Long Range Transportation 

Plan for Fish and Wildlife 

Service Lands 

in Region 1

Final Version

April 2012

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

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

Primary Contact

Jeff Holm

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232

Jeff_Holm@fws.gov

503/231-2161

Acknowledgements

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

Paul Hayduk, R1 Hatchery and Facility Operations Coordinator

Roxanne Bash, Western Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration

Melissa Allen, Central Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration

Special Thanks

Steve Suder, National Coordinator, Refuge Transportation Program, FWS

Nathan Caldwell, National Alternative Transportation Coordinator, FWS

Alex Schwartz, R1 Landscape Architect

Kirk Lambert, R1 Asset Management Coordinator

David Drescher, Chief, R1 Refuge Information

Susan Law, Western Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration

Pete Field, Western Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration

Consultant Team

Atkins

Steve Hoover

Tina Brand

Cover Photo: David Pitkin/USFWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 I

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

Table of Contents

Why was the Long Range Transportation Plan for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands initiated? . . . . . ES-1

Changes made to the Long Range Transportation Plan based on received comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

Who is Leading This Effort? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

Why is Transportation Planning Important to the Service? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

What Value Does This Plan Provide for the Service? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3

How Will This Plan Be Implemented? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3

What are the Key Findings of This Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3

Chapter 1: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Purpose and Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Mission, Goals, and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Region 1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3.1 National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3.2 Region 1 Transportation System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.4 Primary Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4.1 Project Leaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4.2 Regional Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4.3 National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4.4 Potential Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.5 Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.6 Plan Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 2: Goals and Baseline Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1 Natural Resource Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1.1 Resource Protection Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1.2 Identifying Resource Protection Improvement Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.1.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 Conditions and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.1 Condition and Safety Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.2 Identifying Conditions and Safety Improvement Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.2.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.3 Welcome and Orient Visitors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.3.1 Welcome and Orient Visitors Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.3.2 Identifying Visitor Enhancement Improvement Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.3.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.4 Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.4.1 Planning Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.4.2 Identifying Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
II U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

2.5 Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.5.1 Partnerships Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.5.2 Identifying Partnership Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.5.3 Recommendation for Future Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2.6 Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.6.1 Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.6.2 Identifying Sustainability Improvement Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.6.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 3: Funding and Project Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.1 Transportation Funding in Region 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.1.1 Refuge Roads Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.1.2 Fish Hatchery Deferred Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.2 Project Selection Process for Transportation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.3 Additional Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.3.1 Transportation Enhancements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.3.2 Recreational Trails Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.3.3 Scenic Byways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.3.4 Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.3.5 Public Lands Highway – Discretionary Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.3.6 High Priority Projects Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.3.7 Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.3.8 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.4 Getting Station Projects into the Transportation Improvement Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter 4: Recommendations for Future Plan Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendices

Appendix A – Plan Contributors

Appendix B – Region 1 Refuges and Hatcheries

Appendix C – Data Sources

Appendix D – Roadway Design Guidelines (January, 2011)

Appendix E – Glossary of Terms

Appendix F – Public Involvement Plan

Appendix G – Comprehensive Conservation Plan Transportation Planning Guidance

Appendix H – Contact Information for Non-Service Planing Organizations

Appendix I – Alternative Transportation Priorities and Strategies

Appendix J – Guidance on the Federal Lands Highway Refuge Roads Program
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 III

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

List of Figures

Figure 1 : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Region 1 Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Figure 2 : National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries within Region 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 3 : How to use Chapter Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 4 : Service Units and Non-Service Road Hotspots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 5 : Inset Map 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 6 : Inset Map 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 7 : Inset Map 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 8 : Inset Map 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 9 : Inset Map 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 10 : Inset Map 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 11 : Population and Visitation - Washington and Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 12 : Population and Visitation - Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 13 : Population and Visitation - Hawaii and Guam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 14 : Service Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 15 : Coastal Vulnerability to Sea Level Change - Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 16 : Coastal Vulnerability to Sea Level Change - Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 17 : Project Selection Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

List of Tables

Table 1 : Service Road Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 2 : Service Parking Lot Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 3 : Trail Conditions by Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 4 : Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 5 : 2009 Visitation by Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 6 : Transportation Hubs and Gateway Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 7 : Planning Need and Plan Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 8 : Transportation Related Planning Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 9 : Service Routes and Scenic Byways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 10 : Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 11 : Service Units Intersected by Transit Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 12 : Anticipated Funding Gap through Planning Horizon Year (2030) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 13 : Transportation Program Goals and Selection Criteria : Used for Project Ranking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 14 : Long Range Transportation Plan Action Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
IV U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ATS Alternative Transportation System

API Asset Priority Index

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

CCA Comprehensive Conditions Assessment

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHMP Comprehensive Hatchery Management Plan

DOT Department of Transportation

ERFO Emergency Relief for Federally Owned (Roads)

FCI Facility Condition Index

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLH Federal Lands Highway Division

FLMA Federal Land Management Agency

HPP High Priority Projects

IPaC Information, Planning, and Consultation

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

RIP Road Inventory Program

RRP Refuge Roads Program

RSA Road Safety Audit

RTCA Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

RTP Regional Trails Program

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

USC United States Code

U.S. United States

USGS United States Geological Survey
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 ES-1

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

Executive Summary 

Transportation infrastructure provides critical links and resources in connecting people with 

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

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

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

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

and Wildlife Service Lands initiated? 

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

Service to achieve the following: 

As defined by the Region 1 

core planning team, the 

primary goals of this LRTP 

are to:

 Ensure that the 

transportation program 

helps to conserve and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their 

habitats.

 Provide a safe and reliable 

transportation network to 

and within Service lands.

 Develop and maintain a 

transportation network 

that welcomes and orients 

visitors.

 Integrate transportation 

planning into Service 

plans and processes.

 Develop partnerships 

to leverage resources 

and develop integrated 

transportation solutions.

 Adopt and promote 

sustainable transportation 

practices.

What are the Goals 

for this Long Range 

Transportation Plan? 

 Establish a defensible structure 

for sound transportation 

planning and decision-making.

 Establish a mission, goals, and 

objectives for transportation 

planning in Region 1.

 Implement coordinated and 

cooperative transportation 

partnerships in an effort 

to improve the Service’s 

transportation infrastructure.

 Bring the Service into 

compliance with the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) that requires all Federal 

land management agencies 

(FLMA) to conduct long range 

transportation planning in 

a manner that is consistent 

with metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) and State 

department of transportation 

(DOT) planning. 

 Integrate transportation 

planning and funding for wildlife 

refuges and fish hatcheries 

into existing and future 

Service management plans and 

strategies (e.g., comprehensive 

conservation plans [CCPs] 

and comprehensive hatchery 

management plans [CHMPs]). 

 Increase awareness of 

Alternative Transportation 

Systems (ATS) and associated 

benefits

 Develop best management 

practices (BMP) for 

transportation improvements on 

Service lands.

 Serve as a pilot project for the 

implementation of a region-level 

transportation planning process 

within the Service.

Changes made to the Long Range Transportation Plan based on 

received comments

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

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

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

nature and did not result in significant changes.
ES-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Region 1 of the Service is leading 

the development of this LRTP. 

The region’s refuge and fisheries 

programs have been the principle 

leads in this effort, supported by 

the Division of Planning and Visitor 

Services. 

Federal Lands Highway Division 

(FLH) of the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) has 

also played an important role in 

this LRTP. In addition to helping 

establish the framework for the 

Service’s transportation planning 

process, FLH has assisted in 

identifying potential partner 

agencies at the Federal, State, 

and local levels that may provide 

leveraging opportunities to advance 

future transportation projects. 

Within Region 1 there are:

	270 million acres

managed or comanaged by the 

Service (throughout 

five states and 

outlying Pacific 

Islands) 

421 road miles

342 parking lots

	160 trail miles

	 63 NationalWildlife

Refuges

	 15 National Fish

Hatcheries

	 23 other fish facilities

Region 1 at a Glance Who is Leading This Effort? 

Why is Transportation Planning Important to the Service? 

Although often overlooked, 

transportation infrastructure 

supports U.S. Department of 

Interior initiatives by connecting 

people with nature, improving the 

condition of parking areas, public 

and service roads, and trails assets 

all while meeting the mission of 

the Service. Understanding the 

connection between transportation 

and conservation, the Service 

has established a transportationrelated mission statement, 

goals, and objectives to serve 

as benchmarks for evaluating 

improvements to the transportation 

system within Region 1 as part 

of this LRTP. Together with 

an understanding of existing 

transportation infrastructure 

deficiencies in the region, this plan 

enables the region to make better 

decisions regarding its most critical 

transportation needs. 

At a time when resource and 

infrastructure funding is scarce, 

this LRTP provides leaders 

with a toolkit to use in working 

with gateway communities, 

counties, MPOs, other FMLAs, 

and stakeholder agencies outside 

Service boundaries, many of 

whom could potentially contribute 

funding or in kind services to 

advance priority projects.

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

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

This plan outlines how to quantify 

and communicate needs and 

opportunities in the areas that 

best align with Service goals 

and objectives, and thereby is 

more likely to receive funds. The 

plan provides a project selection 

framework that improves the 

defensibility of transportation 

funding decisions. The framework 

improves confidence in funding 

decisions by allowing decision 

makers to view transportation 

system needs throughout the 

region, and compare how these 

needs rank against predefined 

evaluation criteria and benchmarks 

that represent the long-term 

interests of the Service, as 

established in the mission, goals, 

and objectives. This decisionmaking framework allows projects 

to be compared and ranked 

according to their merits. 

What Value Does This Plan Provide for the Service? 

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

 Provides a platform for individual 

units to communicate needs and 

opportunities to regional and 

national decision makers.

 Enables leaders to make informed 

decisions based on long-term 

transportation mission, goals, and 

objectives. 

 Provides the Service with a better 

picture of future transportation 

needs and information 

for discussion regarding 

transportation reauthorization. 

 Provides a long-term view of 

transportation in relation to core 

operations and Service priorities.

 Enables leaders to direct funding 

to the most beneficial and highest 

priority transportation projects. 

 Enables leaders to find 

alternative funding from Federal 

sources that are administered by 

States (DOTs) or MPOs. 

 Enables leaders to synchronize 

transportation planning with 

other refuge and hatchery 

planning efforts such as refuge 

CCPs, CHMPs, and other 

regional planning efforts outside 

Service boundaries. 

 Provides current data on 

multimodal transportation issues 

and needs across the region. 

 Provides an opportunity for 

Region 1 and individual refuges 

and hatcheries to partner and 

discuss areas of mutual interest 

with the public and regional 

entities such as minimizing 

carbon footprint, the potential 

for alternative transportation 

systems, and improved 

transportation systems linkages.

Since the inception of the 

Refuge Roads Program 

in 1998, Region 1 has 

completed over 100 projects 

improving public roads, 

trails, and parking lots. These 

improvements have improved 

the experience for millions of 

visitors to National Wildlife 

Refuges in Region 1. 

The fisheries program has 

also demonstrated mission 

critical need for transportation 

improvements that currently 

can only be met through 

deferred maintenance. 

Because deferred maintenance 

funds are used to address 

deficiencies in all real property 

assets, transportation projects 

must compete with other 

mission critical projects such 

as water delivery systems and 

fish rearing infrastructure. 

This LRTP demonstrates the 

fisheries program mission 

critical need to allocate 

transportation funding 

specifically for fisheries. 

Funding for the Service’s 

transportation program 

(including refuges and 

fisheries) does not meet 

current or anticipated future 

needs. A well-defined funding 

and investment strategy is 

critical to maintain Service 

transportation assets. The 

Service must also seek 

opportunities outside the 

traditional funding sources 

in order to keep up with its 

aging infrastructure. Forming 

partnerships with local and 

State agencies will become 

increasingly critical to address 

these needs.

How Will This Plan Be Implemented? 

What are the Key 

Findings of This Plan? 
ES-4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

This page intentionally left blank.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 1

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

Chapter 1: Introduction

Region 1 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service), with the assistance of the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Federal Lands Highway 

Division (FLH), has developed this long range 

transportation plan (LRTP). This plan is the first of 

its kind for the Service, and serves as a pilot for future 

LRTP planning endeavors. The LRTP outlines a 

strategy for improving and maintaining transportation 

assets that provide access to Service-managed lands 

over the next 20 years. The plan ensures that the 

Service’s fundamental mission of “working with 

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

and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit 

of the American people” is furthered by providing 

access to a sound transportation system on lands 

managed by the Service. Region 1 boundaries are 

shown in Figure 1.

This LRTP is intended to help the Service make 

investment decisions for planning, preservation, 

and construction on its roads, parking lots, and 

trails. Because funds are limited, it is essential to 

assess needs, set priorities, and efficiently manage 

the expenditure of transportation funds to meet 

documented transportation needs.

FLH has played an important role in the 

development of this LRTP by providing technical 

and planning assistance for the Service. In addition 

to helping establish the framework for the Service’s 

transportation planning process, FLH has assisted in 

identifying potential federal, state, and local partner 

agencies that may provide leveraging opportunities to 

advance future transportation projects.

Figure 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Region 1 Boundaries

Hawaii

Pacific

Outlying Area

H A W A I I A N I S L A N D S

MIDWAY ATOLL

ROSE ATOLL

JOHNSTON ATOLL

HOWLAND ISLAND

BAKER ISLAND

GUAM

JARVIS

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

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

1.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose of this LRTP is to achieve the following 

goals:

 Establish a defensible structure for sound 

transportation planning and decision making.

 Establish a mission, goals, and objectives for 

transportation planning in Region 1.

 Implement coordinated and cooperative 

transportation partnerships in an effort to improve 

the Service’s transportation infrastructure.

 Bring the Service into compliance with Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

that requires all federal land management agencies 

(FLMA) to conduct long-range transportation 

planning in a manner that is consistent with 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) 

and State departments of transportation (DOTs) 

planning.

 Integrate transportation planning and funding for 

wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries into existing and 

future Service management plans and strategies.

 Increase awareness of Alternative Transportation 

Systems (ATS) and associated benefits.

 Develop best management practices (BMP) for 

transportation improvements on Service lands.

 Serve as a pilot project for the implementation of a 

region-level transportation planning process within 

the Service.

Transportation infrastructure provides critical links 

and resources in connecting people with nature on all 

Service lands, which include national wildlife refuges 

and national fish hatcheries. To this end, the Service 

seeks to systematically approach transportation 

funding decisions and leverage its transportation 

dollars wisely. 

Long-range transportation planning is necessary 

for the Service to define the vision and goals for 

the transportation system that will serve the public 

for years to come. It also provides a mechanism to 

objectively set priorities for implementing projects 

while working toward achieving the Service’s 

vision for its transportation system. To accomplish 

these tasks, planners and decision makers must 

collaborate effectively to consider the complex balance 

between transportation efficiency, human safety, and 

environmental stewardship. 

In an effort to reinforce sustainable transportation 

practices, the Service is actively pursuing ATS 

strategies, specifically in Region 1, in areas where 

such systems can provide better linkages between 

the local communities and the individual units. ATS 

strategies promote the Service’s effort to reduce its 

carbon footprint, reduce impacts to natural resources, 

and act as a critical visitor management tool for 

units facing increasing visitor demands with limited 

resources and capacity.

The Service desires a planning process that involves 

partner agencies (Federal, State, and local), that 

is consistent with state and local transportation 

planning processes, and that clearly defines and offers 

opportunities for public input. The key objective of 

such a planning process is to develop and maintain 

a coordinated, “seamless” transportation system for 

public use, ranging from auto tour routes to parking 

lots, transit access, and trails. Coordinated planning 

will also help ensure that the most critical projects 

receive funding.

Another critical aspect of this LRTP is facilitating 

partnerships with the Service and fostering 

opportunities to leverage funds to accomplish 

transportation improvements of common interest and 

mutual benefit. The intention is to increase the utility 

of transportation investments by pooling resources 

into efforts that satisfy the goals of multiple agencies 

and organizations. The LRTP serves as a tool in 

working with gateway communities, counties, MPOs, 

other FLMAs, and stakeholder agencies.

1.2 Mission, Goals, and Objectives

Through a collaborative effort, the Refuge and 

Fisheries Programs, in cooperation with the planning 

and visitor services programs within Region 1, have 

contributed to the definition of the mission, goals, and 

objectives presented in this document. The resulting 

mission, goals, and objectives are intended to provide 

a systematic approach to guide the process for 

evaluating and selecting transportation improvement 

for the Service lands in Region 1. These guiding 

principles have shaped the development, conclusions, 

and recommendations of this LRTP. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 3

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

Mission

To support the Service’s mission by connecting people to fish, wildlife, and their habitats

through strategic implementation of transportation programs.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of this transportation plan in Region 1 represent six categories. Each goal includes

distinct objectives that explain how the Service will accomplish each goal.The LRTP goals

and objectives are:

Natural Resource Protection: Ensure that the transportation program helps to conserve and enhance fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats.

Objective 1: Identify, research, and adopt BMPs for planning, design, construction, and maintenance that mitigate 

or avoid negative impacts of transportation activities and facilities.

Objective 2: Reduce transportation related conflicts within fish and wildlife corridors and habitat on or adjacent to 

Service lands.

Conditions and Safety: Provide a safe and reliable transportation network to and within Service 

lands.

Objective 1: Identify and reduce safety problems and modal conflicts to and within Services lands.

Objective 2: Ensure that mission critical transportation assets are maintained at “good” or better condition.

Welcome and Orient Visitors: Develop and maintain a transportation network that welcomes and 

orients visitors.

Objective 1: Provide public information to enable visitors to easily get to refuges and hatcheries and to use its 

sites.

Objective 2: Engage the visitor with compelling information so they better understand the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Fisheries Program purpose of wildlife conservation and to enjoy natural resources.

Objective 3: Create a consistent and recognizable identity throughout all Service units through the use of standard 

materials for readily observed physical elements associated with the transportation system. 

Planning: Integrate transportation planning into Service plans and processes.

Objective 1: Ensure consistency and coordination between the project, unit, regional, and national levels of 

planning.

Objective 2: Define need for transportation improvements and prioritize projects using a scientific and objective 

process.

Partnerships: Develop partnerships to leverage resources and develop integrated transportation 

solutions.

Objective 1: To the extent authorized by law, pursue opportunities for both transportation funding and resources.

Objective 2: Cooperate with public and private sector partners to address shared transportation issues that impact 

Service goals.

Sustainability: Adopt and promote sustainable transportation practices.

Objective 1: Address climate change and other environmental factors at all levels of transportation planning, 

design, project delivery, operations, and maintenance.

Objective 2: To reduce the Service’s carbon footprint, improve access to and within Service lands by transit and 

non-motorized transportation modes, and provide improved visitor information systems. 

Objective 3: Reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by refuge staff and visiting public.
4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

1.3 Region 1 Background

The lands managed by the Service in Region 1 are 

widely diverse in geography and character. They 

receive different levels of funding and vary in terms of 

existing transportation infrastructure.

1.3.1 National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish 

Hatcheries

Region 1 manages or co-manages nearly 270 million 

acres of land, water, coral reefs and ocean floor in 

the States of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, a portion 

of northern Nevada, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands, 

as shown in Figure 2. The region is home to diverse 

ecologies ranging from tropical forests to coral reefs, 

old-growth rainforests, glacial lakes and streams, 

and arid shrub-steppe. These habitats support over 

390 endangered and threatened species; unique and 

endemic plant and animal communities; and some 

of the most productive anadromous fish runs in the 

world. 

Region-wide the Service manages 63 national wildlife 

refuges composed of wetlands, estuaries, grasslands, 

nesting seabird colonies, forests, remote atolls, and 

high mountain deserts. The Region 1 Fisheries 

Program provides a network of 46 field stations. These 

facilities include 15 fish hatcheries, 23 associated 

fish facilities, 3 fish health centers, 1 fish technology 

center, and 4 fish and wildlife conservation offices. 

All Service units in Region 1 are listed by state in 

Appendix B.

1.3.2 Region 1 Transportation System

The Service-maintained transportation facilities 

in Region 1 consist of paved, gravel, and native 

surface roads, trails, bridges, boardwalks, boat 

docks, airstrips, and parking lots. While a large 

portion of roads are open for public use, due to the 

conservation-based orientation of the Service, many 

roads, especially within the fish hatcheries, are for 

administrative use only. 

Within Region 1 there are 421 miles of roads, 342 

parking lots, and 547 miles of paved and unpaved 

trails for bicycle, pedestrian, and off-highway 

vehicle use. Nationally, the Service is responsible for 

approximately 7,224 miles of roads, 4,578 parking lots, 

and 1,409 miles of trails. Based on 2007 conditions 

assessments, 17 percent of the Region 1 roads and 

32 percent of parking lots were listed in poor or 

failing condition. This compares to 22 percent of roads 

nationally listed in poor or failing condition.

Transportation projects are funded primarily through 

the Refuge Roads Program (RRP), refuge deferred 

maintenance funds, fisheries deferred maintenance 

funds, and visitor facility enhancement funds. 

Each of these funding sources has specific project 

requirements. The RRP is the most widely used for 

transportation projects and can be used for planning, 

programming, construction, reconstruction, and 

improvement of public roads in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (refuge roads), including bridges and 

appurtenances in connection with the administration 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition, 

up to five percent of these funds can be used for 

public use trails within refuges. Through the RRP, 

the Service is working to improve public access to 

refuges and provide a better overall visitor experience. 

Additional information about project funding and 

leveraging opportunities is in Chapter 3, Funding and 

Project Selection.

Walter Siegmund
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 5

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

Figure 2

National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries within Region 1

Idaho

Oregon

Washington

Kingman Reef

Palmyra Atoll

Jarvis Island

Rose Atoll

Wake Atoll

Johnston Atoll

Hawaiian Islands

Guam

Howland Island

Baker Island

U N I T E D

S T A T E S

C H I N A

R U S S I A

A U S T R A L I A

Interstate

Region 1

Boundary

National

Wildlife

Refuge

National 

Marine

Monument

National

Fish

Hatchery
6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

1.4 Primary Audience

This LRTP is written for project leaders from wildlife 

refuges and fish hatcheries; regional internal and 

external leaders from the Service; national level 

decision makers; and potential local and regional 

partners from governmental agencies or nongovernmental organizations, particularly refuge and 

hatchery friends groups. Information provided in the 

LRTP is intended to support these groups in several 

ways.

1.4.1 Project Leaders

Project leaders will use the LRTP as a guide for the 

best tools to use in identifying projects. Guidance 

found in this plan can assist project leaders in using 

readily available data and resources to justify a 

project’s need, which will ultimately lead to better 

positioning for funding, which affects project 

prioritization at the regional level. Project leaders can 

also use this plan as a process-based tool to partner 

with outside agencies and discuss project needs of 

mutual interest, such as safety concerns, alternative 

transportation systems, and addressing climate 

change with public and regional entities.

1.4.2 Regional Level

At the regional level, this LRTP will provide 

the information necessary for leaders to make 

transportation decisions based on long-term Service 

vision, mission, and goals. The plan also enables 

regional transportation coordinators to direct 

funding to the most beneficial and highest priority 

transportation projects. Furthermore, the LRTP 

enables regional leaders to find where alternative 

funding from Federal sources that are administered by 

the States or MPOs might be available. At the regional 

level, the LRTP is used to synchronize transportation 

planning with refuge and hatchery efforts such as 

refuge comprehensive conservation plans (CCP), 

comprehensive hatchery management plans (CHMP), 

and other regional and statewide plans outside Service 

boundaries, such as MPO regional transportation 

plans and state transportation plans.

1.4.3 National Level

This LRTP will align with the National U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife LRTP and other regional LRTPs to provide 

additional information to congressional leaders as 

to the unmet mission critical transportation need. It 

will also help illustrate the Service’s foresight, need, 

and commitment to certain mission critical goals—

especially when projects are being pursued jointly 

with other agencies or organizations, and additional 

Federal dollars are requested. This regional plan 

will be adjusted in the future as necessary to be in 

alignment with the ultimately adopted national LRTP 

for the Service.

1.4.4 Potential Partners

Potential partners may use this LRTP to understand 

the Service transportation program, its needs, goals, 

and objectives for the future. It will also serve as a 

tool to identify projects of mutual interest between the 

Service and external groups or agencies. The Service 

recognizes the value of cooperative transportation 

partnerships, and seeks to leverage funds with other 

agencies, organizations, and Congress. Potential 

partner agencies could include other FLMAs, State 

DOTs, MPOs, county governments, and Friends 

groups. 

USFWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 7

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

1.5 Public Involvement

The Service recognizes the public involvement 

requirements associated with LRTPs developed by 

State DOTs and MPOs. At the outset of this pilot 

effort for the Service, a structured communication 

plan was developed with a list of potential stakeholders 

and actions identified at key milestones in the plan’s 

development to inform the decision-making processes. 

The approach for stakeholder outreach, including 

agency and public involvement, proposed the following 

strategies:

 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

Given the experimental effort of developing this LRTP, 

and the sensitivity of Service leadership to external 

distribution of draft-level information, it was decided 

that the external outreach component (input from 

agencies and public external to the Service) of this 

plan would not be fully executed. In addition, given the 

geographic and demographic diversity of the Service 

lands within Region 1, it is not expected that all or 

even most of the potential stakeholders would be able 

to participate, or have interest in directly influencing 

the outcomes of this plan. One initial newsletter was 

developed and distributed within the Service and to 

other FMLAs interested in this pilot project to provide 

contextual information about the plan. A second 

newsletter was distributed to mark the completion 

of the LRTP and to announce its public availability. 

A Federal Register notice was filed to advertise 

the release of the final draft document and invite 

comments to be considered in the final LRTP. Based 

on the comments received, changes made between the 

public draft and the final plan were editorial in nature 

and did not result in significant changes. The original 

communication plan and stakeholder list is provided 

in Appendix F to serve as a guide for future public 

involvement activities when this plan is updated.

1.6 Plan Overview

This LRTP is structured in four chapters, including 

this introduction, such that each chapter builds 

upon the information and conclusions derived in 

the previous chapter(s). The document examines 

baseline conditions, funding and project selection, and 

recommendations for future action.

Chapter 2, Baseline Conditions. This chapter 

presents baseline conditions as they relate to the six 

goals of this plan. Using existing asset management 

systems and road inventory data maintained by the 

Service and FLH, Chapter 2 presents a data-informed 

view of the transportation system. It also provides a 

"road map" for identifying unit level transportation 

improvement needs. Data such as road service life, 

visitation statistics and trends, population growth, 

alternative transportation systems opportunities, and 

other spatially significant issues are used to establish a 

baseline from which LRTP decisions can be made.

Chapter 3, Funding and Project Selection. This 

chapter illustrates the funding gap for the Service 

transportation system. It also describes a variety of 

funding categories that may be used for transportation 

projects in Region 1. Using the available funding, this 

chapter also describes how projects are selected for 

implementation in the context of the LRTP goals and 

objectives. This chapter highlights funding available 

from traditional Federal sources and identifies 

opportunities for partnering with outside agencies, 

State DOTs, and local governments to leverage 

funding.

Chapter 4, Recommendations for Future Plan

Activities. This chapter includes recommended 

actions for future development. Recommendations 

include improving data informed analysis through 

better data management from internal and external 

sources, specifically related to accident data and fish 

and wildlife resources and developing a long-range list 

of project needs from the call for projects.
8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Chapter 2: Goals and Baseline Conditions

Understanding the current state of the transportation 

system in Region 1 is a prerequisite for planning 

future transportation projects. As such, this Region 1 

LRTP documents existing condition, safety, and 

visitor use with regard to the transportation system. 

This LRTP also considers changes that are likely 

to occur in the future, such as increased traffic and 

visitation due to population increases. The intent 

is to identify future transportation needs and plan 

for them proactively in alignment with goals and 

objectives identified during the planning process. The 

baseline data (i.e., existing conditions and trends) 

in this chapter are intended to inform the project 

identification and selection process described in 

Chapter 3, Funding and Project Selection, allowing 

projects to be selected based on an objective process, 

not existing conditions alone.

This chapter offers a summary of the current state of 

Region 1 transportation infrastructure as it relates 

to the goals and objectives described in Chapter 1, 

Introduction. The six goal areas are natural resource 

protection, conditions and safety, welcome and orient 

visitors, planning, partnerships, and sustainability. The 

following sections in this chapter define the intent of 

each goal and provide supportive data and an analysis 

summary supporting each goal. The chapter provides 

a road-map for identifying improvement needs (i.e., 

potential projects) at the unit level using readily 

available data to analyze deficiencies or hot spots that 

may be occurring at individual units. By applying 

the approach demonstrated in the following sections 

for each goal area, Service leadership can identify 

potential project opportunities that are most likely to 

receive funds. This chapter outlines the data sources, 

data relationships, and extra steps that are necessary 

to identify needs and opportunities that correspond to 

the LRTP goals and objectives, as outlined in Chapter 

1. Figure 3 illustrates the structure of this chapter and 

how improvement needs can be identified. 

2.1 Natural Resource Protection

The LRTP natural resource protection goal is to 

“ensure that the transportation program helps

to conserve and enhance fish, wildlife, and

plant resources and their habitats.” The following 

objectives and strategies serve to further the 

sentiment expressed by the goal. 

Objective 1

Identify, research, and adopt BMPs for planning, 

design, construction, and maintenance that mitigate 

or avoid the impacts of transportation activities and 

facilities.

Objective 2

Reduce transportation related conflicts within fish and 

wildlife corridors and habitat on or adjacent to Service 

lands. Strategies to achieve this objective are:

 Conduct needs assessments for wildlife crossings on 

and adjacent to Service lands.

 Consider aquatic organism passage during the 

planning and design phases of transportation project 

development on Service units.

2.1.1 Resource Protection Data

Resource protection data are needed to evaluate both 

the BMP and wildlife conflict objectives. Information 

used to establish a baseline for the BMP-focused 

objective includes existing Service BMP guidance and 

systems. The wildlife conflict objective is informed 

by data that helps identify places where animal and 

vehicle conflicts have occurred in the past and are 

likely to occur in the future.

Caroline Peterschmidt/USFWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 9

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

Figure 3

How to use Chapter Two

2.# Section Two.#

Sectem iditat ut es eostissit laboressum aut a dellit endis 

remporro velignit, con coribusae mollecea di imagnih icium, 

sus doluptatem etur, andus eribust, occae num remperios 

dolore cum et ute et erovidelia de reperion corite velibus 

magnam illum et es ent in excea nus adio ommo in raepero 

volo in porpore pudame es quiae id quo explabo. Nequodi 

orecturendit dis molupta doluptati con repe andi con cus 

sequia que officiis seque odi vel in re re repudiae.

2.#.1 Section Two.#.1

Ferferep eritiur aborpora eribusda quia quae conet ea di 

imuscilita volupta turiam, eumque pro inciatem aut fugit 

restia volut re cusum quam sequi blacepe llaudigent ommo 

mil is sed maiorerchic te dollore iciisit dolum harum 

facepedis volorec aectaque dipsum eatemqu iberunt. Non 

consedi squist, acerum rem quunt, tet audae voluptam quiam 

qui volorerum etur as eaqui con consequias eumqui rem as 

rat anissum acilloriae. Nonsenda cus nobit pe precto mi, 

quianissita pliquatem doluptature nisquam, vene none 

porerum qui dolectas adionem.

2.#.2 Section Two.#.2

Aque venetur? Illore, sum doluptaquo minim laborec 

uptureptur rem a et volores susam, coreperem. Nem arum 

qui nulpa asperum autaeprovit omnitas perrovitat.Ollabor 

ehendan deleculpa volupti ducia volo voluptaes nimoluptur? 

It autatur, quas veratia epedit, quo ma dolor aspedit officto 

cullaboresse et ressum fuga. Equam aceped que magnis alit 

in pa dus sunt ullecte ctusdae rnamet volorit iandunt quis 

vernatem quam nestist.Uptatur? Quidis molorit officatet et 

landit, ommolorerum hariti dolupta turepudipid evelluptio et 

atur? 

2.#.3 Section Two.#.3

Entemo cones imusam verum ea nonsequi beatemque cus 

assi doluptatus ea quam reptae necte ipsum nonseque 

peribusanto idis dolecte secus sit, torum ne voluptat eum 

quiatenis vendi occum rerspeditas ma pos ernatec errorum 

nulparum aut arci alia qui de ni quatiore occusapiet 

ipsapiciam, sam, sit alique comnimus nosapie ndiaeprat atiur, 

tectibea voluptur? Otaspe volupicidi dolut accabo. Pita quis 

et pella vellautat. Picidel estibusti restiberum et inullabo. 

Nam faccus quo ent represtias eos doloreium aut expe si ut 

ipsunti nihil et fugiassusant quiaerumquis excepro eium 

reperib.

Sectem iditat ut es eostissit laboressum aut a dellit endis 

remporro velignit, con coribusae mollecea di imagnih icium, 

sus doluptatem etur, andus eribust, occae num remperios 

dolore cum et ute et erovidelia de reperion corite velibus 

magnam illum et es ent in excea nus adio ommo in raepero 

volo in porpore pudame es quiae id quo explabo. Nequodi 

orecturendit dis molupta doluptati con repe andi con cus 

sequia que officiis seque odi vel in re re repudiae.

Ferferep eritiur aborpora eribusda quia quae conet ea di 

imuscilita volupta turiam, eumque pro inciatem aut fugit 

restia volut re cusum quam sequi blacepe llaudigent ommo 

mil is sed maiorerchic te dollore iciisit dolum harum 

facepedis volorec aectaque dipsum eatemqu iberunt. Non 

consedi squist, acerum rem quunt, tet audae voluptam quiam 

qui volorerum etur as eaqui con consequias eumqui rem as 

Sidebar Sidebar

Lorro officaborum fuga. Et que pro dolor aut et 

abo. Hicidusdam, exceped iaeribu saesed que 

sunt audia cus. 

Tum aut maximus mosse restisquatem eos 

soloriae simpos aut etum eum qui voluptassime 

essimaio eaquam, occatquunt, sitius remperume 

ea quo vent prore dipsandae qui suntinis est 

aliaesc ipsam, in res volorat faccus, a sam, tori 

id ullicat ectaes dolupid eat aut vit etus, conest, 

et dolut lautem acculla borercipic totae rerundia 

nimint fuga. Officie ntotatiberem sum iunto tem 

fuga. Borro dolest qui si conserc ienihilit 

omnisciis sam, sum autentios incid magnat et 

mil mo voluptur?

Illore, sum doluptaquo minim laborec 

uptureptur rem a et volores susam, coreperem. 

Nem arum qui nulpa asperum autaeprovit 

omnitas perrovitat.Ollabor ehendan deleculpa 

volupti ducia volo voluptaes nimoluptur? It 

autatur, quas veratia epedit, quo ma dolor 

aspedit officto cullaboresse et ressum fuga.

Non consedi squist, acerum rem quunt, tet 

audae voluptam quiam qui volorerum etur as 

eaqui con consequias eumqui rem as rat 

anissum acilloriae. Nonsenda doluptature 

nisquam, vene none porerum adionem.

rat anissum acilloriae. Nonsenda cus nobit pe precto mi, 

quianissita pliquatem doluptature nisquam, vene none 

porerum qui dolectas adionem.

Aque venetur? Illore, sum doluptaquo minim laborec 

uptureptur rem a et volores susam, coreperem. Nem arum 

qui nulpa asperum autaeprovit omnitas perrovitat.Ollabor 

ehendan deleculpa volupti ducia volo voluptaes nimoluptur? 

It autatur, quas veratia epedit, quo ma dolor aspedit officto 

cullaboresse et ressum fuga. Equam aceped que magnis alit 

in pa dus sunt ullecte ctusdae rnamet volorit iandunt quis 

vernatem quam nestist.Uptatur? Quidis molorit officatet et 

landit, ommolorerum hariti dolupta turepudipid evelluptio 

et atur? 

Aque venetur? Illore, sum doluptaquo minim laborec 

uptureptur rem a et volores susam, coreperem. Nem arum 

qui nulpa asperum autaeprovit omnitas perrovitat.Ollabor 

ehendan deleculpssi doluptatus ea quam reptae necte ipsum 

nonseque peribusanto idis dolecte secus sit, torum ne 

voluptat eum quiatenis vendi occum rerspeditas ma pos 

ernatec errorum nulparum aut arci alia qui de ni quatiore 

occusapiet ipsapiciam, sam, sit alique comnimus nosapie 

ndiaeprat atiur, tectibea voluptur? Otaspe volupicidi dolut 

accabo. Pita quis et pella vellautat. Picidel estibusti 

restiberum et inullabo. Nam faccus q ducia volo voluptaes 

nimoluptur? It autatur, quas veratia epedit, quo ma dolor 

aspedit officto cullaboresse et ressum fuga. Equam aceped 

que magnis alit in pa dus sunt ullecte ctusdae rnamet volorit 

iandunt quis vernatem quam nestist.Uptatur? Quidis 

molorit officatet et landit, ommolorerum hariti dolupta 

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

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

Sidebars 

Case studies show the practice of 

identifying need and opportunity. 

2.# Goal Topic 

Presents the long range 

transportation goals for the 

region, and how 

circumstances at the unit level 

can demonstrate needs and 

opportunities to further these 

goals. The chapter should be 

read as a unit level roadmap 

illustrating how to identify 

projects that stand the best 

chance of receiving funds and 

how to use existing data to 

demonstrate the need for 

your project.

2.#.1 Data

These sections identify the 

datasets used to identify need 

and opportunity for a 

particular goal area.

2.#.2 Identifying 

Improvement Areas 

These sections explain how 

the data identied in 2.#.1 

should be used to 

demonstrate need and 

opportunity.

2.#.3 Recommendations 

for Future Analysis

These sections identify 

information that would 

improve future eorts to 

identify need and 

opportunity.
10 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Best Management Practices

The Service has a library of BMPs that promotes 

guidelines for planning, design, construction and 

maintenance pertaining to transportation projects. 

Transportation related BMPs are included in the 

Service’s Roadway Design Guidelines provided in 

Appendix D. A BMP library is also available as a 

searchable database on the Service’s website along 

with the Information, Planning, and Consultation 

system (IPaC), which allows users to preview how 

proposed activities may impact sensitive natural 

resources and which BMPs are appropriate to help 

mitigate negative impacts. The IPaC tool is available 

online at http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac.

Resource Conflicts

Wildlife conflict data helps to identify places where 

animal and vehicle conflicts have occurred in the 

past and are likely to occur in the future. Ideally, 

this data would consist of sensitive wildlife habitat 

locations, wildlife corridors, and historic locations of 

vehicle-animal collisions. At this time, not all of this 

information is available; however, data on wildlife 

conflicts that resulted in fatalities is available from 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

While this data is informative and provides some 

indication of historic conflict locations, by itself, the 

data is insufficient as a basis for decision making. 

There are too many other factors that are yet to be 

quantified that must be considered in resource conflict 

decisions.

2.1.2 Identifying Resource Protection Improvement 

Areas

Resource protection improvement areas are identified 

in both the BMP objective and the wildlife conflict 

objective. The BMP objective can be addressed 

through the use of appropriate BMPs for a proposed 

action. Appropriate BMPs can be found several ways, 

such as using the Service Region 1 Roadway Design 

Guidelines (available in Appendix D) and using IPaC. 

IPaC allows users to preview how proposed activities 

may impact sensitive natural resources and which 

BMPs are appropriate to help mitigate negative 

impacts. 

To identify areas of resource protection relevant to 

wildlife conflicts, one must consider multiple factors 

including wildlife corridors, wildlife habitat, and 

records of historic animal-vehicle collisions. At this 

time, only a measure of historic fatal animal-vehicle 

collisions is available. The data indicate that over 

a period of 8 years, one fatal accident involving an 

animal-vehicle collision occurred in the region on 

Service lands. The accident occurred in 2008 at the 

Hanford Reach National Monument at the intersection 

of SR-240 and SR-225 (Reservation Road). The 

accident is a single indicator of wildlife conflict and 

suggests that further study is needed to determine 

if this or other refuges are a resource protection 

improvement area. Additional documentation 

regarding the presence of wildlife corridors, wildlife 

habitat, and other non-fatal collisions would determine 

the appropriate need for resource protection 

improvements at refuges and hatcheries.

2.1.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Additional information is necessary to better evaluate 

resource protection needs. The following datasets are 

required to better understand where transportation 

related resource protection improvements should 

occur:

 Use a systematic method to quantify the significance 

of the conflict between fish and wildlife and 

transportation facilities to better demonstrate a 

need for improvements.

Among many other functionalities, the IPaC system 

allows users to conduct a “BMP search,” where 

stressors, resources, project activities can be 

selected from a list. The system then generates a 

report of relevant BMPs, as illustrated below.

BMP Searches 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 11

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

 Obtain wildlife habitat locations and fish passage 

corridors to help identify potential animaltransportation conflict areas as well as the type of 

potentially impacted wildlife.

 Identify the locations of access conflicts 

between resources (fish and wildlife habitat) and 

transportation facilities to help decision makers 

develop appropriate solutions.

 Obtain fish passage data to help identify potential 

fish-transportation conflict areas and potentially 

impacted species.

 Obtain non-fatal vehicle-animal collision data to 

provide a more complete understanding of historic 

vehicle-animal conflict hot-spots.

2.2 Conditions and Safety

The LRTP condition and safety goal is to “provide a

safe and reliable transportation network to and

within Service lands.” The following objectives and 

strategies serve to further the sentiment expressed by 

the goal.

Objective 1

Identify and reduce safety problems and modal 

conflicts to and within Services lands. Strategies to 

achieve this objective are:

 Conduct road safety audits (RSAs) and/or safety 

need assessments.

 Increase the number of projects that address 

access/egress safety problems or conflicts between 

private motor vehicles, transit, and bicyclists and/or 

pedestrians.

 Identify and implement operational improvements 

through intelligent transportation systems 

applications.

Objective 2

Ensure that mission critical transportation assets are 

maintained to “good” or better condition. Strategies to 

achieve this objective are:

 Use comprehensive condition assessment and Road 

Inventory Program (RIP) to establish a baseline 

condition.

 Determine what is needed to extend service life of 

mission critical assets.

2.2.1 Condition and Safety Data

Data used to identify appropriate opportunities for 

improving transportation system conditions include 

physical characteristics like surface condition and 

asset type as well as external factors such as an 

asset’s importance and relationship to safety. Data 

used to make these determinations are obtained from 

regularly updated data sources like the Service’s 

service asset maintenance management system 

(SAMMS) and 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 is 

collected by the FLH, on behalf of the Service, to 

provide ongoing condition monitoring of all public 

use roads, trails, and parking lots. The inventory 

is updated continuously and resulting datasets are 

compiled and released every 5 years.

Supplemental information from outside sources is used 

to help identify problem areas and opportunities for 

improvements. Sources of supplemental information 

include the U.S. Census, FHWA, and State DOTs. 

These data help inform decision makers about issues 

that extend beyond condition and typically relates to 

transportation system issues regarding access to and 

through units.

Overview of Condition Data

The majority of the Service’s transportation system 

consists of asphalt, gravel, and native surface roads. 

In Region 1, the Service owns and maintains 421 

miles of public use roads, 22 miles of which are 

asphalt, 289 miles are gravel, and 110 miles are native 

surface. These numbers exclude roads that are used 

for Service administrative purposes as well as public 

use roads that are double-track and unpaved. The 

States of Nevada (Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

only) and Oregon have the most roads (by length) 

with 31.7 percent (133.5 miles) and 31.5 percent 

(132.6 miles) of total Region 1 miles, respectively. 

The State of Washington is the third highest with 

123.5 miles (29.3 percent), followed by Idaho with 

31.2 miles (7.4 percent), and Hawaii with 0.7 miles 

(0.2 percent). Based on RIP inventory data, 26.4 

percent of asphalt roads have at least 7 years of use 

remaining and 88.6 percent of gravel roads and 63.0 

percent of native roads have at least 3 years of use 

remaining, as expressed by remaining service life 

and as summarized in Table 1. The need for road 

improvements are also determined by a road’s asset 

priority, facility condition index, and condition, as 

summarized in Appendix C, Table 2. 

Conversely, 15.4 percent of asphalt roads, 11.4 percent 

of gravel roads, and 37.0 percent of native roads have 

3 years or fewer of use remaining and are in need of 

immediate rehabilitation or reconstruction. 
12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Table 1

Service Road Conditions

Road Surface Remaining Service 

Life (years) Miles Percentage of Total

Percentage of 

Surface Type

Cumulative 

Percentage

Asphalt

15 to 16 0.25 0.1 1.1 1.1

11 to 14 3.4 0.8 15.6 16.7

7 to 10 2.1 0.5 9.7 26.4

4 to 6 12.65 3.0 58.2 84.6

0 to 3 3.34 0.8 15.4 100.0

Gravel

8 to 10 2.05 0.5 0.7 0.7

5 to 7 209.93 49.8 72.5 73.2

3 to 4 44.48 10.6 15.4 88.6

1 to 2 11.87 2.8 4.1 92.7

0 21.14 5.0 7.3 100.0

Native

8 to 10 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 to 7 32.22 7.6 29.2 29.2

3 to 4 37.22 8.8 33.8 63.0

1 to 2 7.52 1.8 6.8 69.8

0 33.28 7.9 30.2 100.00

Source: FHWA, Road Inventory Program; Cycle 4 (2007)

Table 2

Service Parking Lot Conditions

Surface Condition Acres Percentage of Surface Type Percentage of Total

Asphalt

Excellent 3.7 15.0 5.0

Good 14.7 61.0 21.0

Fair 2.4 10.0 4.0

Poor 3.1 13.0 5.0

Failed 0.0 0.0 0.0

Concrete

Excellent 0.1 31.0 0.0

Good 0.1 73.0 0.0

Fair 0.0 0.0 0.0

Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0

Failed 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gravel

Excellent 2.3 6.0 3.0

Good 17.9 46.0 26.0

Fair 14.3 36.0 21.0

Poor 4.4 11.0 6.0

Failed 0.2 1.0 0.0

Native

Excellent 0.0 0.0 0.0

Good 1.8 32.0 3.0

Fair 1.4 25.0 2.0

Poor 0.7 12.0 1.0

Failed 1.7 31.0 2.0

Source: FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4 (2007)

Supporting the Service’s road network are 342 parking 

lots spanning a total of 70 acres. Table 2 summarizes 

parking lot conditions for the region. RIP data indicate 

that 35 percent of parking lots are asphalt, 57 percent 

are gravel, 8 percent are native surface, and less than 

1 percent are concrete. A rating of “good” or better 

is attributed to 77 percent of asphalt parking lots, 

52 percent of gravel, 100 percent of concrete, and 32 

percent of native surface parking lots. The need for 

parking lot improvements can be determined by asset 

condition, as summarized in Appendix C, Table 3.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 13

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

The Service also owns and maintains 547 miles of 

trails in Region 1. The majority of trails are located 

in Washington with 99 miles (62 percent), followed by 

Oregon with 44 miles (28 percent), Idaho with 13 miles 

(8 percent), the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge 

portion of Nevada with nearly 2 miles (1 percent) and 

Hawaii with less than 1 mile (less than one percent). 

The reported conditions of these trails are generally 

in good condition or better, as summarized in Table 3. 

Sixty-four percent of trails have a rating of “good” or 

better. Only 2 percent of trails receive a rating of “very 

poor;” however, 33 percent of trails are unrated. Need 

for trail improvement is also determined by a trail’s 

asset priority, facility condition index, and condition, 

as summarized in Appendix C, Table 4. Some trails 

contain specific areas that are deemed deficient due to 

drainage, erosion, structure, or location. Region 1 has 

48 such locations, with the majority being drainagerelated issues in Willapa National Wildlife Refuge with 

23 locations and William L. Finley National Wildlife 

Refuge with nine locations. These locations are 

summarized in Appendix C, Table 5.

Table 3

Trail Conditions by Type

Condition Surface Type Miles Percentage of 

Condition

Percentage of 

Surface Type

Percentage of 

Total

Excellent

Trail on Admin Road 30.1

58

32.6 18.9

Asphalt 2.6 2.8 1.6

Boardwalk 3.5 3.8 2.2

Concrete 0.4 0.4 0.2

Gravel 8.7 9.4 5.5

Mowed 7.2 7.8 4.5

Native 38.4 41.5 24.1

Wood Chip 1.5 1.6 0.9

Total 92.4 57.9

Good

Trail on Admin Road 2.3

6

22.9 1.4

Asphalt 0.2 1.9 0.1

Concrete 0.1 1.1 0.1

Gravel 0.2 2.0 0.1

Native 7.2 72.2 4.5

Total 10.0 6.3

Fair

Concrete 0.1

1

4.9 0.0

Native 1.4 95.1 0.8

Total 1.5 0.9

Very Poor

Trail on Admin Road 0.6

2

23.8 0.4

Mowed 0.7 29.0 0.5

Native 1.2 47.2 0.7

Total 2.5 1.6

Not Rated Trail on Admin Road 53.3 33 100.0 33.4

Grand Total 159.6

Source: FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 3 (2004)
14 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Overview of Safety Data

The Service supports safe and reliable access to and 

through its lands. As such, safety indicators including 

road pavement condition, annual average daily traffic 

(AADT), and crash history were collected when 

available and analyzed to help identify potential safety 

problem areas on non-Service owned roads near 

refuges and hatcheries.

2.2.2 Identifying Conditions and Safety Improvement 

Areas

Baseline condition data helps identify areas that are 

in need of transportation improvements for safety, 

modal connections, and/or condition. Service-owned 

assets that could potentially benefit from condition 

improvements are identified by several variables 

including asset priority index (API), facility condition 

index (FCI), and observed condition. API describes 

the mission critical priority of an asset as determined 

by the Service for roads and trails. Ideally, assets with 

a value of 80 or greater are mission critical and should 

have a condition rating of “good” or better. FCI is the 

ratio of the deferred maintenance costs to replacement 

value and is used as an indicator of infrastructure 

condition.

The need for safety improvements can be illustrated 

by RSAs and/or crash data. Reducing conflicts 

between cars and bicyclists and/or pedestrians 

travelling to and within Service lands transportation 

asset can be achieved by investing in improvements 

where crash history or RSAs have demonstrated 

safety problems with the current transportation 

system.

In addition to improving Service transportation 

assets that are of high value and show deficiencies, 

the condition and safety goal may be advanced by 

joint projects with partners to address transportation 

safety needs of mutual interest with other government 

agencies. To identify such opportunities, non-Service 

condition and safety information is also examined 

when there is a shared geography with Service assets. 

Opportunities may exist if both Service and nonService entities have system condition deficiencies in 

shared locations.

The Service supports safe and reliable access to its 

lands, regardless of facility ownership. As such, safety 

indicators including condition, AADT, and crash 

history were collected and analyzed to help identify 

potential safety problem areas on non-Service owned 

roads near refuges and hatcheries. Places where 

these factors are pronounced and within one mile of 

a Service unit are areas of potential opportunity to 

partner with non-Service agencies to resolve safety 

issues of mutual interest. These hot spot locations 

are identified in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 4 

through Figure 7. Hot spots are identified as nonService routes that satisfy at least one of the following 

criteria:

 An AADT of 20,000 or more

 Five or more crashes have occurred within the most 

recent 3-year period on a route within 1 mile of a 

unit

 Current road conditions are considered “poor” or 

“very poor”

Baseline data analysis is 

intended to help decision 

makers identify condition 

and safety hot spots to 

and within refuges and 

hatcheries. The following 

example shows that there 

is a possible deficiency in 

the transportation system 

condition and safety within, 

and possibly to, Kealia Pond 

National Wildlife Refuge in 

Maui. 

Deficiencies are shown 

in Table 4, illustrating that 

the non-Service routes 

accessing the refuge are 

generally in “poor” or “very 

poor” condition and have 

comparatively high AADT 

(above 20,000 vehicles). 

System deficiencies are 

present within the refuge; 

the Service route called 

Entrance Road is rated as 

“fair,” yet has very high API 

of 100, as summarized in 

Appendix C, Table 2. 

Safety Hot Spots

Poor

Road

Condition

High

Crash

Rate

HOT

SPOT

High

AADT

High

API
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 15

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

Table 4

Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots

State Name Route Condition AADT Crashes

Hawaii

Hanalei NWR Weke Rd Very Poor 2,032 Not Available (N/A)

Huleia NWR Puhi Rd Very Poor 5,337 N/A

Kealia Pond NWR

Honoapiilani Hwy Fair 28,610 N/A

Piilani Hwy Fair 28,113 N/A

Mokulele Hwy Poor 28,413 N/A

Ohukai Rd Very Poor 7,702 N/A

South Kihei Rd Very Poor 21,342 N/A

Pearl Harbor NWR

Fort Weaver Rd Fair 65,698 N/A

H-2 Fair 100,371 N/A

Kamehameha Hwy Poor 54,814 N/A

Acacia Rd Very Poor 29,425 N/A

Farrington Hwy Very Poor 65,394 N/A

H-1 Very Poor 217,006 N/A

Hoolaulea St Very Poor 5,252 N/A

Kuala St Very Poor 16,955 N/A

Lehua St Very Poor 12,688 N/A

Paiwa St Very Poor 26,502 N/A

Renton Rd Very Poor 11,079 N/A

Waimano Home Rd Very Poor 19,593 N/A

Waipahu St Very Poor 9,589 N/A

Waipio Point Access Rd Very Poor 2,011 N/A

Idaho

Camas NWR I-15 N/A 4,100 17

Clearwater FH US 12 N/A 6,200 19

Deer Flat NWR

SH 55 N/A 12,000 130

12th Ave N/A 11,000 11

I-84 N/A 16,500 20

Idaho Ave N/A 5,600 18

Karcher Rd N/A 12,000 23

SH-19 N/A 2,500 5

SH-45 N/A 11,000 45

US-95 N/A 5,600 14

SH-78 N/A 1,500 41

Dworshak NFH US 12 N/A 6,200 19

Grays Lake NWR SH 34 N/A 500 6

Hagerman NFH US 30 N/A 1,600 5

Kooskia NFH US 12 N/A 1,000 6

McCall FH Lake St N/A 7,300 14

Minidoka NWR I-86 N/A 6,600 41

Sawtooth FH SH 75 N/A 860 5
16 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Table 4

Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots

State Name Route Condition AADT Crashes

Oregon

Ankeny NWR I-5 N/A 59,300 10

Baskett Slough NWR SR-22 Poor N/A 6

SR-99W Poor N/A N/A

Deer Flat NWR

SR-453 Very Poor N/A N/A

SR-454 Very Poor N/A N/A

I-84 Poor N/A N/A

SR-201 Poor N/A N/A

SR-201 Very Poor N/A N/A

Lewis And Clark NWR US 30 Poor N/A 7

McKay Creek NWR US 395 N/A N/A 5

Oregon Islands NWR US 101 Poor N/A 7

Siletz Bay NWR US 101 N/A N/A 8

Tualatin River NWR SR-99W N/A 42,200 6

Umatilla NWR US 730 N/A 5

Washington

Columbia NWR SR-26 N/A 2,566 9

Dungeness NWR US 101 N/A 12,091 10

Franz Lake NWR SR-14 N/A 4,032 8

Grays Harbor NWR SR-109 N/A N/A 32

Julia Butler Hansen 

Refuge SR-4 N/A 4,369 24

Little Pend Oreille 

NWR SR-20 N/A N/A 10

McNary NWR

US 12 N/A 10,147 34

SR-124 N/A N/A 5

US 730 N/A N/A 9

Nisqually NWR I-5 N/A 110,850 82

Quilcene NFH US 101 N/A 2,858 9

Hanford Reach 

National Monument

SR-24 N/A N/A 18

SR-240 N/A N/A 16

Steigerwald Lake 

NWR SR-14 N/A 6,758 12

Toppenish NWR US 97 N/A 4,034 9

Turnbull NWR SR-904 N/A N/A 7

Umatilla NWR SR-14 N/A N/A 13

Willapa NWR US 101 N/A N/A 13

Winthrop NFH SR-20 N/A N/A 6

Note: Green highlight means meets hotspot criteria of AADT 20,000 or higher, five or more crashes in the past three years, 

or road conditions of poor or worse

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Hawaii DOT (2003/2004), Oregon DOT (2008); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Washington DOT (N/A) AADT: Hawaii DOT (2008), Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN 

(2008); Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 

to 2008); Hawaii (N/A)

NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; NFH = National Fish Hatchery; FH = Fish Hatchery

Cited in sidebar on page 25
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 17

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

Figure 4

Service Units and Non-Service Road Hotspots

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Sheldon NWR

Hart Mountain NWR

Malheur NWR

Hanford Reach NM

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Umatilla NWR

Columbia NWR

Grays Lake NWR

Minidoka NWR

Lewis and Clark NWR

Bear Lake NWR

Camas NWR

Deer Flat NWR

McNary NWR

Conboy Lake NWR

Nisqually NWR

Willapa NWR

Ridgefield NWR

Nisqually NFH

Toppenish NWR

William F. Finley NWR

Tualatin River NWR

Ankeny NWR

Kootenai NWR

Siletz Bay NWR Baskett Slough NWR

Grays Harbor NWR

McKay Creek NWR

Oxford Slough WPA

Nestucca Bay NWR

Dungeness NWR

Kooskia NFH

Hagerman NFH

Steigerwald Lake NWR

Leavenworth NFH

Bandon Marsh NWR

Makah NFH

Warm Springs NFH

Quinault NFH

Cape Meares NWR

San Juan Islands NWR

Eagle Creek NFH

Winthrop NFH

Entiat NFH

Quilcene NFH

PORTLAND

SEATTLE

BOISE

SPOKANE

BEND EUGENE

TACOMA

BELLEVUE

YAKIMA

POCATELLO

IDAHO FALLS

COEUR D'ALENE

£¤20

£¤93

£¤95

£¤26

£¤101

£¤12

£¤395

£¤97

£¤2

£¤30

£¤197

£¤199

£¤195

£¤91 £¤89

£¤20

£¤395

£¤30

£¤101

£¤20

£¤26

£¤26

£¤395

£¤395

£¤97

£¤197

£¤395

£¤101

£¤ £¤20 97

£¤199

£¤2

£¤395

£¤195

£¤26

£¤95

£¤26

£¤395

£¤20

£¤97

£¤2

£¤20

£¤26

£¤95

£¤20

£¤26

£¤20

£¤101

£¤12

£¤26

£¤95

£¤ £¤93 95

£¤97

£¤101

£¤12

£¤2

£¤95

£¤95

£¤20

£¤101

£¤12

£¤12

£¤26

£¤26

£¤12

£¤26

£¤101

£¤93

£¤97

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦5

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦84

I D A H O

O R E G O N

W M O N T A N A A S H I N G T O N

W Y O M I N G

N E V A D A

C A L I F O R N I A U T A H

F

0 50 100

Miles

INSET MAP 2 INSET MAP 1

INSET MAP 3

Crash Hotspot !

AADT Hotspot !

Crash Hotspot

AADT Hotspot

Condition Hotspot

FWS Boundaries

Limited Access Highway

Primary Road

FWS Region 1 Boundary

Hakalau Forest NWR

Oahu Forest NWR

Hanalei NWR

Kealia Pond NWR

H A W A I I

INSET MAP 4

0 50 100

Miles

INSET MAP 5

INSET MAP 6

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Oregon DOT (2008) AADT: Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN (2008); Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 to 

2008)
18 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 19

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

Figure 5

Inset Map 1

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Oregon DOT (2008); Washington DOT (N/A); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Hawaii DOT (N/A) AADT: Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN (2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A) 

Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 to 2008); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Hawaii DOT (N/A)
20 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Figure 6

Inset Map 2

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Hanford Reach NM

Umatilla NWR

Columbia NWR

McNary NWR

Toppenish NWR

Cold Springs NWR

McKay Creek NWR

UV124

UV37

UV243

UV221

UV26

UV262

UV24 UV240

UV821

UV125

UV10

UV11

UV74

UV241

UV19

UV22

UV207

UV14

UV410

UV225

UV263

UV142

UV260

UV206

UV261

UV283

UV204

UV21

UV17

UV171

UV17

UV21

UV UV74 14

UV241

UV17

UV260

UV26

UV24

UV26

UV261

UV21

UV24

UV260

UV14 UV207

UV26 UV26

UV21

UV17

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦82

§ ̈¦82

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦82

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦90

£¤97

£¤12

£¤395

£¤730

£¤12

£¤12

£¤97

£¤395

£¤395

£¤97

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

! Crash Location

! AADT > 20,000

Crash Hotspot

AADT Hotspot

Condition is Poor or Failed

Limited Access Highway

Primary Road

FWS Road

FWS Boundaries

F

0 5 10

Miles

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Oregon DOT (2008); Washington DOT (N/A); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Hawaii DOT (N/A) AADT: Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN (2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A) 

Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 to 

2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 21

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

Figure 7

Inset Map 3

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Oregon DOT (2008); Washington DOT (N/A); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Hawaii DOT (N/A) AADT: Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN (2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A) 

Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 to 

2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A)
22 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Figure 8

Inset Map 4

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Oregon DOT (2008); Washington DOT (N/A); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Hawaii DOT (N/A) AADT: Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN (2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A) 

Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 to 

2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 23

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

Figure 9

Inset Map 5

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Oregon DOT (2008); Washington DOT (N/A); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Hawaii DOT (N/A) AADT: Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN (2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A) 

Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 to 

2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A)
24 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Figure 10

Inset Map 6

Routes: Hawaii DOT, Idaho DOT, Oregon DOT, Washington DOT; Condition: Oregon DOT (2008); Washington DOT (N/A); 

Idaho DOT (N/A); Hawaii DOT (N/A) AADT: Idaho DOT (2007), Oregon DOT (2007), NHPN (2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A) 

Crashes: Idaho DOT (2006 to 2008), Oregon DOT (2005 to 2007, $1,500 or more in damage), Washington DOT (2006 to 

2008); Hawaii DOT (N/A)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 25

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

Baseline data suggest that McNary National Wildlife Refuge, in the state of Washington, is a reasonable 

candidate for road improvements. The first table below indicates that 84 percent of the refuge’s roads are rated 

“fair” or worse. The second table below indicates that there are 12 routes with an API of 80 or greater, the 

threshold for being considered mission critical. Eleven of these twelve mission critical routes have a condition 

of “fair” or “failed.” Table 4 shows that the segment of US 12 that intersects the refuge had 34 crashes within a 

2-year timeframe.

Excerpt from Appendix C, Table 6

Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

McNary NWR

Asphalt

Fair 0.60 4%

Poor 1.05 7%

Gravel

Failed 1.31 9%

Fair 7.15 50%

Good 2.11 15%

Native

Failed 0.56 4%

Fair 1.38 10%

FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4

Excerpt from Appendix C, Table 2

Route Name Route ID Surface Asset Priority 

Index Condition

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

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

Johnson Pond Road FWS-MCNA-120 Asphalt 80 Fair

Old Bridge Road FWS-MCNA-123 Gravel 80 Fair

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

Quarry Pond Road FWS-MCNA-109 Gravel 80 Fair

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

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

Two Rivers Entrance Road FWS-MCNA-012 Gravel 100 Failed

Wallula Unit Road FWS-MCNA-013 Gravel 100 Fair

Winery Road FWS-MCNA-100 Gravel 80 Fair

Winery Road FWS-MCNA-100 Native 80 Fair

FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4
26 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

2.2.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Several actions are necessary to better evaluate the 

need for conditions and safety improvements. The 

following actions are recommended: 

 Obtain AADT for all Service roads to help quantify 

use and add to the meaningfulness of need 

determinations.

 Collect crash data for all Service roads to help 

identify areas in need of safety improvements.

 Obtain complete current replacement value, API, 

FCI, and deferred maintenance for all refuge and 

hatchery roads, parking lots, and trails to eliminate 

data gaps and improve the reliability of need 

determinations.

 Develop a better cross-compatibility between 

SAMMS and RIP for roads, parking lots, and trails 

to eliminate data gaps and increase the reliability 

and usefulness of need and hotspot analyses.

 Use a complete dataset of non-Service road use, 

condition, and crashes to eliminate data gaps in 

the determinations of improvement need and 

partnership opportunity.

2.3 Welcome and Orient Visitors

The LRTP welcome and orient visitors goal is, 

“Develop and maintain a transportation network

that welcomes and orients visitors.” The following 

objectives and strategies serve to further the 

sentiment expressed by the goal.

Objective 1

Provide public information to enable visitors to easily 

get to refuges and hatcheries and to use its sites. 

Strategies for this objective are:

 Identify appropriate locations in the transportation 

system to place entrance, directional, and boundary 

signs to improve visitor way-finding to and within 

refuges and hatcheries.

 Increase use of traveler information systems, such 

as 511 and variable message signs, to transmit 

safety, interpretive and special events management 

information.

Objective 2

Engage the visitor with compelling information so 

they better understand the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Fisheries Program purpose of wildlife 

conservation and to enjoy natural resources. The 

strategy for this objective is: 

 Develop signage with positively worded regulations 

and information to create a relaxed and welcoming 

atmosphere. 

Objective 3

Create a consistent and recognizable identity 

throughout all Service units through the use of 

standard materials for readily observed physical 

elements associated with the transportation system. 

Strategies for this objective are:

 Replace substandard entrance, regulatory, and 

interpretive signs to adhere to Service-wide 

standards when located adjacent to a transportation 

improvement project 

 Develop and apply standards for landscape 

treatments to create a recognizable appearance 

to Service-owned parking lots and pull-offs to 

trailheads.

2.3.1 Welcome and Orient Visitors Data

Welcome and orient visitors data is analyzed with 

the assumption that opportunities for enhancing this 

goal are greatest in places that receive the highest 

number of visitors. Visitation and population data is 

used to identify appropriate opportunities. Population 

estimates and forecasts are derived from the U.S. 

Census, while visitation data is reported by the 

Service.

Visitation to refuges and hatcheries in Region 1 varies 

greatly, from less than 100 average annual visits at 

several small remote refuges and fish hatcheries, to 

1.9 million average annual visits at Oregon Islands 

National Wildlife Refuge. Units that experience 

higher levels of visitation are generally located near 

populous locations, as shown in Figure 11 through 

13. The figures also show visitation data by unit and 

U.S. Census county-level population estimates for 

2008. Table 5 summarizes visitation trends to Region 1 

Service lands. Change in visitation is generally 

positive throughout the region. Data indicate that 

the number of visits to Service lands had an average 

annual increase in visitation of 16 percent, from 2005 

to 20091

.

1	 Based on units that have data for all five years. Sixty-four

percent of units have visitation data for all years.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 27

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

State/ 

Territory Units Visitation 2009

Relative 

Change 

(2005 – 

2009)

Guam Guam NWR 85,000 + Hawaii

Kilauea Point NWR 500,000 +

Hanalei NWR 402,000 -

Kealia Pond NWR 5,727 +

Pearl Harbor NWR 3,230 -

Hakalau Forest NWR 1,502 -

James Campbell NWR 1,376 -

Midway Atoll NWR 291 +

Kakahaia NWR 53 +

Pacific 

Outlying 

Islands

Palmyra Atoll NWR +

Idaho

Deer Flat NWR 167,884 +

Dworshak NFH 20,800 NA

Bear Lake NWR 11,674 +

Hagerman NFH 8,139 NA

Kooskia NFH 7886 NA

Kootenai NWR 42,000  -

Minidoka NWR 65,000 +

Camas NWR 7,512 +

Idaho Idaho Fish Health Center 60 NA

Nevada Sheldon NWR 17,000 - Oregon

Oregon Islands NWR 2,556,440 +

Cape Meares NWR 489,564 +

Three Arch Rocks NWR 347,728 +

Baskett Slough NWR 168,336 +

William L. Finley NWR 119,602 -

Tualatin River NWR 86,896 +

Malheur NWR 65,000 -

Ankeny NWR 61,185 +

Cold Springs NWR 30,000 -

McKay Creek NWR 30,000 -

Hart Mountain National 

Antelope Refuge 20,786 -

Nestucca Bay NWR 9,888 +

Bandon Marsh NWR 4,718 +

Grays Lake NWR 2,560 -

Warm Springs NFH 930 NA

Eagle Creek NFH 350 NA

Siletz Bay NWR* 180 +

Oxford Slough WPA 150 -

State/ 

Territory Units Visitation 2009

Relative 

Change 

(2005 – 

2009)

Washington

Leavenworth NFH 155,000 NA

Nisqually NWR 150,756 -

Ridgefield NWR 117,345 +

Umatilla NWR 76,000 +

Columbia NWR 73,000 +

Dungeness NWR 66,642 -

McNary NWR 65,000 -

Little Pend Oreille NWR 60,000 +

Turnbull NWR 43,930 +

Hanford Reach National 

Monument 43,000 -

Julia Butler Hansen 

Refuge 25,000 -

Willapa NWR 25,000 +

San Juan Islands NWR 17,405 -

Spring Creek NFH 10,000 NA

Lewis and Clark NWR 16,000 -

Grays Harbor NWR 13,000 -

Toppenish NWR 9,750 +

Little White Salmon NFH 7,600 NA

Quinault NFH 7,456 NA

Steigerwald Lake NWR 7,267 +

Conboy Lake NWR 6,500 +

Winthrop NFH 3,300 NA

Entiat NFH 3,170 NA

Carson NFH 2,179 NA

Franz Lake NWR* 2,000 -

Quilcene NFH 1,400 NA

Mid-Columbia River 

Fisheries Resource 

Office 

1,048 NA

Makah NFH 800 NA

Columbia River Fisheries 

Program Office 654 NA

Willard NFH 265 NA

Pierce NWR* 197 +

Abernathy Fish Tech 

Center 190 NA

Lower Columbia River 

Fish Health Center 46 NA

Protection Island NWR 25 +

Table 5

2009 Visitation by Unit

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009

* This refuge is closed to the public

NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; NFH = National Fish Hatchery; WPA = Waterfowl Production Area
28 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Population has also increased in the areas near 

Service units. Counties overlapping Service units 

experienced an average population increase of 11 

percent from 2000 to 2008. According to U.S. Census 

forecasts, population is expected to increase an 

average of 24 percent by 2030 in counties overlapping 

Service lands in Region 1. By this measure, visitation 

is also expected to continue its upward trend and 

increase into 2030. Table 7 in Appendix C summarizes 

population increase from 2000 to 2008 as well as 

U.S. Census 2030 population forecasts in counties 

overlapping Service units. Besides serving as a 

contextual tool, population projections serve as a cross 

check when considering visitor facility enhancement 

projects. The assumptions discussed below for 

identifying visitor facility improvement areas assume 

that relative differences in visitation levels between 

Region 1 units will remain the same for future 

years. Population forecasts are used to confirm that 

population change is similar for Region 1 units. That 

is, no dramatic declines are expected in places that 

could potentially receive transportation improvements. 

According to Appendix C, Table 7, only two counties 

with Service units are anticipated to experience 

negative growth population into the future.

Transportation hubs are defined as populous areas 

serving as the nearest major metropolitan area to 

refuges and hatcheries. These hubs likely generate 

the majority of visitor traffic to a refuge or hatchery. 

Gateway communities are identified as the small 

towns or communities near a refuge or hatchery that 

channel most traffic into a refuge or hatchery. When 

visitation to a unit is high, these gateway communities 

experience higher traffic volumes and may reap 

the economic benefits of increased visitation. High 

visitation units (more than 100,000 average annual 

visits) are highlighted in red in Table 5. These units 

are most likely to benefit the greatest number of 

visitors through improvements. Transportation hubs 

and gateway communities are summarized in Table 

6. Distance and population variables are weighed 

against each other so that communities identified are 

not always the closest or the most populated, but are 

rather a combination of the two. Gateway communities 

of the greatest interest are those associated with units 

receiving high levels of visitation. 

USFWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 29

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

Table 6

Transportation Hubs and Gateway Communities

State/ 

Territory Service Unit 2009 Visitation

Transportation Hub Gateway Community

Location

Distance 

From Unit

(miles)

Population Location

Distance 

From Unit

(miles)

Population

Guam Guam NWR 85,000 Dededo, GU 15  154,805 Dededo, GU 15   154,805

Hawaii

Hakalau Forest NWR 1,500 Honolulu, HI 120 353,106 Hilo, HI 23 48,104

Hanalei NWR 402,000 Lihue, HI 130 371,657 Princeville, HI 4 1,698Kilauea Point NWR 500,000 Lihue, HI 130 371,657 Kilauea, HI 2 2,092Maui NWR Complex 5,727 Honolulu, HI 60 353,106 Kihei, HI 2 19,703

Idaho

Bear Lake, NWR 11,674 Boise, ID 336 185,787 Montpelier, ID 12 2,785

Camas NWR 7,512 Boise, ID 317 185,787 Hamer, ID 5 12

Deer Flat NWR 167,884 Boise, ID 20 185,787 Nampa, ID 6 81,349Kootenai NWR 42,000*  Spokane, WA 114 200,428 Bonners Ferry, ID 6 2,515Minidoka, NWR 65,000 Boise, ID 183 185,787 Rupert, ID 11 5,645

Oregon

Ankeny NWR 61185 Portland, OR 60 529,121 Salem, OR 15 152,634

Baskett Slough NWR 168,336 Portland, OR 50 529,121 Salem, OR 20 152,634Cape Meares NWR 489,564 Portland, OR 83 529,121 Tillamook, OR 9 24,949Cold Springs NWR 73,000 Portland, OR 194 529,121 Hermiston, OR 8 13,154Malheur NWR 65,000 Boise, ID 120 185,787 Burns, OR 32 3,064Oregon Islands NWR 2,556,440 Portland, OR 250 529,121 Newport, OR 34 9,532Sheldon-Hart NWR Complex 37,786 Portland, OR 336 529,121 Lakeview, OR 0 2,474Three Arch Rocks NWR 347,728 Portland, OR 60 529,121 Oceanside, OR 1 326Tualatin River NWR 86,896 Portland, OR 10 529,121 Sherwood, OR 3 11,791William L. Finley NWR 119,602 Portland, OR 80 529,121 Corvallis, OR 15 52,102
30 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

Long Range Transportation Plan for Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 1 Table 6 Transportation Hubs and Gateway Communities State/ Territory Service Unit 2009 Visitation Transportation Hub Gateway Community Location Distance From Unit (miles) Population Location Distance From Unit (miles) Population Washington Columbia NWR 73,000 Spokane, WA 126 200,428 Othello, WA 15 5,847 Conboy Lake NWR 6,500 Portland, OR 90 529,121  Glenwood, WA 5 650 Dungeness NWR 66,642 Seattle, WA 15 547,997 Sequim, WA 7 4,334 Grays Harbor NWR 13,000 Seattle, WA 116 547,997 Hoquiam, WA 3 9,097 Hanford Reach NM 43,000 Pasco, WA 42 51,456 Richland, WA 30 45,460 Julia Butler Hansen Refuge 25,000 Portland, OR 74 529,121 Cathlamet, WA 1 565 Leavenworth NFH 155,000 Seattle, WA 70 547,997 Leavenworth, WA 3 2,074 Little Pend Oreille NWR 60,000 Spokane, WA 75 200,428 Colville, WA 14 4,988 McNary NWR 65,000 Pasco, WA 10 51,456 Burbank, WA 3 3,303 Nisqually NWR 150,756 Seattle, WA 40 547,997 Olympia, WA 14 46,529 Ridgefield NWR 120,000 Portland, OR 15 529,121 Ridgefield, WA 2 2,147 Steigerwald Lake NWR 7,267 Portland, OR 15 529,121 Washougal, WA 3 8,595 Turnbull NWR 43,930 Spokane, WA 17 200,428 Cheney, WA 2 8,832 Umatilla NWR 76,000 Pasco, WA 63 51,456 Umatilla, OR 34 73,252 Willapa NWR 25,000 Portland, OR 86 529,121 Long Beach, WA 43 1,283

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Census (2008 estimate)* For year 2008NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; NFH = National Fish Hatchery
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 31

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

Figure 11

Population and Visitation - Washington and Oregon

Sheldon NWR

Hart Mountain NR

Malheur NWR

Hanford Reach NM

Little Pend Oreille NWR

Umatilla NWR

Columbia NWR

Lewis And Clark NWR

Turnbull NWR

Conboy Lake NWR

McNary NWR

Willapa NWR

Ridgefield NWR

Deer Flat NWR

Toppenish NWR

Nisqually NWR

William L. Finley NWR

Ankeny NWR

Cold Springs NWR

Baskett Slough NWR

McKay Creek NWR

Tualatin River NWR

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge

Grays Harbor NWR

Dungeness NWR

Steigerwald Lake NWR

Nestucca Bay NWR

Leavenworth NFH

Eagle Creek NFH

Siletz Bay NWR

Bandon Marsh NWR

Carson NFH

Little White Salmon NFH

Nisqually FH

Makah NFH

Quinault NFH

Cape Meares NWR

Oregon Islands NWR

Lyons Ferry FH

Warm Springs NFH

Irrigon FH

Winthrop NFH

Quilcene NFH

Tucannon FH

Entiat NFH

Lookingglass FH

Quillayute Needles NWR

San Juan Islands NWR

Copalis NWR

Flattery Rocks NWR

PORTLAND

SEATTLE SPOKANE

BEND EUGENE

TACOMA

BELLEVUE

YAKIMA

BELLINGHAM

£¤20

£¤95

£¤101

£¤26

£¤12

£¤395

£¤97

£¤2

£¤197

£¤199

£¤195

£¤20

£¤97

£¤12

£¤97

£¤195

£¤2

£¤97

£¤395

£¤97

£¤97

£¤20

£¤12

£¤20

£¤20

£¤199

£¤95

£¤26

£¤101

£¤197

£¤26

£¤395

£¤101

£¤12

£¤101

£¤101

£¤395

£¤101

£¤395

£¤95

£¤2

£¤95

£¤26

£¤20

£¤395

£¤395

£¤97

£¤26

£¤26

£¤395

£¤26

£¤12

£¤97

£¤95

£¤97

£¤2

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦5

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦84

Population

Less than 10,000

10,000 to 29,999

30,000 to 79,999

80,000 or more

Service Unit Visitation

10,000 of fewer

10,001 - 100,000

More than 100,000

0 37.5 75

Miles

F
32 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Figure 12

Population and Visitation - Idaho
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 33

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

Figure 13

Population and Visitation - Hawaii and Guam
34 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

2.3.2 Identifying Visitor Enhancement Improvement 

Areas

Generally, visitor enhancement related improvements 

such as signage, way-finding, and interpretation are 

most appropriate for units that have, and will continue 

to have, consistently high levels of visitation—where 

the greatest number of visitors possible can benefit 

from the improvements. Gateway communities are 

also potential locations for visitor enhancements, 

particularly as they relate to way-finding, thereby 

directing people to the refuge or hatchery. These 

enhancements can improve ease of travel to and 

through units, thus improving visitor experience. To 

ensure the greatest enhancement value for Region 1, 

potential improvements decisions should be focused 

on high visitation units (identified as units having over 

100,000 average annual visits). Within this subset, 

larger gateway communities have the added benefit 

of potentially tying into existing non-Service traveler 

information systems (such as 511 services and variable 

message signs). Gateway communities that serve 

multiple Service lands may also offer added value and 

opportunities to address multiple needs through one 

improvement.

2.3.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Several datasets are necessary to better evaluate 

opportunities for visitor experience related 

transportation improvements, such as:

 Identify where state way-finding and variable 

message signs are located to assist in identifying 

areas of possible partnership.

 Develop and implement a regional or national sign 

inventory that includes sign location, condition, and 

adherence to Service sign standards and FHWA the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to help 

identify where additional or improved signage is 

needed. 

Baseline condition analysis helps identify areas, 

or hot-spots, that could potentially benefit the 

most from visitor enhancement improvements. 

As discussed in the previous section, these 

improvement hot-spots are tied primarily to 

visitation, as well as proximity of populated places. 

Hot-spots are places that have high values for 

all of these variables. In the baseline condition 

summary, these are assumed to be places with 

over 100,000 annual visits in Table 5 and the 

communities identified in Table 6. An example of 

a hot spot for visitor enhancement improvements 

is William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. The 

Refuge receives a high level of visitation (119,314 

average annual visits) and is located in an area 

expecting future population growth (19 percent). 

The Refuge is also located in close proximity to the 

gateway community of Corvallis, Oregon (15 miles 

away, with a population of 52,102). These indicators 

suggests that visitor enhancement improvements 

would reach a large number of people, and that 

improvements at gateway communities may 

potentially tie into existing traveler information 

systems.

High

Visitation

Proximity

to

ITS

HOT

SPOT

Proximity

to

Gateway

Hot Spot for Visitor Enhancement 

Improvements
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 35

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

2.4 Planning

The LRTP planning goal is “integrate

transportation planning into Service plans and

processes.” The following objectives and strategies 

serve to further the sentiment expressed by the goal.

Objective 1

Ensure consistency and coordination between the 

project, unit, regional, and national levels of planning. 

The strategy for this objective is:

 Develop and apply transportation planning 

templates for CCPs and CHMPs or station 

development plans.

Objective 2

Define need for infrastructure improvements and 

prioritize projects using a scientific and objective 

process. Strategies for this objective are:

 Use condition assessments and/or road safety audits 

to identify road system deficiencies.

 Use established goals and objectives in the project 

selection process.

2.4.1 Planning Data

The Service uses plans at all levels within the 

organization, from the project and unit levels to 

national level. Plans are used to express guiding 

principles and/or specific deficiencies or needs 

from the project to the policy level. A wide range 

of planning tools is therefore available for all 

Service levels. Figure 14 illustrates examples 

of the types of plans that are used at different 

levels within the Service. For example, project 

level operations use RSAs to document safety 

issues. The outcome of the studies is used to help 

resolve documented safety issues by identifying 

need, possible solutions, and serving as leverage 

for future project funding.

Data used to establish a baseline for the planning goal 

includes the current state of the Service’s resource 

management planning and the planning activities of 

potential partners. 

Figure 14

Service Plans

Project Level

Traffic Studies

RSA’s

NEPA Studies

National Level

National Asset 

Management Plan

National LRTP

National Fisheries 

Strategic Plan

National Refuge 

Strategic Plan

National Sign 

Manual

Regional Level

Regional Asset 

Management Plan

Regional LRTP

Regional Visitor 

Services Plan

Unit Level

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan

Comprehensive Hatchery 

Management Plan

Refuge Transportation 

Studies
36 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Service resource management plans include CCPs 

and CHMPs. CCPs are planning documents developed 

for individual refuges to provide a description of the 

desired future conditions and long-range guidance 

with regard to resource management at the refuge 

unit level. CCPs establish management direction 

to achieve refuge goals. CHMPs are operational 

management plans specific to fish hatcheries. The 

plans outline policies and objectives relevant to 

the overall management of a specific fish hatchery. 

CHMPs are used as planning reference tools, to 

help integrate Service 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. 

Currently, 29 CCPs have been completed, 23 are in 

progress, and 9 are scheduled to begin in 2011 within 

Region 1. Fifteen CHMPs have been adopted for 

National Fish Hatcheries. In addition, two RSAs, 

four traffic studies, and eight transportation studies 

have been completed or are in-progress as of January 

2011. Several units are also located within non-Service 

transportation planning districts. Nine units are within 

the boundary of a state MPO, and 34 units are located 

in a State regional planning organization. Table 8 

summarizes the completeness of Service planning 

and identifies non-Service transportation planning 

occurring in the same area.

Additionally, project leaders have identified units 

that demonstrate need for additional transportation 

planning studies based on their knowledge of issues 

facing individual refuges and hatcheries. Additional 

plans fall into three categories: large scale and 

comprehensive plans, issue driven plans, and small 

scale plans and studies. These categories are used 

to describe the different types of plans and studies, 

as shown in Table 7. Table 8 summarizes progress of 

transportation planning efforts and anticipated needs 

for Region 1 stations.

Table 7

Planning Need and Plan Types

Planning Need Corresponding Plan Types

Comprehensive/Large Scale

CCP step-down plan

Complex issue analysis (e.g., Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge)

Regional transportation analysis (e.g., big picture look at connectivity, 

visitor use analysis)

Issue Driven Engineering/traffic safety analysis

Access analysis

Small Scale Traffic safety audit

“C” = Complete; “I” = In-progress; “S” = Scheduled; “P” = Planned

** MPO = Metropolitan Planning Office, RTPO = Regional Transportation Organization, RTC = Regional 

Transportation Council, RC = Regional Council, ACT = Area Commissions on Transportation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 37

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

Table 8

Transportation Related Planning Efforts

State /Territory

Service Unit

Planning 

Studies

Planning  

Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCPCHMPRSATraffic StudiesTrans. StudiesComprehensive / Large ScaleIssue DrivenSmall Scale or NoneMPO**Regional Planning DistrictDOT Regions

Guam Guam National Wildlife 

Refuge C Department of Administration

HI

Hakalau Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge I X Hawaii

Hanalei National Wildlife 

Refuge I X Kauai

Hawaiian Islands NWR C Hawaii

Huleia National Wildlife 

Refuge I X Kauai

James Campbell National 

Wildlife Refuge I X Oahu MPO Oahu

Kakahaia National Wildlife 

Refuge I X Maui

Kealia Pond National 

Wildlife Refuge I X Maui

Kilauea Point National 

Wildlife Refuge I I X Kauai

Kona Forest NWR P Hawaii

Midway Atoll National 

Wildlife Refuge C

Oahu Forest National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Oahu MPO Oahu

Pearl Harbor National 

Wildlife Refuge I Oahu MPO Oahu

ID

Bear Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge S X ITD 5

Camas National Wildlife 

Refuge S X ITD 6

Clearwater Forest Highway P ITD 2

Crooked River NFH P ITD 3

Deer Flat National Wildlife 

Refuge S I X COMPASS ITD 3 and 

Eastern Oregon

Dworshak National Fish 

Hatchery C ITD 2

Eagle Fish Health 

Laboratory P COMPASS IDT 2

East Fork Salmon NFH P COMPASS IDT 2
38 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Table 8

Transportation Related Planning Efforts

State /Territory

Service Unit

Planning 

Studies

Planning  

Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCPCHMPRSATraffic StudiesTrans. StudiesComprehensive / Large ScaleIssue DrivenSmall Scale or NoneMPO**Regional Planning DistrictDOT Regions

ID

Grays Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge S ITD 5 and 6

Hagerman National Fish 

Hatchery C C I ITD 4

Idaho Fish Health Center P ITD 2

Kooskia NFH C ITD 2

Kootenai National Wildlife 

Refuge S X ITD 1

Magic Valley Fish Hatchery P ITD 4

McCall Fish Hatchery P ITD 3

Minidoka National Wildlife 

Refuge S X ITD 4 and 5

Oxford Slough Waterfowl 

Production Area S P ITD 5

Red River NFH p ITD 3

Sawtooth Fish Hatchery P ITD 6

South Fork National Fish 

Hatchery P ITD 3

NV Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge I I X District 3

OR

Ankeny National Wildlife 

Refuge I X Mid-Willamette Valley ACT

Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Bandon Marsh National 

Wildlife Refuge S X South West ACT Southwestern Oregon

Baskett Slough National 

Wildlife Refuge S S I X Mid-Willamette Valley ACT

Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Big Canyon NFH Northwest 

Oregon ACT District 13

Cape Meares National 

Wildlife Refuge C X Northwest Oregon ACT

Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Cold Springs National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Northwest Oregon ACT Eastern Oregon

Eagle Creek National Fish 

Hatchery C

Portland 

Metropolitan 

ACT

Portland Metro

Hart Mountain National 

Antelope Refuge C X South Central 

ACT Central Oregon
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 39

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

Table 8

Transportation Related Planning Efforts

State /Territory

Service Unit

Planning 

Studies

Planning  

Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCPCHMPRSATraffic StudiesTrans. StudiesComprehensive / Large ScaleIssue DrivenSmall Scale or NoneMPO**Regional Planning DistrictDOT Regions

OR

Imnaha NFH P Northwest 

Oregon ACT

Irrigon Fish Hatchery P Northeast ACT Eastern Oregon

Little Sheep Creek Northwest 

Oregon ACT

Lookingglass Fish Hatchery P Northeast ACT Eastern Oregon

Malheur National Wildlife 

Refuge S C X Southeast ACT Eastern Oregon

McKay Creek National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Northwest Oregon ACT Eastern Oregon

Nestucca Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Northwest Oregon ACT

Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Oregon Islands National 

Wildlife Refuge C X Northwest Oregon ACT

Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Siletz Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge S X Cascades West 

ACT

Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Three Arch Rocks National 

Wildlife Refuge P Northwest Oregon ACT

Willamette 

Valley and Coast

Tualatin River National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Metro MPO

Portland 

Metropolitan 

ACT

Portland Metro

Wallowa NFH P Northwest 

Oregon

Willamette 

Valley and Coast

Warm Springs National Fish 

Hatchery P Lower John Day 

ACT Central Oregon

William L. Finley National 

Wildlife Refuge S S I X Cascades West ACT

Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Pacific Outlying Islands

Baker Island NWR C

Howland Island NWR C

Jarvis Island NWR C

Johnston Island NWR P

Kingman Reef NWR C

Pacific Reefs National 

Wildlife Refuge P

Palmyra Atoll NWR C

Rose Atoll National Wildlife 

Refuge I

Wake Atoll National Wildlife 

Refuge P
40 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Table 8

Transportation Related Planning Efforts

State /Territory

Service Unit

Planning 

Studies

Planning  

Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCPCHMPRSATraffic StudiesTrans. StudiesComprehensive / Large ScaleIssue DrivenSmall Scale or NoneMPO**Regional Planning DistrictDOT Regions

WA

Abernathy Fish Technology 

Center P Southwest RTPO Southwest

Captain John Rapids NFH Lewis-Clark 

Valley MPO South Central

Carson National Fish 

Hatchery C Southwest RTPO Southwest

Columbia National Wildlife 

Refuge S X Quad-County RTPO North Central

Conboy Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Southwest RTPO Southwest

Copalis National Wildlife 

Refuge C X Southwest RTPO Olympic

Cottonwood Creek NFH P Lewis-Clark 

Valley MPO South Central

Curl Lake NFH P Palouse RTPO South Central

Dungeness National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Peninsula RTPO Olympic

Entiat National Fish 

Hatchery P North Central RTPO North Central

Flattery Rocks National 

Wildlife Refuge C X Peninsula RTPO Olympic

Franz Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge C X SW WA RTC Southwest

Grays Harbor National 

Wildlife Refuge S Southwest RTPO Olympic

Hanford Reach National 

Monument P

Quad-County 

RTPO

Benton-FranklinWalla Walla 

RTPO

South Central 

and North 

Central

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge I X Southwest RTPO Willamette 

Valley & Coast

Leavenworth National Fish 

Hatchery P North Central RTPO North Central

Lewis and Clark National 

Wildlife Refuge S X Southwest RTPO Willamette Valley & Coast

Little Pend Oreille National 

Wildlife Refuge C X Northeast WA RTPO Eastern
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 41

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

Table 8

Transportation Related Planning Efforts

State /Territory

Service Unit

Planning 

Studies

Planning  

Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCPCHMPRSATraffic StudiesTrans. StudiesComprehensive / Large ScaleIssue DrivenSmall Scale or NoneMPO**Regional Planning DistrictDOT Regions

WA

Little White Salmon 

National Fish Hatchery C Southwest RTPO Southwest

Lower Columbia River Fish 

Health Center P SW WA RTPO Southwest

Lyons Ferry Fish Hatchery P Palouse RTPO South Central

Makah National Fish 

Hatchery P Peninsula RTPO Olympic

McNary National Wildlife 

Refuge C X BentonFranklin COG

Benton-FranklinWalla Walla 

RTPO

South Central 

and Eastern 

Oregon

Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge C X Thurston MPO Puget Sound RC Olympic

Olympia Fish Health Center P Thurston 

MPO Puget Sound RC Olympic

Pierce National Wildlife 

Refuge C SW WA RTC Southwest

Protection Island NWR C Northwest 

Oregon Portland/Metro

Quilcene National Fish 

Hatchery C Peninsula RTPO Olympic

Quillayute Needles National 

Wildlife Refuge C Peninsula RTPO Olympic

Quinault National Fish 

Hatchery P Southwest RTPO Olympic

Ridgefield National Wildlife 

Refuge I C C SW WA RTC SW WA RTC Southwest

San Juan Islands National 

Wildlife Refuge I San Juan Northwest

Spring Creek National Fish 

Hatchery C SW WA RTC Southwest

Steigerwald Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge C X SW WA RTC SW WA RTC Southwest

Toppenish National Wildlife 

Refuge S X Yakima Valley COG Yakima Valley South Central

Tucannon Fish Hatchery P Palouse RTPO South Central
42 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Table 8

Transportation Related Planning Efforts

State /Territory

Service Unit

Planning 

Studies

Planning  

Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCPCHMPRSATraffic StudiesTrans. StudiesComprehensive / Large ScaleIssue DrivenSmall Scale or NoneMPO**Regional Planning DistrictDOT Regions

WA

Turnbull National Wildlife 

Refuge C X Spokane RTC Eastern

Umatilla National Wildlife 

Refuge C X

Benton-FranklinWalla Walla 

RTPO

South Central & 

Eastern Oregon

Willapa National Wildlife 

Refuge I X Southwest RTPO Southwest

Willard National Fish 

Hatchery C SW WA RTC Southwest

Winthrop National Fish 

Hatchery P North Central RTPO North Central

“C” = Complete; “I” = In-progress; “S” = Scheduled; “P” = Planned

** MPO = Metropolitan Planning Office, RTPO = Regional Transportation Organization, RTC = Regional 

Transportation Council, RC = Regional Council, ACT = Area Commissions on Transportation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 43

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

2.4.2 Identifying Planning Areas

Units that have not yet adopted a CCP or CHMP 

should reach out to non-Service transportation 

planning agencies when developing a plan. Early 

identification of partnership opportunities improves 

the likelihood of successful cooperation. As such, Table 

8 identifies non-Service planning organizations at the 

State and regional levels that should be considered 

when developing the transportation component of a 

CCP or CHMP. Contact information for non-Service 

planning organizations identified in Table 8 is available 

in Appendix H.

As stated in the planning goal, the Service strives 

for scientific and objective processes to guide 

transportation funding decisions. This LRTP is a 

step towards meeting this goal. Each LRTP goal 

area establishes a framework in which data can be 

used to objectively locate opportunities and need for 

transportation projects.

2.5 Partnerships

The partnership goal of the LRTP is to “develop

partnerships to leverage resources and develop

integrated transportation solutions.” The following 

objectives and strategies serve to further the 

sentiment expressed by the goal.

Objective 1

To the extent authorized by law, pursue opportunities 

for both funding and resources. Strategies for this 

objective are:

 Participate in transportation partnering meetings in 

each state.

 Identify and pursue projects of mutual interest to 

partners.

Objective 2

Cooperate with partners to address shared 

transportation issues that impact Service goals. 

Strategies for this objective are:

 Ensure that all Service transportation needs and 

contributing resources are accounted for in local and 

State partner transportation plans.

 Inform appropriate Service staff and potential 

transportation partners about Service 

transportation plans.

 Work with partners to reduce wildlife-vehicle 

collisions.

 Improve fish passage at roads adjacent to Service 

lands.

2.5.1 Partnerships Data

To help identify potential partnerships, it is useful 

to know if a unit is intersected by non-Service 

transportation assets and/or the boundaries of a 

non-Service transportation planning organization. 

Partnership data therefore includes an inventory of 

non-Service agencies that routinely participate in 

transportation planning and intersect unit boundaries, 

as shown in Table 8. Non-Service transportation assets 

that intersect service boundaries are also included 

as partnership data, as summarized in Appendix C, 

Table 8. Non-Service routes that are Scenic Byways 

and intersect or are co-located with Service routes 

are identified for their potential for partnering, as 

identified in 

Table 8.

2.5.2 Identifying Partnership Opportunities

There may be opportunities for partnership where 

Service mission and needs overlap with those of 

a non-Service organization, as they pertain to a 

transportation asset or project of common interest. 

In these situations, potential funding and resources 

could be leveraged with partners to accomplish 

mutually beneficial work. Not only does partnering 

offer practical benefits, but it also advances the 

integrated regional and planning goals of President 

Obama’s October 2009 Executive Order 13514, Federal 

Leadership in Environmental Energy, and Economic 

Performance. Executive Order 13514 promotes, 

“participating in regional transportation planning 

and recognizing existing community transportation 

infrastructure.”

Identifying opportunities for partnership may 

be complex and highly unique between units. As 

such, unit managers are encouraged to gain an 

understanding of surrounding communities and local 

resources and develop relationships with these entities 

when seeking partnerships. In addition, there are 

several high-level opportunities for transportation 

related partnerships, including State DOTs, MPOs, 

and regional planning organizations. Opportunities 

for partnership with these organizations may exist 

if a unit is intersected by a DOT asset and/or a 

transportation planning organization’s boundary. 

Table 8 and Appendix C, Table 8 identify many of 

these locations.
44 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Additional partnership opportunities may exist where 

non-Service assets are of special significance, such as 

Scenic Byways. These routes are typically high value 

assets and may be eligible for supplemental funding 

sources. Table 9 identifies Service routes that intersect 

or share a route designation with designated Scenic 

Byways.

Besides a unit having a geographic connection with 

non-Service transportation assets and/or planning 

boundaries, other factors may provide leverage for 

establishing partnerships. Conditions discussed in 

sections pertaining to other goal areas may help 

identify areas where joint projects could serve the 

goals of multiple agencies, and provide a stage or 

partnership. These conditions and the sections in 

which they are discussed are:

 Locations where there are deficiencies (such as 

poor road condition or high occurrence of accidents) 

in both Service and non-Service transportation 

systems within a common area. Section 2.2, 

Conditions and Safety, identifies areas of deficiency 

of Service and non-Service assets (where possible).

 Regions with documented air quality issues and/

or existing transit service. These locations are 

identified in Section 2.6, Sustainability.

 Units that have not completed CCPs or CHMPs. 

These locations are identified in this section.

 Visitor enhancement hot-spots as discussed in 

Section 2.3, Welcome and Orient Visitors.

As partnerships require not only a shared geography, 

but interests as well, successful partnership hinges on 

finding topics of common ground. There are several 

paths to finding this common ground. First, units can 

learn about an organization’s future transportation 

projects by reviewing documented plans such as a 

transportation improvement program (TIP), statewide 

transportation improvement program (STIP), or 

LRTP. Second, the transportation interests of a 

particular unit should be made available to relevant 

planning organizations through CCP or CHMP. Third, 

in-person collaboration is necessary. If a project is 

programmed in a TIP or STIP, the project may be 

too far along to develop a partnership that fully suits 

both parties. Early collaboration by both Service and 

non-Service agencies in their respective planning 

activities ensures that projects of mutual interest 

develop with partnership in-mind from inception. 

It is recommended that units involve non-Service 

transportation planning agencies in relevant planning 

activities, and proactively seek opportunities for 

collaboration in the planning activities of relevant nonService agencies.

2.5.3 Recommendation for Future Analysis

For future analysis, identify partnership opportunities 

with non-Service transportation agencies by 

identifying route jurisdiction for the roads listed in 

Table 9 and Appendix C, Table 8. Additional data 

acquisition is needed in order to have a complete 

inventory of road jurisdictions.

USFWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 45

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

Table 9

Service Routes and Scenic Byways

Service Unit Service Route Name Relationship 

to Byway Byway Name Byway Designation

Hart Mountain 

NWR

Blue Sky Rd Intersects

Lakeview to Steens Mountain 

Back Country Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Flook Lake Rd Intersects

Frenchglenn Rd Shared 

Route

Main Entrance Rd Shared 

Route

Petroglyph Lake Rd Intersects

Poker Jim Rd Intersects

Warner Pond Rd Intersects

Little White 

Salmon NFH

Hatchery Entrance Rd Intersects Lewis and Clark Trail Highway Washington State Scenic 

Hatchery Entrance Rd Intersects Byway Columbia River Gorge Scenic 

Byway - Washington

Malheur NWR

Center Patrol Rd North

Intersects Diamond Loop Back Country 

Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Intersects Lakeview to Steens Mountain 

Back Country Byway

Hunter Access 

Narrows Intersects Diamond Loop Back Country Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Krumbo Reservoir Rd Intersects Lakeview to Steens Mountain 

Back Country Byway BLM Back Country Byway

P-Lane Rd

Intersects Diamond Loop Back Country 

Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Intersects Steens Loop Tour Route Oregon State Scenic 

Backway

Intersects Steens Mountain Back Country 

Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Resort Lane

Intersects Diamond Loop Back Country 

Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Intersects Steens Loop Tour Route Oregon State Scenic 

Backway

Intersects Steens Mountain Back Country 

Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Tipton Rd

Intersects Diamond Loop Back Country 

Byway BLM Back Country Byway

Intersects Lakeview to Steens Mountain 

Back Country Byway

Johnson Pond Rd Intersects Lewis and Clark Trail Highway Washington State Scenic 

Byway

Overlook Loop Intersects Lewis and Clark Trail Highway Washington State Scenic 

Byway

Spring Creek 

NFH Entrance Road Intersects Lewis and Clark Trail Highway Washington State Scenic Byway

Source: FHWA Byways (2010), FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4 (2007)

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; NFH = National Fish Hatchery
46 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

2.6 Sustainability

The LRTP sustainability goal is to “adopt and

promote sustainable transportation practices.”

The following objectives and strategies serve to 

further the sentiment expressed by the goal.

Objective 1

Address climate change and other environmental 

factors at all levels of transportation planning, design, 

project delivery, and maintenance. Strategies for this 

objective are:

 Identify transportation resources that are at-risk of 

climate change impacts by using a comprehensive 

risk assessment.

 Develop adaptive management strategies, such as 

relocating strengthening and downgrading assets, 

to prepare for both short-term (25 to 40 years) 

and long-term (40 to 100 years) impacts on the 

transportation infrastructure.

 Encourage transportation practices and design that 

responds to climate change impacts.

Objective 2

To reduce the Service’s carbon footprint, improve 

access to and within Service lands by transit and nonmotorized transportation and information systems. 

Strategies for this objective are:

 Identify the need for alternative transportation 

projects through the Service planning process.

 Encourage refuges and hatcheries to consider 

applying for partner funding for alternative 

transportation projects involving Service lands.

 Increase availability of information in public 

outreach and education programs to encourage 

transit, car-pooling, bicycling, and walking to and 

within Service lands.

Objective 3

Reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by Refuge and 

Hatchery staff and visiting public. The strategy for 

this objective is:

 Increase number of alternatively fueled vehicles 

for refuge staff, on-refuge tours, and transit to and 

within Service lands. 

2.6.1 Data

Sustainable transportation practices and climate 

change are addressed in two ways. First, the potential 

risks to transportation assets due to changes in 

climate are examined. Second, the Service supports 

programs and projects that would lower greenhouse 

gas emissions through increased use of ATS, such as 

transit, cycling, or walking to, within, and through 

Service lands.

Risks to Transportation Assets

Identifying specific units and related transportation 

assets that are at risk due to climate change requires 

comprehensive risk analysis. This type of risk analysis 

would include factors such as sea level rise (rising 

water levels, increased coastal and estuarine flooding), 

changing precipitation levels (more precipitation, 

higher water tables, greater flooding, higher soil 

moisture), temperature changes (rising maximum 

temperatures, lower minimum temperatures), and 

storm surges (larger and more frequent storm 

surges). Data on all of these factors are not widely 

available, and requires additional research, data 

collection, and analysis. Some factors, however, are 

examined in this LRTP that could be used as part of 

a larger scale risk analysis. Factors such as coastal 

vulnerability to sea level change can be analyzed for 

their potential to impact Service transportation assets. 

Units located near coastal areas may be at risk of 

environmental change due to rises in sea level. Such 

areas include 35 units that are located along the 

coastlines of Hawaii, Pacific outlying islands including 

Guam, and the Oregon and Washington coasts. 

Sea level risks are supported by the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal Change Potential 

Index Assessment (2001) report, which factors tides, 

wave height, relative sea level rise, coastal slope, 

geomorphology, shoreline erosion, and accretion rate 

into a ranking of relative potential for coastal change 

due to future sea level rise. Figure 15 and Figure 16 

show the results of the assessment along the Pacific 

Coast area of Washington and Oregon. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 47

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

The Service’s Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model viewer (SLAMM-View) is a web browser-based application 

that displays side-by-side land cover maps based on user controlled sea level rise scenarios. The tool is 

helpful in visualizing the range of possible sea level changes in coastal refuges and hatcheries. SLAMM-View 

is accessible at www.slammview.org.

SLAMM-View
48 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Figure 15

Coastal Vulnerability to Sea Level Change - Oregon

Lewis And Clark NWR

Ridgefiel d NWR �

Willapa NWR

William L. Finley NWR

Ankeny NWR

Basket Sl ough NWR �

Tualatn Ri ver NWR �

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge

Steigerwald Lake NWR

Nestucca Bay NWR

Franz Lake NWR

Eagle Creek NFH

Siletz Bay NWR

Bandon Marsh NWR

Carson NFH

Cape Meares NWR

Oregon Islands NWR

Abernathy Fish Center

£¤20

£¤101

£¤97

£¤199

£¤26

£¤20

£¤199

§ ̈¦5

UV126

UV22

UV227

UV38

UV58

UV6

UV42

UV138

UV140

UV504

UV66

UV232

UV62

UV4

UV34

UV503

UV138

UV138

UV126

O R E G O N

W A S H I N G T O N

C A L I F O R N I A

PORTLAND

SALEM

EUGENE

MEDFORD

GRESHAM

ALBANY

HILLSBORO

BEAVERTON

COOS BAY

DAMASCUS

WARRENTON

CORVALLIS

SPRINGFIELD

KLAMATH FALLS

Coastal Vulnerability

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

FWS Boundaries

Limited Access Highway

Primary Road

F 0 20 40

Miles

Source: USGS Coastal Change Potential Index Assessment, 2001
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 49

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

Figure 16

Coastal Vulnerability to Sea Level Change - Washington

Lewis And Clark NWR

Willapa NWR

Nisqually NWR

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge

Grays Harbor NWR

Dungeness NWR

Nisqually FH

Makah NFH

Quinault NFH

Abernathy Fish Center

Quilcene NFH

Quillayute Needles NWR

San Juan Islands NWR

Oregon Islands NWR

Copalis NWR

Flater y Rocks NWR �

£¤101

£¤101

£¤101

£¤101

£¤101

UV112

UV508

UV504

UV4

UV105

UV6

UV503

UV6

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

WARRENTON

Coastal Vulnerability

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

FWS Boundaries

Limited Access Highway

Primary Road

F 0 10 20

Miles

Source: USGS Coastal Change Potential Index Assessment, 2001
50 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Fossil Fuel and Alternative Transportation Systems

The Service seeks opportunities to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions from fossil fuels through programs 

that focus on transportation to and through Service 

lands. This desire to reduce the National Wildlife 

Refuge and National Fish Hatcheries greenhouse gas 

emissions responds to the Service-wide commitment 

to responsible and sustainable practices as well as 

President Obama’s October 5, 2009 Executive Order, 

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance, which calls for a reduction 

of greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect 

Federal agency activities. Furthermore, Goal 4 of the 

Service Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change in the 21st Century calls for the 

Service to achieve carbon neutrality by 2020 by 

reducing the carbon footprint of the Service’s facilities, 

vehicles, and work force. Programs that reduce the 

number of vehicle miles traveled have the potential to 

substantially reduce green house gas emissions and 

the Service’s carbon footprint. The Service believes 

that ATS are an important tool in achieving this end. 

To identify candidate locations for ATS, the following 

is considered:

 Adopted unit and national level planning documents 

that identify Service lands as having potential or 

need for ATS.

 Areas where non-Service entities may have an 

interest in creating or expanding ATS programs 

into or through Service lands. This consideration 

includes areas of existing mass-transit and/or poor 

air quality.

 ATS Questionnaire conducted in Region 1.

As expressed by the sustainability goal, the Service 

wishes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through 

transportation systems that reduce the use of motor 

vehicles. In some cases, unit and national level 

planning have identified locations that are in need 

of ATS. Other opportunities may exist where nonService entities have a vested interest in creating or 

expanding alternative transportation programs. These 

opportunities for partnership may exist in places 

where units are in or near transit districts, especially 

in locations where air quality fails to meet national 

standards, where there is added incentive for local 

municipalities to reduce emissions.

Objective 2 calls for improved access to and within 

Service lands by alternative transportation as a way 

to reduce the Service’s carbon footprint. ATS include 

any travel by means other than personal automobile, 

such as shuttles and van transit connecting units 

with other destinations, regional transit connections, 

bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and water-based 

transportation. ATS can also reduce impacts to wildlife 

and other natural resources, enhance visitor access 

and assist with visitor management, improve visitor 

health and safety, and defer or reduce the need for 

additional transportation investments. 

The Region 1 ATS Questionnaire, as included in 

Appendix I, provides initial data on the needs and 

opportunities of units with regard to transit and 

non-motorized access. Several refuges and hatcheries 

in Region 1 are effectively using transit for access 

to units and for special events. They are also using 

non-motorized infrastructure2 to connect with 

existing non-motorized trail networks, gateway 

towns, and local and regional amenities. The ATS 

Questionnaire also revealed significant future 

opportunities for transit and trail connections: 30 

percent of respondents have a bus stop or train 

station within 3 miles of their unit and 50 percent of 

respondents have a regional non-motorized trail for 

bicycle and pedestrian use within 3 miles of their unit. 

Additionally, 30 percent of respondents have a trail 

that directly connects to their unit. 

2	 Non-motorized infrastructure includes sidewalks, trails, lanes,

signage, crosswalks, and bicycle racks to support travel by

bicycle and pedestrian modes. Non-motorized infrastructure

does not include recreational hiking trails; this infrastructure

must lead to a connection with schools, residences,

businesses, recreation areas, transit stations, and other

community activity centers.

The Service is committed to reducing green 

house emissions. One example of the Service’s 

commitment to meeting this end is the Climate 

Change Mitigation Project currently underway. 

The project entails developing a beta version of 

a greenhouse gas management tool that would 

be capable of estimating emissions for energy 

consumption within, and visitor transportation 

to and within, National Wildlife Refuges. The 

beta version tool will be populated by data 

provided by Service headquarters and used by 

Refuge and regional staff to plan greenhouse 

gas mitigation and climate change education and 

outreach strategies. The tool will be completed in 

cooperation with the Service, USGS, and FLH. 

Reducing Green House Emissions
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 51

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

Based on the results of the ATS Questionnaire and 

the Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation 

(also defined in Appendix I), the following actions at 

the unit level would be most effective for achieving 

Objective 2 and increasing ATS within Region 1:

 Increase non-motorized connections to units through 

the use of non-motorized paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle 

racks, and signage for non-motorized users to access 

existing non-motorized trail networks, gateway 

communities, and local and regional amenities.

 Use public or private transit for festivals and special 

events.

 Enhance connections to local bus routes for urban 

and suburban units within transit service areas.

 Partner with local governments, transportation 

planners, transit providers, Friends groups, 

and others to craft appropriate strategies for 

transportation and visitor management.

This LRTP also recognizes units that are identified 

in planning documents as being suitable locations 

for ATS. The Federal Lands Transportation System 

Study (2001) studied 207 candidate Service units 

for transit need. Based on the study, 13 sites were 

determined to show sufficient indications or need. One 

of these 13 locations is located in Region 1, Kilauea 

Point National Wildlife Refuge.

Although no currently adopted CCPs identify 

ATS initiatives, CCP planning efforts underway 

increasingly consider ATS. For example, drafts of 

the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge and Kauai 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCPs cite the need 

to build facilities that tie into existing non-Service 

transit operations. Planning efforts are discussed 

further in Section 2.4, Planning and Section 2.6, 

Partnerships.

Greater opportunities to work with partners on 

programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are 

likely in larger metropolitan areas that have existing 

mass-transit programs and/or where air quality is 

an issue. Therefore, units located within air quality 

non-attainment areas or existing transit districts are 

considered places where there may be partnership 

opportunities for alternative transportation programs. 

Table 10 identifies units within U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency designated non-attainment areas. 

Units located within transit districts are summarized 

in Table 11.

TriMet, the public transportation provider for the 

Portland metropolitan region, offers bus service 

from downtown Portland to the Refuge entrance, 

where visitors can walk along a short paved path 

to the Wildlife Center. TriMet Route 12 runs from 

downtown Portland west along Route 99W to 

Sherwood, with a stop at the Refuge along the 

way. The route runs 7 days a week, departing 

approximately every 15 to 20 minutes. Travel time 

from SW 5th and Morrison Streets in downtown 

Portland to the Refuge entrance is just under 1 

hour.

Example ATS in Region 1: Tualatin 

River National Wildlife Refuge

Table 10

Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas

State City Service Unit Non-Attainment Classification

Oregon Portland Tualatin River NWR Carbon monoxide Moderate

Washington

Seattle-Tacoma Nisqually NWR Carbon monoxide Moderate

Vancouver

Ridgefield NWR Carbon monoxide Moderate

Steigerwald Lake NWR Carbon monoxide Moderate

Source: Research and Innovative Technology Administration/Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2008
52 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Table 11

Service Units Intersected by Transit Districts

State Transit District (city) Service Unit

Hawaii

TheBus (Honolulu)

James Campbell NWR

Oahu Forest NWR

Pearl Harbor NWR

Maui Public Transit System District Kealia Pond NWR

Kauai Bus District

Hanalei NWR

Kilauea Point NWR

Idaho Valley Ride (Nampa) Deer Flat NWR

Oregon Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 

(Portland) Tualatin NWR

Washington

Jefferson Transit Authority (Port Townsend)

Quilcene NFH

Quillayute Needles NWR

Valley Transit & Grapeline (Walla Walla)

McNary NWR Ben Franklin Transit (Richland)

Grant Transit District

Hanford Reach National 

Monument

Columbia NWR

C-Tran

Ridgefield NWR

Steigerwald Lake NWR (WA)

Pacific Transit Willapa NWR

Grays Harbor Transportation Authority

Copalis NWR

Quinault NFH

Grays Harbor NWR

Clallam Transit District

Quillayute Needles NWR

Flattery Rocks NWR

Dungeness NWR

Intercity Transit (Thurston) Nisqually NWR

Pierce Transit Nisqually NWR

Link Transit Leavenworth NFH

Columbia County Public Transportation

Tucannon FH

Lyons Ferry FH

Asotin Lyons Ferry FH

Spokane Transit Authority Tumbull NWR

Pacific Outlying Area Guam Regional Transit Authority District Guam NWR

Sources: the Service, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington DOT, Google
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 53

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

2.6.2 Identifying Sustainability Improvement Areas

Baseline condition data helps identify areas that 

should receive special consideration for topics of 

sustainability. As discussed previously, sustainability 

considerations occur on two fronts: (1) consideration of 

assets that could be at risk due to climate change and 

(2) consideration of transportation projects that could 

potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Service lands that may have assets at risk due to 

climate change if they:

 Are located in a coastal area,

 Are likely to experience more frequent flooding 

events,

 Will experience greater temperature fluctuations, or

 Are likely to experience more frequent storm 

surges.

Service lands that are best suited to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions through ATS are those that 

fall in one or more of the following categories:

 A unit is identified in a national-level, state, or 

regional planning document as having the potential 

or need for ATS

 A unit’s CCP documents a need for alternative 

transportation system

 A unit is located in or adjacent to an existing masstransit district’s service area

 A unit is located in a U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency air quality non-attainment area

2.6.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Several actions are necessary to better evaluate the 

sustainability goal, including:

 Perform a comprehensive risk analysis of climate 

change. Factors that should be included in a 

comprehensive risk analysis are:

 Precipitation levels, including associated 

impacts on water tables, flooding, and soil 

moisture

 Temperature changes

 Storm surges

 Estuarine flooding

 Coastal vulnerability due to climate change could be 

better quantified if data were available for Hawaii 

and the outlying Pacific area.

 Identify places with ATS needs or opportunities 

by addressing these issues at the CCP and CHMP 

level.

 Provide boilerplate transportation language 

for CCPs and CHMPs to improve the quality of 

transportation material in these plans.

Laura Beauregard/USFWS
54 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Funding for the Service’s transportation program 

(including refuge and fisheries programs) does not 

meet current needs. For purposes of establishing an 

overall need for the public use road system eligible 

to receive funding through the RRP, estimates show 

that approximately $130 million per year is needed to 

ensure that most of the public roads and bridges are 

in good to excellent condition. This estimate assumes 

an aggressive schedule for road reconstruction and 

bridge rehabilitation over an extended period of time. 

Further documenting needs, an August 2010 report, 

Life Cycle Investment Needs for Assets in the Refuge 

System found that the deferred maintenance cost for 

public roads alone is over $1 billion (41 percent of all 

Service assets), with a replacement value of $6.7 billion 

(30 percent of all Service assets). Today, approximately 

45 percent of the public roads and 40 percent of the 

public bridges are in fair to poor/failing condition 

throughout the entire system. Further growth of the 

program’s funding is needed to improve the overall 

condition of transportation assets.

Based on the nationwide need of $130 million per 

year, $12 to $15 million per year is needed in Region 1 

just to maintain the road system and bridges in good 

to excellent condition. SAFETEA-LU, the current 

transportation legislation and authorization for the 

public transportation system, expired in September 

2009. A series of extensions have been in place since. 

In 2011, dialogue on new transportation legislation will 

continue. While it is not known what if any increase 

in funding will be provided to the program, further 

documenting the needs is essential to provide the best 

information to decision-makers. 

A well-defined funding and investment strategy and 

a defensible project selection process are critical 

to maintain Service transportation assets. The 

Region 1 LRTP is an important step in documenting 

that information. This chapter identifies reasonably 

expected funding through the planning horizon, 

illustrates the funding gap between projected funding 

levels and anticipated need for Service transportation 

improvements, identifies existing funding 

opportunities through partnership with State and 

local entities, and defines the current project selection 

process for transportation projects in Region 1.

3.1 Transportation Funding in Region 1

For fiscal year 2011, Region 1 received approximately 

$2.4 million through the RRP, $5.5 million in deferred 

maintenance funds, while the Fisheries Program 

received $1.97 million in deferred maintenance 

funding. Visitor facility enhancement funds 

were allocated through resource appropriations 

averaging $83,200 annually over the last 3 years, 

and construction appropriations averaging $141,400 

per year over the same period. The latter of these is 

highly variable. The two primary sources used for 

transportation projects are the RRP and deferred 

maintenance funds for fisheries. 

It is important to note that only a small portion of 

the total budgets for both deferred maintenance 

and visitor facility enhancement funds are used for 

transportation projects. This section provides an 

overview of the two primary sources currently used 

to fund transportation improvements on National 

Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries in 

Region 1.

3.1.1 Refuge Roads Program 

The Service’s RRP began in 1998 with the passage of 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 

which authorized $20 million annually. Initially, 

work focused on completing initial inventories and 

addressing the most pressing needs for transportation 

improvements. Transit and trail improvements were 

also evaluated across the Refuge System to prepare 

for future needs. Now included in SAFETEA-LU, the 

program is authorized at $29 million per year. This 

represented a 45 percent increase over the previous 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

funding levels. Nationwide, the program provides a 

funding source to improve public-use transportation 

assets at wildlife refuges that are located in urban, 

suburban, and rural settings within the Service’s eight 

regions. 

A majority of past funds provided to the program 

have gone to improve the eligible roads and bridges 

in the system. With a growing emphasis and need for 

other transportation improvements such as bicycle 

and pedestrian access, and alternative vehicle use 

where appropriate, the program needs to view all 

transportation modes as viable uses of program funds. 

With pending transportation reauthorization and 

looking to the future, the Service intends to continue 

to provide a multitude of quality transportation 

Chapter 3: Funding and Project Selection
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 55

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

options for its visitors, and to its Refuge staff and 

volunteers. 

The current RRP allocation to Region 1 is $2.4 

million per year. Up to 5 percent of the funds can be 

used each year for public use trails within refuges. 

The National Transportation Coordinator located 

in the headquarters/Washington office manages the 

allocation process to the Service regions through 

coordination with FHWA and the Regional Refuge 

chiefs. With legislative changes likely in the new 

transportation legislation, this allocation process may 

change. 

Funds are allocated to the RRP from the FHWA 

according to Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.), 

Chapter 2 Section 202(e). In keeping with its 

decentralized decision making structure, the Service 

has chosen to allocate the majority of its funds 

to its eight regional offices using an internally 

developed formula based on the National Park 

Service’s Park Roads and Parkways Program fund 

allocation formula. A small percentage, which varies 

with the RRP actual allocation from the Highway 

Trust fund, is used to fund the ongoing Inventory 

and Assessment Program and national level 

research, technical assistance training, partnership 

development, and coordination of legislative affairs 

with the Service’s Congressional and Legislative 

Affairs Division. The Service’s allocation formula has 

three components: 

1. Size of a region’s combined adjusted road/bridge/

parking inventory 

2. Amount of a region’s road/bridge/parking assets 

assessed as being in fair/good/excellent conditions

3.Public use of a region’s refuges, wetland 

management districts, and hatcheries

Fifty-five percent of a region’s allocation is based on 

the miles of roads and their type (paved, improved 

gravel, improved native and native surfaces); square 

footage of bridges; square footage of parking lots and 

their type (paved, improved gravel, improved native, 

native surfaces and mowed). This data is gathered by 

the ongoing Public Use Roads inventory conducted 

by FLH of FHWA. Thirty percent of the allocation is 

based on asset condition determined to be in fair/good 

or excellent condition. Fifteen percent of the formula 

is based on the amount of public visitation per region 

as reported in the Refuge Annual Performance Plan 

each year. 

Through the RRP, the Service is working to improve 

public access to refuges and provide a better overall 

visitor experience. Eligible project types under this 

program include improvements to existing public 

use roads, bridges, parking lots, and trails, including 

those needed to correct identified safety problems at 

high accident locations and to protect and improve 

natural and cultural resources within National Wildlife 

Refuges. Additional information on project eligibility 

can be found in Guidance on the Federal Lands 

Highway Refuge Roads Program (September 2005) 

available in Appendix I.

The following work is not presently eligible to be 

funded under the RRP:

 Constructing new roads, parking areas or pullouts, 

or widening off existing road bench

 Realigning or relocating roads

 Constructing new pedestrian or bicycle paths

 Recurring, routine maintenance (e.g., grading roads 

and mowing roadsides)

Based on current and forecasted funding allocation 

for the RRP, the Service will continue to experience a 

funding gap that significantly falls short of program 

needs. Table 12 illustrates current and anticipated 

funding through 2030, with a $376 million funding gap 

through the horizon of this plan.

Table 12

Anticipated Funding Gap through Planning Horizon Year (2030)

Existing funding for 

Region 1 

(annually, in millions)

Anticipated need through 

2030 

(in millions)

Anticipated funding 

available through 2030 

(in millions)

Funding gap through 2030 

(in millions)

$2.4 $446.7 $70.3 $376.4

Note: Anticipated need is based on a current need of $15 million, with 4% annual inflation. 

Anticipated funding is based on 20% program increase every 6 years, starting in 2012.
56 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

The total need through year 2030 represents raising 

the condition of all roads to good or excellent 

condition, and maintaining that condition over time. 

It also includes funds to address trails and other 

alternative transportation needs. While this type 

of funding level to meet this amount of need is not 

achievable, the Service is beginning to examine 

pavement management system approaches to improve 

efficiencies and stretch the value of available funds 

across the transportation network.

In Region 1, the RRP already has an informal project 

selection process in place. This LRTP will improve 

project selection by integrating defensibility and 

justification for why certain projects are selected for 

advancement and implementation. Beyond project 

selection, this LRTP will also make better use of 

refuge road funding by promoting partnerships with 

other agencies. Partnering will support reaching 

the Service’s goal of facilitating cooperation and 

identifying opportunities to work together to conserve 

wildlife habitats.

3.1.2 Fish Hatchery Deferred Maintenance

The Region 1 Fisheries Program is largely funded 

by resource management and reimbursable funds 

to co-manage inter-jurisdictional fisheries, promote 

recreational fisheries, mitigate Federal agencies’ 

actions related to hydropower projects, and meet 

treaty trust responsibilities. The Fisheries Program 

includes a network of 48 field offices including fish 

hatcheries to meet this challenge. Rivers in the Pacific 

Northwest support some of the largest populations 

of iconic fish such as steelhead and salmon that are 

declining in numbers. To counter the decline, the 

regional Fisheries Program works to improve aquatic 

habitat and to supplement existing wild populations 

with hatchery fish production to satisfy a variety of 

fishery needs.

Transportation plays a key role in mission critical 

activities for the Fisheries Program. Activities 

include transportation for fish release, fish transfer 

to acclimation ponds, transfer for specific research 

purposes, public access for recreational fishing, 

and providing right of way to inholders under a 

memorandum of understanding. Transportation 

activities assist in effort to promote sustainable 

populations in waterways in the Pacific Northwest.

Throughout the history of the program, deferred 

maintenance and resource management funds have 

been used to fund transportation activities and 

projects in the region. Transportation specific funding 

as part of the current Surface Transportation Act is 

not yet available for the Fisheries Program; however, 

this may change. Currently, the Service has proposed 

that the RRP be broadened to become the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Transportation Program, which will 

include fish production facilities in the region. If 

approved under new transportation legislation, 

funds will become available to improve public use 

transportation assets at fishery facilities including 

National Fish Hatcheries. 

The fisheries program continues to demonstrate 

a strategic need for transportation infrastructure 

improvements by participating in the regional 

transportation planning process. Currently, the 

Region 1 fisheries program requires an estimated 

$1.7 million to fund outstanding mission critical 

transportation projects. This LRTP will help project 

prioritization for the program by influencing policy 

and planning level decisions. 

3.2 Project Selection Process for 

Transportation Projects

Currently, transportation projects in Region 1 are 

generated through work orders developed in the 

SAMMS; therefore, before a project can be developed, 

a work order must be generated in SAMMS. The 

Service uses SAMMS to identify, plan, prioritize and 

implement capital improvements and maintenance 

projects under the RRP and fisheries deferred 

maintenance funding at both the regional and field 

station level. Because of differences in the funding 

sources between the Refuge and Fisheries Programs, 

the RRP relies on a 5-year TIP, while the fisheries 

program relies on a 5-year maintenance plan for 

prioritized project, both under the direction of the 

respective transportation coordinator. However, 

SAMMS work orders do not account for projects 

within the Fisheries Reimbursable Program; 

therefore, when considering regional transportation 

priorities as a whole, it is important to consider 

multiple funding sources across all Service programs.

This LRTP creates a defensible project selection 

process based on established goals and available 

funding that clearly identify the Service’s priorities for 

transportation for both refuges and hatcheries. This 

process will be used as a guide to programming future 

projects. The region may alter the process as needed 

to be responsive to emergency needs, changes in the 

funding allocation, and other urgent programming 

needs. The process described below outlines the 

Region’s decision-making process to address critical 

transportation needs. The process consists of six 

basic steps, conducted on an annual basis, as shown in 

Figure 16. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 57

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

Figure 17

Project Selection Process

SAMMS 

Work Order 

List by 

Station

Project Leaders 

review work orders, 

prioritize these into 

projects, and adds 

new RRP eligible 

projects to list by 

service complex

Transportation 

Coordinator issues 

call for projects to 

project leaders

Regional 

Management Team 

prioritizes validated 

unit level project lists, 

adds projects and/or 

transportation studies 

region-wide

Transportation 

Coordinators present 

regional priorities to 

refuge and fishery 

supervisors

Regional priorities 

compiled into 5 year 

Transportation 

Improvement Plan 

(broken out by 

fiscal year)

Transportation 

Coordinators 

review/validate 

projects by goal area

Project

Goal Area



    







       

Project Selection Process

Step 1: Call for projects. The first step in project 

selection is initiated when the transportation 

coordinators for refuges and hatcheries issue a call 

for projects. This call will come in the form of a 

memorandum that describes the project selection 

process, describes the integral relationship between 

project selection and transportation goals and 

objectives, and includes a list of existing projects 

generated through work orders in SAMMS. 

Step 2: Project leaders review work orders and

prioritize needs. This call is an opportunity for 

refuge and hatchery supervisors and project leaders 

to review the needs of each unit and submit eligible 

projects to the regional transportation coordinator. 

Project submittals should include sufficient 

information to support eligibility and need for the 

transportation improvements based on the information 

provided in this regional LRTP. 

Step 3: Review and validate projects. Upon 

receiving project submittals from the call process, 

the transportation coordinators review each potential 

project and validate it against the goals and objectives 

of this LRTP. The validation process may include site 

visits to confirm condition of a specific facility and/or 

discussions with project leaders and refuge managers 

to confirm or clarify a project’s purpose and need and 

how it relates to the Region’s priorities. Consistent 

with the goals described in Chapter 2, Goals and 

Baseline Conditions, rankings are assigned to each 

goal category as a function of the relative importance 

the Service places on achieving a particular goal 

relative to the mission of the agency, shown in 

Table 13. The rankings represent the relative priority 

of each of the goal areas in which a project can be 

scored. Projects with the highest total ranking points 

indicate the Region’s highest priority projects, while 

projects with lower scores may be funded if additional 

funds were to become available. Regional leadership 

reserves the discretion to alter the priority of 

individual projects as needed.
58 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Table 13

Transportation Program Goals and Selection Criteria 

Used for Project Ranking

Goals/Objectives Ranking Priority

Resource Protection High

Visitor Services Low

Condition and Safety High

Partnering Medium

Planning Low

Sustainability Medium

Step 4: Regional-level prioritization. Following 

validation, the regional management team will meet 

to discuss and prioritize the validated project listing. 

Using the information obtained during the call for 

projects and validation process, the transportation 

coordinator presents each project to the management 

team. Regional priorities are aligned with project level 

decisions, resulting in an approved, prioritized ranking 

of projects. 

Step 5: Presentation of regional priorities.

The transportation coordinator then presents this 

prioritized list to refuge and hatchery supervisors. 

Step 6: Develop 5-yearTIP. In order to program 

projects, the transportation coordinator aligns the 

prioritized project list with available funding to 

identify when each project will be implemented. 

Once this alignment has been completed, the list 

serves as the Region’s 5-year TIP. Because this 

process is conducted on an annual basis, changes in 

funding availability, local conditions, and unforeseen 

circumstances may influence how and when specific 

projects are programmed for implementation during 

the 5-year timeframe. 

3.3 Additional Funding Opportunities

Other funding sources are available for transportation 

improvements in addition to the funding provided 

through the RRP and the Fish Hatchery Deferred 

Maintenance funds. The following programs and 

funding sources are examples of those have been used 

on past Service transportation projects:

 Transportation Enhancements

 Recreational Trails Program

 Scenic Byways

 Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance 

Program

 Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program 

 High Priority Projects (Congressionally designated)

 Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads 

(ERFO)

 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks (formerly 

Alternative Transportation for Parks and Public 

Lands)

These programs and funds are available at the State 

and local level, which is why partnering is critical to 

addressing the recognized funding gap.

3.3.1 Transportation Enhancements

Transportation enhancement activities offer 

funding to help expand transportation choices and 

enhance the built and natural environment. To be 

eligible for funding, a transportation enhancement 

project must fit into one or more of the 12 eligible 

transportation enhancement activities related to 

surface transportation, including pedestrian and 

bicycle infrastructure and safety programs, scenic 

and historic highway programs, landscaping and 

scenic beautification, historic preservation, and 

environmental mitigation (23 U.S.C. 104). SAFETEALU authorized approximately $800 million annually 

for this program over the period of 2005 to 2009. 

Funds are distributed through State DOTs and each 

has its own process to solicit and select projects. This 

program is an 80 percent federal share. The Service 

could provide the 20 percent match with other federal 

funds or a combination of other federal, state, or local 

agency funds. Profiles for each State’s transportation 

enhancement program can be found online at 

http://www.enhancements.org/Stateprofile.asp

USFWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 59

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

3.3.2 Recreational Trails Program

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides 

funds to the states to develop and maintain 

recreational trails and trail-related facilities for 

both non-motorized and motorized recreational 

trail use (23 USC 206). SAFETEA-LU authorized 

$370 million in funding nationwide, of which $85 was 

dispersed in 2009. Examples of trail uses include 

hiking, bicycling, equestrian use, all-terrain vehicle 

riding, and four-wheel driving. Eligible activities 

include trail maintenance and restoration and new 

trail construction. National Scenic and Historic Trails 

and National Recreational Trails are eligible under 

this funding program and should be considered in 

locations where these designated trails converge with 

refuges and hatcheries. Funds are distributed through 

the states, and each has its own process to solicit and 

select projects. This program is an 80 percent federal 

share. The Service could provide the 20 percent match 

with other federal, state, and local funds including up 

to five percent of the region’s allocated Refuge Roads 

Program funds. Links to Region 1 States’ RTPs are 

included below. Check FHWA’s state administrator’s 

website for current contact information (http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/rtpstate.htm). 

The State agency contacts for each State within 

Region 1 with knowledge of their program are: 

Hawaii: Trail & Access Program, Department of 

Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and 

Wildlife (http://hawaiitrails.ehawaii.gov/)

Idaho: State of Idaho, Parks and Recreation, 

Recreational Trails Program 

(http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/aboutus/grants/

trails.aspx)

Nevada: Parks and Recreation Program Manager, 

Nevada State Parks 

Oregon: State of Oregon, Parks and Recreation 

Grants Program (http://egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/

GRANTS/trails_more.shtml#awards)

Washington: Washington State, Recreation and 

Conservation Office, Recreational Trails Program 

(http://www.rco.wa.gov/grants/rtp.shtml)

3.3.3 Scenic Byways

The National Scenic Byways Program is funded 

through FHWA to help recognize, preserve, and 

enhance designated roads throughout the United 

States. Designation is awarded to certain roads 

based on one or more archeological, cultural, historic, 

natural, recreational, and scenic qualities (23 U.S.C. 

162). SAFETEA-LU allocated $175 million in 

funding over 6 years for byways-related projects, 

with $43.5 million allocated in 2009. FHWA awards 

funds competitively each year covering 80 percent of 

project cost, with the requirement that the remaining 

20 percent be matched by local, State, other Federal 

or in-kind means. Grant applications are submitted 

annually. The Service would submit an application 

for National Scenic Byways funding through the 

State DOTs, in cooperation with or through a Byway 

Organization. Because many of the National Wildlife 

Refuge and National Fish Hatcheries units in Region 1 

are located along or near National Scenic Byways, 

partnering with the local Scenic Byway organizations 

is important to gain access to this funding for potential 

projects. Table 9 identifies refuges and hatcheries that 

either share a route or intersect a Scenic Byway route.

3.3.4 Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance 

Program

The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance 

(RTCA) Program provides assistance with planning, 

project development, and construction related to 

natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation. 

While not a funding program, this community 

assistance branch of the National Park Service offers 

valuable staff assistance for local project planning for 

communities, state and Federal agencies. The RTCA 

Program in the Pacific West Region is managed from 

National Park Service offices in Oakland and Seattle. 

The Pend d ‘Oreille Bay Trail is an example of a 

project that received program assistance in Region 1, 

lead by the Friends of Pend d‘Oreille Bay Trail. 
60 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

3.3.5 Public Lands Highway – Discretionary Program

Public Lands Highway – Discretionary Program 

funds are available for transportation planning, 

research, engineering, and construction of highways, 

roads, parkways, and transit facilities within Federal 

public lands. These funds are also available for 

operation and maintenance of transit facilities located 

on Federal public lands. Funding is provided for 

projects designated by Congress. Certain projects not 

designated by Congress may also be eligible. Because 

only State DOTs can submit candidate projects for 

this program, it is critical that the Service coordinate 

with their respective DOTs to align common project 

priorities to become eligible for these funds. Eligible 

projects may include:

 Transportation planning for tourism and 

recreational travel, including National Forest 

Scenic Byways, Bureau of Land Management Back 

Country Byways, National Trail System, and similar 

federal programs

 Adjacent vehicle parking areas

 Interpretive signs

 Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or 

historic sites

 Provision for pedestrians and bicycles

Region 1 received ERFO funds for the following 

projects:

 Repair/reconfigure parking lots and pedestrian trail 

– Kilauea Point NWR (2010)

 Entrance road improvements – Kakahaia NWR 

(2009)

 Parking area construction – Kealia Pond NWR 

(2008)

 Road improvements – Hakalau Forest NWR (2008)

 Entrance road improvements, including turn lanes, 

bus stop, and visitor enhancements – Tualatin River 

NWR (2003)

3.3.6 High Priority Projects Program

The High Priority Project Program provides 

designated funding for specific projects identified in 

SAFETEA-LU. This program is an 80 percent Federal 

share. The 20 percent match may come from FLH 

Program or Service appropriated funds. All eligible 

projects must be listed in section 1702 of SAFETEALU. 

3.3.7 Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

The ERFO program provides assistance for the repair 

and reconstruction of Federal roads that have been 

damaged by a natural disaster over a wide area or by 

a catastrophic failure from any external cause. This 

program is meant to supplement the commitment 

of resources from other federal sources to help pay 

unusually high expenses resulting from extreme 

conditions. Funds are provided from the Highway 

Trust Fund. No match is required; the federal share of 

the project cost is 100 percent. 

3.3.8 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program

The Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks program is 

administered by the Federal Transit Administration 

in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the 

Interior and U.S. Forest Service. It is a competitive 

grant program open to the Service, the National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau 

of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service. The 

program funds capital and planning expenses for 

alternative transportation systems such as shuttle 

buses and bicycle trails. 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. In addition, 10 percent of 

the annual allocation is available for the provision 

of technical assistance in alternative transportation 

planning where project proposals are not already 

well-developed. The total allocation for this program 

has been $22 to $27 million each year, nationally since 

2006.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 61

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

3.4 Getting Station Projects into the 

Transportation Improvement Program

Because the Region’s project selection process is 

designed to be a defensible mechanism to select 

projects, the key to advancing projects is ensuring 

consistency with the Region’s transportation priorities 

(i.e., the six goals and corresponding objectives and 

strategies). 

In addition to creating a work order in SAMMS (this 

applies to both RRP projects for refuges and deferred 

maintenance projects for hatcheries), the project 

proponent must strategize how the project supports a 

specific goal area or objective, as described in Chapter 

2, Goals and Baseline Conditions. It is also critical to 

communicate the validity of the project and how it 

supports regional transportation goals/objectives with 

the respective project leader, as these individuals play 

an important role early in the selection process during 

the initial review of work orders and identification of 

eligible projects. 

One of the most important ways to inform regional 

decision makers about the validity of a project is to 

submit appropriate documentation supporting the 

projects’ need. Examples of supporting documentation 

include road or bridge condition data, safety 

assessment, traffic volumes, visitation statistics, 

site photos, and potential funding partnerships. 

Recognizing the limited funding for transportation 

projects within the region, the Service is placing 

greater importance on the need to coordinate outside 

refuge and hatchery units, and seek partnerships for 

projects that receive RRP funds. 

USFWS
62 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1

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

Chapter 4: 

Recommendations for Future Plan Activities

Several action items have been identified during the development of the Service Region 1 LRTP. These items 

are summarized in Table 14.

Table 14

Long Range Transportation Plan Action Items

Action Item Description

1 Revise LRTP within 5 years 

of this document

Based on the need for additional analysis described in the following action 

items, this plan should be revised to provide the Service with the necessary 

analysis to reflect the current transportation needs of the region.

2 Improve resource 

protection analysis

Use a systematic method to quantify the significance of the conflict between 

fish and wildlife and transportation facilities to better demonstrate a need for 

improvements.

Obtain wildlife habitat locations and fish passage corridors to help identify 

potential animal-transportation conflict areas as well as the type of potentially 

impacted wildlife.

Identify the locations of access conflicts between resources (fish and 

wildlife habitat) and transportation facilities to help decision makers develop 

appropriate solutions.

Obtain fish passage data to help identify potential fish-transportation conflict 

areas and potentially impacted species.

Obtain non-fatal vehicle-animal collision data to provide a more complete 

understanding of historic vehicle-animal conflict hot-spots.

3 Improve safety and 

condition analysis

Obtain AADT for all Service roads to help quantify use and add to the 

meaningfulness of need determinations.

Collect crash data for all Service roads to help identify areas in need of safety 

improvements.

Obtain complete current replacement value, asset priority index, facility 

condition index, and deferred maintenance for all refuge and hatchery roads, 

parking lots, and trails to eliminate data gaps and improve the reliability of 

need determinations.

Develop a better cross-compatibility between SAMMS and RIP for roads, 

parking lots, and trails to eliminate data gaps and increase the reliability and 

usefulness of need and hotspot analyses.

Use a complete dataset of non-Service road use, condition, and crashes 

to eliminate data gaps in the determinations of improvement need and 

partnership opportunity.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1 63

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

Table 14

Long Range Transportation Plan Action Items

Action Item Description

4 Improve welcome and 

orient visitors analysis

Identify where State way-finding and variable message sign are located to 

assist in identifying areas of possible partnership.

Use a Service sign inventory that includes sign location, condition, and 

adherence to Service sign standards (those specifically related to way-finding 

and interpretation) to help identify locations of need.

5 Improve partnership 

analysis

Identify partnership opportunities with non-Service transportation agencies 

by identifying route jurisdiction for the roads listed in Table 8 and Appendix 

C, Table 8. Additional data acquisition is needed in order to have a complete 

inventory of road jurisdictions.

6 Improve sustainability 

analysis

Perform comprehensive risk analysis to determine risks to transportation 

resources from climate change. Factors that should be included in a 

comprehensive risk analysis are:

Precipitation levels, including associated impacts on water tables, flooding, 

and soil moisture

Temperature changes

Storm surges

Estuarine flooding

Analyze the coastal vulnerability due to climate change could be better 

quantified if data were available for Hawaii and the outlying Pacific area.

Identify places with ATS needs or opportunities by addressing these issues at 

the CCP and CHMP level.

Provide boilerplate transportation language for CCPs and CHMPs to improve 

the quality of transportation material in these plans.
Long Range Transportation Plan for 

Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in 

Region 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Region 1