 

issues; and that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management.

Priority Public Uses. Hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental 

education and interpretation were 

identified by the National Wildlife 

Refuge system Improvement Act of 

1997 as the six (“Big Six”) priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System.

Public. Individuals, organizations, 

and groups outside the planning 

team, including officials of Federal, 

State, and local government 

agencies, Indian tribes and foreign 

nations. It includes those who may or 

may not have indicated an interest in 

Service issues and those who may be 

affected by Service decisions.

Refuge Purpose(s). The purpose(s) 

specified in or derived from the 

law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land 

order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum 

establishing, authorizing, or 

expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, 

or refuge subunit (Draft Service 

Manual 602 EW 1.5).

Restoration. The act of bringing 

back to a former or original condition 

(Webster’s II).

Riparian. An area or habitat that 

is transitional from terrestrial 

to aquatic ecosystems, including 

streams, lakes, wet areas, and 

adjacent plant communities and 

their associated soils which have free 

water at or near the surface; an area 

whose components are directly or 

indirectly attributed to the influence 

of water; and of or relating to a 

river. Specifically applied to ecology, 

“riparian” describes the land 

immediately adjoining and directly 

influenced by streams. For example, 

riparian vegetation includes any 

and all plant life growing on the 

land adjoining a stream and directly 

influenced by the stream.

Road Density. The average total road 

length per unit area of landscape (i.e. 

kilometers per square km, or miles 

per square mile) (Forman 2003).

Road-Effect Zone. The zone of 

influence of a roadway into the 

surrounding areas. Distance 

depends upon the type of effect and 

site conditions (Forman 2003; see 

graphic, p. 308).

Roadway. The suite of typical 

improvements associated with a 

vehicle-focused transportation 

project. This extends from the 

centerline of an existing or proposed 

road outward, to include associated 

infrastructure components such 

as paving, utilities, grading and 

planting. Roadway also refers here 

to other facilities and infrastructure 

commonly associated with vehicular 

transportation, such as parking, 

visitor contact facilities and pullouts. 

From an ecological perspective, 

the roadway conceptually 

includes impacts such as habitat 

fragmentation, habitat disturbance, 

pollution, and aquatic and terrestrial 

species conflicts. 

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region
Strategy. A specific action, tool, or 

technique or combination of actions, 

tools, and techniques used to meet 

unit objectives (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5).

Viewpoint. A designated point that 

provides an opportunity to see 

wildlife or habitats of interest. The 

point may or may not be “supported” 

with an interpretive sign. Usually 

the viewpoint is supported by a 

pullout or a parking area.

Visitor Center. A building with 

staff that provides visitors with 

interpretation, education and 

general information about the 

natural and cultural resources of the 

Refuge and the local area.

Visitor Contact Point or Center. A 

kiosk or other location where visitors 

may go to learn about Refuge 

resources, facilities, trails, etc.

Vision Statement. A concise 

statement of the desired future 

condition of the planning unit, based 

primarily upon the System mission, 

specific Refuge purposes and other 

relevant mandates (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5).

Watershed. The region or area 

drained by a river system or other 

body of water (Webster’s II).

Wetlands. Transitional lands 

between terrestrial and aquatic 

systems where the water table is 

usually at or near the surface or the 

land is covered by shallow water 

at some time each year (Service 

Manual 660 FW 2). 

 Permanent wetland - a wetland 

basin or portion of a basin that is 

covered with water throughout 

the year in all years except 

extreme drought. Typically, the 

basin bottom is vegetated with 

submerged aquatic plant species, 

including milfoil, coontail and 

pondweeds.

 Semi-permanent wetland - a 

wetland basin or portion of 

a basin where surface water 

persists throughout the growing 

season of most years. Typical 

vegetation is composed of cattails 

and bulrushes.

 Seasonal wetland - a wetland 

basin or portion of a basin where 

surface water is present in the 

early part of the growing season 

but is absent by the end of the 

season in most years. Typically 

vegetated with sedges, rushes, 

spikerushes or burreed. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. These 

are also referred to as the priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System or “Big Six”.

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Pacific Region


U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

February 2011
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix E

Glossary of Terms

Appendix E E-1

Glossary of Terms

Alternative transportation in parks and public lands program (ATPPL) – Congress established the ATPPL 

program to enhance the protection of national parks and federal lands and increase the enjoyment of those 

visiting them. Administered by the Federal Transit Administration in partnership with the Department 

of the Interior and the Forest Service, the program funds capital and planning expenses for alternative 

transportation systems such as shuttle buses and bicycle trails in national parks and public lands. The 

goals of the program are to conserve natural, historical, and cultural resources; reduce congestion and 

pollution; improve visitor mobility and accessibility; enhance visitor experience; and ensure access to all, 

including persons with disabilities.

Asset management – Asset management is a systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating 

physical assets cost effectively. It includes preservation, upgrading and timely replacement of assets, 

through cost effective management, programming, and resource allocation decisions. Asset management 

combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory, and provides tools to 

facilitate a more organized, logical approach to decision making.

Asset priority index (API) – API is a SAMMS metric used by field station managers to assess how critical 

each property asset is to accomplishing the FWS mission and goals. FWS uses the API to ensure that 

maintenance activities and projects proposed for funding are focused on highest priority assets. Similarly, 

the API is used to identify lowest priority assets for disposal.

Best management practices (BMPs) – BMPs are effective, practical, structural or nonstructural methods 

which prevent or reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other pollutants from the 

land to surface or ground water, or which otherwise protect water quality from potential adverse effects of 

human activities. These practices are developed to achieve a balance between water quality protection and 

the production of wood crops within natural and economic limitations.

Congestion management system (CMS) – The CMS is a systematic approach, used by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and other land management agencies that provides for the safe and effective management 

and operation of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of demand reduction and 

operational management strategies. The CMS represents the state-of-the-practice in addressing 

congestion, by providing information on transportation system performance, and alternative strategies for 

alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet Federal, State 

and local needs.

Context sensitive solutions (CSS) – CSS is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves 

all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, 

aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS is an approach 

that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) – CCPs are planning documents developed for individual FWS 

wildlife refuges to provides a description of the desired future conditions and long-range guidance for the 

project leader to accomplish purposes of the refuge system and the refuge. CCPs establish management 

direction to achieve refuge purposes.

Comprehensive Hatchery Management Plan (CHMP) – CHMPs are operational management plans specific 

to fish hatcheries that are developed to outline policies and objectives relevant to the overall management 

of a specific fish hatchery. These documents are used as planning reference tools, to help integrate FWS 

objectives and priorities with those of other agencies; fulfill obligations under the Endangered Species Act 

and other management programs; identify and define specific hatchery reforms to implement; and provide 

a foundation for future program and budget development.

Core Team – This group serves as the project steering committee for the development of this Long Range 

Transportation Plan for FWS Lands in Region 1. The groups is composed of representatives from regional 

and headquarters offices of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and planning leadership from the Federal 

Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Division.

Cultural landscape – The cultural landscape refers to a geographic area, including both cultural and natural 

elements, associated with a historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic 

values.
E-2 Appendix E

Cultural resources – Cultural resources include properties such as landscapes or districts, sites, building, 

structures, objects, or cultural practices that are usually greater than 50 years of age and possess 

architectural, historic, scientific, or other technical value. By their nature, these resources are nonrenewable.

Deferred maintenance (DM) – Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was 

scheduled and, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period.

Extended Team – This group serves as technical resource experts and key stakeholders from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Federal Land Highways, providing technical assistance and local context 

knowledge to the Core Team for the Long Range Transportation Plan for FWS lands in Region 1.

Facility condition index (FCI) – FCI is the ratio of the deferred maintenance costs to replacement value. 

This ratio is generated from data generated from condition assessments. This is an industry accepted 

indicator of the overall health of facility infrastructure.

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) – The FLHP was created by the 1982 Surface Transportation 

Assistance Act and is administered through the Office of Federal Lands Highway which provides program 

stewardship and transportation engineering services for planning, design, construction, and rehabilitation 

of the highways and bridges that provide access to and through federally owned lands. The primary 

purpose of the FLHP is to provide financial resources and technical assistance for a coordinated program 

of public roads that service the transportation needs of Federal and Indian lands. 

Fisheries Program – The FWS Fisheries Program partners with states, Native American Tribes, and other 

interested groups to restore and maintain fish and other important aquatic resources at self-sustaining 

levels and to support federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public. FWS takes 

a holistic approach to fishery conservation focusing on an array of scientific fishery management and 

conservations efforts. Region 1 in particular has a large concentration of fishery facilities due to the rich 

and diverse fish population native to the waters in the region. The region maintains a network of 32 fishery 

field stations.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) –ITS is a general term applied to a broad range of diverse 

technologies known collectively as intelligent transportation systems. They are built on a number of 

technologies, including information processing, communications, control, and electronics. Effectively 

integrating these technologies in our transportation system will save lives, time, and money. They provide 

the intelligent link between travelers, vehicles, and the physical transportation infrastructure. Examples 

include the use of ITS to: collect and transmit information on traffic conditions and transit schedules for 

travelers before and during their trips; alert travelers to hazards and delays so they can change their 

plans to minimize inconvenience and additional strain on the system; decrease congestion by reducing 

the number of traffic incidents, clearing them more quickly when they occur, and rerouting traffic flow 

around them; and assist drivers in reaching a desired destination with navigation systems enhanced with 

pathfinding, or route guidance.

Intergovernmental agreement (IGA) – An IGA is a formal contract between two or more jurisdictions 

under which governmental agencies agree to provide a service, perform a function or provide funding to 

another governmental agency under specific terms, as defined in the contract. For example, an agency 

may contract with another entity for law enforcement services. Intergovernmental agreements may also 

take the form of a joint service agreement where two or more jurisdictions join forces to plan, finance 

and deliver a service within the boundaries of all participating jurisdictions. Agencies may also enter into 

various types of service exchange arrangements under which participating jurisdictions agree to lend 

services to one another, generally without any payment being required. 

Level of service (LOS) – Roadway traffic congestion is expressed in terms of LOS as defined by the 

Highway Capacity Manual. Operational LOS is a congestion measure used to describe service quality and 

is related to the density of the traffic stream. Freeflow conditions with no restrictions are described as LOS 

A. LOS B through D conditions demonstrate progressively worse traffic conditions. LOS F represents a 

breakdown in traffic flow, characterized by the familiar traffic jam.

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) – The LRTP is a long-term blueprint of a region’s transportation 

system. Usually LRTPs are conducted every five years and are plans for twenty to thirty years into the 

future. The plan identifies and analyzes transportation needs of the metropolitan region and creates a 

framework for project priorities. These plans are normally the product of recommendations and studies 

carried out and put forth by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Appendix E E-3

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – A MPO is a transportation policy-making organization made 

up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. In 1962, the United States 

Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an MPO for urbanized areas with a population 

greater than 50,000. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures for 

transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (“3-C”) 

planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this 

planning process.

Mission critical – Mission critical refers to a road or facility that is vitally important to meet mission of the 

FWS.

Multimodal transportation – The term multimodal refers to all forms of motorized and non motorized 

transport including cars, trucks, buses, boats, planes, bicycles, and pedestrians, etc.

National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) – The National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) is a 

1:100,000 scale network database that contains line features representing just over 450,000 miles of current 

and planned highways in the U.S. The NHPN consists of interstates, principal arterials, and rural minor 

arterials.

National Park Service (NPS) – The National Park Service was created by an Act signed by President 

Woodrow Wilson on August 25, 1916. The National Park Service is a bureau of the Department of the 

Interior. Directly overseeing its operation is the Department’s Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks. 

Natural resources – Natural resources include features and values found in nature such as plants and 

animals, water, air, soils, topographic features, geologic features, paleontologic resources, natural quiet, 

and clear night skies that are worthy of preservation. 

Project Leaders – The Project Leader is responsible to the refuge or refuge complex Regional Director for 

the safe and efficient implementation of activities within their unit, including cooperative activities with 

other agencies or landowners, in accordance with delegations of authorities.

Real property inventory (RPI) – The RPI contains information on all fixed assets with a replacement 

cost of $5,000 or more. These fixed assets include such items as buildings, roads, bridges, levees, water 

management structures, fish raceways, boardwalks, fences, and other structures and facilities. The FWS 

collects data annually and report it to the General Services Administration.

Refuge Road Program – The Refuge Roads program was created under the 1998 Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA-21). That act and the subsequent passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provides authorization for 

National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the Federal Lands Highway program (FLHP). Through the 

refuge road program, $29 million annually is authorized for spending on maintenance and improvements 

on Refuge Roads within the National Wildlife Refuge System. This includes project planning and contract 

administration as well as construction. Enhancements such as comfort stations, parking lots, bicycle/

pedestrian facilities and interpretive signage related to roads are also allowable.

Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) – A RTPO is formed through a voluntary association 

of local governments within a county or contiguous counties. RTPO members include cities, counties, 

tribes, ports, transportation service providers, private employers and others. MPOs and RTPOs serve the 

same basic transportation planning functions – to develop a long-range transportation plan, coordinate 

within a region, and prepare a transportation improvement program. RTPOs are specific to the state of 

Washington. However, other states have similar regional transportation planning entities that serve this 

same purpose. 

Road Inventory Program (RIP) – The FWS currently manages over 4,900 miles of public roads in the 50 

states, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam. Approximately 8% of the roads are paved. The remaining 

92% are gravel or native material. The value of these assets is estimated at $1.5 billion. The Federal 

Lands Highways Division (FLHD) conducts an inventory and condition assessment of all public roads 

and parking lots on national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries over a five year period. This 

inventory and condition assessment serves as the FWS’s basic public use road management system. It 

provides a benchmark from which the FWS is able to document the status, condition, funding needs and 

improvements of the public roads. 
E-4 Appendix E

Road safety audit (RSA) – A road safety audit is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or 

future road or intersection by an independent audit team.

Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) – SAMMS is an asset management database 

that documents facility and equipment deficiencies, justifies budget requests for maintenance needs, 

and provides a sound basis for management decision-making. Property inventory data is maintained as 

part of the SAMMS to aid in completing inspection and maintenance activities and quantify the complete 

picture of facilities and equipment owned by FWS. This tool allows field station managers obtain accurate 

and current information on all real and personal property for which they are responsible. Two types of 

inventories are conducted and maintained within SAMMS, a Real Property Inventory and a Personal 

Property Inventory.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – The STIP is a prioritized, multi-year program 

for the implementation of transportation improvement projects. As such, it serves as a management tool 

to ensure the most effective use of funding for transportation improvements. The STIP is a requirement 

of the transportation planning process, legislated by the SAFETEA-LU. Traditional state sponsored 

transportation improvements are not eligible for federal funding unless they are listed in the STIP.

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – The TIP is a program prepared by a metropolitan or rural 

planning organization that lists projects to be funded with FHWA/FTA funds for the next one- to threeyear period.

Transportation infrastructure – Transportation infrastructure includes roads, bridges, sidewalks, trails 

(paved and unpaved, front country and back country), waterways, etc.

Transportation planning – Transportation planning for land management incorporates a continuing, 

comprehensive, and collaborative process to encourage and promote the development of multimodal 

transportation systems to ensure safe and efficient movement of visitors, employees, and goods while 

balancing resource protection, visitor experience, and community needs.

Travel demand management (TDM) – TDM is a term given to a broad range of strategies that optimize 

transportation system performance for commute and non-commute trips. Strategies typically include those 

that encourage travelers to change their travel mode from driving alone to choosing a carpool, vanpool, 

public transit vehicle, or other commuter alternative. Managing travel demand focuses on providing all 

travelers, regardless of whether they drive alone, with choices of location, route, and time, not just mode 

of travel. Information technology is playing and increasingly more important role in the delivery of TDM 

strategies.

User capacity – As it applies to wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries, user capacity is the type and level of 

use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and social conditions based on the 

purpose and objectives of a refuge or hatchery unit.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – VMT, or the total number of miles that vehicles are driven represents key 

data for highway planning and management, and a common measure of roadway use. Along with other 

data, VMT is often used in estimating congestion, air quality, and potential gas-tax revenues.

Visitor experience – The visitor experience refers to quality and perception of a visitor’s visit to a 

wildlife refuge or fish hatchery in the context of the intended uses at a given facility (wildlife viewing, 

environmental education, and ease of access.

Visitor facility enhancement (VFE) – The VFE program includes improvements on FWS-owned lands aimed 

at enhancing wildlife viewing opportunities for the public while providing access in the form of interpretive 

pullouts, trails, and interpretive kiosks which provide a public benefit. Projects in this program must 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants for the continuing benefit of the American people, 

consistent with the FWS Mission. 
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix F

Long Range Transportation Plan for the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Public Involvement Plan

Appendix F F-1

Public Involvement Plan

Background

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Region 

1 is developing a long range transportation plan 

(LRTP) that will establish goals, and objectives 

for how transportation can best help the Service 

achieve its overarching mission of connecting 

people to nature at National Wildlife Refuges and 

National Fish Hatcheries. The purpose of this 

LRTP is to develop a transportation planning 

process model for regional level transportation 

planning within the Service. It will bring the 

Service into compliance with Federal legislation 

requiring Federal Land Management Agencies 

to conduct long-range transportation planning 

in a manner consistent with U.S. Department of 

Transportation planning practices for States and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The 

LRTP will provide Service leaders with a replicable 

region-level transportation planning process, 

benchmarks for evaluating transportation projects 

in an asset-informed environment across the region, 

and essential facts necessary for informing future 

planning and operational decisions.

Goals of Public Outreach and Communications

The fundamental purpose of this Public 

Involvement Plan (PIP) is to provide the structure 

for an inclusive public process that internal and 

external stakeholder groups may participate in 

during the development of the LRTP for Service 

Lands in Region 1. The goals of this effort include: 

• Solicit input from Service staff that will inform 

the transportation planning effort

• Inform and educate external stakeholders 

about decision-making in Region 1 relative to 

transportation planning

• Provide opportunities for stakeholders to 

identify their concerns, values, ideas, and 

interests of the Region 1 transportation system

• Provide Service staff and external stakeholders 

the opportunity to review and comment on the 

LRTP at key decision points

• Build support from internal and external 

stakeholders for the processes and projects 

adopted under the LRTP

• Strengthen existing partnerships while forging 

new ones

• Identify opportunities for coordination with 

priority MPOs and States for short and medium 

term project development

Public Involvement Approach

The Service recognizes that different 

transportation planning efforts have varying levels 

of public participation throughout the decisionmaking processes. The context of this Region 1 

LRTP canvases four western states, including 

remote Pacific islands. Given this geographic 

and demographic diversity, there cannot be an 

expectation that all or even most of the potential 

stakeholders will be able to participate, or have 

interest in directly influencing the outcomes of the 

plan. Figure 1 illustrates the varying levels of public 

participation for this LRTP.

INFORMED

AWARE

INVOLVED

(engaged in 

influencing 

decisions)

Figure 1

Levels of Public Participation for Region 1 LRTP
F-2 Appendix F

The Service seeks to affect a large number of 

interested persons and groups by making them 

aware that the planning activities are taking place, 

illustrated by the large outer circle. This group 

will realize that the Service has a process for 

making transportation decisions and that there is 

a potential for specific transportation projects to 

emerge from that process (the LRTP). A somewhat 

smaller group will be knowledgeable about the 

LRTP and the transportation problems it seeks 

to address. For this group, the public involvement 

processes will be designed to inform them of 

rationale for the LRTP, the related decision-making 

processes, and the anticipated outcomes for Region 

1. A much smaller group will be involved, or actively 

engaged in influencing the decision, represented by 

the small inner circle in Figure 1. 

Table 1 summarizes the internal and external 

stakeholders the Service hopes to engage at these 

varying levels throughout the LRTP development. 

A complete listing of contact information for these 

stakeholders can be found in the Appendix.

Table 1

Internal and External Stakeholders in Region 1

Involved Informed Aware

Internal

– Region 1 LRTP

CoreTeam

– Region 1 LRTP

ExtendedTeam

(subject matter

experts)

– Region 1 ARDs

– Project leaders

– Refuge/Hatchery supervisors

– Division Chiefs

– Refuge road coordinators

– Budget, contracting, and general services

offices

– External Affairs

– Fire and Law Enforcement

– Safety office

– Cultural resource office

– Fisheries Resource Office

– Aquatic Nuisance Species coordinator

– National CCP coordinator

– Chiefs of Planning and Natural Resources

– National Refuge Chiefs

– Washington Office

External

– MPOs

– State Departments ofTransportation

– U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

– Bureau of Reclamation

– Bureau of Indian Affairs

– U.S. Forest Service

– National Park Service

– Bureau of Land Management

– State byways

– State Fish and Game agencies

– Department of Defense agencies

– FHWA Division offices in Region 1

– Congressional/ reauthorization staff and

committees

– Agencies with an MOU with the Service

– State Historic Preservation Office

– Collaborative Environmental

Transportation Agreement for

Streamlining

– National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

– U.S. Coast Guard

– Federal Aviation Administration

– State Parks

– National Wildlife Refuge Association

– Refuge and Hatchery Friends groups

– Conservation Organizations

– Council of UniversityTransportation

Centers – 10 total (OregonTransportation

Research and Education Consortium, etc.)

– Railroads (those located within Service

units)

– Gateway communities

– Libraries of communities around Service

units

– Western Governors Association

– TRBTransportation Needs of Parks and

Public Lands Committee

– StateTourism Offices
Appendix F F-3

Strategies

The strategies used to engage the public and 

agency groups are perhaps the most important 

element of a public involvement plan. Strategies 

are intended to target a specific audience with an 

intended purpose. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the 

primary strategies that will be used to engage both 

internal and external stakeholders as part of the 

LRTP and when each strategy will be implemented.

Table 2

Stakeholder Outreach Strategies

Task Who When

Internal Strategies

Define roles and assign specific duties to the Core and 

Extended Teams for this public participation plan Core team March 30, 2009

Develop Region 1 Transportation intranet website Holm TBD

Internal email distribution to Informed group including link to 

Planning Update 1 Holm April 2009

Hold Region-wide briefing or webinar to disseminate key 

findings and funding opportunities identified in this LRTP Core team TBD

Develop data sheets to disseminate to Service units that are 

currently conducting or preparing for CCPs, including all 

fisheries to gather additional data 

Holm/Hayduk TBD

Distribution of internal Draft Plan to key internal 

stakeholders Core team At Draft Plan

Host Web-conferences for field staff & management at Draft 

Plan Core team At Draft Plan

Coordinate with Washington Office, Chief of Refuges, 

Director Furniss/Caldwell Ongoing

Brief Region 1 Senior Management Marxen Ongoing

External Strategies

Compile external mailing list Contractor/Core Team March 20, 2009

Establish list of external outreach opportunities Core Team March 20, 2009

Distribute Planning Update Newsletter 1 Contractor/Core Team

Following 

internal 

distribution

Initiate contact with external informed stakeholders to 

guage interest in additional information about LRTP Core Team TBD

Conduct webinar and/or informal presentations to external 

informed stakeholders about LRTP Core Team As needed

Develop and distribute Planning Update 2 - focused on reauthorization and project accomplishments Contractor/Core Team TBD

Monitor exchange of information and comments from the 

public and stakeholders to the LRTP Core Team (review & 

summarize comments at key milestones)

Contractor At key 

milestones

Federal Register Notice announcing public release of draft 

LRTP

Division of Planning and 

Visitor Services At draft LRTP

Summarize all internal and external comments and 

responses on draft plan development Contractor/Core Team Following draft 

comment period

Document and evaluate public involvement process; develop 

model for Service regions Contractor/Core Team At Final LRTP

Table 3 identifies the key milestones in the LRTP decision-making process at which specific outreach 

strategies will be designed to seek input from Service staff and external stakeholders.
F-4 Appendix F

Table 3

Stakeholder Involvement Strategy by Task

Key Milestones of the Plan Outreach Strategy

– Vision, Mission, Goals, and Objectives

– Purpose and Need

– Definition of transportation on Service lands

Initial Contact – First Planning Update Newsletter, 

website development, one-page overview, targeted 

meetings/contact with internal and external 

stakeholders to solicit input.

– Existing conditions and trends

– Strategies based on Management

– Systems/Needs/Other priorities

– Performance Measures

– Investigation of funding opportunities

Midway Update – Update website, targeted meetings 

with internal and external stakeholders, solicit input.

– Preferred strategy and fiscal constraint

– Plan and Summary Report

– Process Document

Final input – Final Planning Update Newsletter to 

solicit comments; website update; Seek consensus 

among key stakeholders.
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix G

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Transportation Planning Guidance

Appendix G G-1

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Transportation Planning Guidance

Updated February 20, 2008

Transportation Planning Requirements and Guidance

The Refuge Roads Program (RRP) was established 

in June 1998, when Congress passed the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA‐21). The passage of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in August 

2005 reauthorized the RRP and authorized the 

Alternative Transportation for Parks and Public 

Lands (ATPPL) program.

Under Title 23 U.S.C. §204(a)(2), the Department of 

Transportation, in cooperation with the Department 

of the Interior, is required to develop transportation 

planning procedures for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) that are consistent with the 

metropolitan and statewide planning processes. 

Under Title 49 U.S.C. §5320(e)(1)(A), the 

Department of Transportation, in cooperation 

with the Department of the Interior, is required 

to develop transportation planning procedures 

for the Service that are consistent with the 

metropolitan planning provisions, the statewide 

planning provisions and the public participation 

requirements.

All transportation projects funded under the RRP 

must take into consideration the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP), related land use planning 

(i.e. step‐down management plans) and impacts 

of planning on existing transportation facilities as 

required by Title 23 U.S.C. §202(e). The whole 

transportation system should support the mission 

of the FWS to “conserve, protect, and enhance fish 

and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of present and future generations.” 

Failure to address/identify/integrate transportation 

related planning considerations and needs in a 

station’s CCP and step-down management plans 

would result in the individual refuge or waterfowl 

production area having to develop a separate 

transportation plan (i.e. a transportation stepdown management plan) before any RRP funding 

or other transportation program funding can be 

allocated for transportation related improvements.

Transportation planning is an eligible activity for 

funding under the Refuge Roads Program. There 

is a nationwide, interagency indefinite delivery 

indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for architectengineer services for transportation planning, 

design and implementation that can be used for 

transportation planning assistance. 

When assistance is needed with transportation 

planning, the Regional Refuge Roads Coordinator 

should be contacted. For regional contacts and 

additional information on refuge roads visit the 

Service’s web site at http://www.fws.gov/refuges/

roads/index.html.

The Service’s refuge planning policy requires 

that one of the elements to be considered in the 

development of a CCP is transportation, including 

public use roads and trails, pedestrian and cyclist 

needs, and water and air access as appropriate for 

each unit of the Refuge System. Transportation 

issues have always been an inherent part of 

providing public access and facilitating the Service’s 

priority public uses. The transportation element in 

the planning requirements helps focus attention on 

the public safety and access issues associated with 

the Service’s public use programs.

It is important to note that this assessment 

needs to include the transportation systems 

within the individual refuge as well as the public 

access to the refuge. Management and public 

use changes at a refuge may not only impact 

the refuge transportation systems but also the 

local transportation systems that provide access 

to the refuge. Like wildlife connectivity issues, 

transportation needs tends to be regional in nature, 

so transportation planning involves ongoing 

collaboration and coordination with local and 

regional stakeholders that manage roads, trails, and 

transit systems. 

The Service must coordinate any proposed 

transportation system changes and improvements 

with the respective State, Metropolitan and Rural 

Planning Organizations to assure that, among other 

considerations, there will be no negative impacts to 

congestion or air quality.

Every CCP and step‐down management plan 

related to public use should have clearly identifiable 

transportation related planning documentation. 

The transportation planning component of 

these plans is intended to identify, evaluate and 

integrate in a comprehensive manner the specific 

needs, considerations and potential impacts of all 

transportation alternatives identified by the Service 

and the public during the planning process. This 

includes public and administrative roads, multiple 

use trails, air and water based transportation, 

pedestrian issues, and public transit all which vary 

by location and use. 
G-2 Appendix G

Alternative Transportation Planning

A holistic approach to transportation includes a 

variety of concepts that should be incorporated into 

the transportation planning process. Considering 

‘Alternative Transportation’ (including transit, 

bike, pedestrian, air, and water access) on federally 

managed lands can help achieve the following goals:

Relieve traffic congestion and parking shortages 

– Alternative Transportation reduces the 

number of vehicles needed to transport 

an equal or greater number of visitors to 

destinations thereby reducing the need for 

private vehicle parking spaces.

Enhance visitor mobility and accessibility – 

Alternative Transportation enhances visitor 

experience by permitting visitors to enjoy 

their site experience rather than concentrating 

on driving or finding scarce parking spaces. 

Bike access allows visitors to enjoy their 

surroundings at a slower pace and connect 

more readily to the resources. Additionally, 

transit can provide visitors with disabilities 

improved access to many sites.

Preserve sensitive natural, cultural and historic 

resources – Alternative Transportation can 

reduce negative impacts to resources made 

by private vehicles by reducing the parking 

footprint, minimizing impacts to wildlife due to 

traffic, and providing more controlled access to 

sensitive resources. 

Provide improved interpretation, education and 

visitor information services – At cultural and 

historical sites, Alternative Transportation can 

enhance the ability of site personnel to provide 

interpretive services to present past events in a 

logical, sequential manner.

Reduce pollution – Air quality could be 

improved by decreasing the total number of 

vehicles accessing sites as well as replacing 

older vehicles with lower emission vehicles. 

Ambient noise levels can also be reduced with 

alternative transportation, which improves 

visitor experience and reduces wildlife 

disturbance.

Improve economic development opportunities 

for gateway communities – Alternative 

Transportation can improve connectivity with 

surrounding communities, thereby increasing 

the accessibility of recreational activities. 

Increasing accessibility through Alternative 

Transportation can increase the site visitation 

levels, resulting in additional economic 

revenues in the local communities through 

increased use of hotels, restaurants, and other 

visitor-oriented services.

Alternative Transportation Systems

Alternative Transportation systems can serve both 

internal trips within and external trips to Federal 

Lands. In general, at sites where Alternative 

Transportation is feasible and prudent, needs may 

be modest and can be served by a small number of 

vehicles operating on a seasonal basis.

Non-motorized Transportation includes bicycling, 

walking, hiking, wheelchair use, running, 

bird‐watching, nature interpretation, backpacking, 

equestrian, non-motorized human‐powered snow 

uses (i.e., skiing, snowshoeing, etc.). 

Examples of non-motorized projects include:

• Expand existing bikeways or create new 

bikeways to increase the opportunity to use a 

bicycle as a mode of transportation and provide 

better internal linkages (National Elk Refuge)

• Connect Federal agency trails to the regional 

trail system and adjacent community trails. 

(Parker NWR, Neal Smith NWR)

• Build pedestrian paths along tour routes to 

increase safety and encourage bike/pedestrian 

use.

• Build hiking trails to encourage non-motorized 

visitation (Prime Hook NWR)

• Provide bicycle rental program to encourage 

non-motorized travel

Bus transit systems include a variety of vehicle 

technologies including tourist trams, vans and 

van conversions, school buses, small transit buses, 

historic trolley replicas, standard transit buses, 

airport apron buses, articulated transit buses, 

bi‐articulated buses, buses with trailers, low floor 

transit buses, motor coaches, double‐decker buses, 

snow coaches, and electric trolley buses. These 

vehicles are typically propelled by conventional 

internal combustion engines (gasoline or diesel) or 

alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, 

bio-diesel, or hybrid electric. Buses can use existing 

or improved public roads to or within parks/public 

lands. Most new alternative transportation systems 

for federally managed public lands will likely be 

based on buses. 

Examples include:

• Develop a guided internal tour route, monitor 

use to implement changes in tour length, 

period of operation, seasonality, reservation 

system. Utilize clean-fuel vehicle, tram, and/or 

an enclosed, climate‐controlled shuttle for the 

hot summer months. (Rocky Mountain Arsenal 

NWR, Patuxent NWR, Back Bay NWR)

• In areas of heavy parking congestion, close off 

access to private vehicles and provide a tour 

route for visitor access. (Santa Ana NWR)

• Develop an on‐demand or regularly scheduled 

shuttle service from the visitor center or 
Appendix G G-3

other large parking lots to and from the major 

activity areas within the Refuge.

• Establish a peak season, weekend shuttle 

system that operates on a fixed schedule 

between a potential parking lot/activity center 

located in the gateway community and the 

Federal lands.

• Work with surrounding public transit agencies 

to extend existing public bus routes to the 

Federal facilities to enhance public access 

and to increase access by under‐served 

communities. It would be operated frequently 

enough to afford an attractive alternative 

to driving for visitors and residents. (Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal NWR)

• Develop a transit program for transporting 

visitors from hotels to tourist events.

• Fixed guideway (rail, light rail, streetcars) 

systems could be considered in very limited 

applications where infrastructure is already in 

place. (Merritt Island rail tour)

Waterborne Transportation should be considered 

wherever there are areas with limited, if any, access 

by land, such as on an island, peninsula, or lake. 

This type of transportation may be particularly 

useful where major communities are located around 

the waterways. Types of waterborne transit vehicles 

include: pontoons and skiffs, mono hull vessels, 

canoes, kayaks, catamarans and hydrofoils.

Examples include:

• Establish a ferry shuttle to transport visitors 

between the local area and the Federal lands 

• Establish an interpretive boat ride to tour 

wetland areas.

• Encourage canoe or kayak use by establishing 

water trails. (Prime Hook NWR)

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Intelligent Transportation Systems is a term to 

describe application of the most current technology 

to improve communication to the traveling public, 

a powerful tool in enhancing the visitor experience. 

Examples include electronic signs relaying realtime information on roadways, such as road 

conditions, construction information, parking 

availability, and weather information. 

Establishing a 511 telephone number is another 

way to broadcast information. State Departments 

of Transportation (DOTs) develop ITS plans that 

develop both the technology needed as well as the 

content of messaging. For more information on ITS, 

go to http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/its.html.

Transportation Planning Resources

Transportation Plans help identify transportation 

needs within Refuges and lay out potential 

strategies to improve mobility and safety, while 

protecting resources. As described earlier, the CCP 

transportation step-down management plan is a tool 

to comprehensively plan transportation. 

Step-down transportation plans should consider 

Alternative Transportation systems concepts, 

however, they tend to be high-level and policy 

oriented. Additional transportation planning will be 

required to determine the feasibility and operations 

of these systems. NWR transportation studies 

are either complete or underway at Ding Darling 

NWR, White River NWR, Bombay Hook NWR, 

Chincoteague NWR, Kilauea Point NWR, Ash 

Meadows NWR, Monomoy NWR, and Ridgefield 

NWR.

Public Involvement

During the transportation planning process, the 

Service will provide the public an opportunity 

to comment on the existing and any proposed 

changes or improvements to the refuge’s public 

transportation systems and infrastructure. This 

would include public use roads, parking, land and 

water trails, transit systems (including ferries, 

trams, shuttles, buses, etc.) and other applicable 

forms of land, water and air transportation 

providing access to or within an individual unit. Also 

included in this would be any related transportation 

infrastructure such as visitor information, signage, 

comfort stations, guard rails, water access points, 

etc. 

In order to facilitate public access to the list of 

transportation improvements being proposed for 

funding under the RRP for the current year and 

subsequent four years, the Service will post a list 

of projects on the Refuge System web site and the 

three Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Federal Lands Highway Divisions web sites.

Additionally, the Service and FHWA will post 

copies of the most current inventory and condition 

assessments, and geographic information systems 

data for public use roads and trails on their 

respective web servers. This will facilitate the 

public’s ability to access information about the 

current status and location of the respective trail 

and road infrastructure.

The comprehensive transportation element (plan) 

will articulate to the public how access is proposed 

or provided to a specific station; how transportation 

facilities support and help facilitate the Service’s 

highest priority of comprehensive resource 

management and protection; ensures safe public 

access and improves the visitor experience; and, 

that compatibility requirements relative to the 

protected resources will be used to evaluate public 

use.
G-4 Appendix G

NWR Transportation Data

The Service’s public use roads and trails on 

refuges and hatcheries have been identified and 

mapped by FHWA, as part of the Road Inventory 

Program (RIP) inventory and condition assessment 

conducted on behalf of the Service. This information 

has been provided to all refuges and hatcheries. 

Copies of specific reports are available for public 

review upon request. The RIP data for improved 

roads (paved and gravel) is updated on a five-year 

cycle. 

Planning and Funding Resources

Transportation Guidebooks have been developed for 

both the National Park Service and Forest Service, 

link to these documents at http://www.fws.gov/

refuges/roads/Transguide.html

Scenic Byways Program information, go to http://

www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/byways.html

Refuge Trails information, go to http://www.fws.gov/

refuges/roads/trails.html

Transportation Enhancement Programs 

information, go to http://www.fws.gov/refuges/

roads/transEnhancements.html

National Park Service Shuttle Systems: http://www.

nps.gov/transportation/tmp/shuttles.htm

Alternative Transportation for Parks and Public 

Lands Link: http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/

grants_financing_6106.html

Federal transportation programs link: http://www.

fws.gov/refuges/roads/links.html

Most comprehensive resource is the refuge roads 

website: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/index.

html
Appendix G G-5

Region 1 CCP Schedule - NW

Preplanning Scoping Alternatives Internal & Public Review CCP Finalization

Refuge/Complex

Lead 

Planner GIS Support

Initiate 

Preplanning

Preplanning 

Report to 

RO

Preplanning 

Approval

FR NOI 

Published

Scoping 

Report to 

RO

Scoping 

Status 

Report to 

WO

Preliminary 

Draft 

Alternatives 

RO Briefing

Alternatives 

Status 

Report to 

WO

Internal 

Review 

Draft to 

RO

Draft CCP 

FR NOA 

Published

Draft CCP 

Public 

Review 

Closes

Final CCP 

Status 

Report to 

WO

FONSI 

Signed

FEIS NOA 

Published

ROD 

Signed

FR NOA 

Final CCP 

Published

Final 

Standalone 

CCP

PLANS UNDERWAY

Protection Island Bardolf So Oct 2006 Feb 2007 July 2007 Apr 2008 Jun 2008 Mar 2009 Dec 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Jul 2010 Sep 2010 Jan 2011

San Juan Island Bardolf So Oct 2006 Feb 2007 July 2007 Apr 2008 Jun 2008 Mar 2009 Dec 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Jul 2010 Sep 2010 Jan 2011

Ridgefield Morris Maty Jul 2005 Mar 2006 June 2006 Jan 2007 Nov 2008 June 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 May 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Jan 2011

Julia Butler 

Hanson Young So Oct 2005 Mar 2006 Sep 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007 June 2007 Mar 2009 2/10/10 3/29/10 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Sep 2010

Lewis & Clark Young So Oct 2005 Mar 2006 Sep 2006 Nov 2006 May 2007 June 2007 Mar 2009 2/10/10 3/29/10 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Sep 2010

Cape Meares Bardolf So Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Jan 2007 Nov 2007 May 2008 Oct 2008 6/15/09 June 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009

Oregon Islands Bardolf So Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Jan 2007 Nov 2007 May 2008 Oct 2008 6/15/09 June 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009

Three Arch 

Rocks Bardolf So Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Jan 2007 Nov 2007 May 2008 Oct 2008 6/15/09 June 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009

Sheldon Collins Drescher Feb 2006 Apr 2008 5/12/08 Dec 2008 Mar 2009 Nov 2009 Nov 2009 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 Jul 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Nov 2010

Ankeny Selvaggio Cruz Oct 2006 Oct 2007 2/29/08 May 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2009 Mar 2010 Jul 2010 Sep 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010 Feb 2011

Baskett Slough Selvaggio Cruz Oct 2006 Oct 2007 2/29/08 May 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2009 Mar 2010 Jul 2010 Sep 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010 Feb 2011

William L. Finley Selvaggio Cruz Oct 2006 Oct 2007 2/29/08 May 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2009 Mar 2010 Jul 2010 Sep 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010 Feb 2011

Columbia Haas Hayes Jan 2007 Nov 2008 May 2009 11/23/09 Dec 2009 Jan 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2010 Mar 2011 Apr 2011 Jun 2011

Willapa Young So Sep 2007 Mar 2008 4/9/08 June 2008 Apr 2009 May 2009 12/30/09 May 2010 Jun 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2010 Jan 2011 Mar 2011

Kootenai Morris Cruz Nov 2007 Oct 2008 2/23/09 June 2009 3/04/10 Dec 2009 Apr 2010 Aug 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2010 Feb 2011 May 2011

Deer Flat Wing Maty Jan 2008 Mar 2009 Jan 2010* May 2010 Mar 2011 Aug 2011 Jan 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Minidoka Morris Maty Jan 2008 Dec 2008 Jan 2010* May 2010 Mar 2011 Aug 2011 Jan 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

*Waiting for SOL feedback on DRF and MND and meetings with BOR, IDFG, and State Lands before proceeding with scoping; after new PL EODs for DRF

PRE-PLANNING BEGINNING IN FY09

Malheur Selvaggio Stockenberg Jan 2009 Jan 2010 6/29/09 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Feb 2011 May 2011 July 2011 Dec 2011 Apr 2012 Jun 2012 Jul 2012

Cold Springs Haas Hayes Apr 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Sep 2010 Feb 2011 Apr 2011 July 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Feb 2012 Apr 2012 June 2012

McKay Creek Haas Hayes Apr 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Sep 2010 Feb 2011 Apr 2011 July 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Feb 2012 Apr 2012 June 2012

Bear Lake Morris Stockenberg May 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 June 2010 Apr 2011 May 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Oxford Slough Morris Stockenberg May 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 June 2010 Apr 2011 May 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Camas Morris Stockenberg May 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 June 2010 Apr 2011 May 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Grays Lake Smith Stockenberg Jan 2009 Jun 2009 Apr 2010 June 2010 Apr 2011 May 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Conboy Lake Haas Hayes July 2009 Mar 2010 Sep 2010 Jan 2011 Apr 2011 May 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012

Toppenish Haas Hayes July 2009 Mar 2010 Sep 2010 Jan 2011 Apr 2011 May 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012

PRE-PLANNING BEGINNING IN FY10

Tualatin River McCarthy So Oct 2009 Mar 2010 Jun 2010 Dec 2010 May 2011 Jun 2011 Aug 2011 Mar 2012 May 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Black River 

(Nisqually) Young So Jan 2010 May 2010 Nov 2010 Apr 2011 Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Feb 2012 May 2012 Jun 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Grays Harbor Young So Jan 2010 May 2010 Nov 2010 Apr 2011 Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Feb 2012 May 2012 Jun 2012 Sep 2012 Dec 2012 Mar 2013

Bandon Marsh Bardolf So Nov 2009 Jun 2010 Oct 2010 Feb 2011 Jul 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Aug 2012 Nov 2012 Feb 2013

Nestucca Bay Bardolf So Nov 2009 Jun 2010 Oct 2010 Feb 2011 Jul 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Aug 2012 Nov 2012 Feb 2013

Siletz Bay Bardolf So Nov 2009 Jun 2010 Oct 2010 Feb 2011 Jul 2011 Sep 2011 Jan 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 Aug 2012 Nov 2012 Feb 2013

Dungeness Bardolf So Mar 2010 Sep 2010 Dec 2010 Apr 2011 Jun 2011 Aug 2011 Nov 2011 Mar 2012 Apr 2012 Jul 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013

Color key Complete Past due(?) Due in the next 3 

months Dates need review
G-6 Appendix G

Region 1 CCP Milestones

Hawaii/Pacific Islands

Preplanning Scoping Alternatives Internal & Public Review CCP Finalization

Refuge/Complex Lead 

Planner

Initiate 

Preplanning

Preplanning 

Report to RO

Preplanning 

Approval

FR NOI 

Published

Scoping 

Report 

to RO

Scoping 

Status 

Report to 

WO

Preliminary 

Alternatives 

RO Briefing

Alternatives 

Status 

Report to RO

Alternatives 

Status 

Report to 

WO

Internal 

Review 

Draft to 

RO

Draft CCP 

FR NOA 

Published

Draft CCP 

Public 

Review 

Closes

Final CCP 

Status 

Report to 

WO

FONSI 

Signed

FR NOA 

Final CCP 

Published

Final 

Standalone 

CCP

Guam Perry July 2006 Mar 2007 Jul 2007 Oct 2007 Oct 2008 Dec 2008 7/22/09 Jul 2009 Sep 2009 Sep 2009 Dec 2009

Kealia Pond Beauregard Sept 2006 May 2009 10/20/09 12/16/09 Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Sep 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010

Kakahaia Beauregard Sept 2006 May 2009 10/20/09 12/16/09 Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Jul 2010 Sep 2010 Sep 2010 Oct 2010

J. Campbell Beauregard Jan 2007 Jun 2008 12/1/08 May 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Jun 2010 Aug 2010

Pearl Harbor Beauregard Jan 2007 Jun 2008 12/1/08 May 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Jun 2010 Aug 2010

Hakalau Forest Perry Oct 2007 Oct 2008 2/25/09 Apr 2009 Oct 2009 1/11/10 1/14/10 Dec 2009 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 May 2010 Aug 2010

Huleia Perry Oct 2007 June 2009 9/28/09 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 May 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 May 2011 May 2011 Aug 2011

Hanalei Perry Oct 2007 June 2009 9/28/09 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 May 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 May 2011 May 2011 Aug 2011

Kilauea Point Perry Oct 2007 June 2009 9/28/09 Jan 2010 Mar 2010 May 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 May 2011 May 2011 Aug 2011

PRE-PLANNING BEGINNING IN FY09

Rose Atoll NWR/MNM Perry Apr 2009 n/a* 11/9/09 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 May 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010 Dec 2010 Dec 2010 Jan 2011

Palmyra Atoll Beauregard Aug 2009 n/a* Dec 2009 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010 Mar 2011 Mar 2011 Apr 2011

Kingman Reef Beauregard Aug 2009 n/a* Dec 2009 Apr 2010 May 2010 Jun 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Dec 2010 Mar 2011 Mar 2011 Apr 2011

PRE-PLANNING BEGINNING IN FY10

Pacific Remote Islands 

MNM** Beauregard Aug 2009 n/a* Dec 2009 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010

 Johnston Atoll Beauregard Aug 2009 n/a* Dec 2009 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010

 Wake Atoll Beauregard Aug 2009 n/a* Dec 2009 Apr 2010 Jun 2010 Aug 2010 Sep 2010

Marianas Trench MNM Perry Jan 2010 n/a** Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 July 2010

 Mariana Arc of Fire Perry Jan 2010 n/a** Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 July 2010 Oct 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2010 Dec 2010 Jan 2011

 Mariana Trench Perry Jan 2010 n/a** Jan 2010 Feb 2010 Apr 2010 May 2010 July 2010 Oct 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2010 Dec 2010 Jan 2011

PRE-PLANNING BEGINNING IN FY11

Oahu Forest TBD Jan 2011 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 July 2013 Aug 2013 Nov 2013 Apr 2014 July 2014 Oct 2014 Oct 2014 Jan 2015

Guam Overlay Perry TBD

Color key Complete Past due(?) Due in the next 3 months Dates need review

* To streamline the process and facilitate completion of CCP/MMPs by January 2011 as required by proclamation, proposed skipping preplanning report and going directly to preplan with alternatives.

** Pre-planning Report due with Scoping Report
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix H

Contact Information for Non-Service Planning Organizations

Appendix H H-1

Transportation Planning Organizations 

Planning 

Level State Organization Name Contact Name, Position Address E-mail Phone

Department of Transportation Regions

HI

Hawaii Glenn M. Yasui Highways Administrator 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 513 Honolulu, HI 96813 808-587-2220

Kauai Ray McCormick District Engineer 1720 Haleukana Street Lihue, HI 96766 808-241-3000

Maui Ferdinand Cajigal Engineering Program Manager 650 Palapala Drive Kahului, HI 96732 808-873-3538Oahu Pratt Kinimaka Engineering Program Manager 727 Kakoi Street Honolulu, HI 96819 808-831-6703

ID

ITD 1 Damon Allen District Engineer 600 W. Prairie Coeur d ́Alene, ID 83815-8764 208-772-1201

ITD 2 James F. Carpenter District Engineer 2600 Frontage Road, P.O. Box 837 Lewiston 83501-0837 208-799-5090 

ITD 3 Dave Jones District Engineer 8150 Chinden Boulevard P.O. Box 8028 Boise, ID 83707-2028 208-334-8300 

ITD 4 Devin O. Rigby District Engineer 216 South Date Street Shoshone, ID 83352-0820 208-886-7800ITD 5 Ed Bala District Engineer 5151 South 5th, P.O. Box 4700 Pocatello, ID 83205-4700 208-239-3300 

ITD 6 Blake Rindlisbacher District Engineer 206 North Yellowstone Highway, P.O. Box 97 Rigby, ID 83442-0097 208-745-7781

OR

Central Oregon Gary Farnsworth Area Manager 63020 OB Riley Road Bend, OR 97701 Gary.C.Farnsworth@odot.state.or.us 541-388-6071

DOT Regions Doug Tindall Deputy Director 355 Capitol St. NE, Rm. 135 Salem, OR 97301-3871 503-986-3435Eastern Oregon Tom Davis 3012 Island Ave. La Grande, OR 97850-9497 Thomas.J.Davis@odot.state.or.us 541-889-9115 ext. 224Northwest David Kim Area Manager Metro Central 123 NW Flanders St. Portland, OR 97209 503-731-4998Portland Metro Susan D. Keil Director 1120 SW Fifth Ave, Rm 800 Portland, OR 97204 Director@pdxtrans.org 503-823-5185South Central

Norman C. “Butch” Hansen South Central Oregon Area Manager

2557 Altamont Drive Klamath Falls, OR 97603-5701 norman.c.hansen@odot.state.or.us 541-883-5662
H-2 Appendix H 

Planning 

Level State Organization Name Contact Name, Position Address E-mail Phone

Department of Transportation 

Regions

OR

Southwest

Mark Usselman South West Oregon Area Manager

mark.ussleman@odot.state.or.us 541-396-3707

Willamette Valley & Coast

Tim Potter Area Manager

885 Airport Road SE, Bldg P Salem, OR 97301-4788 James.T.Potter@odot.state.or.us 503-986-2900

WA

North Central

Dan Sarles Acting Region Administrator and Assistant Region Administrator for Engineering

1551 N. Wenatchee Ave. Wenatchee, WA 98807 SarlesD@wsdot.wa.gov 509-667-3000

Olympic Kevin Dayton Region Administrator P.O. Box 47440 Olympia, WA 98504-7440 daytonk@wsdot.wa.gov 360-357-2600

Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations

HI Oahu MPO Brian Gibson Executive Director, Oahu MPO 707 Richards Street, Suite 200 Honolulu, HI 96813 OahuMPO@OahuMPO.org 808-587-2015

ID COMPASS Matt Stoll Executive Director 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83642 mstoll@compassidaho.org 208-855-2558 ext. 241WA

Benton-Franklin COG

Gwen Luper Executive Director

P.O. Box 217 Richland, WA 99352-0217 gluper@bfcog.us 509-943-9185

SW WA RTC Dean Lookingbill Transportation Director P.O. Box 1366 Vancouver, WA 98666-1366 dean.lookingbill@rtc.wa.gov 360-397-6067Thurston MPO Lon Wyrick Executive Director 2424 Heritage Court SW, Suite A. Olympia, WA 98502 wyrickl@trpc.com 360-956-7575Yakima Valley COG

Page Scott Executive Director

311 North 4th Street, Suite 202 Yakima, WA 98901 scottp@yvcog.org 509-574-1550

Regional Planning District OR

Cascades West ACT

Linda Modreel ACT Chair

408 SW Monroe Ave., Suite 111 Corvallis, OR 97333   linda.l.modrell@co.benton.or.us 541-766-6800

Lower John Day ACT

Judge Gary Thompson ACT Chair

500 Court Street P.O. Box 365 Moro, OR 97039 gthompson@co.sherman.or.us 541-565-3312

Northeast ACT Commissioner Fred Warner ACT Chair 3012 Island Avenue La Grande, OR 97850-9497 fwarner@bakercounty.org 541-523-8200Northwest Oregon ACT

Shirley Kalkhoven ACT Chair

P.O. Box 928 Salem, OR 97308 shirleyk@nehalemtel.net 503-368-6770

South Central ACT

Brad Winters ACT Chair

513 Center Street Lakeview, OR 97630 bwinters@co.lake.or.us 541-947-6005

Southeast ACT Steve Grasty ACT Chair 450 N. Buena Vista, P.O. Box 699 Burns, OR 97720 541-573-6356
Appendix H H-3 Planning Level State Organization Name Contact Name, Position Address E-mail Phone

Regional Planning District WA

BentonFranklin-Walla Walla RTPO

Gwen Luper Executive Director

P.O. Box 217 Richland WA 99352-0217 gluper@bfcog.us 509-943-9185

North Central RTPO

Jeff Wilkens Executive Director

300 South Columbia Street 3rd Floor Wenatchee, WA 98801-6144

jeff@wvtc.org 509.663.9059 ext. 228

Northeast WA RTPO

Leslie Jones Executive Director

347 W. 2nd, Suite A Colville, WA 99114-2300 ljones@teddonline.com 509-684-4571

Palouse RTPO Duane Wollmuth Executive Director 845 Port Way Clarkston, WA 99403 duane@seweda.org 509-751-9144Peninsula RTPO Kevin Dayton Region Administrator P.O. Box 47440 Olympia, WA 98504-7440 daytonk@wsdot.wa.gov 360-357-2600Puget Sound RC

Rick Olson Director, Government Relations & Communications

1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 rolson@psrc.org 206-971-3050

Quad-County RTPO

Derek Pohle Director of Public Works

124 Enterprise Street S.E. Ephrata, WA 98823 dpohle@co.grant.wa.us 509-754-6082

Spokane RTC Glenn Miles Transportation Manager 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane, WA 99201-3645 gmiles@srtc.org 509-343-6370SW WA RTC Dean Lookingbill Transportation Director P.O. Box 1366 Vancouver, WA 98666-1366 dean.lookingbill@rtc.wa.gov 360-397-6067 ext. 5208SW WA RTPO Steve Harvey Director 207 4th Avenue N., Administration Annex Kelso, WA 98626-4195 steveharvey@cwcog.org 360-577-3041

MPO = Metropolitan Planning OfficeRTPO = Regional Transportation OfficeRTC = Regional Transportation CouncilRC = Regional CouncilACT = Area Commissions on Transportation
H-4 Appendix H
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix I

Alternative Transportation Priorities and Strategies

Appendix I I-1

Summary

Alternative transportation systems (ATS) are an important component of transportation to and within 

refuges and hatcheries in Region 1. This section provides background on the definition and benefits of ATS 

and summarizes the findings of the Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation and the Region 1 ATS 

Questionnaire, with implications and recommendations for Region 1. 

Key Needs

The stations in Table 1 were identified as having the most critical needs or the greatest potential for 

ATS (see Table 3 for information on prioritization). A complete listing of other stations with longer-term 

potential for ATS is included later in this appendix.

Table 1: High Priority ATS Needs by Station

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Quality Priority

1

Steigerwald Lake NWR

Washougal, WA Less than 1⁄2 mile Direct connection High

– Extend C-TRAN bus service to refuge entrance, or provide safe pedestrian passage from the current bus stop to 

refuge entrance.

– Promote existing non-motorized access via the Columbia River Dike Trail.

2

Kealia Pond NWR

Kihei, HI 1-3 miles Less than 1⁄2 mile High

– Work with Maui Bus to provide a new bus stop near the refuge entrance between Kihei and Maalaea.

– Promote existing non-motorized access via the Mokulele Highway bike path.

3

Ridgefield NWR

Ridgefield, WA More than 3 miles 1-3 miles High

– Provide a non-motorized trail to downtown Ridgefield and link with existing sidewalks.

– Promote and expand the use of transit for Bird Fest and other special events.

4

Tualatin NWR

Sherwood, OR Less than 1⁄2 mile Direct connection (future) High

– Promote the use of existing Tri-Met bus service for connections to bicycle and light rail networks. 

– Support and promote the use of trail connections via Metro’s Toquin and the City of Sherwood’s trail systems. 

5

Kauai NWRC/Kilauea Point NWR

Kilauea, HI 1⁄2 - 1 mile 1⁄2 - 1 mile High

– Provide a shuttle to connect Kilauea Point NWR to Kauai Bus service or to the town of Kilauea.

– Enhance opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian access.

6

Nisqually NWR

Olympia, WA 2 miles More than 3 miles High

– Work with Intercity Transit to extend bus service between the refuge and the Olympia region.
I-2 Appendix I

Recommendations

The recommendations in Table 2 may assist Region 1 in enhancing the use of alternative transportation, as 

specified under the Sustainability goal.

Table 2: ATS Recommendations

Action Item Description

1 Increase nonmotorized 

connections

– Target stations with the greatest potential for new or improved non-motorized 

infrastructure, as identified in the ATS Questionnaire, for targeted technical assistance.

– Encourage stations to apply for Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks (TRIP) grants to fund new 

infrastructure projects.

– Identify MPOs and rural planning agencies that have stations within their boundaries and 

facilitate participation of FWS staff in their long-range planning efforts.

– Include non-motorized access as a component of CCPs, step-down plans, and site design 

for new facilities.

2 Utilize public or 

private transit use 

for festivals and 

special events

– Identify stations with high visitation special events.

– Create a best-practices resource or contact manual for stations that currently use transit 

for special events.

– Identify contracting mechanisms to facilitate short-term rentals of transit vehicles for use at 

events.

3 Enhance 

connections to 

local bus routes for 

urban and suburban 

stations within 

transit service areas

– Encourage stations to apply for TRIP grants to conduct planning or feasibility studies for 

transit access.

– Encourage stations to contact the TRIP Technical Assistance Center (TAC) for technical 

assistance on ATS planning.1

– Identify transit providers with service areas coinciding with station locations (with the 

assistance of MPOs and State DOTs) and encourage partnerships between providers and 

station staff.

4 Improve and 

strengthen 

partnerships 

to improve ATS 

connections and 

leverage funding

– Encourage stations to partner with local governments, transportation planners, transit 

providers, friends groups, and others to craft appropriate strategies for transportation and 

visitor management.

– Identify timelines for major regional long-range transportation plans (LRTP), transit plans, 

and bicycle and pedestrian plans to improve FWS participation in the development of the 

plan.

– Partner with local governments and other Federal agencies to apply for grants to fund ATS 

projects.

ATS Background 

As visitation among Region 1 stations grows, ATS will become an increasingly important way to manage 

visitors sustainably while protecting wildlife. Given the locations and missions of most Region 1 stations, 

many station staff have not considered the applicability of ATS to their stations’ plans and programs. 

Increasing awareness of ATS and its benefits should be a priority for Region 1; this section offers several 

insights and strategies for ATS solutions that may be successful in 

Region 1.

Definition of ATS

• ATS include any travel by means other than personal automobile, such as:

• Motorized transportation systems operating internally within stations

• Shuttles and van transit connecting stations with other destinations

• Regional transit connections (bus, light rail, trolley, commuter rail, passenger rail)

• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, paths, bicycle lanes, regional trails)

• Water-based transportation

• Publicly and privately operated transit systems
Appendix I I-3

Relationship to LRTP Goals

ATS complements several goals of the LRTP, most notably Sustainability but also Natural Resource 

Protection and Welcome and Orient Visitors. The use of transit, non-motorized, and water-based modes 

supports the LRTP goals, with the following illustrative examples:

• Sustainability: The reduction of personal automobiles in accessing and traveling through stations, 

both for visitors and staff, can bring about several benefits that reinforce sustainable transportation 

practices. ATS can reduce the Service’s carbon footprint, reduce the use of carbon-based fuels, 

enhance accessibility, and reduce air pollutants emitted from vehicles.

• Natural Resource Protection: By reducing the use of personal automobiles, FWS can also reduce the 

impacts that these vehicles have upon natural resources. Vehicular resource impacts include wildlife 

collisions, invasive species, noise pollution, particulate emissions, erosion, and pollutants that can 

enter the soil or water. Over the long term, increasing ATS for stations with increasing visitation can 

minimize the need for new roads or parking, thus preserving more area for wildlife habitat.

• Welcome and Orient Visitors: ATS can be a critical visitor management tool for station staff facing 

increasing visitor demands and limited resources and capacity. The use of transit can enhance visitors’ 

understanding of the station’s natural resources by facilitating interpretive tours or directing visitors 

for special events. Signage and orientation information directed at non-automobile modes can also help 

integrate these modes most appropriately into station transportation. Also, by including refuges and 

hatcheries on existing non-motorized and transit maps and signage, FWS can welcome visitors to its 

stations within the context of the broader region. 

Trends and Strategies

The Region’s refuges and hatcheries are diverse in their visitation and associated travel patterns, but a few 

trends emerge that inform ATS needs and planning:

Refuges and hatcheries near major urban areas and along the I-5 corridor attract (or have the potential to 

attract) high visitation from urban and suburban residents, and they often have visitor amenities such as 

hiking trails, auto tour routes, education programs, and wildlife art to serve those visitors.

1. Several stations outside of population centers contain special resources that attract high visitation, 

making these “destination stations.” Almost all visitors must travel to these stations by personal 

vehicle.

2. Many stations across the region have special events and festivals with significant spikes in visitation 

that necessitate temporary visitor management and transportation strategies.

3. Many stations host local and regional school groups for field trips to their natural and cultural 

resources; a few stations have facilities that can specifically accommodate these groups. 

4. The majority of Region 1 stations are outside of the service district of public transit providers.

5. Many of the gateway communities near stations have extensive existing non-motorized infrastructure 

and residents that frequently bicycle for transportation and recreational purposes.

6. Demographic trends may lead to more elderly residents in the region, including more people who 

do not or cannot drive. Other regional trends may include smaller vehicles, electric vehicles, and 

affordability of transportation.

Based on these trends and station characteristics, and informed by the responses from the ATS 

Questionnaire, the following types of ATS may be most beneficial to Region 1:

1. Non-motorized paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle racks, and signage for non-motorized users to connect 

stations with existing non-motorized trail networks, gateway towns, and local and regional amenities. 

In most cases, encourage bicycle use to but not within stations to avoid conflicts between bicycles and 

wildlife.

2. Transit use for festivals and special events

3. Connections to local bus routes for urban and suburban stations within transit service areas

4. Partnerships with local groups to craft appropriate strategies for transportation and visitor 

management
I-4 Appendix I

Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation

The FWS and the U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center (Volpe Center) conducted a regional 

alternative transportation evaluation (RATE) in Region 1 to ensure effective integration of alternative 

transportation systems into the Region 1 LRTP. The Region 1 RATE was also meant to serve as a pilot 

for the integration of ATS into the National FWS LRTP. Staff from the Volpe Center, FWS Region 1, 

and Western Federal Lands Highways came together in Portland, Oregon, in October 2010, to discuss 

alternative transportation needs and constraints in the region and to develop the ATS Questionnaire. Volpe 

Center staff also visited Ridgefield NWR, Steigerwald Lake NWR, the Mid-Columbia Refuge Complex, 

and the Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery to identify specific opportunities for ATS in these and other 

stations. The RATE also provided lessons on how ATS may be instituted more broadly across Region 1.

Based on the station visits and strategic discussions, the following are key findings and outcomes from the 

RATE:

• The RATE team developed and refined the ATS Questionnaire, which was circulated among all 

stations in Region 1.

• Many stations already use transit for festivals, working closely with community and regional partners 

and transit providers to rent vehicles.

• Some stations aiming to increase their visitation and interpretive services found potential for ATS as 

a tool to help achieve this goal. Other stations expressed reluctance to pursue ATS based on limited 

staffing to manage existing (or growing) visitation. 

Some of the opportunities identified for specific ATS integration into stations include:

• Pedestrian facilities partially cover the distance between the Town of Ridgefield and the Ridgefield 

NWR’s new visitor center. There is an opportunity to create a non-motorized trail to complete the 

connection.

• A C-TRAN bus stop is located approximately a half mile from the Steigerwald Lake NWR entrance, 

and C-TRAN (the transit provider in Clark County, WA) offers frequent service to the Washougal/

Camas area. Currently, no pedestrian facilities connect the bus stop with the refuge.

• A U-shaped trail connected to the new McNary NWR education center begins and terminates at Lake 

Road, and pedestrian facilities connecting the trailheads would allow for enhanced visitor experience 

and safety. A major highway construction project in the region is expected to increase traffic on Lake 

Road. A safe, off-road pedestrian connection along Lake Road would encourage heavier trail use.

• The Columbia River Heritage Trail, a multi-use, paved trail, runs through the Umatilla NWR and 

connects to nearby towns.

• Annual festivals, including Ridgefield NWR’s Bird Fest and Columbia NWR’s Sand Hill Crane 

Festival, attract thousands of visitors. These events already incorporate ATS for parking shuttles and 

interpretive tours, and they can be models for other stations.

ATS Questionnaire 

The ATS Questionnaire is a tool to identify the broad and specific needs and opportunities for ATS in 

Region 1, as well as to target areas for future technical assistance from the Regional and Federal levels. 

Staff from the Volpe Center, FWS Region 1, FWS Headquarters, and Western Federal Lands Highways 

developed the Questionnaire in conjunction with the RATE with feedback from station staff participating 

in the RATE. The Questionnaire was available to stations as an online survey. A copy of the questionnaire 

appears at the end of this appendix, but the circulated version appeared as an online survey format only. 

Region 1 staff circulated a link to the online ATS Questionnaire via email to all 105 stations in the region, 

with responses collected between November 15 and December 3, 2010. Twenty-four stations responded to 

the questionnaire, and the responses from these stations are aggregated and analyzed within this section.
Appendix I I-5

Opportunities for Transit

Many stations are located outside of major metropolitan areas and do not think of transit as a means of 

visitor access. However, even in non-urban areas, rural transit providers and inter-city transit (including 

bus and rail) may offer transit services that can be extended to visitor access. Furthermore, many urban 

refuges are already within a few miles of existing transit service and can capitalize on this mode for station 

access. As shown in Figure 1, 33 percent of questionnaire respondents had a bus stop or train station 

within three miles of their station, and approximately 30 percent of respondents also answered that transit 

might be able to assist their station for both general visitor access and for special events. Also, nearly all 

stations (95%) with a public use component reported that school groups and friends groups use buses or 

vans to transport groups to the station.

Transit use for special events, which is already occurring throughout the region, may be the greatest 

short-term opportunity for transit. Sixty-five percent of respondents have at least one special event with 

high visitation. Types of events include festivals centered around wildlife (bird festivals, salmon festivals, 

etc.), fishing events, open houses, children’s activity days, and miscellaneous events. More than half of 

respondents have events in the spring, with many events also occurring in the fall and a small number in 

the summer and winter. The seasonality of events suggests that stations may be best served by short-term 

rentals or contracts with public or private transit providers. Daily visitation at these festivals generally 

ranges from 150 to 1,800, with an average of 550 daily visitors. However, the Wenatchee River Salmon Fest 

hosted by the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery, in late September attracts 10,000 visitors. Stations 

currently use overflow lots on-site to manage heavy visitation for events, but some stations, including 

Columbia NWR and Nisqually NWR, rent vans and buses to shuttle visitors between the refuge, parking 

lots, and other event sites. Ridgefield NWR also hires charter buses to offer birding tours on its auto 

route; the refuge does not allow private vehicles along this route during Bird Fest and they have received 

positive feedback for this program.

Internal transit does not play a major role in Region 1, due to the relatively low levels of visitation and 

congestion on internal station roads. However, internal transit may have a future role for some stations 

with high visitation, particularly for “destination” stations such as Kealia Pond NWR and Kauai NWR in 

Hawaii. 

Figure 1: Distance to Transit
I-6 Appendix I

Opportunities for Trails

Bicycle and pedestrian access is viable for many of the region’s refuges and hatcheries, both rural and 

urban. Urban stations can connect into metropolitan non-motorized networks of paved trails and bicycle 

lanes, while rural stations can seek specific connections locally to gateway towns and regional destinations. 

Many rural and small urban counties also have bicycle and pedestrian trails or trail plans.

The majority (53 percent) of stations responding to the questionnaire has a regional non-motorized trail 

within three miles, and 26 percent have a trail with a direct connection to the station, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Distance to Trails

Questionnaire respondents also called for more non-motorized connections as a means to enhance their 

visitor program. As shown in Figure 3, 55 percent of respondents would like new bicycle paths for access 

to their station, 35 percent would like new pedestrian paths for access to their station, and 25 percent 

would like new pedestrian paths within their station. Other opportunities for enhancing visitor programs at 

stations include new transit service and promotion and marketing.

Visitor Characteristics

Among questionnaire respondents, the most popular visitor activity was wildlife observation, closely 

followed by environmental education, photography, and interpretation. These activities can be conducive 

to transit; refuges in Region 1 and in other regions have successfully used vans or buses for environmental 

education programs or to promote wildlife observation. For many refuges, a significant number of 

visitors also hunt and fish. Both of these activities require special equipment that may be challenging to 

bring to the station using ATS. However, refuges may consider transit use, outfitted with special storage 

capabilities, for seasonal hunting events. Refuges can also provide water-based access opportunities, such 

as connections to regional canoe and kayak trails or dock infrastructure, to visitors who enjoy fishing and 

wish to access the refuge or travel within the refuge by boat.

Questionnaire respondents indicated that overall station visitation is likely to grow in the coming years. 

Seventy-one percent of respondents expect visitation at their stations to increase, and the remaining 29 
Appendix I I-7

percent expect visitation to remain the same. No respondents anticipate decreasing visitation. A slight 

majority of respondents (52 percent) are actively trying to increase visitation, while the rest of respondents 

are not actively trying to increase or decrease visitation. Anecdotally, some stations expressed concern 

with staff and station capacity to handle increasing visitation. Of the questionnaire respondents, 19 percent 

noted that they share a high level of concern with managing transportation for future visitors. Thirty-eight 

percent felt this issue may be a future concern, and 43 percent expressed little or no concern.

Figure 3: Visitor Program Enhancements

Key Transportation Challenges

The top transportation challenges cited by stations, as measured by the number of respondents, are:

• Distance from population centers (55 percent)

• Lack of transit service (55 percent)

• Lack of safe pedestrian access (30 percent)

• Staff capacity shortages (35 percent)

• Congestion on roads leading to station (35 percent)

As shown in Figure 4, other challenges include condition of existing transportation assets, resource 

conflicts with cars or bicycles, funding shortages, and appropriate and effective signage,. Additionally, 

many stations used an open-response section of the questionnaire to site poor conditions, maintenance 

challenges, congestion, or inadequate capacity of existing infrastructure as their most significant 

transportation problems. ATS can offer a means of accommodating visitors without additional strain on 

road infrastructure. Finally, several stations used the questionnaire to comment that their access roads are 

unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians, even though the station is located in an area with a strong bicycling 

community or within walking distance of gateway towns. These challenges represent opportunities to 

improve safety for non-motorized users and to improve ATS.
I-8 Appendix I

Figure 4: Transportation Challenges

Promotion and Partnerships

Several stations cite the importance of advertising and awareness of existing programs, such as facility 

tours and non-motorized trail connections. Forty-five percent of respondents thought that promotion and 

marketing for existing and potential ATS would enhance their visitor program. 

Many stations also recognize that partnerships are their best opportunity for improved ATS. They cite 

relationships with County recreation departments, city transportation departments, regional transit 

providers, and other Federal agencies as a means to add new bus stops near the refuges and hatcheries, 

expand transit service, build connections to bicycle trails, or provide sidewalks along unsafe highways.

Partnerships can help station staff to promote existing ATS connections and develop new connections. 

FWS should encourage partnerships between stations and local transportation planners. Station staff 

should be engaged in the development of city, county, and regional plans (such as long-range transportation 

plans, rural transportation plans, transit plans, and bicycle and pedestrian plans). Regular communication 

with these planners can help ensure that the station is considered when the city, county, or region is 

developing long-term trail routes, bicycle paths, and transit service.
Appendix I I-9

Planning for ATS in Region 1

Funding

ATS projects often have different scales, constraints, and cost structures than the transportation 

infrastructure projects that Region 1 typically funds with Refuge Roads Program (RRP) and Deferred 

Maintenance funds. Also, while RRP can fund ATS studies, several key ATS infrastructure needs, such 

as transit vehicles and new pedestrian or bicycle paths, are not eligible expenses under RRP or Deferred 

Maintenance funds. However, ATS projects may qualify for a number of State and Federal funding 

sources, some of which are dedicated solely to ATS. These are described in detail in Section 3.3 of the 

LRTP. 

The Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks (TRIP) program offers a dedicated funding source for planning for 

and constructing ATS in Federal lands. Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) are eligible to apply 

for funds, as are partner agencies (including local and State government agencies) with the support of the 

FLMA. Funded projects may provide access to public lands, in addition to ATS within public lands, making 

this grant an important funding source for many of the potential non-motorized and transit connections 

described in this Appendix. Since FY 2006, FWS and its partners have received over $9 million in funding 

from the TRIP program and its predecessor, the Alterative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands 

program. The Service received $6.4 million for implementation projects and $2.6 million for planning 

projects.

Additional funding programs with greatest applications for ATS are:

• Transportation Enhancements

• Recreational Trails Program

• Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program

Station staff may perceive challenges in navigating the various funding sources for ATS, and the Region 

1 staff should offer technical assistance, where feasible, in clarifying the applications for these sources 

or helping stations identify funding sources to meet their transportation needs. The TRIP Technical 

Assistance Center (TAC) also offers transportation-related technical assistance to all Federal Land 

Management Agencies to help land managers develop and implement alternative transportation projects.i

Stations may also find success in working with partners to leverage additional funds for ATS projects. 

Local governments, friends groups, resource agencies, and non-profit organizations often stand to benefit 

from the institution of ATS infrastructure based on its potential to reduce congestion, reduce resource 

impacts, and enhance recreation and mobility for station visitors and local residents. Partners may have 

access to other funding sources or grants, and stations may be more competitive for funding if they apply 

jointly with partners.

Project Selection

The project selection process, as delineated in Chapter 3, considers ATS and non-ATS projects jointly 

in establishing Region 1’s five-year Transportation Improvement Plan. The review and validation of 

projects incorporates the LRTP goals and objectives, which include sustainability and ATS considerations. 

Sustainability goals and related ATS objectives have a “Medium” ranking priority. As ATS projects 

may meet some of the objectives under other goal areas, the transportation coordinators and regional 

management team (described in Chapter 3) should consider ATS projects holistically with regards to their 

ability to protect natural resources and aid with visitor management. The Management Team should also 

consider the ability of ATS projects to meet regional priorities, particularly given the ancillary benefits 

that ATS projects often have upon their surrounding communities. Regional priorities directly impacted 

by ATS, such as reduced fuel use and increased access for underserved populations, may become more 

important in the coming decades. One area for future consideration may be the development of quantifiable 

criteria for ATS in the project selection process.

Specifically, Region 1 should consider the following in project selection to support and increase ATS:
I-10 Appendix I

• During the call for projects, specifically remind stations to include ATS in their project submittals, and 

include a definition of ATS in the call for projects.

• When evaluating a road infrastructure project or improvement, consider whether an ATS project could 

alleviate the need for the improvement or could add supplemental benefits to the road project with 

little or no additional costs.

• Request letters of support from partner agencies involved in ATS project proposals to better 

understand the regional benefits of the project.

List of Potential Projects

The list of potential projects (Table 3) includes projects identified in the ATS Questionnaire, the FWS 

Transit & Trails Assessment,� the RATE, and conversations with Regional FWS staff. The priority ranking 

is based on information provided by station and regional staff. High-priority potential projects are those 

with more immediate potential to institute ATS or the most pressing transportation needs. Medium- and 

low-priority projects may also demonstrate need and potential for ATS projects, but the conditions at these 

stations are currently less feasible for ATS or information is lacking as to their conditions. 

Table 3: All Potential Projects in Region 1

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Priority

1

Steigerwald Lake NWR

Washougal, WA Less than 1⁄2 mile Direct connection High

– Extend C-TRAN bus service to refuge entrance, or provide safe pedestrian passage from current bus stop to refuge 

entrance.

– Promote existing non-motorized access via the Columbia River Dike Trail.

2

Kealia Pond NWR (HI)

Kihei, HI 1.5 miles Less than 1⁄2 mile High

– Work with Maui Bus to provide a new bus stop near the refuge entrance between Kihei and Maalaea.

– Promote existing non-motorized access via the Mokulele Highway bike path.

3

Ridgefield NWR

Ridgefield, WA More than 3 miles 1-3 miles High

– Provide a non-motorized trail to downtown Ridgefield and link with existing sidewalks.

– Promote and expand the use of transit for Bird Fest and other special events.

4

Tualatin NWR

Sherwood, OR Less than 1⁄2 mile Direct connection (future) High

– Promote the use of existing Tri-Met bus service for connections to bicycle and light rail networks. 

– Support and promote the use of trail connections via Metro’s Toquin and the City of Sherwood’s trail systems.

5

Kauai NWRC/Kilauea Point NWR

Kilauea, HI 1⁄2 - 1 mile 1⁄2 - 1 mile High

– Provide a shuttle to connect the Kilauea Point NWR to Kauai Bus service or to the town of Kilauea.

– Enhance opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian access.

6

Nisqually NWR (WA)

Olympia, WA 2 miles More than 3 miles High

– Work with Intercity Transit to extend bus service between the refuge and the Olympia region.

7

McNary NWR

Pasco, WA More than 3 miles 2 miles Medium

– Provide pedestrian facilities along Lake Road to offer safe pedestrian access between trailheads.

– Provide a bicycle and pedestrian trail to connect with the Snake River Bridge and the extensive regional trail 

network.
Appendix I I-11

Table 3: All Potential Projects in Region 1

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Priority

8

Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex

Leavenworth, WA Less than 1⁄2 mile More than 3 miles Medium

– Provide a regional, non-motorized trail for pedestrian and bicycle access to the complex, with potential connection 

to the Apple Capital Loop Trail.

– Promote the use of existing LINK bus service.

9

Turnbull NWR

Cheney, WA More than 3 miles Direct connection Medium

– Connect the Columbia Plateau Bicycle Trail to the station’s public use area, visitor contact area, and headquarters.

10

Koontenai NWR

Bonners Ferry, ID More than 3 miles Direct connection Medium

– Partner with the County to provide a bicycle path connecting the refuge to Bonners Ferry.

11

Umatilla NWR

Umatilla, OR More than 3 miles Direct connection Medium

– Promote and enhance connections via the Columbia River Heritage Trail.

12

Quinault NFH

Quinault, WA More than 3 miles More than 3 miles Medium

– Potential connection with Olympic National Park via transit.

13

Oregon Coast NWR Complex

Western Oregon Unknown Unknown Medium

– Provide a short-run shuttle bus in coordination with Ecola State Park.

– Identify other opportunities for comprehensive transportation links throughout the refuge, including the use of transit 

for special events.

14

James Campbell NWR

Hale’iwa, HI 3.5 miles Unknown Medium

– Work with The Bus to provide transit service to the refuge.

15

Deer Flat NWR

Nampa, ID On-demand transit 4 Medium

– Provide a non-motorized connection between the refuge and the Nampa to Stoddard Trail. 

– Consider potential for transit as a means to access the refuge.

16

Willamette Valley NWRC

Corvallis, OR More than 3 miles More than 3 miles Low

– Provide a Rail Trail for walkers and bicyclists. 

– Use mini-buses to connect to the Corvallis Transit System.

17

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Colville, WA More than 3 miles More than 3 miles Low

– Improve safety for bicycle access along State and County roads leading to refuge.

18

Abernathy Fish Technology Center

Longview, WA More than 3 miles More than 3 miles Low

– Improve safety for bicycle access to refuge through a bicycle path along Highway 4.

19

Willapa NWRC 

Ilwaco, WA More than 3 miles NA Low

– Improve bicycle and pedestrian access between new station visitor center and the town of Ilwaco.
I-12 Appendix I

Region 1: Alternative Transportation Refuge Questionnaire 

Background: 

Region 1 has initiated a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to establish goals and objectives for 

transportation planning, improve the Service’s transportation infrastructure, and optimize transportation 

funding decisions. The use of alternative transportation systems and access to stations brings potential 

benefits of resource protection, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and visitor management solutions. 

FWS and the U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center are conducting a regional alternative 

transportation evaluation (RATE) in Region 1 to ensure effective integration of alternative transportation 

systems into the LRTP. Completing this survey helps the Region identify future needs and opportunities.

Alternative transportation systems generally include any travel means other than personal automobile, 

such as:

• Motorized transportation systems operating internally within stations

• Shuttles and van transit connecting stations with other destinations

• Regional transit connections (bus, light rail, trolley, commuter rail, passenger rail)

• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, paths, bicycle lanes, regional trails)

• Water-based transportation

• Publicly and privately operated systems

Current examples of alternative transportation systems in FWS include the Columbia River Dike Trail, 

offering non-motorized access to Steigerwald Lake NWR in Washougal, WA, and the Tri-Met bus that 

connects the Tualatin River NWR to other transit in Portland, OR.

Please help us by answering the following brief questions:

1. What is your station name?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

2. Is your station open to public use?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

3. How far from your station is the nearest transit service, such as a local bus stop or Amtrak

station?

 Less than 1/2 mile  1/2 to 1 mile  1 to 3 miles  More than 3 miles

Name of transit service provider: ________________________________________________________

4. Is there an opportunity for transit to assist you with special events at your station?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

5. Is there an opportunity for transit to provide access for your general visitor (not during special

events)?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

6. How far from your station is the nearest bicycle and pedestrian regional trail?

 Direct connection to trail  Less than 1/2 mile  1/2 to 1 mile 

 1 to 3 miles  More than 3 miles

Name of trail: __________________________________________________________________________
Appendix I I-13

7. How would you estimate that most visitors access your station? (Please fill in approximate

percentages):

Personal vehicle ______ Public transit ______ Private transit (school bus, groups) ______ 

Water-based access (including kayaks and canoes) ______ Walking ______ 

Bicycling ______ Other ______ 

8. Do school groups or friends groups provide transportation to your station via bus or van?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

9. Which of the following are transportation

challenges that your station faces (check all

that apply)?

 Congestion on roads within station

 Congestion on roads leading to station

 Bus parking

 Resource conflicts with cars or bicycles

 Funding shortages (including fee

collection)

 Lack of transit service

 Lack of safe pedestrian access

 Staff capacity shortages

 Distance from population centers

 Condition of existing transportation

assets

 Appropriate and effective signage

 At-grade railroad crossings

 Have not considered transportation issues

10. Which of the following may enhance your

visitor program?

 Internal transit – year-round

 Internal transit – seasonal

 New transit service for access to the

station

 Pedestrian paths within station

 Pedestrian paths for access to station

 Bicycle paths within station

 Bicycle paths for access to station

 Bicycle racks

 Water-access facilities

 Promotion and marketing for existing

and potential alternative transportation

systems

 Parking management solutions

 Have not considered transportation issues

11. How would you estimate the demographics of your visitors?

Please rate each group using the following categories: Significant Some Few None No Information

     Families

     Youth/school groups

     Senior citizens

     Mobility-impaired visitors

     Minority populations

     Low-income populations

     People who would use transit

     People who would bicycle
I-14 Appendix I

13. How would you estimate where your visitors live?

Please rate each group using the following categories: Significant Some Few None No Information

     Within 10 miles of stations

     Within 50 miles of station

     Tourists (more than 50 miles from station)

     International visitors

14. How would you estimate the activities enjoyed by your visitors?

Please rate each group using the following categories: Significant Some Few None No Information

     Hunting

     Fishing

     Wildlife Observation

     Photography

     Environmental Education

     Interpretation

15. Does your station have any special events with high visitation?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

16. Please provide a few details about the special event(s):

What is the name of the event? _________________________________________________________

What is the event date?_________________________________________________________________

What is the approximate visitation for the event?_________________________________________

17. How do you handle heavy visitation for the event(s)?

 Use of transit

 Use of overflow lots on-site

 Partnerships for expanded parking off-site

 Other (please specify)_ _____________________________________________________________

18. What are the most significant transportation problems or needs currently facing your station?

19. In the future, what might be the greatest opportunities for new or improved alternative

transportation at your station?
Appendix I I-15

20. Do you anticipate that visitation at your station will increase or decrease in the future?

 Increase  Decrease  Stay the Same

21. Are you actively trying to increase or decrease visitation?

 Increase  Decrease  Neither

22. How much of a concern is transportation with respect to changing visitation levels?

 High concern  Potential/future concern  Little or no concern

23. Would the station benefit from having a more detailed look at alternative transportation

opportunities and challenges?

Yes  No  Maybe

24. Is there any additional information related to transportation that you would like to share?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The TRIP TAC website is http://www.triptac.org/, and the TRIP TAC can also be reached by phone at 

(877) 704-5292.

The Volpe Center completed the Transit & Trails Assessment in 2010 to inventory and prioritize ATS 

connections to National Wildlife Refuges across the FWS. 
I-16 Appendix I
Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1

Appendix J

Guidance on the Federal Lands Highway Refuge Roads Program

Appendix J J-1

Index

Background:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Public Roads:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Scope of Improvements:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Roads: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Bridges: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Safety Projects:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Design Standards:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Program Effectiveness Measures:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Project Selection Priorities:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Work Items That Are Eligible For Funding: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Work Items That Will Generally Not Be Eligible For Funding: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Work Items That Are Not Eligible For Funding: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
J-2 Appendix J

Guidance Document For The Refuge Roads Program

Prepared by the Federal Highway Administration

in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Revised September 14, 2005

Background:

The document provides guidance to help identify projects and project enhancements that may be 

funded under the Refuge Roads program (RRP) category. The basic eligibility requirements were 

established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and modified by Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). 

The legislation is codified in Title 23 - United States Code (23 USC). Section 204 of 23 USC requires 

that funds made available for refuge roads shall be used only to pay the cost of:

A) Maintenance and improvements of refuge roads. 

B) Maintenance and improvement of eligible enhancement projects noted below that are located in 

or adjacent to wildlife refuges:

1) Adjacent vehicular parking areas,

2) Interpretive signage,

3) Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles and 

4) Roadside rest areas including sanitary and water facilities

C) Administrative costs associated with such maintenance and improvements.

Examples of eligible items are included in the Appendix.

The construction of new roads is not authorized.

Title 23 USC 202(e) requires that the funds be distributed base upon relative need of the various 

refuges. In order to establish priorities, Title 23 USC 204(a)(6) requires that the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) develop and adopt by rule, safety, 

bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems as appropriate. 

Public Roads:

Title 23 USC 101 (a) (28)) defines Refuge roads as public roads that:

1) Provide access to or within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System and,

2) Title and maintenance responsibility are vested in the United States Government.

Public roads are defined by 23 USC 101 (a) (27) as any road open to public travel. Because of the 

unique usage of refuge roads, this has to be further clarified by these guidelines. In order to be 

considered Public Roads, refuge roads must be opened to the general public during substantial parts 

of the year. Seasonal closures during nesting periods and inclement weather are permitted. However, 

roads only opened by permit to specific public interests, such as to hunters for specified hunting 

periods or photographers to access photo blinds, are not considered public roads.
Appendix J J-3

Scope of Improvements:

Roads:

The refuge road funds may only be used for rehabilitation to extend the service life of an existing 

road and enhance safety. Such work is also known as Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation, 

(3-R). 3-R work includes the placement of additional surfacing materials and/or other work necessary 

to return an existing roadway including shoulders, the roadside, and appurtenances, to a condition of 

structural adequacy. 

Most 3-R work occurs on the existing road bench. Refuge Roads work generally will not involve 

widening beyond the existing road bench or require the construction of new retaining walls, or cuts 

and fills. Exceptions where RRP projects could occur off of the road bench include work on drainage 

structures, existing retaining walls, slope failures, bridges, and spot traffic safety improvement work.

Construction of new roads is not authorized. 

Bridges:

Eligible refuge road funded work on bridges includes approach fill rehabilitation, superstructure 

(deck, rails & girders) replacements, abutment and foundation repairs, abutment slope protection, 

foundation scour repair and protection work, and piling replacements. Small bridges or large box 

culverts may be replaced as part of a road improvement project. 

Safety Projects:

Reconstruction of refuge roads for spot traffic safety improvement project work to correct identified 

safety problems at high accident locations may be undertaken with RRP funds. Such work is limited 

to specific sites (e.g. a curve or intersection) where a history of accidents have been documented, and 

where solutions have been developed to reduce accidents at the site. Studies of high accident sites 

may be funded out of a Region’s RRP program. 

Many of the limitations noted in this guidance do not apply to safety improvement work. Work could 

include roadway widening, realignments, new paving, new guardrails or walls, new sidewalks or 

bicycle paths for separation of traffic, street lighting, traffic signals or other improvements which 

can be expected to reduce the rate or severity of accidents at that location. In addition, needed safety 

work such as turning lanes on non-refuge roads intersecting with refuge roads may be included in 

RR funded projects. These projects must be coordinated with the agency having jurisdiction of the 

intersecting roadway and funding should be split with that agency if possible.

Design Standards:

Because this is a 3-R program and designers will be required to stay within the existing roadway 

prism, design standards for new construction and re-construction are typically not applicable. 

Since FWS has not developed 3-R design criteria, AASHTO design criteria should be the basis for 

development of design exceptions where traffic safety experience does not warrant improvements 

to full design criteria. Achievement of AASHTO standards usually will not be possible without 

demonstrated and documented safety deficiencies as noted above. 

Program Effectiveness Measures:

The planned performance measure for refuge roads is the change in the condition of roads and 

bridges as measured by the Road and Bridge Inventory systems. Besides this degree of improvement 

shown for FWS Regions in the annual Road Inventory Program (RIP) condition surveys, the ratio of 

administrative costs to construction costs, and the average cost per mile for projects in each Region 

will be used by FWS and FHWA to measure how efficiently and effectively each Region operates its 

program. 
J-4 Appendix J

Project Selection Priorities:

23 USC 202 (e) and 204 (k) (3) also provides guidance on criteria for selection of projects to be 

improved under the RR program. Projects shall be selected taking into consideration:

(1) The comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge.

(2) The need for access as identified through land use planning

(3) The impact of land use planning on existing transportation facilities

(4) The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

Since 23USC requires funding to be eligible based upon the relative needs of the various refuges, 

the selection process should favor project items that improve the condition rating factors that help 

establish the needs. These factors include the road condition rating which considers the number of 

miles of fair, poor, and failed (deficient) roads. 

23 USC 204(a)(6) also requires that roads in the Federal Lands Highway program develop asset 

management systems to help insure the efficient use of FLH funds. These include safety, bridge, 

pavement and congestion management systems as applicable. The guidelines for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service management systems are codified in 23 CFR 972.

The requirement for a bridge management system is being met by existing FWS bridge management 

program. The requirement for a pavement management system is being met by the FHWA inventory 

and condition assessment program for FWS managed public use roads. Given the limited number of 

areas with congestion and safety programs, these programs are not applicable to most refuges. The 

Regions will consider congestion and safety in project selection, and identify any areas of specific 

concern to the national refuge roads coordinator.
Appendix J J-5

Appendix 

Eligibility

Except when unusual safety concerns require, the following work that will not be funded under the 

RRP program: 

1) constructing new parking areas or pullouts, widening off of the present road bench,

2) realigning and relocating roads (vertical or horizontal realignments), and

3) constructing new pedestrian trails or bicycle paths. 

4) recurring maintenance practices such as grading roads and mowing roadsides.

Regions can obtain assistance for RRP project planning, design, compliance and construction 

contracting services from the Regional Engineering Offices, their respective Federal Lands 

Highways (FLH) Divisions, other Federal agencies (e.g. Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Forest Service, etc.) or consulting engineering firms. Such activities, including program formulation 

and coordination and project tracking, may be paid for out of available Regional RRP funds.

Project administrative costs such as travel for on-site reviews and meetings related to the RRP 

program may be included in estimated project costs. However, salaries of permanent staff in FWS 

Regions and Refuge field stations, who are base funded, can not be charged to the FLH Program 

project accounts. The only exception to this may occur to pay the overtime portion of force account 

work. However, this higher rate should have been used in the documentation justifying the use of 

force account work versus doing the work by contract.

The costs for any planning studies such as Road System Evaluations, or RRP Engineering Studies, 

will be the responsibility of each Region using their RRP funds.

As part of an overall RRP improvement project, Regions may use RRP funding for sign upgrades to 

meet the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. However, routine replacement due to 

wear and age is ineligible for FLH Program funding. 

On a specific road improvement project, no more than 5% of the individual RRP improvement project 

funds may be used for non-roadway related improvements. Stand alone enhancement projects not 

associated with a specific road improvement project are not eligible for funding.
J-6 Appendix J

Specific Examples of Project Refuge Road Eligibility Criteria

The following lists provide general guidance as to what may be funded. 

WORK ITEMS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING:

Project Support Items:

• Traffic engineering and safety studies.

• Identification and surveillance of accident locations.

• Road Inventories.

• Bridge, pavement, safety and congestion management systems.

• Necessary environmental studies and resource investigations confined to the general roadway 

construction limits.

• Project-related re-vegetation and control of invasive plants.

• Necessary architectural and landscape engineering services.

• Engineering design for roads, bridges, adjacent vehicle parking areas, provisions for 

pedestrian and bicycles, and roadside rest areas including sanitary and water facilities.

• Construction engineering for contract administration, inspection and testing.

• Necessary interagency program/project formulation meetings.

• Interagency program review meetings (per interagency agreement).

• Necessary interagency project coordination.

• Research part of coordinated technology implementation program.

Construction and Improvements Items:

• Resurfacing (milling, recycling and overlaying) existing pavements.

• Excavating and replacing failed base courses and poor subgrade materials.

• Replacing, upgrading or relocating deteriorated, undersized or poorly located drainage 

structures (aprons, inlets, culverts and headwalls etc.).

• Improvements to facilitate wildlife crossings, passage of aquatic organisms and habitat 

connectivity.

• Repair or upgrading existing guardrails or guardwalls.

• Minor widening of the roadway, realigning of intersections, adding of turn lanes, intersection 

islands, or pullouts, flattening of curves, or adjusting curve superelevation if the work can be 

accomplished on the existing road bench.

• Repairing, rehabilitating or replacing existing retaining walls if the estimated cost of a single 

wall or site is $200,000 or less.

• Repairing and or stabilizing landslides, severely eroding or failing slopes if the estimated cost 

of a single site is $200,000 or less.

• Projects off of the roadway bench may be allowed to widen or realign the road, construct new 

pullouts or add other features such as comfort stations and interpretive signage provided that 

they total no more than 5% of the project’s construction costs.

• Removing or grinding existing pavement to convert a road to an aggregate surface.

• Replacing, upgrading or adding new pavement markings and signage to address changing 

traffic patterns, new uses or safety problems as well as to meet current standards if occurring 

in conjunction with an RR roadway project. Sign or marking replacement due to age, damage 

or deterioration is not eligible for funding, unless undertaken as part of a road rehabilitation 

project.

• Engineered pavement overlays that add structural value, design life or improved skid 

resistance.
Appendix J J-7

• Double bituminous surface treatments and chip seals that are part of predefined stage 

construction or form final surface on low volume roads.

• Engineered rehabilitation or reconstruction of pavement structures, bridges and bridge decks.

• Engineered spot safety improvements resulting from safety studies.

• Upgrading of substandard traffic barriers and bridge rails to current standards.

• Replacement of nonstandard traffic regulatory and guide signs.

• Upgrading substandard or nonconforming traffic markings (one time only).

• A single refuge entrance sign if the sign conforms to FWS standards, is in a safe location, 

is part of an adjacent Refuge Roads project, and is of reasonable cost ($10,000 maximum 

including design, materials and installation).

• Accommodating traffic and pedestrians through construction zones.

• Public approach roads and interchange ramps that are under the jurisdiction and responsibility 

of the FWS.

• Installation of warranted roadway lighting.

• Adjustment of utilities directly related to roadway work.

• Conduits crossing under the roadway to accommodate future planned utilities.

• Landscaping and native plant seeding of areas disturbed by the RRP program projects.

• Landscaping required to meet Environmental Impact Study mitigation measures resulting 

from roadway construction.

• Construction of erosion control and environmental mitigation measures directly related to 

roadway construction.

• Experimental features where there is a planned monitoring evaluation schedule.

• Public parking lots or pull-offs to trail heads adjacent to RRP projects, interpretive areas, 

public lodging, visitor center, (including necessary supporting retaining walls, protective 

railings and adjacent perimeter sidewalk).

• Provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists within/adjacent to roadway prism when warranted for 

safety reasons.

• Maintenance and improvement of existing recreational trails in accordance with the FHWA/

FWS Recreational Trails Guidance with total funding not to exceed 5% of the national program 

funds.

• Restoration of borrow pits created by projects funded from the RRP program.

• Force account and day labor, including materials and equipment rental being performed in 

accordance with approved plans and specifications, that has been determined to be costeffective (public interest).

• All the aforementioned work can be performed on existing parking areas, pullouts, sidewalks 

or bicycle paths if the work is incidental to a RRP roadway project.

WORK ITEMS THAT WILL GENERALLY NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING: 

(Funding will be determined on a case-by-case exception basis taking into consideration overall 

relative Refuge Road program priorities)
J-8 Appendix J

Project Support Items:

• Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites.

• Brochures for public use unless they are prepared for refuges with roads impacted by 

improvements.

Construction and Improvements Items:

• Acquisition of alternative transportation systems unless it would facilitate visitor access and 

improve usage of the roadway system.

• Bike paths, unless they are part of the refuge unit’s approved Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, constructed in conjunction with RR program projects, and are: 

• part of a roadway prism necessary for safety reasons and if bike traffic warrants.

• independent paths used for transportation and safety reasons based on accident and traffic 

data analysis.

• Construction of visitor information centers and related items.

• Construction of roadside rest area including sanitary and water facilities.

• Bridge painting work on structures (painting of major large structures considered on a caseby-case exception basis).

• Public roads which provide access to areas under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the 

FWS but which are not owned by the Service and/or are not required to be maintained by the 

Service.

WORK ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING:

Project Support Items:

• General refuge planning.
Appendix J J-9

• Non-program specific conferences, field trips, or training conferences.

• Cultural resources investigations and work outside roadway construction limits

Construction or Improvements Items:

• Construction of new access roads, new campground roads and related parking areas.

• Cyclic roadway maintenance work including chip and slurry seals (seal coats), pavement 

patching, roadway grading, shoulder and ditch grading, cleaning culverts, snow removal, 

roadside mowing, vegetation control, normal sign repair and traffic markings.

• Seal coats on top of new asphalt concrete pavements.

• Cyclic bridge maintenance work including cleaning and repairing bridge joints, cleaning 

repairing bridge drainage, and repairing other bridge appurtenances.

• Landscaping and irrigation systems of areas not disturbed by refuge road construction.

• Landscaping of disturbed areas with non-native plant species.

• Utilities and buildings not disturbed by construction.

• Sanitation facilities not disturbed by construction.

• Walls and erosion protection that are not part of or support the roadway prism.

• Recreational boat launching facilities and ramps.

• General refuge development projects.

• Roads that serve only an administrative site such as refuge housing, maintenance area or 

refuge dormitory (or a combination of these).

• Roads that provide access to Refuge Headquarters which are not open to the general public 

(i.e., not a visitor center).

• Roads that are primarily used for administrative purposes and open to the public only for very 

limited periods during the year under restrictive conditions.

• Restoration of borrow pits (or portions of borrow pits) created by projects funded with non 

Refuge Road program funds.

• Repairs to or replacement of fences not disturbed by Refuge Road construction.


Long Range Transportation Plan for 

Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in 

Region 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1